Download Climate change deniers - Lorain

Plocal
ages
Lorain-Medina Rural Electric Cooperative
Climate change deniers
BY MARKUS I. BRYANT
The more extreme supporters of the
Catastrophic Anthropogenic (i.e., human-caused) Global Warming (CAGW)
theory have recently taken to calling those
skeptical of their theory “climate change deniers.” The nasty insinuation is that CAGW
theory skeptics are morally equivalent to
World War II Holocaust “deniers” who
claim it never happened. In my experience,
those resorting to name calling are compensating for a weak argument with an appeal
to emotion instead of evidence. What I find
incredible is these same individuals actively deny any scientific evidence of climate change that challenges their CAGW
theory. This is effectively a denial of the scientific method discussed in my last two columns. This leads me to suspect there
are other motives driving the CAGW debate than the pursuit
of science.
‘Unprecedented’ climate change
is misleading, but why?
It is essential for the CAGW theory that the warming seen
since 1850 be “unprecedented.” The CAGW theory supporters’ central argument is that the modern warming is “unique,”
and the only reason they can find to account for it is human
carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions causing the temperature
to rise due to the combined Green House Gas and Climate
Positive Feedback theories discussed in my last column. If it
can be shown that a similar or greater warming occurred in
the recent past without human CO2 emissions, then something else must have caused that warming. Obviously, that
would mean despite whatever temperature effect CO2 has as
a greenhouse gas, something other than or in addition to CO2
must be driving the modern warm period.1 This conclusion is
what skeptics affirm based on the evidence and what CAGW
theory supporters deny.
Figure 1 shows two graphs printed by the U.N. IPCC in
their 1990 and 2001 reports, showing temperatures for the
prior 1,000 years. (Note: The 2007 and 2013 IPCC reports’
graphs are similar to the 2001 graph.) The 1990 chart shows
a Medieval Warm Period (MWP) from about 900-1300 AD,
which is clearly warmer than the present day. The 1990 chart
also shows an extended cold period known as the Little Ice
Age (LIA) lasting from about 1300-1850. Those skeptical
of the CAGW theory believe much of the temperature rise
since 1850 can be explained as recovery from the LIA. Both
the MWP and the LIA are missing from the 2001 IPCC report. The graph has a “Hockey Stick” shape, implying that
temperatures were relatively stable from 1000-1850 AD, but
suddenly surged upward with rising CO2 emissions since
1850. Thus, the modern warm period is “unprecedented.”
Note, however, the gray shading around the dark lines, which
reflects the temperature data range in their chart. Since
the MWP and the LIA could have occurred within the gray
range, this is the reason for the likely and medium confidence “weasel words” in the IPCC’s statement.
The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (U.N. IPCC) 2013 Summary for Policy Makers report makes two claims. First, “Each of the last three decades
has been successively warmer at the earth’s surface than any
preceding decade since 1850.” Although it is true these decades are warmer than 1850, I will simply note there is an
active debate about whether they are “successively warmer”
when compared to the 1930s hot Dust Bowl years. However,
what this column discusses is their second statement: “In the
Northern Hemisphere, 1983-2012 was likely the warmest 30
year period of the last 1,400 years (medium confidence).”
This statement is actually a denial of the climate change evidence for this time period.
The U.N. IPCC cleverly obscures their evidence denial
with the use of the “weasel words” shown in bold type. (See
my part 16 column Weasel Words from March 2012 at
www.lmre.org under
Figure 1
Country Living magazine.) Likely is defined
by the IPCC as “greater
than 66 percent probability,” and “medium
confidence” is defined
as “about 5 out of 10
chance.” With the addition of these “weasel
words,” the IPCC admits
this sentence is less than
a firm statement of fact.
Therefore, it is obvious
to the careful reader this
http://a-sceptical-mind.com/the-rise-and-fall-of-the-hockey-stick
IPCC summary statement
20D
•
COUNTRY LIVING FEBRUARY 2015
PART 43
Plocal
ages
Lorain-Medina Rural Electric Cooperative
Dr. David Deming (Ph.D. in geophysics with the University of Oklahoma) in
his Dec. 6, 2006, statement before the
U.S. Senate Committee on Environment
and Public Works said, “I received an
astonishing e-mail from a major researcher in the area of climate change.
He said, ‘We have to get rid of the
Medieval Warm Period.’” Dr. Deming
explains: “The Medieval Warm Period
(MWP) was a time of unusually warm
weather that began around 1000 AD
and persisted until a cold period known
as the “Little Ice Age” took hold in the
14th century. Warmer climate brought
a remarkable flowering of prosperity,
knowledge and art to Europe during
the High Middle Ages. The existence
of the MWP had been recognized in
the scientific literature for decades. But
now it was a major embarrassment to
those maintaining that the 20th century
warming was truly anomalous. It had to
be ‘gotten rid of.’” So the U.N. IPPC “got rid of it,” to protect
their theory. How they did it has been covered in books and
debated extensively on Internet websites. But strangely, as is
the case with much of the evidence contrary to the CAGW
theory, it is woefully under-reported by the media.
until 1724 and 1742, respectively, we don’t have recorded
temperatures prior to then. Therefore, we have to rely on
“proxies,” or substitutes, for temperature evidence. The best
and longest proxy record we have are ice cores from Antarctica and Greenland.
Dr. Ole Humlum (Ph.D. in glacial geomorphology with
the University of Oslo, Norway) presents the following evWhat is the evidence?
idence at his climate science website. Figure 2 “shows a
reconstruction of global temperature based on ice core analSince the U.N. IPCC took the position with its 2001 and
later charts that both the MWP and the LIA didn’t occur
ysis from the Antarctica. The present interglacial period [or
(or, if it did, only in limited areas), there have been many
warm period between ice ages] is seen to the right (red box).
scientific studies published showing to the contrary that both The preceding four interglacials are seen at about 125,000;
the MWP and LIA were real and were worldwide. Since
280,000; 325,000; and 415,000 years before now, with
thermometers weren’t invented until the 1600s and the Fahr- much longer glacial periods [also known as ice ages] in beenheit and Celsius (C) temperature scales weren’t developed
tween. All four previous interglacials are seen to be warmer
(1-3ͦ Celsius) than the present. The
Figure 2
typical length of a glacial period is
about 100,000 years, while an interglacial period typically lasts for about
10,000-15,000 years. The present interglacial period has now lasted about
11,600 years. According to ice core
analysis, the atmospheric CO2 concentrations during all four prior interglacials never rose above approximately
290 parts per million (ppm); whereas
the atmospheric CO2 concentration
today stands at nearly 390 ppm. The
present interglacial is about 2 C colder
than the previous interglacial, even
though the atmospheric CO2 concenReconstructed global temperature over the past 420,000 years based on the Vostok ice core from the Antarctica (Petit et
tration now is about 100 ppm higher.”2
al. 2001). The record spans over four glacial periods and five interglacials, including the present. The horizontal dashed line
indicates the modern temperature. The red box to the right indicates the time interval shown in greater detail in figure 3.
Source: http://www.climate4you.com/GlobalTemperatures.htm
(Continued on page 20G)
•
FEBRUARY 2015 COUNTRY LIVING
20E
Plocal
ages
Lorain-Medina Rural Electric Cooperative
Climate change deniers
Figure 3
(—continued from page 20E)
“The last 11,000 years (red box in figure 2) of this climatic development is shown in greater detail in [Figure
3], representing the main part of the present interglacial
period. [It] shows the major part of the present interglacial
period, [also called] the Holocene, as seen from the summit of the Greenland Ice cap. The approximate positions of
some warm historical periods are shown by the green bars
with intervening cold periods.”2 Please note the Figure 3
Ice Core record shows the existence of the MWP and the
LIA, and the two prior Minoan and Roman Warm periods,
which were as warm or warmer than the Modern Warm
Period and the Medieval Warm Period.
Dr. Humlum continues: “Clearly Central Greenland temperature changes are not identical to global temperature
changes. However, they do tend to reflect global temperature changes with a decadal-scale delay (Box et al. 2009),
with the notable exception of the Antarctic region and
adjoining parts of the Southern Hemisphere, which is more
or less in opposite phase (Chylek et al. 2010) for variations
shorter than ice-age cycles (Alley 2003). This is the background for the very approximate global temperature scale
at the right hand side of the upper panel. Please also note
that the temperature record ends in 1854 AD, and for that
reason is not showing the post Little Ice Age temperature
increase… [Note] during especially the last 4000 years the
Greenland record is dominated by a trend towards gradually lower temperatures, presumably indicating the early
stages of the coming ice age. In addition to this overall
temperature decline, the development has also been characterized by a number of temperature peaks, with about
950-1000 year intervals.”2
“These past temperature changes show little (if any) relation to the past atmospheric CO2 content as shown in the
lower panel of figure 3. Initially, until around 7000 years
before now, temperatures generally increase, even though
the amount of atmospheric CO2 decreases. For the last
7000 years the temperature generally has been decreasing,
even though the CO2 record now display an increasing
trend. Neither is any of the marked 950-1000 year periodic
temperature peaks associated with a corresponding CO2 increase. The general concentration of CO2 is low, wherefore
the theoretical temperature response to changes in CO2
should be more pronounced than at higher concentrations,
as the CO2 forcing on temperature is decreasing logarithmicly with concentration. Nevertheless, no net effect of
CO2 on temperature can be identified from [figure 3], and
it is therefore obvious that significant climatic changes can
occur without being controlled by atmospheric CO2. Other
phenomena than atmospheric CO2 must have had the main
control on global temperature for the last 11,000 years.”2
“From figure 3 it is obvious that the global meteorological record (i.e. actual thermometer readings) begins in
The upper panel shows the air temperature at the summit of the Greenland Ice Sheet, reconstructed
by Alley (2000) from GISP2 ice core data. The time scale shows years before modern time. The rapid
temperature rise to the left indicates the final part of the even more pronounced temperature increase
following the last ice age. The temperature scale at the right hand side of the upper panel suggests
a very approximate comparison with the global average temperature (see comments in column).
The GISP2 record ends around 1854, and the two graphs therefore end here. There has since been a
temperature increase to about the same level as during the Medieval Warm Period and an increase to
about 395 ppm for CO2. The small reddish bar in the lower right indicates the extension of the longest
global temperature record (since 1850), based on meteorological observations (HadCRUT3). The
lower panel shows the past atmospheric CO2 content, as found from the EPICA Dome C Ice Core in the
Antarctic (Monnin et al. 2004). The Dome C atmospheric CO2 record ends in the year 1777.
the-final part of the Little Ice Age, and thereby documents
the following temperature increase, especially clear since
about 1915. In other words, the temperature increase [.85 C
over the period 1880 to 2012 per the IPCC] documented by
meteorological records represents the temperature recovery following the cold Little Ice Age. The ongoing climate
debate is essentially about this being mainly a natural temperature recovery, or caused by atmospheric CO2, especially
for the time after 1975. It can, however, from figures 2 and
3 be concluded that the temperature increase from 19752000 is not unique when compared with past records, and
that the net effect on temperature by atmospheric CO2 has
been small or even absent.”2
Folks, this is evidence that the U.N. IPCC denies and the
press fails to report. Yet it all can be found with a reasonably diligent search. The statement quoted from the IPCC
Summary for Policy Makers and the evidence don’t agree.
On which do you want the U.S. government to base its policies affecting your wallet — U.N. IPCC statements or actual
physical evidence? 
1 Figure 1 and the argument set forth in this paragraph were found at http://a-scepticalmind.com/the-rise-and-fall-of-the-hockey-stick
2 Figures 2 and 3 along with the quotes in these paragraphs were found at http://climate
4you.com/GlobalTemperatures.htm
•
FEBRUARY 2015 COUNTRY LIVING
20G