* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download Climate change deniers - Lorain
Urban heat island wikipedia , lookup
Economics of global warming wikipedia , lookup
Climate change in the Arctic wikipedia , lookup
Solar radiation management wikipedia , lookup
Climate change and agriculture wikipedia , lookup
Fred Singer wikipedia , lookup
Media coverage of global warming wikipedia , lookup
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change wikipedia , lookup
Climate change and poverty wikipedia , lookup
Effects of global warming on human health wikipedia , lookup
Politics of global warming wikipedia , lookup
Global warming controversy wikipedia , lookup
Surveys of scientists' views on climate change wikipedia , lookup
Public opinion on global warming wikipedia , lookup
Soon and Baliunas controversy wikipedia , lookup
Effects of global warming on humans wikipedia , lookup
Scientific opinion on climate change wikipedia , lookup
Hockey stick controversy wikipedia , lookup
Climate sensitivity wikipedia , lookup
Criticism of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report wikipedia , lookup
Global warming wikipedia , lookup
Early 2014 North American cold wave wikipedia , lookup
Effects of global warming wikipedia , lookup
Attribution of recent climate change wikipedia , lookup
Climatic Research Unit documents wikipedia , lookup
General circulation model wikipedia , lookup
Future sea level wikipedia , lookup
Climate change, industry and society wikipedia , lookup
Global warming hiatus wikipedia , lookup
Climate change feedback wikipedia , lookup
IPCC Fourth Assessment Report wikipedia , lookup
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