Spot the recycled denial I – Prof WJ Collins

All well and good to issue a global debunk against “sceptics” however why don’t you actually offer your POV in relation to the points they raise? Much of what is being said in the sceptics camp makes far more sense than what the alarmists preach (yes ..you guys now have a belittleing handle too).

I have yet to see any good explantion as to why the models did not predict the drop in temperature over the last 10 years?

LikeLike

“As global temperatures progressively warm, many consider that this relates to carbon emissions dating from the 1850s, but the increase began approximately 300 years ago”

I think he meant the temperature increase began 300 years ago, not the CO2 increase: I think you knocked off the wrong bogus claim with your link. It looks to me like this one is approximately the converse of the “global warming stopped in 1998” fallacy.

LikeLike

One needs to be careful linking to Wikipedia as Barry did in his attack on Prof. Collins at his mention of “carbon dioxide uptake into the atmosphere is also cyclic”. First, Wiki mentions that CO2 is essential to life, and not a pollutant. Oh dear, there go Barry and my chances of a contract from Penny “CO2 is a pollutant” Wong. BTW, why did Barry omit the complete Collins sentence, where he added “associated with El Nino events”? Barry’s Wiki then links to its piece on Radiative forcing, last modified less than a week ago, but absurdly erroneous. It presents an equation to measure the Forcing from doubling CO2:
Delta F = 5.35 X ln (C/Co). Wiki adds that “the relationship between carbon dioxide and radiative forcing is logarithmic so that increased concentrations have a progressively smaller warming effect”. But doing this sum for say Co=560 (ppm) C = 1120, F is exactly double the outcome from Co=280 and C=560. Something has to be wrong, but it is known that Wikipedia is changed almost daily on anything to do with climate change, which is why it is best avoided.
In reality I believe the correct formula for logarithmic growth of Temperature relative to a doubling of Carbon Dioxide is
ln(Ct/Co)= kT. Inserting the Mauna Loa data for CO2 concentrations in 1959 (315.59 ppm) and 2007 (384 ppm), and the increase in temperatures over those years (0.49oC, GISS), we derive k = 0.4. Then for a doubling of CO2 from the end-2007 level of 384 ppm to 768 ppm, we obtain a temperature increase of 1.86oC. Moreover, if we derive the log linear growth rate of the atmospheric concentration of CO2 since 1959, it is infinitesimally small, at 4.3276E+104 percent a year, i.e. there are 103 zeros after 0. and before the first numeric decimal. At that growth rate we will have to wait many millennia for the doubling and its associated increase in temperature to materialize. If I have errors in the above I am sure no time will be lost in telling me what they are!

LikeLike

Thanks Dhogaza for your elegant correction, it was late, I meant of course 4 times, not 4 orders…

Barry: 1. You said: “But even taking a constant airborne fraction, the undisputed fact that carbon emissions have grown exponentially over the same period provides a simple reason why the rate of growth in CO2 accumulation has increased over time”. But has it? IPCC as I note below said it was 0.7% pa in 1991 and now admit it has been 0.4% pa since 1958.

2. “The gap between emissions and the capacity of Earth systems to sink that fossil carbon continues to widen.”
Not true: see my graph of the actual airborne fraction in items 1 and 2 on my home page.

3. “Hence CO2 continues to accumulate in the atmosphere, at an increasing rate”.
Not true: the rate fluctuates, as low as 0.2% in April, and 0.3% in July this year, higher in May and June, average according to IPCC is 0.4% pa.

4. “If you don’t want flat rates and you don’t want exponential rates (which is what you implied by your earlier calculation), then you must want something in between”. It’s not what I want but what fits the data. Log growth rates shown in my graphs do.

5. “Which still leads to a CO2 doubling within the next 50-150 years depending on the future time course of emissions.” Even linear extrapolation of the atmos level of 384 ppm at end 2007 at the IPCC rate of 0.4% pa (which was the actual from 1958 to 2004) only produces a doubling to 768 ppm by 2182. Garnaut’s 1500 ppm by 2150 is a gross deception designed to spread alarm and justify his ETS.

6. Barry again: “Not 3000 years, which is what you had earlier said was likely. Why did you say this, if you no longer disagree with my calculations above based on 0.4% pa?” I or rather my Excel disagrees. BTW, again, IPCC was using 0.7% pa in 1991, and now admits it has fallen to 0.4% pa. The 3000 years results from computing the log linear growth rate from 280 in 1750 to 384 in 2007 (or from 1958 if you prefer), by regressing the logs of each year’s ppm against the years. The resulting rates if exrapolated take us into never never land. Look, please just do it on Excel or whatever. That is the nature of logarithmic growth rates. IPCC admits the logarithmic nature of the system, but hates the outcomes, so suppresses them. It seems Arrhenius was right (if correctly quoted by you). I could be wrong, but I’d like to see the Excel spreadsheet proving it.

Regards

Tim

LikeLike

Barry,

My calculations agree with yours at your (1). But I was referring to doubling from the 2007 level, not from the pre-industrial.

Your ref. to Canadell is incorrect, as they clearly state their claimed growth rate of 1.89% is for 1959 to 2006, but I am glad to see you do not accept extrapolations using their rate.

Re India and China, despite their rapid emissions growth, the growth at Mauna Loa has hardly changed, and is in fact on average lower since August 2007 than it was in the previous year. Thus ‘my point’ that you ask for is that Uptakes are too often ignored as in your comment and as in all computations in the Garnaut report so far, which is how they achieve their 700 ppm (not your 561) by 2100 and 1500 ppm next century (fig.5.4).

BTW, the end-December values at Mauna Loa were 383.9 straight, or 384.6 seasonally adjusted. Where do you find 389?

LikeLike

Barry, you are right, and thanks for nagging at me, I had inadvertently regressed years against CO2, which had the effect of wrongly confirming your Arrhenius. I sincerely apologise for aspersions above.

But, when are you going to get Canadell et al to correct their claims (1) that the airborne fraction of CO2 emissions is always more than 55% (you know and have stated above that on average it has been only c45% since 1959, as I have also repeatedly shown), and (2) that the growth rate of atmospheric CO2 since 1959 has been only, as we agree, 0.4% p.a., not the 1.89% that they claim in their peer reviewed PNAS 2007 paper. Why are their errors sacrosanct when mine are not?

(3) Why do you think Garnaut’s Draft Report should be allowed both to cite Canadell without correction, and to project atmospheric CO2 on the assumption throughout its chapters 4 and 5 that the airborne fraction of CO2 emissions is and will be 100% from now to eternity.

(4). Why when as you agree more than half of emissions have been and still are taken up by the biosphere, do you insist on your blog that emissions have to be reduced by much more than half? (i.e. to less than 4.5 GtC)?

(5) What will be the effect, if you are successful in your ambitions, on world agricultural production of reducing CO2 uptakes through photosynthesis below the current net 5 GtC p.a. reported even by Canadell et al?

Cheers

LikeLike

Barry, with respect you are wrong on all 3 of your points.

First, Canadell et al clearly state that their “1.89% pa” or “proportional trend, %y*^-1” refers to the “atmospheric sink”, not to fossil fuel emissions over the same period 1959-2006, which they state to have been 2.17% pa. Your first para. refers only to emissions.

The same is true of Garnaut ad lib ad nauseam. I thought climate science considers the atmospheric concentration of CO2 to be what causes warming, not emissions per se. So what matters is the NET emissions, which determines the airborne fraction. Canadell’s claimed rise in the AF is not evident in the CDIAC data, which yields a best fit flat trend.

Their “data” show an AF in their FIG of more than 55%,
whereas their reported data in their Table 1 actually show even for 2000-2006 54% “distribution of annual emissions to land and oceans”, for an AF of 46%. (Actually using their data source the AF was 45%).

Given the rapid growth of emissions, that the Airborne Fraction (not absolute, which as we agree is growing at only 0.4% pa) is growing barely perceptibly if at all, provides no grounds for your pessimism. It remains true that very little attention is paid to the actual resilience of the biosphere in taking up ever more CO2, with demonstrable beneficial effects on world food production.

Ironically in light of your final comment, Maddison and all other economic historians date the beginning of the agricultural revolution from AFTER 1750, the starting point for “pre-inbdustrial CO2” which fortuitously no doubt is when James Cook – and many others – was bringing coal from Newcastle to London!! There is in fact no evidence for sustained growth in agric before 1750, see also Clark, reviewed by Gittins in the SMH last Saturday. So my Q5 stands, there is a very close correlation between growth of atmos CO2 and growth of food production that actually far outweighs new varieties, population, fertiliser use, and warming temperature as causal factors (see my forthcoming paper). Cutting atmos CO2 back by more than 50% could well have the same adverse effect on world food prices as the rush to biofuels did, foreseen by none, but now confirmed by the World Bank. Another unintended consequence I fear of ill founded science politics.

LikeLike

Barry, I admire your patience.

Tim paraded his CO2 emissions/photosynthesis-only-properly-kicked-in-a-few-centuries-ago bizarreness on Deltoid last year and earlier this year, and he exibited the same behaviour on those occasions too. His pattern was say something, be soundly trounced, say something else, be wolloped, say something else again (or maybe the first thing over), …

For anyone with a spare hour and a fascination for train-wrecks, these are some of the threads, but a warning – they are head-butting-the-brick-wall material:

It was about this time that I stopped being as polite with Denialists as I had been initially, and also about the time that I gave up on frequent explanatory posts that were wasted on education-impermeable brains.

LikeLike

Whimper. I did it succesfully a few days ago!

LikeLike

But even if it had, there is abundant evidence from the Russians, Canadians, and Norwegians that this happened in the 1920s. So what is new?

Good question, I haven’t seen a new denialist lie in a very, very long time …

LikeLike

Hi Tim,

Like you, I wish GW did not exist, or would go away.

No total melting of the Arctic, as is occurring at present, has taken place since the last interglacial – 124 thousand years ago.

Those who are termed “skeptics”, rather then look at the major trend, are looking for errors, such as always exist in any field of science. They selectively pick segments of the data – for example recently they claim global cooling for the last 8 years, even if mean temepratures have been rising since 2003 – albeit at a lower rate than before the 1998 thermal peak, due to the decline in the 11 years sunspot cycle.

Those who follow the comprehensive literature, or even text books, for example Barrie Pittock’s book “Turning Up the Heat”, and reports by the CSIRO, BOM, Hadley, NASA, Potsdam etc. institutes, will have difficulty in denying GW and its anthropogenic origins.

On the other hand, in so far as any “skeptic” has any credible new evidence, or can interpret the existing evidence in terms other than GHG-forced climate change, they should formulate it in the form of scientific paper/s submitted to the peer reviewed journals.

This should prove a major contribution to science and humanity.

Unless, of course, the claim there is a “global conspiracy” on the part of thousands of scientists, science organizations, the IPCC and most governments, to “manufacture” a global warming theory.

LikeLike

Andrew: you said “No total melting of the Arctic, as is occurring at present, has taken place since the last interglacial – 124 thousand years ago.”
The RMIT graph as of August 2008 shows a loss of less than 1 million sq. km. so far this year against the 1979-2000 mean. Maps at NSIDC indicate an expansion of 30% since August 2007 (hat tip to Marohasy and Goddard). Perhaps there will be “total” disappearance in due course, but when?
You claimed there has been no ice free period in the Arctic since the last interglacial, 125,000 years ago. Clearly you are not aware of this paper:
“Arctic Warming” During 1920-40: A Brief Review of Old Russian Publications
Sergey V. Pisarev, P.P. Shirshov Institute of Oceanology
Russian Academy of Science
Moscow, Russia

Extract: The decrease of sea ice amounts in 1920–1940

The area of ice in the Greenland Sea in April–August of 1921–1939 was 15–20% less than in 1898–1920 (data of Karelin).

In the Barents Sea the area of ice was 12% less in 1920–1933 than in 1898–1920 (data of Zubov).

Vise pointed out that since 1929 the south part of the Kara Sea in September was free of ice, while in 1869– 1928 the possibility of meeting ice there in September was about 30%.

The polar ice very often came close to the coast of Iceland in the last century and in the beginning of this century. During 1915–1940 the situation changed: no ice was observed in that region; negligible amounts of polar ice were noticed there only in 1929.

The thickness of ice determined during the Fram cruise was 655 cm; during the Sedov cruise it decreased to 220 cm (the reason for this was more intensive summer melting of ice).

Before Arctic warming, the strait of Jugorsky Shar froze near the 24th of November, but in 1920–1937 it became frozen two months later—in January.

According to Vise, near Dicson and Franz-Joseph Land the amplitudes of tides increased by 20–30% as a result of a decreasing amount of ice.

The acceleration of ice drift

In spite of the fact that the amount of Arctic ice transported to the Greenland sea increased (established by Soviet expeditions in 1920–1940), the amounts of ice in that sea decreased because of the influence of factors promoting destruction and melting of ice:
* an increase in the velocity and temperature of the Norway and Spitsbergen currents
* an increase in the velocity of winds, connected with common intensification of atmospheric and hydrospheric circulation.

The velocity of the drift of North Pole station in 1937 was 2.4 times greater than the velocity of Fram’s drift.

Change of cyclone paths

Vise noticed that cyclones’ paths changed. They moved significantly northward from their paths before the Arctic warming and so the wind regime changed: After 1920 the prevailing winds in Jugorsky Shar changed from cold east winds to warm southwest winds.

The increase of air temperature

According to Vise, in Varde (northeast of Norway) since 1918 the average annual air temperatures were higher than the average air temperature of the previous century (the exception was 1926, when the average temperature was lower by 0.2°C).

Beginning with 1930, not one negative anomaly of average yearly or monthly temperature was observed in the whole Arctic sector from Greenland to Cape Tcheluskin, and during the same time the positive anomalies reached significant values: 1934/35 ± (4–10)°C, November in Spitsbergen ± 10°C.

Vise noticed, that the average annual temperatures observed during the Fram cruise (for the period of November 1893–August 1895) were lower by 4.1°C than those observed during the Sedov cruise (for the period of November 1937–August 1939), although the Fram and Sedov locations more or less coincided (Fram, 81°59’/113°26′; Sedov, 82°43’/121°30).

At the station Tikhaya (Franz-Joseph Land), temperatures below 40°C were never observed after 1929. But 10 expeditions in the archipelago before 1929 observed such temperatures every winter, except 1896.

Biological indications of Arctic warming

Knipovich, in 1921, was the first who paid attention to the changes of Arctic fauna. Marketable species of fish spread to the north after the beginning of the 20th century and fisheries in the north became more intensive.

Some benthos species spread to the north.

The ornitofauna of the Arctic region changed: some species of birds (White Gulls) left their places of habitation, and some southern species were noticed in the far north (swans in Iceland).

Uspensky stated that 40–50 species of birds moved to the North during 1890–1930.

Ease of navigation

The sailing conditions in the Arctic region became much more favorable in 1920–1940. This can be proved by the following cruises:

* Knipovich, 1932 (round Franz-Joseph Land)
* Sibiryak, 1932 (round Severnaya Zemlya)
* sailing of non-icebreaking ships along North Sea Route in 193—no ice met
* possibility for non-icebreaking ships to double Novaya Zemlya every year since 1930.
The severe conditions of navigation in previous years can be proved by the following cruises:
* In 1912, the ship Foka, a member of the Sedov expedition, could not reach Franz-Joseph Land.
* In 1912, the ship St. Anna, a member of the Brusilov expedition, was trapped in ice near Yamal and carried out with the ice to the central Arctic.
* In 1901, the icebreaker Ermak failed to double Novaya Zemlya.

Increase of temperature and heat content of Atlantic Waters entering the Arctic Basin

The waters of Nordcape Current (Zubov) became warmer by approximately 0.7°C in 1940–45 compared to the beginning of this century.

In the regions adjacent to Spitsbergen and Franz-Joseph Land, the lower boundary of the cold intermediate layer rose from 150–200 m in the beginning of the century to 75–100 m in 1940–45.

Not one station made during the Fram cruise showed Atlantic Waters exceeding a temperature of 1.13°C, but in 1935 (Sadko cruise) Zubov observed Atlantic Water temperatures reaching 2.68°C, and in 1938 (Sedov cruise) even in the places situated to the north and east of Fram’s drift (it must be colder there) the temperatures reached 1.8°C.

According to Shokalsky, “the temperature of surface waters of the Gulfstream steadily rises from the beginning of our century.” The increase of surface waters’ temperature can also be seen (Shokalsky) in the other regions of the ocean subjected to the influence of the Gulfstream and the Atlantic Current.

As for credible critiques of AGW, what of Spencer and Lindzen? The latter’s latest (available via Marohasy) with its analysis of hot spots inter alia seems to have occasioned some alarm among true believers! More generally, arguments should surely be assessed on their own merits rather than on appeals to the authority of peer reviewers, who often have their own agenda.
The reason I bang on about Canadell et al is that they sought and have achieved political impact with their questionable claims – used by Ross Garnaut to underpin his assumption of zero biospheric Uptakes of CO2 – that the oceanic and terrestrial sinks are already “saturated”, so that all future CO2 emissions from fossil fuel burning and LUC will add pari passu to the Atmospheric concentration of CO2. Yet their actual data (Table 1) for 2000-2006 shows that Uptakes amounted to no less than 5 GtC or 55% of the average CO2 emissions of 9.1 GtC pa over that period. Absent more evidence of decline than they offer, the Rudd-Garnaut plans for cuts of 50% from 2000 implies a reduction of emissions to about 4.55 GtC, below the Uptake amount. What will that do to the partial pressure of Atmos. CO2? What will that do to oceanic release of CO2? What then will be the net climate effect of the Wong Pollution Reduction Plan?
Cheers

LikeLike

Regarding critiques of the AGW
look at:
http://unitedcats.wordpress.com/2007/04/14/newsweeks-dr-lindzen-global-warming-skeptic/#comments

LikeLike

Tim Curtin:

re 41

“They (NASA) have already had to back off saying “12 of the hottest years” have globally been since 1994 or so, as that does not apply to the USA.”

What, you mean they’ve had to retract something they didn’t even say in the first place?

Golly gosh.

By the way, exactly when was it that NASA announced this humiliating backdown? Hmm? I seem to have missed it.

You expend so much effort tying yourself in knots you should chance your name to The Human Pretzel.

On one hand you claim global warming peaked in the 1930s, based on data restricted to the land mass of the contiguous USA (ie exluding Alsaksa and Hawaii), then complain that the GISS coverage was inadequate during that same period because it didn’t cover Africa as thoroughly as you would have preferred!

I don’t suppose you’re aware of the irony?

LikeLike

Maps at NSIDC indicate an expansion of 30% since August 2007 (hat tip to Marohasy and Goddard).

It was actually maps at UIUC, which Goddard used to “prove” that the NSIDC graph of ice melt was off, and that rather than being 10% above the 2008 minimum on August 11, it was really 30% above last year’s minimum. Goddard attempted to do this by counting pixels on a map projection, ignoring the fact that map projections have geometric distortions due to the mapping of a spherical section onto a two-dimensional surface, and the fact that the map image had been JPEG’d.

Goddard is still defending his pixel-counting without taking into account geometrical distortions, however, he was forced to issue a retraction a couple days ago that appears on the Register and Watts’ web sites.

The money quote from the retraction:

My apologies to Dr. Meiers and Dr. Serreze, and NSIDC. Their analysis,
graphs and conclusions were all absolutely correct. Arctic ice is indeed
melting nearly as fast as last year, and this is indeed troubling.

You were saying, Tim?

LikeLike

Dear Andrew,

You said: “As you know – I wish you were correct and GW is not taking place, or at least Homo sapiens [is] not responsible for it.” Let me help you fulfil your wishes!

1. The evidence for GW is dubious at best, see Marohosay in yesterday’s The Australian (Weekend edition). The problem is that the GISS/Hadley etc land-based measurements are all contaminated, mainly by incomplete coverage (notably Africa 1850-1946, resulting in enhanced cool temperatures and Siberia 1990-2008, resulting in enhanced warmer temperatures). Jen. Marohasy’s satellite data are relatively pure and certainly have better global coverage unaffected by whether or not Zimbabwean (or Somali, Sudanese, Congolese, Siberian etc. etc.) meteorologists showed up for data logging on any given day.
2. Given (1), with its minimal real evidence for secular, i.e. more than 30 years trend (as opposed to cyclical, less than 30), the Homo Sapiens effect really is debatable. We have had continuous atmos. CO2 growth since 1945, albeit only meticulously measured since 1958 at Mauna Loa, so why the cooler period from 1945 to 1975?

Coming now to your first numbered point, “Nit-picking weaknesses in a scientific discipline or theory does not amount to a contradiction of essential observations…” your response is really only arm-waving. Citing the satellite temperature record since 1979 is not “nit-picking” – or are they not “essential observations”?

Your second numbered point: “The correct method is to attempt an explanation of the vast and fast growing body of evidence in terms of an alternative theory. Quite apart from a Nobel Prize, this would result in a huge sigh of relief, including my own.” Not so fast. The Popperian rule is that if the observations do not match the original hypothesis, it is the latter which has to be withdrawn, and it is for its progenitors (e.g. you) to produce a new theory. Nevertheless, Richard Lindzen (E&E, 2007) has already offered an alternative theory that better matches the observations. He too is subject to the Popperian rule, but as yet (SFAIK) no observations have been produced to refute his (amended) version of AGW re measured versus predicted climate sensitivity.

Your Q#3: “If and when a medical doctor, or a group of doctors, diagnose a dangerous epidemic, or a life-threatening illness, how much time and effort should one spend in attempting to look at real or imaginary faults in the diagnosis?” A#3: as long as it takes, e.g. that nasty equine virus in Queensland which has more capacity to wipe us all out than AGW if the diagnosis is wrongly determined and resolved.

Your Q#4 “Risk assessment: People issue insurance to the value of $thousands each year, and nations spend $billions (the $US trillions) on defence based on risk assessments. Climate change is a risk established by the World’s major science institutions (Hadley, NASA, Potsdam, CSIRO, BOM) …” The latter part of this Q. is no more than an appeal to authority. I know that if I cited the Pope as an alternative Authority you would not accept him – and neither do I. How much do you spend on insurance (on house car and life)? In my case not more than one percent of my income. Whatever Garnaut may claim, his ETS involves huge cuts in my income – even the softer Green Paper indicated four times what I spend on insurance just on my higher energy bills, and the Sims Report to the Aus. Business Council confirms this, as also the Leak cartoon in yesterday’s The Australian. Barry elsewhere here goes on about rising sea-levels. What evidence is there for rising home insurance premiums at Rose Bay etc in Sydney? As for Defence, there is no accounting for stupidity, for all its billions the US cannot even save Georgia.

Your Q#5. “If all these scientists are incorrect, the damage in the error would pale into insignificance compared to the damage caused if the denialists are wrong”. I am not a denialist, only sceptical about most religion including AGW. I have so far incurred no personal costs from all AGW observable since c1976, and I expect none before I shuffle on. My personal plan is to squirrel as much as I can, subject to the Garnaut-Wong depredations on my income, for my heirs and successors. The richer they are by say 2050, with my help via their inheritance, the better placed they will be to adapt to whatever AGW may have in store for them.

Finally, Andrew said Q#6: “Is there any stage, in terms of temperature rise, ice melt rates, sea level rise, slowing-down of the Gulf stream, or storm intensity, where the denialists would concede GW is actually taking place?” The temperature rise is not evident in the satellite graph displayed in Jennifer Marohasy’s article in The Australian yesterday, despite the upward trend in CO2. The ice melt series may well be more cyclical than secular. What is your source for the slowing Gulf Stream? There is no evidence I am aware of for increasing global storm intensity, if there is, where?

Dear Andrew, get a life, relax, fire up the barbecue, and think what its CO2 will do to boost the yields at your vegie garden!

Cheers.

LikeLike

Hi Tim,

Thank you for your message.

One specific point regarding satellite data: As shown by Remote Sensing Systems and University of Alabama plots urface temperatures and satellite measurements are essentially concordant. During the 20th century surface temperatures increased by about +0.07°C/decade and since 1979 by +0.17°C/decade. Satellite measurements of lower troposphere temperatures show a trend of : RSS (Remoste Sensing Systems) +0.170°C/decade; UAH (University of Alabama) +0.13 °C/decade. Stratospheric temperature anomalies are removed by outward radiation

In general terms: I am still searching for evidence which may contradict the serious nature of directly-observed climate trends, and would encourage anyone who has such evidence to submit it for publication in the scientific literature.

That actual temeprature rise rates, ice melt rates and climate zone migration rates exceed IPCC observations, as reported by principal climate scientists (Rahmstorf, Science Express, 200 – which I append below this message) is of major concern, showing that if the IPCC reports were in error, the error was in underestimating the pace of climate change.

Unless of course some people consider that the IPCC, CSIRO, NASA, Hadley, Potsdam and thousands of scientists, who publish through the peer review system, are involved in some kind of a conspiracy …?

As of course you are aware the scientific method is based on the painful long term process of gathering data, developing interpretations consistent with established physics and chemistry, proceeding through rigorous peer review. I know of no alternative to this method.

Accepting your sincere wish to identify the reality of climate change, I will be happy to send you a pdf reprint of my recent paper “Milestones in the evolution of the atmosphere with reference to climate change” published in the Australian Journal of Earth Science (if so, let me know which E-mail address to send it to).

In this case, we can discuss the observations in further detail.

Best wishes
Andrew Glikson

——————————————————
Recent Climate Observations Compared to Projections
Stefan Rahmstorf,a Anny Cazenave,b John A. Church,c James E. Hansen,d Ralph F. Keeling,e David E. Parker,f Richard C. J. Somervillee aPotsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Potsdam, Germany. bLaboratoire d’Etudes en Géophysique et Océanographie Spatiales, Toulouse, France. cCSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research and Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems CRC, Hobart, Australia. dNASA/Goddard Institute for Space Studies, New York, USA. eScripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, USA. fHadley Centre, Met Office, Exeter, United Kingdom. Observations of the climate system are crucial to establish actual climatic trends, while climate models are used to project how quantities like global mean air temperature and sea level may be expected to respond to anthropogenic
perturbations of the Earth’s radiation budget. Here we compile the most recent observed climate trends for carbon dioxide concentration, global-mean air temperature and sea level, and we compare these trends to previous model projections as summarised in the 2001 assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (1). The IPCC scenarios and projections start in the year 1990, which is also the base year of the Kyoto protocol in which almost all industrialised nations have committed to binding reductions of their greenhouse gas emissions. Although published in 2001, these model projections are essentially independent from the observed climate data since 1990: climate models are physics-based models developed over many years that are not “tuned” to reproduce the most recent temperatures, and global sea level data were not yet available at the time. The data now available raise concerns that the climate system, in particular sea level, may be responding more quickly than climate models indicate. Carbon dioxide concentration follows the projections almost exactly (Fig. 1), bearing in mind that the measurements shown from Mauna Loa (Hawaii) have a slight positive offset due to the slightly higher CO2 concentration in
the Northern Hemisphere compared to the global mean. The level of agreement is partly coincidental, as a result of compensating errors in industrial emissions (based on the IS92a scenario) and carbon sinks in the projections. The global mean surface temperature increase (land and ocean combined) in both the NASA GISS data set and the Hadley Centre / Climatic Research Unit data set is 0.33 ºC for the 16 years since 1990, which is in the upper part of the range projected by the IPCC. Given the relatively short 16- year time period considered, it will be difficult to establish the reasons for this relatively rapid warming, although there are only a few likely possibilities. The first candidate reason is intrinsic variability within the climate system. A second candidate is climate forcings other than CO2: While the concentration of other greenhouse gases has risen more slowly than assumed in the IPCC scenarios, a smaller aerosol cooling than expected is a possible cause of the extra
warming. A third candidate is an underestimation of the climate sensitivity to CO2 (i.e., model error). Note that the dashed scenarios shown are for a medium climate sensitivity
of 3 ºC for a doubling of CO2 concentration, while the grey band surrounding the scenarios shows the effect of uncertainty in climate sensitivity spanning a range of 1.7 – 4.2 ºC.
Since 1990 the observed sea level has been rising faster than projected by models, as shown both by a reconstruction using primarily tide gauge data (2) and, since 1993, by satellite-altimeter data (3) (both series are corrected for glacial isostatic adjustment). The satellite data show a linear trend of 3.3 mm/yr (1993-2006) and the tide gauge
reconstruction slightly less, while the IPCC projected a bestestimate rise of less than 2 mm/yr. Sea level closely follows the upper gray dashed line, the upper limit referred to by
IPCC as “including land-ice uncertainty”. Note that the rate of rise for the last 20 years of the reconstructed sea level is 25% faster than the rate of rise in any 20 year period in the
preceding 115 years. Again, we caution that the time interval of overlap is short, so that internal decadal climate variability could cause much of the discrepancy; it would be premature to conclude that sea level will continue to follow this “upper limit” line in future. The largest contributions to the rapid rise come from ocean thermal expansion (4) and the melting from non-polar glaciers as a result of the warming mentioned above. While the ice sheet contribution has been small, observations are indicating that it is rapidly increasing, with contributions both from Greenland and Antarctica (e.g., ref. 5). Overall, these observational data underscore the concerns about global climate change. Previous projections, as summarized by IPCC, have not exaggerated but may in some respects even have underestimated the change, in particular for sea level.
/ http://www.sciencexpress.org / 1 February 2007 / Page 1 / 10.1126/science.1136843 References
1. IPCC. Climate Change 2001 (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2001).
2. Church, J. A., and N. J. White, Geophys. Res. Lett., 33, L01602, doi:10.1029/2005GL024826 (2006). 3. Cazenave, A. and R. S. Nerem, Rev. Geophys., 42, 20 (2004). 4. Willis, J. K., D. Roemmich, and B. Cornuelle, J. Geophys. Res., 109, C12036, doi:10.1029/2003JC002260 (2004).
5. A. Cazenave, Science 314, 1250 (2006). 6. Moore, J. C., Grinsted, A. & Jevrejeva, S., Eos 86, 226 (2005).

LikeLike

Thanks Andrew for your comments. You said ”I am still searching for evidence which may contradict the serious [sic] nature of directly-observed climate trends, and would encourage anyone who has such evidence to submit it for publication in the scientific literature”.

Actually I now have two pending peer reviewed papers in the pipeline for publication next year, watch this space for when they appear! These do cast some doubt on what you call the “serious” nature of observed climate trends. They fit both log and linear trends to the data, the former tend to have better fits. But even linear extrapolation of the average growth of atmospheric CO2

[deleted patently false calculations on carbon growth which I already corrected – why go through this again?]

Recall that Canadell et al. were main authors of Chapter 7 of WG1, in the AR4, and that Canadell et al (2007) was published in the peer reviewed PNAS. So much for peer review!

Yet you and Barry et al here still have this touching faith in peer review. No doubt you will demand that I submit my Comments on Canadell et al to PNAS, but why don’t you do it for me, or jointly with me? Unlike you I have no paid academic affiliation, and also lack the 7 academically-affiliated co-authors that appear to be the minimum to secure consideration by PNAS.

Meantime Team Garnaut if it continues to cite Canadell will be guilty of unconscionable behaviour. For it is the misleading data in Canadell et al 2007 claiming that the biospheric sinks are already saturated (as they sure would be if their projections were valid!) which underpins all the projections in Ch. 4 and 5 of the Garnaut Draft Report. I have already twice formally pointed out the Canadell errors to the G Report team, so they are not unaware. BTW, the G Report was not peer reviewed.

How much of the alarm that you, Andrew, feel, is due to the questionable data handling by such key IPCC authors as Canadell et al? Two of Canadell et al (Houghton, Ciais) had previously published data on land use emissions which are seriously at variance (as much as 30% higher) with what appears in Canadell et al, but they had no hesitation appending their names.

Thanks for the Rahmstorf piece which I already have in pdf. How can you be sure his team are any more reliable than Canadell’s? They mostly cite only themselves for starters! And I note they use a rather short period ending in an El Nino year for their temperature and sealevel data. I have also seen critical comments on Rahmstorf’s behaviour, and do not consider him a reliable source, especially when his co-authors include James Hansen, known for [deleted false ad hom accusations against Hansen which I have also already pointed out are false]

Yes please, I would like your EarthSciences paper, will email you asap.

[Tim – cut the repeated untruths which have already been comprehensively refuted here. If you want to continue to spread your rubbish conspiracy theories, head elsewhere. Or else join in here in a rational way. Last chance…]

LikeLike