Uncategorized

Apologies for my lack of blogging activity of late – I’ve had a busy Christmas period on both the work and home fronts. Some friends even managed to hold a pre-Chrsitmas BBQ on 22nd December – no, not a result of global warming in the UK, just a cool, pleasant evening and the heat from the BBQ itself.

Despite science historian Naomi Oreskes’s claim, repeated ad nauseum by greenhouse industry beneficiaries that there are few or no peer reviewed papers that dispute the still undefined ‘consensus’ on anthropogenic global climate change, such papers have not been hard to find during 2007. Some of the more recent papers containing inconvenient results, that I haven’t previously blogged, are briefly described below:

Surface:troposphere warming

According to climate models of enhanced greenhouse warming, the tropical troposphere should warm more than the surface. Recent publications have contradictory results despite using essentially the same data. The latest paper on this subject, by Douglass et al, suggests that model results and observed temperature trends are in disagreement in most of the tropical troposphere.

Interestingly, a poster presented by Penner and Andronova at the recent AGU meeting, entitled ‘Tropical atmosphere radiative budget 1985-2005’ seems to reconcile the differences between surface and troposheric warming, supporting the Douglass et al data, without necessarily disproving enhanced greenhouse warming.

Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit attended the conference and the following is extracted from his write-up:

“the tropical atmosphere has absorbed less energy and the Earth’s surface has gained energy which is consistent with the temperature increase in the tropics;

the tropical atmosphere has recently become less reflective and more absorbing while the Earth’s surface gained radiative energy; thus, the tropical atmosphere had recently become more transparent to the incoming radiation and there is an overall brightening of the Earth’s system;

none of the IPCC AR4 models simulates the overall brightening of the Earth system. The majority of the models show a loss of radiative energy by the tropical energy in the post-Pinatubo period, suggesting that the models have still not properly captured the feedbacks between temperature change and clouds.”

Of course, there are also unresolved issues regarding a potential warm bias in the surface temperature data.

Climate sensitivity to CO2

A new paper by Chylek et al entitled:

Limits on climate sensitivity derived from recent satellite and surface observations

The climate sensitivity of 0.29 to 0.48 K/Wm-2 translates to warming between 1.1 and 1.8 deg C for doubling of CO2, supporting values close to the lower end of the IPCC range of 2 to 4.5 deg C. – Petr Chylek

Hurricanes

HURRICANES HAVE NOT INCREASED IN THE NORTH ATLANTIC

By William M. Briggs, Statistician

My paper on this subject will finally appear in the Journal of Climate soon. Download it here.

The gist is that the evidence shows that hurricanes have not increased in either number of intensity in the North Atlantic. I’ve only used data through 2006; which is to say, not this year’s. But if I were to, then, since the number and intensity of storms this past year were nothing special, the evidence would be even more conclusive that not much is going on.

Now, I did find that there were some changes in certain characteristics of North Atlantic storms. There is some evidence that the probability that strong (what are called Category 4 or 5) storms evolving from ordinary hurricanes has increased. But, there has also been an increase in storms not reaching hurricane level. Which is to say, that the only clear signal is that there has been an increase in the variability of intensity of tropical cyclones.

Of course, I do not say why this increase has happened. Well, I suggest why it has: changes in instrumentation quality and frequency since the late 1960s (which is when satellites first went up, allowing us to finally observe better). This is in line with what others, like Chris Landsea at the Hurricane Center, have found.

I also have done the same set of models of global hurricanes. I found the same thing. I’m scheduled to give a talk on this at the American Meteorological Society’s annual meeting in January 2008 in New Orleans. That paper is here.

In another paper, Vecchi and Soden find natural climate variations have bigger effect on hurricane activity than global warming:

Vecchi, G.A. and B.J. Soden. 2007. Effect of remote sea surface temperature change on tropical cyclone potential intensity. Nature, 450, 1066-1071.

Just before Christmas I posted a note from Marc Morano with a list of 400 or so climate change skeptics. I also noted that just two years ago Ian Lowe, head of the Australian Conservation Foundation, published a book wrongly claiming that there were only five climate change skeptics in the whole world, while Al Gore in his award winning documentary wrongly claimed all skeptics were in the pay of big oil.

Now Marc Morano has sent me an update including a few more names to add to the list of 400, and more information on a name already on the list. Like the initial 400, these are scientists who have been quoted in 2007 as skeptical of the idea that the global warming over the last century is significant and/or has been primarily driven by man-made carbon dioxide emissions. Like me, most of people on the list do not believe we currently have a climate crisis.

1. Dr. Klaus P. Heiss formerly of Princeton University and Mathematica, and a space engineer who has worked with NASA, the US Atomic Energy Commission and the Office of Naval Research.

Heiss received the NASA Public Service award for unique contributions to the US Space Program and is a member of the International Astronautics Academy. Heiss dissented from what he termed the “alleged climate catastrophe” in 2007. “The 20th Century increased the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere continuously. Man-made CO 2 grew exponentially; however, global temperatures fell between 1940 and 1975, during the time span
as the global industrial production almost exploded. Then [temperatures] rose strongly to 1990 and they have since stagnated, with the exception of El-Nino 1998 – at roughly the same level, although CO 2 emissions are still rising,” Heiss wrote in a September 7, 2007 commentary titled “No Reason For Hysteria.” “The entire atmospheric carbon dioxide, of which man-made CO 2 is only a fraction of, is not to blame for global warming,” Klaus explained. “Carbon
dioxide is not responsible for the warming of the global climate over the last 150 years. But what then? For more than 90 percent are changes in the Earth-Sun relationship to the climate fluctuations. One is the sun’s activities themselves, such as the recently discovered 22-year-cycles occur and sunspots,” Heiss continued. “Looking at the
climate history of our planet, it is clear to see – and quite reassuring with regard to the possible consequences of global warming as predicted by the IPCC — that we are now (more precisely, in the last two to three million years ago) in a very cold climate period. Any warming would give us only the best long-term climate of the last
560 million years back,” he added. “Moreover, despite all the proposed measures and their enormous costs, most professional economic studies indicate that warmer times are generally better,” he concluded.

2. Economist Dr. Arnold Kling, formerly of the Federal Reserve Board and Freddie Mac, expressed man-made climate skepticism in 2007. “I am worried about climate change. In one respect, I may be more worried than other people. I am worried because I have very little confidence that we know what is causing it,” Kling wrote in a December 21, 2007 commentary. “One of my fears is that we could reduce carbon emissions
by some drastic amount, only to discover that–oops–it turns out that climate change is being caused by something else,” Kling explained. “I am not a skeptic about the rise in average temperatures. Nor am I skeptical that the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been increasing. However, I remain skeptical about the connection between the two,” he wrote.

3. Meteorologist Thomas B. Gray is the former head of the Space Services branch at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and a researcher in NOAA’s Space Environment Laboratory and
Environmental Research Laboratories. Gray also served as an aviation meteorologist for the United States Air Force. Gray asserted that “climate change is a natural occurrence” and dissented from the view
that mankind faces a “climate crisis” in 2007. “I was awarded by MS in meteorology from Florida State University and I became interested in pale climatology,” Gray wrote to EPW on December 25, 2007. “Nothing
that is occurring in weather or in climate research at this time can be shown to be abnormal in the light of our knowledge of climate variations over geologic time,” Gray explained. “I am sure that the concept of a ‘Global Temperature’ is nonsense,” he added. “The claims of those convinced that AGW (anthropogenic global warming) is real and dangerous are not supported by reliable data,” Gray concluded.

4. Physical chemist Dr. Peter Stilbs, who chairs the climate seminar Department of Physical Chemistry at the Royal Institute of Technology (KTH) in Stockholm has authored more than 165 scientific publications in refereed journals since 1970. Stilbs coordinated a meeting of international scientists and declared his skepticism about man-made climate fears. Stilbs wrote on December 21, 2006, “By the final panel discussion stage of the conference, there appeared to be wide agreement” about several key points regarding man-made climate fears. Stilbs announced that the scientists, concluded: “There is no strong evidence to prove significant human influence on climate on a global basis. The global cooling trend from 1940 to 1970 is inconsistent with models based on anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions. Actual claims put forward are that an observed global temperature increase of about 0.3 degrees C since 1970 exceeds what could be expected from natural variation. However, recent temperature data do not indicate any continued global warming since 1998.” Stilbs also noted, “There is no
reliable evidence to support that the 20th century was the warmest in the last 1000 years. Previous claims based on the ‘Mann hockey-stick curve’ are by now totally discredited.” Stilbs concluded by noting that the team of international scientists concluded: “There is no doubt that the science behind ‘the climate issue’ is far from settled. As so many cosmic effects are omitted from climate models, there is no credibility for arguments such as ‘there is no other explanation’ [than anthropogenic generation of carbon dioxide]. This must be remembered when making future political decisions related to these matters.”

Stilbs also was one of the signatories of the December 13, 2007 letter critical of the UN IPCC’s climate view.
“These [IPCC] Summaries are prepared by a relatively small core writing team with the final drafts approved line-by-line by ­government ­representatives. The great ­majority of IPCC contributors and ­reviewers, and the tens of thousands of other scientists who are qualified to comment on these matters, are not involved in the
preparation of these documents. The summaries therefore cannot properly be represented as a consensus view among experts,” the letter Stilbs signed explained.

5. Geography professor Dr. Randy Cerveny of Arizona State University oversees the university’s meteorology program and was named to a key post at the UN’s World Meteorological Organization in 2007. Cerveny, who has written nearly 100 scientific papers and magazine articles, is in charge of developing a global weather archive for the UN. He was also a contributing author to the skeptical climate change book Shattered Consensus: The True State of Global Warming, edited by climatologist Dr. Patrick Michaels. Cerveny rejected catastrophic fears of man-made climate change in 2007. “I don’t think [global warming] is going to be catastrophic,” Cerveny said according to a October 7, 2007 article. “Hopefully, our grandkids are going to have a
lot better weather information than we did, and they will be able to answer a lot of the questions we’re just in the process of asking,” Cerveny explained.

6. Paul C. Knappenberger, a senior researcher with New Hope Environmental Services, has published numerous peer-reviewed studies related to climate change, including a 2006 study questioning the linkage between global warming and severe hurricanes. Knappenberger also serves as administrator for the skeptical climate change website www.WorldClimateReport.com. The website’s stated goal is to “point out the weaknesses and outright fallacies in the science that is being touted as ‘proof’ of disastrous warming.” The website also describes itself as the “definitive and unimpeachable source for what [the journal] Nature now calls the ‘mainstream skeptic’ point of view, which is that climate change is a largely overblown issue and that the best expectation is modest change over the next 100 years.”

7. Climatologist Dr. Robert Balling of Arizona State University, the former head of the university’s Office of Climatology, has served as a climate consultant to the United Nations Environment Program, the World Climate Program, the World Meteorological Organization, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.

Balling, who has also served in the UN IPCC, would have preferred former Vice President Al Gore had won the presidency in 2000. He has authored several books on global warming, including “The Heated
Debate” and “The Satanic Gases.” Balling expressed skepticism about man-made climate fears in 2007. “In my lifetime, this global-warming issue might fade away,” Balling said in a November 11, 2007 interview
with the Arizona Republic. Noting the pressure he feels as a skeptical scientist, Balling explained, “Somehow I’ve been branded this horrible person who belongs in the depths of hell.” He added, “There’s just no
tolerance right now.” The article explained, “Balling’s research over the years has explored sun activity, pollution from volcanoes, the urban-heat-island effect and errors in past temperature models as possible causes of rising temperatures.”

Marc Morano has also indicated that there is a whole new section on inconvenenient studies for promoters of man-made climate fears at the US senate website: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport