A new report by a research consortium called the Global Carbon Project has confirmed that China leapfrogged the United States in 2006 as the world’s biggest carbon emitter and India is heading for third place. The report also claims global greenhouse gas levels are “scaling record peaks”. Read more here.
Climate & Climate Change
The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Consensus
“A pervasive myth has taken hold in the public consciousness: That there was a consensus among climate scientists of the 1970s that global cooling or a full-fledged ice age was imminent.”
At least that is according to Thomas Peterson, William Connolley and John Fleck writing in the proceedings of the 20th Conference on Climate Variability and Change, held in New Orleans in January this year. Their paper goes a long way to dispel that myth while at the same time providing a good overview of the development of current global warming theory including key milestones.
It did perhaps all begin with the Swedish scientist, Svante Arrhenius, who in 1896 suggested that by doubling atmospheric carbon dioxide global temperature may rise 5-6C.
The establishment of the station atop Mauna Loa in the Pacific in 1957 was another key event. According to Peterson et al by 1965 this data was sufficient to show an unambiguous trend of increasing carbon dioxide and showed an increase that exceeded Arrthenius’s 70-year old estimate.
By 1967 the first seminal modelling results from the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory Team were published concluding that a doubling of carbon dioxide would raise the temperature by 2C. By 1975 based on new modelling results Wallace Broecker asked “Are we on the brink of pronounced global warming?” in a paper published in the journal Science (Vol 189, pgs 460-463).
So, how did the myth of a consensus on global cooling take hold?
According to Peterson et al, when the myth of the 1970s global cooling scare arise in contemporary discussion, it is not to citations in the scientific literature but to news and media coverage at that time. Furthermore they indicate that contemporary quoting of the media articles is often selective and out of context.
In their survey of the scientific literature from 1965 to 1983 Peterson et al found only seven articles indicating cooling compared to 42 indicating warming.
It is a fascinating little paper, have a read:
http://ams.confex.com/ams/88Annual/techprogram/paper_131047.htm
[link from Luke Walker]
Sun Baking on Low: New Data from Solar Probe Ulysses
The solar wind — a stream of charged particles ejected from the sun’s upper atmosphere at 1 million miles per hour — is significantly weaker, cooler and less dense than it has been in 50 years. And for the first time in about a century, the sun went for two months this summer without sunspots, said NASA solar physicist David Hathaway. Read more here.
Why Do Most Climate Skeptics Accept ‘The Consensus’ that Humans are the Principal Source of Increasing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Levels? (Part 1)
WE have all heard about the rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Along with most people, I have accepted that this is mostly due to the burning of fossil fuels. After-all, this is the accepted view, even for most so-called climate change skeptics.
But there is evidence indicating that most of the increase in atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide could be from natural sources.
So, asks Alan Siddons from Holden, Massachusetts, why do most climate skeptics tacitly and even explicitly accept that man is the culprit?
Let’s consider some of the available evidence.
1. Carbon dioxide concentrations have been measured at Mauna Loa in the Pacific Ocean since 1957 and over this period have shown a general increase.
2. Over this period there has been a general increase in global temperatures.
3. The change in carbon dioxide concentration with time correlates better with temperature change than with change in human carbon dioxide emissions (see Figures 2 and 3 @ Roy Spencer on how Oceans are Driving Carbon Dioxide, Watts Up with That, January 25, 2008).
4. Large interannual fluctuations in Mauna Loa-derived carbon dioxide “emissions” roughly coincide with El Nino and La Nina events (see Figure 3, ibid)
5. There is a clear and strong relationship between levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide and long-term average sea-surface temperatures as would be expected from the solubility curves for carbon dioxide in water at various temperatures and pressures (see Figure 1 @ Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Levels Follow Sea Surface Temperatures, Jennifer Marohasy.com/blog, September 16, 2007)
6. Current carbon cycle flux estimates indicate that the annual carbon dioxide exchange between the surface and the atmosphere amounts to 20% to 30% of the total amount in the atmosphere.
7. Natural processes remove an order of magnitude more than the annual increase in carbon dioxide each year, then put it back again.
8. Human generated carbon dioxide is around 3% of the total carbon dioxide flux.
9. The isotope ratio difference between ‘natural’ carbon dioxide and carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels is small and not a reliable indication of the source of an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide (see Spencer Part2: More CO2 Peculiarities – The C13/C12 Isotope Ratio, Watts Up With That? January 28, 2008)
***********************
The above nine points are drawn in part from posts by Roy Spencer at blog site ‘Watt’s Up with That?’ on January 25 and 28, 2008 and also a post by Lance Endersbee at JenniferMarohasy.com/blog on September 16, 2007.
Thanks to Alan Siddons for the discussion and the slide, which is from a Lord Monckton lecture.
Bankrupt Lehman Brothers Promoted ‘Global Warming’ (Part 2)
The now bankrupt investment bank Lehman Brothers invested heavily in the politics of global warming and were hoping to make millions out of emissions trading. In an earlier blog post entitled ‘Bankrupt Lehman Brothers Promoted Global Warming’ I suggested this was part of their undoing. According to Graham Young the issue is not specific to Lehman Brothers, or global warming, but rather systemic, and it has everything to do with computers and modelling.
“In the real estate investment and development industry computer models never really took over. Valuation practice meant that valuers had to check their calculations by using at least two, and preferably three methods for comparison. Cost of construction and direct market comparisons didn’t negate computerised discounted cashflow models, but they did mean banks wouldn’t lend to you on the digital blue-sky valuations. The models might be right, but few lenders were prepared to risk their shirts on them.
“I know I soon realised that if it didn’t work on the back of an envelope, then making it work with a computer program was very dangerous.
“The same thing can’t be said for equity and credit markets, where asset pricing models for risk have taken over at the large ticket end of things. Which brings us to the sub-prime mess.
“Even though a cursory explanation of how the mortgage packages were structured sounds daft, the models said that they were fine. GIGO (garbage in garbage out) is the technical term for this. And the models were so complex, and the products they were used to produce so opaque, that no-one really knew the full risks of what they were “investing” in.
“And at the bottom of the pile, making all of this possible with abstract computerised models, were undoubtedly a lot of physics and maths graduates.
Which is pretty much where we are with climate change.”
Read more here:
http://ambit-gambit.nationalforum.com.au/archives/003396.html
*****************
Don’t forget there is a community thread at this blog. Breaking news over there includes the retirement of Don Burke as chair of the Australian Environment Foundation.
New Climate Website: Ole Humlum
Dear all,
Ole Humlum, professor of Physical Geography at the University of Oslo, has a very good climate website at http://www.climate4you.com/.
He covers a range of subjects and his primary focus is on graphing a whole range of data in order that the reader might better understand the situation.
Definitely worth a look.
cheers
John McLean
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD has worked in industry and government. She is currently researching a novel technique for long-range weather forecasting funded by the B. Macfie Family Foundation.