For description of this project, and
how you can become part of it, visit "Reclaiming
Climate Science" portal page.
This page is a first attempt at deconstruction. This
is NOT the end product quality - that will improve as
I work on this - the hyperlinks are not even in place
yet! (Use Curious
Anomalies for the moment,
for source refs) Glossary
at foot of page
| 1.
EVIDENCE THAT THE EARTH'S TEMPERATURE IS GETTING
WARMER IS UNCLEAR |
| Sceptic (Fred Singer) |
Counter (Gavin Schmidt) |
Counter-counter
(first suggestions) |
| Instruments show there has been some warming
of the Earth's surface since 1979, but the actual
value is subject to large errors. Most long-term
data comes from surface weather stations. Many of
these are in urban centres which have expanded in
both size and energy use. When these stations observe
a temperature rise, they are simply measuring the
"urban heat island effect". In addition,
coverage is patchy, with some regions of the world
almost devoid of instruments. Data going back further
than a century or two is derived from "proxy"
indicators such as tree-rings and stalactites which,
again, are subject to large errors. |
Warming is unequivocal. Weather stations, ocean
measurements, decreases in snow cover, reductions
in Arctic sea ice, longer growing seasons, balloon
measurements, boreholes and satellites all show
results consistent with the surface record of warming.
The urban heat island effect is real but small;
and it has been studied and corrected for. Analyses
by Nasa for example use only rural stations to calculate
trends. Recently, work has shown that if you analyse
long-term global temperature rise for windy days
and calm days separately, there is no difference.
If the urban heat island effect were large, you
would expect to see a bigger trend for calm days
when more of the heat stays in the city. Furthermore,
the pattern of warming globally doesn't resemble
the pattern of urbanisation, with the greatest warming
seen in the Arctic and northern high latitudes.
Globally, there is a warming trend of about 0.8C
since 1900, more than half of which has occurred
since 1979. |
No serious skeptic doubts
that global warming happened between 1979 and 1999,
and also between 1910 and 1940 when industry was
far less and the CO2 levels were, according to the
IPCC, much lower. The UHI effect is a serious issue
that has not been sufficiently accounted for, despite
CAGW protests to the contrary, see evidence here
and project here. Difference due
to wind is inapplicable since the UHI causes convection
anyway whose wind effects are well-known to aviators.
Arctic warming is a polar effect (the poles get
more temperature extremes) and needs to be removed
to see the UHI effect. Proxy temperature measurements,
used to construct the IPCC temperature record before
1900 (?), are fraught with problems. The tree ring
proxies, upon which the original "hockey stick"
graph was totally dependent, are so problematic
as to be unusable. |
| 2.
IF THE AVERAGE TEMPERATURE WAS RISING, IT HAS NOW
STOPPED |
| Sceptic |
Counter |
Counter-counter (first suggestions) |
| Since 1998 - almost a decade - the record, as
determined by observations from satellites and balloon
radiosondes, shows no warming. |
1998 was an exceptionally warm year because of
the strong El Nino event. Variability from year
to year is expected, and picking a specific warm
year to start an analysis is "cherry-picking";
if you picked 1997 or 1999 you would see a sharper
rise. Even so, the linear trends since 1998 are
still positive. |
Who's a cherry picker then??
1997 and 1999 are cherries! Look at a longer-term
graph here and work out all the
different trends you could extract by cherry picking.
However, 2000-2008 temp. patterns are unmistakeably
different from the years 1980-2000. |
| 3.
THE EARTH HAS BEEN WARMER IN THE RECENT PAST |
| Sceptic |
Counter |
Counter-counter (first suggestions) |
| The beginning of the last Millennium saw a "Mediaeval
Warm Period" when temperatures, certainly in
Europe, were higher than they are now. Grapes grew
in northern England. Ice-bound mountain passes opened
in the Alps. The Arctic was warmer in the 1930s
than it is today. |
There have been many periods in Earth history
that were warmer than today - if not the MWP, then
maybe the last interglacial (125,000 years ago)
or the Pliocene (three million years ago). Whether
those variations were caused by solar forcing, the
Earth's orbital wobbles or continental configurations,
none of those causes apply today. Evidence for a
Mediaeval Warm Period outside Europe is patchy at
best, and is often not contemporary with the warmth
in Europe. As the US National Oceanographic and
Atmospheric Administration (Noaa) puts it: "The
idea of a global or hemispheric Mediaeval Warm Period
that was warmer than today has turned out to be
incorrect". Additionally, although the Arctic
was warmer in the 1930s than in the following few
decades, it is now warmer still. |
"If not the MWP"
- but this is the whole issue, there is unequivocal
evidence the MWP was warmer, globally,
and there is clear evidence that the IPCC deliberately
suppressed this evidence, see here
(McKitrick's original story), here
(Hill's follow-up story), and here
(Monckton's retelling). The Arctic "warmer
now" is a red herring because it is, in the
short term, dependent on ocean currents; again,
the Arctic temperatures here over
a longer time scale have not substantially increased
today. See here for evidence of
ice-free Arctic waters in the earlier twentieth
century. Al Gore's "evidence" is worthless,
the original "hockey stick" that shows
today as warmer than ever before, was dismissed
by expert committee as worthless; the new "hockey
stick" is suspect and currently under
review. |
| 4.
COMPUTER MODELS ARE NOT RELIABLE |
| Sceptic |
Counter |
Counter-counter (first suggestions) |
| Computer models are the main way of forecasting
future climate change. But despite decades of development
they are unable to model all the processes involved;
for example, the influence of clouds, the distribution
of water vapour, the impact of warm seawater on
ice-shelves and the response of plants to changes
in water supply. Climate models follow the old maxim
of "garbage in, garbage out". |
Models are simply ways to quantify understanding
of climate. They will never be perfect and they
will never be able to forecast the future exactly.
However, models are tested and validated against
all sorts of data. Over the last 20 years they have
become able to simulate more physical, chemical
and biological processes, and work on smaller spatial
scales. The 2007 IPCC report produced regional climate
projections in detail that would have been impossible
in its 2001 assessment. All of the robust results
from modelling have both theoretical and observational
support. |
The models are
not robust. However much they may have improved
their powers, predictions have been wrong many
times. They omit the essential variables
of cloud and sun. The greenhouse gas science they
use is highly suspect (see here).
Even if all these were correctly accommodated, models
woud still have no predictive power. Modeller experts
with no bias, outside the IPCC, know that models
not based on proven laws cannot predict. To talk
of "robust results" with "theoretical
and observational support" is, we believe,
unsubstantiated bluster. |
| 5.
THE ATMOSPHERE IS NOT BEHAVING AS MODELS WOULD PREDICT |
| Sceptic |
Counter |
Counter-counter (first suggestions) |
Computer models predict that the lower levels
of the atmosphere, the troposphere, should be warming
faster than the Earth's surface. Measurements show
the opposite. So either this is another failing
of the models, or one set of measurements is flawed,
or there are holes in our understanding of the science.
|
Lower levels of the troposphere are warming; but
measuring the exact rate has been an uncertain process,
particularly in the satellite era (since 1979).
Readings from different satellites need to be tied
together, and each has its own problems with orbital
decay and sensor drift. Two separate analyses show
consistent warming, one faster than the surface
and one slightly less. Within the uncertainties
of the data, there is no discrepancy that needs
to be dealt with. Information from balloons has
its own problems but the IPCC concluded this year:
"For the period since 1958, overall global
and tropical tropospheric warming estimated from
radiosondes has slightly exceeded surface warming". |
"Within the uncertainties
of the data there is no discrepancy that needs to
be dealt with" means, when translated, that
the evidence shows the discrepancy
all too clearly, and the only recourse now open
to AGW is to claim the measurements have too much
uncertainty. If they are this uncertain, they are
certainly not reliable for any global warming predictions.
And if they were this unreliable, why spend money
in putting the latest technology into these instruments?
No, they show very clear pictures
that in several respects confirm the skeptics' thesis
and disprove the AGW thesis. |
| 6.
CLIMATE IS MAINLY INFLUENCED BY THE SUN |
| Sceptic |
Counter |
Counter-counter (first suggestions) |
| Earth history shows climate has regularly responded
to cyclical changes in the Sun's energy output.
Any warming we see can be attributed mainly to variations
in the Sun's magnetic field and solar wind. |
Solar variations do affect climate, but they are
not the only factor. As there has been no positive
trend in any solar index since the 1960s (and possibly
a small negative trend), solar forcing cannot be
responsible for the recent temperature trends. The
difference between the solar minimum and solar maximum
over the 11-year solar cycle is 10 times smaller
than the effect of greenhouse gases over the same
interval. |
There has been an exceptional
solar trend exactly in the time denied.
It is no use relating global temperatures to solar
maxima and minima in the 11-year
solar cycle, because the much slower effects of
ocean currents and thermal inertia mask these short
cycles. The "effect of greenhouse gases"
is (when UHI etc have been subtracted) nearly all,
if not all, the cumulative effect of a
long-lasting solar high, including both TSI and
magnetic flux. Man-made warming is tiny by comparison.
Right now, astrophysicists are investigating multiple
solar influences on climate. |
| 7.
A CARBON DIOXIDE RISE HAS ALWAYS COME AFTER A TEMPERATURE
INCREASE NOT BEFORE |
| Sceptic |
Counter |
Counter-counter (first suggestions) |
| Ice-cores dating back nearly one million years
show a pattern of temperature and CO2 rise at roughly
100,000-year intervals. But the CO2 rise has always
come after the temperature rise, not before, presumably
as warmer temperatures have liberated the gas from
oceans |
This is largely true, but largely irrelevant.
Ancient ice-cores do show CO2 rising after temperature
by a few hundred years - a timescale associated
with the ocean response to atmospheric changes mainly
driven by wobbles in the Earth's orbit. However,
the situation today is dramatically different. The
extra CO2 in the atmosphere (35% increase over pre-industrial
levels) is from human emissions. Levels are higher
than have been seen in 650,000 years of ice-core
records, and are possibly higher than any time since
three million years ago. |
Largely irrelevant, my foot!
Go back to basics: the hypotheses (a) that CO2 levels
are higher than they have been earlier and (b) that
this is due to human emissions, are plain bad science,
thoroughly challenged and debunked here.
The ice-core records are not trustworthy
sources of CO2 levels. Recent ice-core measurements
from Siple have even been falsified
to appear to align smoothly with Keeling's recent
CO2 measurements. There is clear evidence here
that CO2 follows temperature, now as always. Al
Gore's "evidence" is worthless. |
| 8.
LONG-TERM DATA ON HURRICANES AND ARCTIC ICE IS TOO
POOR TO ASSESS TRENDS |
| Sceptic |
Counter |
Counter-counter (first suggestions) |
| Before the era of satellite observation began
in the 1970s, measurements were ad-hoc and haphazard.
Hurricanes would be reported only if they hit land
or shipping. Arctic ice extent was measured only
during expeditions. The satellite record for these
phenomena is too short to justify claims that hurricanes
are becoming stronger or more frequent, or that
there is anything exceptional about the apparent
shrinkage in Arctic ice. |
The Arctic Climate Impact Assessment project notes
that systematic collection of data in parts of the
Arctic began in the late 18th Century. The US National
Hurricane Center notes that "organised reconnaissance"
for Atlantic storms began in 1944. So although historical
data is not as complete as one might like, conclusions
can be drawn. And the IPCC does not claim that global
warming will make hurricanes more frequent - its
2007 report says that if anything, they are likely
to become less frequent, but more intense. |
There are severe problems
grafting older forms of record-keeping onto current
forms of measurement. Even so, the records
do not show increase in intensity of hurricanes,
or any other extreme weather conditions. Some even
show decrease. The records of ice-free
Arctic waters are, however, very telling. The NW
passage has been regularly navigated, an
ice-free North Pole is on record here.
Only recently has it become fashionable to claim
"melting Arctic" and ignore earlier evidence.
Al Gore's "evidence" is worthless. |
| 9.
WATER VAPOUR IS THE MAJOR GREENHOUSE GAS; CO2 IS
RELATIVELY UNIMPORTANT |
| Sceptic |
Counter |
Counter-counter (first suggestions) |
| The natural greenhouse effect keeps the Earth's
surface about 33C warmer than it would otherwise
be. Water vapour is the most important greenhouse
gas, accounting for about 98% of all warming. So
changes in carbon dioxide or methane concentrations
would have a relatively small impact. Water vapour
concentrations are rising, but this does not necessarily
increase warming - it depends how the water vapour
is distributed. |
Water vapour is essentially in balance with the
planet's temperature on annual timescales and longer,
whereas trace greenhouse gases such as CO2 stay
in the atmosphere on a timescale of decades to centuries.
The statement that water vapour is "98% of
the greenhouse effect" is simply false. In
fact, it does about 50% of the work; clouds add
another 25%, with CO2 and the other greenhouse gases
contributing the remaining quarter. Water vapour
concentrations are increasing in response to rising
temperatures, and there is evidence that this is
adding to warming, for example in Europe. The fact
that water vapour is a feedback is included in all
climate models. |
Actually, water vapour concentrations
have fallen, much in parallel with
rising CO2 levels. This might even suggest an overall
cooling effect, at least a restraint on too much
solar heating effect (since the Sun heats the oceans
that raise atmospheric CO2 levels). The AGW claims
here for GHG effects have bad and essentially
unproveable science behind them [needs
backing up]. As soon as the CO2-as-driver mistake
is replaced by the true temp-as-driver, all the
"feedbacks" will have to be reconsidered,
if they even exist. |
| 10.
PROBLEMS SUCH AS HIV/AIDS AND POVERTY ARE MORE PRESSING
THAN CLIMATE CHANGE |
| Sceptic |
Counter |
Counter-counter (first suggestions) |
| The Kyoto Protocol will not reduce emissions of
greenhouse gases noticeably. The targets were too
low, applied only to certain countries, and have
been rendered meaningless by loopholes. Many governments
that enthuse about the treaty are not going to meet
the reduction targets that they signed up to. Even
if it is real, man-made climate change is just one
problem among many facing the world's rich and poor
alike. Governments and societies should respond
proportionately, not pretend that climate is a special
case. And some economists believe that a warmer
climate would, on balance, improve lives. |
Arguments over the Kyoto Protocol are outside
the realms of science, although it certainly will
not reduce greenhouse gas emissions as far or as
fast as the IPCC indicates is necessary. The latest
IPCC Working Group 2 report suggest that the impact
of man-made climate change will on balance be deleterious,
particular to the poorer countries of the tropics,
although colder regions may see benefits such as
increased crop yields. Investment in energy efficiency,
new energy technologies and renewables are likely
to benefit the developing world. |
The Kyoto Protocol is
about science. IPCC has been driven all along by
an agenda to prove our CO2 emissions
cause global warming, and scientific truth has been
compromised in every single area (see here)
in order to create a "scientific proof"
lookalike with which people can be fooled. As to
poorer people suffering, the bad science and mass
deception are the biggest threat, as IPCC policy
consequences would cost so much, and attempts like
biofuel and carbon sequestration are so ill-considered,
that they hurt just where they should help. |
 |
|
|
