Are Climate Changes proven fact?

Responses to Dr Kerry Emanuel, Boston Globe

Ryan Maue says: "I took notice since [Dr Emanuel] is seen as an outsider and particularly fair-minded. His sterling reputation carries considerable weight, and his opinions are therefore worth reading. He has been known to change his mind on the hurricanes and climate change debate when new or different evidence comes to light. He isn’t a true believer in my estimation".

Dr Emanuel's statement seems an excellent place to start building Neutralpedia, since all the strongest AGW positions are collected together here, in a simple way. This set of responses is just a start; I am inviting climate skeptics / realists / lukewarmers / all not espoused dogmatically to AGW / to go over to the Neutralpedia copy of the article below, and edit these responses, so that they become authoritative, and carry reference links. Dr Emanuel's words are in bold italic type, and are answered paragraph by paragraph. If you want to write articles on any of the issues like UHI, and thereby help build up Neutralpedia - great! This is a small wiki that seeks to build up a neutralizing counterbalance to WP. Just sign in, I'll send you my little "welcome" piece.

A few essential points are undisputed among climate scientists. First, the surface temperature of the Earth is roughly 60 F higher than it would otherwise be thanks to a few greenhouse gasses that collectively make up only about 3 percent of the mass of our atmosphere.

The basic GHG effect of CO2. 60ºF (33ºC) is the greenhouse gas effect of CO2 at its present quantity over zero quantity of CO2 in the air. No good skeptic disputes this. However, what is under dispute is the GHG effect of raising CO2 levels, since the temperature increase follows a logarithmic curve and the GHG effect appears to be already at near-saturation level. Think of the thin layer of silver on the back of a mirror. No amount of extra silver can increase the mirror's reflectivity, once the surface is covered.

Second, the concentrations of the two most important long-lived greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide and methane, have been increasing since the dawn of the industrial era; carbon dioxide alone has increased by about 40 percent. These increases have been brought about by fossil fuel combustion and changes in land use.

Four crucial issues: (a) the recent increase in CO2 levels; (b) the greenhouse gas effects of water vapour; and (c) fossil fuel combustion and (d) land use changes, that are by implication the sole or main causes of the CO2 increase.

Land use changes and UHI. I don't know enough to say anything wrt cultivation changes. But the Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect is far more real than global surface temperature records (GISS, NOAA, and CRU) have properly allowed for. UHI influences many station records; but it is a local effect from many causes eg tarmac, concrete, shelter, local heat sources; CO2 is not one. Historically, UHI has distorted overall temperature measurements more and more, producing spurious warming records that seriously exceed actual global warming.

Third, in the absence of any feedbacks except for temperature itself, doubling carbon dioxide would increase the global average surface temperature by about 1.8 F. And fourth, global temperatures have been rising for roughly the past century and have so far increased by about 1.4 F. The rate of rise of surface temperature is consistent with predictions of human-caused global warming that date back to the 19th century and is larger than any natural change we have been able to discern for at least the past 1,000 years.

In the light of the above statements, there is no actual evidence of the assertion that temperature will increase 1.8ºF (1ºC) due to doubling the CO2 level. There is only the assertion of global climate models, all of which are faultily programmed for reasons given above, and because solar input to GCM's is questionable.

Total Solar Irradiance. The only solar component GCM's use is "Total Solar Irradiance" (TSI) whose output, in watts per sq metre, has not varied enough to account for global temperature changes. But astrophysics has moved on beyond the IPCC, and there is now increasing evidence that there are other cosmic and solar factors that could be at work to cause global climate changes. Even if the mechanisms are uncertain, a clear correlation has already been shown between sunspots and global temperatures, a correlation which is far better than the correlation between CO2 and global temperatures. There are, moreover, growing indications of clear and cyclic correlations between sunspots, solar cycles, and the movements of the heavy outer planets.

Actual temperature rise over the past century. The more common figure is 1ºF (0.7ºC) AFAIK. Of this, there is strong evidence that UHI have over-measured it considerably, say 0.5ºF. To say this is "consistent with predictions" is pretty meaningless. Predictions are for the future, not the past; anyone can tweak models to make their math patterns fit the known results; so far, all real IPCC predictions, when compared with later measurements, have been shown to be excessive.

"Larger than any natural change" in the past millennium. This assertion fails on three major counts (a) the longest thermometer records (b) the Medieval Warm Period was warmer (c) earlier historical times when the climate was even warmer than the MWP.

Disputes within climate science concern the nature and magnitude of feedback processes involving clouds and water vapor, uncertainties about the rate at which the oceans take up heat and carbon dioxide, the effects of air pollution, and the nature and importance of climate change effects such as rising sea level, increasing acidity of the ocean, and the incidence of weather hazards such as floods, droughts, storms, and heat waves. These uncertainties are reflected in divergent predictions of climate change made by computer models. For example, current models predict that a doubling of carbon dioxide should result in global mean temperature increases of anywhere from 2.5 to 7.5 F.

False assumptions about effects of climate change: (a) (faster) rising sea level; (b) ocean acidification; (c) "extreme weather" hazards. False predictions of computer models, based on false and inadequate parameters, has already been dealt with.

The uncertainties in the models, theory, and observations of climate change and associated risks and the sheer complexity of the problem provide many rounds of ammunition for the agenda-driven, be they apocalyptic or denialist. For the lawyerly, with the ability and will to cherry-pick the evidence, there is much ripe fruit to hurl in the increasingly heated climate wars of our generation.

This whole piece is an attempt to bring out the best of the science that I believe has gone missing, to forestall accusations of cherry-picking, and to avoid models altogether, and theories as far as possible. This search for evidence bypasses the issues of name-calling and allegations of fraud, as far as is humanly possible. It is done in the belief that the "wars" have come about precisely because of the claims by the dominant scientific paradigm that "the debate is over" and "we must act now to save the planet", whereas many with no personal motivation other than concern for integrity have perceived

But when the dust settles, what we are left with is the evidence. And, in spite of all its complexity and uncertainties, we should not lose track of the simple fact that theory, actual observations of the planet, and complex models – however imperfect each is in isolation – all point to ongoing, potentially dangerous human alteration of climate.

See everything above. The evidence points elsewhere. There are huge manmade problems, but CO2 is not one of them.

It is easy to be critical of the models that are used to make such predictions – and we are – but they represent our best efforts to objectively predict climate; everything else is mere opinion and speculation. That they are uncertain cuts both ways; things might not turn out as badly as the models now suggest, but with equal probability, they could turn out worse. Science cannot now and probably never will be able to do better than to assign probabilities to various outcomes of the uncontrolled experiment we are now performing, and the time lag between emissions and the response of the climate to increasing greenhouse gas concentrations forces us to make decisions sooner than we would like. We do not have the luxury of waiting for scientific certainty, which will never come, nor does it do anyone any good to assassinate science, the messenger.

This is an oblique reference to the Precautionary Principle which states that if an action or policy has suspected risk of causing harm to the public or to the environment, in the absence of a scientific consensus that harm would not ensue, the burden of proof falls on those who would advocate taking the action. The principle implies that there is a responsibility to intervene and protect the public from exposure to harm where scientific investigation discovers a plausible risk even in the absence of complete scientific proof.

The Precautionary Principle has been crucially mis-applied to the current situation. It applies correctly to the proper use of vaccines, or the need for car insurance. But for Climate Science, the true PP is to access, grasp, and share the true science which undermines the AGW thesis not just once but innumerable times, when one starts to look with an open mind. For the "prevention" recommended is not only useless but also cripplingly expensive. The real danger to which the PP should apply is any corruption of the proper scientific process before people realize and lose trust, and any official stifling of the independent checking, auditing, and citizens' peer-to-peer reviewing that can spot the mistakes in good time.

We have never before dealt with a problem that threatens not us, but our distant descendants. The philosophical, scientific, and political issues are unquestionably tough. We might begin by mustering the courage to confront the problem of climate change in an honest and open way.

Agreed. However, the problem is not the CO2 but the unseen, unforeseen, innocently-developing corruption of Science itself, much as the Sorcerer's Apprentice tried to take a shortcut with his master's spell before he had learned how to neutralize that spell.