Climate Change - How Will We Know?

As people have pointed out in this environmental chat newsgroup, any scientific theory that's worth anything has to be 'falsifiable' (or provable) through the gathering of data and empirical observations.

The theory of global climate change being driven (in part) by the accumulation of 'greenhouse' warming gases in the atmosphere - carbon dioxide, methane, water vapor, nitrous oxide, CFCs and the like - should be no different.

It makes sense for the scientific community as well as the public to check the predictions of this theory against the available data.

This being said, though, are there sources of data on the weather, or more broadly on the climate, that both the global warming theorists and the global warming skeptics can agree to rely on?

I haven't followed the latest papers being published in Nature, The Scientific American and other scientific journals, and I doubt if many other Americans, Europeans or other people around the world have followed all the latest findings either. Still, I wonder if there isn't some readily available source of climate and weather data that everybody, on both sides of the debate, can turn to in order to see whether the latest temperature trends 'seem' to be confirming or disproving the greenhouse theory.

There are at least two sources of climate data that seem fairly accessible over the Internet: (A) the U.S. government's National Climactic Data Center (NCDC), maintained within NOAA in the U.S. Department of Commerce; and ( the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) in Geneva, which is associated with the United Nations.

In response to reports that the NCDC has recently reported March 2003 to be the fifth warmest March on record, however, at least one greenhouse skeptic has said in these newsgroups that the NCDC is only publishing 'voodoo' statistics.

Is this what other people believe, too? And if so, are there any other sources of weather data that the person in the middle of the debate can turn to for a reality check on what the partisans are

Current monthly global temperatures are from the NCDC are available here:
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/data/update/gistemp/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt http://www.giss.nasa.gov/data/update/gistemp/

The trend is obvious to see. This table reports differences from a 1951 to 1980 baseline from 1880 to present. Look for the '-' signs.

Roger - Thanks. I'll see if I can get a URL for the World Meteorological Organization and include it in another post. I don't think they do monthly climate updates, though.

I was taught a long time ago in college that global warming caused by the 'greenhouse effect' and mostly driven added CO2 emissions was almost certainly happening, and that it could have fairly disruptive effects. So because of biases I probably picked up 30 years ago, I'm inclined to agree with you when you talk about greenhouse 'denialists.'

However, I wonder if you're being a little unfair to some of them, because I don't think they're all just ostriches with their heads in the sand. And I don't think they're ALL oil company PR flacks who are just trying to put a reverse spin on the facts, although some seem to be.

I heard Richard Lindzen of MIT speak once about the chance of cloud cover working to negate the expected effects of global warming, or at least some of the effects of global warming, according to his view of the atmosphere. And my sense from reading the mainstream press is that Lindzen is considered an honest and a serious scientist, even among people who think he's wrong about how supposedly insignificant future temperature change will be.

I'm not a scientist myself, but from the scientific reports on global climate that I've picked up from time to time, I also get the impression that the big computer simulation models of global climate patterns are still much cruder than the meteorologists would like - that global weather patterns just turn out to be a fiendishly complicated thing to model, and that for this reason, there's still a lot about global climate that we don't know, because the models aren't yet detailed enough to show them.

So I do think some greenhouse warming skeptics - not the 'denialists,' maybe, but some of the skeptics - do have honest reasons for questioning AGW theories that I personally believe in. In any case, I do think it's important that we have a way to check the theories using independent data, honestly arrived at.

Do you agree, disagree? Partly agree and partly disagree? -JA ******************************************************* *****

Many of those who aren't oil company PR flacks are 'useful idiots' for the fossil fuel lobby.

Lindzen's chair at MIT is funded by an auto industry trust. He has testified before congress that 'CO2 can't be harmful, we exhale it,' which is fossil fool myth #1. The cloud cover negative feedback for global warming is called the 'Infra Red Iris.' Dr. Lindzen published a rather confusing paper about it in March of 2001. The IR Iris theory was quickly shot down by papers from the rest of the scientific community. For the full low down on Lindzen, and his connections, read 'The Heat is On' by Ross Gelbspan, http://www.heatisonline.org/main.cfm

I am a retired scientist, computer scientist, with a background in computer modeling. I have never modeled the atmosphere, but I have done many other models. I have studied the code for several climate models, those that are on the net. IMHO, the models that exist today are much more than sophisticated enough to warn humanity about the dangers of increasing greenhouse gas emissions. If anything, they dwell on insignificant detail, factors that are two decimal orders of magnitude below the important stuff.

ALL PEER REVIEWED PUBLISHED ATMOSPHERIC MODELS SHOW INCREASING GLOBAL MEAN TEMPERATURES IN RESPONSE TO INCREASING CONCENTRATIONS OF GREENHOUSE GASSES.

I HAVE YET TO MEET AN HONEST GREENHOUSE WARMING SKEPTIC ON THIS FORUM. FEW OF OF THE DENIALISTS HERE EVEN USE THEIR OWN NAMES. I wouldn't be very surprised if some of our local skeptics were paid.

Isn't NCDC global mean temperature data 'honestly arrived at?'

Welcome to the newsgroup. It is pleasant to find someone with an open mind posting here.

When you were taught that Washington was the capital of the USA was that a bias you picked up. When you were taught Ohm's Law was that just another bias. Perhaps you regarded the Theory of Evolution as just another bias ot your teachers. The theory of greenhouse warming was established in the nineteenth century, and is just as valid of each the above. The idea that burning fossil fuels creates CO2 was prved even earlier. There is no doubt that the world is warming because of the increase in CO2. The only question is 'By how much will it rise in the future?'

But there is another aspect to this debate. That is some people find it very hard to believe that our increasing prosperity can be a bad thing. I get the impression that if your politics are right wing, ie you vote Republican, then you don't believe AGW is a problem. However if you are left wing, vote Democrat, then you do believe that AGW is happening. If you are extreme left wing, vote Green, you believe that there is a danger from AGW. But politics is no way to settle a scientific argument. If the world has a problem, and only the Greens can see the danger, then we are heading for disaster.

Well, as I explained, they do have their heads buried in the sand, but they are not all oil company hacks, just Republican voters!

Richard Lindzen is just one of hundreds of scientists who contributed to the IPCC report. He is famous because he is practically the only one who says there is no danger. There are plenty of others such as Hansen, Broecker, Pierrehumbert, and Alley who do not get the same publicity but do fear the danger. There is uncertainty in the models but they are just as likely to be under estimating the problem, rather than over estimating it as Lindzen thinks. If he is right then the Earth can not get much hotter. But we know it has in the past, in the Medieval Warm Period if Soon is to be believed, and during the last interglacial when there were hippopotomusses swimming in the River Thames as it flowed through London!

One problem with the models is that they do predict regional change consistently. So it is difficult to tell farmers in the mid-west of the USA whether they will suffer droughts or flooding. Probably, they will probably get both! But that should not be used as an excuse for not taking preventitive measures.

The independent data is available, but the greenhouse skeptics ignore it because it does not suit their political opinions, which are honestly held. What is dishonest is to allow these opinions to colour one's view of the science and dangers of global warming.

The latter, I think.

HTH,

Cheers, Alastair.

Roger - Thanks again for the feedback.

You write, 'Isn't the NCDC data credible?' Or words to that effect. And my impression is yes, it probably is. However, I did see a post by James, one of your greenhouse 'denialist,' in another string saying that the National Clmactic Data Center was peddling 'voodoo statistics.' This seems implausible to me, but I thought it was worth checking with other people to be sure.

I hadn't realized that Richard Lindzen had any auto industry connections. Even though I disagree with where I think he's going, and even though he seems to be in a decided minority among meteorologists, I thought he was one of just a handful of global warming skeptics who had a relatively good reputation scientifically.

I do agree with you that there seems to be a huge amount of psychological denial going on within the fossil fuel and automobile industries regarding the evidence for global climate change, and I do think some of the people who are trying to minimize or muddle the evidence for GW are probably lying for money.

Others, I suspect, are more tragic figures

All,

To start with, as I suppose that none of you know who I am: I have no shares in any company, drive one of the smallest - and least guzzling - cars on the European market, and will stop a carrier as process automation engineer in a chemical plant next year. While I was a member of the first political party (which did break up recently) which did put the environment on its agenda (1968!) and long years member of an organic growers association, I worked for a better environment myself in the factory I worked then, in my own community and my country. The latter mainly on urbanization planning (or the lack thereof), which caused and causes a lot of other environment related problems in Belgium.

That being said, in the past ten years, I had hot discussions about a lot of environmental items, like chlorine issues with Greenpeace and others, where to my knowledge, they cheated people with exaggerations, problematic assumptions and false accusations. That made me highly skeptic against them for any claim they make for any item… And rather skeptic about 'the sky is falling' scenario's from anybody, even reputed scientists.

I am old enough to remember the 'Little Ice Age is coming' scares of the sixties-seventies, after a few cold winters. And I had read a lot about the sun's influence on earth's climate, long before the 'human induced global warming' scare of today...

John,

[I was taught a long time ago in college that global warming caused by the 'greenhouse effect' and mostly driven added CO2 emissions was almost certainly happening, and that it could have fairly disruptive effects. So because of biases I probably picked up 30 years ago, I'm inclined to agree with you when you talk about greenhouse 'denialists.']

The direct influence of a doubling of CO2 is some 0.4 degr.C, without any form of feedback. Most computer models are based on an increase of 2.0 degr.C for a CO2 doubling. That is an estimate (not based an any measurement), based on the fact that an initial increase in temperature by CO2 will evaporate more water, the most important greenhouse gas. While this may be true, the increase also can form more clouds, leading to lower temperatures...

[There are at least two sources of climate data that seem fairly accessible over the Internet: (A) the U.S. government's National Climactic Data Center (NCDC), maintained within NOAA in the U.S. Department of Commerce; and (B) the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) in Geneva, which is associated with the United Nations.]

While it is way too far to say that NCDC data are voodoo statistics, there are a lot of problems with the data sources. Not only the number of stations varied largely over the decennia, the geographical area covered by them changed too, some countries have a very poor record for maintenance and a lot of them are situated in towns, hot spots which need to be corrected for the 'heat island effect'. Thus what the NCDC publishes are 'corrected' data, based on statistics. But you can find the uncorrected data at: http://www.giss.nasa.gov/data/update/gistemp/ station_data/

Just look around for data from rural stations over the longest time span, including 1930-1940, the warmest period in the past century for many stations around the globe. I tried to find something reliable in the tropic region. If someone else finds such a station, I am very interested. I looked at circumpolar stations. 2 out of 3 have their peak around 1940, a cooling trend until 1975 and a warming trend thereafter, not reaching the 1940 temperatures. North European and USA data in general have the same peak around 1930-1940, not in 1990-2003. For the average USA data see the main page of Daly: http://www.vision.net.au/~daly/ For a critical view on the reliability of surface temperature data, see the papers by V. Hoyt at: http://users.erols.com/dhoyt1/

In contrast, satellite and balloon data show very little warming, and the trend over the last decades is mainly caused by two El Niño episodes, of which the 1998 one caused the largest upswing and the current one increases the average somewhat more. For satellites the global trend per decade was +0.074°C, Northern Hemisphere = +0.141°C, Southern Hemisphere = +0.007°C. See the same main page of Daly.

Roger,

While Lindzen's 'Adaptive Iris' theory is not confirmed by cloud cover measurements, there are problems with the measurements themselves, as most apparatus doesn't measure sub-visible cirrus clouds, which have a huge influence on reflected heat back to earth. But what is proven nowadays is that an increase in tropic ocean surface temperature (0.2 degr.C) increases the tropical circulation (the Hadley and Walker cells), which result in local increase in cloudiness and rain, but an overall decrease in cloud cover, especially in the subtropics, with an overall net loss of heat of some -2 W/m2 over the entire tropics (20N to 20S in the article, even more over 30N-30S). That is already halve (negative) of what is estimated (positive) from a doubling of CO2 levels… See: http://www.atmos.ucla.edu/csrl/publications/ pub_exchange/Wielicki_et_... All current climate models failed to predict these changes, while this is the area (50% of the earth's surface) which receives most of the sun's radiation.

That a change in cirrus cloud cover has an enormous influence on radiation budget and consequently surface temperature can be read at: http://lidar.ssec.wisc.edu/papers/ww_thes/node10.htm : 'An estimate of the change in solar flux at the surface of the earth for Madison, Wisconsin at 13:00 GMT on December 1, 1989 was calculated using Equation 18. For this time period, a 45.3% difference in cirrus cloud cover resulted in a change of 58.18 W/m2 seen at the surface of the Earth. The magnitude of this error was approximately 14 times greater than the effects due to the doubling of CO2, 4 W/m2.'

[ALL PEER REVIEWED PUBLISHED ATMOSPHERIC MODELS SHOW INCREASING GLOBAL MEAN TEMPERATURES IN RESPONSE TO INCREASING CONCENTRATIONS OF GREENHOUSE GASSES.]

I have some knowledge of computer modeling too, be it for chemical processes, not for climate. But my experience is that, if you don't know the input influences and the positive and negative feedbacks within a realistic degree of certainty, then forget it... That is the main problem with all current models.

All models start with the assumption that the initial warming by CO2 is enhanced by water vapor. All models assume a solar 'constant', and the real variation (+- 0.1% in solar influx within a sun cycle, far more over centuries), including 'enhanced' effects, is ignored. All models don't include cloud cover as input, only as output (and even then far from reality), but there is a direct correlation between the solar cycle and cloud cover, +- 2% within a cycle, which has more effect than a doubling of CO2. Models don't reflect the 1940-1975 cooling period with increasing CO2 levels. This is compensated with the cooling effect of human induced aerosols. But these are completely overblown, as the amounts are in the same order to the troposphere per year, as what the Pinatubo eruption spewed at once into the stratosphere. The Pinatubo caused a global cooling of app. 0.6 degr.C over a 2 year period. The effect of human made aerosols is confined to downwind of industrial areas and lasts for not more than average 4 days. Surprisingly, that are the areas which show the largest warming, while the SH, with no aerosol increase, is near not warming at all... Models don't reflect, neither predict to any accuracy natural variability and responses like the ENSO, the NOA, tropical cloud cover,...

The only proof for the reliability of any model is the final test: the verification with a new set of data. Which they all failed until now. See the 'scorecard' of the models at: http://users.erols.com/dhoyt1/annex2.htm

David,

You did put the right question: [Not quite, Alistair. There are many questions to answer, the one you pose merely being one. A very important one is, 'How much of the current warming is due to increases in CO2?'. CO2 increase is but one of many factors that can affect temperatures on the large-scale and the mechanics of cause and effect is not well understood.]

Even if the mechanisms are not fully understood, one can see what the past changes in temperature and CO2 levels have done to each other. This can give a clue what the influence of CO2 on temperature is and/or the opposite. The Vostok ice core from Antarctica covers a time span of 420,000 years for both CO2 and temperature data. The correlation between both is remarkable linear with an increase/decrease of 1 degr.C equal to app. 8 ppmv of CO2. The main question is of course which causes what. That was resolved by high resolution data from the same ice core, which can be found at: http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/vostokco2.html

They have a very interesting abstract: 'Air trapped in bubbles in polar ice cores constitutes an archive for the reconstruction of the global carbon cycle and the relation between greenhouse gases and climate in the past. High-resolution records from Antarctic ice cores show that carbon dioxide concentrations increased by 80 to 100 parts per million by volume 600 +/- 400 years after the warming of the last three deglaciations. Despite strongly decreasing temperatures, high carbon dioxide concentrations can be sustained for thousands of years during glaciations; the size of this phase lag is probably connected to the duration of the preceding warm period, which controls the change in land ice coverage and the buildup of the terrestrial biosphere.'

Thus it is clear that temperature causes increases and decreases in CO2 levels, with some time lag for the large changes, and CO2 levels have near no influence on temperature... Is suppose that the models need some rework... Until then, 'the heat is off'...

Sincerely,

Ferdinand Engelbeen (my real name!)

Have you actually read any code for the current models? Have you run any?

Just plain wrong. Look at the source codes for the models on line. Try a model published within the last 5 years or so.

Wrong, just plain wrong. The 11-year solar cycle has an amplitude of ~1.4 W/M^2 forcing. ftp://ftp.pmodwrc.ch/pub/data/irradiance/composite/ comp_d19_vg.gif

Currently, anthropogenic greenhouse gases have added ~2.8 W/M^2 forcing. Please see: http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/pns/current_ghg.html

CO2 doubling will add 5.35*ln((2*280)/280)=3.7 W/M^2 forcing. Other anthropogenic greenhouse gases will bring the total up to about 6 W/M^2, 4 times the solar cycle amplitude.

CAN YOU CITE THE SOURCE OF YOUR ALLEGED FACTS? YOU ARE LIVING ABOUT 5 YEARS IN THE PAST.

AGAIN, THIS IS BASED ON INFORMATION THAT IS ABOUT 5 YEARS OLD.

Again, a misstatement of the facts. It looks like your information is about 5-years old. The only current information you have is about the IR Iris, and that is incomplete.

That 'URL is Copyright - 1997,' it contains information that is 6 years old, before the third assessment. You have got to do some reading, Rip Van Winkle.

It is good to have someone post under his or her real name. It shows a belief in their own convictions. Maybe, that courage will lead you to read some current information.

Which also means that there are time delays between forcing and response. If there is anything I have learned about the global climate system recently it is that there are time delays on the order of a human lifespan, maybe longer.

No, no, and NO! The past history of a system, linear or non-linear, is prelude to its future. This mathematical art is called 'system

Roger - I hope you'll forgive me for interrupting your dialog with Alastair.

But somewhere near the end of this string, you'd asked about the URL of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and their web site on the latest climate data. I think some of that information is included in a WMO statement on 'future climate' from this March 23, 2003, that I've copied below. - JohnAndrew (AJFeeney)

*****************************************************

World Meteorological Day 23 March 2003 “Our Future Climate”

WMO calls for timely global action on climate

******************************************************* ************ Geneva, 23 March 2003 - We are all stakeholders in our future climate. It is to the benefit of all nations to work together to better understand our climate in order to adapt to it, and to prevent and mitigate any adverse impact. Recent occurrences of floods, tropical cyclones, droughts and other extreme weather- and climate-related events could well be glimpses of what a change in climate could bring upon us. The future cost of inaction to protect climate is expected to exceed by far the cost of timely action. This is stressed in the message of the Secretary-General of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), Professor Godwin O.P. Obasi, to the international community on the occasion of the World Meteorological Day (23 March 2003).

“The measures contemplated in mitigating climate change so far are inadequate to protect our future climate”, according to Prof Obasi. “The international community should commence action now through the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and its Kyoto Protocol to adequately curtail the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, and other measures to reduce uncertainties in climate projections. For these purposes, WMO and the National Meteorological and Hydrological Services will continue to take a lead role in addressing key scientific and technical issues.”

WMO continues to strengthen its programmes in the pursuit of three major goals. A first objective is to improve systematic weather and climate observations and to reconstruct past climate periods. Prof Obasi states that, while advances have been made in observations from meteorological and environment satellites, essential in situ observational networks in many developing countries have deteriorated due to a lack of resources. In addition, more data are needed also from polar and oceanic areas, for better quantitative assessments of climate extremes.

A second major objective is to refine climate modeling in order to reduce the uncertainties inherent in long-term climate prediction. Climate models must be further developed to better simulate regional impacts of climate change as well as changes in the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events. Prof Obasi adds that such progress will be relevant also to the work undertaken by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) for its Fourth Assessment Report. The Report, scheduled for 2007, will place emphasis on regional impacts of climate change and appropriate mitigation and adaptation strategies. The third objective is to ensure that advances in climate science benefit all people and contribute to sustainable development. WMO therefore assists countries in the application of climate data and seasonal forecasts for water management, agriculture and disaster mitigation.

“The international framework for the coordination of national and international efforts to address climate change should be strengthened,” Prof. Obasi stresses, “so that research results, observational data and information and other resources may be used to the greatest overall advantage”. He calls, in particular, for the necessary support to be given to the activities of National Meteorological and Hydrological Services.

The changes in climate observed over the last decades will continue, presenting urgent and growing challenges to many aspects of our lives, including health. Addressing those challenges in his message, Prof Obasi warns that “The most immediate threats to humankind relate to increased variability in the intensity and frequency of storms and other extreme weather- and climate-related events such as floods and droughts, heat waves in major urban areas and the impact of sea-level rise on low-lying coastal regions”.

Already, over the last ten years, the number of disasters of hydrometeorological origin has increased significantly. Worldwide, recurrent drought and desertification seriously threaten the livelihood of over 1.7 billion people who depend on the land for most of their needs. The 1997/1998 El Niño event, the strongest of the last century, is estimated to have affected 110 million people and cost the global economy nearly US$ 100 billion. Statistics compiled from insurance companies for the period 1950-1999 show that the major natural catastrophes which are mainly weather-, water and climate-related caused estimated economic losses of nearly US$ one trillion. A leading reinsurance company estimates global warming impacts could cost US$ 300 billion annually by 2050.

Current projections show little change or a slight increase in the amplitudes of El Niño events over the next 100 years. But with higher temperatures, the extremes of floods and drought generally associated with El Niño events could be more severe.

****************

Every year, World Meteorological Day (WMD) is celebrated to commemorate the entry-into-force, on 23 March 1950, of the Convention of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). The theme of this year is “Our future climate”.

A WMD 2003 ceremony will take place at WMO Headquarters in Geneva on Monday, 24 March, at 2.30 p.m. After a welcoming address by Prof. G.O.P. Obasi, Secretary-General of WMO, a statement will be made by the Guest of Honour, Ms Joke Waller-Hunter, Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Journalists are cordially invited to attend the ceremony.

For the Message of the Secretary-General of WMO, and a booklet (36 pages) about “Our future climate”, please check the website at www.wmo.ch. A video (10’6’’) can be obtained for media purposes from the WMO Information and Public Affairs Office.

For more information please contact: Ms Carine Richard-Van Maele Chief, Information and Public Affairs World Meteorological Organization 7 bis, avenue de la Paix CH-1211 Genève 2 Switzerland Tel: (41 22) 730 83 14/5 Fax: (41 22) 730 80 27

Internet website: http://www.wmo.ch

Please post this statement from the WMO to the a.g-w, s.e, and t.e. Everyone should see it.