Facts, Myths, and Givens in Anthropogenic Climate Change (ACC) 36

[zdas04]

I have been repeatedly accused of refusing to accept the basic "facts" of Anthropogenic Cimate Change (ACC nee AGW, nee Global Warming, nee Global cooling). I think we really need to define terms.

In the following I'm going to rely heavily on The Shattered Greenhouse: How Simple Physics Demolishes the "Greenhouse Effect". I've linked the article in for anyone who wants to check my interpretation of the story. It has an extensive bibliography at the end for further reading.

Greenhouse Effect
The basic idea of a greenhouse gas comes from Arrhenius' in 1896 representing (some say misrepresenting) the work of Fourier from 1827

"Fourier maintained that the atmosphere acts like the glass of a hothouse, because it lets through the light rays of the sun but retains the dark rays from the ground."

In other words, visible light can traverse the atmosphere more easily than infrared can traverse the atmosphere back into space. Fourier actually said nothing of the kind, but it has entered our collective culture that he did.

This idea ignores the fact that in greenhouses, the glass acts to prevent the heated air from mixing with the ambient air outside the box (i.e., prevents mass transfer) and has nothing to do with different wave lengths of light. The ACC concept says that the heating is due to energy absorption and disregards the fact that hot gases rise and there is no physical barrier to how far they can rise.

The linked article ends with:

In the real physics of thermodynamics, the measurable thermodynamic properties of common atmospheric gases predict little if any influence on temperature by carbon dioxide concentration and this prediction is confirmed by the inconsistency of temperature and carbon dioxide concentrations in the geological record. Moreover, when the backradiation "Greenhouse Effect" hypothesis of Arrhenius is put to a real, physical, material test, such as the Wood Experiment, there is no sign of it because the "Greenhouse Effect" simply does not exist. This is why the "Greenhouse Effect" is excluded from modern physics textbooks and why Arrhenius' theory of ice ages was so politely forgotten. It is exclusively the "Greenhouse Effect" due to carbon dioxide produced by industry that is used to underpin the claim that humans are changing the climate and causing global warming. However, without the "Greenhouse Effect", how can anyone honestly describe global warming as "anthropogenic"?

If the thermodynamic underpinning of the "Greenhouse Effect" is absolutely missing, ACC does not have a leg to stand on.

Carbon Dating
Much has been made about the "fact" that atmospheric CO[sub]2[/sub] must have come from geologically old sources because of the lack of Carbon-14 in the atmospheric CO[sub]2[/sub]. The idea of carbon dating is the result of very creative work in 1946 by Willard Libby at the University of Chicago. His concept is that Nitrogen-14 in the atmosphere is bombarded by solar radiation and that some proportion of the impacts will cause the stable nitrogen to lose a neutron and become radioactive Carbon-14 (radiocarbon). He further postulated that the number of collisions is relatively constant and that as animals breathed the C14 a portion of it would be absorbed into their systems and decay to Carbon 12 over time. This means that as long as the animal is breathing they will be ingesting C14. When the animal stops breathing they will stop ingesting C14 and the inventory of radiocarbon in their bodies will decay with a half life of 5730 years. So if you find a sample with 1/4 as much C14 as you expect then it is something like 11,460 years old. There are a large number of assumptions that go into this calculation, and many of them are invalid for any given biological sample, and the uncertainty in dating cam be millennia.

The big question is what sources of fuel have zero C14? Of course hydrocarbons that haven't been alive for 300 million years likely have zero C14. Same with CO[sub]2[/sub] from volcanoes. What about biological material that has been frozen under the permafrost since the last ice age (2.58 to 0.012 million years ago)? That stuff has been through a lot of half lives of C14. So if the climate is warming, and if the permafrost is retreating, then biological action on the newly thawed material would have zero C14. This means that C14-free CO[sub]2[/sub] in the atmosphere does not necessarily have to come from industrial activity.

Temperature Record
The temperature record is not just one thing.
[ul]
[li]Data from 2005 might be from digital instruments that self-report or from satellite surrogates.[/li]
[li]Data from 1970 likely comes from analog instruments manually recorded[/li]
[li]Data from 1900 likely comes from spotty coverage at universities and on ships.[/li]
[li]Data from 1800 comes from ice cores, sea floor samples, and tree ring analysis[/li]
[li]Data from thousands of years ago to about 1.5 million years ago come from ice cores[/li]
[li]Data older than that comes from analysis of the fossil record (i.e., what kind of plants were growing? how big were they?)[/li]
[/ul]

We have no way to directly measure temperature. We can't do it today. We couldn't do it 100,000 million years ago. We can measure the impact of a given temperature on a material with very good accuracy and repeatability and very low uncertainty. That mercury thermometer that your mum stuck up your bum didn't measure your temperature, it measured the thermal expansion of the mercury in a constrained channel. All temperature data is the result of an evaluation of the impact on something physical to a temperature change. To turn ice core data into temperatures the scientist melts the ice then boils the water in a tightly controlled space and evaluates the gasses that come out of the sample. A computer model is used to convert the mix of gases into a temperature. These models are very clever and quite involved. If you assume that CO[sub]2[/sub] forces temperature change, you get one set of temperature numbers. If you assume that changes in CO[sub]2[/sub] are a result of temperature change you get a very different set of temperature numbers. When people plot CO[sub]2[/sub] concentration on the same graph as "temperature" data they are being purposely misleading since everyone with the ability to run this calculation knows that they have selected "cause" or "effect" before they generated the temperature numbers and in spite of having different scales they are actually the same number.

The oldest data has a temporal uncertainty of no less than ±10,000 years. The Ice core data is probably ±200 years. Data from the 1800's is certainly ±1-2 years. Data from the early 1900's is around ±6 months. More contemporary data has a better temporal uncertainty.

Contemporary data is collected from thousands of weather stations and stored in a database. The database (actually there are several, each its own format) contains one record per station per time period. No indication that the data is anything but true and accurate like scientific data is supposed to be. It is anything but that. "Everyone" understands that temperature on a blacktop surface is higher than temperature on a grassy field. As urban populations have expanded to formerly rural spaces, many weather stations have shifted from rural to urban. If you look at the data for the station, there is a step change in the output. To be able to compare a station that is currently urban to data from when it was rural, requires some "adjustments". These adjustments are done destructively without even a flag in the database. Also many of the stations have been broken for months or years and just receive "estimates", without any explicit definition of the estimating technique.

Finally, the historical record can be modified. Luckily several "outsiders" made copies of the databases at various times. Comparing those copies to the "official" records indicates some distinct trends. Several warm periods from the past are no longer included in the historical record. Data from 2000, show the 1930's to have been as much as 5°F warmer than the current string of "warmest on record years". Many of those record-breaking years were warmer by less than 0.05°F when the contemporary records have an uncertainty of ±0.1°F, but "Warmest Year on Record" gets headlines.

Impact of Climate Change
The list of things that ACC is going to cause has been widely published. It includes wildfires, more hurricanes, more tornadoes, floods, droughts, more deserts, reduced biodiversity, rising sea level, etc. This list was generated by a group of grad students sitting around a table throwing out ideas. Things like "when it is hotter it feels like the desert, I bet deserts will grow". In fact the geological record shows that in general during a warm epoch there is additional moisture in the atmosphere and deserts shrink--this is happening today all over the world. The list of consequences is not part of the "science" of ACC, but the scientists involved have rarely spoken out against the list. The scientific theories of ACC talk about physical reactions, but they can't even predict clouds or rotating systems let alone wildfires.

Consensus
Before you say you "believe" in ACC remember:

Belief is the acceptance of a theory in the absence of data

For every Michael Mann there is a Judith Curry. For every Al Gore there is a Jim Imhoff (U.S. Senator from Oklahoma). For every David Suzuki there is a Lord Monkton. For every Bill Nye there is a Jack-in-the-Box Clown. For every IPCC report there are contributors who claim their statements were misrepresented. The 97% consensus was made up from whole cloth. Before this subject got so political and began having so much money thrown at it, there were frank and honest discussions among the scientific community and people of varying views could get published or get on the podium at conferences. Not today. There are a large number of scientists who have actually lost tenure for holding opinions that the ACC story does not hold up to scrutiny, and getting published with papers outside the mainstream is nearly impossible. Not the "science" of my youth.

[bold]David Simpson, PE[/bold]
MuleShoe Engineering

In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual. Galileo Galilei, Italian Physicist

 

[bimr]

It is unfortunate that you had to go a long way to Australia to find a BS geologist that shares your opinions. The course of study for geologists generally consists of:

Geology is the study of the solid earth. It focuses on the structural and chemical properties of the rocks in the Crust, Lithosphere, Mantle and the Earth’s surface and how they change through the laws of Thermodynamics and Physics. Here is a list of the major fields of study that fall under the field of “Geology”

-Mineralogy The study of the chemical and physical properties of raw minerals and their origins

-Petrology The study of rocks and the chemical/physical conditions that lead to the variety of rocks in the Earth, and their origin

-Volcanology The study of Volcanoes

-Seismology The study of Earthquakes and the waves they produce

-Geophysics The study of the earth using magnetism, gravity and seismic waves

-Structural Geology The 3-D geometric study of rock structures, used to understand the deformation/tectonic changes of a region

-Sedimentation The study of sediment origin, transport, and deposition. It also encompasses Sedimentary Petrology which studies the chemical/physical processes involved in transforming sediments into sedimentary rocks

-Paleontology The study of ancient life through fossils in rock layers

-Stratigraphy The study of rock layers, and layering. This with paleontology, sedimentation and structural geology allows us to interpret the environmental and tectonic changes of a region through out time

Hydrogeology Focuses on the study of water beneath the surface of the earth flowing through rock, and the physics that drives it.

Geomorphology I like to think of it as the study of erosion, but it encompasses all physical and chemical change to the Earth’s surface.


Nothing there appears to have anything to do with the study of climate, except maybe volcanology. However, it appears that Mr. Casey failed volcanology.

An example of Timothy Casey's drivel style is shown by his table of emissions per year from various volcanoes. Unfortunately for him, one of his sources (Shinohara, 2008) is available free online. Consulting that work you will find that Shinohara lists total emissions for an eruption event, not emissions per year (see table 3, and the discussion in text). While eruptions typically take less than a year to occur, they do not represent ongoing emissions and presenting them as such distorts his source.

Another misrepresentation among many, is Casey's discussion of C13 where he suggests volcanic CO2 could account for the modern rise in CO2. In fact, volcanic CO2 is C13 depleted relative to the Vienna Pee Dee Belemnite Standard having a d13C of -4 in most cases, but up to -12 at convergent plate boundaries. For comparison, fossil fuels have a d13C of -27, and the atmosphere has a d13C of -8. That is right. The atmosphere is C13 depleted relative to the standard, and the vast majority of volcanoes are not depleted relative to the atmosphere, ie., volcanic eruptions typically enrich the atmosphere with C13. Casey creates the opposite impression by only noting the C13 depletion.

Would you also visit a quack if you were in need of medical attention?

 

[JoshPlumSE]

I'm going to summarize what I've learned from this thread:

1) The greenhouse effect is a bit of a inaccurate term.
2) The real link between atmospheric gasses and global temperatures (note I did not say warming) is related to radiative effects.
3) The warming effect of the earths atmosphere is well established. Just compare temperatures on the earth to those on the moon and to adjacent planets.

I honestly don't think we should be arguing over any of those three bullet points. To me those first three are items we need to agree upon in order to have any discussion on the subject.

Now, the next concepts are open for SOME debate. Though I would argue that they are all accurate statements. But, there are those who would truly disagree.

4) CO2 is one of the atmospheric gasses that leads to this warming effect.
5) Atmospheric CO2 has increased significantly over the last 150 years or so.
6) This increase in CO2 is very likely a man made effect caused by the burning of fossil fuels.

To me the scientific community needs to do a better job breaking down the science behind these three items (especially item #4) to the public at large. Because if you accept items 4 and 5 you accept the concept of "global warming". Then if you accept item #6 then you accept that it's (at least partially) a man made effect.

7) How much of the global warming that has been measured is due to the increase in CO2.
8) What in turn can we expect to happen in the future based on the current levels of C02 and the projected increase in CO2 based on current fuel consumption.
9) What should be done about this?

Now, it's with this last three questions that the debate becomes more politicized and less tied to science. The earth's atmosphere is an incredibly complex multi-variable system that makes it virtually impossible to predict future temperatures with any true accuracy. Now, we can predict general trends. The trends, unfortunately, may not be apparent when you look at a year or two or three. But, when you look at decades compiled together it should be much more apparent.

The problem is that we're at a tough spot right now. We've got one group (the global warming alarmists) claiming that we cannot wait the decades required to convince others that disbelievers that our predictions and trends are accurate. That there will be catastrophic consequences if we don't act now. Note: I say "global warming alarmists" not as a derogatory term but as a descriptive term. They are sounding the alarm claiming that it is required that we act now.

Then we've got a 2nd group which hears the alarmists shouting and says, "What are you talking about? I don't see any problems happening right now. Why should I believe what you're saying? You claim x, y, or z (e.g. that sea levels are rising), but I don't see any evident of that."

I was originally a part of this 2nd group. But, over the last few years have moved over to the first group. It would not have taken so much convincing if the 1st group had changed their strategy. Their strategy seemed to be to point towards everything and say that this was evidence of climate change. A bad hurricane hits, claim that it's because of global warming. A tornado, a snow storm,... all evidence of global warming. These are not convincing arguments.

Instead, I believe we should be focusing on a much simpler argument.

10) I cannot say conclusively what will happen over the next decade or two. However, there is sufficient evidence that I believe we all need to be genuinely concerned.
11) I believe that if we wait a few decades we will be proven correct. But, I'm concerned that if we wait that long, there could be catastrophic consequences.
12) There are very simple incremental steps that we can take today to reduce the likelihood of the catastrophic effects. Can we get some agreement on some simple steps moving forward? We'll start here at home (in our own country) and see what we can do in an incremental and cost effective manner to move in the right direction.

The problem is when you make it into an argument, people get too caught up in winning the argument. They forget what that we're all in this together and that the goal is to work together to find some sort of common ground, whether we agree or not. Whether we win the argument or not.

 

[ornerynorsk]

In my mind, here is the crux of the paradox that will prevent a common sense approach. In order to drive the economy and sustain it, people must be kept in a state of disposable consumerism. Buy and spend rather than conserve and save. However, consumption of all commodities at all levels must be reduced if we want to reduce the production and use of electricity, materials, and transportation, all of which are primarily responsible for human-generated CO2. This will dampen the economy. By how much remains to be seen. It's precisely the same principle as trying to spend oneself out of poverty. There will be pain involved.

It is better to have enough ideas for some of them to be wrong, than to be always right by having no ideas at all.

 

[moltenmetal]

JoshPlum: excellent post. It's key that we separate what we know, through measurements, from what we suspect but cannot accurately quantify.

There is no doubt that a) there's new CO2 in the atmosphere- the rise started in earnest around the year 1700 b) of fossil origin that c) we put there and are continuing to put there from known sources. It is also clear that d) extra CO2 in the atmosphere narrows the radiative wavelength window into outer space. These all need to be taken as fact, because as much as anything can be considered a fact, they are facts, based on credible, reproducible and cross-checked measurements with a sound theoretical underpinning. Subject, as all scientific observations are, to correction through the use of improved methods yielding better data- but the basic facts are quite solid.

Where we can differ, credibly, is in relation to how severe the resulting warming will be, how fast it will occur, and what if anything we can do about it. PLENTY of room for debate and discussion on those topics! Trying to quantify the effect and estimate its rate and severity relies on modelling an extraordinarily complex and poorly parameterized system for which there is no external control possible- no parallel accelerated timescale Earths on which to do controlled experiments. That doesn't negate the efforts that have been made to try to do so, and to substitute internal controls for the impossible external ones.

 

[SnTMan]

RE JoshPlum's point #12: Fact is, many things are being done every day to reduce CO2 emissions and other GHG emissions as well. They are in fact small, incremental measures and go not very far to address what we are told is the scope and timescale of the problem. They in no way satisfy the zealots.

And ornerynorsk the real crux is the developing world. It wants approximately the same standard of living the developed world enjoys and it should have it. Problem is, where is all the non-carbon energy to come from? If the developed world were to cease all GHG emissions immediately such an effort would be overwhelmed by the developing world carrying on as at present.

No good short term answers that I can see.

Regards,

Mike

The problem with sloppy work is that the supply FAR EXCEEDS the demand

 

[hokie66]

SnTMan,
Why do you say that just because the developing world wants the same standard of living as the developed world, they should have it?

 

[SnTMan]

How can it be denied to them? I'm all right Jack.

The problem with sloppy work is that the supply FAR EXCEEDS the demand

 

[moltenmetal]

In fact we in the so-called developed world have had a huge advantage- we got to build our societies guilt free on the incredible energy density of fossils, before we understood this particular downside. As a consequence, we have even more responsibility than the developing world does to go further- to do more to reduce our own GHG contributions.

The developing world have every bit as much right to enjoy the same quality of life that we've enjoyed. But they don't have the luxury of enjoying it at the expense of pretending that the atmosphere is a free and limitless public sewer- nor do we.

So we'll all have to pay our share of the costs of the transition. We'll all have to price fossil CO2 emissions. And anybody not playing the game will need to have their goods and services tariffed or taxed at the border to take away their advantage.

Why aren't we just getting on with it? Because people are reluctant to change. Because some have been actively "preaching the controversy"- not just in relation to the portions of the issue that ARE controversial, but trying to create doubt where there really isn't room for any (the issues I've listed in posts above). And why are they doing that? Money, convenience, and a feeling of entitlement- why should they need to worry about this issue that their parents and grandparents didn't worry about? It's not that bad- yet. We'll be in the ground before it gets too bad. So why worry? Somebody will invent us a way out of it, so we can just keep living the way we're accustomed to but without the worry of accelerating climate change. As they say, denial isn't just a river in Africa- it's a very comfortable place where many people live significant fractions of their lives. Reality does come home to roost eventually though, and we technical people have a responsibility to get people out of their denial, off their duffs, and on to the hard task of making this enormous, monumental change. Ultimately, I'm convinced it will be a change for the better.

 

[SnTMan]

mm, more or less what I was getting at.

The problem with sloppy work is that the supply FAR EXCEEDS the demand

 

[hokie66]

I would think the opposite. The "developing world" had a head start, but has never developed.

 

[SnTMan]

Yeah, I know what you're saying, but we are told China is bringing on a coal plant a week. India not far behind. That's development. In terms of C02 emissions, it hardly matters what the US for example does.


The problem with sloppy work is that the supply FAR EXCEEDS the demand

 

[snarkysparky]

Where is the scientific work highlighting the climate change doubters perspective. Not blogs and such but peer reviewed work. And NO there is not a coordinated conspiracy among climate scientists.

As far as the developing worlds quality of life. There is a difference between having a developed infrastructure with modern capabilities and the need for "entertainment" use of fossil fuels. Much of US consumption is like this.

It never ceases to amaze me what intelligent people can talk themselves into believing when they really really want an untruth to be true.

How can someone with engineering background actually question the greenhouse effect ?
The psychological aspect to this issue is most fascinating.

 

[SnTMan]

In my opinion, it hardly matters by now if ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change) is true or not. The politicians throughout the developed world have decided, or are acting, as if it is, and are driving responses to it. Politics being what it is, only so much can be done at any time. Incremental measures. Good enough? From what we are told, it would not appear so. Much coping strategy and technology will be needed.

The problem with sloppy work is that the supply FAR EXCEEDS the demand

 

[miningman]

At the risk of incurring the wrath of those who have already made up their minds and arent open to opposing facts..... Consider that all known deposits of coal originated in tropical Amazon type geological/climatic conditions. Condider that there are a number of large known coal deposits in the NWT of Canada where permafrost exists today, and probably has been sub zero for thousands of years.

At the least , IMO, this strongly suggests that any global warming associated here is not man made. It might also suggest the futility of trying to prevent / reduce naturally occurring cycles.

 

[jdmunno]

Snarkyspary,

"And NO there is not a coordinated conspiracy among climate scientists."

Will the real slim-doubter, please stand up.

Here is the peer reviewed work:

http://www.petitionproject.org/review_article.php

http://www.petitionproject.org/

 

[ornerynorsk]

Materialistically speaking, nobody has a right to anything unless you can afford to procure it for yourself. What do we tell our kids? You can have it when you can earn it! My opinion, which I'm reasonably sure that many do not share.

It is better to have enough ideas for some of them to be wrong, than to be always right by having no ideas at all.

 

[SnTMan]

ornerynorsk, all I am saying is that nobody really has the right to deny the developing world an improved standard of living based especially on environmental issues. China can certainly afford its' new coal plant a week.

The problem with sloppy work is that the supply FAR EXCEEDS the demand

 

[RVAmeche]

jdmunno,

It is evident that 31,487 Americans with university degrees in science – including 9,029 PhDs, are not "a few."

1) Having a BS degree in science doesn't mean you understand climate. Hell, you barely understand engineering when you graduate with a degree in that field.
2) Same applies to PhD. If you have a PhD in anything other than something climate related, it's an irrelevant point.

The scientific consensus everyone speaks of is the one between the scientists that actually study the climate for a living. Among those scientists, who are best equipped to comment or reach a decision, 97% or whatever agree on the facts. It's science, so of course there are some debates on the minutia.

The fact is, there's very few people on this forum or elsewhere who are educated and informed enough to comment on climate change. That's why, ideally, politicians listen to those scientists who've dedicated their careers to that field.

 

[ornerynorsk]

SnTMan, I think I might be agreeing with you. It's the new-found wealth of the developing world that will sustain the consumer mentality. They can now afford the things they've never had, and it's unlikely that they're going to suddenly get a philosophical conscience concerning all of the nice things that are ripe for the picking.

It is better to have enough ideas for some of them to be wrong, than to be always right by having no ideas at all.

 

[SnTMan]

ornerynorsk, exactly

The problem with sloppy work is that the supply FAR EXCEEDS the demand