Global Warming Put To The Test This Decade
74Everybody has heard the claim that increasing CO2 in the atmosphere is resulting in steadily increasing global temperatures. You can hardly pick up a newspaper these days or listen to the news on radio or TV without hearing about the impending planet wide doom that will result from catastrophic global warming. Life on this planet is about to be forever altered by mankind's reliance on fossil fuels. But guess what, there actually are competing theories put forward by credentialed individuals from respected institutions that say: not so fast.
The essence of any science is its ability to explain current conditions and predict future behaviour based on the science's understanding of the underlying principles. Thus, a scientific theory must make predictions and these predictions must be testable - either in a laboratory, or in the case of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW), by actual measurements of atmospheric temperatures. If the theory's predictions fail to occur, the theory itself is deemed to be wrong and a new theory needs to be established. The constant process of testing scientific theories against real world observation, and replacing theories when they fail, is what makes the scientific method such a powerful tool for advancing human knowledge. The right answer is eventually determined through this process of trial and error.
Currently there are three different theories that attempt to explain, and predict, future global temperatures: AGW which states that temperatures will continuously rise; Solar Variability which suggests that global temperatures should fall; and Decadal and Multidecadal Oscillations which suggest that the temperatures will fluxuate a bit but over all remain relatively stable. Since the predictions of the three theories are so different it is a relatively easy thing to test - wait a few years and see which theory better matches the observational data.
There a few people who haven't heard the predictions of the AGW theory. It's "settled" science and widely believed. We won't waste time describing the well known theory here, other than to note that it predicts steadily increasing temperatures unless CO2 emissions are drastically curbed.
Climate Change Due to Solar Variability
Since just about all of the heat that reaches Earth comes from the sun, it is natural to assume that the sun itself can be a major player in Earth's climate. The sun is currently recovering from an unusual period of inactivity and its current active phase appears to be below normal. This in turn may be a driving force for global climate.
Recently, 08/24/2011, scientists at CERN released preliminary findings from their CLOUD project that suggest that the incident radiation from the sun is a major factor in cloud formation in Earth's atmosphere.
"... 63 CERN scientists from 17 European and American institutes have done what global warming doomsayers said could never be done — demonstrate that cosmic rays promote the formation of molecules that in Earth’s atmosphere can grow and seed clouds, the cloudier and thus cooler it will be. Because the sun’s magnetic field controls how many cosmic rays reach Earth’s atmosphere (the stronger the sun’s magnetic field, the more it shields Earth from incoming cosmic rays from space), the sun determines the temperature on Earth."
— Lawrence Solomon
So we know that the sun's activity is currently less than normal and this lower activity is causing a weakening of the sun's magnetic field and a solid indication that this should result in lower temperatures here in Earth. This is a testable prediction and the next few years should tell us one way or the other.
Climate Change Due to Decadal Oscillations
In a peer-reviewed study published last December in the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, Nicola Scafetta, a scientist at Duke University, suggests that climate changes are consistent with cyclical, predictable, and naturally occurring events in Earth’s solar system
As the graph shown above illustrates, this theory proposes a completely different picture than the preceding two. Here we can expect some variations but over all a relatively stable climate with global temperatures neither rising dramatically or falling noticeably. And, best of all, its correctness or falseness can be verified within a few short years.
Putting Global Warming to the Test
So now we are in the best possible position to finally know for sure whether catastrophic global warming is upon us. Whatever happens in the next 4-8 years will give us the answer. If temperatures rise dramatically, the AGW proponents are right and we best do something. If temperatures fall, then the sun is at fault and there isn't a thing we can do about except to cope with the deteriorating climate. If temperatures remain reasonably the same with some variations, then there is nothing to worry about, this is just normal.
Since global temperatures are not following the dire gloom and doom predictions of the IPCC, we have time to wait and see. And soon we will know for certain.
CommentsLoading...
Precisely. A science is only as good as the value of its predictions - that's true for all sciences.
Interesting and compelling; nice to see some dispassionate discussion of this topic. Up, following, sharing.
Your chart is quite right ... as far as it goes. However, in 1980, variation was 0, and in 1920, it was -4 degrees. See http://www2.ucar.edu/climate/faq/how-much-has-glob
During that period, there were times where the variation remained constant at 0, but it has never decreased in a trendy-fashion. As you know, all data has variation, especially temperature data because there are sooo many variables. There a 10-year look, when a 500-year observation has more meaning, just doesn't show a picture one way or the other. Even in your graph, there is quite an upswing happening from just prior to 1996 to 1998, and the variation hasn't been lower since.
What other data clearly show is a direct correlation between increasing CO2 levels and increasing tempurature variations. That, of course, doesn't, in and of itself, proove causality, but other things certainly do.
Having said all of that, you did write a very interesting article, which is how I voted it. I came here, btw, at your suggestion from another comment on a hub.
My Esoteric,
Correlations are easy to find, it's causation, as you admit, that is difficult.
Now don't get me wrong here, I am not trying to say that global temperatures have not risen in the last 50 years - they have. They have been rising form 120-150 years as the "little Ice Age" ended around 1855. There is, however, ample reason to believe that global temperatures have been higher than present more than once in recorded human history - I've Hubbed about that as well. If that is true, it calls into question the the causation aspect of CO2 for today's temperatures.
I find it interesting that there are (1) respected institutions who question it also, and (2) that we can find out in a very short period of time which view is right. I remain unconvinced that carbon dioxide, a weak greenhouse gas, is the driving force behind current global conditions.
(BTW, your link goes nowhere.)
Sorry about that, try "http://www2.ucar.edu/climate/faq/how-much-has-glob
al-temperature-risen-last-100-years."
The URL extends to two lines, so add what is in blue to what is in black to get the whole URL.
I had to go do a little research and found a rather telling chart at http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/temperature/
What it shows is the temperature anamoly in the Northern Hemispere over the last thousand years; there are a ton of other graphs and references as well, you would love it.
Anyway, this chart clearly points to something happening that coincides with the industrial revolution and deforestation programs. From 1000 AD to 1900 AD, there is a clear downward trend in temperature anamoly. Around the trend line, of course, are a multitude of variations, but they all fall within a range. Right after about 1900, the anamolies head up, but don't come back down. The increase busts right through the third standard deviation of around 900 years of data, a rare occurance, and keeps on going ... something changed, that is clear.
The question is, what. This is clearly not a "normal seasonal" variation, as it were, not in the last 16,000 years, it is abnormal, more than three standard deviations is evidence it; wouldn't you agree?
So, if normal variation is not the cause, what is?
My Esoteric,
If you are referring to the chart that was incorporated into the 2001 IPPC report, also known as the Mann Hockey Stick Graph, then perhaps there are some things you should know about it.
1.) Vertical scale in the graph has been exagerated to make the effect look more dramatic than it truly is.
2.) Temperature proxies used to produce the chart for the years prior to AD 1421 are derived from ONE apline pine tree.
3.) There are numerous studies that indicate both a prolonged "little Ice Age" period and a prolonged "Medieval Warm" period that somehow do not appear in the chart. One has to wonder why. The existence of both periods can be confirmed by temperature studies, archaeological studies and interpretation from parish records in Europe. There is ample reasons to believe that both periods existed and lasted for several hundred years each, yet they are utterly absent from the chart. Why?
4.) The chart begins at 1000 AD. Had it gone back to 1 AD another warm period, the "Roman Warm" would have had to be expunged from the data or explained away.
5.) Even the chart itself shows that most of the temperature increase occurs prior to 1950 and the onset of widespread industrialization. How come warming preceded all the deadly CO2 release?
The UCAR link, on the other hand, just confirms what I have been saying all along. Yes the "Little Ice" is over, it ended c. 1855, and the earth is warming up AGAIN.
I went through the Roman and Medieval Warm periods in more detail previously:
Sorry, no, the "stick" chart isn't it, it is a standard horizontal chart. I wouldn't put too much importance on the "Little Ice Age", it dropped maybe .2C in the 420 years it lasted and may have only affected Europe; it occured between 1450AD and 1870AD. We have gained .04C "a year" in the last 20 years.
What I find more interesting is the last great Ice Age was from 140,000 to 16,000 years ago, where temperture dropped from 30C down to 26C; 28C looks to be the 1.3 million year average. Very quickly, 9,000 years, it rose up to 29.2C or .0004C per year increase. Compare that to today's 0.02C/year rate!
Now take what's happened from 7,000 years ago to 1870. World temperature has been on a steady decline of about .00013C/year which the chart I referred to earlier measures the last 1000 years of. Why, in 1870, 120 years after the great industrial revolution began, did the decline reverse itself and begin climbing at an accelerating rate which has now reached an overall rate of .008C/year for the last 130 years and a .04C/year rate in the last 20 years? It is now the hottest it has been in 140,000 years and with 1C more the hottest in 1.5 million years, all in the unheard of space of 130 years or so.
How do lay those rates and rate changes into your theory that it is just a normal temperture variation that we always experience. Even if we hit a local low point in 1870 for normal reasons, the fastest temperature has increased on its own is somewhere around .0004C/year, why is it rising at a rate 100 times that now, if not for external, meaning manmade, factors?
Chart titled "Temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere over the last 1,000 years", which you cited, is the Michael Mann Hockey Stick Graph. Previously stated objections apply.
Now, scroll up a bit on the same site and look at chart titled "Greenland temperatures over the last 18,000 years." You will see - it's difficult due to the scale but noticeable - that the temperatures in Greenland have been higher than present several times in the last 5,000 years, not to mention the entire 18,000 year span of the chart. Why should I get excited about about today's colder clime?
There is archaeological and historical evidence to show that the Little Ice Age extended for much longer that a few decades and was much colder than 0.2 degrees Celsius. Same kind of evidence to support the Medieval Warm extending for centuries and climate being warmer then than it is now. Same story for the Roman Warm. Why am I supposed to get excited about today;s temperatures which are still lower than they have been at their peaks in the last 2,000 years?
AGW says temperatures should be steadily and dramatically increasing every year - they aren't. There is little, if any, warming indicated since around 1998. Looks like the prediction is bad.
Natural cycle folks peg the temperatures better. They have accurately predicted temperatures both backwards and forwards, the AGW theory fails miserably in both directions. Who am I to believe, the failed predictions or the ones that actually work out when compared against accurate data?
I will take your work for the "stick" chart thing, it looks like the kind of chart I have worked with as a Defence analyst for the last 25 years, odd looking scales and all. I don't have the graph in front of me at the moment, but I think it is the horizontal axis that is wierd, divided into four scales to accomodate 1.3 million years of data. The verticle axis looks fine to me, divided in regular intervals between something like +.8C and -.8C. In any case, I took out my truty pencil and business card and created my own scale for the time axis to derive the numbers I presented.
As to the "one pine tree" assertion, I will check it out. However, if you extend that graph backwards beyond when there were pine trees, you will find the line coincides with other estimates from other ways of measuring in terms of what was going on prior to 1000 years, which tends to substantiate the one pine tree. In any case, I don't disagree with you, the earth has been cooling off for the last 7000 years at an extremely slow rate, which is in line with the previous cooling period beging 140,000 years ago.
I still ask my question, why, starting 100 years after the beginning of the industrial revolution has in been climbing at .008C/year, a rate 20 times faster than the previous increase, from 16,000 to 7,000 years ago, of .0004C/year??
BTW,
1.I don't consider 42 decades a "few" decades,
2.Yes, it was much colder in Europe than the -.2C fall would indicate. But the .2C was referring to European temperatures, rather it was referring to world-wide temperatures.
3. I really have to disagree with you that there "should be steadily and dramatically increasing every year"; it doesn't work that way as you well know. Some years are up, some years are down, a few years are sideways, like the stock market during a strong bull market. The point of the matter is that there has been .008C/year increase in Northern Hemisphere temperature over the last 130 years and .04C degree increase over the last 20; that is Huge in my book.
4. I also disagree that today's temperatures are inline with others, they aren't; they are the Third highest in 1.3 million years, soon to be second. The last time it was this hot, overall, was 140,000 years ago.
MY Esoteric,
1.) You're right, I misread what you stated about the Little Ice Age. My excuse: I was on my way to the golf course and in a hurry. I love la Nina winters.
2.) I know that the AGW crowd wants to limit both the Little Ice and and the Medieval Warm to Europe only, but, here in Minnesota, because of the silly Kensington Runestone, we teach grade schoolers about Viking settlements in Greenland. 1,000 years ago, Vikings raised cattle, grew crops and dug six foot deep graves on Greenland shores. To the best of my knowledge that cannot be done today. Vikings lived successfully there for a couple hundred years. What possible explanation is there for this historical fact, other than it was warmer then? Note also, Greenland is not in Europe.
Secondly, records coming from the Yangtzee valley in China regarding population and harvests show similar up and down trends as they do in Europe for similar time periods (the dates are not in synch as to start and stop dates normally associated with the European phenomina, but they match within a generation or so.) It appears that warming and cooling was also experienced at about the same time half a world away.
3.) You really don't know whether this warming is slower than normal, normal, a little bit faster than normal, or Boy Howdy is this warming occurring at crisis speed. We only have accurate daily/weekly/monthly/annual temperature readings for about 120 years. Prior to that, temperature records get fuzzy. They get fuzzier and fuzzier the further back you go.
There are arguments in the paleo-climatology field about the accuracy of ancient measurements. Even assuming they are accurate, you really have only one measurement for an entire year - if you're lucky to get that. So then what you have is a single reading of questionable accuracy on which you are basing an entire year's worth of temperature ups and downs.
As a former Defense Analyst you should know that when you take the average of already averaged data you introduce error into the result. But this is exactly what is being done by the AGW crowd, not only with older temperature records but they also do it with the modern and more accurate data. This approach to statistics is mathematically questionable.
4.) Then, of course, there is the difference between ground observations and satellite observations. They tell two different stories and this needs to be reconciled. One or the other of them is wrong. I personally prefer the one that relies least on human intervention - satellite measurements - but your mileage may vary.
Finally, the value of a science is its ability to make predictions, that's what it's all about. Not even Hank Aaron, Babe Ruth or Joey Mauer would remain in the starting lineup if their batting averages dipped as low as AGW's successful prediction rate - even American League pitchers bat better than .000.
AGW says that with increasing CO2 in the atmosphere temperature should continue to rise. Temperatures did NOT rise in the 1970s. Temperatures stopped rising in the middle 1990s and have actually cooled some since then. Neither observed fact fits the AGW catastrophe model. Meanwhile, alternative explanations provide a better fit to observed temperature records. So, unless and until AGW predictions bear fruit, I remain a skeptic.
Larry Fields Level 6 Commenter 3 months ago
Davesworld, great hub. Voted up and interesting. I especially liked your emphasis on the role prediction in the sciences. I'm reminded of a quote from Yogi Berra:
"It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future."