Visitor Essay by Kip Hansen — 12 February 2023
NOTE: I wrote the unique two-part sequence practically 5 years in the past now. This reprise has been prompted by a dialog with a colleague who’s solely understanding of Local weather Change or International Warming has been gleaned from NPR/CNN/PBS and Foremost Stream Media. I assumed to replace this essay to see if I might have the identical opinions at the moment as I did 5 years in the past. Up to date textual content can be on this lighter blue shade. Modified or added pictures can be clearly labelled.
Word: Please learn Half 1 earlier than studying this — this can be a continuation of that essay (a somewhat lengthy continuation….the reprise model is lengthy too, 4000 phrases however has a number of graphs)
The final level I made in Half 1 of this essay was this:
The IPCC of their synthesis report for coverage makers says that human emissions of greenhouse gases [“atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide”] and “different anthropogenic drivers,” are “extraordinarily more likely to have been the dominant reason behind the noticed warming for the reason that mid-Twentieth century.”
The IPCC AR6 Abstract for Coverage Makers makes use of this wording:
“It is extremely probably that well-mixed GHGs have been the primary driver of tropospheric warming since 1979…” AR6 SPM A.1.3
It’s notable that they not say “dominant reason behind the noticed warming for the reason that mid-Twentieth century” however somewhat, as I acknowledged many instances in feedback to the Reprise of Half 1, Twentieth century warming doesn’t actually get going till 1978/79 or so – not 1950 as many nonetheless declare.
Up to now, I agree with all of the information [the facts being basically: Global Warming is happening and Human activity causes [some of] it.] however don’t agree with the assertion that CO2 and different anthropogenic emissions are “the dominant reason behind the noticed warming for the reason that mid-Twentieth century.” — I agree neither with the attribution or the impact dimension.
Nor do I agree that “It is extremely probably that well-mixed GHGs have been the primary driver of tropospheric warming since 1979…” AR6 SPM A.1.3
Why? For the easy motive that actual scientific proof for this view may be very weak. The IPCC in AR5 SPM gives solely this:
“The ambiance and ocean have warmed, the quantities of snow and ice have diminished, and sea degree has risen.” — AR5 SPM 1.1
The new IPCC AR6 now states as an alternative: “It’s unequivocal that human affect has warmed the ambiance, ocean and land. Widespread and speedy modifications within the ambiance, ocean, cryosphere and biosphere have occurred.” And GHG emission are not singled out – however somewhat decreased to a declare of: ”human affect”. Human affect contains land makes use of modifications corresponding to agriculture, street development, and deforestation, City Warmth Island, all anthropogenic emissions and pollution and varied anthropogenic Particulate Matter.
That’s the sum complete of the proof, although the IPCC AR5 is a whole lot of pages in 4 booklets, they’re simply extra verbiage on these fundamental factors.
Readers could have heard the road “a number of traces of proof” connected to the attribution of anthropogenic causes. Nonetheless, that phrase is used solely as soon as in AR5 SPM as “A number of traces of proof point out a powerful, constant, nearly linear relationship between cumulative CO2 emissions and projected world temperature change to the 12 months 2100….” I’m certain I don’t must level out that there’s by no means ever proof concerning the future…..They don’t declare within the Abstract for Coverage Makers that there are a number of traces of proof for the attribution assertion that apply to the past-to-present.
AR6 SPM, nonetheless, makes use of the phrase 9 instances, corresponding to “Bodily local weather info at world, regional and native scales is developed from a number of traces of proof, together with observational merchandise, local weather mannequin outputs and tailor-made diagnostics.”
That it has warmed shouldn’t be in query, we coated this in Half 1. As for sea degree, not but touched on, we are going to look first at typical visuals supplied, one from the IPCC AR5 SPM after which flip to the well-accepted Grinstead et al. 2009 paper: “Reconstructing sea degree from paleo and projected temperatures 200 to 2100AD” which serves up the visible depiction on the left, IPCC on the proper:
On the left is from Grinstead 2009 beginning in 1850, and on the left, from the IPCC’s AR5, incongruously beginning abruptly in 1900 (I’ve not modified that picture — that’s how it’s printed).
Nonetheless, sea degree does not start is inexorable rise 1850-1900, the start of the Fashionable Industrial Period as depicted in so lots of the sea degree graphs like these supplied above. To see this we have to take a better, deeper have a look at the info obtainable within the literature:
Ignoring the projections of future sea degree rise, let’s simply look to see when sea ranges began rising in these two “Modelled previous sea degree” reconstructions. The “Thick black line: reconstructed GSL [Global Sea Level] (Jevrejeva et al., 2006) prolonged to 1700 utilizing Amsterdam sea degree (van Veen, 1945).” All three knowledge units agree: Jones and Mann (2004), Moberg et al. (2005) and Jevrejeva et al. 2006. Sea degree bottoms out on the depth of the Little Ice Age round 1650-1700 and begins an increase that continues to the current. PSMSL Reconsructions web page has loads of knowledge sources.
That sea degree has risen shouldn’t be in query. The first issue of each Temperature and Sea Stage is that they’ve each been rising for much longer than the IPCC’s posited trigger — rising greenhouse gases — has existed. Let me put each temperature and sea degree side-by-side:
Loehle’s temperature reconstruction on the left, a phase from Moberg’s 2005 sea degree reconstruction from Grinstead 2009, and from the IPCC’s AR5, Chapter 13 on the proper. Sea degree bottoms out at a millennial low round 1650-1800. That’s 200-300 years of temperature and sea degree rise — neither begins in 1850, 1880, 1890, or 1900.
Up to now, I’ve freely agreed that the Earth’s local weather has warmed, that atmospheric concentrations of CO2 have risen, and that sea degree has risen. I’ll even let the Consensus have “the oceans have warmed” — though I’ve excessive doubts that we’ve any actual thought of the previous temperatures of “the oceans”.
[ We have some clue about the skin temperature of the seas [more correctly: sea surface skin temperature (SSTskin)] from satellite tv for pc knowledge and a tiny bit of information about the remaining from free floating ARGO buoys — however nothing wherever close to sufficient to estimate the typical temperature of the oceans or any modifications to that common — for my part, that declare shouldn’t be scientifically supportable presently.]
5 years afterward, the fleet of ARGO buoys has elevated and accumulate extra knowledge concerning the current. There was no enchancment in knowledge units about previous ocean temperatures — at any depth or on the floor — graphs and estimates claiming to indicate century lengthy data are worse than mere guesses. Right here’s an instance claiming to have knowledge on ocean temperatures again to 1880:
These two graphs are new to this essay. Word that the form of the “ocean temperature” graph seems to be suspiciously near the GISTEMP graph for 2015, particularly earlier than about 1930-40 or so.
I don’t have any experience on snow cowl ranges, glaciers, Arctic or Antarctic ice. However here’s what Rutger’s Snow Lab has to say about Northern Hemisphere snow cowl since 1967 (satellite tv for pc period):
Surprisingly, Northern Hemisphere snow cowl is growing within the Fall and Winter seasons and lowering solely within the Spring, with the final couple of Springs being about regular. There appears to be extra variation within the Fall and Spring seasons, with Winters being much less variable.
Up to date Rutgers Snow Lab graphs present that issues haven’t modified a lot. The structure is completely different than above, studying left to proper – fall, winter, spring. Fall snow extent is UP, Winter snow extent is UP, Spring snow extent is DOWN.
This picture is new.
Why Northern Hemisphere snow cowl? A lot of the planet’s snow is within the Northern Hemisphere with nearly all of the remaining being in Antarctica: [Arctic ice cap not represented.]
Glaciers, extent and development/shrinkage of, is much more controversial than the remainder of local weather change — and I’m completely satisfied to depart that others. Glacier development shouldn’t be primarily pushed by temperature, however somewhat by precipitation on the excessive finish of a glacier: “A glacier is a persistent physique of dense ice that’s continuously shifting beneath its personal weight; it kinds the place the buildup of snow exceeds its ablation (melting and sublimation) over a few years, usually centuries.” So, even when glaciers are usually shrinking (some are shrinking and a few are rising), it has no specific bearing on warming. Regionally, modifications in glacier dimension and motion may be thought-about attributable to modifications in regional local weather, modifications in precipitation being the primary issue.
As for Antarctica? Once more, an excessive amount of controversy to say. On 10 July 2017, a NASA examine executed in 2015 by Jay Zwally was revealed on-line within the Journal of Glaciology and was highlighted on this press launch: “NASA Examine: Mass Beneficial properties of Antarctic Ice Sheet Higher than Losses”, It says “A new NASA examine says that a rise in Antarctic snow accumulation that started 10,000 years in the past is at present including sufficient ice to the continent to outweigh the elevated losses from its thinning glaciers.” Scientific American beat the unique examine to press by 4 days, working a rebuttal on 6 July 2017, written by Shannon Corridor, a information report, not a scientific examine. Simply in case anybody would possibly misconstrue the aim of the article, they subtly titled it “What to Imagine in Antarctica’s Nice Ice Debate”. 4 days earlier than the unique examine is revealed — now that’s what I name Speedy Response!
The controversy about Antarctic Ice Mass has not subsided. Zwally et al. re-did their examine in 2021 and located that Antarctic Ice Mass had stopped rising however had settled in to a cyclic small gain-and-loss sample. Beneath, with a brand new graph on this essay, you’ll be able to evaluate the NASA consensus view (left) , with the NASA Zwally et al. view (proper):
You will need to perceive that Antarctica is known encompass 24,380,000 gigatonnes — one gigaton is equal to one billion metric tons — the “large” ice loss within the left-hand NASA graph is 0.00062% or six ten-thousandths of a p.c of the whole. Zwally discover a loss pattern of 12 Gt per 12 months, or 0.000049% greater than an order of magnitude much less, which may rightly be learn as “nearly nothing”.
There isn’t a doubt about Artic sea ice extent — it has been declining:
The left graph reveals the final eight years in opposition to 1979-2017 imply — the proper graph reveals those self same eight years (plus 2018) as every day values. The purple hint with + marks is 2018 via July.
The Nationwide Snow and Ice Information Heart gives this:
So, it’s apparent (from satellite tv for pc knowledge) that Winter NH Sea Ice Extent is down about ½ million miles2 (roughly one million km2) and Summer time Extent is down, on common, about one million mi2. Modifications in Arctic sea ice circumstances can have an effect on climate and local weather elsewhere. These graphs begin in 1976 or so as a result of that’s the begin of the satellite tv for pc period.
Once more, as with nearly all local weather points, there’s a controversy. Arctic Sea Ice has been declining — sorry for the dearth of originality right here — 300 years. Many historic data present that there was an identical decline within the Nineteen Thirties.
Polyak et al., 2010 reveals this controversy in motion:
Within the Nordic Seas we see within the black packing containers low sea ice extents which final simply two or three years within the mid-1600s and mid-1700s, and, as anticipated, within the very heat 1920-1940 interval, as per Macias-Fauria et al., 2009 (black hint). The purple hint is Arctic max sea ice per Kinnard et al., 2008 which reveals the impact of Nordic ice on total Arctic ice with a dip in the identical 1920-1940 interval.
Polyakov et al. “The discrepancy between the 2 data within the early 20th century corresponds to a rise within the Atlantic influx to the Nordic Seas,” which I might translate as “Nordic sea ice was low throughout the 1920-1940 interval attributable to a change in Atlantic circulation.” Earlier historic low extents within the 1600s and 1700s will not be related to recognized heat intervals. Utilizing Nordic Sea Ice as a proxy (the Danes have stored excellent data, being chargeable for Iceland and Greenland and factors north), we see that Arctic Sea Ice decline can moderately be stated to begin within the early 1700s or the late-1700s — positively not the late 1800s — not 1850-1880-1890 — not the start of the Industrial Period.
Arctic Sea Ice has solely been tracked with any scientific accuracy for the reason that starting of the satellite tv for pc period, like many different world metrics.
However, nonetheless, no denial right here, Artic Sea Ice is at historic lows, having reached a excessive level on the depth of the Little Ice Age and falling since then coincident with subsequent warming.
The state of affairs with Sea Ice worldwide additionally has not modified a lot. The newest long-term graphs from NSIDC knowledge: (new graph)
Word that the dimensions on the higher pair of graphs is completely different than the decrease (Antarctic sea ice) graph. The one factor that’s NEW on this knowledge is that with just a few extra years added on (updated – 2023) there’s a shift in 2016 which is seen on the mixed graphs (to the proper of the added brown vertical line).
Or from NANSEN only for the Arctic:
In Half 1 and the above, I’ve agreed with all of the posited bodily information and the proof introduced by the IPCC for its world warming/local weather change place.
There stays one concern that has but to be addressed, as we are able to’t assess the IPCC’s place with out it.
Is CO2a greenhouse gasoline? Can, and does, growing atmospheric concentrations of CO2 and different anthropogenic greenhouse gases trigger warming?
In fact it’s and naturally it might probably and naturally it might have.
Some readers will discover this admission offensive, however once more there isn’t any motive to disclaim the bodily information — the Australians clarify it like this:
“Greenhouse impact
The greenhouse impact is a pure course of that warms the Earth’s floor. When the Solar’s vitality reaches the Earth’s ambiance, a few of it’s mirrored again to area and the remaining is absorbed and re-radiated by greenhouse gases.
Greenhouse gases embrace water vapour, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone and a few synthetic chemical compounds corresponding to chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs).
The absorbed vitality warms the ambiance and the floor of the Earth. This course of maintains the Earth’s temperature at round 33 levels Celsius hotter than it might in any other case be, permitting life on Earth to exist.”
Why would anybody deny that? It’s merely a reality of chemical and vitality physics.
I acknowledge that the title “Greenhouse Impact” is a misnomer — Alistair B. Fraser, Emeritus Professor of Meteorology, Pennsylvania State College offers an intensive rationalization as to why and the way it’s a misnomer on his Unhealthy Greehouse web page and has a really fascinating dialogue at Unhealthy Greenhouse FAQ.
The mis-naming of the impact doesn’t change its actuality and doesn’t change the absorption of outgoing vitality by water vapor, CO2 and the opposite greenhouse gases. As a result of vitality is absorbed by these gases, the atmospheric temperature is raised. The ambiance radiates vitality, like all bodily materials, based mostly on its temperature. A few of that radiated vitality is absorbed by the Earth itself, the oceans, the crops, the animals — properly, every little thing that it touches. That’s how the system works. It isn’t appropriate to say that every little thing that absorbs this radiation of vitality from the ambiance “heats up”. It’s appropriate to say that it has absorbed vitality.
However many insist that we’re speaking about warmth — that isn’t bodily appropriate — we’re actually talking concerning the conservation of vitality. Vitality take in[ed] by the Earth as a “system” takes many kinds. Vegetation take in vitality from the Solar and thorough chemical processing retailer it as chemical vitality in sugars and as chemical vitality saved within the tissues of the plant itself. Water molecules take in vitality from the solar and ambiance and retailer it as kinetic and potential vitality within the water vapor moved greater into the ambiance which we expertise because the vitality of water excessive within the ambiance falling to Earth: hydroelectric energy is derived from that saved vitality, flash floods and mudslides are attributable to the discharge of this potential vitality. By life processes, vitality is each saved and utilized by all animals (and people) to maintain their our bodies heat and carry out work (each inner and exterior). And, as we’re all conscious, fossil fuels are fuels as a result of they’re that vitality saved over geological time spans.
There are latest research that put up that not all ”fossil” fuels have been created by stay kinds (crops and so forth).
My level in all of the above is that not all vitality retained within the Earth system is retain as warmth measurable by thermometers. The overall consensus view sweeps all this vitality storing into the assertion “the lacking warmth goes into the oceans”. The vitality shouldn’t be lacking, it’s being saved in myriad methods. How a lot vitality saved in what kinds? We do not know actually. We did not too long ago discover out that photosynthesis has elevated by >30% attributable to atmospheric CO2 enhancement — which suggests >30% extra vitality being transformed by crops
There can be wailing and gnashing of tooth about this, I’m certain. Some will level to the experiments that “show” that the ambiance is radiating extra vitality again to Earth than a while earlier — this isn’t in query. Sure, in fact they do. That’s the bodily science of so-called “greenhouse gases” and this phenomena is chargeable for the Earth being a livable planet.
So what’s left?
Now, I’ve accepted the 2 fundamental premises of the International Warming motion — the 2 factors on which the so-called “97% agree” (so depend me amongst them). I’ve accepted the traces of proof that the IPCC gives in help of their speculation: “The ambiance and ocean have warmed, the quantities of snow and ice have diminished, and sea degree has risen.” I’ve even agreed that CO2 is a greenhouse gasoline and that it’s at an historic excessive.
Why am I nonetheless a skeptic?
I’m nonetheless a skeptic as a result of all of these issues, freely accepted more-or-less as claimed, don’t add as much as something even close to a “proof” of the IPCC speculation:
CO2 and different anthropogenic emissions are “the dominant reason behind the noticed warming for the reason that mid-Twentieth century.”
Word: The IPCC not makes that declare in that approach. IPCC AR6 now makes use of: “It’s unequivocal that human affect has warmed the ambiance, ocean and land. Widespread and speedy modifications within the ambiance, ocean, cryosphere and biosphere have occurred” and “It is extremely probably that well-mixed GHGs have been the primary driver of tropospheric warming since 1979…”
I might even go so far as to say that the proof supplied up by the IPCC, of their a whole lot of pages of painstakingly reviewed and re-reviewed experiences does nothing greater than current a case for the risk that the speculation could possibly be true.
The IPCC and the Local weather Science neighborhood have, to date, did not rule out the CO2 pushed world warming speculation — nothing extra. They’ve, nonetheless, proven of their historic reconstructions that the primary our bodies of proof their speculation depends on — floor air temperature, sea degree rise, snow and ice cowl — all began altering lengthy earlier than CO2 concentrations may probably had any considerable impact.
It’s an accepted tenet of contemporary science that an Impact can’t precede its Trigger. So right here I discover myself accepting the key supplied knowledge as more-or-less legitimate (shut sufficient for my functions) and the evidences supplied as more-or-less true, but I discover that proposed CO2-driven International Warming Speculation, with a view to be true, would require retrocausality, or, in different phrases, that the Results have preceded the Trigger.
I’m a agency proponent of the concept that time flows in a single path solely and that the arrow of trigger all the time factors ahead (past-to-present, present-to-future). That leaves me pressured to reject the CO2-driven International Warming Speculation as usually introduced.
I’m not the primary to note this, in fact. The IPCC has thus been pressured to change its authentic speculation and modify it to learn that CO2 and different anthropogenic emissions are “the dominant reason behind the noticed warming for the reason that mid-Twentieth century.”
And now, once more in AR6, they’ve been pressured to change it to learn: “It is extremely probably that well-mixed GHGs have been the primary driver of tropospheric warming since 1979…”.
That signifies that CO2 as a driver of local weather solely turned dominate over Issue X since 1950.
Extra accurately now, well-mixed GHGs turned the primary driver of tropospheric warming since 1979, dominate over the unknown Issue X that drove the various ups and downs since 1880.
“Issue X?” it’s possible you’ll ask. Sure, Issue X is only a place-marker for no matter was inflicting International Temperature to rise for the reason that mid-1600s, International Sea Stage to rise since 1650-1700, Arctic Sea Ice to begin declining in both the early 1700s, or in 1800 (your selection, both could possibly be supported by the info).
If this sounds fanciful to you, then your essential pondering expertise are working correctly. There may be merely no proof no matter that the unknown Issue X was chargeable for 250 years of rising temperature, rising seas, and declining Arctic ice — solely to be outdated by CO2-driven International Warming in 1950. [now, 1979]
The IPCC Consensus view is that Issue X is “pure variability” — which may be translated into “issues that change the local weather that we don’t acknowledge as causative and/or don’t perceive”. The IPCC modified CO2-driven International Warming Speculation thus depends upon unknown/not-understood local weather forcings (lumped right into a basket referred to as “pure variability”) that are then overshadowed by CO2 induced warming (the impact dimension of which continues to be unknown and controversial).
As for me and mine, we are going to wait within the bleachers for proof to be produced that helps corresponding to speculation — one thing stronger than that supplied by so many CAGW apologists within the type “properly, what else may or not it’s?”
and extra not too long ago “as a result of…”
# # # # #
ODDLY ENOUGH: Ollilia (2018) “Difficult the scientific foundation of the Paris local weather settlement” [ .pdf here ] additionally makes use of a Issue X as “The variable labeled “Issue X” can be depicted in Determine 7; it’s the distinction between the measured 11 years common temperature and the warming results of CO2, water and ENSO occasions. Issue X is required to elucidate the noticed warming. It’s a mixture of pure forces just like the exercise modifications of the solar.” Not the identical as my use above, however amusing. Fig 7 is:
# # # # #
Creator’s Remark:
Please, attempt to keep on matter and talk about this essay — it’s definitely broad sufficient to fulfill most readers. Oh, and please, fairly please, Don’t Feed The Trolls — like feral cats, feeding simply encourages them to breed there beneath the bridge and turn out to be actual pests.
I hope that I’ve not trounced your favourite speaking factors — bear in mind, that is simply my view of a really advanced, very younger and immature science subject. I’m patiently ready for it to develop up.
And I’m nonetheless ready….studying the feedback to the Reprise of Half 1 will present simply how unmoving the consensus may be – it has not not grown up in any respect.
Whereas I’m completely keen to elucidate my viewpoint — I don’t argue with others.
If talking to me, please start you remark with “Kip…” and I’ll you’ll want to see it. I do learn each single remark that seem beneath all the essays I write, however within the wild west world of weblog remark threads, it’s usually tough to determine who’s talking to who about precisely what. Main your feedback with the title of the particular person you’re talking to makes this simpler for all.
Preserve the dialog collegial and attempt to perceive the opposite particular person’s level earlier than replying.
Thanks for contributing.
And, thanks for studying.
# # # # #
