Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Enter a term in the search box to find its definition.

Settings

Use the controls in the far right panel to increase or decrease the number of terms automatically displayed (or to completely turn that feature off).

Term Lookup

Settings


All IPCC definitions taken from Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Annex I, Glossary, pp. 941-954. Cambridge University Press.

Home Arguments Software Resources Comments The Consensus Project Translations About Donate

Twitter Facebook YouTube Pinterest

RSS Posts RSS Comments Email Subscribe


Climate's changed before
It's the sun
It's not bad
There is no consensus
It's cooling
Models are unreliable
Temp record is unreliable
Animals and plants can adapt
It hasn't warmed since 1998
Antarctica is gaining ice
View All Arguments...



Username
Password
Keep me logged in
New? Register here
Forgot your password?

Latest Posts

Archives

What does past climate change tell us about global warming?

What the science says...

Select a level... Basic Intermediate

Climate reacts to whatever forces it to change at the time; humans are now the dominant forcing.

Climate Myth...

Climate's changed before
Climate is always changing. We have had ice ages and warmer periods when alligators were found in Spitzbergen. Ice ages have occurred in a hundred thousand year cycle for the last 700 thousand years, and there have been previous periods that appear to have been warmer than the present despite CO2 levels being lower than they are now. More recently, we have had the medieval warm period and the little ice age. (Richard Lindzen)

A common skeptic argument is that climate has changed naturally in the past, long before SUVs and coal-fired power plants, and this somehow tells us that humans can't be the main cause of the current global warming. Peer-reviewed research and simple logic show this is not the case.

It's important to know there are a number of different forces acting on the Earth’s climate. When the sun gets brighter, the planet receives more energy and warms. When volcanoes erupt, they emit particles into the atmosphere which reflect sunlight, and the planet cools. When there are more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the planet warms. It's worth remembering that without some greenhouse gas  the Earth would be a ball of ice.

These forces are called "forcings" because they force changes in the global average temperature.

Looking at the past gives us insight into how our climate responds to such forcings. Using ice cores, for instance, we can work out past temperature changes, the level of solar activity, and the amount of greenhouse gases and volcanic dust in the atmosphere. Looking at many different periods and timescales including many thousands of years ago we've learned that when the Earth gains heat, glaciers and sea ice melt resulting in a positive feedbacks that amplify the warming. There are other positive feedbacks as well and this is why the planet has experienced such dramatic changes in temperature in the past.

In summary the past reveals our climate is sensitive to small changes in heat. 

What does that mean for today? Over the past 150 years greenhouse gas levels have increased 40 percent mainly from burning of fossil fuels. This additional "forcing" is warming the planet more than it has in thousands of years. From Earth's history, we know that positive feedbacks will amplify this additional warming.

The Earth's climate has changed in the past and ice cores and other measures tell us why. Based on this knowledge, and other types of evidence we know the human emissions of greenhouse gases are warming the climate.

The 'climate changed naturally in the past' argument is a logical fallacy known as non sequitur, in which the conclusion doesn't follow from the arguments.  It's equivalent to seeing a dead body with a knife sticking out the back, then arguing the death must be natural because people died naturally in the past.  It fails to even consider the available evidence.

Last updated on 4 February 2014 by dana1981. View Archives

Printable Version  |  Offline PDF Version  |  Link to this page

Related Arguments

Comments

Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next

Comments 201 to 250 out of 309:

  1. What if heat causes CO2, which I gather is an emerging theory?
  2. stickybeak, I think you're probably referring to this, Murry Salby Confused About The Carbon Cycle.

    Not very promising.
  3. #201
    "What if heat causes CO2, which I gather is an emerging theory?"

    No, it's an old falsified claim that pops up every now and then in different guises by some "skeptics". I assume you mean the claim that the rapid rise in CO2 over the last 150 or so years is mostly due to rising temperature. That higher temperature will over a long time result in outgassing of CO2 from the oceans is not controversial and has no bearing on the recent spike.
  4. CBDunkerson and DB

    Thank you for your replies and graphs! Very helpful indeed!

    The "How reliable are CO2 measurements?" article was also interesting, I particularly like the animation at the bottom of the page! :-)
    Response:

    [DB] If you liked that video then you should love this one, from SkS author Robert Way:

  5. I was wondering what is the consequence of what and if their is a proof for that...

    I'm not expert and it looks like a big assumption of all(or most?) sutdies is that the increase of Earth superficial temperatura is a consequence of the increase of CO2.
    I red once that in the past, the CO2 seemed to be a consequence of Earth superficial temperature increase and that CO2 increase generally occurs after temperature increase.

    That would be great also if some selected bibliography could be suggested at the end of article. I'd like too know about a good book about past climate, glaciation and atmospheric composition...

    Even, if I a bit skeptical, the precaution principle makes me still keep on using my bicycle as much as possible to commute...
    Response:

    [DB] If a book is what you ask for a book is what ye will receive:

    Spencer Weart's: The Discovery of Global Warming

    Highly recommended.

  6. " I red once that in the past, the CO2 seemed to be a consequence of Earth superficial temperature increase and that CO2 increase generally occurs after temperature increase."

    Natural CO2 increase occurs that way, which has the effect of amplifying warming. For more detail see CO2 lags temperature
  7. So we accept that global warming has happened before. We accept that it is happening again now - and that man is contributing to it. In the past, global warming may have been the cause (or a major contributing factor to) mass extinction events. If previous global warming events have shown a positive feedback - more water vapour causing more warming - what eventually turned things around?

    Is it already too late to take action? I think the focus on "per capita" CO2 production is counter-productive. It encourages countries like Australia to increase their population in order to reduce their per capita pollution. This actually results in more pollution in total. I believe the focus should be on "per area" pollution. This would encourage reductions in population and a reduction in total CO2 production. Of course it helps if we individually reduce our production of CO2 but the big problem is overpopulation. Our planet does not have enough free oxygen (O2 as opposed to CO2) for its current population.
    Response:

    [DB] "Our planet does not have enough free oxygen (O2 as opposed to CO2) for its current population."

    Umm, nope.  Of all the resources consumed by mankind, O2 is the most ample and in no danger of running out.

    Scarce items:

    • Food
    • Water
    • Housing
    • Open land
    • On-topic comments
  8. And, whatdoctor, whatever the merits or problems with a per capita approach, it cannot encourage population growth. People don't think about having children in that way. I can't provide a citation, but I suspect you can't either, and I've never heard anyone cite lowering a tax as a reason for having children. Now, true, it might encourage some people to have children because they understand mitigation as foundational to a brighter future.
  9. whatdocter @207:

    1) Your claim about oxygen is simply absurd. Humans do not begin to suffer from oxygen deprivation due to altitude until 2000 meters, with most unaffected to 2400 meters. That represents a 22% reduction in available oxygen, or about 4.5% of the total atmosphere. Consequently, for the reduction in oxygen due to combustion to effect human health, CO2 levels would have to increase from their current 0.04% to 4.5% of the atmosphere.

    2) An international agreement based on restricting per capita CO2 production would need to set limits based on a a benchmark year, with national targets based on the population during that benchmark year. Failure to do so would either penalize countries with a low population growth with respect to those with a large population growth, or result in population growth forcing total emissions above the absolute limit required to mitigate climate change. Such a benchmark approach would encourage limiting population growth.
  10. I've been following global warming for quite a while, with growing interest. I have discovered many informative posts on this site and decided to register.

    I can grasp the idea that changes in orbit and solar activity can force climate change, and that greenhouse gases amplify the trend.

    I can also grasp that our massive dump of CO2 into the atmosphere could force a climate change.

    My question is this, can anybody point out a time in the past when CO2 did the forcing, rather than an orbital cycle or solar activity?
  11. The PETM event (Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum).

    Skeptical Science: CO2 Currently Rising Faster Than The PETM Extinction Event
  12. stonefly @210, orbital forcings are only as significant as they have been when the Earth is cool enough to have ice caps. Throughout most of Earth's history CO2 has been the major determiner of the surface temperature (thanks to the remarkable stability of our sun). I suggest you watch Richard Alley's 2009 lecture to the AGU for a brief summary of the details.
  13. Bibliovermis at 09:18 AM

    The reading gets deep. I'm doing a lot of googling for definitions. After I struggle with it for a while, maybe I'll get an understanding.

    One question I have now, though. They talk about carbon 13. I know that carbon 13 makes up only between 1% and 2% of carbon. I don't understand that. Does carbon 13 separate from carbon 12 and form CO2 that is all carbon 13?

    I know I'm going off on a little bit of a tangent. Anything you know about it would help, or if you could steer me in the right direction.

    Thanks.
  14. Tom Curtis at 09:47 AM on 10 September, 2011
    stonefly @210, orbital forcings are only as significant as they have been when the Earth is cool enough to have ice caps. Throughout most of Earth's history CO2 has been the major determiner of the surface temperature (thanks to the remarkable stability of our sun).



    I can tell this is going to take a lot of studying, but I want to understand this. I looked at a chart which showed glaciations approximately every 100,000 years going back to about a half million.

    Are there any glaciation charts that go back further?

    ****

    I suggest you watch Richard Alley's 2009 lecture to the AGU for a brief summary of the details.



    I did watch that lecture. It was interesting and informative. Only I wish I could have seen the laser on the slides.
  15. Bibliovermis at 09:18 AM



    Sorry I missed your link. I went right to google.

    Your link explains the carbon 12 - carbon 13 deal right away.

    I'll read it now.
  16. stonefly @214, below is a proxy of temperature over the last 5 million years. As you can see, significant low temperature episodes (glaciations) only occur the last 3.5 million years, and the large glaciations which we are familiar with from popular culture are a feature only of the last on million years.



    Here is a temperature reconstruction of the last 65 million years to put that into perspective. Note that the oxygen isotope "thermometer" is differently calibrated depending on the level of ice, so the first section is not strictly comparable to the last section of the graph.


    Over the last 600 million years,, every period of glaciation has coincided with CO2 concentrations less than 1000 ppmv. Note that this graph has an effective resolution of 10 million years. The entire period of the recent glaciation (double the length of the first graph) would appear as just one point on that graph.



    Obviously a lot can happen in 10 million years, and more detailed measurements have indeed shown in the episodes of glaciation during high CO2 levels as shown above, the duration of the glacition was short (< 10 million years) and that during the glaciation, CO2 levels where low (< 1,000 ppmv).
  17. Thanks, Tom,

    Very informative.

    It brings up new questions for me, but I'll save 'em while I do more reading.
  18. Mankind's influence aside, should we otherwise be in a cooling phase of a Milankovitch cycle at present, in other words, on a downward slope, chart-wise?
    Response:

    [DB] In the absence of anthropogenic forcings, yes.  Since the Holocene Climatic Optimum some 6,000+ years ago the net forcings (without man) have been negative and the overall temperature trend downward.

    The long, slow slide back to glacial conditions had already begun.  Now evidence shows we have little to worry about (the next cold phase of the ice age cycle).

  19. Thanks.
  20. If we are on a slide back to a glaciation, perhaps similar the the last one, and we left peak temperature 6000 years ago, then we should not be seeing continuing glacial retreat or the continual loss of Arctic ice, should we?

    I know there may be inertia, for lack of a better word, which may carry past the optimum temperature, but 6000 years later, to the extent we are seeing?

    Are there any other likely reasons for the loss of ice we are seeing other than anthropogenic?
    Response:

    [DB] "Are there any other likely reasons for the loss of ice we are seeing other than anthropogenic?"

    Absent near-mythological musings such as massive volcanic eruptions along the Arctic Ocean seafloor (no evidence), increased submarine patrols under the ice causing turbidity which then causes the ice to break up & melt (huh?) or magical as-yet-undetected cycles...none that I'm aware of.  Please let me know if I missed something.

  21. Another question:

    When the Earth is reaching the optimum in a Milankovitch cycle, when Co2 is high, the creation of an ice cap through the warmer and therefore wetter winter is enough to offset the greenhouse effect of high Co2 levels, and in spite of those levels nudge a cooling cycle?
    Response:

    [DB] "when Co2 is high"

    See the label on the graph below:

    CO2

    [Source: http://climate.nasa.gov/images/evidence_CO2.jpg]

    The last time CO2 levels were as high as now (the Pliocene) the world was a dramatically different place, with much higher sea levels:

    Pliocene

    [Archer 2006]

    I am not aware of any plausible mechanism that would allow formation of an Arctic ice cap during a period of high Milankovich orbital forcings and elevated CO2 levels such as at present.

  22. Stonefly - the change in the solar forcing from 6000 years is small especially compared to the anthropogenic forcing. Even without these forcings another iceage would not have happened for around 50,000 years. Berger & Loutre.

    The increase is CO2 that goes with the Millankovich forcing is a slow feedback and at any time is close to equilibrium. Once you are at peak, then as the solar forcing wanes, the feedbacks work in reverse, removing CH4 and CO2 and amplifying the cooling. If you are asking why not working at the moment with solar in decline over last 6000 year, then you need to look at the magnitude of the respective forcings. Milankovitch is very slow - at least 10 times slower than present rate of CO2 forcing - and small by comparison to CO2 from FF burning. Note also that Milankovitch cycles still happened in pre-Quaternary times but only have much affect on climate when CO2 is low enough for NH snow pack to form. When the earth was last at 450ppm, we didnt have the glacial cycle. You might also find the article at Are we heading into an ice age helpful.
  23. "Please let me know if I missed something."

    No, I think I'm beginning to get a better grasp of the climate picture.

    We'd be headed for another glaciation. Instead, I think we're gonna be headed in the other direction.

    I'm a truck driver. I drive an 18 wheeler all over the continental USA. I see rush hour in every major city. For a long time I've thought, "This must be gonna have a big effect...on something...one way or another."
    Response:

    [DB] And this, then, the most telling graphic of all:

    CO2

  24. scaddenp,

    Thanks. I can grasp what you're saying. Also, thanks for the links. I'm gradually getting the picture.
  25. Great site!
    Questions which I swear I have searched for, but this is also a vast site, and I do have a day job:

    1 is there any climate model that can simulate in full using natural forcings alone the generally accepted natural temperature variations of the last 1100 years, up to 1850.? (the variations appear to be +/- 0.5 deg c.)

    2 if not, what is the magnitude of the gap in degrees c?

    3 How much in degrees c is current temperature above the historic mean of the last 2000 years (proxy measurements of course)?

    Thanks for any answers.
  26. 225, lancelot,

    1. Yes. The term you want to search for is "hindcast" (e.g. "hindcast climate model"). But note that your specific parameters (+/- 0.5 deg C) may be too constrained. There are lots of parameters to be accurately modeled beyond global mean temperatures, and lots of ways in which a model may or may not be accurate, but in particular, models handle climate, not weather. It is nearly impossible to predict weather, and no model attempts to do so. In fact, models work using ensembles (multiple runs with the same starting conditions, which are averaged together).

    Also, we do not have accurate, precise measurements for starting conditions a thousand years ago. These must be inferred from proxies or just plain guesstimates. We also do not have accurate values for many inputs (solar irradiance, volcanism, etc.). These can only be guessed at.

    So getting things within any predetermined expectation ("a half a degree in June, 1980") is asking a whole lot, and in the end is not meaningful in evaluating the skill of the model.

    But yes, obviously one important way to evaluate the models is measure their ability "predict" what we already know has happened. Yes, scientists do this, and yes, models hindcast with enough accuracy to validate their ability to forecast as well.

    2. Again, see the answer above. This isn't really a valid criterion. There is a lot more to climate than just temperature, and choosing a point in time is problematic (what if there's a real world ENSO event at that time, but not in the model run?).

    3. I don't know that anyone has answered this question in exactly that way, because it's not really meaningful. Various events do affect climate to some degree (active volcanism, solar variations, etc.). There is no real "normal" temperature. Taking an average of the last 2000 years is of little value. Beyond this, proxies are difficult to calibrate and work with. While scientists have done a wonderful job filling in the blanks and trying to infer past temperatures, we just don't have enough global readings (proxies) with enough accuracy to compute anything like what you are asking.
  27. Sphaerica thanks. I was not expecting to find precise 'hindcasts', just quantification of trends. But I appreciate that setting precise start conditions are vital to run a non-linear model, hence the difficulties.

    My next question would have arisen from the last, but maybe is off topic. How confident are you that all natural forcings have been accurately estimated in the late 20th century? However I see from other parts of this site that this has been addressed. eg Hansen 1988 and subsequent studies seem to give broad agreement that since 1900, natural forcing is estimated as about 0.2 deg c, so the rest 'must be' CO2. I have an innate skeptical difficulty with accepting the simple logic of 'must be CO2', (there can be, and are, other suspects) but I do concede that the greenhouse effect of CO2 is the only mechanism proposed to date which is backed up by both evidence and modelled predictions. So by far the most likely. And the data since 1970 fits very well with the AGW predictions.

    If it is of any interest, I suppose I would be called a skeptic until a few days ago.

    In view of Richard Muller's release of the results of the Berkley Earth (BEST) study on October 22, I have significantly reviewed my attitude to the AGW debate.

    My skepticism of the 'dangerous AGW' theory was based on the following:

    1. Distrust (whether right or wrong) of the quality and integrity of evidence of global temperature (GT) increases as presented by NASA/GISS, Hadley CRU, NOAA.

    2 Belief, as evidenced by proxy records for last 1100 years, that the current GT was probably not much more than 0.5 deg C above the historic average.

    3 Evidence from proxy records that 0.5 deg C was within the range of historic natural variations, and thus plausibly explained as part of natural forcings.

    4 Suspicion that the extent of natural forcing may have been under-estimated, and thus the effect of CO2 forcing over-estimated, due to lack of accuracy or completeness of the models.

    However:

    1 I have no reason to doubt that Richard Muller and his team have done a very thorough job.
    2 The BEST study indicates a rise of 1.25 deg C from what seems to be the historic mean level over the last 1100 years, at around 1900 AD.
    3 1.25 deg C is well above the historic range of proxy natural variation estimates of +/- 0.5 deg C, even at peaks.
    4 The rise post-1970 correlates well with the predictions of the IPCC and of Hansen 1988.
    5 Therefore, in the absence of any evidence for abnormally high solar forcings, galactic cosmic ray activity, or other natural events, it is no longer plausible to suggest that warming to date is wholly or mainly natural.
    6 The greenhouse effect of CO2 is the only mechanism proposed to date which is backed up by evidence and modelled predictions.

    As a result, on the basis of that evidence, I am bound to say I now give much more credence to the IPCC presentations of the effects of CO2 as a significant greenhouse gas, creating warming well in excess of natural warming, and likely to increase with increasing levels of CO2.

    From what you say, my logic may be based on seeing too much 'precision' in the proxy records. But that is what it was based on. If you have any more comments I would of course be very pleased to hear them.

    Thanks for the help in understanding.
  28. lancelot#227: "If it is of any interest, I suppose I would be called a skeptic until a few days ago."

    There's nothing wrong with being a 'true skeptic;' I suspect most of us are. It is those who wear the cloak of skepticism to hide the mantle of denial that are a problem. As we see from the reaction to BEST, some of those folks are capable of holding mutually contradictory positions and refusing to see any problem with that.

    However, it appears you have carefully weighed the evidence and reached a reasonable, science-based solution. That's great news!
  29. 227, lancelot,

    An interesting comment, for sure. I think if I were to pick one aspect out that you should correct, it is this:
    I have an innate skeptical difficulty with accepting the simple logic of 'must be CO2'
    This is a repeated "skeptic" meme that is wholly untrue. Skeptics made it up to belittle the science. I would have the exact same problem if it were remotely true.

    No one ever said (or would have said) "Oh, shoot, all I can think of is CO2, so let's just assume that's the case and stop thinking there."

    You recognize this yourself to some degree when you list the other known potential culprits (solar activity, GCRs, etc.) and recognize that there is no evidence to support them.

    First, to know that there is no supporting evidence, obviously scientists have and continue to investigate them.

    Secondly, the science does recognize contributions to the system by a variety of forcings, both positive and negative. No one ever said that it was all CO2, and any statement along such lines is really completely missing the point. The scientists have constructed an understanding of the climate that recognizes the ongoing influence of a variety of factors, and has established to some degree of certainty the influence of all of those factors. There would really be no way to measure the expected influence of CO2 without doing so. Any implication to the contrary is just absurd.

    No one ever said "CO2 and only CO2" and no one ever would.

    To get to the core of why we do believe that CO2 is a major problem you have to start with the same basic physics from which Tyndal started in 1864, and progress from there.

    I would very, very, very strongly advise reading Spencer Weart's The Discovery of Global Warming.

    It is exactly what you need to see, a historical, step by step accounting of how we got from 1864 to today, what scientists really believed and pursued from then until now, and thus why we believe that CO2 is a big, big problem.

    Please take the time to read that, and good luck. I look forward to seeing more comments and questions by you here at SkS. I'll do my best to help answer anything you may throw out.
  30. 227, lancelot,

    As one final thought, that you'll discover from reading Spencer Weart's excellent writings... it would interest most skeptics to know that for a very, very long time greenhouse gas theory and its proposed effects on climate were not mainstream science. They were viewed as crackpot or at best unlikely. GHG was once, for a very long time (100 years!), the "skeptical" point of view.

    It is only since the 1980s that strong evidence had mounted enough to turn that tide and transition GHG theory to the accepted, mainstream belief. Since then, evidence has continued to mount and the pendulum has swayed even further.

    So when one argues with scientists who now believe in GHG and the influence of massive amounts of CO2 on climate, one is arguing with true skeptics!
  31. 227, lancelot,

    I'm sorry, one more final final thought, something I'd meant to say.

    In the end, CO2 is tagged as a culprit not because it's the only thing we can think of, but rather because by looking at the physics of the molecule and the system as a whole, it was predicted a priori, before any such effects could have been detected and entirely without doing any observations, that this would be the end result.

    When observations of all varieties -- current temperature, humidity, stratospheric temperature changes, paleoclimate studies of past climate change events (the topic of this thread), changing ecosystems, other planets, etc. -- all converge to confirm the abstractly and completely independently predicted outcome, it has to give one pause.

    Nobody ever looked at the observational evidence and then backed into CO2 as the cause. It was quite the opposite. With our eyes closed, we said "if I punch myself in the face, logic tells me it will hurt." When we opened our eyes and looked in the mirror there was bruising, a bloody nose, a split lip, and a whole lot of pain.

    Skeptics then went on to say "well, you can't think of anything else that might have hit you, so you immediately presume that it was your own fist."
  32. lancelot - you should probably make a start with Ch6 of AR4, WG1 report. In it, there is diagram (Fig 6.13) showing various reconstructions of temperature with hindcast modelling in grey, giving you a good idea on the uncertainties too.
  33. This paper in a recent edition of Climate Research by Svante Björck would appear to debunk the skeptics argument
    Current global warming appears anomalous in relation to the climate of the last 20000 years
    In fact it would seem global climate has NOT changed by as much as it has recently in 20,000 years.
    The abstract states
    To distinguish between natural and anthropogenic forcing, the supposedly ongoing global warming needs to be put in a longer, geological perspective. When the last ca. 20000 yr of climate development is reviewed, including the climatically dramatic period when the Last Ice Age ended, the Last Termination, it appears that the last centuries of globally rising temperatures should be regarded as an anomaly. Other, often synchronous climate events are not expressed in a globally consistent way, but rather are the expression of the complexities of the climate system. Due to the often poor precision in the dating of older proxy records, such a statement will obviously be met with some opposition. However, as long as no globally consistent climate event prior to today’s global warming has been clearly documented, and considering that climate trends during the last millennia in different parts of the world have, in the last century or so, changed direction into a globally warming trend, we ought to regard the ongoing changes as anomalies, triggered by anthropogenically forced alterations of the carbon cycle in the general global environment.

    and there's a pretty good explanation of it at Science Daily
    Would like to see skeptical science do a feature on this paper please?
    Response: [DB] I have invited Dr. Björck to participate via a guest blog on the paper.
  34. Sphaerica; Re 'must be CO2': I picked up that particular skeptic meme from the SkS intro - How Reliable are Climate Models? [my CAPS]

    "So all models are first tested in a process called Hindcasting. The models used to predict future global warming can accurately map past climate changes. If they get the past right, there is no reason to think their predictions would be wrong. Testing models against the existing instrumental record suggested CO2 MUST CAUSE global warming, because the models could not simulate what had already happened unless the extra CO2 was added to the model. NOTHING ELSE could account for the rise in temperatures over the last century."

    Maybe a bit of anti-meme spraying is needed here before those bugs propagate too far? :)

    Having said that, I know the history of CO2 greenhouse gas theory, Arrenhius et al, and that CO2 was not just plucked out of thin air to 'fill the gap' because noone could think of anything else. When I say myself use the phrase 'must be C02' I refer to the logic that there is a gap between observed warming and estimated natural warming, there are possible 'suspects', and CO2 is the by far the most likely one; that is fine, but I would want to be assured before a lynching that all other suspects have been fully checked out first! GCR/ cloud forcing theory seems to have some credibility in the scientific community, and certainly looked like a good suspect to me for a while. Even biological influence on cloud formation is a possibility. But while those theories are very appealing, the evidence is very slim to date. And the killer blow is : warming seems to be well beyond any natural variations in recent history.

    I will certainly look into the references given, thanks to all for those.

    One point which still is unclear to me:

    Crowley T J, in Science, 14 July 2000, Causes of Climate Change over past 1000 years: Abstract: "Comparisons of observations with simulations from an energy balance climate model indicate that as much [sic] as 41 to 64% of preanthropogenic (pre-1850) decadal-scale temperature variations was due to changes in solar irradiance and volcanism."

    [That seems to leaves 36 to 59% of variations pre 1850 unaccounted for by the models, which has really troubled me, seeming to cast doubts on the completeness or accuracy of the models]

    In view of sphaericas' comment (226) on the inability to precisely determine past temperature, how does Crowley arrive at his conclusion with such relative precision?
    Response: No, GCR / cloud forcing theory does not have "some credibility" in the scientific community. See It’s cosmic rays.
  35. scaddenp: CH6 is indeed a great source. Thanks for reminding me.
  36. 234, lancelot,

    Going bottom to top...

    Relative precision? He gave a range of 23% for known versus unknown forcings, leaving what I would consider to be pretty wide error bars in his estimates (even if the precision of the boundaries seems fine, the range between them is not -- scientists always use precise numbers to define embarrassingly imprecise estimates -- a science habit, I guess -- they like to be very precise in admitting to how much they don't know).

    What you term "unnaccounted for" by the models actually is accounted for, but it is not the result of ongoing forcings, but rather internal variability. No matter what we do, the system is still chaotic. Like weather, you are just never going to pin it down completely and make everything add up perfectly so that the model exactly matches reality on date X with temperature Y. It's just not feasible.

    What is more important to recognize, which is the core of your realization that today's CO2 truly represents a unique event in the planet's climate history, is that the temperature range being discussed for the 1,000 years prior to today's crisis covers a mere +/- 0.1˚C range on average and a +/- 0.2˚C range at extreme events. If close to half of that is attributable to known forcings, then in most periods only +/- 0.05˚C is "unaccounted for" and even in the extremes that number is only +/- 0.1˚C. And the greater swings are generally those that are accounted for by notable solar/volcanic events, which makes the real "natural variation" range very narrow indeed.

    I can't find a free version of the paper, but the figures and data area available here.

    Too, it is important to recognize the methodology and limitations that Crowley used. First, the inputs for solar and volcanic forcings for the past 1,000 years are themselves only estimates inferred from available proxies. Inputs for other variations, like ocean currents, land/albedo changes and such are non-existent, so what is left as "natural variability" could well have been accounted for with better inputs.

    Secondly, the temperatures against which he is comparing are also only proxy estimates, so the error range is by necessity broad. Who knows... it's possible that with precise solar and volcanic forcing inputs and temperature outputs, the accountability might be much greater.

    You have to consider the fog through which the scientists is attempting to squint to get to the inference.

    On to the last item, the "CO2 must cause" statement. The phrasing is unfortunate, but the take away message should not be "we can't think of anything else so the thought process stops here" but rather "everything we've tried does not account for the warming, and yet CO2 does." CO2 is not the culprit simply because someone saw it hanging around on the street corner the same night that today's Climate was murdered. His fingerprints are in fact all over the gun, and he was the only one with the key to the locked room in which Climate's body was found.

    What is unsaid on that page (and maybe it should be said to make things more clear) is that this conclusion was reached because models do incorporate every known forcing and none of them did the job. The use of every known forcing successfully models temperatures up to the current time. The dual implication of this is not only that CO2 appears to be the culprit, but also that if there were another, unknown forcing -- why did it never influence anything prior to the current dilemma? Where were similar dramatic changes in GCRs, solar activity and such for the last two thousand years? We know why there were no swings in CO2, but why no swings in any other magically hidden forcings?

    What's also left unsaid, as we have discussed, is that it is not like scientists then close their eyes to any other possible forcing. There are tens of thousands of scientists around the globe studying everything imaginable, from the Amazon to the Arctic to black carbon to land use changes to methane deposits to solar forces beyond our current understanding. No one is stopping their thought process and saying "let's focus on CO2 because it makes our job easier."

    Quite to the contrary, scientists would like to find, understand and pin down every forcing imaginable, because in so doing that 41% to 64% range that worries you drops to zero, all doubt vanishes, and the climate models become marvelously accurate. Such an accounting "benefits CO2 proponents" (as if anyone is a sports fan rooting for CO2 in a game) as much as anyone.

    By the way: Here at SkS it's considered bad form to use all caps (it's shouting). Instead use italics or bold for emphasis. You can click on the "Click for tips on posting images or hyperlinks" link just below the "Post a Comment" text box for instructions on how to do so (or just click this link here).
  37. lancelot#234: "... assured before a lynching that all other suspects have been fully checked out first!"

    Odd statement. What makes you think that climate science doesn't work that way? If there were other reasonable candidates for causal agents, who wouldn't be checking them out?

    "GCR/ cloud forcing theory seems to have some credibility in the scientific community, and certainly looked like a good suspect to me for a while."

    Now there's an example of the thinking process you seem to feel is out there. There are many whose first principle is 'it can't be CO2' and therefore climb on to any bandwagon that happens to pass by. GCR threads are plentiful here (use Search), so I won't go off topic any further than to say that this idea had neither a reliable mechanism nor a reliable history and yet it still gained traction among the 'skeptics' - because it wasn't AGW. A fine example of not fully checking things out before making a lot of extravagant claims.
  38. 234, lancelot,

    Forgive muoncounter for bristling. GCRs are a touchy subject. The fact is that the potential mechanism has always been taken seriously to some extent, but the mechanism is proposed, but still vague and unproven, some poor papers have used bad techniques to try to prove correlations that did not exist, there are no matching temperature changes to pair with identified major cosmic ray changes in the paleoclimate record, and most importantly there are no recent cosmic ray changes to parallel the temperature changes we've seen.

    This is not new knowledge. These things we've known for a decade or more. Still, the idea was never dismissed out of hand, and still isn't. It is being given its due, and researched as far as is worth the effort. But it has never been a serious "contender" to explain the warming trend because of the long known issues just described.

    But as muon said, there are other posts and threads to discuss that. We don't want to drag this thread any further off topic (which is another habit here at SkS... people like to keep threads focused, rather than wandering all over where ever the conversation decides to go).
  39. Sphaerica, Thanks again. My background is building and engineering, which tends to rely on fairly precise calculations, hence my expectations for precision. Your point is well taken that Climate is never going to oblige my personal wishes by making itself easy to quantify.

    As for 'must be Co2' I take all your points; the SkS intro on that might benefit from some re-phrasing, to avoid possible misunderstandings by others about the 'thought processes'.

    I do see that certain words such as G*R prompt emotive reactions. Not a reason to jump on the speaker please. I am not a climate scientist,I rely a lot on pre-digested reports.

    I see no reactions to the idea of micro-organisms having a role in cloud formation. Maybe grasping at straws with that, and surely way off-topic. But I am currently involved in supporting research into micro-organisms in the air and in precipitation, so I take a keen interest. Maybe we can breed some bugs to seed clouds and cool the planet? (Just half-serious on that one)

    Thanks for taking the time to respond in such detail.
  40. GCRs do not prompt emotive reactions. People who claim GCRs are the solution to all their climate change problems, without the benefit of legitimate analysis, prompt emotive reactions.
  41. @DB #233 - great DB - thanks - hopefully he will be interested and I look forward to a possible future article on SS :)
  42. Coming back on natural causes:

    Sunshine records in S. England apparently show increasing hours of daily sunshine since 1970. I don't see any mention in IPCC reports of sunshine hour records, analysed globally. (If I have missed a mention, could you point me to one.) Regardless whether any mechanism other than GCR to influence cloud cover is conceivable, is sunshine hours not a relatively simple check on possible natural forcing which should be considered, separately from solar irradiance?
    Response:

    [DB] "Sunshine records in S. England apparently show increasing hours of daily sunshine since 1970."

    Assertions without source citations tend to get ignored.  Unless you can provide a source for your claim?

  43. lancelot @242, it is true that sunshine hours have increased by about 7% in the UK over the period from 1974 to the present:



    It is certainly not clear that this is a forcing, ie, an phenomenon independent to temperature which drives temperature change, rather than a feedback, ie, a phenomenon largely controlled by temperature which in turn drives temperature change.

    More importantly, it is far from clear that this is a global phenomenon. Certainly in China the trend has been in the opposite direction towards less sunlight hours. A similar reduction of sunshine has been found in Switzerland, so the observed increase in the UK is not even a Europe wide phenomenon, let alone a world wide phenomenon.

    That the trends are opposite in different locations around the globe strongly suggests the cause is not astronomical (GCR) but rather global or regional climate conditions. That is, the phenomenon is likely a climate feedback or a response to major oceanic variations. Certainly the UK data shows a correlation to the Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation. But the AMO may itself just be an artifact of the pattern or Northern Hemisphere warming and cooling due to variations in CO2 and aerosol levels during the 20th century.
    Response: [Sph] Typo corrected.
  44. Ok, following on from the data Tom cited I found that this is based on something called a 'Campbell-Stokes recorder' which basically focuses sunshine to burn holes through a card. There is some subjectivity in determining whether a hole was burned through by 15 minutes or 30 minutes of bright sunshine, but overall it is a measure of sunlight reaching the ground at that location.

    Thus, a reduction in smog could result in an increase in sunlight hours... as could local changes in cloud cover. I'm not sure this measurement can really tell us much about global temperatures... even if an extensive network exists. It only has two 'intensity levels' for sunlight... either there is enough to burn through the card or there is not. Yet the 'not' could be anything from complete blackness to just barely not enough while the 'enough' could be anything from just barely enough to two, three, four, et cetera times as much as needed. Basically, I'm saying that the 'resolution' of the data doesn't seem sufficient to make any determination of the total sunlight experienced.
  45. 242, lancelot,

    To clarify/summarize Tom's points:

    1) How do you know the change is not a result of GHG warming (i.e. one form of positive cloud feedback) rather than the cause?

    2) How do you know the change does not have to do with decreased aerosols (due to less pollution or changed atmospheric patterns)?

    3) How do you know that a single regional effect is global?

    To answer your direct question: scientists do measure the albedo of the earth (which is sort of the exact opposite of sunlight hours) in a variety of ways. I'm not sure if anyone has tried to globally measure sunlight with ground based stations, but you can see that this effort would no doubt suffer from the same issues that "plague" ground based temperature observations ("the Urban Smog Effect is artificially reducing solar irradiance measurements! It's all a farce!").

    I don't know if the spat of lost (or warehoused!) satellites would have helped here, either.

    But it's not like scientists are stupid, or aren't trying.
  46. Sphaerica @245, thanks for the correction of my typo, and the summation. Your point (2), however, though perfectly valid, is not in my original post.

    In essence, it is known that increased aerosol numbers increases cloudiness by increasing the duration of clouds. If clouds take longer to dissipate, but form at the same rate, the net result will be more clouds in the sky at any give time - and hence less sunlight hours. Conversely, if aerosols are reduced, as happened in the UK after the passage of clean air acts in the 1970's, clouds will dissipate quicker, resulting in less cloudiness, and more sunlight hours.

    If this phenomenon is a major driver of changes in sunlight hours, that would explain why sunlight hours have increased in the UK (with reduced aerosol emissions) but decreased in China (which has increasing aerosol emissions).

    Of course, if that is the major driver, than this is a subject climate scientists are actively studying very closely. It is know as the Cloud Life Time effect, and is one of several indirect aerosol effects.
  47. 246, Tom,

    Sorry, I added 2 myself after I'd written the response and forgot about my own lead in statement.
  48. Change in sunshine hours is surely just a measure of changing cloudiness. Satellite records would provide far better global measure of this rather than station records. IPCC reports certainly mention cloud cover.
  49. The full term you are interested in is "bright sunshine hours", and it has a formal WMO definition (CIMO Guide chapter 8) based on direct beam solar radiation - you accumulate bright sunshine when direct solar exceeds 120 W/m². The Campbell-Stokes instrument is the classic, but has its limitations. The Campbell-Stokes instrument has been around much longer than the formal WMO definition. There are several other manufacturers of more modern instruments (e.g., Kipp and Zonen).

    There are long records of Campbell-Stokes data around the world, but the data is of quite limited value compared to actual measurements of solar radiation. I think sunshine hours was part of the whole "Global Dimming" craze a few years ago. Using the SkS search tool gives a few hits for "global dimming", and RealClimate had at least one discussion of it.

    A good place for global surface radiation data is the Baseline Surface Radiation Network. A fairly recent paper that looks at some of this is Wild 2009.
  50. Scaddemp: IPCC reports do mention cloud cover: AR4:

    "Significant uncertainties, in particular, are associated with the representation of clouds, and in the resulting cloud responses to climate change. "

    "Cloud feedbacks remain the largest source of uncertainty in climate sensitivity estimates."

    Not very definitive!

    Bob Lodlaw 129: That BSRN is really interesting work. Sadly I am not equipped to analyse the BSRN data, and I dont have access to the Wild 2009 paper right now. But I will keep looking into it and would like to come back to you on that subject. However my point was not really about 'bright sunshine' but about the net energy received at earth surface.

    Scaddenp 248: If it useful to know the energy actually received at earth surface, as a possible contribution to forcing, I cannot see point of measuring incoming solar irradiance by satellites at the exosphere, then making more satellite observations of 'cloudiness' to make an estimate how much actually gets through to earth surface,instead of simply measuring the actual energy received at the surface in the first place. That is in essence, and crudely, what sunshine hour records tend to do.

    It is not hard to measure the surface energy received per day - a PowerMonkey and a calorimeter I would imagine. I have not found data on surface energy receipts in the IPPC reports, other than the simplistic 'energy balance' diagrams. How do climatologists know the trends or variations of net energy received globally at the earth surface? How can you account for that or eliminate it as a possible forcing in models if you don't have the data?

    Tom Curtis, I take your point that England is not the world. Surely all the more reason to have a global measuring system such as BSNR.

    Sphaerica, you mention aerosols etc, but my point was about cloud forcing. Are you certain that there are no possible mechanisms driving cloud formation, other than those considered in AR4? GCR's may be out of the picture; I have mentioned micro-organisms a number of times in this forum, but the response has been a stony silence. Is that because readers are much too kind to lambast me for my stupidity in thinking that the airborne biosphere might(repeat might!) have a part to play in climate?
    Response:

    [DB] An open copy of Wild 2009 can be found here.

Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next

Post a Comment

Political, off-topic or ad hominem comments will be deleted. Comments Policy...

You need to be logged in to post a comment. Login via the left margin or if you're new, register here.

Link to this page



The Consensus Project Website

TEXTBOOK

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)

THE DEBUNKING HANDBOOK

BOOK NOW AVAILABLE

The Scientific Guide to
Global Warming Skepticism

Smartphone Apps

iPhone
Android
Nokia

© Copyright 2014 John Cook
Home | Links | Translations | About Us | Contact Us