Since 1958, the observatory at Mauna Loa has tracked concentrations of atmospheric CO2 (Photo: NOAA)

What’s up there? A weather balloon ascends to add another piece to the puzzle. (Photo: NOAA)

The facts are in the figures - and the figures don’t support the ex-vice president’s dire predictions about global warming

According to Al Gore, if we don’t take action to prevent global warming over the next 10 years, we will have pushed the earth into a climatic and environmental tailspin that will by the end of the century have caused sea levels to rise; ice caps to melt; and hurricanes, droughts, and floods to increase in both strength and frequency. And that’s just the beginning. Gore and others who warn of global warming - including organizations such as the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Control (IPCC) - predict that all of these catastrophes will occur as a result of rapidly rising global temperatures caused primarily by emissions of man-made carbon dioxide (CO2).

With Gore’s views front and center via his new book and documentary film An Inconvenient Truth, it’s time to take a closer look at the global warming/greenhouse gas prognostications - particularly when one considers the massive amounts of money governments are committing to solving the perceived problem. Consider this as you think about the statistics revealed in this article: The Kyoto Accord is anticipated to cost the participating Western nations a whopping 2% of their GDP per year. Is it worth it?

Scientific data indicates that the earth has warmed by approximately 0.8 degrees Celsius over the last century, and that man-made CO2 has contributed to global warming since World War II. Meanwhile, the net earth warming since World War II has been 0.4 C. The debate among experts boils down to the following issues: How much global warming occurs naturally, and how much can be attributed to human inflicted change? And how much effect to CO2 gases - by themselves - have on temperature increases and other predicted climate change?

Proponents of global warming theories predict that temperatures will rise 5.8 C (IPCC, 2001) or more this century. Let’s take a closer look. For the earth to experience a growing greenhouse effect and linear rising temperatures, CO2 levels must increase exponentially. If CO2 levels increase only linearly, the increase in temperature flattens out. Water vapor, the main greenhouse gas, acts in the same way. Well, guess what? CO2 emissions have been increasing at exponential rates since World War II, fueling the warnings of those pointing to the dangers of climate change.

ATMOSPHERIC CO2 CONCENTRATIONS SINCE 1958 - PARTS PER MILLION

CO2 in our atmosphere has increased from around 315 PPM in 1958 to about 370 PPM today. Note the annual drop of 5-10 PPM caused during spring and summer in the vast forests of the northern hemisphere. (Source: Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center)

Digging a little deeper, though, a study of the CO2 atmospheric content data from the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii reveals that since the late 1970’s - the start of the modern-day energy conservation movement - CO2 levels have only increased linearly (at approximately 1.5 ppm per year).

What’s more, since the late 1970’s, the global temperature has been increasing at a constant rate of 0.17 C per decade. Add to this information data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration showing that the annual per-capital CO2 global emissions rate has flattened out since the early 1980s, and you begin to see the problem: Based on these facts, no one can predict exponential increases in man-made CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. And if there’s no exponential increase in CO2, there can be no global warming.

Still need convincing? Consider these facts: Per GDP dollar, we’re currently using only 60% of the energy we used in 1980. In addition, recent upper-atmosphere weather balloon and satellite temperature measurements show no net upper atmosphere warming since 1970. There are also plenty of studies predicting that warming in the next 50 years will amount to less than 1.0 C. In fact, even most climate models referred to in the IPCC study from 2001 predict warming to be around their low value of 1.4 C.

So how does Gore come to his conclusions? In his movie, he points to a global temperature model reflecting 1,000 years of temperature history to support his thesis. The graph shows a flat temperature range for 900 years and a dramatic rise over the last 100 years. Since human-produced greenhouse emissions have only existed since the last century, Gore deduces, they must be the reason for the warming during that same period. This graph, however, is controversial for a couple of reasons: 1) Many believe it should show temperature fluctuations starting earlier in the last millennia; and 2) it depends solely on tree-ring analysis, which provides accurate documentation of temperature variances over decade-long periods but is far less accurate for long-term variance.

THE ATLANTIC MULTIDECADAL OSCILLATION (AMO)

If historical trends hold, by around 2025, sea surface temperatures will decline again, and Atlantic hurricanes will diminish in intensity. (Source: NOAA)

Various studies show that mean global temperatures rose and fell long before man-made greenhouse gases existed. The sun’s energy is the main determinant for the earth’s varying temperature; earth axis rotation and other systemic cycles also have an effect. Man, in contrast, has a minor effect.

Take hurricanes: Gore believes that the recent increase in hurricanes is a result of human activity and the global warming that has resulted. But the recent upsurge in hurricanes is consistent with observed trends since 1850.

The main forcing function for hurricane formation is the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO). Every 25 to 40 years, the warm Gulf waters and the Caribbean currents oscillate northward or southward to or from the upper Atlantic Ocean. Sure enough, observed hurricane activity and intensity since 1850 have increased and decreased in tandem with this oscillation. In contrast, recent studies show that increased sea surface temperatures have only added to storm intensity by a couple of percentage points.

Or take Mr. Gore’s prediction that sea levels will rise 20 feet by the end of this century. For the last few thousand years, the sea level has risen at a steady rate of 1.5 mm per year. The 6 inch increase in sea level during the last century is consistent with that rate. In addition, Greenland ice levels have been constant over the last few decades as well. While it’s true that ice cleaving and ice flow rates at the coast have increased in recent years, these shifts are due to the AMO - and will abate once the AMO oscillates southward. What the global warming theorists fail to mention in their findings is that the increased ice and snow pack on Greenland is balancing out the coastal melting. And what’s creating the increased ice and snow pack? Warmer sea surface temperatures: The increased temperatures create moisture, which in turn causes additional snowfall.

Is it global warming, or deforestation, that shrinks the glacier? Mt. Kilimanjaro from outer space. (Photo: NASA)

Similar observations have been made in the Antarctic. Although proponents of the global warming theory refer to a study showing reduced ice content at the tip of one peninsula, they ignore the snowfall data from several Antarctic continental stations showing increasing ice packs from the extra sea moisture.

Finally, climate data indicates that the ice cap on Tanzania’s Mt. Kilimanjaro depends on localized temperature-independent precipitation levels. Based on simple observations of the melt rate on Mt. Kilimanjaro, we can see that ice was actually melting at a higher rate early last century than it is today because of less precipitation.

Given this data, one has to question the motives of climate change theory proponents: Could they be after the $4 billion in government grants available to scientists studying climate change? With policies such as the Kyoto Accord’s CO2 emission control goal offering no apparent discernible temperature reduction, it’s imperative that a debate on global warming ensue.

This article was originally published in AlwaysOn Magazine, and is republished with permission.

Related Feature Reports:

Global Warming Facts

by Dr. Richard Lindzen, October 15, 2006

Climate Catastrophe

by Dr. Richard Lindzen, September 5, 2006

Global Warming

by Dr. Edward Wheeler, April 25, 2006

Related Editorial Commentary:

Global Warming Postulate

November 9, 2006

Global Warming Litigation

November 8, 2006

Brazilian vs. Californian Ethanol

October 23, 2006

Greenland’s Ice Melting Slowly

October 20, 2006

Filthy Air With Less CO2

October 12, 2006

Additional Facts and Commentary on Global Warming

What impact does deforestation, desertification and farming methods have on global warming?

There is broad agreement about the behavior of the global mean temperature.

While there is agreement regarding the historical data, that does not mean that the resulting observations are very solid. The point of the following tables is simply to render transparent the global temperature records underlying most global warming observations and predictions, and comment on what they may or may not indicate.

GLOBAL MEAN ANNUAL SURFACE TEMPERATURE Per Year from 1900 through 2005

Source: UK Meteorological Office

The tables above and below this paragraph are the records commonly displayed by the IPCC. Interestingly, the record is essentially flat since 1995. The modest spike in 1998 is commonly associated with an El Nino. The temperature records reflected in these two tables are completely consistent with a rapid rise from 1976 to 1986 and a leveling off since. This would be more like what is referred to as a regime change than a response to global greenhouse warming.

GLOBAL MEAN ANNUAL SURFACE TEMPERATURE Per Year from 1995 through 2005

Source: UK Meteorological Office

When considering global temperature trends it is important to take into account uncertainty bands. When this is done, as the table below indicates, there is no basis for claiming an significant global warming trend since 1986, though there might very well be one.

GLOBAL MEAN ANNUAL SURFACE TEMPERATURE WITH UNCERTAINTY BANDS Per Year from 1855 through 2005

It is sometimes claimed that the recent warming period involves much more rapid warming than the mean warming for the past century or so. This is, of course, true of any warming period in a record that includes periods of cooling as well as periods of relatively stationary temperature. For example, the rate of warming during 1910-1940 is somewhat more rapid than the recent rate. More over, if one looks for short periods, there is no difficulty in finding rates that are many times the rate over the last century.

There are only a few groups that compile records of the global mean temperature, and at least two of these groups are strongly committed to the popular view of global warming. On the three tables below, the planets yearly fluctuations in surface temperature are shown against the average measurements from 1961 to 1990 in the case of the first table, and 1951 to 1980 in the 2nd and 3rd tables. Each of these groups of researchers have used the same data, in a range of years which begins between 1851 and 1880, and ends in 2006.

GLOBAL ANNUAL SURFACE TEMPERATURE DEPARTURES FROM THE 1961 TO 1990 AVERAGE Per Year From 1850 through 2005

Note: The 95% confidence limits for the annual global estimate are shown (black error bars). Sources: NOAA/NCDC, HadCRUT, and NASA GISS

Of the three groups compiling each of the above graphs, at least two of these groups are strongly committed to the popular view of global warming. All the groups use the same data, but differ a bit in how they treat the data. Reassuringly, the records look pretty much the same. Two groups (Hansen’s at GISS and NOAA) claim that 2005 was a record breaker, but by a statistically insignificant amount, and clearly the difference between this result and the others is well within the uncertainty as displayed by the error bars. The table from NOAA shows a total warming of only .45C over the length of the record.

The matter of error bars is not without interest. Hansen doesn’t show any. However, the error bars in NCDC analysis are noticeably larger than those from the UK. As best I can tell, the NCDC uses stricter quality control, leading them to reject data from obviously suspect stations (like those in rapidly urbanizing regions). The UK, on the other hand, keeps these stations, and “corrects” them in a largely subjective manner. Thus, the UK has a larger number of points going into the mean, many of which have been “corrected” to look like the mean. This leads to an artificially small error bar.

In all cases, the error bar refers simply to the scatter of points going into the mean. In the next three tables, the late Stan Grotch of the Livermore Radiation Lab showed the nature and implications on the error bars of this scatter.

DEVIATIONS OF ANNUAL MEAN TEMPERATURE FROM LONG-TERM AVERAGE Per Year From 1851 to 1984

Data points averaged to obtain time record of global mean temperature. Note points range from less than -2C to more than +2C. Source: S.L. Grotch, Lawrence Livermore Laboratory)

Note that the error bars (below tables) are based solely on the scatter of the individual station data points (above table). They don’t include any information about other sources of uncertainty such as changes in land usage, changes in instrumentation, etc.

GLOBALLY AVERAGED DEVIATIONS FROM AVERAGE TEMPERATURE PLOTTED ON A SCALE RELEVANT TO THE INDIVIDUAL STATION DEVIATIONS Per Year from 1851 to 1984

Each value here is based on the average of all the points for each year in the previous figure. Source: S.L. Grotch, Lawrence Livermore Laboratory)

Another major problem in interpretation arises from the existence of natural internal variability. This is a frequently misunderstood issue. The point is that the earth’s global mean temperature varies even in the absense of any external forcing at all. This is an inevitable property of a turbulent fluid where the greenhouse effect (mostly due to water vapor and clouds) varies dramatically with location. Moreover, the ocean is continually moving in and out of equilibrium with the surface for a variety of reasons. An example of such behavior is El Nino. However, there are similar phenomena in other regions.

GLOBALLY AVERAGED DEVIATIONS FROM AVERAGE TEMPERATURE PLOTTED ON A SCALE STRETCHED TO FILL THE GRAPH Per Year from 1851 to 1984

Each value here is based on the curve in the previous figure stretched to fill the graph. Note that range is now about -0.6C to +.3C. Source: S.L. Grotch, Lawrence Livermore Laboratory

There is argument as to the significance of natural internal variability, but it is clear from the temperature record that changes of 0.5C over short periods are not particularly uncommon. Natural internal variability, or “noise” in systems such as the earth are generally reflected in temperature observations. Finally, it is characteristic of noise that it is random. Data indicates natural internal variability or “noise” should be represented by a horizontal band of width 0.4 - 0.5 centigrade. The below table shows that it is rare so far to find that the noise band and the sampling error bars don’t overlap.

OBSERVATIONS VS. INTERNAL VARIABILITY Per Year From 1851 to 2000

We have not given much attention, so far, to systematic errors due to instrument changes. Two warrant some mention. Over much of the world, traditional thermometers have been replaced by electronic thermometers, which have much shorter response times. This appears to have contributed a bit to recent warming. Perhaps more serious are problems with pre World War I ocean measurements. Note that 70% of the earth’s surface is ocean. Crudely speaking, before WWI, temperatures were measured by collecting sea water in a canvas bucket, and measuring the temperature. After that, the temperature was taken by measuring the temperature in the engine intake.

In the late ’80’s there was a cooperative program between the late Prof. Reginald Newell at MIT and the UK Meteorological Office to intercalibrate the two methods. The resulting paper showed ocean temperatures about 0.2 centigrade warmer (for the pre WWI period) than those given in the paper that finally appeared. Professor Newell was extremely upset with the change, since he could not find out what the basis for it was. Such a change accounts for about 0.14 centigrade of the century long term trend commonly cited.

The point of all this is not to claim that there has been no warming. After all, the system’s temperature is always varying. However, when dealing with small temperature changes in a turbulent system, there is little appropriateness to dogmatism. Perhaps the most important message one gets from the data is that the change in temperature has been on the order of 0.5 centigrade, and the main question should be whether we have any solid basis for considering such a change to be large or small, serious or inconsequential.

About the Author: Richard S. Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology(http://web.mit.edu).

Brayton Point powerplant in Fall River, Massachusetts (Photo: Alexey Sergeev)

For the sensitive reader or listener, the language used in connection with the issue of Global Warming must frequently sound strange.

Weather and climate catastrophes of all sorts are claimed to be what one expects from global warming, and global warming is uniquely associated with man’s activities. The reality of the threat of global warming is frequently attested to by reference to a scientific consensus:

Tony Blair (1): “The overwhelming view of experts is that climate change, to a greater or lesser extent, is man-made, and, without action, will get worse.”

Elizabeth Kolbert in the New Yorker (2): “All that the theory of global warming says is that if you increase the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, you will also increase the earth’s average temperature. It’s indisputable that we have increased greenhouse-gas concentrations in the air as a result of human activity, and it’s also indisputable that over the last few decades average global temperatures have gone up.”

Al Gore - a passionate advocate of curbing CO2 emissions

Given the alarm that surrounds the issue, such statements seem peculiarly inconclusive and irrelevant to the catastrophes cited. To be sure, these references are one-sided. They fail to note that there are many sources of climate change, and that profound climate change occurred many times both before and after man appeared on earth; given the ubiquity of climate change, it is implausible that all change is for the worse. Moreover, the coincidence of increasing CO2 and the small warming over the past century hardly establishes causality. Nevertheless, for the most part I do not personally disagree with the Consensus (though the absence of any quantitative considerations should be disturbing). Indeed, I know of no serious split, and suspect that the claim that there is opposition to this consensus amounts to no more than setting up a straw man to scoff at. However, I believe that people are being led astray by the suggestion this agreement constitutes support for alarm.

Let us view the components that comprise this consensus a little more precisely while recognizing that there is, indeed, some legitimate controversy connected with specific aspects of even these items.

1. The global mean surface temperature is always changing. Over the past 60 years, it has both decreased and increased. For the past century, it has probably increased by about 0.6 ±0.15 degrees Centigrade (C). That is to say, we have had some global mean warming.

2. CO2 is a greenhouse gas and its increase should contribute to warming. It is, in fact, increasing, and a doubling would increase the greenhouse effect (mainly due to water vapor and clouds) by about 2%.

3. There is good evidence that man has been responsible for the recent increase in CO2, though climate itself (as well as other natural phenomena) can also cause changes in CO2.

In some respects, these three pillars of consensus are relatively trivial. Remaining completely open is the question of whether there is any reason to consider this basic agreement as being alarming. Relatedly, is there any objective basis for considering the approximate 0.6C increase in global mean surface temperature to be large or small regardless of its cause? The answer to both questions depends on whether 0.6C is larger or smaller than what we might have expected on the basis of models which have led to our concern. These models are generally called General Circulation Models (GCMs). We may, therefore, seek to determine how the current level of man made climate forcing compares with what we would have were CO2 to be doubled (a common reference level for GCM calculations).

An Inconvenient Truth, by Al Gore The most influential book in history?

In terms of climate forcing, greenhouse gases added to the atmosphere through mans activities since the late 19th Century have already produced three-quarters of the radiative forcing that we expect from a doubling of CO2 (3). The main reasons for this are:

1) CO2 is not the only anthropogenic greenhouse gas - others like methane also contribute; and

2) The impact of CO2 is nonlinear in the sense that each added unit contributes less than its predecessor. For example, if doubling CO2 from its value in the late 19th Century (about 290 parts per million by volume or ppmv) to double this (i.e., 580 ppmv) causes a 2% increase in radiative forcing (4), then to obtain another 2% increase in radiative forcing we must increase CO2 by an additional 580 ppmv rather than by another 290 ppmv. At present, the concentration of CO2 is about 380 ppmv. The easiest way to understand this is to consider adding thin layers of paint to a pane of glass. The first layer cuts out much of the light, the next layer cuts out more, but subsequent layers do less and less because the painted pane is already essentially opaque.

It should be stressed that we are interested in climate forcing, and not simply levels of CO2; the two are most certainly not linearly proportional.

Essential to alarm is the fact that most current climate models predict a response to a doubling of CO2 of about 4C (which is much larger than what one expects the simple doubling of CO2 to produce: ie, about 1C). The reason for this is that in these models, the most important greenhouse substances, water vapor and clouds, act in such a way as to greatly amplify the response to anthropogenic greenhouse gases alone (ie, they act as what are called large positive feedbacks). However, as all assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have stated (at least in the text - though not in the Summaries for Policymakers), the models simply fail to get clouds right. We know this because in official model intercomparisons, all models fail miserably to replicate observed distributions of cloud cover. Thus, the model predictions are critically dependent on features that we know must be wrong. In Figure 1 we see that treatment of clouds involves errors an order of magnitude greater than the forcing from a doubling of CO2 (5). While the IPCC allows for the possibility that the models get water vapor right, the intimate relation of water vapor to clouds makes such a conclusion implausible.

Figure 1. Each thin gray line shows an individual model’s hindcast of percentage cloud cover averaged by latitude. The black line shows the observed cloud cover

Let me summarize the main points thus far:

1. It is NOT the level of CO2 that is important, but rather the impact of man made greenhouse gases on climate.

2. Although we are far from the benchmark of doubled CO2, climate forcing is already about 3/4 of what we expect from such a doubling.

3. Even if we attribute all warming over the past century to man made greenhouse gases (which we have no basis for doing), the observed warming is only about 1/3-1/6 of what models project. We are logically led to two possibilities:

1. Our models are greatly overestimating the sensitivity of climate to man made greenhouse gases, or

2. The models are correct, but there is some unknown process that has cancelled most of the warming.

Note that calling the unknown process “aerosols” does not change this statement since aerosols and their impact are unknown to a factor of ten or more; indeed, even the sign is in doubt.

In arguing for climate alarmism, we are choosing the second possibility. Moreover, we are assuming that the unknown cancellation will soon cease. How is the second possibility supported given that it involves so many more assumptions than the first possibility?

Figure 2. Simulations of global mean temperature with various combinations of ‘forcing.’

The IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR) made use of a peculiar exercise in curve fitting using results from the Hadley Centre. It consists in three plots which are reproduced in Figure 2. In the first panel, we are shown an observed temperature record (without error bars), and the outputs of four model runs (using their coupled ocean-atmosphere model) with so-called natural forcing for the period 1860-2000. There is a small spread in the model runs (which presumably displays model uncertainty - it most assuredly does not represent natural internal variability). In any event, the models look roughly like the observations until the last 30 years. We are then shown a second diagram where the observed curve is reproduced and the four models are run with anthropogenic forcing. Here we see rough agreement over the last 30 years, and poorer agreement in the earlier period. Finally, we are shown the observations and the model runs with both natural and anthropogenic forcing, and, voila, there is rough agreement over the whole record. It should be noted that the models used had a relatively low sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 of about 2.5C.

In order to know what to make of this exercise, one must know exactly what was done. The natural forcing consisted in volcanoes and solar variability. Prior to the Pinatubo eruption in 1991, the radiative impact of volcanoes was not well measured, and estimates vary by about a factor of 3. Solar forcing is essentially unknown. Thus, natural forcing is, in essence, adjustable. Anthropogenic forcing includes not only anthropogenic greenhouse gases, but also aerosols that act to cancel warming (in the Hadley Centre outputs, aerosols and other factors cancelled two thirds of the greenhouse forcing). Unfortunately, the properties of aerosols are largely unknown. In the present instance, therefore, aerosols constitute simply another adjustable parameter (indeed, both its magnitude and its time history are adjustable, and even its sign is in question).

This was remarked upon in a recent paper in Science (Andersen, et al, 2003 (6)), wherein it was noted that the uncertainty was so great that estimating aerosol properties by tuning them to optimize agreement between models and observations (referred to as an inverse method) was probably as good as any other method, but that the use of such estimates to then test the models constituted a circular procedure. This is as strong a criticism of model procedures as is likely to be found in Science. The authors are all prominent in aerosol work. The first author is the most junior, and when it was pointed out that the article reflected negatively on model outputs, he vehemently denied any such intent. In the present example, the choice of models with relatively low sensitivity, allowed adjustments that were not so extreme.

New uncertainties are always entering the aerosol picture. Some are quite bizarre. A recent article in Science (Jaenicke, 2005 (7)) even proposed a significant role to airborn dandruff. Other articles have been suggesting that the primary impact of aerosols is actually warming (Jacobson, 2001 (8), Chen and Penner, 2005 (9)). Of course this is the beauty of the global warming issue for many scientists. The issue deals with such small climate forcing and small temperature changes that it permits scientists to argue that everything and anything is important for climate.

In brief, the defense of the models starts by assuming the model is correct. One then attributes differences between the model behavior in the absence of external forcing, and observed changes in ‘global mean temperature’ to external forcing. Next one introduces ‘natural’ forcing and tries to obtain a ‘best fit’ to observations. If, finally, one is able to remove remaining discrepancies by introducing ‘anthropogenic’ forcing, we assert that the attribution of part of the observed change to the greenhouse component of ‘anthropogenic’ forcing must be correct.

Of course, model internal variability is not correct, and ‘anthropogenic’ forcing includes not only CO2 but also aerosols, and the latter are unknown to a factor of 10-20 (and perhaps even sign). Finally, we have little quantitative knowledge of ‘natural’ forcing so this too is adjustable. Recall that the Hadley Centre acknowledges that the “aerosols” cancelled most of the forcing from CO2.

Something like 100,000 quadrillion BTUs of energy are locked in remaining fossil fuels. There is no shortage, but is it safe to burn? (Photo: US EPA)

Yet, the ‘argument’ I have just presented is the basis for all popular claims that scientists now ‘believe’ that man is responsible for much of the observed warming!

It would appear that the current role of the scientist in the global warming issue is simply to defend the ‘possibility’ of ominous predictions so as to justify his ‘belief.’

To be fair to the authors of Chapter 12 of the IPCC Third Scientific Assessment here is what they provided for the draft statement of the Policymakers Summary: From the body of evidence since IPCC (1996), we conclude that there has been a discernible human influence on global climate. Studies are beginning to separate the contributions to observed climate change attributable to individual external influences, both anthropogenic and natural. This work suggests that anthropogenic greenhouse gases are a substantial contributor to the observed warming, especially over the past 30 years. However, the accuracy of these estimates continues to be limited by uncertainties in estimates of internal variability, natural and anthropogenic forcing, and the climate response to external forcing.

This statement is not too bad - especially the last sentence. To be sure, the model dependence of the results is not emphasized, but the statement is vastly more honest than what the Summary for Policymakers in the IPCC’s Third Assessment Report ultimately presented:

In the light of new evidence and taking into account the remaining uncertainties, most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations.

In point of fact, the impact of man remains indiscernible simply because the signal is too small compared to the natural noise. Claims that the current temperatures are ‘record breaking’ or ‘unprecedented’, however questionable or misleading, simply serve to obscure the fact that the observed warming is too small compared to what models suggest. Even the fact that the oceans’ heat capacity leads to a delay in the response of the surface does not alter this conclusion (especially since the Hadley Centre results are obtained with a coupled model).

Moreover, the fact that we already have three quarters of the climate forcing expected from a doubling of CO2 means that if one truly believes the models, then we have long since passed the point where mitigation is a viable strategy. What remains is to maximize our ability to adapt. That the promotion of alarm does not follow from the science is clearly illustrated by the following example:

According to any textbook on dynamic meteorology, one may reasonably conclude that in a warmer world, extratropical storminess and weather variability will actually decrease. The reasoning is as follows. Judging by historical climate change, changes are greater in high latitudes than in the tropics. Thus, in a warmer world, we would expect that the temperature difference between high and low latitudes would diminish. However, it is precisely this difference that gives rise to extratropical large-scale weather disturbances. Moreover, when in Boston on a winter day we experience unusual warmth, it is because the wind is blowing from the south. Similarly, when we experience unusual cold, it is generally because the wind is blowing from the north. The possible extent of these extremes is, not surprisingly, determined by how warm low latitudes are and how cold high latitudes are. Given that we expect that high latitudes will warm much more than low latitudes in a warmer climate, the difference is expected to diminish, leading to less variance.

Nevertheless, we are told by advocates and the media that exactly the opposite is the case, and that, moreover, the models predict this (which, to their credit, they do not) and that the basic agreement discussed earlier signifies scientific agreement on this matter as well. Clearly more storms and greater extremes are regarded as more alarming than the opposite. Thus, the opposite of our current understanding is invoked in order to promote public concern. The crucial point here is that once the principle of consensus is accepted, agreement on anything is taken to infer agreement on everything advocates wish to claim.

The reader may have noticed that I focused on extratropical storms in the above example. However, given the relatively heavy hurricane season we’ve had, the emphasis of late has been on tropical storms. Recent papers suggesting that in a warmer world, such storms may become more powerful (10), have been seized upon with alacrity by political activists. Needless to add, the articles seized upon have been extremely controversial, but more to the point, no such relation was uncovered for storms reaching land - only for those over water.

At this point, it is doubtful that we are even dealing with a serious problem. If this is correct, then there is no policy addressing this non-problem that would be cost-effective. Even if we believe the problem to be serious, we have already reached the levels of climate forcing that have been claimed to be serious. However, when it comes to Kyoto, the situation is even worse. Here, there is widespread and even rigorous scientific agreement that complete adherence to the Kyoto Agreement would have no discernible impact on climate regardless of what one believes about climate. Thus, the theme of this meeting is, at least on this count, appropriate.

What about the first possibility: namely that the models on which we are basing our alarm are much too sensitive? Not only is this the possibility that scientists would normally have preferred on the basis of Occam’s famous razor, but it is also a possibility for which there is substantial support (11). I will focus on one line of this evidence: tropical warming in the 90’s has been associated with much greater outgoing long wave radiation than models produce. This discrepancy points toward the absence of a strong negative feedback in current models.

The discrepancy has been confirmed by at least four independent groups: at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (Chen et al, 2002, DelGenio and Kovari, 2002 (12)), at NASA Langley (Wielicki et al, 2002, Lin et al, 2004 (13)), at SUNY Stony Brook (Cess and Udelhofen, 2003 (14)), and at the University of Miami (Clement and Soden, 2005 (15)).

This discrepancy would normally have pointed to exaggerated model sensitivity. However, the preceding papers attempted to either attribute the discrepancy to circulation changes or to ‘unknown’ cloud properties - except for the last paper. Clement and Soden (2005) showed that changes in dynamics could not produce changes averaged over the tropics. They showed this using 4 separate models, but it had been shown theoretically by Chou and Lindzen (2004) (16). Clement and Soden also showed that the discrepancy could be resolved by allowing convective precipitation efficiency to increase with surface temperature. Such a dependence is at the heart of the iris effect which was first found by Lindzen, Chou and Hou (2001) (17), and was theoretically predicted by Sun and Lindzen (1993) (18). In LCH, we attempted to examine how tropical clouds responded to changing surface temperature, and found that existing satellite data was only marginally capable of dealing with this issue. The results, however, suggested that there were strong negative feedbacks — counter to what models suggest. It was moreover, easy to show that models in no way replicated the cloud behavior that was observed.

It may turn out that the rigorous measurement of precipitation can be done with ground based radar. Ground based radar allows the almost continuous measurement of precipitation and the separation of convective precipitation from stratiform precipitation (albeit with remaining questions of accuracy). In the tropics, both types of precipitation originate in condensation within cumulus towers. However, condensation that does not form precipitation is carried aloft as ice which is detrained to form cirrus from which the condensate eventually falls as stratiform precipitation. Precipitation efficiency is given by the relation:

Using data from Kwajalein Atoll in the western Pacific, we were able to study how e varies with sea surface temperature. In addition, the Kwajalein radar allows one to explicitly look at the area of stratiform rain per unit of convective mass flux.

Figure 3. Left: Preciptation efficiency vs. surface temperature; Right: Cirrus area per unit convective activity vs. surface temperature.

We see from Figure 3 that e increases about 7.1% per degree C increase in SST (compared with 7.5% estimated by Sun and Lindzen, 1993), and that this increase is associated with a decrease in normalized stratiform area of about 25% per degree C (which is a bit larger than what was estimated from space observations by Lindzen, Chou and Hou, 2001). If correct, this basically confirms the iris effect, and the fact that models have greatly exaggerated climate sensitivity because, in contrast to models, nature, itself, acts to limit rather than exaggerate the influence of added greenhouse gases.

What would be the implication of these simple results?

The primary implication would be that for over 25 years, we have based not only our worst case scenarios but even our best case scenarios on model exaggeration. This was already suggested by previous results, but the present result has the virtue of specifically identifying a basic and crucially relevant error. Under the circumstances, the main question we will be confronting is how long the momentum generated by this issue will prevent us from seeing that it has been an illusion based on model error. However, I am not altogether optimistic about this.

What’s coming out - industrial smokestacks with GE Reuter-Stokes Stak-Tracker gas analyzers (Photo: NASA)

The public discourse on global warming has little in common with the standards of scientific discourse. Rather, it is part of political discourse where comments are made to secure the political base and frighten the opposition rather than to illuminate issues.

In political discourse, information is to be “spun” to reinforce pre-existing beliefs, and to discourage opposition. The chief example of the latter is the perpetual claim of universal scientific agreement. This claim was part of the media treatment of global cooling (in the 1970’s) and has been part of the treatment of global warming since 1988 (well before most climate change institutes were created). The consensus preceded the research.

That media discourse on climate change is political rather than scientific should, in fact, come as no surprise. However, even scientific literature and institutions have become politicized. Some scientists issue meaningless remarks in what I believe to be the full expectation that the media and the environmental movement will provide the ’spin.’ Since the societal response to alarm has, so far, been to increase scientific funding, there has been little reason for scientists to complain. Should scientists feel any guilt it is assuaged by two irresistible factors: The advocates define public virtue; and administrators are delighted with the growing grant overhead. The situation has been recognized since time immemorial. In Federalist Paper No. 79, Alexander Hamilton brooded about abuses that might arise from legislative tampering with judges’ salaries. “In the general course of human nature,” he wrote, “a power over a man’s subsistence amounts to a power over his will.” An indication of such an attitude occurred when, in 2003, the draft of the US National Climate Plan urged high priority for improving our knowledge of climate sensitivity (ie, in finding the answer). It appears that an NRC review panel was critical of this prioritization, urging prioritization instead for broader support for numerous groups to study the impacts of the putative warming. One is tempted to suggest that the NRC panel was more interested in spreading the wealth than in finding an answer.

A second aspect of politicization of discourse specifically involves scientific literature. Articles challenging the claim of alarming response to anthropogenic greenhouse gases are met with unusually quick rebuttals. These rebuttals are usually published as independent papers rather than as correspondence concerning the original articles, the latter being the usual practice. When the usual practice is used, then the response of the original author(s) is published side by side with the critique. However, in the present situation, such responses are delayed by as much as a year. In my experience, criticisms do not reflect a good understanding of the original work. When the original authors’ responses finally appear, they are accompanied by another rebuttal that generally ignores the responses but repeats the criticism. This is clearly not a process conducive to scientific progress, but it is not clear that progress is what is desired. Rather, the mere existence of criticism entitles the environmental press to refer to the original result as ‘discredited,’ while the long delay of the response by the original authors permits these responses to be totally ignored.

A final aspect of politicization is the explicit intimidation of scientists. Intimidation has mostly, but not exclusively, been used against those questioning alarmism. Victims of such intimidation generally remain silent. Congressional hearings have been used to pressure scientists who question the ‘consensus’. Scientists who views question alarm are pitted against carefully selected opponents. The clear intent is to discredit the ’skeptical’ scientist from whom a ‘recantation’ is sought.

The news media is frequently used as an instrument for this intimidation. A notable example in the early 1990’s was Ted Koppel’s Nightline program. He announced that Vice President Gore had asked him to find connections to unsavory interests of scientists questioning global warming alarm. Koppel, after editorializing on the inappropriateness of the request, proceeded to present a balanced exposure of the debate. Newspaper and magazine articles routinely proclaimed that scientists who differ with the consensus view are stooges of the fossil fuel industry. All of this would be bad enough, but the real source of intimidation was the fact that neither the American Meteorological Society nor the American Geophysical Society saw fit to object to any of this.

These are not isolated examples. Before 1991, some of Europe’s most prominent climate experts were voicing significant doubts about climate alarm. Note that the issue has always concerned the basis for alarm rather than the question of whether there was warming (however small) or not. Only the most cynical propagandist could have anticipated that sentient human beings could be driven into panic by the mere existence of some warming. In any event, among these questioners were such distinguished individuals as Sir John Mason, former head of the UK Meteorological Office, and Secretary of the Royal Society, Prof. Hubert Lamb, Europe’s foremost climatologist and founder of the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University, Dr. Henk Tennekes, Director of Research at the Royal Dutch Meteorological Institute, and Professor Aksel Wiin-Nielsen of the University of Copenhagen and former Director of the European Centre for Medium Range Weather Forecasting, and Secretary General of the World Meteorological Organization. All of these figures except Tennekes have disappeared from the public discourse. Lamb is now dead. Tennekes was dismissed from his position, and Wiin-Nielsen was tarred by Bert Bolin (the first head of the IPCC) as a tool of the coal industry. In Russia, a number of internationally recognized pioneers of climate science like K. Kondratyev (died in 2006) and Y. Izrael, continue to vocally oppose climate alarm, but Russian scientists eager for connections with the rest of Europe are much more reluctant to express such views.

Not all such situations ended badly. When a senior Energy Department official, William Happer, was dismissed in 1993 after expressing questions about the scientific basis about global warming claims, the physics community was generally supportive and sympathetic (19). In another more bizarre case, an attempt was made to remove the name of Roger Revelle from an already published paper he coauthored with S. Fred Singer and Chauncy Starr, by claiming that Singer had cajoled an allegedly senile Roger Revelle into permitting himself to be so used. This paper discouraged hasty action on ill-understood warming. It should be noted that Revelle was the professor who Al Gore frequently cites as having introduced him to the horrors of global warming. In any event, Singer took the issue to court and won. His description of the case makes interesting reading (20).

More recent is a controversy over a 1,000 year reconstruction of mean temperature purporting to show that the half degree (Centigrade) rise of the past century was unprecedented (21). Because of the extensive use of this work in the politics of global warming, Congressman Joe Barton demanded the analytical detail since the research was supported by US funds. Both the American Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Union protested Barton’s request. One need not go into the merits of this controversy to see that this difference in the response of professional organizations sends a rather chilling message. Only the defenders of the orthodoxy will be defended against intimidation.

I want to emphasize that the basic agreement frequently described as representing a global warming ‘consensus’ is entirely consistent with there being virtually no problem. Actual observations suggest that the sensitivity of the real climate is much less than found in computer models whose sensitivity depend on processes which are clearly misrepresented. Attempts to assess climate sensitivity by direct observation of cloud processes, and other means, point to a conclusion that doubling CO2 would lead to about 0.5C warming or less.

Unfortunately, a significant part of the scientific community appears committed to the maintenance of the notion that alarm may be warranted. Alarm is felt to be essential to the maintenance of funding. The argument is no longer over whether the models are correct (they are not), but rather whether their results are at all possible. Alas, it is impossible to prove something is impossible. The global warming issue parts company with normative science at an early stage. A good indicator of this disconnect is widespread and rigorous scientific agreement that the Kyoto Agreement would have no discernible impact on climate. This clearly is of no importance to the thousands of negotiators, diplomats, regulators, general purpose bureaucrats and advocates whose livelihood is tied to climate alarmism.

A rarely asked but important question is whether promoting alarmism is good for science? The situation may not be so remote from the impact of Lysenkoism on Soviet genetics. However, personally, I think the future will view the response of contemporary society to ‘global warming’ as simply another example of the appropriateness of the fable of the Emperor’s New Clothes. For the sake of the science, I hope that future arrives soon. In the mean time, we can continue to play our parts in this modern version of The Emperor’s New Clothes. Let us hope that our descendents will be amused rather than horrified.

Endnotes

1 Economist, December 24, 2004 (back)

2 New Yorker, April 25, 2005 (back)

3 Myhre et al. (1998) Geophys. Res. Ltrs., 25, 2715-2718; Hansen, J., and M. Sato 2004. Greenhouse gas growth rates. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 101, 16109-16114. (back)

4 The term, forcing, in this paper, refers to the imbalance in radiative energy flux that would be produced by the addition of greenhouse gases. We will generally describe such forcing as either a percentage increase in the greenhouse effect, or as a flux with units of Watts per square meter. Such a flux acts to warm the earth. (back)

5 Gates, W. L., J. Boyle, C. Covey, C. Dease, C. Doutriaux, R. Drach, M. Fiorino, P. Gleckler, J. Hnilo, S. Marlais, T. Phillips, G. Potter, B.D. Santer, K.R. Sperber, K. Taylor and D. Williams, 1999: An overview of the Atmospheric Model Intercomparison Project (AMIP). Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 80, 29-55. (back)

6 Anderson, T.L., R.J. Charlson, S.E. Schwartz, R. Knutti, O. Bucher, H. Rhode, and J. Heitzenberg (2003) Climate forcing by aerosols - a hazy picture. Science, 300, 1103-1104. (back)

7 R. Jaenicke (2005) Abundance of cellular material and proteins in the atmosphere. Science, 308, 73. (back)

8 Jacobson, Mark. Z., 2001. Strong radiative heating due to the mixing state of black carbon in atmospheric aerosols. Nature Vol 409, No 6821, pp. 695-7, February 8, 2001 (back)

9 Chen, Yang, and Joyce E. Penner. 2005. Uncertainty analysis for estimates of the first indirect aerosol effect. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 5, 2935-2948, online (back)

10 Emanuel, Kerry, 2005. Increasing destructiveness of tropical cyclones over the past 30 years, Nature, 436, 686-688; Webster, P.J., G. J. Holland, J. A. Curry, and H.-R. Chang, 2005: Changes in Tropical Cyclone Number, Duration, and Intensity in a Warming Environment, Science, 309, 1844-1846. (back)

11 One line of inquiry involves looking at the temporal response to identifiable perturbations like volcanoes or so-called regime changes. It turns out that rapid responses correspond to low sensitivity while slow responses would imply higher sensitivity. Such inquiries invariably show rapid responses. Some examples are R.S. Lindzen and C. Giannitsis (1998) On the climatic implications of volcanic cooling. J. Geophys. Res., 103, 5929-5941; Lindzen, R.S. and C. Giannitsis (2002) Reconciling observations of global temperature change. Geophys. Res. Ltrs. 29, (26 June) 10.1029/2001GL014074; Douglass, D.H., and R.S. Knox (2005) Climate forcing by the volcanic eruption of Mount Pinatubo. Geophys. Res. Letters, 32, L05710, doi:10.1029/2004GL022119. (back)

12 Chen, J., B.E. Carlson, and A.D. Del Genio, 2002: Evidence for strengthening of the tropical general circulation in the 1990s. Science, 295, 838-841; Del Genio, A. D., and W. Kovari, 2002: Climatic properties of tropical precipitating convection under varying environmental conditions. J. Climate, 15, 2597-2615. (back)

13 Wielicki, B.A., T. Wong, et al, 2002: Evidence for large decadal variability in the tropical mean radiative energy budget. Science, 295, 841-844; Lin, B., T. Wong, B. Wielicki, and Y. Hu, 2004: Examination of the decadal tropical mean ERBS nonscanner radiation data for the iris hypothesis. J. Climate, 17, 1239-1246. (back)

14 Cess, R.D. and P.M. Udelhofen, 2003: Climate change during 1985-1999: Cloud interactions determined from satellite measurements. Geophys. Res. Ltrs., 30, No. 1, 1019, doi:10.1029/2002GL016128. (back)

15 Clement, A.C. and B. Soden (2005) The sensitivity of the tropical-mean radiation budget. J. Clim., 18, 3189-3203. (back)

16 Chou, M.-D. and R.S. Lindzen (2004) Comments on “Examination of the Decadal Tropical Mean ERBS Nonscanner Radiation Data for the Iris Hypothesis”. J. Clim. 18, 2123-2127. (back)

17 R.S. Lindzen, M.-D. Chou, and A.Y. Hou (2001) Does the Earth have an adaptive infrared iris? Bull. Amer. Met. Soc. 82, 417-432. (back)

18 Sun, D-Z. and R.S. Lindzen (1993) Distribution of tropical tropospheric water vapor. J. Atmos. Sci., 50, 1643-1660. (back)

19 This situation is described in W. Happer (2003) Harmful politicization of science. In Politicizing Science, M. Gough, editor, Hoover Institution Press, Stanford, CA 313 pp. (back)

20 S. Fred Singer (2003) The Revelle-Gore Story: Attempted political suppression of science. In Politicizing Science, M. Gough, editor, Hoover Institution Press, Stanford, CA 313 pp. (back)

21 Mann, M.E., Bradley, R.S. and Hughes, M.K., Northern Hemisphere Temperatures During the Past Millennium: Inferences, Uncertainties, and Limitations, Geophysical Research Letters, 26, 759-762, 1999. (back)

About the Author: Richard S. Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology(http://web.mit.edu). This paper was presented at the Yale Center for the Study of Globalization (http://www.ycsg.yale.edu) on October 21, 2005, and will appear in the published proceedings of that meeting. Reprinted with permission from the author.

A massive, newly calved “tabular” iceberg breaks loose into the Weddell Sea to meet its destiny

The catch all term “global warming” (GW) has evolved to the point where true believers use the term to mean that not only is the earth rapidly warming, but that the warming is almost entirely due to human industrial activity and the resulting carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, especially in the United States and Europe.

It appears that a majority of climatologists, atmospheric scientists, and meteorologists (we will call them collectively “CAMs”) believe this. The term “climate change” is used by those who, while allowing that the earth is warming to some degree or other, do not necessarily believe that CO2 emissions from human power generation has much, if anything, to do with it.

HOW HOT WILL THE PLANET GET?

NASA’s Global Climate Model predicts the Earth’s temperature will increase by up to 10 degrees centigrade by 2060

The earth has been warming for the last 10,000 years on average since the last ice age, when most of North America and Europe were covered with glaciers. Over hundreds of millions of years the earth has gone through periodic cycles of warming and cooling without the help of humans. Radiation from the sun is variable over eons. In 2001, the prestigious National Academy of Sciences issued a report suggesting that increased radiation from the sun (our very own thermonuclear fireball) may be responsible for much of the climate change in the last century. In other words, over the centuries, the sun flickers!

The average person who only gets his information from the mass media would never know that the GW concept is actually debatable, with many very heated (pun intended) debates going on at scientific meetings of CAMs. For example, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a U.N. sponsored group of more than 2,000 scientists from over 100 countries, has concluded that human activity is a major factor in elevated atmospheric CO2 levels (probably true), and this will result in rising temperatures and sea levels that could prove catastrophic for multi-millions of coastal dwelling folk all over the world (very debateable).

The IPCC panel concluded that in the last century, earth’s average global surface temperature had risen between 0.4-0.8 °C. They also estimated (read “guessed”) that by 2100 the global average would rise by 1.4 to 5.8 °C., depending on a, very wide range of scenarios for greenhouse gas emissions. This was widely reported in the mass media. On the other hand, the “Oregon Petition” of 2001, signed by some 18,000 scientists from all disciplines, said there was no convincing evidence that human activity is responsible, or will be responsible, for any catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. That was not widely reported.

Examples abound of media hyperbole that convinces the average person that the world is in deep trouble (aside from movies like “Day After Tomorrow”). Tom Costello of NBC says, “From tsunamis to catastrophic hurricanes, famine in Africa and wildfires in California, the evidence of human induced GW, they say, is overwhelming”. CBS’s “60 Minutes“, recently featured a CAM who is warning of the worst case scenario (let’s all get really scared), that the earth is warming due to human generated CO2 emission, sea levels will rise by three feet (a few inches or more is the mainstream CAM thinking) in another hundred years, and there is nothing we can do about it now so get used to it!

After hurricane Katrina, famed environmentalist (and CAM?) Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., blamed president Bush for the damage from the hurricane because Bush didn’t endorse the Kyoto Protocols of 1997 in which many countries vowed to limit their CO2 emissions in the future to fight GW. It seems he was implying that if Al Gore had won the election in 2000, Katrina would not have happened because Gore would have seen to it that the U.S. would comply with the protocols. Never mind that the U.S. senate voted 95 to 0 not to ratify it because of the huge hit on the U.S. economy compliance would entail. And Bill Clinton never even brought it up for a vote. In fact, even many true believer CAMs, including Al Gore, realize that the agreement was so flawed that signing it would only have symbolic value. China and India (nearly half the world’s population) were exempt, and there were no means of enforcement. Anybody could sign and then ignore, which they have done. Several European countries that signed on are now emitting MORE CO2 than before.

Learn More: Buy Books! (Amazon Affiliate)

State of Fear by Michael Crichton

Here are two diametrically opposed views on this subject: In, “State of Fear“, Michael Crichton’s recent best selling novel about eco-terrorists, he advances a very well researched contrarian viewpoint. Although a fiction novel, he presents real scientific data arguing against greenhouse gas induced warming. A book by Ross Gelbspan, a former Boston Globe reporter, entitled “Boiling Point” is a disaster scenario book about GW, in which he predicts mega-droughts and huge sea level increases, refugees, a Northern hemisphere deep freeze, malaria, etc. etc. He calls anyone who doesn’t agree with him “criminals against humanity”. But even he believes that if the U.S. did ratify the Kyoto treaty, it wouldn’t make any difference; the CO2 level in the atmosphere would continue to rise, as would the earth’s temperature. The IPCC, in the same report cited above, estimates that the global temperature will rise by about 1 deg. C by 2050. They go on to say that if the Kyoto agreement were to be fully complied with, including the U.S., global temperature would still rise by 0.94 degrees. That’s a difference of 0.06 degrees!! Obviously Kyoto is nothing more than politically correct symbolism.

Learn More: Buy Books! (Amazon Affiliate)

Boiling Point by Ross Gelbspan

It is no wonder, however, that average folks think the GW theology is absolutely true. A (small?) majority of CAMs are true believers. A CAM wrote in a recent issue of Scientific American magazine, “Scientists know that carbon dioxide is warming the atmosphere, which in turn is causing sea level to rise, and that the CO2 absorbed by the oceans is acidifying the water”. This is the kind of CAM that the media always quotes, not the infidel CAMs. He then goes on to say, quite rightly, that no one knows what the long term effects of this “fact” on the earth’s ecological systems might be. The real fact is his statement is not true in the first place. NOBODY knows for sure whether climate change is natural or human induced, or possibly both; if and how much overall global temperature may be rising; and whether CO2 generated by human activities has anything to do with it.

Few would argue that the various greenhouse gases (discussed below) present in the atmosphere don’t have a significant effect on global climate; it’s just that their effect is virtually impossible to quantify. In fact, a theory has been put forward that the earth would be entering a new ice age if not for the various greenhouse gases. Atmospheric science is even more inexact than economics. Are your local weather forecasts always right, even more than one or two days ahead of time? The climate is so complex and poorly understood that elaborate computer models are used to make all those doomsday predictions you read about. A computer model, however, is only as good as the assumptions that the programmers put into it. The enormous number of variables affecting the earth’s climate, some probably we are not even aware of, and feedback from one variable that affects another cannot be modeled realistically. Weather forecasting is, at best, problematic even over a period of days; so why do we think we can predict the weather/climate 50-100 years from now?

NOAA’s U.S. National Temperature record from 1900 to 2000 (Red line = average weighted temperature)

Let us consider some of the actual debate about scientific evidence involved in the GW debate among CAMs. Believers point to temperature records over the last 100 years or so that show a definite increase. Infidels say this is due to the fact that 100 years ago temperatures were measured in rural environments, while later in the last century urbanization of our society led to temperature measurements influenced by the heat generated by the concrete and steel of the city. Some evidence seems to show that the Antarctic ice is melting away, threatening future rise in earth’s sea level.

Some evidence points to the likelihood that the southern icecap is actually thickening. On the other hand, glaciers are melting all over the world and the Arctic ice is melting, but maybe that’s just what you would expect in a normal interglacial period over thousands of years. A greater frequency of hurricanes is evident due to GW? Maybe, but it also could be a normal hurricane cycle similar to what we had from 1950-1970. Increased ocean temperature due to the greenhouse effect may be causing the hurricanes to be more intense than before?

Perhaps not, El Nino and La Nina cycles may be major influences also. Then again, maybe last year’s hurricane season was an aberration. These are questions being debated by CAMs under the mass media radar. What are we non-theological people to believe?

Here’s the crux of the whole debate. Before 1998, CAMs generally accepted that the earth had undergone large temperature fluctuations over eons. The Vikings named it “Greenland” probably because it was discovered in a global warm period in the tenth century. There were lush pastures for raising cattle, which they did. The idea that they named it “Greenland” to lure unsuspecting settlers is probably just a myth. During the “little ice age” from about 1500 to 1800 A.D., Greenland froze over and George Washington’s troops practically froze to death at Valley Forge in the winter of 1777. It never gets that cold in New Jersey anymore. The perceived global warming since then was attributed to natural rebound, especially since most of the warming occurred before 1940. Whoops, most of the rise in atmospheric CO2 levels occurred after 1940. Think about it.

Then came the now famous “hockey stick” study by Michael Mann, an American CAM, published in the prestigious journal “Nature” in 1998. The alarmist IPCC report cited above based its assessment of climate change almost solely on Mann’s study. In essence, he said all the historical temperature data was wrong. He claimed his data showed that there has been only a gradual global temperature change over the last millennium, but that there has been a very sharp rise in the last 100 years, i.e., his temperature graph looked like a hockey stick.

Industrial emissions of CO2 now became the bad guy because its concentration in the atmosphere increased from 315 ppm (parts per million) in 1957 to 370 ppm in 2002. Hotter temperatures, greenhouse gas CO2 increase; ergo GW is due to emissions from human use of fossil fuels, which when burned, emit CO2. It’s a theory that has not been proven scientifically. A scientist can perform a laboratory experiment to determine how strong a greenhouse gas CO2 is and what its affect is in some laboratory model system. But to extrapolate laboratory results to predict what is actually happening in the earth’s atmosphere is impossible. It’s all assumptions and imperfect computer models.

Here’s how scientific research is, in general, supposed to work. Some researchers conduct some laboratory experiment or statistical study and get results that appear to support some hypothesis or theory. After peer review, the results are published in a scientific journal. The Mann paper is an example. In this case, it was a sensational paper that rattled the conventional wisdom of CAMs, thus it attracted lots of media attention. The next step is for fellow scientists from around the world to either criticize or support that data by trying to reproduce those reported results. If the original research is confirmed by other scientists from around the world, it becomes generally accepted as true.

In the case of Mann’s influential study predicting a “hockey stick” increase in global temperatures due to increased CO2 emissions, however, Mann’s results have not been reproduced. In fact, Mann’s results have been called into serious question by two scientists, Canadian mathematician Stephen McIntyre and economist Ross McKitrick. They revisited Mann’s own data and concluded, in 2003, that his results were riddled with “collation errors, unjustifiable truncations or extrapolation of source data, obsolete data, geographical location errors, and incorrect calculations of principal components.” In other words, Mann’s study is in their eyes, deeply flawed. When they corrected Mann’s results for these errors, they contend, the hockey stick model disappeared! Mann has not responded except to say he’s a victim of intimidation. We shall see, but this calls into BIG question the whole CO2 induced GW paradigm. Other CAMs must now step up to do research that might either support or not support these opposite views of data.

As a scientist myself (a chemist, not a CAM), I find it very difficult to believe that such a tiny amount of CO2 (370 ppm) in the atmosphere could be responsible for GW. That is only 0.036% of the earth’s atmosphere. Let’s consider another greenhouse gas, methane, which is ignored in all GW discussions in the media and the Kyoto protocols. Methane is over 20 times stronger a greenhouse gas than CO2, although it is present in the atmosphere at a 100 times lower concentration. But, it is still significant in the whole story. Methane is, of course, the main constituent of natural gas. So when we drill for natural gas, we release lots of methane, which contributes to greenhouse warming even before we burn it to form all that CO2. It is also generated in all bacterial fermentations, which includes landfills, rice paddies, wetlands, termite farts, waste treatment plants, burps from ruminant animals, and most important the brewing of beer (I would never agree to limit my beer intake just to save the planet). I wonder how much methane is exhaled by the billions of cows, sheep, goats, buffalos, etc., which are domesticated by the 4 billion humans on this planet? Of course all that livestock also exhales CO2 with every breath they take, just like us humans do.

Anyway, it is estimated that about 60% of methane in the air is from human activity, and its concentration in the air is increasing twice as fast as is CO2! Kyoto didn’t even consider methane! We won’t even discuss nitrous oxide (released during forest fires and use of nitrogen fertilizers), 300 times more effective a greenhouse gas than CO2.

Now let’s discuss the most potent contributor to the greenhouse effect, by far, i.e., water vapor. There are various estimates, but the best estimate is that about 95% of the greenhouse effect in our atmosphere is due to water vapor, good old H2O, and it’s virtually all natural. Nearly three fourths of the earth’s surface is covered by water, and water evaporates into the air. Apparently, few if any of the computer models invented to try and predict future climatic conditions take water vapor into account, and there is absolutely nothing we humans could do to limit levels of water vapor in the atmosphere anyway; nothing, nada, zero and nichts. The bottom line is that human activities contribute less than 1% to the greenhouse warming effect, probably less than 0.5%.

In April 1911, an iceberg like this sank the mighty Titanic. Will global warming really melt the icecaps and inundate the world? And if so, is there anything we can do?

Given the uncertainty in climate models, my guess is as good as anyone’s, so I’ll give it. The sun is in a hot period, raising earth’s average temperature. This in turn causes more water from the oceans to evaporate and raise water vapor concentration in the atmosphere, which in turn accelerates warming. Increases in atmospheric CO2 and methane may also be contributing to the warming, but it can’t be quantified.

So what to do? Humans have lived through warm and cold periods for hundreds of thousands of years and always adapted. So just don’t live to close to what is now the sea level, and maybe think about buying property in Norway or Canada to plant orange trees. Oh, yeah, don’t buy stock in companies selling ski equipment and parkas. And, if you are still worried about human induced CO2 emission and want to do something, even if only symbolic, you should stop lighting fires (emitting CO2 AND water), using your furnace, water heater and anything electrical, driving cars and SUVs, and breathing (however, if you stop breathing, you will emit lots of methane as your body decomposes). Also, lobby for less stringent air pollution rules to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Air pollution, as is commonly found in great profusion in places like Mexico City, Los Angeles, Rome, and New York promotes global cooling because all that dirty particulate matter blocks the sun’s rays from hitting the ground. It’s an anti-greenhouse effect. Also, pray for another volcanic eruption like Krakatoa in 1883, which resulted in severe winters all over the globe due to the millions of tons of particulate matter spewed into the atmosphere.

One final thought: Holman Jenkins of the Wall Street Journal, a favorite of my liberal friends, had this to say about global warming “the problems associated with climate change (whether manmade or natural) are the same old problems of poverty, disease, and natural hazards like floods, storms, and droughts. Money spent directly on these problems is a much surer bet than money spent trying to control a climate change process that we don’t understand.”

Mt. Kilimanjaro’s glaciers are melting away

Approaching the Kilimanjaro summits

“Hot tea and biscuits,”

came the muted voice from outside my tent. The time was a little past midnight, but yet it didn’t wake me, as I hadn’t slept a wink since first settling in to my sleeping bag five hours prior to this moment. My excitement and anxiousness prevented me from dropping off into unconciousness.

But any notion of sleeping anyway was negated by the fact that my tent was pitched on a surface of broken rocks at the debilitating altitude of 16,000 feet. In addition, feet-numbing cold embraced the air, as well as the incessant washing sound of the wind as it blew up from the warmer elevations of southern Tanzania, which lay in an inky darkness below.

It was time to rouse myself from the relative warmth of my bag and get dressed. It was time to climb! Summit day on Kilimanjaro comes early, as it often does on the high peaks of the world.

I had come here to east Africa to climb Kilimanjaro - a lifelong dream of mine - with a sense of urgency. Its famed glaciers are melting, and if the scientists are to be believed, these stunning features on an equally stunning and fantastic mountain will be gone in 15-20 years. I wanted to see them glistening in the sun while they are still with us, both from the wildlife-rich plains below and from above on the roof top of Africa.

Mama Cheetah and her five cubs look on

Since Kilimanjaro is a seven-summits peak, in the middle of an exotic utopia of wild animals and strange people with strange customs, the mountain is a focus for many people - suburbanite trekkers just happy to be there, armchair mountaineers with little actual experience, weekend warriors for whom Kilimanjaro will be their biggest life prize, and a small number of “hardcores” who are gunning for every big peak in the world.

If you go to Kilimanjaro and Tanzania expecting to find a nice wilderness experience on a giant exotic mountain in an Eden of savages and wild things, then think again. This isn’t the Kilimanjaro of Hemingway and Livingstone. But it’s definitely a grand life adventure in a world becoming increasing bereft of it.

As I exited the tent, I was greeted by the night-time firmament dotted and pierced by innumerable pinpricks of light. The starry constellations formed an ethereal panorama and served as a welcome foreboding of good things to come. My small climbing team, comprised of a 33 year old computer programmer named Sean from Calgary and Katherine, a 31 year old marketing executive from London, led by our stout guide John Minja, began our final 3,000 foot push to the summit via the Western Breach, Kili’s hardest non-technical route. The Breach is a large pile of scree and stone, punctuated by bands of cliffs, and being guided by headlamps, we picked our way through the rubble and made progress towards the crater rim at 18,000 feet. This was our 6th day on the mountain, and we were honed in on putting one step in front of the other in the slow manner of pole pole.

“Pole pole” is the most ubiquitous phrase on the mountain, and you hear it mentioned from the moment you step foot at the trailhead to within the last 100 feet of the top. It means “go slowly” in Swahili, and while one grows indifferent to hearing it spring from the lips of your guides every hour or so as you speed up the trail, it really does make a difference on summit day. Not that the altitude gives you much of a choice. It limits you to taking a few small steps at a time and then stopping for a mandatory gulp of air that is harder to come by the higher up you go. Half way up the rocky amphitheatre, our water bottles froze, leaving us thirsting in the deprived early morning air. Bright shooting stars flamed across the sky, some leaving long contrails marking their passage. Six hours of “pole pole later, we crested the crater rim almost to the minute that the sun crested the eastern horizon,

African Acacia Trees

Kilimanjaro is a voluptuous upheaval of rock and forest, accentuated by its gleaming white equatorial ice. Found snaking up and around its imposing dome are eight major trekking routes, but only three that lead to the summit, with most routes requiring 6-7 days to complete the climb. I chose arguably the most scenic - the Machame Route on Kili’s southern slopes. Kilimanjaro is unique in that due to its proximity to the equator, only 200 miles south of its bulging line, one travels thru all of the world’s climatic zones - it’s akin to experiencing all four seasons on a single climb.

The first white man to lay eyes on the mountain in 1849 - a Christian missionary by the name of Johann Rebmann couldn’t believe that he was seeing snow so close to the equator, and when he reported the spectacle back home in England, he was ostracized as crazy and delusional. The trail starts at roughly 7,000 feet in thick and lush rainforest and progresses up thru scant heather, sparse moorland, dry alpine desert and finally reaching arctic, icy conditions at the summit. We were doing the Western Breach variation of the Machame Route, which splits from the regular route near Lava Tower Camp two-thirds of the way up the mountain.

Kili’s glaciers flow from its summit like an elegant bridal veil, but they are quickly disintegrating under the African sun. Snowfall during the rainy season isn’t keeping pace with the melting that occurs during the dry season, and this lack of replenishment is taking its toll. Many scientists attribute this phenomenon to global warming. There is not a single place on earth, be it the rugged grandeur of the Alps, the vast Amazon Basin, the glacial fjords of Alaska or here in east Africa that is immune. With the recent devastation and increased ferocity of hurricanes in the Atlantic Ocean being attributed to global warming, climate change has the potential to drastically alter the way we live.

On Kilimanjaro, global warming affects not only the aesthetic beauty of the mountain, but also the livelihood of its local people who have lived and farmed on its lower slopes for hundreds of years. According to John Minja, a long-time guide and porter on the mountain, the shrinking glaciers means less snowmelt, which affects irrigation that is needed to water coffee plantations and gardens that provide cash crops, income, and food for local consumption. Even some of the major rivers tumbling down from the summit, such as the Umbwe, which used to run year-round, are now sometimes dry during certain times of the season.

Young faces of Tanzania

One native Chagga tribe member, Mr. John Minja, who was born and grew up in the shadow of Kilimanjaro, and who has been guiding on the mountain for seven years, indicates that within the past five years, he began noticing the glaciers visibly disappearing at an alarming rate. He has heard that in the past 50 years, the mountain has lost a third of its glacial ice.

Mr. Minja doesn’t know how losing the glaciers will affect the local tourism industry on Kilimanjaro, but he thinks tourism in general in Tanzania is good, as it creates jobs, contributes to the preservation of wildlife, increases education to the locals who live and work in the major tourism centers, and demands better management efficiency from park service managers and planners. Whether or not global warming is caused by human practices or just a part of the natural cycle of the planet is highly debatable, but regardless, the “eternal snows of Kilimanjaro” that Hemingway spoke so eloquently of are now just a few years away from disappearing altogether.

The sun rising up behind Kili’s eastern shoulder cast a spell on us. Sunrise from 18,000 feet is a wonderous spectacle, and we witnessed Kilimanjaro’s pyramidal shadow spread across the skirted clouds below. The three-story-high sheer face of the Furtwangler Glacier appeared instantly as we crested the volcanic rim. It’s an odd feature - a giant piece of ice sitting squarely on dirt. At one time not long ago, its translucent fingers spilled down the Western Breach, grabbing at solidified lava, but now it is just an oddly shaped chunk of shrinking ice sitting on the periphery of the crater. Two years ago a large section of this frozen mass caved in, accelerating its pending demise. This was the catalyst that spurred me to action.

The author stands next to the Furtwangler glacier

I had to go to Kilimanjaro soon to behold this ice cube before the last of its ice melted and flowed downstream, ending up as irrigation water for cultivated coffee plantations in Moshi township. And here I was now, touching it, feeling its surface, knowing that Kilimanjaro’s glaciers, for the time being, are holding on to existence.

The trudge up the remaining 800 feet of scree was a challenge, done with legs that felt like lead pipes and a brain clouded in drunken stupor. At the summit, the famous sign was limping and covered with bumper stickers. All of us were dazed and filled with a quiet sense of achievement. At that altitude, all I was thinking about was getting down to lower altitudes to relieve a pounding headache. The sun was shining, but at that moment, at the apex of the biggest adventure of my life, I was dreaming not of melting glaciers and over-crowding, but instead was lost in a daydream of the tropical white sands and coconut palms of Zanzibar.

How long the glaciers of Kilimanjaro continue to paint the summit with heavenly white is a question that should concern us all. Not because the mountain’s terrific height has been written about in descriptive narratives and dreamed about by countless adventurers, but because it’s a harbinger of greater environmental devastation looming on the horizon in a changing world of gas-guzzling automobiles and a society dominated by industrial progress. But at what price? The loss of Africa’s ethereal glaciers for one.

Dan Hall is a photo-journalist living in Sacramento, California

REFERENCES

- World Data Center for Paleoclimatology

- Kilimanjaro Data from University of Massachusetts Geosciences

- United Nations Environmental Program - Kilimanjaro Data