Funeral Dirge for AGW Continues...

[_Coggins7]

Science facts have indeed changed and the debate over the cause of global warming (GW) may soon be over: GW is mostly of natural origin, with only a minor human contribution from greenhouse (GH) gases. Natural climate changes are unstoppable; hence control of human-caused CO2 emissions is pointless. Now begins the more difficult campaign to rectify the political consequences arising from GW fears and achieve a more rational policy of lower cost and secure energy.



Climate Change is Natural: Though a GH Gas, CO2 is not a Pollutant



As Al Gore famously said: “The science is settled.” Indeed it is, but not quite the way he had imagined it. The facts emerging over the last few years show no evidence of the expected climate effects of increasing GH gases. The US government’s official Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) Report 1.1 published in April 2006 [Ref. 1] clearly demonstrates that GH models cannot explain the observed patterns of temperature trends: “The fingerprints don’t match.” This result has now been confirmed and extended in a peer-reviewed publication by Douglass, Christy, Pearson, and Singer [Ref. 2]. In effect, it falsifies the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) which has been the ‘Leitmotif’ of the IPCC. Further, in spite of claiming to be almost 100 percent certain that humans are the cause of current warming, the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC, published in 2007, presents no convincing evidence to support such a claim.



There clearly is no scientific consensus yet about the cause of current warming. On the one hand, we know that the climate has been warming and cooling on a variety of cycles for as long as observations have been available; since 1980 we seem to be in the warming phase of a roughly 1,500-year cycle that may continue for a couple more centuries, interrupted by shorter, decadal-scale cycles corresponding to solar variability. On the other hand, the increasing trend of GH gases, especially of carbon dioxide (CO2) from fossil-fuel burning, should produce some warming of the atmosphere, according to well-known laws of physics. The question still remains, however: how large is the actual value of such GH warming in the real atmosphere – after various feedbacks, both positive and negative, are included? GH models calculate climate sensitivities (from CO2 doubling) that range from about one degC up to as much as 11 degC, depending mainly on assumed parameters for the formation and disappearance of clouds. All these models implicitly use a positive feedback from water vapor (WV), the most important atmospheric GH gas; but there is growing evidence that WV may actually cause a negative feedback and reduce the warming effects of CO2.



The IPCC cites various kinds of ‘evidence:’

· A consensus of 2,500 scientists -- which is neither a consensus nor involves many climate experts. Against this claimed consensus we now have 400 climate experts [3] who disagree with the IPCC conclusion and are willing to so state; many of them are IPCC reviewers and were listed by the IPCC as “consenting scientists.” We also have the Oregon Petition [4], which will soon have 25,000 signers – an impressive number of scientists who doubt AGW and are skeptical of the mitigation remedies that have been proposed.



We all realize that science doesn't work by majority voting -- ultimately it's a question of whether observations support or falsify hypotheses. But even if it could be proved that CO2 drives climate change, modern life revolves around heating/lighting our homes, economic growth, industry, travel, etc, all of which emit CO2 -- and we can't stop that until we have alternatives that give us business-as-usual without CO2 emissions. And then there is China.

· A claimed correlation between a temperature increase and an increase in GHG levels: Of course, correlation does not prove causation. Moreover, the correlation was reversed during much of the 20th century, from 1940 to1975, when climate cooled while CO2 levels rose. Further, there has been no significant warming since 2001 in spite of rising CO2 levels. Finally, data from well-maintained US weather stations show the warmest years of the 20th century in the 1930s when CO2 levels were much lower than today.

· The most persuasive argument put forward by leading IPCC scientists is that 20th century mean global temperatures can be reproduced by combining both natural and anthropogenic causes, with the warming of the past 30 years dominated by the increase in GH forcing. However, closer examination of their argument soon reveals that it involves nothing more than an exercise in ‘curve fitting’ with several suitably chosen parameters. As noted above, there are wide limits on how to choose climate sensitivity from GH forcing; there is even greater uncertainty about the forcing effects of aerosols, and especially of their indirect effects [as documented by the IPCC]. And finally, the IPCC exercise considers only the tiny changes in solar irradiance and completely ignores the most important solar influence on climate from changes in the solar wind and magnetic fields.

· It goes without saying that much-hyped effects, such as melting of glaciers, disappearance of Arctic sea ice, and even some of the extreme predictions of sea level rise, are merely consequences of general warming, but do not reveal anything about the cause of warming, whether natural or anthropogenic.



2007 was a good year for peer-reviewed science that exposed inconvenient truths for the IPCC: e.g., a warm bias in the surface temperature records, troposphere data in contradiction to GH models, satellite data indicating negative climate feedback from water vapor leading to low climate sensitivity, factors other than CO2 involved in Arctic warming, the final demise of the ‘hockeystick’ climate reconstruction, further confirmation of the natural 1500-year climate cycle, another quiet hurricane season, and so on. In fact, every cornerstone of global-warming alarmism is now undermined by peer-reviewed science.



It is perhaps too much to expect that this change in the scientific paradigm will be readily accepted by the scientific community. There are too many who have invested considerable effort and reputation in support of AGW. There’s also the mindset of the editors of leading scientific journals and of the reviewers they choose, to expect a sudden change in the character of these publications. Finally, there are the granting agencies, both governmental and private, who have invested much of their prestige in support of AGW and whose budgets depend on maintaining the AGW myth. It goes without saying that practically all of the NGOs will continue to support GW fears since their incomes and perks depend on this. Of course, the media have a vested interest in stirring up popular fears; after all, calamities attract attention and sell newspapers. However, journalistic ethics may produce a gradual change, it is hoped.



Unfortunately, there has now developed a group of industrial/business stakeholders that have a strong financial interest in maintaining GW fears. They include the promoters of alternative energy sources, wind and solar, the manufacturers of ethanol and other biofuels, and the companies and researchers that have grown fat on government grants and subsidies – well over $5 billion a year in the US alone. Many industries are willing to go along with emission caps, looking for ‘regulatory certainty,’ and are less concerned about passing the increased cost along to the general public. Finally, we have the financial institutions and brokers who make money on emission trading and on selling offsets for ‘carbon footprints.’



Desperate about losing the science debate, many of these groups have instead resorted to smears and personal attacks on AGW skeptics and ‘deniers,’ accusing them of being paid by oil companies or by the tobacco(!) lobby. Climate alarmists don't seem to realize that by claiming that science can be bought with a few oil dollars, they are actually denigrating all scientists. There is a far bigger pot of government money available to IPCC consensus scientists; non-scientist Al Gore has made tens of millions out of climate alarmism.

http://www.sepp.org/Archive/weekwas/2008/Jan5.htm