1 / 75

Anthropogenic Global Warming Reality or Fiction? Version 1.1 06Sep08

Anthropogenic Global Warming Reality or Fiction? Version 1.1 06Sep08. Francis Massen Physics Lab, LCD and meteoLCD Lycée Classique de Diekirch http://meteo.lcd.lu francis.massen@education.lu August 2008. Index. Climate and weather Climate metrics Climate models

tangia
Download Presentation

Anthropogenic Global Warming Reality or Fiction? Version 1.1 06Sep08

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Anthropogenic Global WarmingReality or Fiction? Version 1.1 06Sep08 Francis Massen Physics Lab, LCD and meteoLCD Lycée Classique de Diekirch http://meteo.lcd.lufrancis.massen@education.luAugust 2008

  2. Index • Climate and weather • Climate metrics • Climate models • Causes of climate change • How good are the data and the models? • IPCC and the so-called consensus • The skeptics and their arguments • Major scares, real or imagined? • Cooling down? • Conclusions AGW.. reality or fiction?

  3. Climate and weather • Weather = actual state of the atmosphere, chaotic changes • Climate = mean state ( min. 30 years) of the atmosphere together with its statistical variationsExtreme events are a “normal” feature of every climateClimate is always changing… it never is or was constant! AGW.. reality or fiction?

  4. Pielke, Colorado University, 2008 The Earth’s climate system is highly nonlinear: inputs and outputs are not proportional, change is often episodic and abrupt, rather than slow and gradual, and multiple equilibria are the norm AGW.. reality or fiction?

  5. The motor of the weather • Sun = engine that drives weather/climate • Uneven heating by the sun of the globe causes heat flow from hot to cold regions (through convection: air movements and ocean circulation, complicated by the rotation of the globe) AGW.. reality or fiction?

  6. Climate change is caused by • Variable inclination of earth axis • Variable distance earth/sun • Variable sun activity (TSI, UV and magnetic) • Variable galactic cosmic rays______________________________ • Changes in land usage and land cover • Changes in the composition of the atmosphere (natural, anthropogenic) long-time short time AGW.. reality or fiction?

  7. Climate metrics • Global temperature (in °C) measured by surface weather stations, balloons and satellites (MSU, since 1978) • Ocean heat content (in J) measured by ships, moores,…, floating buoys (Argo, since 2003) AGW.. reality or fiction?

  8. Global temperature • Not many good long-time measurements (instruments only since ~1750) • Past temperatures must be infered from proxies (tree rings, isotope ratios in ice cores and sea-shells) • Results often dubious and uncertain • Meaningful? (no uniform temperature) AGW.. reality or fiction?

  9. What was commonly assumed (IPCC SAR, 1995) AGW.. reality or fiction?

  10. The Hockey Stick (MBH 98)IPCC SAR 2001 [1] No Medieval Warm Period ! No Little Ice Age ! AGW.. reality or fiction?

  11. The Hockey Stick (MBH 98) [2] • Mann, Bradley, Hughes: temperature profile of middle age essentially derived from a couple of bristlecones • Dubious statistics • IPCC TAR 2001 icon, published many million times • Demolished by McIntire/McKitrick (2003) • Embarrassment for the IPCC (not anymore in 4AR, 2008) AGW.. reality or fiction?

  12. The Hockey Stick (MBH 98) [3] • Ian Jolliffe, expert statistician, 2008:“It therefore seems crazy that the MBH hockey stick has been given such prominence and that a group of influential climate scientists have doggedly defended a piece of dubious statistics. “ AGW.. reality or fiction?

  13. The Hockey Stick (MBH 98) [3]Loehle reconstruction, not using tree rings (2007): Medieval warm period (MWP) AGW.. reality or fiction? Little Ice Age (LIA)

  14. Divergence problem [1] • Recent tree rings derived temperatures are lower than measured ones! measured tree ring AGW.. reality or fiction?

  15. Divergence problem [2] Wilson, GRL, 2007: No current tree ring (TR) based reconstruction of extratropical Northern Hemisphere (ENH) temperatures that extends into the 1990s captures the full range of late 20th century warming observed in the instrumental record Wilmking, 2008: This "divergence effect" seriously questions the validity of tree-ring based climate reconstructions AGW.. reality or fiction?

  16. Recent temperature data sources • Surface: GISTEMP (GISS, Nasa) [Hansen]NCDC (US)Hadley(GB) [Jones] • Satellites:MSU = microwave sounding unitUHA (US) [Christy, Spencer]RSS (US) [Mears] AGW.. reality or fiction?

  17. Surface temperatures heavily adjusted for UHI, instrument drift,… AGW.. reality or fiction?

  18. One of many problems: land-based station dropout (NOAA: GHCN) favours urban stations (UHI problem) AGW.. reality or fiction? [icecap]

  19. Hadley 1850 to 2007 Similar warming ratevery different CO2 increase dCO2=+43 ppm dCO2=+17ppm AGW.. reality or fiction? [climate4you]

  20. Last 40 years… El Nino 1998 See difference! AGW.. reality or fiction? No GW since 2001 ! [climate4you]

  21. Global temperature = bad metric? Prof. Roger Pielke, Sr University of Colorado, Boulder: Global temperature is not a correct metric for climate change. Ocean heat content is the metric to be used. AGW.. reality or fiction?

  22. Barnett [Science, 2001] Observations (dubious?) AGW.. reality or fiction? Decreasing global temperatures

  23. Willis [GRL, 2004] upper 750m AGW.. reality or fiction?

  24. Hansen [Science, 2005] The observed annual mean rate of ocean heat gain between 1993 and mid-2003 was 0.86 +/- 0.12 W/m2 per year for the 93.4% of the ocean that was analyzed. AGW.. reality or fiction?

  25. Argo floater system (starting 2003) AGW.. reality or fiction?

  26. Argo floaters in use AGW.. reality or fiction?

  27. Argo results [Willis, JPL, 2008] Decreasing ocean heat content! AGW.. reality or fiction?

  28. GHG and climate forcing • GHG’s (water vapour, CO2, methane,….) absorp a portion of the outgoing long wave radiation and radiate it back to the surface • Earth heats up until a new equilibrium (incoming radiation = outgoing radiation) is reached • Without GHG’s, earth would be at -18°C instead at +15°C AGW.. reality or fiction?

  29. GHG contribution to natural GH AGW.. reality or fiction?

  30. Climate forcing F • F = hypothetical increase in TOA irradiance caused by a change of [CO2] relative to pre-industrial times (280ppm) • F = 5.35*ln(actual_CO2/reference_CO2)(Arrhenius law, 5.35 from [Myrhe, 1998]) • F = 3.7 Wm-2 for CO2 doublingF = 1.7 Wm-2 today (280 → 385 ppm) The factor 5.35 is derived from historical surface temperatures, and may be grossly overestimated! [Erren, 2002]TOA = Top Of Atmosphere AGW.. reality or fiction?

  31. If the earth was a black body… • Stefan-Boltzmann: F = σT4σ=5.67*10-8 • dF/dT = 4σT3 and dT =1/(4 σ)*dF/T3 • With T = 15°C and dF=3.7 as previous gives dT = 0.68°C for a CO2 doublingand dT = 0.31°C for today AGW.. reality or fiction?

  32. Climate sensitivity λ (earth ≠ black body) • dT = change in global temperature caused by given change in forcing dF • dF = λ*dT or λ = dF/dT [Wm-2K-1] • dT = dF/ λ without feedbacks • dT = dF/ (λ-f1-f2..) with feedbacksf > 0 positive feedback (e.g. water vapour)f < 0 negative feedback (e.g. cloud cover ) AGW.. reality or fiction?

  33. The data [Spencer, 2008] Climate sensitivity dT for doubling CO2 (from 280 to 560ppm): dT = 3.7/4.5 = 0.8 °C AGW.. reality or fiction?

  34. The IPCC • IPCC = political organisation (UNEP, WMO) • Evaluates scientific literature and research and issues AR’s (assessment reports):1990:FAR 1995:SAR 2001:TAR 2007:4AR • Authors often are their own reviewers • With each AR comes a SPM (summary for policy makers) written by bureaucrats and political delegates (not scientists!) • AR’s had to be changed to conform to the SPM published before the AR’s ! AGW.. reality or fiction?

  35. IPCC = 2500 scientists? Most important reports = ~50 authors Mc Lean, 2008: “Prejudiced authors, prejudiced findings”: ..two of Hadley’s Centre’s contribution authors (Jones and Thorne) were among the reviewers of the chapter that they had themselves written… …the majority of scientists who are skeptical of a human influence significant enough to be damaging were unrepresented… AGW.. reality or fiction?

  36. IPCC and climate models • IPCC relies heavily on anthropogenic GHG emissions and climate models • IPCC uses scenarios (which are not predictions [Trenberth, IPCC author]) • IPCC scenarios emphasize role of CO2 emissions, neglect LULC and solar influence (LULC = Land Use Land Change) • SPM’s ignore the poor LOSU of many forcings(LOSU = Level Of Scientific Understanding) AGW.. reality or fiction?

  37. IPCC 4AR scenarios (2007) AGW.. reality or fiction?

  38. IPCC forcings (4AR, 2007) ( Change relative to pre-industrial 1750 situation) LOSU = level of scientific understanding high low AGW.. reality or fiction?

  39. Are the models reliable? [1] [Akasufo, 2007] hindcast by model observation Vast difference between reality and model! AGW.. reality or fiction? Akasufo: former director of the International Arctic Research Center

  40. Are the models reliable? [2] [Freeman Dyson] Freeman Dyson: FRS, physics professor at Princeton University AGW.. reality or fiction?

  41. IPCC critics [1a] • Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology:The IPCC process is driven by politics rather than science.It uses summaries to misrepresent what scientists say. AGW.. reality or fiction?

  42. IPCC critics [1b] It uses language that means different things to scientists and laymen. It exploits public ignorance over quantitative matters. It exploits what scientists can agree on, while ignoring disagreements, to support the global warming agenda. And it exaggerates scientific accuracy and certainty and the authority of undistinguished scientists. AGW.. reality or fiction?

  43. IPCC critics [1c] The "most egregious" problem with the IPCC's forthcoming report, is that it is presented as a consensus that involves hundreds, perhaps thousands, of scientists . . . and none of them was asked if they agreed with anything in the report except for the one or two pages they worked on. AGW.. reality or fiction?

  44. IPCC critics [2] • Prof. Roger Pielke Sr.University of Colorado in BoulderThe IPCC is an oligarchy that is using its privileged position to advocate for a particular perspective on the role of humans within the climate system. • Oligarchy = form of government in which all power is vested in a few persons or in a dominant class or clique AGW.. reality or fiction?

  45. IPCC critics [3] • House of Lords, “ The Economics of Climate Change”, 2006:It seems to us that there remains a risk that the IPCC has become a “knowledge monopoly” in some respects, unwilling to listen to those who do not pursue the consensus line. AGW.. reality or fiction?

  46. Consequences of global warming:there remainsno phenomen that is not caused or influenced by GW! A complete list of things caused by global warming Acne, agricultural land increase, Afghan poppies destroyed, Africa devastated,Africa in conflict,African aid threatened, African summer frost, aggressive weeds, air pressure changes, Alaska reshaped, Agulhas current moves,  Alps melting, Amazon a desert, American dream end,  amphibians breeding earlier (or not),  anaphylactic reactions to bee stings,  ancient forests dramatically changed, animals head for the hills,Antarctic grass flourishes, Antarctic ice grows, Antarctic ice shrinks, Antarctic sea life at risk,   anxiety treatment, algal blooms, archaeological sites threatened,Arctic bogs melt, Arctic in bloom, Arctic ice free, Arctic ice melt faster, Arctic lakes disappear, Arctic tundra to burn, Arctic warming (not),Atlantic less salty, Atlantic more salty,   atmospheric circulation modified, attack of the killer jellyfish, avalanches reduced, avalanches increased,  Baghdad snow, Bahrain under water,  bananas grow, barbarisation, beer shortage, beetle infestation, bet for $10,000,  better beer,big melt faster,billion dollar research projects, billion homeless, billions face risk, billions of deaths, bird distributions change, bird loss accelerating, bird visitors drop, birds confused, birds return early, birds driven north,… [http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm] AGW.. reality or fiction?

  47. Climate change research $$$ • USA: $37 billion US$ to climate change-related activities since 2001 • EUROPE:6th Framework 2002-2006: 2.0 billion Euro 7th Framework 2007-20013: 9.0 billion Europlus additional funding of 3.6 billion Euro • AUSTRALIA, 2008:$2.3 billion US$ over four years for climate research Lindzen: “The research and support for research depends on the alarm” AGW.. reality or fiction?

  48. Dr. Gerd R. WeberMax Planck Institute, 1992 • “Heute werden auf eine Weise Forschungsgelder verteilt und Berichte geschrieben, dass sich daraus eine positive Rückkopplungsschleife  bildet, die allen Beteiligten Gewinne abwirft. Die Wissenschaftler bekommen mehr Forschungsgelder, die Medien neue Empörungsgeschichten..., den Politikern erschliesst sich ihr Stimmenpotential." Gerd R. Weber: Treibhauseffekt. Böttiger Verlags GmbH AGW.. reality or fiction?

  49. The major scares, real or imagined? • Melting of glaciers and polar ice • Sea level rising • Hurricanes on increase • Drought on increase AGW.. reality or fiction?

  50. Mont Blanc ice cap Vincent et al. , JGR, 2007: “The most striking features of these figures are the small thickness changes observed over the 20th century. … thickness variations do not exceed ±15 m. The average changes are +2.6 m at Dôme du Goûter and -0.3 m at Mont Blanc. Considering the uncertainty interval, i.e., ±5 m, it can be concluded that no significant thickness change is detectable over most of these areas” World Climate Report AGW.. reality or fiction?

More Related