Global Warming: Fact or Fiction

Global Warming: Fact or Fiction Global Warming: Science or Scam Global warming and climate change are two of the most significant challenges that face humankind in the 21st century. At least, that is, if global warming and impending climate change are really occurring. There are those who contend that global warming and impending climatic change are clandestine fabrications made by a hidden elite as a pre-text to frighten the populace in order to further some hidden political and/or economic agenda. The argument postulates that the climate change scientists are currently warning us about is vastly overstated, if not alarmist, and that the current warming trend is nothing more than a temporary feature in the natural long-term fluctuation of the Earths climate. If this is indeed true, it would represent a fundamental breakdown in the system by which the condition of our world is evaluated and brings into question the degree of trust that we hold in the scientific community and the reliability of the research that is conducted and presented in their name. I will attempt to shed some light on that debate. The issue revolves around two fundamental questions. - Is the Earth getting warmer? - If it is, is that warming a function of natural cyclical variations in temperature over time or is it a consequence of human activities? Is the Earth Getting Warmer? The evidence supporting global warming comes from the following areas: - Temperature records taken from 1850 - Satellite measurements taken from 1979 - Sea level rise in the twentieth century - Proxy records - Glacial melt Temperature records have been independently taken since 1850 by NOAA, NASA (and its preceding organizations), HADCRU and JMA. All four report essentially the same data and the data is unambiguous. The Earth is warmer by over a degree than it was in 1850. One degree may seem insignificant but temperature changes of just a few degrees have affected the Earth’s climate dramatically, historically. Measurements taken from weather satellites since 1979 reveal a clear increase in tropospheric pressures since the collection of the initial data. The data is unambiguous. Source: IPCC The sea level has risen 7 inches since 1870 when this dataset was first collected. This rise has occurred following 2000 years in which there was no significant change. The data is unambiguous. Source: CSIRO Proxy records are sophisticated ways of inferring surface temperatures over previous centuries and millennia. Taken together, these independent records show widespread warming over the 20th century, with a particularly sharp uptick in temperature over the last few decades. Source: National Acadamies While proxy records are, by definition, not as accurate or precise as direct measurements, they provide a robust picture of thousands of years of the Earth's history. Three main types of proxy records used to create this picture are: • Ice Cores: One proxy method is to drill into glaciers and ice sheets to extract ice samples. Since the ice was formed from snow that fell over the centuries, the deeper you drill, the farther back in time you are looking. The chemical composition of the ice correlates very strongly with temperature. Scientists have constructed temperature records from ice cores taken from Tibetan and Andean glaciers, an ice cap in the Canadian Arctic, and the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets. These records show that, at low latitudes, 20th century climate was unusually warm compared to the previous 2,000 years. In the Canadian Arctic, warming over the past 150 years is unprecedented compared to the previous millennium. In Greenland and coastal Antarctica, there is clear evidence of warming over the past century. Ice cores from Antarctica's interior, however, do not show warming over the past century. • Tree rings: In temperate regions, trees generally produce one ring a year, and some tree species are extremely long-lived. (A bristlecone pine, for example, can live more than 4,000 years.) Patterns in the width and density of tree rings provide year-by-year temperature information. Scientists have tree ring records from more than 2,000 sites on all inhabited continents, though most of the records are from temperate areas of the Northern Hemisphere. These records show that 20th century warming was unusual compared to at least the past 500 years. • Coral reefs: Corals build their hard skeletons with annual bands of calcium carbonate. The geochemical composition of each annual band varies depending on the temperature of the water at the time the band was formed. Scientists have coral proxy records from the Atlantic, Indian, and Pacific oceans, with most of these going back 400 years. Coral proxy records indicate sea surface warming in most tropical locations over the past century. The data speaks for itself. On the whole, the Earth is clearly warming. Still, there is one area of continuing debate, the issue of glacial melt. Most scientists contend that there is clear evidence for the loss of glacial mass over the past century and particularly over the last decade, which would be expected if air temperatures were truly increasing globally. However, this position is not unanimously held. Comparative photography of glaciers in Alaska and Glacier National Park clearly show dramatic glacial retreat over the last several decades. Could the glacial melt in Alaska and Glacier National Park be resulting from some regional phenomenon? There are those who claim that the worlds glaciers overall are in fact actually advancing and not retreating despite these regional effects. If it is really true that the worlds glaciers are actually advancing and not retreating, then the broader data supporting a warming Earth would necessarily be brought into question. So whats really going on here? In my research, the most widely quoted supporting data for the advancing glacier position is from the renowned botanist, David Bellamy. Bellamy primarily cites data from the World Glacier Monitoring Service in Zurich, Switzerland that indicates that of the 625 glaciers under their observation, 555 have been determined to have grown over the last century. Frankly, this came as a shock to me. How can the warming Earth data be reconciled with increasing glaciation? It doesn't make sense. So what is going on here? In an attempt to answer this question, I found an independent query made by researcher Coby Beck to the World Glacier Monitoring Service and it reveals an altogether different position by that organization. In short, they state the following, "Despite Bellamy’s scientific reputation, he has made all the mistakes that are possible. He has cited data that was simply false, he has failed to provide references and he has completely misunderstood the scientific context and neglected current scientific literature. The latest studies show unequivocally that most of the world's glaciers are retreating.” Here is the complete quote: “…The figures that Bellamy cited must have come from somewhere. I emailed him to ask for his source. After several requests, he replied to me at the end of last week. The data, he said, came from a website called www.iceagenow.com. Iceagenow was constructed by a man called Robert W Felix to promote his self-published book about "the coming ice age". It claims that sea levels are falling, not rising; that the Asian tsunami was caused by the "ice age cycle"; and that "underwater volcanic activity - not human activity - is heating the seas. Is Felix a climatologist, a volcanologist or an oceanographer? Er, none of the above. His biography describes him as a "former architect". His website is so bonkers that we thought at first it was a spoof. Sadly, he appears to believe what he says. But there, indeed, was all the material that Bellamy cited in his letter, including the figures - or something resembling the figures - he quoted. "Since 1980, there has been an advance of more than 55% of the 625 mountain glaciers under observation by the World Glacier Monitoring group in Zurich." The source, which Bellamy also cited in his email to me, was given as "the latest issue of 21st Century Science and Technology". 21st Century Science and Technology? It sounds impressive, until you discover that it is published by Lyndon LaRouche. Lyndon LaRouche is the American demagogue who in 1989 received a 15-year sentence for conspiracy, mail fraud and tax-code violations. He has claimed that the British royal family is running an international drugs syndicate, that Henry Kissinger is a communist agent, that the British government is controlled by Jewish bankers, and that modern science is a conspiracy against human potential. It wasn't hard to find out that this is one of his vehicles: LaRouche is named on the front page of the magazine's website, and the edition Bellamy cites contains an article beginning: "We in LaRouche's Youth Movement find ourselves in combat with an old enemy that destroys human beings ... it is empiricism." Oh well, at least there is a source for Bellamy's figures. But where did 21st Century Science and Technology get them from? It doesn't say. But I think we can make an informed guess, for the same data can be found all over the internet. They were first published online by Professor Fred Singer, one of the very few climate change deniers who has a vaguely relevant qualification (he is, or was, an environmental scientist). He posted them on his website, www.sepp.org, and they were then reproduced by the appropriately named junkscience.com, by the Cooler Heads Coalition, the US National Centre for Public Policy Research and countless others. They have even found their way into the Washington Post. They are constantly quoted as evidence that man-made climate change is not happening. But where did they come from? Singer cites half a source: "A paper published in Science in 1989." Well, the paper might be 16 years old, but at least, and at last, there is one. Surely? We went through every edition of Science published in 1989, both manually and electronically. Not only did it contain nothing resembling those figures, throughout that year there was no paper published in this journal about glacial advance or retreat. So it wasn't looking too good for Bellamy, or Singer, or any of the deniers who have cited these figures. But there was still one mystery to clear up. While Bellamy's source claimed that 55% of 625 glaciers are advancing, Bellamy claimed that 555 of them - or 89% - are advancing. This figure appears to exist nowhere else. But on the standard English keyboard, 5 and % occupy the same key. If you try to hit %, but fail to press shift, you get 555, instead of 55%. This is the only explanation I can produce for his figure. When we challenged him, he admitted that there had been "a glitch of the electronics". So, in Bellamy's poor typing, we have the basis for a whole new front in the war against climate science. The 555 figure is now being cited as definitive evidence that global warming is a "fraud", a "scam", a "lie". We phoned New Scientist to ask if Bellamy had requested a correction. He had not. It is hard to convey just how selective you have to be to dismiss the evidence for climate change. You must climb over a mountain of evidence to pick up a crumb: a crumb which then disintegrates in the palm of your hand. You must ignore an entire canon of science, the statements of the world's most eminent scientific institutions, and thousands of papers published in the foremost scientific journals. You must, if you are David Bellamy, embrace instead the claims of an eccentric former architect, which are based on what appears to be a non-existent data set. And you must do all this while calling yourself a scientist.” So what about Antarctica? Data supports the conclusion that the Antarctic ice-sheets are actually growing. How is that possible if global warming is real? It appears to me that there may be some truth to this, but in a limited way. Scientists have indeed reported that that the East Antarctic Sheet might be growing. However, that conclusion was made with the caveat that the data was a regional phenomenon and that the conclusion was equivocal. In essence, there conclusion was that this was an unconfirmed regional trend and that, even if true, did not necessarily indicate that the greater Antarctica ice pack was growing and that the phenomenon could not be used to make a global inference. Indeed, this weak piece of evidence may no longer even be current. Recent results from NASA's GRACE experiment that measured the gravitational pull of the massive Antarctic ice sheets, appears to indicate that on the whole, ice mass is actually being lost. The final conclusion, based across all of the data, is that between 1961 and 1997, the world's glaciers lost at least 890 cubic miles of ice. The consensus among scientists is that rising air temperatures were the most important factor behind this loss of mass. That conclusion, in addition to the overall conclusion that global warming is real, is authored and supported by a vast list of respected scientific organizations. Check it out for yourself, here are just a few examples to get you started: • National Academies' Joint Statement [PDF] (includes G8 and 5 other countries) • American Association for the Advancement of Science • American Meteorological Society • American Geophysical Union • American Statistical Association I personally cannot make the argument here because I am not a climatologist. But I can make the case that it is not necessary to be a climatologist to understand their conclusions and so I strongly recommend that you research this yourself and draw your own conclusions. In my book, they were not ambiguous in any way whatsoever. So far as I can tell, the vast preponderance of climatologists and scientists that are qualified to entertain this discussion state unequivocally that global warming is a fact. Frankly, I can’t cite them all because I simply don’t have enough time and I suspect that it would be challenging for even the most dedicated researcher to find the time to read them all. But, so far as I could tell, this is the conclusion and the evidence supporting that conclusion appears to simply be overwhelming, by any measure that I am aware of. Furthermore, I looked very carefully for any evidence that supported or (for that matter) even hinted at the presence of some hidden agenda by the scientific community in the promulgation, presentation and interpretation of their data. I could find none that panned out and that appeared worthy of mention, at least in my mind. This, of course, does not mean that it doesn’t exist. But if it does, it must be well hidden and represent a conspiracy that runs through many disciplines, organizations and individuals at many levels. I did, however, find what appeared to be clear evidence, at the very least, of poor methodology and documentation if not a concerted effort by business interests to protect their individual assets in the advancement of the opposing view. Nevertheless, if you have any evidence to support these claims, I would be very interested in hearing them, and if they are valid, I will certainly post them. If you wish to challenge the conclusions that I draw, I should be an easy mark as I am clearly not an expert on the topic. So, bring it on as they say, but I will not accept rhetoric, hearsay or unsupported conjecture because this is simply too important a topic for that. So... Is Global Warming a Function of Natural Cyclical Planetary Variations or is it a Consequence of Human Activities? The theory of global warming is nothing new. The Nobel Prize-winning chemist Svante Arrhenius first proposed the idea of global warming in 1896. Carbon dioxide, he knew, traps heat in the Earth's atmosphere. He also knew that burning coal and oil releases carbon dioxide (CO2). Arrhenius speculated that continued burning of coal and oil would increase concentrations of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere, making the planet warmer. It's called the "greenhouse effect." What warms the Earth? To determine what is causing today's rapid global warming, scientists have examined all the factors that can affect the Earth's temperature. There are essentially three factors that could be responsible for recent rapid global warming: 1. The sun 2. Earth's reflectivity 3. Greenhouse gases Which of these is causing our current global warming? It's not the sun: cause of little warming since 1750, none since 1980s Ultimately, the climate system is powered by the sun: all else being equal, if you turn up the sun, you'll warm up the Earth. According to IPCC estimates, the sun has accounted for just a small portion of warming since 1750. A study of more recent solar activity has demonstrated that since about 1985 the sun has changed in ways that, if anything, should have cooled the planet—even as global temperatures have been rising. So the sun is not causing global warming. Solar Activity Doesn't Match Temperature Rise Global surface temperature has risen without a net increase in solar energy. Source: NOAA/NCDC; Frolich and Lean; Willson and Mordvinov; Dewitte et. al. via GlobalChange.gov It's not reflectivity: changes point to cooling, not warming Around 30% of the sun's energy that reaches the Earth is reflected back into space. Changes in how much sunlight is absorbed, and how much is reflected, can affect global temperatures. Using satellite and land-based observations and computer models, scientists have calculated how Earth's reflectivity has changed over time. These calculations suggest that human-produced particulate pollution, especially reflective sulfur-containing particles, have had a cooling effect on the climate, masking some of the warming effect of greenhouse gases. In fact, the slight decrease in global temperature between 1945 and 1975 was likely caused by a combination of rising particulate pollution and natural factors. Warming resumed after 1975 when industrialized countries began to clean up their particulate pollution while continuing to increase their greenhouse gas emissions. As for human land use changes (primarily forest clearing for agriculture), they have on balance brightened the planet since 1750. This would have a cooling effect, yet we've seen warming. Changes in the frequency of volcanic eruptions, which can send reflective particles up into the stratosphere, also cannot explain the observed warming trend. So reflectivity is not causing global warming. Satellite Measurement of Earth's Reflectivity Satellite measurements like the one below from April 7-22, 2002 enable scientists to understand how surface features can affect climate trends. Source: NASA Earth Observatory All the evidence points to greenhouse gases That leaves the greenhouse effect as the only remaining scientific explanation for the rise in global temperatures in recent decades. We have direct measurements of CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere going back more than 50 years, and indirect measurements (from ice cores) going back hundreds of thousands of years. These measurements confirm that concentrations are rising rapidly. Historic CO2 Levels The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is higher than at any time in measurable history, and predicted to increase dramatically this century. Source: GlobalChange.gov Though natural amounts of CO2 have varied from 180 to 300 parts per million (ppm), today's CO2 levels are around 380 ppm. That's 25% more than the highest natural levels over the past 800,000 years. Increased CO2 levels have contributed to periods of higher average temperatures throughout that long record. (Boden, Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center) We also know the additional CO2 in the atmosphere comes mainly from coal and oil, because the chemical composition of the CO2 contains a unique "fingerprint." As far as scientists are concerned, it's case closed: human activity is causing the Earth to get warmer, primarily through the burning of fossil fuels, with a smaller contribution from deforestation. All other scientific explanations for why the Earth is getting warmer have been eliminated. World View of Human Impact on Temperature Since 1900 Continental and global temperatures modeled with and without human influence show the impact of human activity on global warming. Source: IPCC 2007: WG1 AR4 Figure SPM.4 All in all, the evidence does not seem to be murky, unclear or confused, in fact it seems to be quite clear. Based upon my research, the data reveals virtually unambiguously that the Earth is warming and that the warming is severe and accelerating. Furthermore, the vast preponderance of data point to the clear conclusion that the warming is directly related to human activities and not to some natural fluctuation in the environment. The computer models that project the impact upon the climate have (up to now) proved to be generally accurate and, when they were off, they tended to be off in the conservative direction, by under representing the consequences. The body of those conclusions are chilling. Climate change is not impending, it is currently well underway and when compared to previous sudden climatic events in the historical past that were not associated with cataclysmic occurrence, it is unprecedented in its rapidity and severity. In fact, the current pattern of climatic change appears far more similar to the documented patterns of sudden climatic shift that have occurred following ancient examples of ecological catastrophe than any example of natural variation, no matter how extreme. If that is indeed true, then we face a very uncertain and potentially bleak future. Indeed, the long-term consequences of the current climate change are projected to be disastrous in scope and there is precious little time left to slow these consequences, if indeed it is not already to late. A list of some of those consequences are included in the letter to Presidents Obama and Hu that follows. It seems starkly evident that only immediate and dramatic steps taken in concert by the unified and committed governments of the entire Earth can stave off a tragedy of the highest order. There simply could not be a more seminal and crucial period. Given that apparent reality, it is profoundly disturbing to me that so much energy continues to be committed to the task of confusing the public on this issue. Can it not be seen as obvious that any short-term financial gain (regardless of its scope) that is made by any self-interested government, by any callous corporation or by any profiteering individual will necessarily be nullified and rendered irrelevant by the economic catastrophe that will occur necessarily later on? I cannot help but to wonder why it is, in large measure, that the various governments, corporations and peoples of the world continue to go on about there business as if this impending disaster really were a delusion; as if it will somehow all go away if we just keep working hard (with our collective heads in the sand). It seems as though that we have made some quiet acknowledgment that the problem is far to big for us to face; as if we are betting our last buck on some last minute salvation. Perhaps we are all quietly hoping to be saved by some amazing new technological breakthrough or by virtue of some extraordinary and unprecedented act of divine or extraterrestrial intervention. Perhaps. Perhaps, but I don't think so. I ask you, do you really think so? Does it not seem that we are our best hope, if not our only hope? We are in desperate trouble. We need our leaders to be immediately responsive to the very real and grave threat that now confronts us and if they fail to be aggressive enough in meeting that challenge, then we will need to move aggressively to remind them of whom it is that they ultimately answer. If action comes to slowly, then it may be necessary to move our leaders to action by irresistibly guiding them in that direction. It has always proved to be true that when the people choose to lead, the leaders have had no choice but to follow. Since the worlds leadership must be more active and efficient than they have ever been before, we must therefore be more active and efficient than we have ever been before. Our house is burning, so to speak, and we really have no choice but to act together on this one because in the end, only fools would fight in a burning house. Please print out the following letter and sign it along with as many others as is reasonably possible. Mail the letter to the White House as well as to your local and state representatives. It might well be the most important thing that you ever did. OPEN LETTER TO PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA & PRESIDENT HU JINTAO January 19, 2011 The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue Washington, DC 20003 Dear President Barack Obama & President Hu Jintao: It is time to publicly acknowledge that the continued burning of fossil fuels threatens the survival of civilization. The science is incontrovertible on this fact, yet the response from government is business as usual. Our two nations dominate world carbon emissions. No civilization has survived the ongoing destruction of its natural support systems, nor will ours. It is with a deepening sense of dread over the fate of future generations that we call on you to acknowledge the severity of the global climate emergency by placing climate stabilization at the top of your policy agendas. According to NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies and NOAA's National Climatic Data Center, 2010 tied with 2005 as the hottest year in recorded history. Last year was also the wettest on record in terms of global average precipitation, according to the Global Historical Climatology Network, with devastating impacts felt across the globe. Estimates by the World Health Organization are that the Earth's warming climate contributes to more than 150,000 deaths each year. Here's what else we're facing: • Crop-withering heat waves • A melting Greenland ice sheet that threatens to raise sea level 23 feet • Fires transforming carbon-storing tropical rainforests into carbon emitters • Ocean acidification imperiling the base of the seafood chain • Melting glaciers in the Himalayas and Tibetan Plateau threatening the dry season irrigation water supplies - and food security - of hundreds of millions of people • Ever-deadlier storms creating growing numbers of climate refugees • Scientists predicting 1/5 of living species being driven toward extinction by mid-century This is just the beginning. Nature tells us time is running out, but we can't see the clock. As we blindly reach critical climate "tipping points," things promise to get worse, much worse. Central to the solution is a wartime-like mobilization by the governments of the United States and China to cut carbon emissions 80 percent (based on 2006 levels) by 2020. This is required if we are to reduce carbon emissions to 350 parts per million in the atmosphere, the level top climate scientists say is safe for humanity. There is no more important measure of presidential leadership than living up to the expectations of our children to protect their future. Every day our respective governments fail to act, their future grows more perilous. We await your response. Sincerely, Lester Brown, President, Earth Policy Institute Rev. Sally G. Bingham, President, The Regeneration Project & Interfaith Power & Light Brent Blackwelder, President Emeritus, Friends of the Earth David Blittersdorf, President/CEO, AllEarth Renewables, Inc. Jan Blittersdorf, President/CEO, NRG Systems, Inc. Michael Brune, Executive Director, Sierra Club Lisa Daniels, Executive Director, Windustry Brock Evans, President, Endangered Species Coalition Ross Gelbspan, Author Paul Hawken, Author Randy Hayes, Executive Director, Foundation Earth & Founder, Rainforest Action Network Courtney Hight, Co-Director, Energy Action Coalition Julia Butterfly Hill, Co-Founder, The Engage Network* Chuck Kutscher, Former Chair, American Solar Energy Society & Principal Engineer, National Renewable Energy Laboratory* Eric Lombardi, Executive Director, Eco-Cycle Bill McKibben, Founder, 350.org Erich Pica, President, Friends of the Earth Phil Radford, Executive Director, Greenpeace Kieran Suckling, Executive Director, Center for Biological Diversity Rebecca Tarbotton, Executive Director, Rainforest Action Network Mike Tidwell, Director, Chesapeake Climate Action Network James A. Walker, Former President, American Wind Energy Association Tom Weis, President, Climate Crisis Solutions Michael Nielson, Author