Is Global Warming Man Made?

Citing Dr. Soon, I wrote, "Solar radiation appears to be a far better predictor of arctic temperature change than are CO2 concentrations." Jordan replied,

In Post 19 I linked to Paul Damon's paper explaining how this claim is based on arithmetic error. When the errors are fixed, the solar-warming correlation goes away.

This is not a critique of Soon's data. The graph that Damon critiques doesn't look the same as the one Soon presents. I'm not sure why. Perhaps the difference is that whereas Damon's graph measures only solar cycle length, the graph that Soon presents measures the sun's total irradiance, which includes sunspot cycle amplitude, sunspot cycle length, solar equatorial rotation rate, fraction of penumbral spots and decay rate of the 11-year sunspot cycle.

Soon also uses the same data that the IPCC uses when they argue for a CO2 role in global warming. Soon simply extends the data further back to show that whereas arctic temperature correlates well with CO2 from 1960 to 2000, there is little correlation from 1880 to 1960. He then shows that total solar irradiance correlates much more closely with arctic temperatures over the same period.

I wish that I could post Soon's graphs, so you could see the data in graphical form. But he doesn't want them widely disseminated, as he has yet to publish the data.

I haven't questioned Soon's credentials, but his affiliation with and funding from several organizations does suggest possibility of bias.

The possibility of bias exists on the other side too, so I wouldn't rely on that argument. ;-)

- Bill
(Edited by William Dwyer on 7/08, 4:16pm)

Post 41

Wednesday, July 8, 2009 - 4:33pm

Thanks, Bill. Let me see what I can find on solar irradiance.

Jordan

Post 42

Wednesday, July 8, 2009 - 4:35pm

Jordan:

The question is whether climate changes would occur as they are if we were to remove human activity from the equation. Certainly they'd change if we took away the sun. But that ain't the issue.

And that is the problem with the way environmentalists have framed this debate. CO2 emissions would not make one damn bit of difference if say an asteroid was hurtling towards the Earth about to destroy it. The only thing that could stop such a thing is massive industrialization culminating in an explosion of technological progress to combat the existential threats that face humanity. We live on this tiny rock hurtling around in space with massive debris surrounding us, and here we are discussing a couple degrees of warmth in lieu of things that really have lead to mass extinctions in Earth's past. It's ridiculous and disingenuous that the discussion isn't focused on actual rather than imagined threats to ending civilization on this planet, things like an asteroid impact, a caldera exploding, a massive gamma ray burst, or a pandemic. Forcing industries to cut CO2 emissions won't help protect us against those threats, it will instead hamper economic growth, thereby increasing poverty, and retarding the growth of technology, technological innovations that could be the only salvation to these real existential threats to humanity. By cowering into caves and foregoing our lightbulbs, the only thing that we would be succeeding in is sealing our fate to extinction.

Post 43

Wednesday, July 8, 2009 - 4:54pm

Tried to post a graph from New Scientist. It didn't work. :-/

There are some nice charts and commentary at this Stanford website.

Jordan

(Edited by Jordan on 7/08, 5:01pm)

Post 44

Wednesday, July 8, 2009 - 5:07pm

This is the image that Jordan was attempting to post:

Post 45

Wednesday, July 8, 2009 - 6:54pm

Jordan,

The question is whether climate changes would occur as they are if we were to remove human activity from the equation. Certainly they'd change if we took away the sun. But that ain't the issue.

That wasn't my point. This issue is an issue of relevance and proportion. It's not so cut and dry and as absolute as you've worded it in this quote.

Why proportion matters
Let's assume, for a moment, that man is responsible for 1% of the noted climate change in the last 50 or 100 years. Now, if we were to "remove human activity from the equation" (as you say), then we'd get slightly different climate changes, but perhaps only undetectable changes from what's been recorded. Now, if we are going to lose ~$150 Billion a year on Cap & Trade, we have to ask ourselves if the cost is worth the benefit.

We also have to ask ourselves if we can help ourselves much more, perhaps 100 or 1000 times more, by diverting attention and resources to things that really matter for our well-being.

What should be required for rational legislation about climate change is to wait for the science to parse out the proportions of things like the sun and aerosols and greenhouse gas, etc. It is only after we have discovered that taking action would actually make a detectable difference -- that we should think about taking action.

Can you look at me with a straight face and tell me that taking action would make a detectable difference? Furthermore, can you tell me that taking action would be worth the costs? Do you see my point? Do you understand what kind of research would be required for this (if legislators were rational decision makers)?

Ed

Post 46

Wednesday, July 8, 2009 - 7:58pm

Jordan,

Here is, for discussion's sake, another example of proportion. For instance, upon proper and rational investigation and conclusion-making, it might be found that global temperature change is somewhat as follows:

32% due to aerosols (16% from man-made aerosols and 16% from volcanic aerosols)
32% due to greenhouse gases (16% from man-made gases and 16% nature-made gases)
34% due to the sun

An interesting point in this example of proportion is that aerosols work to cool the earth. What that would mean, given the proportions, is that man is having a net-zero impact on climate change. It is also possible, if aerosols outpace greenhouse gases, that man's activities have, on net, cooled the earth.

Now, I'm not saying that we have to first know the exact percentage of each factor before passing any legislation, but we should at least have it parsed out to within a range of plus-or-minus 5 or 10%. For instance, scientists should be asked if they can look at you with a straight face and tell you that man's net activity has resulted in 30%, plus or minus 10%, of climate change (20-40%), or that man's activity has resulted in 80%, plus or minus 10%, of climate change (70-90%), or whatever.

There is currently no scientist who can do this. That should be a big problem for U.S. citizens who would have to pay for Congress taking action. Look at the Stimulus Bill. It was supposed to create jobs, yet we've lost 2 million jobs since it was signed. How do we avoid such substandard results? Well, we stop gambling, that's what. We stop risking our money on someone's gut feelings or someone's pet theory about something. Instead, we require them to prepare a Prospectus.

That's (nothing, for now) what needs to be done about the global warming issue.

Ed

Post 47

Wednesday, July 8, 2009 - 10:09pm

Half or more of recent warming could be due to Sun

Ed

Post 48

Thursday, July 9, 2009 - 11:12am

Hi Steve,

Thanks for posting the graph.

Hi Ed,

Hmm...I thought I'd addressed your concern. If altering human behavior makes no significant difference to climate changes, then there's no point in altering human behavior to that end. And sure, altering behavior in this way or that might not be worth the cost anyway, but that's a policy concern, not a climate science concern, so let's leave that aside here.

I'm not sure your discussion of proportions is relevant. Even if human contribution is small, it might still be significant.

Jordan

Post 49

Thursday, July 9, 2009 - 11:41am

Jordan,

You still don't get my point. The proper research question is not whether man does anything to affect climate change. In this absolute, "either-or" mindset, it's easy to see that just exhaling affects the climate. That would lead to humans holding their breath so as not to "affect" the climate. The issue is not about whether humans affect the climate.

The proper research question is whether man is responsible for, say, 30% (or more) of climate change. If man was responsible for at least 30% of the noted climate change, then it may be in our interest to go ahead and entertain questions regarding policy changes.

If science cannot tell us this, if science cannot parse out the proportion of man's activities in the grand scheme of things, then the policy issue is a moot point (for rational thinkers, at least).

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 7/09, 11:44am)

Post 50

Thursday, July 9, 2009 - 2:45pm

Hi Ed,

The proper research question is whether man is responsible for, say, 30% (or more) of climate change.

The question shouldn't be whether we have a gigantic effect on climate change but whether the effect we have is significant. My breath as no appreciable affect on climate change indices.

Jordan

Post 51

Thursday, July 9, 2009 - 6:24pm

Jordan,

The question shouldn't be whether we have a gigantic effect on climate change but whether the effect we have is significant.

What do you mean by "gigantic". For instance, would the following scenario with certain proportions of climate forcing be considered gigantic (for man's part) in your mind?:

Cooling (24% of all climate forcing)
12% from man-made* aerosols
12% from volcanic aerosols

Warming (76% of all climate forcing)
12% from man-made* greenhouse gases
12% from nature-made greenhouse gases
52% due to the sun

*In this scenario, man's role in cooling is 12% of all climate forcing; and man's role in warming is 12% of all climate forcing

And what do you mean by "significant"? Do you mean significant as in statistically significant (without necessarily any practical significance) -- or do you mean significant practically, as in human welfare (health and cost outcomes)?

Ed

Post 52

Friday, July 10, 2009 - 6:04am

Highlights from the link in my post 47 (Scafetta & West, 2007):

--The problem of identifying the natural vs. anthropogenic contributors to warming remains "unsolved and controversial"
[i.e., folks that tell you that there is 'significant scientific agreement' or 'scientific consensus' are wrong]

--Urban heat islands and dark colored surfaces (black buildings, tar roads, etc) affect surface temperature but have nothing to do with fossil fuel use (they contaminate our surface temperature records, leading to an over-estimation of the effects of greenhouse gases such as CO2)

--Greenhouse gases can't be a vast majority of all of the causes of global warming, because that would mean that the temperature of the lower troposphere (lowest 8 kilometers of atmosphere), the above-ground area where greenhouse gases reflect the heat back to Earth, would change, lock-step, with surface temperature -- and satellite measurements prove that it hasn't

--The IPCC inferred that 100% of the observed increase in greenhouse gas concentration since 1750 is (anthropogenic) due to man -- and that is wrong (an incorrect inference), as up to 20% of the increased greenhouse gas came from the sun, primarily by warming up the ocean so much that it released more water vapor; along with other effects such as changed vegetation cover and bacterial population

--There is "thermal inertia" regarding the Earth's response time to sun activity, so that the sun could stop increasing in activity but the temperate would still keep increasing for decades -- many climate models don't even account for this (and, therefore, wrongfully discount the sun's effects)

--The sun may be responsible for 69% (plus or minus 20%) of the observed warming from 1900 to 2005

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 7/10, 6:09am)

Post 53

Friday, July 10, 2009 - 10:15am

Ed,

By "significant," I mean a measurable change in the indices by which we measure climate change. That does correlate to stochastic significance. Discussing proportion and size of contribution is a distraction. Small contributions can have significant affects. A little hole can sink a big boat.

Jordan

Post 54

Friday, July 10, 2009 - 3:02pm

Jordan,

By "significant," I mean a measurable change in the indices by which we measure climate change. That does correlate to stochastic significance. Discussing proportion and size of contribution is a distraction.

First of all, that's just another way to say that you mean "statistical significance" (without necessarily any practical significance). Second of all, there are 2 ways to view science:

(1) as having a purpose
(2) without a purpose (science for "science's" sake)

Another way to say this is that we seek knowledge for 2 reasons: to dispell simple curiosity and to better our lives.

In the case of global warming, there is a large popular pressure to apply the science (just turn on your TV to prove this to yourself). This fact steers the proper purpose of global warming investigation away from one of simple curiosity and toward the purpose of bettering our lives. Now, the only way that we can use the science on global warming to better our lives -- the only way to properly apply the science -- is to discover the "proportion and size of contribution."

Discussing proportion and size of contribution is not a distraction, it is actually the opposite of that.

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 7/10, 3:03pm)

Post 55

Friday, July 10, 2009 - 4:04pm

Hi Ed,

I'm not sure it's possible to have a measurable change in a climate change index but with no practical effect. It seems that all climate indices, even when tweaked a little, can make practical differences in our lives. Whether and how we choose to deal with those practical differences is a different story. Please reconsider my leaky boat analogy. Do you see how a hole in small proportion and size can still sink a big boat?

Jordan

Post 56

Friday, July 10, 2009 - 6:25pm

Jordan,

Please reconsider my leaky boat analogy. Do you see how a hole in small proportion and size can still sink a big boat?

I've been locating underground gas lines lately. Sometimes I find a leak. Sometimes it's a small gas leak and I wonder whether I should report it to the gas company. I shared my dismay with the gas company technician who arrived to fix one of these small leaks and he reassured me that, small or not, a gas leak -- if it is to change -- can only get bigger (with time).

The moral of the story is that a butterfly flapping it's wings could create a Level-4 tsunami (or something like that). Anyway, with this wisdom and perspective firmly in the grasp of my mind, I think you're still off base and creating storms in a teacup about man's role in global warming. If it were discovered that man's role is less than 1%, for instance, it would be useless and bordering on immoral (by way of exclusion) to call for more science to ascertain the exact proportion -- down to the exact fraction of 0.0001%, or whatever. The proper thing to do at that point is to give up (and follow another project).

The point of investigating man's role in warming is to find out if it's at a level requiring efficient and corrective action. In this way, reality puts a limit on the depth and breadth of proper investigation -- rather than ANY amount of investigation being right, proper, or good.

Ed

Post 57

Friday, July 10, 2009 - 7:57pm

Can I suggest that we, and the rest of the world's scientific community, should concentrate only on the math of CO2's effect upon warming. It seems to me CO2 concentrations are the central focus of those who insist on blaming and punishing mankind. So... isn't there a simple equation that can determine is X quantity of CO2 will directly result in Y degrees of increased warming.

Assuming the volume of the earth's atmosphere can be quantified, and the volume of man-made CO2 emissions can be quantified, and that somebody is already using some formula that says for Z percent of atmospheric CO2 there will be a corresponding W degrees of increased atmospheric temperatures, can't somebody just do the math?

Of course, maybe I'm assuming this is a simple task, but whether simple or complex, no argument either way is worth squat if no one can calculate this particular answer. And no decisions either way should be taken if no one can definitively & unquestionably answer this question. All other possible explanations for global warming - whether it is real or imagined - are moot, unimportant.

Certainly, somewhere there has to have been published an equation which would clearly determine the relationship. And if there has not, why should anybody anywhere even be discussing it?

jt
(Edited by Jay Abbott on 7/10, 7:58pm)

(Edited by Jay Abbott on 7/10, 8:02pm)

Post 58

Friday, July 10, 2009 - 11:37pm

Jay,

It's more complicated than would be necessary for it to fit into a math equation. Look at these highlights from the Scafetta & West study (2007):
*********************
(A) Urban heat islands and dark colored surfaces (black buildings, tar roads, etc) affect surface temperature but have nothing to do with fossil fuel use (they contaminate our surface temperature records, leading to an over-estimation of the effects of greenhouse gases such as CO2)

(B) The IPCC inferred that 100% of the observed increase in greenhouse gas concentration since 1750 is (anthropogenic) due to man -- and that is wrong (an incorrect inference), as up to 20% of the increased greenhouse gas came from the sun, primarily by warming up the ocean so much that it released more water vapor; along with other effects such as changed vegetation cover and bacterial population

(C) There is "thermal inertia" regarding the Earth's response time to sun activity, so that the sun could stop increasing in activity but the temperate would still keep increasing for decades -- many climate models don't even account for this (and, therefore, wrongfully discount the sun's effects)
*********************

An equation has to match our empirical temperature recordings -- the observed temperature "signature." It has to be both sensitive to changes (to catch small or slow differences in temperature signatures) and it has to be specific (changing only in response to the right variables, not just to any variables). We can model the atmosphere in a lab, in order to test or find the equation, but we have to ask if our model factors in everything on the Earth.

Take Highlight A. As it turns out, due to dark colors absorbing light, we will over-estimate the warming effects of greenhouse gases (until we figure out how to factor out the color-heat issue). That's an extra variable -- beyond atmospheric CO2 concentration -- that we would need to model in our lab (and no one has done this).

Take Highlight B. I have argued with a prominent "global warming alarmist' (Chris Merchant) about this. I asked him to prove to me that the new CO2 in the atmosphere was 100% man-made. He tried to argue based on first principles (logic) rather than on empirical data. He said that new CO2 levels are unnatural levels which the Earth was unable to naturally buffer. Basically, he was saying that all natural increases in CO2 would be absorbed naturally (by plants, etc) -- in a kind of atmospheric 'homeostasis.' I didn't buy it and cut off debate with him.

Take Highlight C. In order for us to create the conditions in our lab which would be necessary to verify and validate our mathematical equation, we would need to run an experiment lasting decades (and no one has done this). Until then, we're stuck with trying to account for -- and trying to "weigh" -- all of the factors which could be responsible for observational data. That's why I disagree so vehemently with Jordan, who thinks or thought that weighing factors in terms of proportion would be a "distraction."

Sorry to be such a downer, Jay.

:-(

If there had been decades in history where the only thing that changed was the CO2 concentration, and we observed the temperature changes that correlated to the CO2 concentration, then we'd have our equation right there. But much to our chagrin, it never worked out quite like that.

Ed
(Edited by Ed Thompson on 7/10, 11:51pm)

Post 59

Saturday, July 11, 2009 - 8:22am