Is Global Warming Just Hype?
Climate change has been extensively researched and the overwhelming majority of climate scientists agree that the observed modern day global warming is unprecedented and is very likely caused by humans. The 2007 IPCC reports detail this widespread consensus. Although there is little serious debate between climate experts, many in the general public still think that these scientists are unsure about climate change and the role that humans have played in modern day global warming (Doran & Zimmerman, 2009). There are some reasons why the general public may be confused and they are not accidental.
So whom do you trust? The statement below from Prof. Stephen Schneider answers the question quite well and can be considered a litmus test for the veracity of climate change claims:
As a rule of thumb, those working for an organization which conducts primary research on climate science (e.g. CSIRO or Universities), and publishes this work in peer-reviewed scientific journals (the industry gold standard), should have their theories taken seriously. This is because they are following the scientific process ? the same process that underpins the massive literature reviews of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessment reports, and indeed the same process that has taken man to the moon, decoded the genome, and given you digital watches, laptop computers and automobiles. In any research field there will, of course, be diverse opinions about causes and effects ? the positing, testing and overturning of theory and hypotheses are at the very core of science. Provided such arguments are bound by empirical or experimental evidence, and have survived rigorous pre-publication scrutiny and review, then they should be considered a valid viewpoint. (Brook, 2008)
Prof. Schneider is the Melvin and Joan Lane Professor for Interdisciplinary Environmental Studies, Professor of Biological Sciences, and Professor by Courtesy of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Stanford University. He is Co-Director of the Center for Environmental Science and Policy in the Freeman-Spogli Institute and a Senior Fellow in the Woods Institute for the Environment. He received his Ph.D in Mechanical Engineering and Plasma Physics from Columbia University, USA, in 1971.
Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change:
48% of Americans think most climate scientists do not agree that the Earth has been warming in recent years, and 53% think climate scientists do not agree that human activities are a major cause of that warming (Doran and Zimmerman, 2009). A poll performed by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman at Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Illinois at Chicago of 3,146 Earth scientists showed 96.2% of climatologists who are active in climate research believe that mean global temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and 97.4% believe that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures. Among all respondents, 90% agreed that temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800 levels, and 80% agreed that humans significantly influence the global temperature. Petroleum geologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent believing in human involvement.
Doran and Zimmerman conclude:
Debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes. The challenge, rather, appears to be how to effectively communicate this fact to policy makers and to a public that continues to mistakenly perceive debate among scientists.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC:
The IPCC is a scientific intergovernmental body set up by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). Its constituency is made of :
The governments: the IPCC is open to all member countries of WMO and UNEP. Governments participate in plenary sessions of the IPCC where main decisions about the IPCC work program are taken and reports are accepted, adopted and approved. They also participate in the review of IPCC reports.
The scientists: hundreds of scientists all over the world contribute to the work of the IPCC as authors, contributors and reviewers.
Its role is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the latest scientific, technical and socio-economic literature produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change, its observed and projected impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation.
The IPCC 4th Assessment Report (2007) is the result of 2500+ scientific expert reviewers, 800+ contributing authors, and 450+ lead authors from 130+ countries.
Below are some excerpts from the IPCC WGI 4th Assessment Report (IPCC, 2007) which leaves little doubt that the present climate is experiencing an unprecedented global warming rate which is primarily due to human (anthropogenic) activities:
Global atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide have increased markedly as a result of human activities since 1750 and now far exceed pre-industrial values determined from ice cores spanning many thousands of years. The global increases in carbon dioxide concentration are due primarily to fossil fuel use and land-use change, while those of methane and nitrous oxide are primarily due to agriculture.
The understanding of anthropogenic warming and cooling influences on climate has improved since the Third Assessment Report (TAR), leading to very high confidence that the globally averaged net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming, with a radiative forcing of +1.6 [+0.6 to +2.4] W m2.
Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.
At continental, regional, and ocean basin scales, numerous long-term changes in climate have been observed. These include changes in Arctic temperatures and ice, widespread changes in precipitation amounts, ocean salinity, wind patterns and aspects of extreme weather including droughts, heavy precipitation, heat waves and the intensity of tropical cyclones
Paleoclimate information supports the interpretation that the warmth of the last half century is unusual in at least the previous 1300 years. The last time the polar regions were significantly warmer than present for an extended period (about 125,000 years ago), reductions in polar ice volume led to 4 to 6 metres of sea level rise.
Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations. This is an advance since the TAR?s conclusion that ?most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations?. Discernible human influences now extend to other aspects of climate, including ocean warming, continental-average temperatures, temperature extremes and wind patterns.
Analysis of climate models together with constraints from observations enables an assessed likely range to be given for climate sensitivity for the first time and provides increased confidence in the understanding of the climate system response to radiative forcing.
For the next two decades a warming of about 0.2°C per decade is projected for a range of SRES emission scenarios. Even if the concentrations of all greenhouse gases and aerosols had been kept constant at year 2000 levels, a further warming of about 0.1°C per decade would be expected.
Continued greenhouse gas emissions at or above current rates would cause further warming and induce many changes in the global climate system during the 21st century that would very likely be larger than those observed during the 20th century.
There is now higher confidence in projected patterns of warming and other regional-scale features, including changes in wind patterns, precipitation, and some aspects of extremes and of ice.
Anthropogenic warming and sea level rise would continue for centuries due to the time scales associated with climate processes and feedbacks, even if greenhouse gas concentrations were to be stabilized.
For more information please see: IPCC Website
Climate Change: Global Risks, Challenges and Decisions:
Since the IPCC 2007 reports, new research has been reviewed by the the International Alliance of Research Universities (IARU). IARU organized an international scientific congress on climate change, Climate Change: Global Risks, Challenges and Decisions, which was held in Copenhagen from 10-12 March 2009. Participation in the Congress was open to all. Most of the approximately 2500 people attending the Congress were researchers, many of whom have also been contributors to the IPCC reports. Participants came from nearly 80 different countries and contributed with more than 1400 scientific presentations. The Synthesis Report (Richardson, et al., 2009) contains six key messages:
Climatic Trends
Recent observations show that greenhouse gas emissions and many aspects of the climate are changing near the upper boundary of the IPCC range of projections. Many key climate indicators are already moving beyond the patterns of natural variability within which contemporary society and economy have developed and thrived. These indicators include global mean surface temperature, sea-level rise, global ocean temperature, Arctic sea ice extent, ocean acidification, and extreme climatic events. With unabated emissions, many trends in climate will likely accelerate, leading to an increasing risk of abrupt or irreversible climatic shifts.
Social and Environmental Disruption
The research community provides much information to support discussions on ?dangerous climate change?. Recent observations show that societies and ecosystems are highly vulnerable to even modest levels of climate change, with poor nations and communities, ecosystem services and biodiversity particularly at risk. Temperature rises above 2oC will be difficult for contemporary societies to cope with, and are likely to cause major societal and environmental disruptions through the rest of the century and beyond.
Long-term Strategy : Global Targets and Timetables
Rapid, sustained, and effective mitigation based on coordinated global and regional action is required to avoid ?dangerous climate change? regardless of how it is defined. Weaker targets for 2020 increase the risk of serious impacts, including the crossing of tipping points, and make the task of meeting 2050 targets more difficult and costly. Setting a credible long-term price for carbon and the adoption of policies that promote energy efficiency and low-carbon technologies are central to effective mitigation.
Equity Dimensions
Climate change is having, and will have, strongly differential effects on people within and between countries and regions, on this generation and future generations, and on human societies and the natural world. An effective, well-funded adaptation safety net is required for those people least capable of coping with climate change impacts, and equitable mitigation strategies are needed to protect the poor and most vulnerable. Tackling climate change should be seen as integral to the broader goals of enhancing socioeconomic development and equity throughout the world.
Inaction is Inexcusable
Society already has many tools and approaches ? economic, technological, behavioural, and managerial ? to deal effectively with the climate change challenge. If these tools are not vigorously and widely implemented, adaptation to the unavoidable climate change and the societal transformation required to decarbonise economies will not be achieved. A wide range of benefits will flow from a concerted effort to achieve effective and rapid adaptation and mitigation. These include job growth in the sustainable energy sector; reductions in the health, social, economic and environmental costs of climate change; and the repair of ecosystems and revitalisation of ecosystem services.
Meeting the Challenge
If the societal transformation required to meet the climate change challenge is to be achieved, then a number of significant constraints must be overcome and critical opportunities seized. These include reducing inertia in social and economic systems; building on a growing public desire for governments to act on climate change; reducing activities that increase greenhouse gas emissions and reduce resilience (e.g. subsidies); and enabling the shifts from ineffective governance and weak institutions to innovative leadership in government, the private sector and civil society. Linking climate change with broader sustainable consumption and production concerns, human rights issues and democratic values is crucial for shifting societies towards more sustainable development pathways.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
...and in the other corner...
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding." - Upton Sinclair
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The sections below highlight attempts by climate change denialists to try to convince policy makers and the general public that the massive scientific evidence for man-made global warming is either false or a "hoax". Some of these denialists are supported by the fossil fuel industry and other companies that stand to lose money if the world gets "greener". However, there are many well-intentioned people who just do not "believe" that humans can cause the world's climate to change because they either do not have access to the peer-reviewed literature (where climate experts communicate their research) or, if they do, they find these journal articles too difficult to read. Instead these well-intentioned people seek their information from more user-friendly avenues such as Websites, books, television, and radio. The problem is that these portals are not typically where the experts in climate science publish. Instead, these are the portals where "misinformation" can be easily spread. Please view the Suggested Reading page where I have listed Web documents, blogs, and books that will provide the current scientific research in a fairly easy to read format (which is the goal of this Website).
Leipzig Declaration on Global Climate Change
According to Wikipedia (2008) the Leipzig Declaration on Global Climate Change is a statement made in 1995, seeking to refute the claim there is a scientific consensus on the global warming issue. It was issued in an updated form 1997 and revised in 2005, claimed to have been signed by 80 scientists and 25 television news meteorologists while the posting of 33 additional signatories is pending verification that those 33 additional scientists still agree with the statement.
The declaration, which opposes the global warming hypothesis and the Kyoto Protocol, has appeared in two versions, both penned by Fred Singer of the Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP).
Global warming skeptics have hailed the declarations as a critical scientific turning point. Critics claim they were fraudulent publicity stunts and have questioned both the authenticity of the signatures and the credentials of the verifiable signers.
The 1995 declaration asserts: "There does not exist today a general scientific consensus about the importance of greenhouse warming from rising levels of carbon dioxide. On the contrary, most scientists now accept the fact that actual observations from earth satellites show no climate warming whatsoever." The latter statement was broadly accurate at the time, but with additional data and correction of errors, all analyses of satellite temperature measurements now show statistically-significant warming.
The declaration also criticised the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, saying: "Energy is essential for all economic growth, and fossil fuels provide today's principal global energy source. In a world in which poverty is the greatest social pollutant, any restriction on energy use that inhibits economic growth should be viewed with caution. For this reason, we consider 'carbon taxes' and other drastic control policies ... to be ill-advised, premature, wrought with economic danger, and likely to be counterproductive."
Although the key data on which the Leipzig declaration relied has been invalidated by subsequent research, and much new evidence has accumulated, the declaration continues to be cited, along with the Oregon Petition (see below) as evidence of the current views of scientists on climate change. Moreover, the organizers have not changed their stated position of rejecting anthropogenic global warming. (Wikipedia, 2008)
For more information please see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leipzig_Declaration
Oregon Petition:
Beginning in 1998 and continuing today, a petition has been circulated that asks people to sign a statement indicating that global warming is beneficial to mankind and that humans are not responsible for the current climate change observed today. The petition, organized by the Oregon Institute for Science and Medicine (OISM), includes a letter of support from Frederick Seitz, former President of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, along with a Wall Street Journal editorial and an article from The Journal of Physicians and Surgeons. This journal is not a peer-reviewed journal for climate science nor any other atmosphere-related field. In essence, anything published in this journal that relates to climate science must be considered "questionable" at best.
The National Academy of Sciences has released the following statement regarding the OISM Petition:
The petition project was a deliberate attempt to mislead scientists and to rally them in an attempt to undermine support for the Kyoto Protocol. The petition was not based on a review of the science of global climate change, nor were its signers experts in the field of climate science.
When questioned in 1998, OISM's Arthur Robinson admitted that only 2,100 signers of the Oregon Petition had identified themselves as physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, or meteorologists, "and of those the greatest number are physicists." This grouping of fields concealed the fact that only a few dozen, at most, of the signatories were drawn from the core disciplines of climate science - such as meteorology, oceanography, and glaciology - and almost none were climate specialists. The names of the signers are available on the OISM's website, but without listing any institutional affiliations or even city of residence, making it very difficult to determine their credentials or even whether they exist at all. OISM has refused to release information on the number of mailings it made.
Because this petition is still being circulated today, one would think that the OISM would support their dubious claims by including a recent article from a peer-reviewed climate-related publication. Because OISM has not done so, it speaks volumes to these unfounded claims. This petition can only be considered as fraud.
For more information please see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition
Non-Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC):
The NIPCC document titled "Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate", edited by S. Fred Singer, and published in 2008 by The Heartland Institute, is the latest attempt to discredit the well-established scientific consensus that humans are causing global warming. On many levels, this document fails the litmus test described by Prof. Stephen Schneider.
According to Greenpeace's Exxonfactsheet Website:
The Heartland Institute created a website in the Spring of 2007,
www.globalwarmingheartland.org, which asserts there is no scientific consensus on global warming and features a list of experts and a list of like-minded think tanks, many of whom have received funding from ExxonMobil and other polluters.
The Heartland Institute networks heavily with other conservative policy organizations, and is part of the State Policy Network, a member of the Cooler Heads Coalition (as of 4/04), and co-sponsored the 2001 Fly In for Freedom with the Wise Use umbrella group, Alliance for America. Heartland also co-sponsored a New York state Conference on Property Rights, hosted by the Property Rights Foundation of America. The Institute puts out several publications, including "Environment & Climate News" which frequently features anti-environmentalist and climate skeptic writing. They also published "Earth Day '96," a compilation of articles on environmental topics. The publication, distributed on college campuses, featured "Adventures in the Ozone Layer" by S. Fred Singer, and "the Cold Facts on Global Warming" by Sallie Baliunas. The articles denied the serious nature of ozone depletion and global warming.
Walter F. Buchholtz, an ExxonMobil executive, serves as Heartland's Government Relations Advisor, according to Heartland's 2005 IRS Form 990, pg. 15.
http://www.guidestar.org/FinDo...3309812-0295fbb2-9.pdf
The Heartland Institute formerly sponsored and hosted
www.climatesearch.org, a web page ostensibly dedicated to objective research on global warming, but at the same time presenting heavily biased research by organizations such as the American Petroleum Institute as an FAQ section.
As mentioned previously, S. Fred Singer is also the author of the Leipzig Declaration on Global Climate Change and he urges readers of the NIPCC document to visit the Oregon Petition Website. More information about Fred Singer can be found at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Singer. Because the Oregon Petition is fraudulent, but is being endorsed in the NIPCC document, one must question the veracity of anything being presented in the NIPCC document.
Much of what is being represented in this document has been thoroughly discredited by experts in climate science at
http://www.realclimate.org/ind...the-ipcc-nipcc-report/ and
http://www.realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=RC_Wiki.
The NIPCC list of contributors includes quite a few non-scientists. Although 24 contributors are listed, only 14 are scientists. 14 does not stack up well against the 800+ contributing and 450+ lead authors of the IPCC report.
As Carl Sagan often stated, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." When the overwhelming majority of climate experts state that human activities have dominated modern climate change, the NIPCC should have shown extraordinary evidence to support its claim that nature and not human activity causes climate change (in fact this is the TITLE of the NIPCC document!) Of course, as with much of this document, the evidence is quite flimsy and never approaches that of extraordinary. For example, the document suggests that cosmic rays are influencing climate by contributing to low cloud formation with the following statement: "Empirical evidence suggests very strongly that the main cause of warming and cooling on a decadal scale derives from solar activity via its modulation of cosmic rays that in turn affect atmospheric cloudiness. According to published research, cosmic-ray variations are also responsible for major climate changes observed in the paleo-record going back 500 million years."
According to Pierce & Le Page (2007) observations from satellites and model simulations do not support the cosmic ray hypothesis as a major role in low cloud coverage and climate change. Regardless of which research one chooses to consider regarding cosmic rays, there is certainly not enough evidence to hang one's hat on when using this hypothesis to claim that nature and not humans are causing the modern day climate change. If there were many scientists showing irrefutable data to support this claim, then perhaps the NIPCC's claims might hold water. The cosmic ray hypothesis is certainly not "extraordinary evidence" and may be nothing at all.
The NIPCC document appears to follow the same line of reasoning as those that support intelligent design (ID) over evolution. ID supporters constantly try to find holes in the evolution camp's arguments instead of trying to prove their own arguments. Of course, ID folks cannot prove something that is untrue so instead they keep pointing the finger at the other side to hide their own inadequacies. The NIPCC is in a similar predicament - instead of proving their conclusions with massive amounts of data from many experts, the document attempts to prove its conclusions by pointing out supposed problems with the IPCC's conclusions. Just because the NIPCC claims the IPCC is wrong, that doesn't automatically make the NIPCC correct!
Debate is always a useful mechanism to reveal the truth. Debate underpins all that is done in science. However, the debate must be reasonable and must not include blatant fraud such as the Oregon Petition.
The Great Global Warming Swindle:
The Great Global Warming Swindle is a documentary film that argues against the scientific consensus that global warming is "very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic (man-made) greenhouse gas concentrations". The film, made by British television producer Martin Durkin, showcases scientists, economists, politicians, writers, and others who are skeptical about the scientific theory of anthropogenic global warming. The program's publicity materials assert that man-made global warming is "a lie" and "the biggest scam of modern times." TGGWS (2009)
Although the documentary was welcomed by global warming skeptics, it was criticized heavily by many scientific organizations and individual scientists (including two of the film's contributors). The film's critics argued that it had misused and fabricated data, relied on out-of-date research, employed misleading arguments, and misrepresented the position of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Channel 4 and Wag TV (the production company) accepted some of the criticism, correcting a few errors in subsequent releases. However according to Bob Ward (former spokesman for the Royal Society), this still left five out of seven of the errors and misleading arguments which had been previously attacked by him and 36 other scientists in an open letter. TGGWS (2009)
As TGGWS (2009) documents, the film has been heavily criticized by experts in the field and by several scientists that were tricked into appearing in the movie. Most of the claims made in this film, including the cosmic ray hypothesis, have been seriously questioned or thoroughly debunked. The Great Global Warming Swindle is now available on DVD, has been seen by millions and is also available on YouTube where it has quite a following.
For more information please see The Great Global Warming Swindle Wiki.
The Skeptic's Handbook:
In 2008, with the help of the Heartland Institute, Joanne Nova (formerly on the payroll of Shell Oil) published The Skeptic's Handbook (available at:
http://joannenova.com.au/globa...s_handbook_2-22_lq.pdf. The purpose of this document is to help climate change skeptics to defend their position that humans are not causing global warming.
How reliable is Joanne Nova's opinion? According to her own Website:
"Joanne Nova finished her Bachelor of Science degree with first class honours, A+ grades and prizes (at UWA) majoring in Microbiology, Molecular Biology and doing honours research into DNA markers for use in Muscular Dystrophy trials. She also has a Graduate Certificate in Science Communication from the ANU. Joanne worked for three years as an Associate Lecturer for the Graduate Diploma in Science Communication program at ANU." (Nova, 2009)
She certainly cannot be considered an expert in climate science nor has she done any research in the field. One must question why climate change skeptics use a publication from such a source? This publication is being addressed here because this document has gained much traction recently and the serious errors contained within must be corrected.
This document cites the Oregon Petition as proof that there is no scientific consensus. As mentioned previously, the Oregon Petition is fraudulent and is a purposeful attempt to mislead scientists into signing the petition.
Joanne Nova also lists fourteen scientists as "believers are becoming skeptics" along with some of their quotes. In the case of Dr. Joanne Simpson (JoNova spelled her first name Joanna) the document shows the following incomplete quote: ?Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly.? Dr. Simpson's full statement can be found here. Of interest is the following excerpt from Dr. Simpson's full statement: "What should we as a nation do? Decisions have to be made on incomplete information. In this case, we must act on the recommendations of Gore and the IPCC because if we do not reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and the climate models are right, the planet as we know it will in this century become unsustainable. But as a scientist I remain skeptical."
Joanne Nova's source for this list of fourteen scientists is from Senator Inhofe who has assembled a list of "scientists" who are global warming skeptics. This dubious list is known as the "Inhofe 400". According to The Daily Green (2008) and Climate Progress (2007) Inhofe's list includes many people who are not climate scientists such as economists, the retired, TV weathermen, mathematicians, amateurs and industry spokespeople.
Because The Skeptic's Handbook endorses the Oregon Petition and Senator Inhofe's dubious list, one must conclude:
Joanne Nova did not do her research or did so without due diligence.
Joanne Nova is intentionally misleading the general public.
Either way, The Skeptic's Handbook is NOT a reliable source for discussing climate change.
The Skeptic's Handbook also lists four main reasons why man cannot be causing global warming. Each of these arguments is seriously flawed. The four points and their mistakes are detailed below:
The Greenhouse Signature is Missing
According to the Handbook: "Weather balloons have scanned the skies for years but can find no sign of the telltale ?hotspot? warming pattern that greenhouse gases would leave. There?s not even a hint. Something else caused the warming." and "This is the knock-out blow. If greenhouse gases are warming the earth we are supposed to see the first signs of it in the patch of air 10 kilometers above the tropics. But this 'hot spot' just isn?t there."
Joanne Nova lists her source for this statement as Dr. David Evans who holds degrees in electrical engineering and mathematics but no degrees in any earth sciences. Dr. Evans published "The Missing Hotspot" on his Website at
http://www.sciencespeak.com/MissingSignature.pdf. This publication was never submitted for peer-review and has never appeared in a legitimate science journal.
There are two flaws with this statement: 1) This hotspot is not a signature of the greenhouse effect ? it is a signature of warming from any source, and 2) the hotspot is not missing. According to B.D. Santer et al. (2008): "Using state-of-the-art observational datasets and results from a large archive of computer model simulations, a consortium of scientists from 12 different institutions has resolved a long-standing conundrum in climate science ? the apparent discrepancy between simulated and observed temperature trends in the tropics. Research published by this group indicates that there is no fundamental discrepancy between modeled and observed tropical temperature trends when one accounts for: 1) the (currently large) uncertainties in observations; 2) the statistical uncertainties in estimating trends from observations. These results refute a recent claim that model and observed tropical temperature trends ?disagree to a statistically significant extent?. This claim was based on the application of a flawed statistical test and the use of older observational datasets."
Increased CO2 emissions will result in a warmer lower atmosphere and a cooler stratosphere which is precisely what has been observed. Recall that climate models cannot accurately predict the climate change observed in the past century by excluding greenhouse gas emissions due to human activities. When including these greenhouse gas emissions along with natural forcing, the models do predict today's climate. Therefore, today's climate is well explained by the measured increases in greenhouse gases.
Ice Core CO2 Lag
According to the Handbook: "Instead of carbon pushing up temperatures, for the last half-a-million years temperatures have gone up before carbon dioxide levels. On average 800 years before. This totally threw what we thought was cause-and-effect out the window. Something else caused the warming."
Before human activities, CO2 was controlled by natural forcing mechanisms that took place over thousands of years. When the climate warmed, more CO2 entered the atmosphere. This increase in CO2 then accelerated the warming so CO2 may not have caused the initial warming but it definitely drove the climate later on. The "CO2 increase lags the temperature increase" argument is moot in today's world because human activities are now driving the CO2 change on very short time scales. CO2 concentrations are known accurately for the past 650,000 years. During that time, they varied between 180 ppm and 300 ppm. As of March 2009, CO2 is 385 ppm which took about 100 years to increase. For comparison, it took over 5,000 years for an 80 ppm rise after the last ice age. Higher values than today have only occurred over many millions of years. The Skeptic's Handbook is comparing apples to oranges. The unprecedented global warming experienced recently is well explained by the measured increases in greenhouse gases.
Temperatures are Not Rising
According to the Handbook: "Satellites circling the planet twice a day show that the world has not warmed since 2001. How many more years of NO global warming will it take? While temperatures have been flat, CO2 has been rising, BUT something else has changed the trend. The computer models don?t know what it is."
This statement is patently false! Satellite data "infers temperature" and is not a direct measurement of temperature. That is why there are several satellite temperature trends that are published - each uses its own algorithms to estimate temperature. As discussed in the Global Cooling page, GISS, HadCRU, RSS, and UAH represent the four organizations that publish online the global average temperature estimates. All four of these sets show that the planet was warmer between 1998 and 2008 than the previous decade so the assertion that there has been no warming since 2001 is incorrect. In the past few years the rate of warming has decreased but not the temperature. There has been no global cooling! One cannot cherry-pick a few years to try to prove a century's worth of rising temperatures is not occurring. The increased temperature trend since the 1880s is well-documented even though there have been some cooler years in that trend.
Here is a more technical analysis of why global temperatures have not "cooled since 1998" nor "cooled since 2001" as some global warming critics claim: Embarrassing Questions from the Open Mind Blog.
Adding More CO2 Will Not Cause Much More Warming
According to the Handbook: "Adding twice the CO2 doesn?t make twice the difference. The first CO2 molecules matter a lot, but extra ones have less and less effect. In fact, carbon levels were ten times as high in the past but the world still slipped into an ice age. Carbon today is a bit-part player."
Another patently false statement. For a detailed description of how carbon dioxide heats the atmosphere please visit Realclimate.org's: A Saturated Gassy Argument. Today's climate is well explained by the measured increases in greenhouse gases.
Because The Skeptic's Handbook contains significant errors in its statements, one must conclude:
Joanne Nova did not do her research or did so without due diligence.
Joanne Nova is intentionally misleading the general public.
Either way, The Skeptic's Handbook is NOT a reliable source for discussing climate change. Increases in greenhouse gases from human activities can easily account for the increased trend in global temperatures over the past century. As mentioned often in this site, there are no other known mechanisms that can account for this unprecedented global warming on such a short time scale. Joanne Nova suggests that "something else must have caused it" but she never explains what this might be...because she cannot!
Joanne Nova ends The Skeptic's Handbook with the following statement which reveals the true motivation of her document: "An emissions trading scheme is a bad solution to a problem that?s gone, fighting a cause that never was ..." Doesn't this sound like it comes from the fossil fuel industry?
The Massive Conspiracy Argument:
In his 2004 science fiction novel, State of Fear, the late Michael Crichton describes a world where global warming is a hoax perpetuated by a secretive group of eco-terrorists that kill any scientist that reveals himself to be a global warming skeptic. Of course, the book is FICTION but the average reader, without knowing the science of climate change, is left believing that there may be a massive conspiracy to promote global warming for profit's sake.
More disturbingly, this absurd belief is being promoted by television (ex. The Great Global Warming Swindle), right-wing ideologues such as Rush Limbaugh, fossil-fuel industry-backed organizations such as The Heartland Institute, and the NIPCC document among others.
Some of the statements appearing in the NIPCC (2008) include:
The IPCC is pre-programmed to produce reports to support the hypotheses of anthropogenic warming and the control of greenhouse gases
(IPCC) was an activist enterprise from the very beginning. Its agenda was to justify control of the emission of greenhouse gases, especially carbon dioxide.
From the very beginning, the IPCC was a political rather than scientific entity, with its leading scientists reflecting the positions of their governments or seeking to induce their governments to adopt the IPCC position.
Certainly its agenda to find evidence of a human role in climate change is a major reason; its organization as a government entity beholden to political agendas is another major reason; and the large professional and financial rewards that go to scientists and bureaucrats who are willing to bend scientific facts to match those agendas is yet a third major reason.
One can simply play devil's advocate to quickly dismiss these claims. If there were a massive conspiracy by hundreds of climate scientists to perpetuate a global hoax and if the IPCC truly misrepresented the facts due to politics one must consider the following:
Where are the secret emails and memos that detail this elaborate hoax? If there are hundreds of conspirators surely at least ONE communication could be found to blow this massive conspiracy out of the water. Where is this smoking gun?
If the research from hundreds of scientists were misrepresented by the IPCC due to political considerations, where is the massive backlash by these scientists who have been "wronged"? The IPCC Fourth Assessment has been publicly available for over two years now. Why do the overwhelming majority of scientists support the IPCC findings if in fact they are not a true representation of the current science?
The Bush Administration made it no secret that it believed global warming may not be real and that it was questionable that human activities could play a major role in climate change. How was it possible for hundreds of American scientists to get funding if the NIPCC's claim were true that these scientists were reflecting the positions of their governments? Surely during the eight year tenure of the Bush Administration, climate change skeptics should have dominated the literature - instead the evidence that human activities were causing unprecedented global warming was cemented.
Any reasonable person who carefully considers all the evidence must conclude that there is no conspiracy nor any real incentive to delude billions of people about climate change. To the contrary, there is a large financial incentive for the fossil fuel industry to promote the massive conspiracy argument because to combat climate change humans must reduce the use of fossil fuels.
More information about the unfounded notion that there is a global warming hoax can be found at Global Warming Conspiracy Theory Wiki.
Cory S. Powell, Editor-in-Chief of Discover magazine, interviewed four top climate scientists in an article titled The Big Heat (2009). One of these scientists is Ken Caldeira who is a professor at Stanford and a staff member of global ecology at the Carnegie Institution of Washington. Caldeira has studied issues such as ocean acidification, intentional intervention in climate systems, mass-extinction events, and the scale of change needed to address the current carbon-driven climate problems. Ken Caldeira summarizes the culture of true scientists with the following statement:
There was a climate change contrarian who testified before the Senate last week. He made the claim that climate scientists were some kind of club and they all made money by somehow supporting each other's findings. The reality of science is that a scientific career is made by showing that all of the people around you believe something that's not true. If a scientist could provide evidence that the climate theory is incorrect and that global warming is not a product of human activities, he or she would be held up as the Darwin or Einstein of climate science. We're highly incentivized to show that all our colleagues are wrong. If we could come up with good evidence that they're wrong, we would be out there publishing it. The evidence just doesn't exist.
Link