GLOBAL WARMING
1 / 27

GLOBAL WARMING An Interesting but Insignificant Problem Is Global Warming Real? Models say YES; data say NO A CRITIQUE (2005) OF IPCC CLAIMS.


173 views
Uploaded on:
Category: General / Misc
Description
GLOBAL WARMING An Interesting but Insignificant Problem Is Global Warming Real? Models say YES; data say NO A CRITIQUE (2005) OF IPCC CLAIMS Presentation by S. Fred Singer  Professor of Environmental Sciences Emeritus University of Virginia 
Transcripts
Slide 1

An Earth-wide temperature boost An Interesting yet Insignificant Problem Is Global Warming Real? Models say YES; information say NO A CRITIQUE (2005) OF IPCC CLAIMS Presentation by S. Fred Singerâ  Professor of Environmental Sciences Emeritus University of Virginiaâ  Science & Environmental Policy Project, Arlington, VA 22202â  E-mail Singer@SEPP.org www.SEPP.org

Slide 2

**Atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide, methane, and other nursery (GH) gasses are rising. **Climate models extend an increment in worldwide temperatures of 1.5 to 4.5 C (by around 2100 when CO 2 levels may be double the pre-modern quality). **But genuine perceptions don't bolster the hypothetical models and take into consideration just around 0.6 C over present temperatures. **The results of such a little change are not liable to be noteworthy.

Slide 3

The current worry about Global Warming (GW) is construct essentially in light of the reports of the UN-supported Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Specifically, its Third Assessment Report (TAR) of 2001 incorporates monetary development situations that could give a temperature ascent of up to 5.8 C. Its Summary for Policymakers (SPM) claims that “there is new and more grounded confirmation that a large portion of the warming saw in the course of the most recent 50 years is owing to human activities.” WE DON’T SEE SUCH EVIDENCE

Slide 4

The IPCC (2001) decision about human-brought on GW depends on three bits of “evidence.” None of these face scrutiny.â  1) Temperature information from distinctive “proxy” sources (tree rings, and so on) demonstrate the 20 th century to be the hottest in the most recent 1000 years. (Hockey stick graph)â  2) Global normal surface temperatures have expanded by 0.6 C over the 20 th century, with about a large portion of the increment since 1976, making the previous decade the warmest.â  3) Climate models represent the temperature history of the 20 th century – gave they incorporate both characteristic driving components influencing atmosphere (sun powered variability, volcanoes) and forcings from human exercises (GreenHouse gasses, mist concentrates).

Slide 5

Proxy information (from tree rings, ice centers, lake and sea dregs, corals, and so on) for sure give data about the past. Be that as it may, they don't bolster the IPCC claim. The investigations by Mann, Bradley, and Hughes [MBH 1998,1999] highlighted by IPCC-TAR, then again, can't help contradicting past ones that demonstrated a considerable warm period around 1100 AD (the Medieval Climate Optimum) and a Little Ice Age from around 1400 to 1850 AD. The MBH temperature history demonstrates a “hockeystick” shape - a slight however relentless cooling pattern since 1000 AD, trailed by a precarious ascent starting in 1850. In any case, a cautious review of the basic information found that they had been misused. Besides, the system itself was broken; with its utilization, even arbitrary information would give a hockeystick temperature bend.

Slide 7

Independent specialists, incl likewise GW promoters, concur that the hockeystick is broken , yet now contend, rather guilefully, that the hockeystick never truly demonstrated the presence of anthropogenic a dangerous atmospheric devation (AGW) - yet, best case scenario gave just incidental proof. [von Storch, Cubasch, Rahmstorf].â  In expansion, as many studies have appeared, there was no steady "pre-modern climate" and temperatures frequently surpassed present levels.

Slide 8

Few researchers debate that the worldwide normal temperature rose amid the early piece of the 20 th century - up to around 1940. It then cooled until around 1975, raising far reaching reasons for alarm of a coming Ice Age. A sudden ascent of about 0.2 C happened somewhere around 1976 and 1978, connected to a movement in sea dissemination. These atmosphere changes are not under any condition predictable with AGW, or with GCMs, and are by and large credited to different components – either outside or inward to the climate sea framework. Did the atmosphere warm subsequent to 1979?

Slide 9

The principle debate focuses on whether there has been a warming following 1979, the year that climate satellites first started post to shaft estimations of air temperatures. A difference soon got to be apparent: Data from area and sea estimations appeared to demonstrate a worldwide mean warming of about 0.2 C every decade, while satellite-borne microwave radiometers and balloon–borne radiosondes indicated irrelevant warming. This uniqueness prompted a report by the National Research Council of the US-NAS that attempted yet was not able to accommodate the dissimilarity [NRC 2000]. The issue perseveres – and is aggravated following GH models anticipate that the air pattern ought to surpass the surface pattern. Be that as it may, perceptions give the inverse result [Douglass, Pearson, Singer 2004]

Slide 11

There have been a few unsuccessful endeavors to dishonor the satellite results. It appears to be more probable, on the other hand, that the surface information are polluted (for instance, by urban warmth islands) and produce a spurious an Earth-wide temperature boost pattern. Also, routines for inferring ocean surface temperatures are faulty . One thing is sure: One can't declare that the environment is right now warming apparently – nor that the reason is anthropogenic.

Slide 12

Urban Heat Island Effect California climate stations show   warming pattern in provinces with >1 million peopleâ  no warming pattern in districts with <100,000 [Ref: Goodridge, Bull Am Met Soc, July 1996] [Note temperature increments to a maximum in 1940, trailed by cooling pattern to ~1975]

Slide 14

The remaining IPCC case is that atmosphere models can clarify the worldwide mean temperature record of the 20 th century with a mix of regular forcings (from sun based variability and volcanoes) and anthropogenic forcings (GH gasses, pressurized canned products). Be that as it may, this guaranteed assention is by all accounts simply an instance of bend fitting with the decision of various subjective parameters [Ref: G. North]. For instance, a PC displaying activity exhibited that atmosphere affectability can shift somewhere around 1.9 and 11.5 C (for a multiplying of environmental CO 2 fixation) by simply changing somewhat any of about six parameters managing mists [Stainforth 2005]. So also, mist concentrates demonstrate an extensive variety of optical parameters and in this manner forcings.

Slide 16

The urgent test would be to exhibit assention between model results and watched temperature patterns – not for simply the worldwide mean but rather as an element of scope – or even only for the NH and SH independently. At long last, we take note of that few vital forcings were excluded in the models in light of the fact that their size (or even sign) is excessively indeterminate. Yet in the event that assention can be asserted without such forcings, it is profoundly improbable that understanding would persevere on the off chance that they were incorporated.

Slide 17

We have attempted to show here that the IPCC claim for presence of “new and more grounded proof that a large portion of the warming saw in the course of the most recent 50 years is inferable from human activities” can't be kept up. This does not contend that AGW is truant; but rather that it is essentially too little to be in any way perceivable, and substantially less than ascertained from GCMs. Our best gauge, taking into account allocating the all of watched climatic warming to AGW, is a GH warming of maybe 0.6 C by the year 2100.

Slide 18

Temperature in 2100, in view of perceptions as opposed to models: ** Satellites (MSU-UAH) demonstrate a pattern of 0.08 C for each decade.â  [It would be less if one takes into consideration the 1998 El Nino peak.] ** Assume (conservatively) that ALL is because of expanding CO 2 . ** Then the surface pattern ought to be around 20% less (acc. to GH hypothesis) - or around 0.065 C/decade. ** Assume (again conservatively) that CO 2â  will increment exponentially, then the temp pattern will be direct (acc to radiation hypothesis). ** So by 2100 we ought to see an increment of at most 0.6 C over the present quality. [If CO 2 increments at 0.04%/yr, then the quality in 2100 will be 555ppm; at 0.03%/yr it will be 505ppm versus pre-mechanical 280ppm and present 380ppm.]

Slide 19

As a result of nursery compelling, all GCMs (general course models) anticipate a positive temperature slant that is more noteworthy for the troposphere than the surface - expanding with elevation until it achieves a most extreme proportion as for the surface of as much as 1.5 to 2.0 at around 8 km. In any case, the temperature patterns from a few autonomous observational information sets show diminishing patterns with elevation, and in addition for the most part negative pattern values. This dissimilarity shows that atmosphere models neglect to represent the impacts of nursery forcings [Douglass, Pearson, Singer 2004]

Slide 20

Why do atmosphere models can't help contradicting perceptions? **Insufficient determination, because of restricted processing force **Inadequate parameterization of mists and cloud material science [Climate affectability can fluctuate from 1.9 to 11.5 C (Stainforth 2005)] **Inadequate information of greatness and indication of Water Vapor criticism, (decided for the most part by obscure WV levels in upper troposphere) **Inadequate learning of characteristic and human forcings

Slide 21

The Kyoto Protocol is insufficient yet immoderate **It calls for industrialized countries to cut 5% from 1990 emanation levels by 2012 **This would decrease the model-figured warming by just 0.05 C (one-twentieth of a degree) **Without US support, this turns into an imperceptible 0.02 C (too little to gauge) **With discharge exchanging power, there would be no diminishment ** Stabilization of GH gas levels obliges a lessening of 60 to 80% by ALL countries! It would not balance out atmosphere.

Slide 22

There is no exploratory agreement about GH-constrained an Earth-wide temperature boost **Poll of pioneers of Am Meteorological Society 1991 **International Heidelberg Appeal 199