After years of controversy, at last we’ve got incontrovertable proof of manmade Global Warming!

Errors introduced into data being added to the GISS surface temperature database for the U.S. ended up increasing temperatures in the U.S. by about 0.15 °C (0.27 °F) over the last 20 years. The mistakes, named “Hansen’s Y2K error” after NASA’s Dr. James Hansen (Director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, science advisor to Al Gore’s movie An Inconvenient Truth, and contributor to Clinton/Gore, and Kerry/Edwards presidential campaigns), were very convenient for the warming advocates, but at present appear to have been caused by human error that simply went undetected for years. As to why the error’s named after Hansen, the reasons are many and varied, but you can start here for a quick primer.

Well, last week Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit blogged that he had found and the corrected the errors. As a result of McIntyre’s work, 1998 is no longer the hottest year on record—1934 is! In fact, the decade of the 30s averaged 0.5 °C (0.9 °F) above normal while the 90s only averaged 0.424 °C (0.763 °F). Six of the ten hottest years occurred before 1955.

Here’s the new Top Ten list (hottest first):

Year	Corrected Temp	Previous hottest year
1934	1.25 °C (2.25 °F)	1998
1998	1.23 °C (2.21 °F)	1934
1921	1.15 °C (2.07 °F)	2006
2006	1.13 °C (2.03 °F)	1921
1931	1.08 °C (1.94 °F)	1931
1999	0.93 °C (1.67 °F)	1999
1953	0.90 °C (1.62 °F)	1953
1990	0.87 °C (1.57 °F)	2001
1938	0.86 °C (1.54 °F)	1990
1939	0.85 °C (1.53 °F)	1938

Note that the temps in the table are not the actual high temperatures for each year (if they were, we’d be talking about global freezing, not warming!). They are the amount in °C (°F) that an average of the temperatures for a particular year was above statistical normal.

Hansen’s error increased temps in the last 20 years by 0.15 °C on average (some stations had errors as high as 1 °C (1.8 °F), others were the same in the negative direction, but the average amounted to an increase of 0.15 °C).

The following graphic is an animation comparing the old GISS temp curve with the corrected curve:

Click on the image to see a larger version. The source images used in the animation came from here.

Once again, the GISS temp data shows how much temperatures were above or below statistical normal. Called "anomalies", the temps that aren’t normal fall between a +1.5 and -1.5 °C (+2.7 and -2.7 °F) band. The red lines show the running 5-year average (or mean) of the anomalies. Notice how the majority of the errors fall conveniently between 1990 and 2000.

Some people are trying to trivialize the change, saying it doesn’t make “much difference”, but as the vaunted Kyoto Protocol is only supposed to reduce temps 0.07 °C by 2050 at a cost of billions of dollars, Steve’s correction is quite an accomplishment.

On his own, Steve McIntyre has reduced temps in the U.S. by 0.15 °C—more than Kyoto ever could!

 

Tags: blog | weblog | global warming | science | climate change | junk science

 

60 leading international climate change experts have written an open letter to Stephen Harper, Canada’s new Conservative prime minister, urging him to “examine the scientific foundation of the federal government’s climate-change plans. This would be entirely consistent with your recent commitment to conduct a review of the Kyoto Protocol.”

Observational evidence does not support today’s computer climate models, so there is little reason to trust model predictions of the future. Yet this is precisely what the United Nations did in creating and promoting Kyoto and still does in the alarmist forecasts on which Canada’s climate policies are based. Even if the climate models were realistic, the environmental impact of Canada delaying implementation of Kyoto or other greenhouse-gas reduction schemes, pending completion of consultations, would be insignificant. Directing your government to convene balanced, open hearings as soon as possible would be a most prudent and responsible course of action.

While the confident pronouncements of scientifically unqualified environmental groups may provide for sensational headlines, they are no basis for mature policy formulation. The study of global climate change is, as you have said, an “emerging science,” one that is perhaps the most complex ever tackled. It may be many years yet before we properly understand the Earth’s climate system. Nevertheless, significant advances have been made since the protocol was created, many of which are taking us away from a concern about increasing greenhouse gases. If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary.

We appreciate the difficulty any government has formulating sensible science-based policy when the loudest voices always seem to be pushing in the opposite direction. However, by convening open, unbiased consultations, Canadians will be permitted to hear from experts on both sides of the debate in the climate-science community. When the public comes to understand that there is no “consensus” among climate scientists about the relative importance of the various causes of global climate change, the government will be in a far better position to develop plans that reflect reality and so benefit both the environment and the economy.

“Climate change is real” is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified. Global climate changes all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural “noise.” The new Canadian government’s commitment to reducing air, land and water pollution is commendable, but allocating funds to “stopping climate change” would be irrational. We need to continue intensive research into the real causes of climate change and help our most vulnerable citizens adapt to whatever nature throws at us next.

[Emphasis mine.]

You can review the letter and the list of scientists who signed it here.

 

Tags: blog | weblog | global warming | science | climate change | junk science

 

In the ongoing debate over whether human beings are to blame for increasing temperatures, researchers are about to add a new (and far more likely) cause to the mix: the Sun has become brighter over the last twenty years.

From an article in The Australian:

The sun is getting brighter, increasing the pace of climate change and undermining claims that man alone is to blame.

A series of independent studies around the world show a significant rise in the amount of sunshine penetrating the atmosphere to be absorbed by the earth’s surface and turned into heat.
…
The research will concern climate researchers, who are already predicting a rapid rise in global temperatures due to man-made emissions of so-called greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide.

“The enhanced warming we have seen since the 1990s along with phenomena such as the widespread melting of glaciers could well be due to this increased intensity of sunlight compounding the effect of greenhouse gases,” said Martin Wild of the Institute of Atmospheric and Climate Science in Zurich, Switzerland.

Researchers will present their findings to the European Geophysical Union conference in Vienna next week.

They reverse a 30-year trend. Measurements of sunshine levels between 1960 and 1990 have shown a decrease in the amount of sunshine reaching the earth, a phenomenon known as global dimming.

This was thought to have been caused by dust, smog and other pollutants, mainly from industrialised Western countries.

The pollutants, known as aerosols, reduced sunshine levels by absorbing and scattering solar radiation and promoting the formation of clouds that reflected radiation back into space.

In the past two decades, however, there have been huge decreases in such pollutants, partly due to industry becoming cleaner but largely because of the collapse of the Soviet Union and much of its heavy industry.

“Sunshine levels had been decreasing by 2 per cent a decade between 1960 and 1980 - a total decline of about 6 per cent. Now they are going up again. Perhaps this is why our Swiss glaciers are melting,” Professor Wild said.

Such rises could be disastrous for agriculture, wildlife and human settlements in many regions, especially the tropics.

But scientists warn they may have to revise these calculations sharply upwards if the impact of “global brightening” has to be factored in.

Atsumu Ohmura, of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich, has collated measurements from 400 sites worldwide and found an increase in sunshine at 300 of the sites studied.

The areas under scrutiny were mainly in Eurasia and the polar regions.

Some of the areas studied showed a decline in sunshine since 1990, largely in fast-developing countries such as China and India.

“A widespread brightening has been observed since the 1980s. This may substantially affect surface climate, the water cycle, glaciers and ecosystems,” Professor Ohmura said.

So if we’d signed onto the Kyoto Protocol and had started messing with our economies to reduce CO2 emissions, how stupid would we feel about now as we learn that the Sun is probably to blame for rising temperatures? Pretty darn stupid – and about $500 billion poorer. Thank you, President Bush for bucking the “consensus.”

 

Recent related articles:

Global warming for skeptics

Global Warming, Frodo Baggins, and the Empire State Building

 

Tags: blog | weblog | global warming | science | climate change

 

Yes, I’ve missed a few days of blogging, but I haven’t been slacking! Honest!

I’ve been busy adding comments to the global-warming-for-skeptics article that was posted on Scientific American’s blog, SCIAM Observations, last Friday. If you’re skeptical about global warming or whether humans are responsible for it – I don’t think we are – check out the entry. And don’t forget to read the comments!

Oh yes, if you haven’t read my post Global Warming, Frodo Baggins, and the Empire State Building you can right now. For more info on the debate over the famous “hockey stick” that created so much of current hysteria, read this post.

 

Tags: blog | weblog | global warming | science | climate change | junk science

 

Today the Financial Times website had another one of the global warming penny dreadfuls the media has been so fond of lately:

Level of climate change gases hits record high

The atmosphere’s level of greenhouse gases associated with climate change is hitting record highs, two prominent scientific organisations said yesterday.

A bulletin on greenhouse gas levels by the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) said there were 377 parts per million of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere in 2004, up from around 280ppm before the industrial revolution.

One of the highest year-on-year rises ever in the level of carbon dioxide was recorded at 1.8ppm.

But the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, using a slightly different methodology, said last year’s rise was even greater at 2.6ppm, and overall carbon dioxide levels were at 381ppm.

Carbon dioxide - produced by burning fossil fuels - is the most abundant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, and is the gas that most concerns climate scientists, because of its warming effect on the earth.

But levels of methane and nitrous oxide, both of which have a much greater effect on the climate but are present in the air in much smaller quantities, have also risen.

Nitrous oxide is a potent greenhouse gas, the concentration of which has been rising by about 0.8 parts per billion per year since 1988.

At least a third of the amount of the gas in the atmosphere is the resultof human activities such as fuel combustion, biomass burning, fertiliser use and some industrial processes.

[Emphasis mine.]

 

What’s wrong with this statement:

Carbon dioxide - produced by burning fossil fuels - is the most abundant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere

 

If you said it’s completely false, you win! According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, water vapor is the most abundant greenhouse gas. Meteorologist Jeff Haby compares the atmospheric quantities of water vapor and CO2:

By quantity, there is much more water vapor than carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Water vapor varies from a trace in extremely cold and dry air to about 4% in extremely warm and humid air. The average amount of water vapor in the atmosphere averaged for all locations is between 2 and 3%. Carbon dioxide levels are near 0.04%. That means there is more than 60 times as much water vapor in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide in average conditions.

 

Ignoring the impact of water vapor, the most important part of the greenhouse effect, is yet another way global warming zealots distort the climate change issue. How do they justify leaving water vapor out of the equation? Here’s what Michael Mann (co-creator of the “hockey stick” graph that’s driving so much of the climate change debate) had to say about it in 2003:

“It is extremely misleading, however, when scientists cite the role of water vapor as a greenhouse gas,” Mann explained. “The concentration of water vapor in the atmosphere can not be controlled by us directly. It is fixed by the surface temperature of the Earth.”

It is the trace gases - methane, C02, nitrous oxides, and chlorofluorocarbons - that “we can actually control,” Mann explained.

Do you sense an agenda in those words? What does Mankind’s inability to control the presence of water vapor in the atmosphere have to do with acknowledging that water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas?

If you ignore Mann’s denial that water vapor is a greenhouse gas, Mankind has an imperceptible (0.28%) effect on the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. If you agree with Mann and choose to ignore water vapor – even though it causes 36-70% of the greenhouse effect – well then, humanity’s impact increases to about 6%.

Six percent, while not a huge amount, is a lot more than 0.28% and will guarantee plenty of headlines in the mainstream media.

To put the psychological impact of 6% versus 0.28% in perspective, let’s say you’re running in the rain while carrying $100 dollars in your hands (100 pennies and 99 one-dollar bills). In your hurry to escape the drenching storm, you drop 6 dollars. Would you stop and pick them up? Now, what would you do if you dropped 28 cents? If it were me, I’d stop for the cash but not waste time on the small change.

Frodo Baggins and the Empire State Building

The graphic below is another way to look at Man’s impact on greenhouse gases as compared to Nature’s contribution, assuming we include water vapor as a greenhouse gas:

 

The Empire State Building, at 1,272 feet tall, represents the amount of greenhouse gases that Nature contributes as follows [Source: Geocraft.com, Water Vapor Rules the Greenhouse System.]:

• Water vapor: 94.999%
• Carbon dioxide (CO2): 3.502%
• Methane (CH4): 0.294%
• Nitrous Oxide (N2O): 0.903%
• Misc. gases ( CFC’s, etc.): 0.025%

Total: 99.72%

Frodo Baggins, just 3 feet 6 inches in height, represents our contribution as follows:

• Water vapor: 0.001%
• Carbon dioxide (CO2): 0.117%
• Methane (CH4): 0.066%
• Nitrous Oxide (N2O): 0.047%
• Misc. gases ( CFC’s, etc.): 0.047%

Total: 0.28%

Historically, how much effect has the CO2 level had on average global temperatures?

The following graphic depicts the average global temperatures and atmospheric CO2 variations over the last 600 million years, it shows how insignificant the contribution of CO2 is to the greenhouse effect on Earth. Notice how the CO2 levels were 19 times higher in the Cambrian Period than they are today and yet global temperatures have remained steadily within a 72°F (22°C) to 54°F (12°C) range while CO2 levels have plunged to current levels. [Source: Geocraft.com, Climate and the Carboniferous Period.]

 

Since such huge changes in CO2 levels haven’t had much effect on global temperatures, I think the increases in CO2 we’re seeing today probably won’t make much difference. No, in all likelihood, it’s the amount of water vapor in our atmosphere that determines whether temperatures go up or down, not CO2. So it’s unsurprising to learn that water vapor has indeed been increasing in the atmosphere. But according to Michael Mann, we don’t have any control over water vapor, so what’s causing the increase?

Already I can see the bumper stickers:

Save the planet! Stop building swimming pools and quit watering lawns to reduce global warming!

The poles are melting! We’re all going to drown!

Which brings us to another bit of global warming hysteria from Bloomberg.com:

Antarctica’s Annual Melt Equals Water in Lake Tahoe, Study Says

Antarctica is melting at an annual rate equal to dumping Lake Tahoe into the ocean, causing global seawater to rise as much as 0.6 millimeters (0.02 inches) a year, according to a study published by Science.

Researchers used two NASA satellites to measure the loss of the ice sheet on the Earth’s fifth-largest continent between April 2002 and August 2005. The findings contradict an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessment in 2001, which predicted the ice sheet would gain mass in the 21st century.

“We can now see Antarctica melting,'’ said Isabella Velicogna, a member of the University of Colorado at Boulder’s Cooperative Institute for Research Environmental Sciences. “We have a number for the ice sheet. It’s a big step toward understanding how the sea level is going to change.'’
…
Sea level increased 3.2 millimeters a year from all sources of freshwater entering the system during the past decade compared with an increase of an average of 1.8 millimeters during the past 100 years, Velicogna said, adding the numbers show the entry of freshwater into the oceans has speeded up.

It’s actually good news that sea level is rising at 3.2 millimeters (0.1 inches) a year, because historically, sea levels have risen 100 meters (328 feet) since the last ice age ended 12,000 years ago. That’s an average of 8 millimeters (0.3 inches) a year, so if levels are really increasing at 3.2 millimeters a year, the rate of increase has slowed by more than half!

 

Tags: blog | weblog | global warming | science | climate change | junk science

 

This press release from DOE looks to be really good news:

The Department of Energy (DOE) released today reports indicating that state-of-the-art enhanced oil recovery techniques could significantly increase recoverable oil resources of the United States in the future. According to the findings, 89 billion barrels or more could eventually be added to the current U.S. proven reserves of 21.4 billion barrels.
…
The 89 billion barrel jump in resources was one of a number of possible increases identified in a series of assessments done for DOE which also found that, in the longer term, multiple advances in technology and widespread sequestration of industrial carbon dioxide could eventually add as much as 430 billion new barrels to the technically recoverable resource.

If the 89 billion barrels in resources is converted to reserves, the U.S. would be fifth in the world behind Iraq with 115 billion barrels, and an additional 430 billion barrels would make it first, ahead of Saudi Arabia with 261 billion barrels.

Incredible! If they can extract even half of 430 billion barrels, we’ll be able to thumb our collective nose at OPEC.

The 430 billion barrel potential was identified in increments of up to 110 billon barrels from applying today’s state-of-the-art enhanced recovery in discovered fields:

• 90 billion in light oil, 20 billion in heavy oil; up to 179 billion barrels from undiscovered oil

• 119 billion from conventional technology, 60 billion from enhanced recovery; up to 111 billion barrels from reserve growth

• 71 billion from conventional technology, 40 billion from enhanced recovery; up to 20 billion from tapping the residual oil zone with enhanced recovery; and, another 10 billion from tar sands.

But if we did get the whole 430 billion? Wow! The U.S. currently consumes 21 million barrels of petroleum daily or 7.7 billion barrels annually. Which means we could continue our current rate of consumption for another 55 years without importing a drop from OPEC! Heck, by 2061 we’ll probably have hydrogen fuel cells, fusion power, and who knows what else to replace oil, so we may never run out.

 

Tags: blog | weblog | opec | politics | oil | energy policy | bush | news