Chapter 2 Global Warming–The Crisis Defined

“We live in the midst of alarms; anxiety beclouds the future; we expect some new disaster with each newspaper we read.”

— Abraham Lincoln     

It seems that global warming suddenly appeared on the scene, rapidly spread by media warnings of impending peril. What is Global Warming? Where did it come from and how long have we known about it? This chapter examines where the idea of global warming came from, particularly global warming tied to human generated CO₂ emissions.

The History of Global Warming

Discovery of the greenhouse effect, the ability of certain gases to trap heat, is attributed to Joseph Fourier,^† in 1829. Sixty-five years later, Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius became the first investigator to report on the effects of heat-absorbing gases in the atmosphere. According to NASA, Arrhenius was “the first person to investigate the effect that doubling atmospheric carbon dioxide would have on global climate.”²⁰

Illustration 10: Svante August Arrhenius (1859-1927).

Arrhenius suggested that this increase could be beneficial, making Earth's climate “more equable,” while stimulating plant growth and food production. Most scientists thought the idea that humans could actually affect average global temperatures far-fetched.

In 1938, G. S. Callendar, a British amateur meteorologist, made a bold claim that may sound familiar. He argued that man was responsible for heating up the planet with CO₂ emissions. Despite the previous work of Arrhenius, it still wasn’t a common notion at the time. He published an article in the Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society on the subject stating, “In the following paper I hope to show that such influence is not only possible, but is actually occurring at the present time.” He went on the lecture circuit describing carbon-dioxide-induced global warming, similar to Al Gore's present day crusade.

The 1940s saw significant developments in infrared spectroscopy, particularly for measuring long-wave IR radiation. It was empirically demonstrated that increasing the amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide resulted in greater absorption of infrared radiation. Also, it was discovered that water vapor, ozone and carbon dioxide absorbed radiation at different wavelengths. This allowed scientists to measure the increase in atmospheric CO₂ by studying spectroscopic data.

In 1956, Gilbert Plass, a Canadian physicist working in the United States, concluded that adding more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere would capture infrared radiation that is otherwise lost to space.^22,23 He further concluded that human activities were raising the average global temperature. Plass also pioneered the use of electronic computers in climate studies, a foreshadowing of modern climate science's dependency on computer models.

The American government first became involved in 1965, when Roger Revelle, a member of the President's Science Advisory Committee Panel on Environmental Pollution, helped publish the first high-level government document to mention global warming.²⁴ The report identified many of the environmental troubles the nation faced, including the potential for global warming by carbon dioxide.

Revelle would continue to popularize the notion of human-caused global warming, publishing a widely-read article in Scientific American in 1982. The article linked the rise in global sea level and the “relative role played by the melting of glaciers and ice sheets versus the thermal expansion of the warming surface waters.”²⁵

Revelle, an oceanographer by training, convinced himself that he was the “grandfather” of global warming theory, conveniently ignoring the work of Arrhenius, Chandler, and Plass. On his death in 1982, his hometown paper, the San Diego County edition of the Los Angeles Times, began its front page coverage as follows: “Roger Revelle, the internationally renowned oceanographer who warned of global warming 30 years before greenhouse effect became a household term, died Monday of complications related to a heart attack.” Even if his role in discovering global warming wasn't as central as he and the press thought, Revelle did play a major part in popularizing the subject.

Increased political awareness of global warming issues led to the establishment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 1988. The IPCC was established by two UN organizations, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), to evaluate the risk of climate change brought on by humans. The IPCC was the first international effort of this scale to address environmental issues and has become the primary source of global warming information quoted by government officials and the media.

The remaining portion of this chapter will examine the case for human-caused global warming as advanced by the IPCC. We will show how a scientific observation by one man evolved into a political controversy, involving thousands of scientists, politicians and bureaucrats. First, we will examine changes in Earth's temperature over the past century or so.

Is Earth Really Warming?

There is little doubt that, over the past 100 years or so, Earth's climate has been warming. There may still be a few scientists out there who would disagree, but the fact that the planet is warming comes as close to universal acceptance (i.e. consensus^†) as anything in science. But, as we shall see, consensus is not a valid scientific argument. Despite claims of consensus, opinions vary widely when the rate of warming and its causes are discussed.

The changing global temperature shown in Illustration 11 reveals a warming trend of around 1.8°F (1°C) per century. What is also apparent is the fact that the temperature didn't rise in a smooth, straight line. There were a number of ups and downs, particularly when traced from year to year. The five year mean temperature provides a smoother curve, but even it has had a bumpy rise. While Earth's climate is constantly changing, the change is anything but constant.

After a slight dip at the beginning of the last century, temperatures rose for 30 years, until around the start of World War II. Then the temperature sank for four decades, resuming an upward trend only after the mid-1970s. Because of this capricious temperature fluctuation, the time frame used to calculate the temperature trend is tremendously important.

Illustration 11 Change in global mean temperature since 1880. Source NASA.

When measured from 1975 to the 2005, a temperature rise of 0.8°C is observed in 30 years, a rate of +2.7°C per century. But, if the past 20 years were measured in 1964, a 20 year decrease of 0.4°C would be recorded, a cooling trend of -1.3°C per century. The temperature difference between 1900 and 2000 shows a rise for that century of 0.4°C, significantly lower than the accepted 1°C per century. Clearly, how the measuring points are chosen can distort the perceived temperature trend greatly.

Judging a trend on yearly fluctuations is also an unsound practice. There was a 0.2°C drop from 1998 to 1999, in the midst of a 30 year warming period, while from 1956 to 1957 there was a 0.2°C rise during a 30 year period of temperature decline. Claiming that a year is the “hottest year in a decade” is totally meaningless in terms of the overall trend, and claiming that it is proof of global warming is an outright lie.

The truth is that Earth's climate is always changing. It varies from year to year, from decade to decade, and from century to century. What is seldom mentioned in the global warming debate is that there are also longer trends, spanning thousands and even millions of years. The forces affecting Earth's climate are colossal, long-acting, and only poorly understood by science.

How should we judge climate change? Assuming that the previous century's trend will continue for the next 100 years is naive, but probably a good place to start. If you extend the warming trend of the past century out into the future, a linear prediction, Earth's climate should grow warmer by another 1.8°F by the year 2100, but there is no guarantee this will happen. This continued, modest increase falls below the lowest increase predicted by the IPCC, which uses much more complicated means of estimating future temperature change.

The IPCC Reports

Since its creation, the IPCC has issued four major, and numerous special, reports on the threat of human-caused global warming. Each installment has reported more dreadful consequences with greater certainty than the last. The latest report, the fourth in the series, states that the world's scientists are “90% sure” that humans are to blame for the unprecedented rise in Earth's temperature.²⁶

The previous report, the Third Assessment Report (TAR), had been released in 2001. Its findings were dire enough. In the words of Dr. R. K. Pachauri, Chairman of the IPCC at the High Level Segment, in an address given at the 11th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and 1st Conference of the Parties serving as Meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol, in Montreal, Canada, 7 December 2005:

“The Earth’s climate system has demonstrably changed on both global and regional scales since the pre-industrial era, and there is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities...

Projections using the SRES^† emissions scenarios based on a range of climate models point to an increase in globally averaged surface temperature of 1.4 to 5.8°C over the period 1990 to 2100. This is about two to ten times larger than the central value of observed warming over the 20th century, and the projected rate of warming is very likely to be without precedent during at least the last 10,000 years, based on paleo-climate data.”²⁷

So, here is a prediction of unprecedented climate change over the next century, a change not seen in “at least the last 10,000 years.” Temperatures could rise by as much as 2.5°F to 10°F (1.4°C to 5.8°C) around the world. This change could be bad for the climate, living things, and human civilization.

But the TAR isn't all doom and gloom. It mentions several courses of action that could reduce the level of threat. There is also some carefully worded bureaucratic bet-hedging about the effect of these “change mitigation efforts” on the ultimate outcome. What the report says is, if we cut down on CO₂ emissions, the temperature won't go up as much. So, the sooner we stop the emissions the better.

Dr. Pachauri noted the AR4 would contain additional and new information to update the older report. He said, “It will address some specific cross-cutting themes, which cover, in addition to other issues, scientific and technical aspects of Article 2 of the Convention.”

The Fourth Assessment Report

The accompanying text box contains the press release from the IPCC announcing the release of the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4). The AR4 consists of four distinct sections: The Physical Science Basis; Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability; Mitigation of Climate Change and The Synthesis Report (SYR). Each of the first three sections has its own set of experts, called a Working Group. The three Working Group report sections were released by early May, 2007.

The most concise statement of the IPCC's findings is found in the Summary for Policy Makers (SPM). Unfortunately, the language found in all the IPCC reports is anything but clear and understandable. A strange brew of scientific jargon and bureaucratic doublespeak, the SPM is intended for use by non-scientists and is the most accessible of the lot.

What does the IPCC say about Earth's temperature? It's going up, of course; that conclusion was not really in doubt. What is questionable are the IPCC's presentation of historic data, methodology and estimated severity of temperature increase.

Illustration 12, taken directly from the IPCC report, contains two graphs. The upper graph shows average temperatures for the past 140 years. The lower graph extends the temperature readings to cover the past 1000 years. The reason for splitting the data up this way is that only temperatures for the past 140 years are based on direct measurements (e.g. thermometer readings). All the older temperatures shown are inferred from other measurements, called proxies. An interesting feature of the lower graph in Illustration 12 is the dramatic upswing, shown at the far right of the graph.

This graph is known as the “hockey stick,” because of its shape. The long, almost straight portion is the shaft and the up-swing at the end is the blade. For reasons we will discuss later, this graph has become infamous among those who question the IPCC's methods and conclusions.

The sharp up-tick right around the year 2000 is not part of the heavily drawn line that meanders across the rest of the graph. This is because the heavy line represents a moving average, a way to mathematically smooth out choppy data like Earth's yearly temperature. There are not enough data points in the steepest portion of the graph to smooth out the peaks. The lack of smoothing helps make the final up-tick all the more dramatic.

Note the wide, dark gray swath that encloses the temperature curve up until 1900. This band represents the uncertainty in the proxy temperatures used to create the graph. This means that even though the averaged temperature curve is shown consistently below the straight line, representing the average temperature for 1960-1990, some proxy data indicated that the temperatures were above that line. The IPCC takes uncertainty very seriously—to the point where they have published a number of guidelines on exactly what the terms used in their reports mean.

These include: Uncertainties in Guidance Papers on the Cross Cutting Issues of the Third Assessment Report of the IPCC,²⁸ published in 2000; IPCC Workshop on Describing Scientific Uncertainties in Climate Change to Support Analysis of Risk and of Options: Workshop report,²⁹ published in 2003; and IPCC Uncertainty Guidance Note,³⁰ published in 2005.

In the introductory letter to the guidance note, use of the terms “confidence” and “likelihood” as alternative ways of expressing uncertainty are given “particular attention.”³¹

Multiple scales are provided to allow IPCC authors to confidently identify their level of uncertainty. Table 2 defines the meanings of phrases used when expressing levels of confidence, while Table 3 defines phrases used when talking about likelihood. It is not uncommon for scientists to use statistics and probabilities when they are unsure of their conclusions. This might seem confusing, but at least it is well defined confusion.

Illustration 13: Likelihood of Climate Effects.

When the terms “high confidence” or “about as likely as not” appear in an IPCC report they have specific meanings. “High confidence” means that there is an eight in ten, or 80%, chance of being correct. “About as likely as not” means there is between a one in three and two in three (33%-66%) chance of being correct. All the conclusions presented in the IPCC reports, especially those in the Summary for Policymakers, must be viewed through this haze of statistical uncertainty. As Mark Twain said, “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics.”

An example of how these definitions are used to interpret figures and statements in the IPCC reports is shown in Illustration 13. Warmer days and nights are rated a 99% sure bet. More warm spells and heavy rain come in at 90% while drought, more hurricanes, and rising sea levels are a two in three chance at 66%.

But even these tentative predictions are conditional, based on the total amount of actual temperature rise. According to the IPCC, “The categories defined in this table should be considered as having 'fuzzy' boundaries.”³² Fuzzy indeed. With these definitions in mind, we will examine the effects of global warming as predicted by the IPCC's latest report.

Predicted Effects of Global Warming

Working Group II (WGII) is responsible for accessing the impact of global warming. Their section of the AR4 document contains “current scientific understanding of impacts of climate change on natural, managed and human systems, the capacity of these systems to adapt and their vulnerability.”³³ This report claims that global warming will cause significant change in many physical and biological systems. As an example of the actual text in the report, we quote from the summary report.

With regard to changes in snow, ice and frozen ground (including permafrost), there is high confidence that natural systems are affected. Examples are:

• enlargement and increased numbers of glacial lakes [1.3]^†;

• increasing ground instability in permafrost regions, and rock avalanches in mountain regions [1.3];

• changes in some Arctic and Antarctic ecosystems, including those in sea-ice biomes, and also predators high in the food chain [1.3, 4.4, 15.4].

Based on growing evidence, there is high confidence that the following effects on hydrological systems are occurring:

• increased run-off and earlier spring peak discharge in many glacier- and snow-fed rivers [1.3];

• warming of lakes and rivers in many regions, with effects on thermal structure and water quality [1.3]...

There is very high confidence, based on more evidence from a wider range of species, that recent warming is strongly affecting terrestrial biological systems, including such changes as:

• earlier timing of spring events, such as leaf-unfolding, bird migration and egg-laying [1.3];

• poleward and upward shifts in ranges in plant and animal species [1.3, 8.2, 14.2].

To save space, here is a summary of the other major outcomes and predictions from subsequent sections:

• There could be more fish farther north, more algae growing in lakes, and fish runs will start earlier in the year.

• Spring will come earlier. Warmer higher latitudes will mean animals and plants will be found in places that were previously too cold for them.

• Crops might be affected, also, there might be more forest fires and pests. People may experience a worse hay fever season.

• The hot summer weather might be dangerous to some. Also, snow sports and winter hunting might be diminished.

• Warmer days and nights are rated a 99% certainty.

• More warm spells and heavy rain are rated 90%.

• Drought, more frequent and severe hurricanes, and rising sea levels receive 66%.

The report also cautions that warming might cause floods from glacier melt-water. Some places will experience drier conditions, which could affect agriculture. Water released from melting glaciers could make sea-levels higher and flood low-lying areas. It is noted, however, that these effects have not “become established trends.”

The report goes on to break out various effects for different categories based on a sliding scale according to the amount of temperature increase. The table from the original report is reproduced in Illustration 14. A close inspection reveals a mixed bag of results.

Take food production, for instance; some areas are hurt because of drought while others may see increased productivity. As discussed in later chapters, moderate global warming may actually benefit some areas due to greater rain-fall and higher agricultural production.

The impact on wildlife is also mixed. Some species will have expanded ranges while others may go extinct. Coral seems to have a particularly bleak future. If the deep ocean currents that transport heat around the globe weaken, the effects are unpredictable. These currents are called the meridional overturning circulation (MOC), also referred to as the thermohaline circulation or the “great ocean conveyor belt.”

The Causes of Global Warming

What are the causes of the rise in temperature? There are a number of possible causes or contributing factors listed in AR4. Climate scientists refer to the causes as forcing factors or forcings. The forcings identified by the IPCC's fourth report are shown in Illustration 15.

Notice that the factors are shown in order of their “level of scientific understanding,” from left to right. By level of understanding the IPCC means how confident they feel that their conclusions are correct. If we apply the confidence level definitions from Table 2, the true meaning of this illustration becomes clear. The only forcing factor given a high level of confidence is the leftmost column in the greenhouse gases section. IPCC scientists claim to be 80% confident that they understand the effects of the gases listed in this column, the major one being CO₂. The other two columns in this section are devoted to ozone, O₃.

Ozone gets two columns because it can either cause warming if it appears in the troposphere (the lower atmosphere), but can cause cooling if it is present in the stratosphere (part of the upper atmosphere). Either way, the confidence in understanding is rated medium, only five in ten. It's a coin toss that the IPCC scientist's knowledge is correct.

The remaining nine forcing factors are rated low or very low. Understanding of eight of the twelve categories shown are rated as having less than a one in ten chance of being correctly interpreted. So, using the IPCC's own figures and confidence scale, they really only have high confidence in their understanding of less than 10% of the causes of global warming. They admit to not understanding 75% of the causes they list.

Interestingly, the cooling effects shown almost cancel out the warming effects if you add them all up. Notice how the possible cooling effect of aerosols alone could cancel most of the greenhouse gas effect. The bars for the poorly understood factors are drawn as simple lines, not broad distinctive bars. This purposefully obscures their possible impact. Since all of the cooling effects are given low levels of certainty, they have been mostly ignored.

This lack of understanding of the fundamental factors of climate change explains why the case for global warming presented to the public always focuses on greenhouse warming. To further simplify the presentation, carbon dioxide, the largest part of the greenhouse gas column, becomes the cause. And because humans emit large amounts of CO₂ into the atmosphere the case is complete—our planet is threatened by human-caused global warming.

Global Climate Models and CO₂

A 1.8°F temperature rise is lower than future temperature forecast by the IPCC. The IPCC has predicted a range of future temperature increase of 2.0°-11.5°F.³⁴ Rather than simply estimating future temperature increase from the past trend, the IPCC relies on global climate models (GCM).^† These models are complex computer programs that have been under development for several decades. Using these models, climate scientists try to simulate the effects of various environmental factors on global climate. Of the many predictions made by these models, the result that gets the most attention is, of course, temperature.

The complexity of modeling global climate is addressed in best seller, “The Skeptical Environmentalist,” by author Bjørn Lomborg.

“Essentially, answering the question about temperature increase from CO₂ means predicting the global temperature over the coming centuries—no mean feat, given that Earth's climate is an incredibly complex system. It is basically controlled by the Earth's exchange of energy with the sun and outer space. The calculations comprise five important basic elements: the atmosphere, the oceans, the land surface, the ice sheets and the Earth's biosphere.”³⁵

Because Earth's climate is amazingly complex, modelers try to find a minimum of input parameters to simplify their programs. Fewer inputs make the programs easier to write and debug. Simpler models also take less computer time to run. A successful model accurately captures the effects of all the important inputs to a system and ignores the unimportant ones.

For a model to be considered accurate it must undergo a process called validation. Validation compares a model's results with real world measurements from the past, a process called backcasting. During validation, scientists set the values of the input variables to a known state. The model is adjusted (called tweaking or tuning) until the outputs of the model match the known answers for the initial conditions.

But, as modelers will tell you, a model can always be adjusted to give the right output values for a single set of test conditions.³⁶ Passing validation, or even making one successful prediction, is no guarantee that the model is correct, or that it will provide accurate future predictions. As modeling experts have stated, “in complex natural systems, successful prediction of one event doesn't mean that it will work the next time the model is applied.” ³⁷

Knowing they are on shaky scientific ground, the IPCC doesn't rely on a single model. Their figures are the results of hundreds of different scenarios, each based on different assumptions. Perhaps this is done with the hope that hundreds of unsupportable answers will, by sheer luck, stumble upon a correct one. Even that doesn't really matter. The IPCC reports are written by hundreds of authors, modified by hundreds of reviewers, and then submitted to a committee of political rep­resentatives for a final edit. The numbers in the IPCC reports are those that are politically acceptable. Politics have created consensus science.

Climate modelers have been tweaking their programs for decades, trying to get their models to produce valid answers. As stated, models of Earth's climate are extremely complex. The more complex the system being modeled, the more complex the model, and the longer it takes to get good results. Accordingly, many modeling teams have simplified their models by choosing a dominant input—carbon dioxide. Because computer models are at the heart of the IPCC's climate predictions, and because the GCMs are being driven primarily by atmospheric CO₂ levels, we must examine why this should be so. The subjects of CO₂ induced greenhouse warming and computer climate models will be covered in detail in later chapters.

A Summary of the Problem

In total, the consequences of global warming are rather moderate, at least at the lower end of the temperature increase scale. The IPCC data does not support the strident warnings of impending disaster portrayed in some media stories. Increase in storm activity, famine, drought and epidemics are mentioned but not given prominence. The more extreme effects are only likely to happen if Earth's temperature rises by more than a few degrees over the next century.

As stated earlier, science is not based on political consensus. It is based on real data and provable facts. Unfortunately, the truth about global warming has been obscured by a number of exaggerated, dumbed down, sensationalized claims made mostly by non-scientists for reasons that have nothing to do with the scientific search for knowledge.

Here are the facts that are not in dispute:

• Since around 1850, Earth has been experiencing a general warming trend with temperatures rising about 1.8°F (1°C) per century.

• Human beings are adding large amounts of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere each year by burning fossil fuels that have remained buried in the Earth for hundreds of millions of years.

• Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has a warming effect on the planet as a whole.

Those are the facts, everything else is speculation. All the projected apocalyptic disasters are based on rising temperatures, with the worst damage requiring the most drastic temperature elevation. In turn, the temperature predictions are based, not on empirical evidence, but on CO₂ driven computer climate model programs.

As we will see, these computer programs are incomplete, error prone stand ins for real experimental science. This fact is well known by the IPCC and the scientists working on the climate modeling programs. Unfortunately, the inaccuracy of climate models is seldom discussed in the media. An exception is this statement in New Scientist:

“Most modellers accept that despite constant improvements over more than half a century, there are problems. They acknowledge, for instance, that one of the largest uncertainties in their models is how clouds will respond to climate change. Their predictions, which they prefer to call scenarios, usually come with generous error bars.”³⁸

All a model can do is project our present, limited understanding of Earth's climate into the future. There is no way for climate scientists to test their theories about global warming directly. The only way to do that would be to have a second Earth to run experiments on. Perhaps in the distant future mankind will become so powerful that we can use planets as playthings, but for now, this is only fantasy. Scientists are left having to wait for the passage of time to prove them right or wrong. The best that can be done is to make rational projections based on how Earth's climate has acted in the past.

Filling the gap between what science can and cannot prove is global warming hysteria, manufactured by a scientifically illiterate press urged on by a cadre of special interest groups. Every cause that can possibly establish a link to global warming has done so because that ensures they will get media attention. If you are anti-industrialist, anti-globalist, anti-American, or even vegetarian, the smart move is to jump on the global warming bandwagon. Politicians and celebrities, instinctive seekers of publicity, are totally captivated.

How do the people who work on these IPCC reports see their task? In the words of Chairman R. K. Pachauri, “we are privileged to perform by bringing together the world’s best experts and scientists on an ongoing basis to serve you and to serve the interests of the human race and all life on this planet.”³⁹ A noble sentiment, but high-minded ideals are meaningless if the results of your work are distorted, or used improperly.

The Working Group III (WGIII) report on “mitigation” states that “with current climate change mitigation policies and related sustainable development practices, global GHG^† emissions will continue to grow over the next few decades.”⁴⁰ In Chapter 17, we will discuss suggestions in the WGIII report that addresses lowering Earth's temperature. One important point to know is that greenhouse gas levels will not stabilize for 100-150 years. This IPCC conclusion is the result of running 177 simulation scenarios. The most aggressive scenarios are based on negative emissions of greenhouse gases, achieved using technologies that don't currently exist.

The only way to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions right now is to ban the automobile and severely curtail industrial activity worldwide. As hard as this would be on people in developed countries, it would be devastating for under­developed nations. Other “cures” proposed by NGOs and special interest groups, such as respecting indigenous peoples, reducing third-world infant mortality, and empowerment of women, while they may be good and noble ideas, have nothing to do with Earth's climate warming.

In the following chapters we will contrast the case made by the IPCC with other theories and opinions expressed by scientists. Despite claims of consensus, many scientists do not agree with the IPCC reports. We will examine Earth's past to see if the current “crisis” is, in fact, unprecedented. We will also determine how much credibility we should give the prophets of doom.

An examination of climate changes in the past, cooling periods as well as warming periods, might tell us something about the forces controlling Earth's temperature. If the current warming trend proves to have historical precedents, particularly during times when Man wasn't adding sizable amounts of greenhouse gas to the atmosphere, then we may gain some insight into the major causes of climate change happening now.

In the next chapter we will examine climate changes in the recent past. We will look back over history, both recorded and from before humans learned to write. Back to a time when the glacial ice sheets retreated northwards, ushering in the relatively warm period we are in today. To understand our present climate we must understand the ice age we live in.