Part 2 addresses the series article ” “The greenhouse effect is real: here’s why”
Reference: ‘The Conversation’ website “Conversations: Climate change is happening” Part 2.
CLEARING UP THE CLIMATE DEBATE: Bureau of Meteorology scientist Karl Braganza explains why we know the climate is changing, and what’s causing it.
Karl is the Manager of Climate Monitoring. He has no affiliation with or funding from vested interests but his employer missions include ” Products and services are aligned with the needs of our stakeholders.”
The following also gives reason to doubt the claimed impartiality of the organizations’ making the case for AGW and the carbon tax: Ref:http://joannenova.com.au/2011/04/professor-points-out-its-a-less-than-nobel-consensus/#more-14384
Guest Post by Garth Paltridge
We hear that Julia Gillard is happy to have the CSIRO, the Bureau of Meteorology and the Australian Academy of Science on her side while making her arguments for a carbon tax. Well of course she is. She and her predecessor bought them. And bought them but good. Over the last couple of years her Department of Climate Change (the DCC) gave them 27 million dollars in the form of research grants. That pays a fair swag of the salaries of the CSIRO and Bureau climate scientists who make up the majority of all employed climate scientists in Australia.
Reference some of Karl’s article:
“It would be easy to form the opinion that everything we know about climate change is based upon the observed rise in global temperatures and observed increase in carbon dioxide emissions since the industrial revolution.
In other words, one could have the mistaken impression that the entirety of climate science is based upon a single correlation study.
In reality, the correlation between global mean temperature and carbon dioxide over the 20th century forms an important, but very small part of the evidence for a human role in climate change.”
The above is really what it’s all about and is actually the truth. (My bold emphasis). And yet, we are being asked to pay carbon taxes and potentially cripple our nation.
“Our assessment of the future risk from the continued build up of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is even less informed by 20th century changes in global mean temperature.” A jump to GHG‘s in general and still only an assessment.
“For example, our understanding of the greenhouse effect – the link between greenhouse gas concentrations and global surface air temperature – is based primarily on our fundamental understanding of mathematics, physics, astronomy and chemistry.
Much of this science is textbook material that is at least a century old and does not rely on the recent climate record.” Nevertheless, or perhaps because the science is dated, the degree of what they call forcing is still a matter of argument in the science world. Relying on ‘old’ science theory is not recommended practice.
“For example, it is a scientific fact that Venus, the planet most similar to Earth in our solar system, experiences surface temperatures of nearly 500 degrees Celsius due to its atmosphere being heavily laden with greenhouse gases.” To me, this is an unfortunate statement, the main reason for the high temperature is the planet being closer to the Sun. (“108,200,000 km (0.72 AU) from Sun“, cf. Earth, “149,600,000 km (1.00 AU) from Sun“).
“Back on Earth, that fundamental understanding of the physics of radiation, combined with our understanding of climate change from the geological record, clearly demonstrates that increasing greenhouse gas concentrations will inevitably drive global warming.” This may be true, but the jury is out regarding the individual effect of CO2. Scientific assessments of the total GHG heating effect on Earth vary from 10degC to 30degC, and CO2 is a small part of total GHG’s. Variations due to relatively small CO2 level changes are not nearly as significant as claimed.
“Most importantly, the observations have confirmed that human activities, in particular a 40% increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations since the late 19th century, have had a discernible and significant impact on the climate system already.” Again, the jury is out on this claim of the CO2 increase having a ‘discernible and significant impact’. In fact, Karl himself, quoted above, says the CO2/temperature relationship is only a small part of the evidence for human role.
“These fingerprints show the entire climate system has changed in ways that are consistent with increasing greenhouse gases and an enhanced greenhouse effect. They also show that recent, long term changes are inconsistent with a range of natural causes.” Here again, we have the reversion to GHG’s as a total effect, forgetting that CO2 is a minor component. I question the validity of “recent, long term changes“, in the context of global climate, anything recent cannot be aptly called long term.
“A warming world is obviously the most profound piece of evidence.”
“Here in Australia, the decade ending in 2010 has easily been the warmest since record keeping began, and continues a trend of each decade being warmer than the previous, that extends back 70 years.” Firstly, what the Australian records show might reflect global trends, but the records need to be accurate and then may not truly represent a global average. Secondly, records in the last few years can show a cooling trend. Methods of measurement are many and varied. Annual average anomalies, even targeted at the same month each year are miniscule compared to daily and seasonal variations. It is possible to select sites and data processing methods to influence results enough to make published graphs and figures less than meaningful. A look at this website “http://junksciencearchive.com/MSU_Temps/Warming_Look.html” will show the complexity and difficulties in making earth-shattering conclusions.
“It is important to remember that the enhanced greenhouse effect is not the only factor acting on the climate system.
In the short term, the influence of greenhouse gases can be obscured by other competing forces.
These include other anthropogenic factors such as increased industrial aerosols and ozone depletion, as well as natural changes in solar radiation and volcanic aerosols, and the cycle of El Niño and La Niña events.”
In the above excerpt, again the truth emerges and actually contradicts the overall conclusions being made. I suggest that CO2 influences are completely obscured.
“By choosing a range of indicators, by averaging over decades rather than years, and by looking at the pattern of change through the entire climate system, scientists are able to clearly discern the fingerprint of human-induced change.” A monumental statement – choosing indicators, data processes and looking at patterns – will certainly enable the desired trends to be found, but to say ‘clearly discern human influence’ AND to associate CO2 with dangers to humanity are not supported by Karl’s article.
“It’s now practically certain that increasing greenhouse gases have already warmed the climate system.” But to what extent, with what end result? And to what extent will a carbon tax be meaningful?
“That continued rapid increases in greenhouse gases will cause rapid future warming is irrefutable.” A brave statement, this claim and conclusion are not supported by his, or anyone else’s, submission.
I submit that the “case is not closed”.
The remaining series articles, will be addressed, in turn.
Comments on Part 1: “Conversations: Climate change is happening” Part 1.
Climate change: Why is it a hot topic? (donovanhand.wordpress.com)
- From THEIR own MOUTHS: Global Warming IS A FRAUD