Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Going cold on climate change

By Mark S. Lawson - posted Friday, 2 March 2007


The panel and Mann (one of its leading scientists at the time) adopted the graph as dogma, declaring that the well established Little Ice Age pattern must have been a Northern Hemisphere thing, and got on with the lobbying. But then the analysis was severely criticised by two statisticians who alleged Mann had made a basic error.

That dispute was settled last year by a group of eminent statisticians who formed an ad hoc committee to the US Congressional Committee of Trade and Industry. They released the Wegman report (PDF 1.41MB) which found that Mann’s analysis indeed contained a major flaw. The Little Ice Age and the earlier Medieval Warming Period were restored.

So much for that diversion, but the really worrying point about the whole incident is that the IPCC is pretending it never happened. Its officials do not seem to have made any statement of any kind over the Wegman report, and the media has shown no interest in discussing the matter.

Advertisement

Mann’s name is not on the list of authors for the physical science section of the recent IPCC report - he continues to defend himself vigorously - and that is about all any outsider can say.

As for the Physical Science part of the IPCC report itself, which is, as yet, only available online in summary form, it notes the factors that affect climate change include greenhouse gases and aerosols and so on, and solar radiation. One can almost hear the panel scientists saying, through gritted teeth, “Oh alright! Part of the increase is natural”. (To be fair, the 2001 report also mentions solar radiation.) But how much of it is natural and how much due to human activity? While we are on the subject, how much warming can we expect in the future?

As noted, climate research is an area with vast uncertainties, but the IPCC is apparently of the belief that they know all they need to know about climate change, including both large and small scale changes, and have put it all into a computer model along with the effects from the human-generated greenhouse gases (which is completely new territory) to produce temperature forecasts that range from 1.1C to 6.4C over 100 years. Right!

Perhaps in an effort to convince themselves as much as anyone else that they have waved their computerised magic wand over the subject of climate change, in the 2001 report the panel printed graphs of its computer projections compared to the known historical data over 100 years. They matched, to the extent that they had roughly the same start and end points, and for the faithful, that may be all the evidence required.

In the real world, however, matching computer results with known data - especially data on a generally rising curve - means very little. The real trick is to get the major turning points, particularly unknown turning points.

There is no indication that the IPCC can match the known turning point in climate around the 1860s, or any of the other turning points before that, especially as, until recently, the panel did not even acknowledge that the turning points existed. In other words, it is possible that the computer models over which the IPCC scientists have been slaving are useless.

Advertisement

Various scientists without any part of their careers vested in these models have sounded warnings, which the panel has done its best to ignore:

“For example, we know that carbon dioxide represents about 2 to 3 per cent of the natural greenhouse effect whereas water vapour makes up the vast majority of the remainder. While we know why carbon dioxide is increasing, the physics of water vapour - in particular of clouds - is almost entirely unknown despite dominating the natural greenhouse effect.” Associate Professor Stewart Franks, a hydro climatologist at the University of Newcastle. An article in the Sydney Telegraph, February 16, 2007.

“The recently released IPCC 2007 Fourth Assessment Report Summary for Policymakers reminds us that aerosols remain the least understood component of the climate system. Aerosols are solid or liquid particles suspended in the atmosphere, consisting of (in rough order of abundance): sea salt, mineral dust, inorganic salts such as ammonium sulphate (which has natural as well as anthropogenic sources from e.g. coal burning), and carbonaceous aerosol such as soot, plant emissions, and incompletely combusted fossil fuel.” Juliane L. Fry, Postdoctoral Scholar Department of Chemistry, University of California, Berkeley. Posted on the Real Climate site.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. All


Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

76 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Mark Lawson is a senior journalist at the Australian Financial Review. He has written The Zen of Being Grumpy (Connor Court).

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Mark S. Lawson

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Photo of Mark S. Lawson
Article Tools
Comment 76 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy