The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a group of influential scientists under the auspices of the United Nations whose main function is to peer review and approve papers written by various climate scientists from all over the world for publication. It's a selective group whose members and associated scientists have a clear mandate to toe the line, which means they must adhere to the official, "mainstream" position that the Earth is undergoing a climate crisis of Brobdingnagian magnitude - a crisis wholly caused by us dastardly, irresponsible humans. A primary function of this panel is to direct or influence policy makers around the world so they will compel their constituents - by means of rigid enforcement, if necessary - to quell their use of fossil fuels and stop "polluting" the planet. It's a disturbing example of the politicization of science to create or influence policies that can adversely affect millions.
Every few years the IPCC sponsors a summit - their last one was in December 2009 in Copenhagen, Denmark - where they try to persuade heads of state and other policy makers to pass stiffer laws against carbon dioxide "polluters". Like the ones before, nothing got done except the blowing of a lot of hot air. And that's probably a very good thing.
OK, here comes the science part. I'm going to play with some of the IPCC propaganda and use their formulas and equations to try to show how they're trying to manipulate the world's governments, media, and citizens. If the technical details don't interest you, please feel free to skip over the next few paragraphs and pick back up again when I resume my commentary, where the dark-blue typeface resumes.
At the heart of the IPCC's argument in favor of human-induced global climate change is a parameter called the climate sensitivity factor l (lambda). It's a numerical value derived from computer models dealing with radiative forcing parameters associated with a hypothetical doubling of the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere from its pre-industrial count of 280 ppmv. The IPCC's accepted value for l falls within a range of 0.8 - 1.2. A l value of 0.8° yields a 3° C increase while a l value of 1.2 yields a more broadly accepted 4.5° C rise in global temperature with a doubling of CO2. One chart even shows a projected temperature increase guided by a l value as high as 1.7 (described below) - which would truly be catastrophic if it were only true. Meanwhile, those in the so-called skeptic camp suggest the true value of lambda (l) is well below 0.1, which works out to a temperature increase of less that 1/2° C if the atmospheric CO2 concentration doubled to 560 ppmv from its pre-industrial count of 280 ppmv. This number, l, is a value derived from purely arbitrary assumptions based on how hot it will get if the CO2 reaches 560 ppmv.
Math is pure logic, and I've included the following paragraph to make a purely logical argument in favor of 1.) lowering the value of l to a substantially lower value than the currently accepted minimum l value of 0.8, and 2.) make an argument that even when using the IPCC's rather liberal numbers, there is alarmist propaganda out there that is ridiculously misleading.
There is formula that is used to determine the hypothetical value of lambda (l) after which lambda (l) can be plugged into another formula to see how hot it's going to get with a rising CO2 complement of the earth's atmosphere. Here they are:
DTS = l D F
where DTS is the rise in global temperature, and
D F is the increase of radiative forcing due to the increase in the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.
Here's the formula for finding the radiative forcing value D F
DF = 5.35 X ln C/CO W m-2
[Radiative forcing is the term used to describe a sort of back pressure caused by the trapping of outgoing infrared radiation by greenhouse gasses (GHG) much as pressure inside a balloon keeps it from deflating to a flaccid state by air pressure trapped inside it.
Just as there is a slight pressure differential inside the balloon that keeps it from going limp, the radiative forcing of a GHG translates to an equal amount of extra radiation from the sun reaching the earth if the radiative back pressure were discounted.]
The efficacy of the DF formula (above) is not currently being disputed for calculating forcings for CO2 concentrations by most scientists on either side of the AGW divide, although one paper (Myrhe, et. al. 1998) asserts the relationship breaks down below 915 ppmv because it's a logarithmic function. What is being debated is the value of lambda, the climate sensitivity parameter, which is purely hypothetical.
OK, let's have some fun. Here's an alarmist chart that spells doom for the planet:
OOPS! DAMN! This blog server is rejecting all of my attempts to post images! I can't even upload an image of my dog!? I wonder if the global-warming storm police are trying to shut down my ability (or right) to clearly communicate my reality-based views? Probably not - maybe it's just a server glitch. But.... one never knows, does one?
So I'll make my point without the chart - you'll just have to take my word that I'm not making this stuff up. If I am able to upload charts and photos in the future, I'll replace this paragraph with the visual aids I prefer to use to get my point across.
NOTE: HERE ARE LINKS TO THE CHARTS I WAS UNABLE TO UPLOAD:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/natural-vs-agw_warming.png
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/heating_effect_vs_measured_co2.png
I have a column chart here that resembles a steep bluff arising from a flood plain. The "bluff" arising steeply towards the upper right of the chart is an alarmist perspective of what the global temperatures will do if CO2 levels keep increasing - all the way up to 560 ppm, which is twice the pre-industrial level. Superimposed on this chart is the predicted increase in temperatures based on the much more conservative model of Richard Lindzen and Yong-Sang Choi (2009). These superimposed values represent the continuation of the gradual upslope and virtual leveling off of the flood plain.
According to the data based on Lindzen-Choi model, the global temperature will warm up by 0.2° C in the event the atmospheric CO2 doubles from where it was in the 1700s, which was around 280 ppm. Plugging that 0.2° C increase into the formula, we get a value for the climate sensitivity parameter, lambda (l), a value of 0.08. This is 1/10th of the most conservative "official" values of lambda - 0.8. But there's more!
Just as there is a slight pressure differential inside the balloon that keeps it from going limp, the radiative forcing of a GHG translates to an equal amount of extra radiation from the sun reaching the earth if the radiative back pressure were discounted.]
The efficacy of the DF formula (above) is not currently being disputed for calculating forcings for CO2 concentrations by most scientists on either side of the AGW divide, although one paper (Myrhe, et. al. 1998) asserts the relationship breaks down below 915 ppmv because it's a logarithmic function. What is being debated is the value of lambda, the climate sensitivity parameter, which is purely hypothetical.
OK, let's have some fun. Here's an alarmist chart that spells doom for the planet:
OOPS! DAMN! This blog server is rejecting all of my attempts to post images! I can't even upload an image of my dog!? I wonder if the global-warming storm police are trying to shut down my ability (or right) to clearly communicate my reality-based views? Probably not - maybe it's just a server glitch. But.... one never knows, does one?
So I'll make my point without the chart - you'll just have to take my word that I'm not making this stuff up. If I am able to upload charts and photos in the future, I'll replace this paragraph with the visual aids I prefer to use to get my point across.
NOTE: HERE ARE LINKS TO THE CHARTS I WAS UNABLE TO UPLOAD:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/natural-vs-agw_warming.png
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/heating_effect_vs_measured_co2.png
I have a column chart here that resembles a steep bluff arising from a flood plain. The "bluff" arising steeply towards the upper right of the chart is an alarmist perspective of what the global temperatures will do if CO2 levels keep increasing - all the way up to 560 ppm, which is twice the pre-industrial level. Superimposed on this chart is the predicted increase in temperatures based on the much more conservative model of Richard Lindzen and Yong-Sang Choi (2009). These superimposed values represent the continuation of the gradual upslope and virtual leveling off of the flood plain.
According to the data based on Lindzen-Choi model, the global temperature will warm up by 0.2° C in the event the atmospheric CO2 doubles from where it was in the 1700s, which was around 280 ppm. Plugging that 0.2° C increase into the formula, we get a value for the climate sensitivity parameter, lambda (l), a value of 0.08. This is 1/10th of the most conservative "official" values of lambda - 0.8. But there's more!
According to the chart, the temperature has already risen 2.2° C, and by the time the CO2 has doubled, the temperature will have risen 6.2° C! That's where it was back in the steamy dinosaur days! Here, the value for the climate sensitivity parameter lambda is 1.68. This would be pretty dire stuff, if it were true. But it can't be true, because the consensus is that temperatures have gone up only about 0.6° C since the Keeling CO2 measurements began 50 years ago - not 2.2° C. I have another chart that I was going to include in this post that is based on identical data and parameters, but it has a different layout, and would have been an excellent compliment to the "bluff" chart.
OK, let's see what the value l might be if we consider the consensus rise in the Earth's temperature over the last half-century and a 34.5% increase of CO2. Here we go:
C = 390 ppm (the current count)
CO = 315 ppm (the count at 1957 per Keeling)
Using the formula for CO2 forcing we get 5.35 X ln (390/315)=1.143 Wm-2
That's our value for DF
Now, to find lambda (l) using the first formula
OK, let's see what the value l might be if we consider the consensus rise in the Earth's temperature over the last half-century and a 34.5% increase of CO2. Here we go:
C = 390 ppm (the current count)
CO = 315 ppm (the count at 1957 per Keeling)
Using the formula for CO2 forcing we get 5.35 X ln (390/315)=1.143 Wm-2
That's our value for DF
Now, to find lambda (l) using the first formula
DF, the increase in radiative forcing, is
1.143 Wm-2
DTS , the temperature change is about 0.6° C
according to data compiled by Dr. Phil Jones of the CRU in East Anglia UK. Plugging 0.6° C into the formula to find l yields:
l = DTS / DF = 0.6° C / 1.143 = 0.525
Now, when the atmospheric CO2 concentration doubles, we get a radiative forcing
DTS , the temperature change is about 0.6° C
according to data compiled by Dr. Phil Jones of the CRU in East Anglia UK. Plugging 0.6° C into the formula to find l yields:
l = DTS / DF = 0.6° C / 1.143 = 0.525
Now, when the atmospheric CO2 concentration doubles, we get a radiative forcing
DF of 3.71 Wm-2
How do we know that? Plugging the numbers into the formula we get:
How do we know that? Plugging the numbers into the formula we get:
C / CO = 560/280 = 2. The natural logarithm (ln) of 2 is 0.693 so 0.693 X 5.35 = 3.71 Wm-2
That’s our radiative forcing value DF
Now, when you plug in our derived values for l
DTS = lDF = DTS = 0.525 X 3.71 = 1.95° C
OK, we're done with the math - you can start reading again. So, if the carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere were to keep rising to 560 ppm from the 390 ppm we have now, we'd (allegedly) see a temperature rise of 1.95°C - not 3° or 4.5° or even 6° C as the IPCC claims.
That’s our radiative forcing value DF
Now, when you plug in our derived values for l
DTS = lDF = DTS = 0.525 X 3.71 = 1.95° C
OK, we're done with the math - you can start reading again. So, if the carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere were to keep rising to 560 ppm from the 390 ppm we have now, we'd (allegedly) see a temperature rise of 1.95°C - not 3° or 4.5° or even 6° C as the IPCC claims.
Now, what are we to make of this? This result is far smaller than what the IPCC is threatening will happen. Yet it's far larger than the 0.15° to 0.2° C rise postulated by Lindzen and Choi based on the quantum mechanical behavior of CO2.
There are still plenty of questions. One, the formulas are the IPCC's formulas, and they were derived from computer models that are at best questionable and often don't agree with one another. And two, (very important here) these equations assume that the 0.6° C rise in the earth's temperature during the 53 years of David Keeling's measuring of atmospheric CO2 is due to the CO2 and not the sun, which appears to be increasingly active, on average, over the last 100 plus years. If the sun is what's warming the earth, and not CO2, then the Lindzen-Choi climate sensitivity parameter (l= .04) may be closer to the mark.
There are still plenty of questions. One, the formulas are the IPCC's formulas, and they were derived from computer models that are at best questionable and often don't agree with one another. And two, (very important here) these equations assume that the 0.6° C rise in the earth's temperature during the 53 years of David Keeling's measuring of atmospheric CO2 is due to the CO2 and not the sun, which appears to be increasingly active, on average, over the last 100 plus years. If the sun is what's warming the earth, and not CO2, then the Lindzen-Choi climate sensitivity parameter (l= .04) may be closer to the mark.
With this presentation (above) I've tried to show directly by means of alarmist charts the type of fear propaganda the IPCC and its minions are trying to bamboozle us with. If you looked at these charts and didn't know any better you would be afraid. Very afraid. That's part of the problem - some of the people who don't know any better - they wouldn't know science if it punched them in the face - they buy into this stuff hook, line, and sinker. They believe everything they hear and devote their attention to the most dire, most dramatic scenarios we're told may happen or will happen, depending on the source. The people I'm referring to are the policy makers - the politicians who are angling to write laws that will make us stop "polluting" the air with CO2. Such monstrosities as Cap'n'Trade, utility taxes over and above the taxes we already pay on utilities, and other maneuvers that are supposed to make us conserve. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for not wasting energy, whether it's gasoline or electricity. But the politicians - people like Reps. Henry Waxman and Edward Markey, who co-authored the cap'n'trade bill in the house that the Senate wisely killed - are vying to run up the costs of utilities to "encourage" conservation and "encourage" people to get rid of their old appliances and cars and buy new (and expensive) energy efficient appliances and cars. The well-to-do can certainly afford to buy this expensive new stuff and feel good about themselves for doing so. They can afford to upgrade their homes (and mansions) to make them more energy efficient as well, but what about the less fortunate? What about the people who would like to save on their utility bills but are stuck with their old, energy-inefficient beaters and leaky refrigerators and vintage electric stoves and microwaves, and live in drafty, ramshackle apartments without insulation?
Last year we had a "Cash for Clunkers" program that benefited the well-to-do but hurt the less fortunate who couldn't afford to buy sleek new cars (See my post of 8/9/2009 - Cash for Clunkers - a bad idea). Moreover, low-income people had trouble finding used cars at a price affordable to them because the CforC program depleted the used car market and made used cars more expensive. President Obama, whom I support on many issues, is allowing the IPCC to lead him by the nose. He is a prime example of a prominent world leader (one of many) who's been snared by the alarmist dogma of the IPCC and its associated apocalypse-mongers. There's a real danger here. IPCC-affiliated scientists, with a lot of help from the media (who think the global warming issue makes good copy), are propagating a dangerous and potentially devastating agenda for no good reason other than to make a lot of money for themselves. The IPCC, part of the UN, is a political organization with policy objectives that suit their own ends. They get billions in funding approved by sympathetic but ignorant government bureaucrats worldwide and are, by extension, depriving funds for scientists who practice climate science as a dispassionate search for the Truth. Not only that, they are impeding the publication of research papers by scientists who don't agree with their views on this issue. Further, they're influencing government bureaucracies to implement harmful policies that will, or are, being hurtful to ordinary people. A case in point: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has recently declared CO2 a pollutant, for crying out loud! I guess that means every human being on Earth is spewing pollution out of their mouths with every breath - about 1.6 billion metric tonnes worth per year. And that's just the people! Factor in the animal and plant life in the entire biosphere and you have a staggering amount of "pollution" being emitted. It makes no sense to arbitrarily call it pollution.
With the EPA now invoking CO2 as a pollutant we can look forward to even higher electric bills, which are already high, because of heavy taxation, brutally cold winters and stifling hot summers and existing restrictions.
As someone with a rich background in science, I can see what's going on through the weeds of propagandistic proclamations and dogmatic boilerplate by a cadre of people who must think I'm stupid, and must think everybody else is stupid as well. In many cases they're right about that. Unfortunately many politicians, bureaucrats, and media types are missing the boat, but fortunately..., an increasing number of people are waking up to what's going on, and they're not buying it any more. At some point this alarmist movement will finally become discredited and piddle out, like the infamous "hockey stick" chart by Mann, et.al. (see CLCC - 5 Quack Science - posted on 11/14/2010). We can only hope this movement's demise doesn't come too late. With my next post (CLCC - 9) I'll discuss one notable (and noble) scientist who thinks it's all a lot of malarkey, and what the apocalyptics are saying about him. Stay tuned.
Last year we had a "Cash for Clunkers" program that benefited the well-to-do but hurt the less fortunate who couldn't afford to buy sleek new cars (See my post of 8/9/2009 - Cash for Clunkers - a bad idea). Moreover, low-income people had trouble finding used cars at a price affordable to them because the CforC program depleted the used car market and made used cars more expensive. President Obama, whom I support on many issues, is allowing the IPCC to lead him by the nose. He is a prime example of a prominent world leader (one of many) who's been snared by the alarmist dogma of the IPCC and its associated apocalypse-mongers. There's a real danger here. IPCC-affiliated scientists, with a lot of help from the media (who think the global warming issue makes good copy), are propagating a dangerous and potentially devastating agenda for no good reason other than to make a lot of money for themselves. The IPCC, part of the UN, is a political organization with policy objectives that suit their own ends. They get billions in funding approved by sympathetic but ignorant government bureaucrats worldwide and are, by extension, depriving funds for scientists who practice climate science as a dispassionate search for the Truth. Not only that, they are impeding the publication of research papers by scientists who don't agree with their views on this issue. Further, they're influencing government bureaucracies to implement harmful policies that will, or are, being hurtful to ordinary people. A case in point: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has recently declared CO2 a pollutant, for crying out loud! I guess that means every human being on Earth is spewing pollution out of their mouths with every breath - about 1.6 billion metric tonnes worth per year. And that's just the people! Factor in the animal and plant life in the entire biosphere and you have a staggering amount of "pollution" being emitted. It makes no sense to arbitrarily call it pollution.
With the EPA now invoking CO2 as a pollutant we can look forward to even higher electric bills, which are already high, because of heavy taxation, brutally cold winters and stifling hot summers and existing restrictions.
As someone with a rich background in science, I can see what's going on through the weeds of propagandistic proclamations and dogmatic boilerplate by a cadre of people who must think I'm stupid, and must think everybody else is stupid as well. In many cases they're right about that. Unfortunately many politicians, bureaucrats, and media types are missing the boat, but fortunately..., an increasing number of people are waking up to what's going on, and they're not buying it any more. At some point this alarmist movement will finally become discredited and piddle out, like the infamous "hockey stick" chart by Mann, et.al. (see CLCC - 5 Quack Science - posted on 11/14/2010). We can only hope this movement's demise doesn't come too late. With my next post (CLCC - 9) I'll discuss one notable (and noble) scientist who thinks it's all a lot of malarkey, and what the apocalyptics are saying about him. Stay tuned.
No comments:
Post a Comment