Climate Change and AGW - 2 of 2

This article, part 2 of 2 is about climate science. You can start here and skip Part 1 of 2: Climate Conspiracy if you already accept the scientific consensus that human activity is the primary cause of global warming and/or are interested in the politics.

If you are interested in the politics, and/or if you disagree with the scientific consensus, if you believe global warming is a hoax or that the scientific community is being dishonest, then start by reading Part 1 of 2: Climate Conspiracy

Part 2 of 2 starts below with a review of some basic climate science terms and facts. You may have already read the next couple of paragraphs in Part 1 of 2. You can review or skip ahead to "How do we know the Earth is getting warmer?".

This is where we drop our biases, opinions, our political affiliations, as much as we can if not fully. Judge-like. We need to look at science in order to answer scientific questions. Who we voted for, it won't answer these questions. If we are all hypocrites, it doesn't change the data. It doesn't matter if we completely disapprove of Trump, Pelosi, both or neither. Maybe they won't agree, but the scientists do.

Let's review some basic climate science

The climate changes. It always changes. It changes a lot over long periods of time, thanks to natural causes and cycles. We've had ice ages and periods of warmer temperatures.

Humans were not around during the other times of high temperatures and CO2.

Some cycles take tens, or hundreds of thousands of years or longer. The Milancovitch Cycle is caused by things like Venus and Jupiter tugging on Earth's orbit. The Earth is on a tilted axis and has a wobble. These are natural, humans aren't changing these cycles.

The Sun plays a role, with solar activity and irradiance. The atmosphere and the oceans all play their part. Humans have nothing to do with these natural cycles.

Review of climate science terms

Climate describes long-term changes and trends. Weather describes more of the day to day changes at a given time and place.

The term global warming never became climate change. Both always were, and still are, two separate scientific terms. They are typically discussed together.

Global warming describes the rise in Earth's overall temperature, land and sea. Climate change describes the change of climate over a period of time, the results of a warming or cooling planet.

AGW = Anthropogenic Global Warming (human-caused).

How did you do? If you knew every detail and all of the basic terms discussed so far (on this topic Milancovitch Cycle is basic), then so far, you knew more than most. If you did not, then how firm is your opinion on AGW... 20%?.. 80?.. Why?

Start Part 2 of 2

How do we know the Earth is getting warmer? We have millions of years of records, and scientists study these periods of ice ages and thermal maximums. They know whether ice ages are coming and going, based upon natural cycles. With this data in mind, we move to the Industrial Revolution, the Third Agricultural Revolution and a period of increased fossil fuel use.

We know for sure (hope we can at least agree on this) that extinction level events like super volcanoes or asteroid impacts are not currently a factor. There aren't any major changes in solar activity, or the Earth's orbit or other cycles. Still, the Earth is getting warmer, but is it really? Yes, there's no denying that. The fact is that around 90% of the Earth's heat is trapped in the oceans. We can't talk about global temperatures without including ocean temperatures. It is getting warmer, it happens - but the rate of change is alarming. It's not climate forcing from solar activity, that's been pretty steady for the last couple hundred years. Something is different this time.

What consensus? There is no consensus.

Yes, there is a scientific consensus and there is such a thing. Is the Earth flat, does cigarette smoking contribute to cancer, is the moon made of cheese, do vaccines prevent illness? Scientists answer these questions.

Let's start with the consensus on two levels. On the higher levels, every national and international scientific body accepts the findings of human-induced effects on climate change. There are over 200 globally. NASA, NOAA, Science Counsel of Japan, National Science Foundation, National Academy of Sciences, Royal Astronomical Society, IPCC, Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, American Physical Institute, American Institute of Physics and 200 others. All of them agree.

We then consider the independent researchers and scientists and the peer review process. Theories are tested and the results are shared for all to see. In the case of CO2 and the greenhouse effect, it's been studied since Fourier and Tyndall in the 1800s, and continued by Hulburt during the days of Einstein. Technology caught up, and the results came pouring in. There are now thousands of peer reviewed studies.

Yes, 97% of the studies that hold a position support human-caused global warming. The consensus is actually higher. When the outlying studies were sampled, each contained omissions of data (most common was leaving out ocean temps or limiting temps to the the poles) or cherrypicked other data. When corrected, they concurred with the consensus. If someone says there is no consensus on this topic, they are wrong - they just don't agree with that consensus. They will win the Nobel Prize if they submit peer reviewed studies that disprove enough of the greenhouse affect to rule out human causes and CO2.

There is a consensus. 200 years of studies. 200 scientific organizations. Thousands of peer reviewed studies by independent scientists and researchers. Human activity, mostly from burning fossil fuels and agriculture, is primarily responsible for the Earth's additional warming.

The Greenhouse Effect

So what does science say is happening?

Humans and temperature records. It's not true that we only have a couple hundred years of temperature records. Ice cores and geological samples give us millions of years of data. We know there were ice ages and warmer periods. Humans were not around then, but that does not mean we are unable to influence the planet today.

It's cold here or it's warm there today and it should't be, global warming is fake. That is failed logic. Weather and climate are not the same. A couple weeks ago this January in CT, it was 0o F and exactly one week later it was over 60o. Neither proves or disproves global warming. That's weather, not a climate trend, and extreme weather is a possible symptom of global warming.

Also remember global warming is taking the Earth's overall temperature, not localized land surface temperatures. In fact, as global warming accelerates, Northwestern Europe will get especially cold, due to changes in ocean currents. Other places like the Southwest US will continue to experience additional warming.

It is happening but it's natural. The current, drastic changes in climate are not natural. There have been no major changes in the Milancovitch Cycle, and those changes would be detectable. Solar activity has stayed relatively steady for centuries. There have been no super volcanoes or asteroid impacts. Something is forcing the climate and it's not one of the usual suspects. It's also happening fast.

One opinion is that the climate is changing but not because of humans, or very little because of us. Yes, scientists thought about this a lot, and they've also thought a lot about the greenhouse effect. The current changes are mostly caused by human activity and CO2, and climate change is likely speeding up with feedback loops. Remember, just because humans did not influence past events, does not mean we can't influence current events. Both can be true and are true. It's like saying "The last time I was sick, I had the flu. This means the next time I get sick, I can only get the flu".

It's not CO2. It is CO2 and it has been theorized and tested for centuries - since the 1800s, by the fossil fuel industry decades ago and by scientists today. We know through empirical evidence, that CO2 fits the profile, and because natural causes have been ruled out. Again, there haven't been any super volcanoes or asteroid impacts to explain this rate of change.

We've known for a very long time that burning fossil fuels releases CO2. We know this in part because the fossil fuel industry studied this very topic starting in the 1950s (examples here and here), as they were interested in how their businesses could affect the climate. We also know that agriculture, natural gas extraction, storage and delivery release another powerful greenhouse gas: methane. More powerful than CO2 and rising rapidly.

There's so little CO2. Yes, water vapor is the most abundant greenhouse gas, and without it, the planet today would be a snowball. Although there is only .04% carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, small amounts of things can be potent. Things like Cesium.

There is very little CO2 in the atmosphere. The oceans are another story. It's a CO2 and heat sink. This is where the Earth holds 90% of its heat. This is why we say global warming, because we are accounting for all of the Earth's heat, land AND sea. It is getting hotter.

Studies that claim global warming isn't happening, or there's been a hiatus, minimally omit ocean temperature data. In other words, they are cherrypicked.

We can't tell it is CO2 or the models are wrong. CO2 levels are now over 400 ppm as predicted by studies dating back to the 1960's. Scientists have predicted CO2 levels very well ever since. There are dozens of studies from the fossil fuel industry. This is a study by Shell from 1988. In this 1968 study by the American Petroleum Institute and Exxon, scientists predicted CO2 levels could reach 400 ppm by the year 2000. Since 2000, CO2 levels have risen from 368 to 410 ppm. Models became more accurate with more data, acquired from scientific bodies and independent researchers.

Occasionally, predictions will be inaccurate or a study is taken out of context. For example, studies often give low, moderate and high scenarios, depending upon variables. Scientists include these scenarios to account for changes in deforestation, reduced or increased fossil fuel use, methane emissions, feedback loops (such as melting glaciers releasing methane) and other factors. Imperfections don't mean the rest of the data and studies are dismissed, and people commonly take scientist's extreme scenarios out of context to claim the scientists have been far off with their predictions. Scientists look for consistency and trends and continue testing. Remember we are talking about thousands of studies and data points.

CO2 in the atmosphere and solar irradiance. Scientists keep searching for signs of increased solar activity and their studies of CO2 in the atmosphere. The atmosphere plays an important part of the carbon cycle. Changes in atmospheric gases, calculations for solar irradiation and other causes are always studied and peer reviewed.

Studies in this field are sometimes held up to dispute AGW, but are taken out of context, and by no means the faults of the authors. Some claim the Earth's additional warming is mostly because of the Sun, or that it is not warming at all. Typically, these conclusions are made after omitting ocean data (90% of the temperature data), or by limiting data to just the poles or other surfaces or parts of the atmosphere. Either purposefully cherrypicked, or the data was rightfully omitted to limit variables and are misrepresented. If interested, more on this at the bottom of the article.

The Arctic ice is growing and there's no sea level rise. You've got to be talking about some sections of Antartica and completely discounting the Northern Hemisphere. True, Antarctic snowfall is keeping up with ice loss (though not for long), but the ice is still melting, and it is accelerating. It's much worse in other areas, especially in the North in places like Greenland.

Also, sea level rise isn't just from melting glaciers, it's more about thermal expansion. Warmer water expands, and there's a lot of warmer water in the oceans. Remember, it holds around 90% of the heat. You can see from the chart on the right that there are a few major causes of seal level rise.

Then what is it? It is human activity, CO2 and other greenhouse gasses. We are doing it today, primarily by burning fossil fuels, farming and from raising livestock. These activities release enough CO2, methane and other GHGs that upset the equilibrium. Humans were able to poke a hole in the ozone layer, and we are also capable of making the planet warmer. Yes, we are that amazing and potentially destructive. It's us.

Summary

Where are you now on the topics of global warming and climate change? Do you have the same opinion compared to when you started?

On Consensus: Is the Earth flat, does cigarette smoking contribute to cancer, is the moon made of cheese, do vaccines prevent illness? These are all questions we largely rely on the scientific community to answer.

On politics: Scientific studies, data and the peer review process don't care who we voted for. Accepting AGW does not mean all liberals are smart or that someone loses. If you are like others on the right, accepting AGW does not mean you have to change teams, it just means you accept the scientific consensus. Common ground can be good for the climate, jobs and economic growth.

Bonus: How to spot cherrypicked studies

Whether you accept the consensus or are a skeptic, you may be interested in independent research. Several studies are published each year that claim to dispute AGW, but are quickly debunked. Two studies were recently presented to me and held as "evidence" agains AGW. One that was published last month and had not undergone peer review. It included a chart with ocean temps, but did not factor this data in the conclusion. It also limited temperature data to the Poles. Where does most of the heat reside? In the oceans. It is cherrypicked.

This one from a couple years ago also omits ocean temps. You only need to read these papers once to spot the glaring flaws. This is why peer review is important, as outlying studies can be misrepresented or they purposely cherrypick data to fit their position.

Also be aware of studies claiming CO2 is not contributing to AGW or that CO2 in the atmosphere responds quite differently than we believe, especially when the ocean carbon cycle is omitted in order to claim the warming process is on "hiatus". Some videos on the internet and slideshows can get confusing and lack objectivity.

Be cautious of people trying to convince you the Earth is not warming, or they've figured out some new formula to calculate CO2 or climate sensitivity that disproves AGW. Why haven't they published their study for peer review? Any study that verifiably discounts all or most of AGW would receive instant global attention and they would be awarded the Nobel Prize.

Acknowledgements Parts 1 and 2: Charts and images Pew Research, NASA and NOAA. Citations include NASA, NOAA, American Institute of Physics, USGS, IPCC and other recognized bodies. All links to articles and videos list their citations to recognized bodies and peer reviewed research. Links to individual studies are open to peer review.

About the author

Tom DeRosa is a flawed human being that uses fossil fuels and accepts that he is not free from hypocrisy, that fossil fuels helped build the world, that nearly everyone in that field is also simply working to support their families and serve a market.