Climate Change - Maybe

June 13, 2012

Climate Change

Of course there is climate change.  The climate is always changing.  Actually, what would it mean to say the climate is not changing?

So, when people talk of climate change they are implying “man made global warming,” a term that has been tarnished of late, not to mention a couple of record cold winters in various parts of the world also of late.   

For climate change, there is lots of evidence.  Ice packs are receding, sea levels are rising, and temperatures are up in the last century.  Researchers use even finer measures that look back centuries using data from ice cores, tree rings, and corals. Moreover, they use indices of volcanism, solar variability, changes in GHGs (Greenhouse Gases), and tropospheric aerosols.  Then, they build models based on all this showing that standard deviations are terrifically small for the nine centuries prior to the 20^th  where the changes took place.  They conclude that “most of the warming must be due to the anthropogenic* increase in GHG.”

Let’s consider the model.  First of all, it is substantially a statistical model of an the almost flat temperature curve.  Basically, then they regress the curve to the data and conclude that because the 20^th century data doesn’t quite fit, there must be something happening.  But the simple fact is there are many types of data that seem extremely flat but then change abruptly – exponential data with a small growth constant can be regressed with a linear function with spectacular results, until the exponential data rises sharply.   Second, most studies use uncertain and indirect data from highly variable sources to derive (old) data with which to compare extremely accurate (new) data.  Third, they use their model to predict the past.  But as we know temperature is a thermodynamic process which is not reversible.  Therefore, any model that predicts the past must be a little suspect.  Finally, they make the great leap is made to conclude that what is happening, i.e. the temperature increase, must be caused by us (that’s the anthro part of anthropogenic).   Finally (the last finally), they use their models which does not predict the temperature change to predict tremendous temperature increases in the century ahead.  Finally (ok one more), only 1000 years of data is used.  This is just an eye-blink in the geologic time frames.  One thousand years less than  is one-ten thousandth of one percent of the age of the earth!!

These are serious, well meaning scientists that are into weather prediction on decadal and century scales.  There is no doubt their data has some meaning and further study is needed.  Clearly, cutting back on GHG emissions is a good thing.   But currently, actual weather prediction is scarcely accurate for two weeks in advance – and the weather guys use the badest and most powerful computers available, and really, really sophisticated mathematical models, and massive amounts of data.   That’s for forecasting just week or two out.

Now for the cynical side of this story...  Without global warming (oops, I meant climate change), the green movement would totally chill.  There are far too many people completely vested in these ideas, and simply want to believe in the anthropogenic explanation.   Mind you, green is good, it’s the supporting science and evidence that is bad.

Recipe for a Nobel prize:  Take a pinch of flawed data; mix thoroughly with some bad science; draw a thoroughly emotional conclusion.  Write a book; make a movie.  Voila!

*Anthropogenic: caused or produced by humans.  (They love this word; in one brief five page paper the word was used no fewer than 20 times.)