Editor's note: The following is a rebuttal to Dr. Daniel Botkin's Oct 26 column on climate change, and his contention that global warming is not being caused by human activities. Collaborating on this response were Dr. John Lemons1, Dr. Owen Hoffman2, Lyndel Meikle3, and Ron Mackie4
Introduction
We have a lifelong dedication to national parks and are concerned about Dr. Daniel Botkin’s recent guest article in National Parks Traveler. Our combined backgrounds as scientists and as National Park Service employees leads us to question Dr. Botkin’s use of outdated information and data not accepted by an overwhelming majority of climate change scientists in his article “Climate is Changing, and Some Parks are Endangered, But Humans Aren’t the Cause.” This was his rebuttal to the report on threats to the parks by staff from the Union of Concerned Scientists. Dr. Botkin’s use of information makes it more difficult for the U.S to develop meaningful responses to human–induced global climate change, including protection of National Park Service lands. Our intended audience is people who are not experts in global climate change but who want solid, verifiable and current wisdom about its human attribution.
The sound counter–rebuttal by staff from the Union of Concerned Scientists ably addressed many of our concerns. Some concerns remain. Our concerns and the evidence we provide in rebuttal to Dr. Botkin’s article are supported by overwhelming scientific conclusions that there is a very high probability that human–induced global climate change, due primarily to fossil fuel use and secondarily to land use changes, is already happening. There are numerous reports from the world’s most authoritative scientific body on global climate change, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; reports from over 20 nations’ national academies of sciences; several reports from the U.S. National Academies of Sciences; reports from the U.S. Global Change Program; and literally many hundreds of independent scientific studies. Further, every scientific organization in the United States that deals with global climate change agrees with the scientific conclusions mentioned above.
Much of Dr. Botkin’s article focuses on a few arguments that there is no evidence of human–induced global climate change. The evidence he uses to support his views are not accepted by the overwhelming majority of global climate scientists, creating a false impression among people who are not experts in climate change that such scientists are uncertain about whether human–induced global climate change is already occurring and that it will become much more serious and irreversible unless urgent mitigation measures are adopted. A few examples of serious and for all practical purposes irreversible changes are loss of summer north pole sea ice; destabilization of the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets; significant sea level rise; some regions becoming warmer and others cooler; increases in regional droughts and floods; shifts and losses of food producing regions; increases in various human health diseases; significant losses of biodiversity; and increases in regional wars due to conflicts over dwindling and impacted resources and whose livelihoods people depend. Recent surveys show that about 98 percent of climate scientists believe that human–induced global climate change is occurring. So, if Dr. Botkin wishes to go against the grain of the aforementioned conclusions and scientific consensus, he should present some firm evidence. And this, he failed to do.
For the most part, we limit our discussion and use of evidence to issues Dr. Botkin discusses directly; however, in some sections, including our concluding thoughts, we raise some additional issues because of their importance.
Has the Earth Been Warming?
Dr. Botkin devotes three paragraphs to the Medieval Warm Period followed by mention of the ‘Little Ice Age.’ But, he does not say why he discusses these climate events or their significance to conclusions about human–induced global climate change. Perhaps the reason he discusses these events is to demonstrate that historically there has been natural climate variability.
Scientists know very well about natural climate variability and take it into account when making conclusions about global climate change. However, Dr. Botkin does not mention that the Medieval Warm Period and the ‘Little Ice Age’ were regional to parts of Europe and other areas in northern latitudes, and largely irrelevant to the contemporary issue of human–induced global climate change. Further, Dr. Botkin mentions a single paper by Ross McKitrick, an economist, as the basis for his conclusion that there has been no warming of the earth’s atmosphere during the past few hundred years. McKitrick’s paper has gained no traction in altering the consensus of scientific conclusions about the significance of human–induced global climate change.
Consider some of the conclusions in the recent AR 5 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. One, that human influence on the climate system is unequivocal, and many recent observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia with widespread impacts on human and natural systems–the atmosphere and oceans have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, and sea level has risen. The changes also are unprecedented with respect to both the amount of change and the rate of change. Two, each of the last three decades has been successively warmer at the earth’s surface than any decade since 1850. The period 1983–2012 was very likely the warmest 30–period of the last 800 years and likely the warmest 30–year period of the past 1400 years. Three, ocean warming dominates increases in energy stored in the climate system with subsequent changes in regions of high salinity where evaporation dominates and in regions of low salinity where precipitation dominates. Parenthetically, because of potential interest to readers of National Parks Traveler, recent estimates of global loss of biodiversity due to human–induced climate change range around 25 percent or more by 2050 -– such loss stemming from both the changes of a human–induced climate system and their rate of change.
Further, Dr. Botkin includes a graph courtesy of John Christy, a meteorologist from Alabama State. The source of the graph is The State of the Climate in 2012; the graph uses mid–troposphere temperature five-year averages. On first consideration, the graph shows that there is no correspondence between the forecasts of general circulation models used in global climate change studies and observed temperature changes since 1980. Dr. Botkin’s conclusion based on the graph is that although atmospheric temperature varies, it does so only a little if at all and, further, models are poor predictors of actual temperature changes.
Dr. Botkin ignores the main conclusion of the State of the Climate Report –- that there is a continuation of warming at the Earth’s surface, sea surface, and surface and deep ocean layers. This is the very report he uses for the data he selected in support of his own conclusions. Further, Christy uses mid–troposphere temperatures as a fundamental indicator of human–induced global climate change despite the fact that legitimacy of using mid–troposphere temperatures is thought to be small, not only by the authors of The State of the Climate in 2012 but by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and other scientific organization with a focus on the use of temperature indicators for determining human–induced global climate change.
Frequency of Severe Storms and Extremely Hot Days
Dr. Botkin’s discussion of the frequency of severe storms is problematic; for example, he asserts that a claim of the report by the Union of Concerned Scientists is that the danger of flooding simply stems from the rise of sea–level. But the Union of Concerned Scientists does not make this claim, and neither do the reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or nations’ academies of sciences. As noted in the AR 5 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, changes in extreme weather and climate events have been observed since about 1950 and linked to human influences, including decreases in cold temperature extremes, increases in warm temperature extremes, increases in extreme high sea level, and increases in the number of heavy precipitation events in a number of regions.
Dr. Botkin presents a graph purportedly showing that the number of 95 F degree temperature readings at U.S. weather stations since 1930 shows no increase on an annual basis of days with temperatures above this level. There are two problems with his use and lack of discussion about the data. First, these data pertain to the U.S.; consequently, the data are regional and not a reliable indicator of the state of the global climate. Second, and more importantly, Dr. Botkin fails to note that in, say, a stationary climate, as the years go by there will be a statistical drop in the number of daily heat records. However, during periods of global warming, as per the conclusions of numerous scientific reports and studies we reference, the frequency of heat records has declined much less than expected in a stationary climate.
Concluding Thoughts
Dr. Botkin’s article ignores several issues relevant to global climate change and its possible effects on national parks and protected areas. We discuss these in no particular order of importance.
First, it ignores the issue of ‘finger printing,’ or data that conclusively demonstrate a human attribution to global climate change. One example is that the ratio of certain carbon isotopes in the atmosphere has been decreasing since the Industrial Revolution. The ratio of carbon–13 to carbon–12 is an example because plants preferentially take up the lighter isotope and, hence, since fossil fuels are comprised of plant matter, their burning decreases the ratio in the atmosphere and this decrease has been observed since the Industrial Revolution. Another example is that empirical evidence shows that the upper troposphere has warmed while the lower stratosphere has cooled and this evidence is entirely consistent with the theory about the observable impacts of increased heat energy from greenhouse gases being trapped in the lower levels of the Earth’s atmosphere. A final example is research that identifies how global climate change is related to the amount of carbon emissions by humans since the late 1800s.
Second, the editor of National Parks Traveler, Kurt Repanshek, makes an inadvertent but potentially confusing comment in his October 28th response to Dr. Botkin’s article, wherein Repanshek states, ‘Antarctic sea ice is at record levels.’ Although this statement is true, the more important considerations are empirical data that show instabilities and declines in the mass of ice in the Antarctic (and Greenland) ice sheets; these instabilities and mass declines prompt concerns about significant rises of sea level.
Third, one of the most disturbing things about Dr. Botkin’s article is that he denies there is even a minor probability that human–induced global climate change exists. We wish to make clear that we believe, consistent with our own work, the numerous studies we have referenced, and the very high scientific consensus we have referenced, that the probability of human–induced global climate change is very high.
But for purposes of argument and certainly germane to protected areas of the National Park Service, let us assume that there might be some chance that human–induced global climate change is occurring, but also a chance it is not. Under conditions of scientific uncertainty, the precautionary principle should be invoked. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change recognizes the precautionary principle; the Convention has been ratified by over 190 nations, including the United States, and the Convention has the force of an international legal treaty.
As many readers of National Parks Traveler know, the precautionary principle states that in matters affecting environmental and human health that are serious and irreversible even if some uncertainties exist about risks or impacts, actions to mitigate them should be taken. In other words, erring in making a conclusion that there is an effect when in fact there is none is more protective than erring by making a conclusion there is no effect when in fact there is. By his denial of any chance that human–induced climate change is occurring, Dr. Botkin rules out use of the precautionary principle and therefore offers a lesser degree of protection to National Park Service lands.
Fourth, scientific conclusions are always open to debate, and independent testing is one of the hallmarks of scientific norms. But are we to believe that a single paper Dr. Botkin mentions from McKitrick, an economist, one from Christy, and Dr. Botkin’s article in National Parks Traveler overthrow the weight of evidence from the numerous scientific reports we have referenced that conclude human–induced global climate change already is here? Within the scientific community the debate about whether human–induced global climate change is occurring is outdated and akin to the question of whether the Earth is flat. Newspapers such as the New York Times have indicated publically that they will no longer publish articles concerned solely with the question: Is global climate change occurring? We are not advocating censorship, but only reiterating that the question and major thrust of Dr. Botkin’s article are outdated and have been settled within the scientific community.
Fifth, National Parks Traveler is not a scientific peer–reviewed journal and we are not advocating that it becomes one. We understand that the purpose of National Parks Traveler is to offer a platform for differing points of view. Yet, because Dr. Botkin made use of some scientific evidence and conclusions, this raises the question of whether some outside review would serve to strengthen articles that rely on empirical evidence and its interpretation.
Sixth and finally, we wish to be clear that we value Kurt’s dedication to the lands the National Park Service tries to protect. He provides a much–needed voice for the parks while not being an employee of the parks. We hope that he will continue to take into consideration the enormous effect stories in National Parks Traveler can have on the public, especially as human–induced global climate change increasingly threatens our National Park Service lands.
References
2014 National Climate Assessment, 2014, U.S. Global Change Research Program, Washington, DC (http://nca2014.globalchange.gov) Accessed 14 November 2014
Anderegg WRL, Prall JW, Harold J, Schneider SH, 2010, Expert Credibility in Climate Change, Proceedings of the National Academies of Sciences, 107: 12107–12109 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2901439/) Accessed 15 November 2014
Burns CE, Johnston KM, Schmitz OJ, 2003, Global Climate Change and Mammalian Species Diversity in U.S. National Parks, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 100: 11474–11477 (http://www.pnas.org/content/100/20/11474.full) Accessed 24 November 2014
Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 2012, State of the Climate–2012 (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/bams-state-of-the-climate/2012.php) Accessed 15 November 2014
Climate Change at the National Academies, Washington DC, (http://nas-sites.org/americasclimatechoices/sample-page/panel-reports/) Accessed 14 November 2014
Convention on Biological Diversity, 2010, Global Biodiversity Outlook 3, Montreal, Canada (http://www.cbd.int/gbo3/) Accessed 26 November 2014
Goodwin P, Williams RG, Ridgwell A, 2014 Sensitivity of Climate to Cumulative Carbon Emissions Due to Compensation of Ocean Heat and Carbon Uptake, Nature Geoscience DOI: 10.1038/ngeo2304 (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/12/141201113036.htm)
Harvard School of Public Health, 2014, Climate Change and Biodiversity Loss, in: Biodiversity and Human Health (http://www.chgeharvard.org/topic/climate-change-and-biodiversity-loss) Accessed 26 November 2014
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2014, The Fifth Assessment Report, The World Meteorological Organization, Geneva, Switzerland (http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/) Accessed 14 November 2014
Oreskes, N, 2004, Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change, Science 306: 1686 (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.full) Accessed 15 November 2014
Shepherd A and 46 others, A Reconciled Estimate of Ice–Sheet Mass Balance 2012, 338 (6111): 1183-1189, Science (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/338/6111/1183.abstract) Accessed 15 November 2014
Skeptical Science, 2014, Is There a Scientific Consensus on Global Warming? (http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm) Accessed 15 November 2014
1Professor Emeritus of Biology and Environmental Science, Department of Environmental Studies, University of New England, Biddeford, ME 04005 ([email protected]); 2Dr. Owen Hoffman, President, Oak Ridge Center for Risk Analysis, Oak Ridge, TN 37830; 3Lyndel Meikle, National Park Service, Grant–Kohrs Ranch National Historic Site, Deer Lodge, MT 59722; 4Ron Mackie, Retired National Park Service Ranger. Address all correspondence to Dr. John Lemons.
Comments
I would say that gatekeeping is a form of censorship, and everyone can recite his or her anecdotes of startling anti-intellectualism in the university--this is a truism. But the university is also about the one site for exploring complexity and controversy in a culture whose popular discourse seems to be little more than a daily reproduction of nonsensical polemics. (In the Traveler comment sections, how often do we notice someone seemingly waiting around for a pretext to register some bizarre political resentment?) So, the university is very far from perfect and has never lived up to its mythology as a place of unfettered academic freedom, but at the end of the day, it nevertheless remains about the most useful place for advancing inquiry.
That is called free thought and speech as well as reality.
"Higher education is a mess."
It would be easier to list what isn't in a mess nowadays, I believe. "It's all crap" would be a more truthful statement than "It's all wonderful." Probably a good thing that people are realizing it.
Real Clear Politics Average of polls 12/03-12/14/2014:
Direction of country:
Wonderfull...27.3%
Crap....65.2%
Despite Mr. Gruber and at least one contributor to this sight. We aren't stupid.
Now, I do not know what the break down is for believers and deniers of man made climate change in the demographics of this poll but the direction of the country at this point is light years more important to life on the planet than whether or not man contributes enough CO2 to distract from the very real major problems that are being buried because of all the distractions of the issue.
"There is no global warming ..." yada matada. "Temperatures are flat..." yep yep. "Glacial ice is growing instead of retreating.."..."Do you choose to critize the great and powerful EC... consider yourself lucky. The great EC has spoken. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain...I'm the all knowing and powerful wizard of EC"...
http://www.snowaddiction.org/2014/06/photos-from-alaska-then-and-now-thi...
Agree justinh.
Dear Santa,
Yes, I have been a good boy this year. I did not buy that SUV in the window or do more than my fair share of flying. But really, Santa, I could use a train!
You see, Santa, back when I was a little boy, the country was full of trains. Now people don’t know what they are anymore, even as they talk endlessly about global warming. Remember the train you brought me in 1952—the one Mom, Dad, Gus, and I rode to New York City? You can’t do that anymore in Binghamton, Santa. The last train left on January 4, 1970, and Binghamton has been building highways ever since. Mount Prospect has just been blasted into oblivion to “improve” the interchange for Routes 17, 88, and 81.
Even here in Seattle we only have a few trains, although past governors have promised us many. The current governor is allegedly an environmentalist, but Santa, all he thinks about is building roads. Boeing just announced it will use “green” energy to build its airplanes down in Renton. But isn’t the problem the airplane, Santa? How do you stop global warming without limiting those?
Meanwhile, will someone please remind the governor that there is no such thing as a “greener” car? If the roads need to be improved for any car, what about the CO2 that generates?
As for the homeless and the unemployed, they have forgotten trains, as well. Remember all of the African-Americans the railroads let go in the 1960s? You were never able to find them comparable jobs, Santa.
We Americans thought we were so smart! If we got rid of our trains, and built an Interstate Highway System, we could fight global warming with more hot air! As for all of those middle-class jobs that went to African-Americans, well, they could move to Ferguson, Missouri, and make do.
Santa, there just has to be a better way to move people—and employ people—than constantly asking for a greener car. How can we save the earth by recasting the problem? How can we protect the land without first slowing down?
Sure, our highways are clogged from end to end. But that is not what I mean by slowing down. I mean taking the train and looking out the window. I mean flirting with that lovely young lady in the dining car.
I wrote a book about it, Santa, but few people read it. Environmentalists these days are into wind farms and solar power plants. Can you navigate your sled past those? The eagles can’t, nor the hawks and bats. But hey, we are saving the earth from global warming!
You see what I mean, Santa, about these environmentalists. They have forgotten what it means to have wonderful trains. They have forgotten what it means not to bulldoze the earth into oblivion just to make room for their favorite “solution.”
Come to think of it, they need the train set more than I. So please, Santa, stuff their stockings with some common sense. And don’t anger them by leaving a lump of coal. They deserve it, but they just wouldn’t understand the message. They think coal is an even bigger sin than driving. Perhaps a toy wind turbine would do.
Thank you, Santa, and don’t forget that Denmark recently claimed the North Pole. Now that the ice is melting, they want the minerals and the oil. So does everyone in the Northern Hemisphere, including Russia and the United States. You want consistency? Not in this country, Santa. If you give us more oil, we will gladly burn it, and then blame the other guy for burning his.
Sorry, Santa. I didn’t mean to sound so cynical, but yes, it does surprise me what people demand in the name of global warming while forgetting how it started in the first place.
As for the train I want, I’ll take the Phoebe Snow. But I wouldn’t mind The Twentieth Century Limited, either, especially if it comes with Cary Grant and Eva Marie Saint. Now there was a ride up the Hudson to remember.
You will find your milk and cookies under the tree. Just be careful about those wind farms. All of those blinking red lights are not Rudolf’s nose.
Sincerely,
Alfred
Great piece of writing, sir.
Merry Christmas mood to you (What's important:).
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/12/24/a-christmas-gift-from-dr-b...
Stop Climate Fear Mongering –
CO2 Increases Can Cause Only Minimal Warming
by William M. Gray
Professor Emeritus
Colorado State University
(see project website for background on author –http://tropical.atmos.colostate.edu/)
December 23, 2014
Abstract
The massively funded international global warming movement has grossly exaggerated the threat from CO2 gas increases. This warming scare has been driven by a cabal of international politicians and environmentalist groups using erroneous climate model warming predictions to brainwash an uninformed global public. Their purpose was to scare the public into accepting global government and restrictions on their freedoms and lifestyles to prevent a made-up looming climate catastrophe. Truth of their CO2 warming assertions was of little importance. What mattered was the degree to which the public could be indoctrinated to believe the threat. The many large global warming projections have not and will not be realized in the coming years. The science behind these CO2induced warming projections is very badly flawed and needs to be exposed to the public. We will see only negligible amounts of CO2 induced global warming in the coming decades. The future temperature changes which do occur will be natural and primarily a result of the changes in the globe’s deep ocean circulation patterns of which ocean salinity variations is the primary driver. We can and should do nothing about natural climate change but adjust to it.
Economic progress dictates that the US and the world continue with and expands their use of fossil-fuels. Any significant shift to the much more costly wind and solar energy sources should not go forward. Such a shift would greatly lower the US and the world’s living standards and do nothing to benefit the globe’s climate. This global warming charade cannot long continue. Time and truth are on the side of the warming skeptics.
Current Conditions
Increasing amounts of CO2 gas in the atmosphere over the last 18 years have not caused any increase in mean global surface temperatures. Despite voluminous media and scientific claims to the contrary, the global temperature, global sea ice, severe weather, floods, droughts, tropical cyclones, tornadoes, etc. are not showing any of the changes predicted by the warming alarmists and the many numerical modeling simulations on which most of these warming claims have been scientifically based. I am sure the coming years of observations will add more verification for the discrediting of this CO2 driven catastrophic warming hypothesis.
I strongly recommend the reader consult the internet blog Real Science by Steve Goddard for much more documentation on the ever increasing failure of the CO2 global warming projections. Goddard also gives numerous examples of how our and other government climate-weather agencies have been artificially reducing older surface temperature measurements so as to give the appearance of larger upward surface temperature trends than have really occurred. This apparent data tampering goes against all scientific methodology and needs to be exposed and corrected by an outside independent investigative group.
The general public, without the technical background to judge the scientific reliability of these many and continuous alarmist warming pronouncements have become brainwashed. An unhealthy alliance has developed between government and climate-weather scientists. The apparent broad level of scientific backing for the CO2 warming hypothesis has been obtained through massive governmental research grant awards to those scientists who were willing to support (or not criticize) such dubious politically driven global warming claims.
We all want to trust our government and believe that the media is giving us objective news. But with our government’s and the media’s continuous and alarmist statements on increasing CO2 ability to cause dangerous future global warming we all need to become skeptical. The public has been deceived by not being able to hear the other side of the global warming argument. The many scientific arguments against the human-induced global warming hypothesis have purposely not been covered by the media or discussed by our government. When such negative warming arguments do occasionally come up, they are harshly criticized by environmentalists, celebrities, and governmental officials who know next to nothing about how the global climate system functions. An open and honest scientific dialog on the global warming issue has yet to take place. The statement that the scientific argument for large CO2 induced global warming has already been settled is a total fabrication.
Crux of the Flawed Science
(water-vapor feedback and surface evaporation cooling)
There are many flaws in the global climate models. But the largest flaw is a result of the climate model’s inability to realistically deal with the small horizontal scale (and model unresolvable) changes brought about by the globe’s thousands of individual deep cumulonimbus (Cb) cloud elements (Figure 1). An increase in the totality of these deep Cb convective units adds drying to the upper troposphere (Figure 2). This is in contrast to the assumptions implicit in the General Climate Model (GCM) simulations which increase upper tropospheric water-vapor as a result of enhanced rainfall and Cb convection associated with rising levels of CO2.
The model simulations have followed the unrealistic physical ideas emanating from the National Academy of Science (NAS), 1979 (or Charney Report). This report speculated that as the troposphere warms from CO2 increases that this warming would be accompanied (follow the Clausius-Clapeyron relationship between temperature and moisture) by a moisture increase such that the relative humidity (RH) of the air would remain near constant as the temperature increased. Implicit in this NAS assumption of CO2 induced warming was the necessity that this increase of moisture would add additional blockage of infrared (IR) radiation to space beyond what the CO2 gas did by itself. The net IR blockage to space from increasing CO2 was thus assumed to occur not only from the CO2 gas itself but also from the extra water-vapor gain needed to keep the RH near constant as the temperature rose. This additional water-vapor gain was shown by the models to have about twice as large an influence on reducing IR blockage to space as the CO2 increase by itself. Thus, any CO2 increase of one unit of IR blockage to space would simultaneously bring along with it an additional two units of water-vapor blockage of IR loss to space. This additional moisture related blockage of IR loss to space (associated with CO2 induced warming) has been designated as ‘positive water-vapor feedback’. All the CO2 climate models have strong amounts of positive water-favor feedback.
It is this large and direct tie of water-vapor increase with CO2 induced temperature rise which is the primary physical flaw in all of the GCM CO2 doubling model simulations. This is the reason why all the GCMs have so strongly over-predicted the amount of global warming which will occur with a doubling of atmospheric CO2.
Observations show that the warming or cooling of the upper troposphere does not occur with RH remaining close to constant. Temperature and RH tend to change oppositely from each other and not in unison as the models assume. My project’s study of cumulus convection and tropical cyclone formation over many decades has taught me that the NAS 1979 (Charney) Report assessment that rising CO2 amounts will occur with water-vapor increase is not a realistic assessment of how these parameters change in the upper troposphere.
The GCM CO2 simulations are also constructed so as to have their moisture simulations arranged such that water-vapor changes occur uniformly at both upper and lower tropospheric levels. By contrast, the observations of moisture change at upper and lower tropospheric levels show them to be little related to each other (Figure 3).
Our observation analysis finds that increases in cumulonimbus (Cb) cloud intensity and frequency brings about a decrease in upper tropospheric water-vapor, not an upper tropospheric moistening as the model simulations show.
The deeper and/or the more intense Cb clouds become the higher is their rainfall efficiency. Cb clouds rain out most of their moisture as they overshoot from the top of their positive buoyancy layer near 300 mb (~ 10 km) and penetrate higher into the stabilizing upper troposphere where they became weaker and terminate their upward motion. The Cbs weakening upward vertical motion at these high levels leave little upper-level moisture as they die. Their updrafts deposit their saturated but miniscule moisture content air and liquid cirrus clouds high in the troposphere. These are the heights where the vertical gradients of saturation air is, percentage-wise, very large. Any subsidence of this cold upper-level saturated air parcels to lower and warmer levels causes an especially large reduction of the sinking air’s RH.
For instance, a saturated air parcel at 200 mb (12 km height) and a temperature of -53oC will contain little moisture even though it is saturated. If this parcel then sinks with no mixing to 300 mb (~10 km height) and takes on the temperature of the lower-level air it will have its RH reduced from 100 percent to only 12 percent (Figure 4). Such Cb induced upper-level air parcel subsidence to lower levels induces an upper-level drying and with it an increased infrared (IR) radiation loss to space. The contrast of these two processes is seen in Figure 5. The crucial flaw of the models is that they have not made a proper up-and-down mass balance of the upper-troposphere’s vertical motion that would have accounted for the high rainfall efficiency of the Cb air which penetrates above 300 mb and the very dry return flow subsidence.
Example. To balance the influence of a doubling of CO2 by radiation alone it would be required that the temperature of the globe be warmed by 1oC. The models then assume that this CO2 induced warming of 1oC will (following the Charney Report assumptions) cause a moisture increase that will further reduce IR loss to space, such that there will have to be an additional 2oC upper-level warming beyond the needed 1oC warming from the CO2 by itself. The combination of these two processes is assumed to bring about an upper-level 3oC global warming over the whole tropics (30oN-30oS). Of this 3oC warming 2oC would be designated as positive water-vapor feedback warming. Such an expected strong and positive temperature increase and positive water-vapor feedback of a doubling of CO2 is quite unrealistic.
Our project’s many years of analysis of the International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project (ISCCP) observations of IR loss to space in association with enhanced Cb convection and rainfall do not show a decreased IR blockage to space (as the models have indicated will occur) but rather an enhancement of IR loss to space. Our data analysis is, by contrast with the models, representation of a negative water-vapor feedback – the larger the rainfall rate, the lower the upper tropospheric water-vapor content and the greater the IR loss to space (Figure 6).
Real global warming to be expected. Without upper-troposphere water-vapor change and without enhanced surface evaporation cooling associated with extra rainfall, the pure radiation response to a doubling of CO2 would indicate we should expect about a 1.0oC global warming. But even with zero assumed water-vapor change this 1oC warming is two to three times larger than what will likely take place. This is because about 60 percent of the 3.7 Wm-2 IR blocking to space from a doubling of CO2 will be balanced by an enhancement of surface evaporation and an increase of the global hydrologic cycle by about 2½ percent. A zero water-vapor feedback will thus be expected to only bring about a 0.4oC global temperature rise from CO2 doubling.
We show that there is a very modest degree of negative water-vapor feedback of 0.1 to 0.2oC. With this occurring we should expect that the real amount of global warming that will occur from a doubling of CO2 would be only about 0.2-0.3oC or about 5-10 percent the amount projected by the many global models of 2-4oC. The AGW threat and especially the catastrophic AGW (or CAGW) threat cannot be a realistic assertion of how the planet’s climate system functions.
Continue Economic Growth
If this evaluation is correct, then the people of the globe should not have to worry about rising levels of CO2 at this time. Enhanced fossil-fuel utilization and rising levels of economic gain should continue. The world needs to greatly reduce its concern for the trumped up CO2 global warming threat. We need to concentrate on the many more legitimate and serious world problems which are before us.
We should all be grateful for the tremendous advancements in living standards, health, and overall well-being which the utilization of fossil-fuel energy has made possible. Fossil-fuel energy has been one of humanity’s greatest blessings.
Higher levels of fossil-fuel usage will bring about yet greater economic and society benefits. Increased CO2 will also bring an enhancement of vegetation growth, a small global rainfall increase, and a very slight global temperature rise – all positive changes for humankind.
Many people who accept that humans are degrading the environment are confusing local environmental problems with CO2 induced global warming. The two are very different. We must all work to reduce or eliminate local pollution and health hazards but disregard the false harangues of saving the planet from the trumped-up imaginary CO2 induced warming.
The wisest course of action for our country and the world at this time should be to have the foresight and courage to ‘do nothing’ regarding the increasing amounts of CO2 and other greenhouse gases which are being emitted into the atmosphere. The coming generations will be in a better position to decide whether any human response to the rising levels of CO2 gases might be justified.
Author’s Background
The author holds an MS (meteorology) and Ph.D. (geophysical sciences) from the University of Chicago. He has been a weather-climate forecaster, researcher, and university graduate school professor for 60 years. He has supervised 70 MS and Ph.D. students. He originated and has been involved with Atlantic basin seasonal hurricane forecasting for the last 31 years.
Gray has never received any research funding from any fossil-fuel source. His position on the global warming issue has led in recent decades to loss of all federal research support he had previously received. His research on this topic continues only through his own funding. Gray and his Colorado State University research project colleagues have published many papers and issued many project reports over many years on cumulus convection and atmospheric moist processes. It is on this topic for which the climate models lack realism and the primary reason for their grossly unrealistic large warming projections. These papers and reports can be found at (http://tropical.atmos.colostate.edu/).