NoaIzumiDr. Roy Spencer and the Untruths of Climate Change
April 20th 2009 00:53
(With acknowledgements to SL, who inspired the title. Although not the subject, in case she’s wondering)
Dr. Roy Spencer is one of most prominent and respected skeptics of anthropogenic global warming, and he recently wrote a featured article for conservative favorite Townhall Magazine.
Special Report: Global Warming Gloom and Doom Cools Off
“Even though global temperatures stopped rising in 2001”
Only if you look at 2001 and 2008, and ignore all the years in between. According to NASA, 2005 was the hottest year on record, warmer even than previous record 1998. 2007 was another warm one, tied with 1998 for second-hottest.
Really Long Link
Really Long Link
The Climatic Research Unit ranks 1998 the highest, but even according to them, 2002 through 2006 (especially 2005) were all warmer than 2001.
Really Long Link
“despite the almost total failure of the Kyoto Protocol to reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions in the European Union,”
Not knowing what Dr. Spencer means by “almost total failure”, it’s difficult to call this one a fib for sure. But it sure smells like one. The Europe Union’s total CO2 emissions were, in 2004, 5% below 1990 levels, effectively erasing a ten year rise in emissions and then some. Individual countries, such as the United Kingdom, Denmark, and Germany, have made even more drastic cuts.
Really Long Link (PDF file)
Really Long Link
“Carbon dioxide is an odorless, colorless gas that is essential for life on Earth”
I was a little surprised to see this argument in a piece by such an eminent scientist. It’s like saying that water is essential to life, therefore it shouldn’t be possible to drown in it.
“there is surprisingly little CO2 around us: only 39 CO2 molecules out of every 100,000 molecules of air.”
Technically true, but in this context, it’s a dishonest argument: speaking of CO2 as a fraction of the whole atmosphere when 99% of that atmosphere has nothing whatsoever to do with the greenhouse effect.
CO2 has been shown by repeated experiment to be responsible for at least 12% of the greenhouse effect, and possibly as much as 36% depending on the circumstances. This “trace gas” has much more than trace effects.
Really Long Link (PDF file)
Really Long Link
“the leadership of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has been working for 20 years to build a scientific case for the view that more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has caused the global warming we have experienced over the last 50 to 100 years”
I’m kind of curious where he got the “100 years” part, since it’s not true. The IPCC says 50-60 years, no more.
Really Long Link
“The most important reality from a practical standpoint is the fact that there are still no largescale replacements for fossil fuels.”
This is fair enough, but many of the measures being taken involve increasing energy efficiency, such as weatherizing homes and raising CAFÉ standards. Where do Roy Spencer and people like him stand on those issues?
“the fact is that we still need electricity when the sun doesn’t shine and when the wind doesn’t blow.”
That would imply that we’re already using solar and wind to full capacity when the sun is shining and the wind is blowing. We (at least here in the United States) are not. And I know that Dr. Spencer is a scientist, not an engineer, but surely he’s heard of rechargeable batteries? They work very well, at least on a small scale (so far). Dr. Spencer also mentioned hydrogen, another excellent mechanism of energy storage and transfer.
“But now we have eight years of high-quality NASA Terra satellite data that have revealed that the PDO (Pacific Decadal Oscillation) does indeed cause a change in global cloud cover.”
The Pacific Decadal Oscillation has been known of for a little over ten years, and it most likely has an effect on climate. Two things are missing, though. First of all, what’s causing it? Dr. Spencer doesn’t know (because no one does), and until he does, he can’t say whether the PDO is a feedback or a forcing. Carbon dioxide emissions from industry, on the other hand, are a known forcing (independent of temperature).
Secondly, how much warming does the PDO cause? It’s not enough to say that the globe is warming, the PDO causes warming, therefore the PDO and nothing else is responsible for the warming. It’s like entering a warm room, seeing that the overhead light is on, and assuming that the light must be heating the whole room. Not to say that the PDO couldn’t be a significant reason for warming, but Dr. Spencer can’t know.
Increased CO2, however,…
“the little bit of warming from the extra CO2 we pump into the atmosphere”
“little bit of warming”? Let’s do some quick calculations. It’s almost certain that CO2 will be doubled from pre-industrial levels by the end of the century. As previously mentioned, CO2 is at least 12% of the greenhouse effect, and the GH warms the Earth by 33 degrees C. So 100% X 0.12 X 33 degrees =3.96 degrees of warming, by my admittedly crude math, with no positive or negative feedbacks considered. Each additional increment has a lessened effect, so figure between three and three-and-a-half degrees of warming. And, what do you know, that’s right about what the IPCC predicts.
“(the warming) will be greatly amplified by changes in clouds.”
Not exactly true either. The amplification isn’t due to clouds, but to water vapor, which is a greenhouse gas and increases when the atmosphere warms (this is backed up by real-world observations). Clouds are arguably a negative feedback, but since not all water vapor makes clouds, the positive effect from increased water vapor is most likely stronger.
Dr. Spencer makes a good point that we’ll be dependent on fossil fuels for a long time yet, and another good point that the PDO might be behind the warming to a greater extent than thought. But why must he use tired, debunked arguments to make these points?
“And if you happen to think the direction we are headed—global governance (slowing down anti-AGW measures)—is the way we should go anyway, then at least make your case based upon its merits, rather than through the misuse and distortion of my scientific discipline.”
Doc, heal thyself. Maybe Roy Spencer should think about taking his own advice.
Dr. Roy Spencer is one of most prominent and respected skeptics of anthropogenic global warming, and he recently wrote a featured article for conservative favorite Townhall Magazine.
Special Report: Global Warming Gloom and Doom Cools Off
“Even though global temperatures stopped rising in 2001”
Only if you look at 2001 and 2008, and ignore all the years in between. According to NASA, 2005 was the hottest year on record, warmer even than previous record 1998. 2007 was another warm one, tied with 1998 for second-hottest.
Really Long Link
Really Long Link
The Climatic Research Unit ranks 1998 the highest, but even according to them, 2002 through 2006 (especially 2005) were all warmer than 2001.
Really Long Link
“despite the almost total failure of the Kyoto Protocol to reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions in the European Union,”
Not knowing what Dr. Spencer means by “almost total failure”, it’s difficult to call this one a fib for sure. But it sure smells like one. The Europe Union’s total CO2 emissions were, in 2004, 5% below 1990 levels, effectively erasing a ten year rise in emissions and then some. Individual countries, such as the United Kingdom, Denmark, and Germany, have made even more drastic cuts.
Really Long Link (PDF file)
Really Long Link
“Carbon dioxide is an odorless, colorless gas that is essential for life on Earth”
I was a little surprised to see this argument in a piece by such an eminent scientist. It’s like saying that water is essential to life, therefore it shouldn’t be possible to drown in it.
“there is surprisingly little CO2 around us: only 39 CO2 molecules out of every 100,000 molecules of air.”
Technically true, but in this context, it’s a dishonest argument: speaking of CO2 as a fraction of the whole atmosphere when 99% of that atmosphere has nothing whatsoever to do with the greenhouse effect.
CO2 has been shown by repeated experiment to be responsible for at least 12% of the greenhouse effect, and possibly as much as 36% depending on the circumstances. This “trace gas” has much more than trace effects.
Really Long Link (PDF file)
Really Long Link
“the leadership of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has been working for 20 years to build a scientific case for the view that more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has caused the global warming we have experienced over the last 50 to 100 years”
I’m kind of curious where he got the “100 years” part, since it’s not true. The IPCC says 50-60 years, no more.
Really Long Link
“The most important reality from a practical standpoint is the fact that there are still no largescale replacements for fossil fuels.”
This is fair enough, but many of the measures being taken involve increasing energy efficiency, such as weatherizing homes and raising CAFÉ standards. Where do Roy Spencer and people like him stand on those issues?
“the fact is that we still need electricity when the sun doesn’t shine and when the wind doesn’t blow.”
That would imply that we’re already using solar and wind to full capacity when the sun is shining and the wind is blowing. We (at least here in the United States) are not. And I know that Dr. Spencer is a scientist, not an engineer, but surely he’s heard of rechargeable batteries? They work very well, at least on a small scale (so far). Dr. Spencer also mentioned hydrogen, another excellent mechanism of energy storage and transfer.
“But now we have eight years of high-quality NASA Terra satellite data that have revealed that the PDO (Pacific Decadal Oscillation) does indeed cause a change in global cloud cover.”
The Pacific Decadal Oscillation has been known of for a little over ten years, and it most likely has an effect on climate. Two things are missing, though. First of all, what’s causing it? Dr. Spencer doesn’t know (because no one does), and until he does, he can’t say whether the PDO is a feedback or a forcing. Carbon dioxide emissions from industry, on the other hand, are a known forcing (independent of temperature).
Secondly, how much warming does the PDO cause? It’s not enough to say that the globe is warming, the PDO causes warming, therefore the PDO and nothing else is responsible for the warming. It’s like entering a warm room, seeing that the overhead light is on, and assuming that the light must be heating the whole room. Not to say that the PDO couldn’t be a significant reason for warming, but Dr. Spencer can’t know.
Increased CO2, however,…
“the little bit of warming from the extra CO2 we pump into the atmosphere”
“little bit of warming”? Let’s do some quick calculations. It’s almost certain that CO2 will be doubled from pre-industrial levels by the end of the century. As previously mentioned, CO2 is at least 12% of the greenhouse effect, and the GH warms the Earth by 33 degrees C. So 100% X 0.12 X 33 degrees =3.96 degrees of warming, by my admittedly crude math, with no positive or negative feedbacks considered. Each additional increment has a lessened effect, so figure between three and three-and-a-half degrees of warming. And, what do you know, that’s right about what the IPCC predicts.
“(the warming) will be greatly amplified by changes in clouds.”
Not exactly true either. The amplification isn’t due to clouds, but to water vapor, which is a greenhouse gas and increases when the atmosphere warms (this is backed up by real-world observations). Clouds are arguably a negative feedback, but since not all water vapor makes clouds, the positive effect from increased water vapor is most likely stronger.
Dr. Spencer makes a good point that we’ll be dependent on fossil fuels for a long time yet, and another good point that the PDO might be behind the warming to a greater extent than thought. But why must he use tired, debunked arguments to make these points?
“And if you happen to think the direction we are headed—global governance (slowing down anti-AGW measures)—is the way we should go anyway, then at least make your case based upon its merits, rather than through the misuse and distortion of my scientific discipline.”
Doc, heal thyself. Maybe Roy Spencer should think about taking his own advice.
| 56 |
| Vote |
subscribe to this blog
Comment by Anonymous