Climate Theories should include Feedbacks from Life

My theory is that Life, the earth and its atmosphere have self-correcting dampening methods to prevent the acceleration of temperature due to increased Greenhouse Gases, bearing in mind that:-

(1) All the GHGs are part of the Biological Cycle.
(2 ) Water can turn into rain or ice, cooling the planet.
(3) No-one understands how clouds form.

(4) Microbes are everywhere, including the top of the atmosphere & inside clouds.

You will have heard it said that 

climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.

My investigations have uncovered lots of uncertainties, over-hyping of hypotheses, invalid use of statistics, and incorrectly fusing microscopic mathematics (e.g. radiation physics) with larger scale mathematics (e.g. fluid dynamics & thermodynamics).  So my belief is that

climate change is real, within natural variability, and maybe partially man-made.

Even the UN target of not more than 2 degrees increase looks to be within natural variability.

Unlike the media, mainstream climate science (including IPCC) does not warn about runaway warming. Here is a link that talks about why irreversible runaway warming won't happen, and describes the often inapt use of the phrase “tipping point”: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/07/runaway-tipping-points-of-no-return/  by gavin schmidt @ 5 July 2006

So we should stop wasting money on reducing carbon-dioxide emissions in order to spend it on adapting to a warmer world.

Review of BBC4's 'Climate Change by Numbers', March 2015

  

Presented by three mathematicians - Dr Hannah Fry, Prof Norman Fenton (Statstiician) and Prof David Spiegelhalter - it hones in on just three key numbers that clarify all the important questions around climate change:-

·         0.85 degrees (the amount of warming the planet has undergone since 1880)

·         95 per cent (the degree of certainty climate scientists have that at least half the recent warming is man-made)

·         1 trillion tonnes (the total amount of carbon we can afford to burn - ever - in order to stay below 'dangerous levels' of climate change)

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/03/03/the-bbcs-climate-change-by-numbers/

I studied Mathematical Physics very many years ago and had a career in computer engineering. I'm well aware that statistics and numerical computational solutions can give misleading answers, therefore require testing in the real world (which we can't do with climate) so was very interested to view this programme. 

It covered lots of uncertainties and issues that need working around. The history of how the differing techniques were developed illuminated the problems well.  This is good because far too often we get told simplified analogies about the science which numerate and educated people can be deeply suspicious of – like I am.

My review covers a few issues about the presentation for each number, and follows with a few more numbers that I would like investigated.

·         200-300% Amplification by water vapour of the carbon-dioxide heating

·         0.2% of the total Carbon Flux in the atmosphere

·         the average amount that Minimum & Maximum Temperatures have increased

The First Number:- 0.85 degrees Centigrade Warming Since 1880

Question:-       Is 0.85 deg. Centigrade unusual?

Answer:-         No. The previous 170 years also warmed at about the same rate. (I applaud the presentation in explaining that, as we go back in time, the accuracy of known temperatures declines so that we have talk in approximations.) Unfortunately, noone knows why the warming of 300 years ago started, and continued in fits and starts. Thus there's no way to show that the same natural warming isn't happening now.

The Second Number – 95% Certainty that Human Carbon-Dioxide Emissions Contribute at least Half of Recent Warming

As a statistician, Prof. Fenton should have explained that just because 2 things happen at more or less the same time, (i.e. in his example, winning and football club wage bill; for climatology, carbon dioxide and temperature) doesn't mean one causes the other or even that they have the same cause.  In fact, in the case of carbon dioxide, it's a 'confounding' variable which is expected to increase due to warmth. As the oceans get hotter, carbon-dioxide is transferred to the atmosphere (and the sea holds correspondingly less carbon-dioxide, becoming more acidic).  Another number that would be really interesting to look at is the % of the carbon flux that is due to humans.  I understand it's tiny, ~0.04%

Prof Fenton's presentation used a Bayesian Statistics approach which showed that the computer models depended on human carbon dioxide emissions creating more than half of the recent warming. The impression given was that observational data from the real world supports this conclusion.  There was no investigations into how good the models were at modelling past temperatures, nor of the methods of model 'tuning' that take place.

A Computer Model output of the troposphere was shown indicating additional heat over the tropics is expected from human carbon dioxide warming but not from natural variability.  If observed for real, it would be decisive. However, it's not present in the real atmosphere!

… I'm really disappointed that it was unclear that the model results hadn't been checked against reality.

The Third Number – Total Amount of Carbon we can burn to stay below 'dangerous levels' of climate change

First, you have to show that it could be dangerous.  A really important number was omitted – an expected 200-300% amplification by water vapour of the basic carbon-dioxide heating.  This is unproven and is probably the most contentious thing in climate science because, without it there's no catastrophe.

Science Moves On. Even Climate Science

Science moves on.  Thus Al Gore's 2006 "Inconvenient Truth" is full of unmet expectations e.g.

·         Polar Bears are not dying out – their numbers have been increasing since the hunting ban

·         Both poles are not melting – the Antarctic ice is much the same as previously. (Ice-shelves  and sea-ice are always breaking up due to wind activity.  Depth and Extent of ice, particularly land-ice, is the important metric.)

·         1975 to 1998 warming is not the fastest ever, …

·         Temperatures are not the highest ever during human civilisation – Mediaeval Warm Period (~11---1250 AD), Roman Warm Period  and Minoan Warm Period were all at least as warm (within the error margins of times when people didn't have thermometers).

·    Extreme weather – IPCC says no connection found with Climate Change

And, whatever they say now, the vocal scientist supporters of the Dangerous Global Warming hypothesis were surprised by the 'pause' or 'hiatus' in warming (Quotes here)

Those scientists who'd kept their heads down and continued researching ocean currents, cloud formations, atmospheric circulation and ice formation /melting were now finding their research results more popular.

IPCC's AR5 report in 2013 accepted for the first time that the 1975-1998 warming could have been 50% natural due to a series of warm El Nino currents in the Pacific.

Supporters of the 'Climate Change – Earth's Energy Budget is being wrecked by human emissions of carbon-dioxide' theory (e.g. Michael Mann, Kenneth Trenberth, Naomi Oreskes) are 'finding' all the extra heat hidden in the deep oceans where it can't be measured reliably; & prophesying that there'll be a sudden huge release of heat in the future.

While some recent developments include:-

     (i)            Arctic warming happens from time to time without any help from human carbon-dioxide emissions

   (ii)            Atmospheric water vapour does not behave as simply as depicted in NASA's Runaway Warming hypothesis:-

a.       IPCC says cloud formation is very uncertain

b.      March 2015 Paper discussing a stabilizing feedback between atmosphere & ocean circulations, clouds and radiation . From the summary: "The major source of albedo variability and the principal mode of regulation are associated with the interannual variations of cloudiness. The small variability observed suggests a high degree of buffering by the albedo of clouds" http://judithcurry.com/2015/03/10/the-albedo-of-earth

c.       http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/WaterVapor/water_vapor2.php

d.      Clouds have the biggest effect at the equator – January 2015 paper: Current Hiatus of Global Warming Tied to Equatorial Pacific Surface Cooling, Yu Kosaka, University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan; and S. P. Xie.

See images below

Cloud Cover vs Surface Temperature

http://www.climate4you.com/images/HadCRUT3%20and%20TropicalCloudCoverISCCP.gif

Carbon-dioxide Global Distribution

http://media2.s-nbcnews.com/j/newscms/2014_51/817066/carbon-map_cf132431109ff079ed2ad22c005e42bf.nbcnews-ux-720-400.jpg

Reflected Sunlight Global Distribution

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/changes-in-reflected-solar-per-one-degree-increase.jpg?w=720

As with all science, Time Will Tell.  Eventually.

Overview of Climate Science Analysis

My analysis of  climate science is to ascertain whether  there is:-

(i)      observational evidence that carbon-dioxide is a major driver for Catastrophic Global Warming

(ii) other theoretical mechanisms that could contribute to Global Warming.

As far as carbon-dioxide is concerned, I find:-

·       (a)  no observational evidence for (i)

·       (b)  CO₂ will react to the Earth's Infra-Red energy, probably passing it on to surrounding molecules & possibly using it as kinetic, thermal or latent energy.  I haven't found any Statistical Mechanics work that looks into this.

So, some warming is expected from increased carbon-dioxide.  It is certainly a Greenhouse Gas answering the question of "Why doesn't Earth lose all it's heat overnight like the other planets do".  The Greenhouse Effect also has a contribution from the pressure of the atmosphere. It's not either /or, but both.

Our planet is the only one watery planet in the Solar System, so I suspect water is heavily involved in both the Greenhouse Effect and Climate Changes.

Nature is basically chaotic – deterministic and unpredictable.  As with animal and bird populations I would expect to find surface temperatures abruptly swinging from small to large.  And I would also expect the effects of more or less carbon-dioxide to vary, depending on the rest of the climate.  In other words, I don't think it is possible to do simple calculations to say e.g. "doubling co2 will give n degrees of warming".  Also, I wonder about possible influences from the sun, or maybe gravity.

Some sceptics reject the idea of Greenhouse Gases.  They are muddling up the macro (Thermodynamics) and micro (Radiative Transfer) physics incorrectly.  The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is about flows of aggregates of molecules.  Whereas radiative transfer is about individual molecules. An individual cold molecule has been shown to transfer infra-red radiation to a warm one while the aggregate always goes from cold to hot.

I always think that putting physics into words is difficult. Both Statistical Mechanics and Quantum Mechanics – along with Chaos Theory – have an approach which allows for the fact that, at micro-levels, we can never be certain of anything because we are unable to measure sufficiently small enough without disturbing what we’re measuring viz,:-

(a) can’t measure both velocity and and position of a sub-atomic particle – probability measures were added to Quantum Mechanics to compensate. This has the side effect of losing the ability to describe what it is we’re talking about in English – is it a billiard-ball type of thing or like a ray of light or wave in the sea?
(b) can’t measure heat transfer of individual nano-particles – statistical methods were created for Fluid Flow which gives Statistical Mechanics. 

There doesn't seem to be way that Thermodynamics Laws and Molecular Properties can be discussed together in English.

Are Oil Companies Funding 'Climate-Misinformation'?

Anyone who believes the oil companies would spend money on protecting their existence by "deliberately speading misinformation" is over generalising a special case and obviously doesn't understand how businesses and capitalism create effiencies by using their own self-interest.  If you go back to Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations" you'll find he cautions that businesses need to be reined back from time to time.  For radio discussion with academics  see

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b052ln55

I suggest that tobacco is a special case. The manufacturers didn't have a legal alternative to tobacco.  However, when I look at the research by anti-smoking activists, it's just as appallingly bad as the tobacco companies research (particularly about secondary smoke). As more and more statisticians are saying these days, by framing the question appropriately, you can always get the statistical answer you want – and then smooth over the fact that statistics don't prove causation.

Compare to the food processing companies when we were all told by governments to stop eating saturated fats.  They just upped their research into how to make margarine taste like butter and increased production of it, while reducing their exposure to butter and milk.  They were agnostic to the science, merely making sure that their company stayed alive.

The fact that we're now told that the saturated fat research was of poor quality and saturated fat is not dangerous after all makes me appreciate that the Precautionary Principle should follow medicine and include "First do no harm". This wasn't followed by the anti-butter activists – harmful trans-fats were used in margarine until recently (UK) .

In Europe, all the energy companies have been spending money on research into renewables at least since the 70s and 80s. They wanted to be in on the latest technology. I remember working for BMW where they had BP as their research partner on hybrid cars. I seem to remember that Shell were working with Ford.  Hydrogen fuel was perceived as the way forwards in Europe. While in North America with it's large amount of farming land, growing corn for ethanol was the way to go.   I'm sure they're also spending on research into alternatives for plastics /food /materials manufacturing and power-stations.

So I don't believe the conspiracy theory for anything except tobacco.  There's always been a prediction that coal, oil, etc will become uneconomic and the company's duty is to make sure that their company will survive - not necessarily still with oil technology.

Like tobacco, organisations against cheap energy (Greenpeace, World Wildlife Fund, Club of Rome, etc) don't have any alternative to survive apart from stoking up conspiracy theories.  They've improved so much over the years …