Temperature and CO 2 from Geological to Political Time Scales

Transcription

1 Temperature and CO 2 from Geological to Political Time Scales What is the issue with CO 2 and global temperature? What do we know scientifically? What are the predictions? Can we test them? Are the prediction models valid? What do we do now?

2 The International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is the UN body charged with assessing the risks of global warming due to CO 2 The IPPC has predicted in 1990, 1996, 2001 and 2007 that the release of CO 2 into the atmosphere from industrialization is causing dramatic and dangerous global warming The IPCC predictions are based on complex computer models The IPPC has concluded from each of their predictions that, since humans are responsible for causing global warming, it is in our power and it is our obligation to stop global warming A new IPCC report is scheduled to be released in 2014 The following slides summarize the state of our knowledge as of 2013

3 By geological time scales, we are in a cold period.

4 Over geological time scales, there has been no correlation between CO 2 and temperature. Over geological time scales, we are near a historic minimum atmospheric CO 2 concentration. Peak CO 2 ~7000 ppm (Parts per million) Current CO 2 ~400 ppm (20 times lower)

5 However, within the past years, CO 2 has approximately correlated with temperature. This correlation is typically shown like this, with the two graphs displayed side by side.

6 But, if we superimpose the curves instead of separating them, we get a very different picture. What do you now notice about the correlation between temperature and CO 2?

7 Let s zoom in on this graph to see better. CO 2 Concentration Temperature For instance, here is a close up of the period between about and years ago.

8 Again and again we see the same phenomenon. First we see an inflection in the temperature, then, several hundred years later, there is an inflection in the CO 2 concentration. First the temperature reaches a maximum (or minimum), then, several hundred years later, CO 2 concentration reaches a maximum (or minimum). First the temperature starts to rise (or fall), then, several hundred years later, CO 2 concentration starts to rise (or fall) Thus, CO 2 concentration has historically changed after temperature changes, not the reverse.

9 Now, let s go back and look closer at the more recent temperature data. For the past 20 thousand years we ve been in a gradual warming period.

10 For the past 10 thousand years, we ve been in a relatively stable period (though we have been coming out of the Little Ice Age for the past ~150 yrs)

11 For the past 1000 years, we ve been in a mildly oscillating period. This curve has been verified by multiple sources, both from the historical record (written accounts) and from various proxies that correlate with temperature. The lower graph, in fact, comes from the IPCC 1 st Assessment Report in 1990.

12 But, in 1998, a completely different graph appeared in direct contradiction to all previous analysis. The so called Hockey Stick graph claimed the climate was steadily cooling until man started burning fossil fuel. This graph appeared prominently in the 2001 IPCC assessment report and was the key piece of evidence used to support the IPCC climate models and call for action.

13 Here is a comparison of the dramatic difference between the two reconstructions Note the 1880 mark on both graphs. This marks the beginning of the industrial age.

14 Here is a close up of the industrial age showing a gradual trend upwards, but large oscillations.

15 Here is a close up of the last half century conveniently ignoring the previous oscillations. This is the time period most focused on in the IPCC reports and in the press.

16 Over the industrial age, there have been periods of both positive AND negative temperature correlation with CO 2 but the overall trend is positive. Positive Correlation Negative Correlation Positive Correlation Negative Correlation Is this overall trend a cause and effect relationship? Or coincidence?

17 Let s look at what s been happening lately: Temperature has leveled off or even dropped over the past 15 years st IPCC Report 2012

18 . yet CO 2 levels continue to rise. CO2/CO2 Now/noaa mauna loa co2 data.html CO Recent Temperature Trend CO 2 Concentration (ppm) 335 This level or downward trend in temperature has continued from about year 2000 to today. Strange, isn t it? How can we explain?

19 Luckily, there are models that can predict this, so we have an idea why this is happening. This model includes effects of ozone, aerosols, radiation, past temperature, sun activity and CO st IPCC Report

20 But the IPCC models, based on CO 2 forcing, are not the models that seem to work. Other models are much better at predicting temperature but have found CO 2 effects negligible.

21 Recently, this graph was leaked from the IPCC. It compares the different CO 2 forcing model predictions to actual measured data. = First Assessment Report (1990) = Second Assessment Report (1995) = Third Assessment Report (2001) = Assessment Report 4 (2007) We now have more than 30 years of predictions and can test how valid the IPCC models are.

22 From the very beginning, the IPCC models did not predict the rapid fall in temperature in the early 1990s. = First Assessment Report (1990) = Second Assessment Report (1995) = Third Assessment Report (2001) = Assessment Report 4 (2007) 1990 prediction of 1992 temperatures 2007 prediction of 1992 temperatures Note that this graph hides the fact that global temperature was, already in 1992, far below the 95% likelihood predictions made in 1990 (only two years before).

23 Predictions for 2012 from the 1 st IPCC report (FAR) based on CO 2 forcing were also very wrong. In 1990 the IPCC over predicted temperature rise by 2012 by as much as a factor of 8.6!

24 Predictions for 2012 from the 2 nd IPCC report (SAR) based on CO 2 forcing were also very wrong. In 1996 the IPCC over predicted temperature rise by 2012 by as much as a factor of 5.6!

25 Predictions for 2012 from the 3 rd IPCC report (TAR) based on CO 2 forcing were also very wrong. In 2001 the IPCC over predicted temperature rise by 2012 by as much as a factor of 7.2!

26 Predictions for 2012 from the 4 th IPCC report (AR4) based on CO 2 forcing were also very wrong. In 2007 the IPCC over predicted temperature rise by 2012 by as much as a factor of 6.8!

27 Yet the IPCC still claims we are on a path to a CO 2 induced man made global warming catastrophe. The IPCC still asserts that we can and must reduce CO 2 emissions now to avoid disaster.

28 On what evidence can they claim this when the data actually clearly says otherwise? Do you still believe them?

29 So what do they do? Obfuscate, obfuscate obfuscate. What is funny in these recent graphs? Scatter of various individual IPCC model predictions Bounds of 95% likely temperatures over time

30 Why do predictive comparisons stop at 2005 when measured data goes all the way up to 2012? Is there something to hide?

31 Its actually easy to see what they are trying to cover up. (its just like separating historical temperature and CO 2 curves so they are difficult to compare) Missing data from top graph cut and pasted to bottom graph If they put in all the data, you d be able to see the global average temperature is again below even the IPCC s lowest global warming prediction. This, they said again in 2007, would have less than a 5% chance of occurring.

32 To reach the upper limit of their 95% likely temperature range for 2025, global warming will have to be twice as fast as any of their earlier (hugely wrong) predictions. (Don t worry, they can easily correct their models to predict this scenario) If the IPCC was your doctor, you d charge malpractice If the IPCC was your business partner, you d charge fraud If the IPCC was your accountant, you d charge theft If the IPCC was your local store, you d charge deception If the IPCC was your friend, you d recommend psychological counseling

33 Do you still believe CO 2 is a significant cause of global warming? If not, do you still believe we need to limit CO 2 emissions just in case? If so, at the expense of what? Water? Food? Shelter? Health? Safety? Habitat? Nature? Education? Employment? Freedom? Comfort? Beauty? Culture? Happiness?

34 Conclusions There is no scientific proof that elevated CO 2 significantly increases average global temperatures. The earth has many complex climate cycles, none of which are significantly affected by CO 2. Thus, the IPCC predictions hugely exaggerate the effect of CO 2 on temperature. We now have lots of data to compare against the predictions to prove it. The IPCC predictive models have been clearly shown to be invalid. We can now undo all the unneeded and costly agencies, markets, laws, taxes and regulations created to solve a problem that does not exist and, instead, use our limited resources to solve many problems that do.