Guide One

Transcription

Guide One

THE BEACONS GUIDES TO CLIMATE CHANGE
GUIDE ONE -
CLIMATE CHANGE: THE FACTS
NS
O
C
y
ative CC attrib gs opera observat nergy p ce inform onent d le light w ant clim d institu tioning m vely
t
i
r
o
th
te
ie
C
es
an
pti
IP
mp
sib
din
und
CRU rate rea rtainty o elopmen s import rogen co encies vi heric ab NCE stud voted qu ms dece roce
h
c
r
a
ou
sp
de
ble
sp
qu
ccu
nce
Nit
Dev
CIE
ter a imated u ational se enorm REATHE Solar fre nic Atmo lusion S nisation cade pro method nd in
e
m
o
a
t
rn
B
ni
d
ea
ga
AA
nc
de
ea es ent Inte ail recog ton AIR infra-re ation Oc nces co inent or pticism tion NO e tropics polic
r
a
s
e
a
t
m
n
s
lt
m
r
c
et
er
ew
om aty sce
inist
obje
inion
viron
i
gram
expla
N pr
e inf
ne N
ical d
ce En ts techn am engi heating petence od simpl NDATIO ional tre eric Adm Ship pro Earth op tific opin
h
t
d
s
e
U
n
s
h
n
m
t
p
a
e
t
u
e
n
e
O
gum ements s d absorb ement co ENT me OLICY F ta intern ic Atmos ce ocea dangero ority sci Xe Ozone
a
l
M
l
n
a
n
r
P
f
i
d
o
e
r
a
U
d
u
n
c
ul
s
n
m
s
mea sunlight t equally NAL ARG scientist ipulated CDC Oce it Sea-su xygen a issions H2 Xeno ure calc
i
o
N
n
n
m
y
ir
fig
n
an
IO
iatio orb re-em els RAT minorit mber m SS NASA oration U moisture ctivists e Hydroge culation sses env
a
ge
nu
al
GI
Kr
a
ce
bs
l fu
de
lab
ms a urn fossi knowled bstantial BAL CRU ents col ck outsi igngreen Krypton iversity c gical pro authorit
n
b
m
e
u
ro
O
nt
lo
C
pa
de
ance ts freque issions s gures GL measure egations nda cam Helium H physics u orber bio worldwi esearch
r
i
l
f
s
m
n
ll
h
4
ga
F
ac
se
c eve as GHG e average minimi ts facts a er propa hane CH ed carefu ective ab researc cts GWP ometer
C
t
d
f
t
g
e
e
n
f
n
s
e
C
f
t
s
rm
e
e
e
te
ation r calcula n adjus s argum orld disa Ar Ne M strength melting Panel IP issues ef iable the lts area e
l
2
l
e
o
e
l
u
i
i
w
a
d
ir
e
e
O
d
t col municat ing polic nations gas N2 existenc . emitte ernment onmenta globe r sland res nce Env
cie
ov
vir
on
om
m
rm
re
ons
ood
nt i
ace
Telec lobal wa human r on comm structu underst ns Interg d anti-en her stati re accou Change S ted argu
a
t
e
g
m
d
e
g
o
u
ffect hallenge istry ar echanis measure ited Nati advocat ords wea emperat n Climate versy he easurem
o
m
m
em
sc
n
ge
et
Un
al
rec
ons
ntr
ion
usion apour Ch ce therm trializat portant implicati warmer l-averag ture oxy ence co osphere Radiatio
im
ba
us
fa
ois
rv
et
vid
H3
w
ab
atm
wate arm sur imate ind es world ority vie tion plan te the glo tegate m ionally e ide CO2 monia N s atoms
j
t
t
e
w
l
e
s
a
x
a
m
light undant c d institu oning ma vely que to calcul ons Clim e interna rbon dio ide CO A molecul rs balanc
e
i
i
i
r
i
s
a
e
b
t
i
x
t
f
a
g
u
e
d
c
a
eric NCE stu ted ques ms decep cess dat oastal re hreat fut coal oil I2 Mono rupt gas ce trans tastroph
c
ca
ro
en
vo
le
lt
ab
ng
ine
gi
CIE
on S sation de ade prob ethods p ics and in cy crucia ble burni NO2 Iod n origin CLE influ ea levels solve le
s
m
li
t
re
p
a
e
ni
ec
CY
tio
orga ticism d on NOAA mme tro inions po Sustain n Dioxid explana ARBON aptation eakened and effec
C
p
ra
ti
sl
w
ep
e
al
ge
Ad
ion
ty sc ministra hip prog s Earth o ific opin O3 Nitro s chemic entration Events scandal re heat i ransmitt
t
e
d
t
S
A
s
nc
n
y
m
atu
rou
en
ne
sts
tor
heric ce ocean d dange ority sci n Xe Ozo ation fac cattle co sks Extre laciologi s temper land buo reat gree
g
in
e
n
o
an
ts
ld
th
ul
Ri
rfa
a-su oxygen issions m n H2 Xen ure calc ironmen ive AR5 tribution tional fie ions glob y policy formatio
g
t
t
v
n
i
re
a
a
rg
m
fi
n
ry
ge
ra
at
oistu ctivists e r Hydro culation cesses e authorit RU IPCC ings ope C observ ent ene portance ponent d
l
K
m
o
o
C
d
a
e
a
r
s
p
m
m
reen Krypton versity c logical p orldwid research urate rea certainty l Develo ormous i ogen co quencie
e
r
i
w
e
a
o
t
c
r
a
n
i
n
n
i
n
F
H
f
ium hysics u sorber b reBsEeAarch cts GWP meter ac imated u ternatio ognise e EATHE N d Solar tion Oce
st
In
lp
ab
-re
nc
CC
ffe
rec
mo
BR
ana
arefu effective Panel IP issues e ble ther lts area e ronment l detail ton AIR ject infra nce expl le infere
p
l
u
b
vi
w
lia
al
ica
g
IO
te
eltin rnmenta ronment globe re sland res ience En ts techn ngine Ne eating o t compe thod sim OUNDAT
h
e
e
i
c
i
F
e
v
r
v
S
t
en
en
d
m
ns
LICY data inte
tergo d anti-en er statio e accoun Change d argum ts steam absorbe lly elem UMENT
O
P
a
s
G
e
r
e
t
u
d
t
ld
te
R
ce
u
th
st
en
voca rds wea emperat en Clima ersy hea asurem nlight co -emit eq IONAL A y scienti nipulate NCDC O
e
a
e
v
o
t
t
g
T
A
u
i
r
c
o
y
m
or
ora
AS
rm
RA
rb
ns
er re -average sture ox ce contr sphere
iatio ms abso sil fuels edge min l numbe GISS N ts collab c
d
l
i
a
n
o
a
o
e
R
glob egate m lly evid CO2 atm ia NH3 ules ato urn fos t knowl bstantia BAL CRU uremen tions ro
on
at
LO
eas
lec
ce b
ide
lega
iona
uen
nd
s su
s Clim internat bon diox e CO Amm ases mo rs balan nts freq mission figures G nimise m facts al propaga
i
e
r
fe
ts
e
e
r
d
ve
th
tg
men
GHG
erag
noxi
oil ca
trans
ted m
futur
e Me
brup
hic e
saste
2
CONTENTS
SERIES INTRODUCTION 4
GUIDE ONE INTRODUCTION
6
Chapter one:
HOW WE GOT TO WHERE WE ARE - A BRIEF OUTLINE 8
Chapter two:
MAUNA LOA
14
Chapter three:
GREENHOUSE GASES
16
Chapter four:
HOT TOPIC: FACTS AND OPINIONS
24
Chapter Five:
IS THE PLANET GETTING WARMER?
30
Chapter SIX:
DEFINITE SIGNS OF RISING TEMPERATURES
37
Chapter SEVEN:
OF ICE AND WATER
47
Chapter EIGHT:
WHAT ABOUT THE WEATHER?
63
Chapter NINE:
FACTS, OPINIONS AND POLITICS
71
Chapter TEn:
CORRECTIONS & UPDATES
79
http://beaconsdec.org.uk/resources/guide-1-chapter-10/
Copyright: BEACONS 2013
3
Big ball of iron with
some rock on the outside
and a very very thin coating
of moisture and oxygen and
dangerous creatures.
A Description of Earth, Wikipedia. Quoted in Here
on Earth by Tim Flannery.
4
SERIES INTRODUCTION
THE GUIDES
This, Climate Change: the Facts, is
the first of the three BEACONS Guides
to Climate Change. The other two are:
Guide Two:
Climate Change – Politics Science
and the Future of Humanity
Guide Three:
UK Climate Change and Energy
Policy
They can be read, or downloaded, for
personal or educational use, free of
charge, on the BEACONS website
http://beaconsdec.org.uk/
This is the fourth revision since July
2012. Each has a Chapter 10 in Word,
Corrections and Updates, which is
updated even more frequently.
In addition, and also in Word so that it
can be updated whenever necessary,
will be the Climate Change Digest,
a concise and up-to-date compendium
of all three Guides.
Each guide is self-contained and it
is desirable, but not essential, to
have read the preceding Guide or
Guides. This means there is some
overlap between the Guides. Originally
designed for sixth form students, the
Guides are recommended reading
for future geography students at the
University of Worcester. Mainly with
school students in mind, we try to
explain things that may be unfamiliar.
It is hoped that readers will not be too
irritated by what may be, for them,
unnecessary explanations.
Exercises are included in the text
from time to time. The aim of these
is to get the reader thinking about
what comes next in the text and
hence to understand it better.
Boxes are for additional information,
or to explore a particular topic in more
detail. They are not essential to the
course and can be skipped altogether.
AUTHOR, ADVISERS & ASSISTANTS
The volunteer author of the texts
is David Terry, a former headmaster
5
and college principal. Advisers and
assistants for the climate change
guides include: Professor Chris Rapley,
CBE, the renowned climatologist and
sea level expert, and Dr Alan Dixon,
senior lecturer in Geography at the
University of Worcester. Research
assistants include Jacob Godber,
a first year geography and politics
student at Worcester, Alasdair Riley,
a second year geography student of
Durham and McMaster universities,
Alex Szymanski who graduated in
biology at Sussex in 2012. The main
proof reader was BEACONS volunteer,
Pat Fenner.
AUTHORS NOTE: WHERE MY
FACTS COME FROM...
Details of my sources are given on
the website, but there are three that
are particularly important. The first
is FREE at www.withouthotair.com
Regularly updated it is Sustainable
Energy - without the hot air by David
J C MacKay, FRS, formally a professor
of physics and now Regius Professor
of Engineering at the University of
Cambridge. For four days a week
he is Chief Scientific Advisor to the
Department of Energy and Climate
Change.
Also by a world-ranking physicist,
is Energy for Future Presidents by
Richard A Muller, Norton paperback,
2013. After Climategate (see page
27 of this Guide), he set up his own
research project. Details are at
http://berkeleyearth.org/
Wikipedia is the third. I believe that
used intelligently it is a wonderful
source of information.
David Terry, June 2013.
Formatted by: Jane Anson of Independent Design.
Website designed and managed by
BEACONS volunteers: Janet and Kevin McCarthy
of Web Design Sense.
Disclaimer
While every effort is made to provide accurate
information on the subject matters of the guides,
neither BEACONS, the text author nor the advisers
make any representation, express or implied,
about the accuracy of the information in the
guides nor do they accept any legal responsibility
or liability for any errors or omissions.
Copyright © 2013 BEACONS. All rights reserved
6
GUIDE ONE INTRODUCTION
In this Guide, I look at the facts and
opinions about climate change. The
second Guide will be about what is
being done and needs to be done to
meet the threat of climate change; and
the third is about the UK energy and
climate change policy. The aim of this
guide is to help the reader answer three
crucial questions about climate change.
First; is it happening, and if so, how
much of a threat is it?
Second; if it is happening, what is
causing it?
Third; what should we be doing now
and in the future about the possibility
of climate change? This third question
is addressed in more detail in Guide
Two where I look at what is being
done internationally and consider
options for the future.
I outline the evidence and take you
through such topics as the greenhouse
effect and global warming.
There is a good deal of controversy
over many assertions made and
policies pursued, sometimes very
heated. I try to summarise the
different arguments and points of
view in as objective a manner as I
can. I also try to avoid getting bogged
down in technical details.
The aim of this and the other guides
in the series is emphatically NOT to
tell you, the reader, what to think,
but to give a factual basis to help you
come to your own conclusions.
That is…
THINK FOR YOURSELF!
Here is
someone
who did...
“Learn from yesterday, live for today,
hope for tomorrow. The important
thing is to not stop questioning.”
Albert Einstein
7
BEWARE OF PROPAGANDA
As the political battle over climate
change has heated up, so has the
propaganda campaign. On one
side, green activists sometimes
exaggerate claims about the possible
consequences of global warming.
On the other, sceptics seize upon
anything that appears to suggest that
climate change is not happening, is
not due to human emissions, or will
not be a problem. The sceptics, often
called climate change deniers, are
very much in the minority as far as
scientific opinion is concerned, but
that, of course, does not automatically
make them wrong.
While every effort is made to provide
accurate information on the subject
matters of the guides, neither
BEACONS, the text author nor the
advisers make any representation,
express or implied, about the accuracy
of the information in the guides nor do
they accept any legal responsibility or
liability for any errors or omissions.
Copyright © 2013 BEACONS. All rights reserved
One final point before you begin:
please let me know of any mistakes
or facts that seem to be wrong, or of
wording that is not clear, or of any
other criticisms you have, by emailing
me at: [email protected]
The great advantage of having this
Guide on-line only is that changes can
be made at any time.
David Terry June 2013
8
CHAPTER ONE:
HOW WE GOT TO WHERE WE ARE – a brief outline
Global temperatures have always
varied over time. To assess how
much difference is made by CO2
and other emissions as a result of
human activities, the extent to which
natural cycles are distorted since
industrialisation has to be estimated.
The problem is that natural cycles are
over thousands or millions of years
while greenhouse gas emissions are
over at most four centuries.
It is not easy to get one’s mind round
such vast time scales. To try and
do so, I drew a circle and imagined
it as a clock face with once round
corresponding to 60 minutes or
the 4.6 billion years our planet has
existed. I found it instructive, and
recommend
you do the
same.
EXERCISE
Draw a circle. Assuming once round
is 60 minutes or 4.6 billion years,
mark on it where you think the
following should be
1. Life first appears
2. Human beings first appear
3.The start of civilisation, taking this to mean living in cities
4.The start of industrialisation, that is, the industrial revolution
EXERCISE ANSWERS
Life on earth started after 800 million
years, or after 10.4 minutes on the
clock face.
The first definitely human animals
appeared 200,000 years ago, or one
sixth of a second ago on our clock face.
Civilisation, that is cities, probably
started about 12,000 years ago, or
one hundredth of a second ago on the
clock face.
And modern industrialisation began
around 300 years ago, or 1/4,000th of
a second ago on the clock face.
9
So our clock face should look like this...
So our modern world has only been in existence for 1/4,000th of a
second. But in that 1/4,000th of a second quite a lot has happened!
For a start there are rather more of us than there were!
10
After taking nearly all of
human history for the
population to reach one
billion, it only took a
little over a century to
reach two billion in 1930.
The third billion was
added in a further
30 years, the fourth in
15 years, the fifth in
12 years, the sixth in 13
and the seventh in 11.
Year 1
250 million
10,000 BC
5 million
10,000 BC
2011
7 billion
7 billion
2000
6 billion
6 billion
1987
5 billion
5 billion
1975
4 billion
4 billion
1960
3 billion
3 billion
1930
2 billion
2 billion
1800
1 billion
1 billion
2,000
5,000 BC
Year 1
1,000
2,000
United Nations Population Division
11
CARBON DIOXIDE
And our burning coal and later oil
has also increased dramatically. One
measure of this is the proportion
of carbon dioxide, CO2 in the
atmosphere. Ice core samples – that
is ice extracted from deep down on
a polar ice sheet where the date it
was laid down can be estimated from
the depth – enable proportions from
centuries past to be calculated. And
since 1977 direct measurements have
been made at Hawaii, in the middle of
the Pacific Ocean and chosen because
it is remote from industry.
CO2 concentrations in parts per million
by volume from ice core samples
until 1977 and then from Mauna Loa
observatory, Hawaii, are shown below:
From ‘Sustainable Energy – without the hot air’ by David MacKay
!
12
EXERCISE
What happened in 1769 that might
explain the rapid increase in CO2
since then? The answer is below:
EXERCISE ANSWER
Did you get James Watt and the
steam engine? But, contrary to what
(no pun intended) is sometimes said,
Watt did not actually invent the steam
engine. Rather he saw how to make
a radical change to the design that
vastly improved its efficiency.
Previous steam engines, known
as Newcomen atmospheric steam
engines after the Cornish mine owner
who invented them, had been in
existence for about 50 years and were
used for pumping water out of mines.
They used steam to expel air from a
piston and then air pressure drove the
piston back. Watt’s inspiration was to
use steam directly to drive the piston.
The story that this came to him as
a result of seeing a kettle on a hob
blowing the lid up as it boiled could
be true, as could the legends about
Newton and the apple and Archimedes
and the bath.
This is a Boulton & Watt beam blowing
engine re-erected on the Dartmouth
Circus roundabout, on the A38(M)
in Birmingham, UK. It was built in
1817 and used in Netherton at the
ironworks of M W Grazebrook...
13
EXERCISE
CO2 was steady at about 285 parts per
million by volume (ppmv) but has risen
rapidly in the last 200 years to about
400 ppmv now. 400 ppmv is which of
the following as a percentage?
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
40%
4%
0.4%
0.04%
0.004%
14
CHAPTER TWO:
MAUNA LOA
Mauna Loa Observatory (MLO) is
a premier atmospheric research
facility that has been continuously
monitoring and collecting data related
to atmospheric change since the
1950s. The undisturbed air, remote
location, and minimal influences of
vegetation and human activity at MLO
are ideal for monitoring constituents
in the atmosphere that can cause
climate change.
The chart below is copied from the
website http://keelingcurve.ucsd.edu/
As the above quote from their website
implies, they monitor many aspects
of the atmosphere, but CO2 is the
one that gets the most attention.
The readings for CO2 fluctuate from
month to month so that, for example,
the reading for August 2012 was
392.41ppm (parts per million) which
is less than that for June 2012.
On May 9, 2013 the daily reading
exceeded 400 ppm for the first time
since measurements began in 1958.
The average for the week beginning
May 19, 2013 was 399.91 compared
with 396.30 for the same week in
2012 and 379.36 for 2003.
In addition the observatory collects
information on air quality across the
globe. On the map, on page 15 the
green star is Mauna Loa, the red
dots on land are weather stations
and those on the ocean are taken
from a weather ship that sails the
route regularly taking measurements
as it does.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/)
Mauna Loa Observatory (MLO)
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/
15
NOT ONLY CO2 - OCEANS, LAKES
AND COASTS FOR EXAMPLE
Although best known for its CO2
measurements, the Mauna Loa station
also covers many other environmental
indicators, including for example,
water on the planet. They provide
scientific results to help manage and
understand fisheries, conserve and
protect coasts, and support marine
products and businesses, such
as biotechnology and sustainable
aquaculture. They also study changes
in oceans and lakes due to natural and
human activities.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/obop/mlo/
And, finally, here is a photo of their
weather station at the South Pole
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/
http://www.research.noaa.gov/oceans/
16
CHAPTER THREE:
GREENHOUSE GASES
As you will know having done the
exercise at the end of chapter one, the
amount of carbon dioxide or CO2 in
the atmosphere is only 0.04% (I didn’t
insult you by giving the answer!).
So how on earth can such a small
amount cause such enormous concern?
But first a quick question
THE AIR WE BREATHE
EXERCISE
The air we breathe is almost entirely
made up of two gases.
1.For dry air at ground level,
what are they and roughly what
percentage of the total volume
does each contribute?
2.Other gases are present only in
very small amounts. Name as
many of these gases as you can.
EXERCISE ANSWERS
1. Nitrogen is easily the biggest
component. About 80% of the total,
with oxygen the other main gas at
about 19%.
2. I did say dry air. In general, water
vapour is the next largest, varying
from zero to 5%.
The American website About.com
Chemistry
http://chemistry.about.com/od/
chemistryfaqs/f/aircomposition.htm gives the
following...
Nearly all of the Earth’s atmosphere
is made up of only five gases:
nitrogen, oxygen, water vapor, argon,
and carbon dioxide. Several other
compounds also are present. Although
this table does not list water vapor,
air can contain as much as 5% water
vapor, more commonly ranging from
1-3%. The 1-5% range places water
vapor as the third most common gas
(which alters the other percentages
accordingly).
17
This is composition of air in percent
by volume, at sea level at 15°C and
101325 Pa.
Nitrogen (N2)
78.084%
Oxygen (O2)
20.9476%
Argon (Ar)
0.934%
Carbon Dioxide (CO2)
0.0314%
Neon (Ne)
0.001818%
Methane (CH4)
0.0002%
Helium (He)
0.000524%
Krypton (Kr)
0.000114%
Hydrogen (H2)
0.00005%
Xenon (Xe)
0.0000087%
Ozone (O3)
0.000007%
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) 0.000002%
Iodine (I2)
0.000001%
Carbon Monoxide (CO)
trace
Ammonia (NH3)
trace
I don’t expect you to remember this!
HOW A GREENHOUSE WORKS
Everyone, of course, knows how a
greenhouse works. Or do they? Do
you?
EXERCISE
Explain how a greenhouse works.
EXERCISE ANSWER
Do you really need an answer?
Well, all right then. Radiation from the
sun in the form of sunlight and ultra
violet radiation is not itself hot, which
is why the air outside an airliner when
in flight is very cold. But when this
radiation strikes a non-transparent
object some of it is absorbed, heating
the object, and some is converted
into infra-red radiation that heats
up anything it strikes. So the air in
the greenhouse gets warm. But the
glass walls and roof stop this hot
air escaping, so everything in the
greenhouse is warmed. That is why
the outside glass of a greenhouse on
a cold day is colder than the inside.
But this is NOT how the Greenhouse
Effect works.
18
THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT
WHAT IS IT?
The short answer is that while the
infrared radiation reflected upwards
from the ground passes straight
through nitrogen and oxygen, CO2
and other greenhouse gases send
some of it back to earth.
Wikipedia gives a slightly longer
explanation:
‘Solar radiation at the high frequencies
of visible light passes through the
atmosphere to warm the planetary
surface, which then emits this energy
at the lower frequencies of infrared
thermal radiation. Infrared radiation is
absorbed by greenhouse gases, which
in turn re-radiate much of the energy
to the surface and lower atmosphere.
The mechanism is named after the
effect of solar radiation passing through
glass and warming a greenhouse, but
the way it retains heat is fundamentally
different as a greenhouse works by
reducing airflow, isolating the warm air
inside the structure so that heat is not
lost by convection.’
The existence of the greenhouse
effect was first suggested by Joseph
Fourier in 1824. The argument and
the evidence was further strengthened
by Claude Pouillet in 1827 and 1838,
definitively proved experimentally by
John Tyndall in 1859, and explained
by Svante Arrhenius in 1896.
Maybe if Joseph Fourier had been
more careful with his blanket, he
would have done all this.
IT’S TOO HOT!!
OR A TALE OF TWO BLANKETS
Jean Baptiste Joseph Fourier was
French and lived from 1768 to 1830.
19
He was a
mathematician
who made
important
contributions
to the
development
of the subject.
Anyone
who takes
mathematics
or physics at university will study
Fourier analysis which is fundamental
to everything from quantum theory
to file compression on our computers
and to MP3 players.
In the early 1820s he made a
remarkable calculation of what the
temperature should be at the surface
of the Earth based on the amount
of Sun’s radiated energy that strikes
the Earth. When he found that
his answer was much lower than
the actual figure, he didn’t simply
assume that there was something
wrong with his calculation. Instead
he asserted that there must be other
factors, one of which could be that the
atmosphere is acting like a blanket
and making the Earth warmer than it
would otherwise be. This is the origin
of The Greenhouse Effect although
he was not able to give a chemical
explanation. It didn’t help that the
greatest chemist of the day, Lavoisier,
had been accused of selling impure
tobacco and guillotined during the
French Revolution, the judge saying,
allegedly, ‘the Republic has no need
of chemists’. Three years later he was
declared innocent. A bit late.
Although not as unfortunate as
Lavoisier’s, Fourier’s life came to an
abrupt end in 1830 as a result of his
eccentric practice of wrapping himself in
a large blanket when indoors. (perhaps
copying the effect of the earth’s
atmosphere). One day he tripped on it
while at the top of the stairs and fell to
the bottom. Fin. As the French say.
But why some gases and not all?
The answer is that most gases whose
molecules are made up of three or
more atoms, such as CO2 and H2O
(water vapour) absorb infrared
and then re-emit it in all directions
equally, so some of the infrared
than comes from the ground is sent
straight back again.
20
The molecules of the two main gases
in air, nitrogen and oxygen, are made
up of two atoms of the same element
and allow infrared to pass through
unhindered.
Why this should be so is beyond
the scope of this guide and of my
competence. The full explanation is
definitely university level. If you
want to go further into this, I
recommend the website of the
American National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration National
Climatic Data Center.
http://www.noaa.gov/
OTHER GREENHOUSE GASES
WATER VAPOUR
Carbon dioxide is the one everyone
knows about, but it is by no means
the only one. Water vapour is one,
but is usually omitted from estimates,
mainly, as far as I can see, because it
is not well understood.
Here is an edited extract from the
American National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration National
Climatic Data Center website:
http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/gases.
html#top
It was last updated in February 2011.
‘Water Vapor is the most abundant
greenhouse gas in the atmosphere.
However, changes in its concentration is
also considered to be a result of climate
feedbacks related to the warming of the
atmosphere rather than a direct result
of industrialisation. The feedback loop
in which water is involved is critically
important to projecting future climate
change, but as yet is still fairly poorly
measured and understood.
BLACK CARBON OR SOOT
Not a gas at all, of course. But The
Economist for January 19, 2013
reported that a study has shown it
is second only to CO2 as a damaging
greenhouse agent and twice as bad as
previously thought. It is also very bad
for health, as the Chinese know from
the thick smog gripping Beijing.
21
Although a more powerful GHG than
CO2 there is less of it and it stays
in the atmosphere for only about 10
years compared with 100 or more for
CO2.
Human activities such as growing
rice, raising cattle, using natural gas
and mining coal have added to the
atmospheric concentration of methane.
METHANE
Methane is the main component
of natural gas. It is also generated
naturally by bacteria breaking down
organic matter.
While there is much less of it in the
atmosphere than CO2, it is a more
powerful greenhouse gas and accounts
for 20% of the greenhouse effect.
Since the Industrial Revolution, the
level of Methane in the atmosphere
has increased by about two and a
half times.
Cattle raising in Montana USA
http://search.aol.co.uk/aol/image?q=cattle+
raising&v_t=sb_uk
22
‘Direct measurement of atmospheric
methane has been possible since the
late 1970s and its concentration rose
from 1.52 ppmv in 1978 by around
1 percent per year to 1990, since
when there has been little sustained
increase. The current atmospheric
concentration is approximately
1.77 ppmv. There is no scientific
consensus on why methane has not
risen much since around 1990.’
THE CARBON CYCLE
EXERCISE
Carbon dioxide is continuously cycled
round by purely natural processes.
Explain the details.
EXERCISE ANSWER
Here is the explanation on the BBC
website...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/sci_
nat/04/climate_change/html/carbon.stm
“Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the main
greenhouse gas of concern. A finite
amount of carbon is stored in fossil
fuels, the sea, living matter and the
atmosphere.
Without human influence, transfers
between these stores roughly
balance each other – for example,
plants absorb carbon as they grow,
but release it as they decay.
But when humans cut down trees
or burn fossil fuels, they release
extra carbon into the atmosphere,
increasing the greenhouse effect.”
23
MAJOR CARBON STORES AND TRANSFERS
24
CHAPTER FOUR:
HOT TOPIC: FACTS AND OPINIONS
RATIONAL ARGUMENT
THE GOOD
The method is simple. First everyone
agrees on what the relevant facts
are, and then different inferences are
suggested and either agreed or not.
Thus an agreed position is reached
which is supported by most if not all
involved.
THE BAD
An alternative is that everyone knows
in advance what conclusion they want
to be reached and then advances only
facts that support this conclusion...
AND THE UGLY
or, worse still, lies about what the
facts are.
All these methods are on display in
arguments about climate change.
CLIMATE SCIENCE
Climate is studied at universities and
research institutes across the world,
and masses of papers are produced –
far more than a politician or journalist,
or just a concerned non-expert,
could possibly manage to read. It is
of course enormously important that
those who make decisions that could
decide the future of the human race
should be guided by the facts. That
is why, in 1988, all the nations of the
world, through the United Nations, set
up the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change or IPCC
(http://www.ipcc.ch/) to collate all
research on climate change and
produce reports to guide international
policy making.
25
The Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change
•So that governments can make
sense of the vast amount of
relevant research going on, the
United Nations set up in 1988 the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (the IPCC).
•The IPCC does not carry out
research of its own. Instead, it is a
forum of over 2000 leading experts
and civil servants from across the
world.
•Its role is to sift and assess current
research worldwide. It is generally
considered the most authoritative
body on climate change in the
world.
•Its fourth report, called the Fourth
Assessment or AR4, was published
in 2007. The summary for policy
makers is at http://www.ipcc.ch/
publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/spms1.
html
•The IPCC is currently starting to
outline its Fifth Assessment Report
(AR5) which will be finalised in
2014. This involves climate change
experts and governments worldwide.
•In November 2011 the IPCC
published: The Special Report on
Managing the Risks of Extreme
Events and Disasters to Advance
Climate Change Adaptation. I’ve
skimmed it: It seems to say no
more than that while the climate is
changing with general global warming
and rising sea levels, it is impossible
to say what sort of catastrophic
events are likely to become more
frequent and which we need to
prepare for. This is not a criticism of
the 150 scientists who compiled the
report; rather it is simply a statement
of where current knowledge is.
•The IPCC does have its critics. Some
feel that in its efforts to reach a
report acceptable to all nations it
underestimates the reality of the
situation. Others go further and
accuse it of distorting the science in
order to persuade governments that
urgent action is vital.
26
CLIMATE CHANGE DENIERS
While a large majority of climate
scientists accept the conclusions of
the IPCC, a vociferous minority,
made up largely of people who are
not climate scientists, do not. But
the fact that they are not climate
scientists does not of itself invalidate
their views.
THE GLOBAL WARMING POLICY
FOUNDATION or GWPF
The most prominent UK organisation
devoted to questioning the majority
view is the Global Warming Policy
Foundation (GWPF)
http://www.thegwpf.org launched by
Lord Lawson, a former chancellor
of the exchequer (finance minister)
in November 2009 in the run-up to
the Copenhagen UN Climate Summit
of December 2009. He describes
the science of global warming as
‘contested’. Most climate scientists
would say that it is established.
BEACONS and the GWPF
Correspondence with Dr Peiser,
Director of the GWPF, can be found
in Chapter 10.
Two matters are relevant here.
1. D
r Peiser told me that my original
text on the GWPF was ‘riddled
with factual errors’ but declined to
tell me what they were.
2. I n view of the GWPF’s casting
doubt on the integrity of scientists
they call ‘climate alarmists’ by
implying they distorted their
results in order to get academic
grants, and of The Guardian’s
failure to get the GWPF to reveal
its sources of funding, I asked
Dr Peiser to state what they are.
To date I have not received an
answer. On a personal note, I
wish to make it clear that I do not
think that one should ever assume
dishonesty simply because of the
source of funding, but complete
transparency should be the norm.
After all, funding has to come
from somewhere.
27
CLIMATEGATE
Lord Lawson of Blaby
Now aged 81, as
Nigel Lawson he was
Conservative chancellor
of the exchequer from
1983 to 1989 under
prime minister Margaret
Thatcher and is the
father of celebrity cook www.parliament.
uk/biographies
Nigella Lawson and of
journalist Dominic Lawson.
The founding of the GWPF followed a
Times article by Lord Lawson. Hacked
internal emails of the University of
East Anglia Climatic Research Unit
(CRU), seemed to show that the
CRU had deliberately falsified
data to show a continuing rise in
global temperatures. The effect
was dramatic. The CRU head, Phil
Jones, was suspended. Two enquiries
subsequently exonerated
him and he was reinstated. The GWPF
maintains they were
whitewashes.
Photo: The Guardian 2010
Professor Phil Jones, Director, the CRU
WHY ADDING ‘GATE’ DENOTES A
SCANDAL
The origin is a political scandal during
the 1970s in the United States.
President Richard Nixon, a Republican,
authorised a break-in at the Watergate
office complex in Washington, D.C.,
the HQ of the Democrats. The Nixon
administration denied any involvement
at first, but the truth came out as
the result of the determined, and
courageous, investigation by two
Washington Post reporters, Bob
Woodward and Carl Bernstein. Effects
of the scandal eventually led to the
resignation of Richard Nixon, the
President of the United States, on
August 9, 1974; the only resignation
of a U.S. President. The scandal
also resulted in the indictment, trial,
conviction and imprisonment of 43
people, including dozens of top Nixon
administration officials.
The next time a scandal hit the
headlines, the media wittily added
‘gate’ to its name. And have been
doing so ever since even though
many reporters were not even born
at the time of Watergate. Hence
‘Climategate’ etc, etc.. forever I fear.
28
BERKELEY EARTH
Richard Muller, a Professor of
Physics at the University of
California at Berkeley, USA.
Following Climategate many
attacks were launched against
the climate scientists responsible.
Muller agreed they had selected
data, possibly accidentally, that
fitted their conclusions. He was
hailed as a denier by
groups like the GWPF.
With fellow physicists he set up a
research organisation, Berkeley
Earth, and has now concluded
that the climate scientists were
broadly right about recent global
warming.
http://berkeleyearth.org/
IPCC BOOBS
It didn’t help that, separately from
the East Anglian affair, two mistakes
in the IPCC report for 2007 were
revealed in 2010. The first, a simple
factual error, was in the proportion
of the Netherlands that is below
sea level. The second, and more
serious, was the attribution to a
renowned Indian glaciologist, Dr
Pachauri, who is also chairman of the
Change, of the statement that all the
Himalayan glaciers could be gone by
2030. He denies he ever said any
such thing and, along with other
glaciologists, says that it would take
at least 300 years for this to happen.
It would seem that no one had noticed
the misprint, 2030 instead of 2300.
Although the IPCC corrected the
errors and apologised, their errors and
Climategate undoubtedly weakened
the resolve of many legislators to
enact effective legislation to control
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
29
US PUBLIC OPINION
According to the BBC website:
In the UK, public opinion has
fluctuated. Researchers have tried to
work out what’s been affecting the
figures - they looked at events such
as the ClimateGate affair in 2009
and found that scepticism was on
the rise as a result.
http://www.itv.com/news
They also found (unsurprisingly) that
scepticism rose during cold snaps,
but belief in global warming increased
during hot spells.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/
30
CHAPTER FIVE:
IS THE PLANET GETTING WARMER?
You might think this is a bit of a daft
question...
WHY NOT SIMPLY MEASURE THE
TEMPERATURE?
There are thousands of weather
stations all over the globe which will
have been recording temperatures
over many years. So why don’t we
simply look at the records and see?
Well, this is indeed done, but there
are major problems.
EXERCISE
Can you see what some of these
problems might be? List all you
can think of, and then look at my
answer below.
EXERCISE: MY ANSWERS
Here are some of the problems
in trying to get an answer to the
deceptively simple question: Is
the planet getting warmer? By the
obvious means of looking at the
temperature records of all the weather
stations across the globe...
•Not all weather stations will have
equally reliable records. How can we
know how accurate the thermometer
was at any weather station many
decades ago? Or how carefully the
readings were recorded?
•The longest series of continuous
temperature records is for central
England and goes back to 1659. It
is difficult to know how accurate
the earlier readings were, not
least because they simply give one
‘average’
reading for the whole day.
!
31
•Weather stations are not
distributed evenly across the globe,
and were even less so in the past.
•The local environment of many
weather stations has changed
significantly since they were first
operational. In particular, many
that were surrounded by green
fields originally are now swallowed
up by towns, which makes a big
difference to temperature. This is
known as the heat island effect.
•Clearly temperature changes
differently in different places.
Some places may be getting
colder while others get warmer.
So a single average temperature
for each year for the whole planet
may not, on its own, mean very
much. Indeed, one climate scientist
remarked that trying to calculate
an average temperature for all the
figures available would be about
as meaningful as working out
the average phone number in a
telephone directory.
SO IS IT POSSIBLE TO WORK OUT
A SINGLE FIGURE FOR GLOBAL
TEMPERATURE?
The short answer appears to be: Yes.
Here is how it is explained on the
website, http://www.metoffice.gov.uk
of the Met Office, by Dr Peter Stott.
There are three centres which
calculate global-average temperature
each month.
•Met Office, in collaboration with the
Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the
University of East Anglia (UK)
•Goddard Institute for Space
Studies (GISS), NASA (USA)
•National Climatic Data Center
(NCDC), part of the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) (USA)
These work independently and use
different methods to calculate the
global-average temperature. Despite
this, the results of each are similar
from month to month and year to
year, and there is definite agreement
on temperature trends from decade
32
to decade. Most importantly, they all
agree global-average temperature has
increased over the past century and
this warming has been particularly
rapid since the 1970s.
He emphasises that full account is
taken of the heat island effect. Here is
the Met Office chart of January 2013.
The vertical scale is labelled ‘Anomaly
relative to 1961–1990’. The horizontal
line in the middle represents this
average and the readings are given
relative to it. Why this is done is
explained below.
www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/monitoring/
climate/surface-temperature
According to the chart, global
temperatures levelled off around
2000 after rising for the previous half
century. I say more on this on page 37.
HOW ARE TEMPERATURE
READINGS ANALYSED?
This extract from the Met Office
website explains it as follows...
‘Tens of thousands of temperature
observations are taken across
the globe, on land and at sea,
each day. Land stations use these
daily readings to create a monthly
average, which is then sent off
for use by climate researchers.
Individual ship and buoy
observations are transmitted on the
Global Telecommunication System.
These figures are checked before
they are used to calculate the globalaverage temperature.
The monthly updates are combined
with archives of historical
observations that have been
gathered over the past 160 years.
33
from about 2,000 land stations each
month. The figures for each one
are checked both by computer and
manually to find and remove any
problems. Sea-surface temperature
observations come from about 1,200
drifting buoys deployed across the
world’s oceans and around 4,000
ships in the Voluntary Observing Ship
programme. There are also numerous
moored buoys in the tropics and in
coastal regions, principally around
the US. Together they take around
1.5 million observations each month.
These are checked by computer and
any obviously inaccurate readings
are excluded.’
The historical data are adjusted to
minimise the effects of changes in
the way measurements were made.
(see the note on the next page).
The HadCRUT3 record, which is
produced by the Met Office in
collaboration with the Climatic
Research Unit, takes in observations
NOTE: In 2009 hacked emails
from Professor Jones, head of the
Climate Research Unit which works
in partnership with the Met Office,
to colleagues were revealed by
Lord Lawson’s newly formed Global
Warming Policy Foundation. Some
were about how best to blend historic
records with current readings and
it was claimed that Professor Jones
was seeking to manipulate the data
to make it look as if temperature rise
was greater and more steady than
34
Absolute temperatures are not used
directly to calculate the globalaverage temperature. They are first
converted into ‘anomalies’, which are
the difference in temperature from
the ‘normal’ level. The normal level is
calculated for each observation location
by taking the long-term average for
that area over a base period. For
HadCRUT3, this is 1961–1990.
it actually was. Professor Jones was
subsequently exonerated. See the
previous chapter on Climategate.
WHY ARE THE READINGS GIVEN
AS ‘ANOMALIES’ AND WHAT IS AN
‘ANOMALY’ ANYWAY?
The Met Office website,
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate-change/
guide/science/explained/temp-records
gives Dr Stott’s explanation as
follows...
For example, if the 1961–1990
average September temperature for
Edinburgh is 12°C and the recorded
average temperature for that month
in 2009 is 13°C, the difference of
1°C is the anomaly and this would be
used in the calculation of the global
average.
35
One of the main reasons for using
anomalies is that they remain fairly
constant over large areas. So, for
example, an anomaly in Edinburgh is
likely to be the same as the anomaly
further north in Fort William and at
the top of Ben Nevis, even though
there may be large differences in
absolute temperature for each of
these locations.
The anomaly method also helps
to avoid biases. For example, if
actual temperatures were used and
information from an Arctic
observation station was missing for
that month, it would mean the global
temperature record would seem
warmer. Using anomalies means
missing data such as this will not bias
the temperature record.
WHY HAS GLOBAL WARMING
STOPPED?
As the chart on page 33 shows,
average global temperatures have
roughly levelled off since 1998.
This was not predicted by climate
scientists. Yet, as the chart on page
14 shows, CO2 levels have continued
to rise remorselessly. So does this
prove that CO2 is not causing global
warming? The deniers say it does; the
majority of climate scientists say that
while this pause was not expected,
it is only a pause and warming will
resume sooner or later. But there is
less certainty about how much CO2
in the atmosphere is tolerable. The
figure seized on by policy-makers was
that a rise to 450ppm will cause a
temperature rise of a dangerous 2°C.
In fact, this was never presented as
more than a probability and it now
seems that 450ppm, which is virtually
unavoidable by 2030, might cause a
smaller rise. But nobody really knows.
In May 2013 a study by an
international team led by Dr Otto of
Oxford University took account of
the recent temperature plateau and
36
concluded future temperature rises
would be slightly less than previously
estimates. The effect would be to give
the world five to ten more years to cut
global carbon emissions.
WHAT THE AVERAGE
TEMPERATURE DOESN’T TELL US
The actual increase in the global
average temperature over the last
century is about 0.8°C. This may not
seem very dramatic, but of course it
is the variation about this figure that
matters. Some places may actually
be getting colder while others are
getting warmer by far more than
the average. So in the next chapter
I’ll look at some of the indications
of temperature rise that Dr Stott
mentioned in his conclusion above.
THE CRUCIAL QUESTION...
is, of course, not so much whether
average temperatures have risen
but whether any rise is the result of
human activities.
As the chart on page 32 shows, global
temperatures are no longer rising.
But CO2 is continuing its steady rise
(see page 14), so does this mean that
CO2 is not causing global warming?
Here is what the Met Office say about
this on their website:
‘…global temperatures over the
next five years are likely to be a
little lower than predicted. However,
we will continue to see near-record
levels of global temperatures in
the next few years. Small year to
year fluctuations are due to natural
variability in the climate system, and
have no sustained impact on the long
term warming’
There is a lot more on this at:
http://www.thegwpf.org/
the website of an organisation which
opposes most of the conventional
wisdom on climate change.
!
37
CHAPTER SIX:
DEFINITE SIGNS OF RISING TEMPERATURES
EXERCISE
from by the US National Snow and Ice
Data Center (NSIDC).
List all the distinct changes you can
think of which indicate a general rise
in temperatures...
EXERCISE ANSWERS: MY LIST
• Arctic sea ice is getting less
• Species are gradually moving north
in the northern hemisphere
• Most, but not all, glaciers in the
world are in retreat. (See pages 43
to 45)
I expect you are surprised at the
brevity of my list, and that you
gave many more, such as rising sea
levels, droughts in some areas, more
hurricanes and other extreme weather,
and polar bears becoming extinct. I’ll
say something about each of these
later and explain why I don’t think they
can count as being definitely the result
of global warming. But first the three
items I do consider genuine evidence.
ARCTIC SEA ICE
There is no doubt that Arctic sea ice is
getting less. The chart opposite comes
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
They also publish what they call a daily
image update. To get the latest go to the
web address above.
WHAT ABOUT THE ANTARCTIC?
Antarctic sea ice is actually increasing.
So is the Antarctic cooling while the
Arctic is warming? The magazine
New Scientist reported in January
2013 that latest research shows the
Antarctic, like the Arctic, is warming
faster than the global average. The
increase in sea ice is because snowfall
has increased as a consequence.
38
THE SCRAMBLE FOR THE ARCTIC
The consequences of the opening up
of the Arctic Ocean are considerable.
There are vast deposits of oil and gas,
and all the major oil companies are
either drilling already or are planning
to start soon. Furthermore there are
deposits of rare earths needed in mobile
phones and other electronic equipment.
city of Tromso. They agreed at the
outset that they would admit others
with a genuine interest. Many have
now applied to join, including China
(rare earths), Singapore (worried
about its future as a shipping centre)
and Greenpeace (concerned about
the risks of oil spills). The Council
will undoubtedly move to grander
accommodation before long.
And just as planes flying from America
to Europe or Asia fly over the North
Pole because it is much shorter, so
shipping will also take the polar route
more and more as the ice melts. In
2010 just four ships passed through
the Arctic Ocean; in 2012 it was 46.
IS THERE A RISK OF WAR?
So far all eight bordering nations – The
USA, Russia, Finland, Norway, Sweden,
Denmark, Iceland and Canada - are
working together harmoniously and
the chance of conflict seems slight.
Nevertheless, most are moving some
military forces to the far north. These
nations have been meeting since
1996 as the Arctic Council in a few
temporary rooms and with half a
dozen staff in the northern Norwegian
ARCTIC DANGERS
Drilling for oil presents the obvious
risk of a damaging oil spill. The oil
companies and the Arctic Council
say safety precautions are very
good and the risk negligible. Many,
including Greenpeace, don’t agree.
Drilling, they argue, presents major
39
safety hazards in the often inclement
Arctic, as well as strengthening the
world’s reliance on fossil fuels and so
ensuring the progression of man-made
global warming.
http://www.greenpeace.org/usa
WHO OWNS THE ARCTIC?
The nations bordering the Arctic
Ocean own everything within
200 nautical miles of their coast.
This leaves the area within
the dotted red line on the map
owned by no one.
FT graphic 07/02/13
40
SPECIES MOVING NORTH IN THE
NORTHERN HEMISPHERE
There are a great many examples.
Here are four that I found and rather
like. The first is Cetti’s Warbler.
The following is from the FT for
August 26, 2011...
‘Global warming has wildlife
on the move’ By Clive Cookson
Research shows species have moved
to higher latitudes – where conditions
are cooler – faster than scientists had
appreciated...
Cetti’s warbler is now found 150km farther
north than when it first colonised England in
the 1970s.
While climatologists and politicians
argue about the extent to which
human activity is heating up the
world, biologists charting the
movements of plants and animals
have no doubt that global warming is
having a real impact on wildlife.
The most comprehensive study so
far, published in the journal Science,
shows that species have responded
to climate change – by moving to
higher latitudes and elevations where
conditions are cooler – two to three
times faster than scientists had
appreciated. The researchers, based
at York University, analysed
the response of 2,000 plant and
animal species. They found that on
average they have moved to higher
altitudes by 12.2 metres per decade
and to higher latitudes by 17.6 metres
per decade.
Many different factors are involved
in wildlife population shifts. But this
study is the first to prove that
climate change is a key driver, by
showing that species have moved
! where conditions have
furthest
warmed the most.
41
Individual species show great
variation in their movements,
depending on other ecological factors
and on their sensitivity to local
aspects of climate change such as an
increase or decrease in rainfall. In
Britain, for example, as well as
Cetti’s warbler noted on the previous
page, the distribution of the Comma
butterfly has moved 220km north
from central England to Edinburgh in
two decades. But special factors have
knocked a few species back in the
opposite direction.
The Cirl bunting retreated southward
by 120km, probably in response to
the intensification of UK agriculture.
Next is this charming creature...
ScienceDaily, an American magazine
stated the following in April 2011 —
Local extinction rates of American
pikas have increased nearly five-fold
in the last 10 years, and the rate at
which the climate-sensitive species
is moving up mountain slopes has
increased 11-fold since the 20th
century, according to a study soon
to be published in Global Change
Biology.
But before you get too attracted to
the pika and would like to own one,
I also found this: ‘For the first time
a new study suggests that when
exposed in their natural ecosystem,
wild pikas (a species closely related
to rabbits) are mammalian hosts
of H5N1 subtype avian influenza
viruses.’
Try butterflies instead! Here are two
examples from the world of butterflies
and moths.
The photo above is of an American pika in
Desolation Wilderness, in El Dorado County,
Calif., near Lake Tahoe.
The Comma butterfly (see above) in
the UK is one of many species moving
north in response to climate change.
42
GLACIERS
Glacier on the borders of Uganda and
the DRC near the Equator. From BBC
News Magazine, February 2012.
According to the BBC this glacier was
far more extensive only a few years
ago.
Dr I-Ching Chen, first author of the
study, with the Atlas Moth from Mt
Kinabalu, Borneo, that is moving to
higher elevations because of climate
change. If you look on the internet
you can find countless more examples
of changes to wildlife apparently
caused by global warming.
There is an organisation called The
World Glacier Monitoring Service
(WGMS) which does what its name
states. Here are some extracts from
its website http://www.geo.uzh.ch/
microsite/wgms/ last updated 2011.
!
43
‘Although Glaciologists measure yearto-year changes in glacier activity,
it is the long term changes which
provide the basis for statements
such as “Global Glacier Recession
Continues”.
still situations in which glaciers gain
or lose ice more than typical for
one region or another but the long
term trends are all the same, and
about 90% of glaciers are shrinking
worldwide.’
The answer is not only clear but it is
definitive and based on the scientific
literature. Globally glaciers are losing
ice at an extensive rate). There are
‘It is also very important to
understand that glacier changes are
not only dictated by air temperature
changes but also by precipitation.
!
44
Therefore, there are scenarios in
which warming can lead to increases
in precipitation. These variations are
superimposed on a clear and evident
long term global reduction in glacier
volume which has accelerated rapidly
since the 1970s.’
!
45
BUT WHAT ABOUT POLAR BEARS
I HEAR YOU CRY!
Everyone knows that the melting
of Arctic sea ice is causing a rapid
decline in polar bear populations,
and we have all seen heart-rending
pictures of one or more of these
lovely, cuddly mammals drifting to
their doom on a small piece of ice.
But in fact what everyone knows
is not true. With the reduction in
summer sea ice in the Arctic, their
habitat and hence their hunting
techniques are changing, but at the
moment there is no sign of a general
decline in their numbers, although it is
true that some populations are falling.
So polar bears really have no place in
this Guide. But if you want to know a
bit more about what I found out about
them here it is. If not, go straight to
page 48.
Actually, of course, these cuddly
creatures are killers, being the
world’s largest land carnivore, as
we all know from the summer of
2011 when one got into a sixth form
expedition camp on the Norwegian
archipelago of Svalbard. One student
was killed and several injured before
the bear was shot.
If you visit Longyearben, the only
Norwegian town on Svalbard, as I have,
you find that it is forbidden to leave
the town without having a trained and
armed shot with you. (The other town
on Svalbard, which I have also visited,
is Barentsberg and is Russian. You
might like to research how there can be
a Russian town on Norwegian territory.)
Polar bears are excellent swimmers and
are in little danger of drowning. A much
bigger threat to them is that they will
be unable to kill seals on the edges of
ice or in air holes if the ice continues
46
to diminish and that they will have to
swim further to hunt.
But surely their numbers are declining?
Well no, actually. There are estimated
to be 20-25,000 polar bears living
in the wild in over a dozen distinct
populations.
As the World Wildlife Fund map shows
below, some populations are increasing
!
while others are shrinking. The WWF
published research in July 2011 which
concluded that sea ice loss from
climate change is causing polar bears
to swim longer distances to find stable
ice or to reach land.
47
CHAPTER SEVEN:
OF ICE AND WATER
EXERCISE
There are two, and only two, things
that will undoubtedly cause sea
levels to rise significantly. What are
they?
ANSWER
1.Melting of the two great land-based
ice sheets – Antarctica and Greenland.
2.The oceans getting warmer – water
expands as it warms (except from 0oC
to 4oC – the implications of which are
enormous. Ask anyone doing A level
physics).
In this chapter I’ll look first at what
is known about the Greenland and
Antarctica ice sheets, how thick they
are and whether they are melting,
and then at whether sea levels are
currently rising.
THE GREAT ICE SHEETS
What follows is based on the US Snow
and Ice Data Center website
http://nsidc.org/cryosphere/quickfacts/
icesheets.html
Together, the Antarctic and Greenland
ice sheets contain more than 99
percent of the freshwater ice on
Earth. The Antarctic Ice Sheet extends
almost 14million square kilometers
(5.4million square miles), roughly the
area of the United States and Mexico
combined. The Antarctic Ice Sheet
contains 30million cubic kilometers
(7.2million cubic miles) of ice. The
Greenland Ice Sheet extends about
1.7million square kilometers (656,000
square miles), covering most of the
island of Greenland, three times the
size of Texas.
Ice sheets are constantly in motion,
slowly flowing downhill under their
own weight. Near the coast, most of
the ice moves through relatively fastmoving outlets called ice streams,
glaciers, and ice shelves. As long as
an ice sheet accumulates the same
mass of snow as it loses in ice to the
sea, it remains stable.
Ice sheets contain enormous quantities
of frozen water. If the Greenland Ice
Sheet melted, scientists estimate that
sea level would rise about 7 meters
(23 feet). If the Antarctic Ice Sheet
48
melted, sea level would rise by about
60 meters (200 feet).
!
sheets – although it is a bit cold.
Each summer, researchers travel to
Swiss Camp on the Greenland Ice
Sheet to research climate and ice
sheet dynamics.
!
ARE THE GREAT ICE SHEETS
GETTING THINNER?
This is obviously the crucial question.
But how do you measure the
thickness of these two ice sheets?
Both rest on land, so the bottoms
of the sheets need to be accurately
surveyed as well as the tops. Neither
is known to anything like the degree
of accuracy needed.
Traditional surveying techniques can
be used for the surface of the ice
And the thickness of the ice can be
measured at any one location by
drilling down.
49
But a complete survey by drilling
would obviously entail drilling in
thousands of places. So is there an
alternative method? NASA reckons
there is. Apparently the force of
gravity varies accordingly to the
thickness of the ice and while the
variation is very small it can be
measured. The box tells you about
what NASA is doing. If you want the
full version, go to
http://espo.nasa.gov/oib/
can observe a far wider area.
However, the aircraft carries many
additional instruments, which offer
much more detailed information than
a satellite can provide. Air flights
began in March 2009 using a DC-8.
Beginning in 2010, a P-3 Orion has
been used instead.
The aircraft carries many specialized
pieces of equipment. Among these
is the Airborne Topographic Mapper,
a laser that measures the surface
OPERATION ICEBRIDGE
Since 2003 NASA has used a satellite,
ICESat (Ice, Cloud, and land Elevation
Satellite), for observing polar ice.
ICESat was retired in February 2010
due to a technical malfunction, leaving
NASA without a satellite dedicated
to ice observance. A new satellite is
not expected to be launched until
2015. NASA therefore introduced
the IceBridge program which
utilizes an aircraft to make similar
measurements.
The drawback to using an aircraft
instead of a satellite is that a satellite
50
elevation of the ice. Also on board is a
Gravimeter, an instrument capable of
measuring the shape of cavities in the
ice. There are numerous other pieces
of equipment on board, including the
Laser Vegetation Imaging Sensor, the
Multichannel Coherent Radar Depth
Sounder, a Snow Radar, and the KuBand Radar Altimeter.
IceBridge, a six-year NASA mission, is
the largest airborne survey of Earth’s
polar ice ever flown. It will yield an
unprecedented three-dimensional
view of Arctic and Antarctic ice sheets,
ice shelves and sea ice.
CURRENT STATE OF KNOWLEDGE
The FT for 15 December 2012
reported a major survey with the
pithy title: Ice Sheet Mass Balance
Inter-comparison Exercise (Imbie),
Here are some extracts.
Taken as a whole, the Antarctic
and Greenland ice caps are losing
mass at an increasing rate, now
equivalent to 344 billion tonnes
of ice per year. The loss has
contributed about 11mm to the
rise in global sea level since 1992
– about 20 per cent of the overall
figure. (The main contributor
is the expansion of seawater due
to warming.)
The result was achieved by
an international collaboration
between 26 laboratories and
published in the journal Science.
The view now is that the huge
East Antarctic ice sheet is growing
slowly as more snow settles
there – but that this growth is
more than offset by losses in
West Antarctic and the adjacent
Antarctic Peninsula.
The Imbie effort reconciles three
different ways of measuring
changes in ice sheets. Two use
satellites: one by bouncing a
radar or laser signal off the ice to
measure its height; the second by
measuring the gravitational pull
of the ice mass to calculate its
size. The third combines regional
climate models and observations
(for example, of flowing glaciers)
to estimate gains from snowfall
and losses from melting.
51
One big source of error and
uncertainty, which the study
ironed out, was “postglacial
rebound” – the tendency of the
earth to rise as less ice weighs
down on it. Satellite observations
must be corrected to take account
of the fact that the underlying polar
landscape is still rising by as much
as a centimetre a year in places,
following the end of the great ice
ages many thousands of years ago.
ARE SEA LEVELS RISING?
Surely it’s just a question of
measurement? Yes, but…
EXERCISE
What do you think are the
problems in trying to measure
sea levels?
ANSWER
Here are some...
• The surface of the sea is continually changing
• Waves caused by the wind
•Attraction of the moon is the main
cause of tides, but the sun and
planets also make a difference
•Sea and air temperatures also have
to be taken into account
•Air pressure – higher pressure
pushes the ocean down
•How much water is on land in rivers
and lakes
• Effects of the earth’s rotation
Note that these problems are the
same whether a tide gauge or a
satellite is used.
A tide gauge is a large (1 foot (30cm)
or more in diameter), long pipe with a
small hole below the water line. This
pipe is often called a stilling well. Even
though waves are changing the water
level outside the gauge constantly,
they have little effect inside the gauge.
52
‘The rising seas of the Pacific have
swamped the beaches of the Carteret
Islands. Where once palm trees once
grew there is now sea.’ (see picture
BBC, June 2010).
kilometres and a maximum elevation
of 5ft above sea level. Various figures
between 1000 and 5000 are given for
their population. The islands are in
grave danger of being engulfed by
the sea in the near future and the
whole population is preparing to
move. Their plight has attracted
a good deal of attention and most
reports simply state that they are
victims of rising sea levels caused by
global warming. For example, Oxfam
describes them as: the ‘first entire
people to officially be evacuated
because of climate change.’ If you
Google ‘Carteret Islands’ you will find
many more such reports.
Belonging to Papua New Guinea,
the Carteret Islands are an atoll of
small islands in a horseshoe shape
with a total land area of 0.6 square
In fact, however, it is far from
clear whether the islanders’ plight
is because sea levels are rising or
that the islands are sinking, or a
combination of the two. Ursula Rakova
lives there and is leading efforts
to relocate the entire population.
Her contribution to an international
conference in 2009 included the
following: ‘the underwater volcano
that the islands sit on is slowly
subsiding, but Ursula believes that
unusually high tides, stronger waves
The sea level can be read relatively
accurately inside this pipe. If read
on a regular basis over a time span
of years and then averaged, you can
get a measurement of sea level. But
surely there is plenty of evidence that
doesn’t depend on anything more
than what is before our eyes…
Rising Sea Levels and the Carteret
Islands
53
and currents as well as more
powerful storms are all making it
unsustainable for her community to
stay on the islands.’
The report did not mention rising
sea levels. Indeed many experts
do not believe sea levels have risen
significantly, although they certainly
will if global temperatures increase,
partly, as we have seen, because
water expands when it warms and
partly because
ice sheets
on land such
as those on
Greenland or
the Antarctic
continent will
begin to melt.
WHAT ABOUT THE THAMES
BARRIER?
At this point you might be thinking
that there is evidence closer to home
of rising sea levels, namely from
the Thames Barrier. However, the
people who operate the barrier say
that, while it has been raised more
frequently in recent years, there are
other factors and one cannot say
the increase is evidence of rising sea
levels. This, however, has not stopped
commentators from asserting that it is.
THE THAMES BARRIER AND
EVIDENCE OF RISING SEA LEVELS
The Thames Barrier was constructed
as a direct result of the disastrous
tidal and wind assisted surge of
1953 that killed some 307 people in
54
East Anglia and Canvey Island, and
1,835 in the Netherlands. Designed
to protect London from disastrous
flooding it took eight years to build,
and opened in 1982. It was first
raised the following year.
Wikipedia states that before 1990, the
number of Barrier closures was one
to two per year on average and that
since 1990 the number of closures
has increased to an average of about
four per year. In 2003 the Barrier
was closed on 14 consecutive tides.
The Barrier was closed twice on 9
November 2007 after a storm surge in
the North Sea which was comparable
to the one in 1953.
I thought I would investigate this a
bit more. So I contacted Anthony
Hammond, Flood Risk Mapping and
Data Management, Thames Barrier,
Environment Agency, London, and
he kindly sent me a long email and
very detailed attachments. One thing
I learnt straightaway was that there
are other factors apart from the sea
that lead to the Barrier being raised,
most notably flood water coming
downstream.
!
Mr Hammond’s email included the
following: As you can see from the
data the closures per year are quite
sporadic and although they show
an upward trend, with the sporadic
nature of the data, the number of
years and the human element, it
isn’t really statistically sound to state
that the increase over the years is
definitely a sign of sea level rise.
55
If you would like to see all that he
sent me-and I found it fascinatingplease email me, David Terry, at
[email protected]
NASA Conclusions
As we have already seen, NASA now
has a project, Operation Icebridge, to
try and map the two great ice sheets
using conventional aircraft. Before
that they tried to measure ice melt
using a satellite.
From 2003 to 2010, NASA satellites
systematically measured all of Earth’s
melting glacial ice. The results added
up to 4.3 trillion tons of water and a
global sea level rise of half an inch.
So there you are: NASA
measurements suggested that sea
levels had risen half an inch, or about
13mm, between 2003 and 2010.
A Contrary Expert View
And at least one eminent sealevel expert denies that sea levels
are rising at all. He is Dr. Nils-Axel
Mörner, head of the Paleogeophysics
and Geodynamics department at
Stockholm University.
He is past president (1999-2003)
of the INQUA Commission on Sea
Level Changes and Coastal Evolution,
and leader of the Maldives Sea Level
Project. In an interview in June, 2007
he stated that sea levels had not
risen in the last 40 years and that
‘the catastrophic predictions of the
Change (IPCC), based on computer
models of the effects of global warming,
are “nonsense’’. He repeated his view
in March 2012 in attacking an article in
The Daily Telegraph as follows...
‘Yesterday’s Daily Telegraph carried
yet another climate alarmism story,
this time about the government of
Kiribati negotiating to buy land in Fiji
‘so it can relocate islanders under
threat from rising sea levels’.
With respect to the article on March
7 by Paul Chapman on the future of
Kiribati, I have to protest and urge
all readers to consult the only “hard
facts” there are, viz. the tide gauge
record of the changes in sea level.
56
The graph reveals that there, in
fact, is no ongoing sea level rise
that threatens the habitation of the
islands. This is the hard observational
fact, which we should all face before
starting to talk about future flooding
and the need for evacuation.’
But he does agree that the planet
will warm up dramatically unless
greenhouse gas emissions are curbed.
For more on his view, and to see
some of the abuse he attracts, go to
http://autonomousmind.wordpress.
com/2012/03/08/kiribati-sea-level-story-drnils-axel-morner-responds-exclusively/
WHAT DOES THE IPCC SAY?
The 2007 IPCC report stated...
‘Temperatures influence sea levels
and snow coverage. Since the last ice
age sea levels have risen more than
100 metres. The annual increase was
about 0.1-0.2 millimetres at the end
of the 18th century, but sea levels
are now rising more than ten times
as fast as this. Most of this change is
due to the fact that water increases
in volume when temperatures rise.
Melting polar caps might amplify
this increase. Earth’s shrinking snow
coverage could also further speed
up warming, because water and land
reflect less of the sun’s heat than
snow and ice.’
Then, in February 2010, The Guardian
reported that scientists who had
produced the projections on which
the IPCC predictions no longer felt
it possible to make any definite
statement at all about sea levels. But
do note that these scientists are NOT
saying that sea levels are not rising,
only that they are no longer sure at
what rate.
57
Sea level, the Current
Situation
The IPCC have a website
http://www.ipcc-data.org/ddc_envdata.html
giving the results of the latest data
on various aspects of climate change.
Dated November 2011, it states on
sea levels...
‘One of the key factors to evaluate
for many impact studies in low lying
coastal regions is the current level of
the sea relative to the land. Globally,
the volume of water in the oceans
appears to have been rising during the
past century. However, there are large
regional deviations in sea level relative
http://www.psmsl.org/products/anomalies/
58
to the land from this global trend due
to local land movements. Subsidence,
due to tectonic movements,
sedimentation, or human extraction
of groundwater or oil, enhances
relative sea-level rise. Uplift, due
to post glacial rebound or tectonic
processes, reduces or reverses
sea level rise. The main source of
information on relative sea level is
tide gauge records, and the major
global data source is the Permanent
Service for Mean Sea Level.’
Based in Liverpool as part of the
National Oceanography Centre, the
Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level
(PSMSL) has been responsible for the
collection, publication, analysis and
interpretation of sea level data from
the global network of tide gauges
since 1933. The map on the previous
page, from its website
http://www.psmsl.org/ shows that sea
levels are relative to the land.
Satellite Altimetry
NOTE In the original version of
this Guide, which was put on the
BEACONS website in May 2012, I
concluded that no one really knew
whether or not sea levels had risen
in recent years. However, in August I
contacted Chris Rapley, professor of
climate science at University College,
London and an
authority on climate
science generally
and sea levels in
particular. He read
the sections on sea
levels and told me
that my conclusion
was wrong and that I had failed to
take account of recent measurements
using satellite altimetry. I therefore
did some research on this and the
section that follows is the result.
59
I am grateful to Professor Rapley
for pointing this out to me and for
directing me to the website
http://www.skepticalscience.com/sea-levelrise.htm
radar altimeters have allowed
estimates of global mean sea level.
These measurements are continuously
calibrated against a network of tide
gauges. When seasonal and other
variations are subtracted, they allow
estimation of the global mean sea
level rate. As new data, models and
corrections become available, we
continuously revise these estimates
(about every two months) to improve
their quality.
They summarise their results in the
chart on the left which is dated
August 22, 2012 on their website.
Since 1992, the University of Colorado
has been working with NASA in using
satellites to estimate world sea levels.
Here are some extracts from their
website http://sealevel.colorado.edu/
where you can find much more, all
very clearly explained.
Seasonal signals removed means
they have taken account of all the
other factors that affect sea levels.
And they now believe their results
are accurate to within 0.8mm a year.
As you can see, there has been an
increase in the global mean sea level
of about 60mm, or 6cm or 5.1 inches
when all other factors have been
removed. Note that this is a global
average and does not what is happening
in any particular location or area.
Since 1993, measurements from the
TOPEX and Jason series of satellite
It seems to me that the satellite
altimetry results are conclusive:
Professor Chris Rapley
http://sheffdocfest.com/attachments/162096/
Rapley_ ‘
60
sea levels are rising, at a global
average rate of about 3.1mm or
0.12 inches a year. This may seem
reassuringly small, but the rate also
appears to be increasing. It is true
that Dr. Nils Axel Mörner continues to
disagree, although I think he is now
asserting that there is no evidence for
an increase in the rate of rise rather
than that there is no rise at all.
What is causing the current rise in
sea levels? As the melting of floating
ice makes no difference, there are
only two possibilities; the melting of
ice on land and the sea expanding as
it warms. Professor Rapley tells me
that the latest estimates are that it is
about 20% melting ice.
However, if the planet continues to
get warmer, the two great ice sheets
of Antarctica and Greenland, which
may well have started to melt already,
will do so at an increasing rate. If
they melt completely, sea levels will
rise by about seven metres or 23 feet.
This would be enough to swamp many
of the world’s major cities, including
London, New York, Bangkok, Mumbai,
and Shanghai, and many island
nations, such as the Maldives, would
totally submerged.
Professor Rapley points out that even
modest rises in sea levels could have
very serious consequences. A single
topping of the London Embankment
would flood the tube, the sewage
system and other service channels.
This would cripple the capital and
it would take at least a decade to
recover. London is easily the biggest
wealth creator in the country and such
a disaster would have dire effects for
the whole population.
Furthermore, a rise of only a foot
or so would probably cause the loss
of vast tracts of low lying farmland.
61
The UK Government, for example,
has admitted that a large part of East
Anglia, which is exceptionally fertile
farmland, would have to be abandoned.
The only consolation is that complete
melting is not going to happen in our
lifetimes – several centuries seems to
http://www.uk.peeplo.com/
be the likely time scale. But a rise
of even a few feet would certainly
present an enormous problem.
For example, the Royal Society
has estimated that a rise of only
one metre would flood 17 percent
of Bangladesh, one of the world’s
poorest countries, displacing tens of
millions of people and reducing its
rice-farming land by 50 percent.
Photo: Wikipedia
Note that flooding caused by rising
sea levels is far more serious than
floods caused by heavy rain. The
former is permanent; the latter
temporary. Not that rainwater floods
cannot be devastating. Take the
2011 floods in Thailand for example.
LONDON AT RISK
Photo: The Independent
The following is an edited extract
from a report in The Independent for
May 19, 2013.
There is significant risk of London
being hit by a devastating storm
surge in the Thames estuary by
2100 that could breach existing flood
defences and cause immense damage
to the capital, a study of global sealevel rise has found.
Melting of polar ice sheets and
mountain glaciers could increase sea
levels significantly over the coming
62
decades leading to a 1 in 20 risk that
the existing Thames Barrier would be
unable to cope with an extreme storm
surge, the study concluded. The
increased threat posed by rising
sea levels is one of the reasons why
flood defences around the Thames
estuary and the barrier itself will be
strengthened.
An international panel of glaciologists
and climate scientists said there is
still huge uncertainty about how
sea levels will change in the coming
century as a result of climate change
and its effect on polar ice sheets and
mountain glaciers.
Their best estimate is that the
melting ice on its own will contribute
between 3.5cm and 36.8cm to mean
sea levels, which would come on top
of the rise in sea level due to other
factors such as the thermal expansion
of the warmer oceans.
These estimates are based on existing
“business as usual” emissions of
carbon dioxide, leading to about a
3.5°C rise in mean global temperature
by 2100. Greater emissions would
lead to higher temperatures and
faster melting, the scientists said. How
sea-level rise and polar ice sheets will
respond to rising temperatures is one
of the greatest uncertainties in climate
science. The research programme,
called ICE 2 SEA, was established by
the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change to estimate the
future contribution to sea level from
melting ice.
“There is still extra uncertainty that
arises because our models are not
complete. There are still processes
that we think are important but we
haven’t been able to include in our
models,” said Professor Vaughan
of the British Antarctic Survey, the
coordinator of the programme.
Sea levels would rise by varying
degrees around the world due to
melting ice, and would even decline
in areas around Greenland and
Antarctica due to the diminished
gravitational pull of the dwindling ice
sheets. The British coastline would
see sea level rises that are slightly
below the global average, Professor
Vaughan said.
63
CHAPTER EIGHT:
WHAT ABOUT THE WEATHER?
NORTHERN HEMISPHERE
A main concern about global warming
is that it will cause the climate to
change, possibly disastrously. So
is there any evidence that climate
change is already happening?
COLDER WINTERS IN WESTERN
EUROPE
In 2006 the Met Office told us that the
UK was now in for mild wet winters
and hotter and hotter summers. Since
then the whole of Western Europe has
had long and very cold spells in the
winter and mild but wet summers. So
how do they explain what has actually
happened? Here are some extracts
from a report by the BBC Environment
Correspondent dated February 27,
2012.
One thing is certainly clear. It is that
expert forecasts have often proved
very wide of the mark. This is not
a criticism of climate scientists.
Rather it is an indication that the
world’s weather is an enormously
complex system that is far from fully
understood.
In the rest of this chapter I’ll look
at some aspects of climate in recent
years.
Melting Arctic link to cold,
snowy UK winters
By Richard Black Environment correspondent,
BBC News
‘The progressive shrinking of Arctic
sea ice is bringing colder, snowier
winters to the UK and other areas of
Europe, North America and China, a
study shows.
!
As global temperatures have risen, the
area of Arctic Ocean covered by ice in
summer and autumn has been falling.
64
Writing in Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences (PNAS), a US/
China-based team show this affects
the jet stream and brings cold, snowy
weather.
In turn, this reduces the strength of
the northern jet stream, which usually
brings milder, wetter weather to
Europe from the west.
It is these “blocking” conditions that
keep the UK and the other affected
regions supplied with cold air.
Whether conditions will get colder still
as ice melts further is unclear.’
NEW ORLEANS
On August 29, 2005, Katrina, one of
the most powerful hurricanes ever,
struck New Orleans. At the time
many climate scientists warned that
this could be the first of many more
exceptionally destructive hurricanes.
In fact, the next six years had fewer
than average hurricanes in the highest
category – five.
However experts (who study
hurricanes by flying through them! On
a BBC Horizon programme on
March 27, 2012 said that it is not
so much that there has been a
decrease as that, fortunately, none
has struck land.
65
TEXAS
Lancaster, Dallas, Texas - ‘About
200 homes were destroyed and 650
were damaged by violent tornadoes
in northern Texas, an American Red
Cross spokeswoman said Wednesday,
a day after the storms tore
through one of the nation’s largest
metropolitan areas.’ CNN April 4, 2012
Prolonged and devastating drought
was followed in April 2012 by violent
and destructive storms. ‘Scorched
earth conditions have caused more
than $5 billion worth of damage to
Texas agriculture.’ CNN September 8,
2011
SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE
and then this...
As you will know from Chapter Seven,
signs of warming in the Southern
Hemisphere are much less definite
than in the Northern. Indeed some
climate change deniers have argued
that any increase in temperatures in
the Northern Hemisphere are balanced
by reductions in the Southern. On the
face of it, they do have evidence to
support this thesis although, as we
have seen, while most of Antarctica
does not seem to have got warmer
in recent decades, the Antarctic
Peninsula, which juts out into warmer
waters north of Antarctica, has
warmed 2.50C since 1950.
!
And this…
The Box gives one example of unusual
weather and apparent cooling in the
Southern Hemisphere.
!
66
AUSTRALIA
A NEW ZEALAND STORY
‘New Zealand has been hit with what
forecasters are calling a ‘once-ina-lifetime’ winter storm, which has
brought much of the country to a
!
standstill.
Dozens of major roads remain
closed across the North and South
Islands and residents in some areas
have been advised to stock up on
emergency food and water.’ BBC 16
August 2011
An old friend of mine now lives in
Christchurch, New Zealand, the
centre of which was destroyed by an
earthquake in February 2011. The
city centre was destroyed, 185 people
died and thousands are still homeless.
He sent me the picture above, which
is of his house, and said no one had
ever seen snow like this before.
The worst drought in living memory,
covering an area the size of France
and bankrupting hundreds of
farmers, lasted until late 2011 (see
picture at top).
And it ended with…
‘At least two people were killed and
thousands forced from their homes as
flooding continued across areas in three
Australian states.
Days of heavy rain have led to swollen
rivers, flooded farms and forced
authorities to close bridges and roads.
Flood levels continued to rise on Monday,
with 70% of worst-hit New South Wales
flooded or under threat.’
BBC March 5, 2012
67
IS EXTREME WEATHER
HAPPENING MORE FREQUENTLY?
Extreme weather events generally
do seem to be increasing, as the
examples above illustrate. There
are many more I could have given
– drought in east Africa, floods in
Thailand. And I write this in early
April, 2012 when the warmest March
on record in the UK has been replaced
by snow and bitterly cold north winds.
But are we really getting more
extreme weather events?
EXERCISE
List some of the problems you can
see in trying to answer the question
above scientifically. Then go to the
next section for some that occur to
me.
striking the USA Eastern seaboard,
as opposed to those in the BBC
programme referred to above which
may stay out at sea. America has a
special unit recording such hurricanes,
the National Hurricane Center. Here
are some of the problems that I see
on looking at their website.
•What is the measure of a
severe hurricane? It could be
wind strength, amount of rain,
barometric pressure, cost of
damage, loss of life. The first three
measures would apply even if the
hurricane didn’t strike any inhabited
region, or even land at all. The last
two apply only if the hurricane does
hit inhabited areas. But there are
Of course I have the advantage
of having spent some time on the
Internet researching this. But the
more I look, the less clear the
picture is. Consider just hurricanes
68
more of these now than in the past,
so the chance of hitting habitations
is greater now. On the other hand
houses today are likely to be better
able to resist a hurricane.
•A few years ago I visited Darwin
in Northern Australia, some thirty
years after it was struck by one
of the strongest hurricanes,
or cyclones as they are called
in Australia, ever recorded on
Christmas Day 1974. Wind speeds
of 250km/hr were recorded. 71
died. Only one building survived
undamaged. It had just been
completed and happened to be
the hotel I was staying in some 30
years later! The entire population
was evacuated while the town was
rebuilt.
•The US Hurricane Center gives a
storm of 1780 as the most deadly
ever. They say that around 22,000
deaths occurred, with a total of
about 9,000 lives lost in Martinique,
4,000-5,000 in St. Eustatius, and
4,326 in Barbados. Thousands of
deaths also occurred offshore. But
wind speeds were not recorded.
AN INSURERS VIEW
The international reinsurance
company Munich Re says that
increasingly large numbers of
weather-related natural catastrophes
are due to climate change, with global
warming playing a significant role in
the rising number of extreme events
such as windstorms and floods which
have tripled since 1980, a trend that
is expected to persist.
69
climate scientists from around the
world. You can find the report on the
IPCC website at www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports
However even the summary, which
runs to 20 pages is in such dense
prose that it is far from easy to read.
I think the extract below from the
Financial Times report tells us all we
need...
ONE SCIENTIFIC VIEW
‘The message from the
Change (IPCC) is clear: the world
must prepare for more frequent and
more dangerous extreme weather
events caused by climate change.
According to the US National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration,
there were a record twelve weather
disasters in the US costing more
than $1 billion in 2011. The previous
record was nine in 2008. But is more
expensive the same as more severe?
Storms, floods, droughts and
heatwaves could wipe billions off
national economies’ incomes and
destroy lives, say the team of more
than 150 climate scientists who
collaborated on the summary report,
released by the IPCC on November 18.
IPCC REPORT NOVEMBER 2011
Their stark warning is laced with
caveats, however, reflecting the
continuing challenge of attribution that
climate scientists face. In other words,
it is hard to pin specific weather events
to man-made (or anthropogenic)
The Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change issued a report on
Extreme Weather in November 2011.
It was the result of work by 150
70
global warming, when such things can
and do occur naturally.’
This report provoked a lot of anger
from campaigning environmental
groups who felt that the scientists
should have been much more definite
in saying both that extreme weather
events are getting more frequent and
that there will definitely be more and
more such events.
But how do the campaigners know
better than the scientists what the
truth is?
ONE CONCLUSION
Some experts are saying that it is not
so much that we are getting more
extreme weather as that the weather
is switching from one extreme to
another much more rapidly. And others
add that this is very much the norm in
the history of the planet, and the last
12,000 years have been a period of
exceptional climatic stability. As you
will recall from the clock face I used
to illustrate the outline history of the
earth, 12,000 years (or one hundredth
of a second if one hour represents the
time planet earth has existed) is about
the length of time it has taken for our
civilisation to develop.
If this is correct, and no one can know
whether it is, our species faces coping
with a much less stable climate than
it has ever experienced since humans
first ceased to be hunter gatherers.
Not a comforting thought.
71
CHAPTER NINE:
FACTS, OPINIONS AND POLITICS
EXERCISE
Referring of course to climate
change, give your answers to the
first two of the questions of the
heading, namely...
a) W
hat are the definite and
incontrovertible facts?
b) W
hat you think is highly probable
but not actually certain?
c) W
hat you think may be true but
which some experts dispute
most concern, but water vapour
and methane are two more that
are important.
2. The amount of carbon dioxide
in the atmosphere has increased
considerably and at an everincreasing rate over the last two
centuries from about 285 parts
per million by volume (ppmv)
to around 390ppmv today (the
reading at Mauna Loa for March
2012 was 394.45. For the latest
and then compare your answers
with mine below...
a)Here is my list of facts that no
reasonable person could dispute.
(admittedly this raises the question
as what defines a reasonable
person – someone who doesn’t
disagree with me is, I hope, not my
implied definition)...
1. Many heavy molecule gases
reflect back some of the infrared
radiation that strikes them. Carbon
dioxide is the one that arouses.
72
reading go to http://www.esrl.noaa.
gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/)
3. Despite large amounts of
methane being observed going into
the atmosphere, measurements do
not reveal a corresponding increase
in the amount in the atmosphere.
4. The Northern Hemisphere
shows many signs of an increase in
temperature, most notably species
moving north and Arctic summer
sea ice getting steadily less.
5. In the Southern Hemisphere
the signs are nothing like so
unambiguous, but, according to
the records, sea temperatures just
north of the Antarctic Peninsula
have risen in the last 60 years.
6. The earth’s climate generally is
changing (but then it always has
been).
b)Now for things that are accepted
by most but not all climate
scientists...
1. The planet is warming up at an
increasing rate, having risen by an
average of about 0.80C in the last
100 years.
2. A main cause of this temperature
rise is the carbon dioxide spewed
into the atmosphere as a result of
human activities.
3. As a consequence of rising
temperatures, average sea levels
are rising at an increasing rate that
is now about 2mm a year.
c) A
nd, lastly, assertions that are
made by mostly non-scientists
and not accepted as certain by
many, or even any, actual climate
scientists...
1. All or nearly all weather
disasters such as droughts, floods
and storms are a consequence of
global warming.
73
2. Sea levels generally are rising
significantly everywhere and are
already causing populations to
move.
3. Permanent climate change poses
no threat to the human race.
d)For completeness here are some
that no climate scientist would
accept...
1. There is no danger at all from
burning fossil fuels and no need to
reduce carbon emissions.
2. Global warming and climate
change are myths.
3. Climate scientists world-wide
are engaged in a gigantic fraud in
order to keep their governmentfunded posts.
shared by many Republican* voters.
Many also believe the account in the
Bible of the Creation to be literally
true and that the earth came into
existence in 4004 BC. (It never ceases
to amaze me that a country which has
more top scientists and universities
than any other also has a large
number of people who sincerely, even
passionately, hold the most ludicrous
opinions).
DENIERS AND SCEPTICS
I think it useful to reserve the
description of climate change deniers
to those who, like the Republicans
mentioned above, start with knowing
that climate change is a myth and
You may think I am exaggerating and
that no one seriously holds the views
in d) above.
In fact they are exactly the
expressed opinions of several of the
Republicans* who sought their party’s
nomination for president in the 2012
election. These views are probably
74
then either dismiss out of hand all
evidence to the contrary. In the USA
and elsewhere views such as those
referred to above are likely to be found
on the Right*. But such views are by
no means confined to their end of the
political spectrum, and you can find
equal absurdities on the Left*- mining
unions in the USA who won’t accept
that burning coal might be harmful.
The term sceptics I prefer to keep
for those who, like Dr. Nils-Axel
Mörner, argue rationally for a different
interpretation of the facts.
The United States Tea Party members
undoubtedly count as deniers. I
think the UK Global Warming Policy
Foundation described in Chapter
Four could also be called deniers in
that they seem to me to be mainly
concerned to find evidence that
supports their view that climate
change, if it is occurring, is not mainly
caused by human activity. But, unlike
the more fanatical, they do actually
look for evidence.
* For a brief explanation of some terms used
in politics please go to the next page.
75
THE POLITICAL SPECTRUM
The following is adapted from
Wikipedia...
The left–right political spectrum is a
common way of classifying political
positions, ideologies, or parties
along a political spectrum. Left-wing
politics and right-wing politics are
often presented as opposed, and
although a particular individual or
party may take a left-wing stance on
one matter and a right-wing stance
on another, the terms left and right
are used to refer to two globally
opposed political families. In France,
where the terms originated, the Left
is called “the party of movement”
and the Right “the party of order”.
Traditionally, the Left includes
progressives, liberals, social
democrats, socialists and communists.
The Right includes conservatives,
reactionaries, capitalists and fascists.
Note that neither extremes are in
the least democratic. Both fascists
and communists are deeply anti-
democratic and care little for human
rights. That is, perhaps, why those
who are definitely democrats and
do care a great deal for human
rights tend to put the word ‘centre’
in front of their description. Thus
David Cameron’s Conservatives (also
known as Tories) could be described
as Centre Right and Ed Miliband’s
Labour Party as Centre Left. In the
United States both main parties
could be described as Centre Right,
with the Republicans to the right of
the Democrats.
The two main US parties are the
Republicans and the Democrats. It
is tempting but misleading to say
that the first is like our Conservative
Party and the second like our Labour.
Each could be described as Centre
Right, with the Republicans, and
especially their extreme wing, the
Tea Party Movement, more Right
than Centre, and certainly to the
Right of the Democrats. Most AfroAmericans vote Democrat, which is
surprising as Abraham Lincoln, who
proclaimed the abolition of slavery in
1863, was a Republican.
76
Abraham Lincoln,
Republican, 16th
President of the
United Stated 1861 to
1865
http://sc94.ameslab.
gov/tour/alincoln.html
!
And the two Afro-Americans who
have achieved the highest political
office to date were both Republicans
- Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice
under President George W. Bush,
2000 to 2008.
Colin L. Powell, US
Secretary of State
2001 to 2005 (the
Secretary of state
is the US Foreign
Minister)
http://en.wikipedia.
org/wiki/Colin_Powell
Condoleezza Rice
US Secretary of State
2005 to 2009
http://en.wikipedia.
org/wiki/
Condoleezza_Rice
But, of course, the first AfroAmerican president is Barack
Obama, a Democrat (see picture on
page 74).
A major difference between the
United States and UK political
systems is that whereas the US
president is the head of state
and must NOT be a member of
Congress, the UK prime minister is
not the head of state and MUST be
a member of parliament.
77
VESTED INTERESTS AND CLIMATE
CHANGE
Originally a legal term, ‘vested
interest’ is now often used in a wider
sense which the Macmillan dictionary,
http://www.macmillandictionary.com/
dictionary/british/vested-interest
defines as ‘a special reason for
wanting things to happen in a
particular way, because you will
benefit from this’. The example given
is particularly apt: Proposed controls
on carbon emissions were opposed
by powerful vested interests in the oil
business.
The accusation of being motivated
by a vested interest is often made in
political argument. The aim is always
to discredit an argument without
actually showing what, if anything, is
wrong with it. Several examples from
debate about climate change have
already been given.
The dictionary example above aims
to discredit opposition to proposed
controls on carbon emissions
without considering and refuting any
supporting arguments that might
be made. In effect, it says that no
opinion from the oil industry should
be even considered. The next logical
step would be to say that only those
with no connection with an industry
affected by a proposed policy should
be allowed to express an opinion, and
ultimately that decisions should be
made only by the completely ignorant,
which is absurd.
It seems to me that what one must
try to do is to put on one side whether
an argument is being advanced by
someone with a vested interest and
examine the merits of and, especially,
the evidence for the proposition.
After all, because a proposition I am
advancing would be to my benefit
does not in itself make it false.
Another form of a vested interest is
a reluctance to change one’s mind
even when the evidence shows it to
be false. Especially in environmental
matters, changing one’s mind can
lead to being attacked by those who
were your co-believers and are not
changing their position with you. A
recent example is the environmental
writer Mark Lynas.
78
He used to be an active campaigner
against genetically modified (GM)
crops and nuclear power and took
part in illegal actions against both.
In 2011 his book The God Species
was published. In it he says he has
changed his mind on both matters.
Rather than examine his reasons,
many other leading environmentalists
simply hurled abuse at him.
John Maynard Keynes
1883 to 1946
http://www.bbc.co.uk/
history/historic_figures/
keynes_john_maynard.
shtml
!
I think we should all keep in mind the
remark attributed to John Maynard
Keynes, one of the greatest and
most influential intellects of the last
century: ‘When the facts change,
I change my mind. What do you do?’
WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE?
Now, I suggest, you give some
thought to what needs to be done –
if anything – to avoid catastrophe.
Climate Change – Politics Science
and the Future of Humanity is the
title of the next study guide in this
series of three, while the third is
entitled ‘UK Climate Change and
Energy Policy’ I recommend you
outline what you think the world’s
nations should do about the possible
consequences of the facts as outlined
in this study guide.
79
CHAPTER TEN:
CORRECTIONS & UPDATES
For the latest updates and corrections, please go to:
http://beaconsdec.org.uk/resources/guide-1-chapter-10/
y
a
t
w
e
m
b
ing m ly qu
stitu
erva
t clim
oper
ight
tativ
rgy p
infor
ent d
attri
thori U IPCC eadings ty oC obs ent ene ortance compon visible l abundan tudied in question eceptive s
s
p
d
CR
pm
es
ic
in
er
ed
ies
en
arch accurat uncerta l Develo rmous im E Nitrog requenc mospher SCIENCE n devot roblems ods proc co
p
n
H
tio
na
th
rf
ed
no
At
ter
in
ome estimat nternatio ognise e IR BREAT red Sola Oceanic conclusio organisa m decade OAA me ics and
p
N
a
c
t
I
a
A
s
cy c
is
o
e
n
e
ts ar ronment l detail r Newton bject infr planatio nference prominen y sceptic istration amme tr ions poli n
in
o
in
vi
io
gr
ex
ca
at
N
ei
ne
ce En ts techni am engi heating petence od simpl NDATIO ional tre eric Adm Ship pro Earth op tific opin 3
O
m
te
ph
at
ed
th
us
en
ns
en
OU
gum ements s d absorb ement co ENT me OLICY F ta intern ic Atmos ce ocea dangero ority sci Xe Ozone ti
el
rfa
an
da
UM
n
col
ula
sP
nd
sur
min
mea sunlight t equally NAL ARG scientist ipulated CDC Oce it Sea-su xygen a issions H2 Xeno ure calc on
i
o
N
n
n
ig
O
n
r
m
ation rb re-em els RATI minority mber ma SS NASA ration U moisture tivists e Hydroge ulation f ses envi ve
o
c
o
s
c
e
u
I
u
l
r
b
a
g
n
a
G
K
ati
ce
bs
lf
de
la
ms a urn fossi knowled bstantial BAL CRU ents col ck outsi igngreen Krypton iversity c gical pro authorit U
t
R
a
o
e
o
nce b frequen ssions su ures GLO easurem gations r da camp elium He hysics un rber biol orldwid search C u
lp
em
fig
so
mi
nts
lle
hw
4H
gan
F re
acc
c eve as GHG e average minimis ts facts a er propa hane CH ed carefu ective ab researc cts GWP ometer im
g
st
et
CC
fe
te
st
rm
en
eff
en
ted
ation r calcula n adjus s argum orld disa Ar Ne M trength melting Panel IP issues ef iable the lts area e n
s
l
l
u
io
ie
w
a
d
iro
el
e
O2
de
t col municat ing polic nations gas N2 existenc . emitte ernment onmenta globe r sland res nce Env n
e
v
ie
n
e
ir
m
ns
m
od
e
ti
eleco obal war uman rac n commo structur understo s Intergo anti-env er statio accoun hange Sc ed argum t
C
h
at
th
en
gl
m
d
ed
go
on
ure
ffect hallenge istry ar echanis measure ited Nati advocat ords wea emperat n Climate versy he easurem u
s
c
t
m
n
m
e
n
lm
ns
ec
tro
sions pour Che therma rializatio ortant U plicatio armer r -average ure oxyg nce con osphere Radiation or
p
e
e
t
l
m
t
a
s
c
i
a
s
v
3
m
m
is
tw
id
ater rm surfa ate indu s world i rity view n plane the glob gate mo nally ev e CO2 at onia NH atoms ab u
o
a
o
e
i
e
d
m
m
e
o
i
s
t
t
i
t
i
j
t
t
eb
w
ight ndant cl d institu ning ma ely ques o calcula ns Clima interna bon diox de CO Am molecule s balanc e
tiv
ic
xi
tio
fer
at
gio
ure
es
die
car
abu
eric NCE stu ted ques ms decep cess dat oastal re hreat fut coal oil I2 Mono rupt gas ce trans tastroph la
n
o
e
t
b
g
c
e
IE
ca
is
ro
n SC ation dev de probl thods p s and in y crucial le burnin O2 Iodin origin a LE influe a levels olve leg o
e
s
C
n
c
a
se
m
lic
tc
re
ab
pi
eN
nis
ec
CY
tio
orga ticism d on NOAA mme tro inions po Sustain n Dioxid explana ARBON aptation eakened and effec T
n
p
C
p
ra
ti
sl
w
e
ed
al
ge
Ad
io
ty sc ministra hip prog s Earth o ific opin O3 Nitro s chemic entration Events scandal re heat i ransmitt ou
t
e
d
t
S
u
u
r
c
h
s
t
e
n
t
o
A
eric e oceans danger rity scie Xe Ozon tion facto attle con s Extrem ciologis tempera and buoy at green o
l
c
s
n
nd
ac
isk
la
sc
gla
ino
hre
-surf oxygen a sions m H2 Xeno re calcu ronment e AR5 R ribution onal field ns globe policy t ormation ir
is
ti
tt
tio
vi
nf
e
gy
en
ya
tiv
igu
istur ivists em Hydrog ulation f esses en uthorita U IPCC a gs opera observa ent ener ortance i onent dr is
t
r
n
c
a
v
p
c
p
lc
K
m
o
oC
CR
di
een a Krypton ersity ca ogical pr orldwide esearch rate rea ertainty Develop rmous im gen com quencies ic
l
o
l
v
u
c
r
o
e
r
i
w
e
a
o
t
c
r
an
n
um H hysics un sorber bi research ts GWPF meter ac mated u ternation ognise en ATHE Ni d Solar f tion Oce s
p
c
ti
b
n
o
ec
ce
C
re
RE
na
reful ffective a anel IPC ssues eff le therm s area es onment I detail re n AIR B ct infra- ce expla inferen
ple
lP
ult
bje
vir
wto
liab
al i
ical
ge
ION
ten
eltin rnmenta ronment globe re sland res ience En ts techn ngine Ne eating o t compe thod sim OUNDAT at
h
e
i
c
n
n
s
F
e
ve
rn
vi
ergo anti-en r station account Change S argume s steam absorbed lly eleme UMENT m POLICY ata inte n
d
t
d
e
d
e
a
s
te
u
d
te
ld
te
RG
cea
ur
th
st
en
voca rds wea emperat en Clima ersy hea asurem nlight co -emit eq IONAL A y scienti nipulate NCDC O io
t
a
e
t
t
T
co
ov
yg
me ion su
orb r fuels RA e minori umber m ISS NASA collabora o
s
er re -average sture ox ce contr sphere
t
b
a
i
a
s
G
i
ad
n
il
s
o
dg
ck
ln
al
glob egate mo lly evide CO2 atm ia NH3 R ules atom urn foss t knowle bstantia BAL CRU urement tions ro c
b
a
a
s
n
c
a
O
e
a
g
n
on
at
e
su
Clim ternatio n dioxid CO Amm ses mole s balanc ts freque issions gures GL mise me acts alle opagand n
o
r
i
i
f
n
a
r
n
m
f
i
b
p
n
e
g
e
i
e
r
ha
fe
ts
e
uture oal oil ca Monoxid n abrupt ce trans rophic ev gas GHG averag justed m rgumen disaster r Ne Met n
I2
en
n
st
ad
sa
rld
igi
tre
late
gc
2A

Guide One

Transcription

Similar documents

JagerBomb flyer-web - Smoothiecompany.com

COOLVIEW - PyroGraphics

Go ice skating at the Palouse Ice RInk

The Day after Tomorrow?

Ice Vault Arena SkateFest 12-10-13

October 2014

MIS33-Skylight Ice Arena.qxp - The Ives Architecture Studio

5776 Kadima Ice Skating Final

Palouse Ice Rink End of Summer Event

Ice Cream Social and Free Concert Wednesday, July 13 6:30