Climate Change: CO2 and Greenhouse Gases

The sixth article in this series on climate change investigates the sources of anthropogenic CO² and other greenhouse gas emissions, and whether they have contributed to the rise in surface temperature that the Earth has experienced over the last century.

Don’t believe everything you read

No blame just the basics

Is the  Earth really warming?

The 97 percent consensus

IPCC release Fifth Assessment Synthesis Report

Former NASA scientist predicts ‘dark winters’ ahead

“Carbon dioxide (CO2) is an important heat-trapping (greenhouse) gas, which is released through human activities such as deforestation and burning fossil fuels, as well as natural processes such as respiration and volcanic eruptions.” NASA

Somewhere between five to eight thousand BC, human beings ceased their nomadic existence and began to settle in one area, create communities and plant crops. It was the first time that a species on Earth had radically altered their environment so as to make life more comfortable for themselves.

Some 10,000 years later we are still altering the environment as we seem fit. However unlike our ancestors who numbered around five million and were unable to roam too far from their homes, there are now almost eight billion of us with virtually nowhere on the planet inaccessible to us, or where we have not left our mark.

It is naive to suggest these changes have not affected the Earth in some way shape or form. Greenhouse gases, deforestation, water contamination, over farming, mining, and the extinction of numerous species of flora and fauna, all must have some detrimental effect on the natural equilibrium that has existed on Earth for millions of years.

Although the Earth is made of many ecosystems to create the whole, our planet’s global equilibrium is controlled by the carbon cycle. The carbon cycle refers to the hundreds of billions of tons of carbon that move between the atmosphere (air), hydrosphere (water), geosphere (Earth), biosphere (life), and pedosphere (land and soil), each year.

The vast majority of Earth’s carbon is stored underground. The carbon that resides in the atmosphere comes in the form of greenhouse gases, and in particular carbon dioxide (CO²).

Although CO² is accountable for only 20 percent of Earth’s greenhouse effect (water vapour 50%, clouds 25%), scientists have found that CO² sets the temperature. So while CO² may contribute less to the greenhouse effect than water vapour overall, it does control the amount of water vapour present in the atmosphere and consequently the extent of the greenhouse effect.

For more than a century, sections of the scientific community have warned anthropogenic emissions of CO² and other greenhouse gases could have an adverse effect on the world’s climate.

In 1896 Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius calculated that doubling the amount of CO² in the atmosphere would melt the arctic ice, and in 1932 American physicist EO Hulburt released a paper supporting those findings. Then in 1938 English engineer Guy Callendar published, ‘The artificial production of carbon dioxide and its influence on temperature’. Callender’s research was the first to assemble actual evidence that showed both CO² and the average global temperature were increasing.

According to figures from NASA, atmospheric levels of CO² are higher than they have been at any time in the past 400,000 years. It is estimated by NASA and many other scientific organrisations that global anthropogenic emissions of CO² and other geenhouse gases now exceed over 35 billion tonnes each yea.r

CO2 levels over the last 400,000 years. Figures courtesy NASA

The figures from NASA show that CO² levels were approximately 200 parts per million (ppm), during ice ages and around 280 ppm during warmer interglacial periods. Yet in 2013, CO² levels surpassed 400 ppm, or four parts in every 10,000 for the first time in recorded history.

The ideal amount of carbon in our atmosphere is 300th of one percent, or three molecules in every 10,000. A difference of only three molecules per 10,000 either way would turn the Earth into a desert wasteland or frozen block of ice. Simple mathematics tells us we have cause for concern.

FOSSIL FUEL EMISSIONS

Anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions come from two sources. The first known as ‘fossil fuel related emissions’, is from the burning of fossil fuels, while the second is referred to as ‘direct emissions’, and includes land use change (deforestation), agriculture and waste.

The first is perhaps the most debated and focused upon of the two sources, particularly by politicians and mass media. Historically speaking, it is easy to make the connection that the increase in the Earth’s surface temperature and the burning of fossil fuels are linked. During the last 100 years surface temperatures have risen 20 times faster than the previous 5000, and CO² levels in the atmosphere are 40 percent more than they were prior to the industrial revolution.

Global surface temperatures 1880-2012. See above for CO2 levels. Data courtesy NASA

Coal began being used to generate electricity in homes and factories around 1880, while by the same year the United States was producing 19 million barrels of oil – compared to only 2000 per year two decades earlier. By the beginning of the 20th century that figure had risen to almost 60 million.

In 2012 the annual global production of oil had reached almost 32 billion barrels, while in the same year over 7.8 billion tonnes of coal was produced. Much of it used to power the 2300 coal-fired power stations worldwide. Approximately 620 of which are in China.

According to a report released by the International Energy Agency (IEA), earlier this year 31.18 billion tonnes of CO² was released into the Earth’s atmosphere due to coal, oil and gas production in 2011.

However there are those that suggest the amounts of CO² released into the atmosphere through the burning of fossil fuels is exceeded by naturally occurring factors, in particular volcanoes.

Geologist and noted climate change sceptic Ian Plimer of the University of Adelaide is one. Professor Plimer caused much controversy in his 2009 best seller “Heaven and Earth: Global Warming — the Missing Science,” when he suggested that was indeed the case.

“Over the past 250 years, humans have added just one part of CO² in 10,000 to the atmosphere. One volcanic cough can do this in a day,” he says.

Ian Pilmer says CO2 from volcanoes far outweighs man made emissions. Image courtesy Matt Turner

Plimer’s conclusions are supported Timothy Casey,  another geologist and Earth scientist who writes, “There is insufficient data to distinguish the effects of volcanic CO² from fossil fuel CO² in the atmosphere.”

Casey also suggests, “A brief survey of the literature concerning volcanogenic carbon dioxide emission finds that estimates of sub aerial emission totals fail to account for the diversity of volcanic emissions.”

As was mentioned in ‘the 97 percent consensus’, geologists are the most sceptical of the sciences when it comes to the subject of anthropogenic climate change. So it is worth noting that theAmerican Geophysical Union disagrees entirely.

In a paper published in 2009 the AGU states, “Research findings indicate unequivocally that the answer to this frequently asked question is human activities.”

“However most people, including some Earth scientists working in fields outside volcanology, are surprised by this answer.”

Citing a number of sources, it puts global estimates of the annual CO² output of the Earth’s degassing sub aerial and submarine volcanoes in a range somewhere between 0.13 to 0.44 billion metric tons per year. The paper estimates annual anthropogenic CO² emissions at 35 billion metric tonnes.

According to NASA, “This recent relentless rise in CO2 shows a remarkably constant relationship with fossil-fuel burning, and can be well accounted for based on the simple premise that about 60 percent of fossil-fuel emissions stay in the air.”

While the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), released its Fifth Assessment Synthesis last week which stated amongst its findings that, ”Anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are now higher than ever before.

“Combined with other anthropogenic drivers, the effects have been detected throughout the Earth’s climate system and are extremely likely to have been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the 1950s.”

The second source of anthropogenic greenhouse gases come in the form of ‘direct emissions’, which include land use change (deforestation), agriculture and waste.

DEFORESTATION

Many would argue that land use change, and in particular deforestation is a far larger issue than that of emissions from the burning of fossil fuels. Indeed a number of those who believe the burning of fossil fuels has little impact on global warming, consider deforestation to be the most important environmental issue we face.

While humans have been deforesting the Earth to some degree for thousands of years to clear land for communities, crops and livestock, it has never been at such an extreme rate as has been seen over the last few decades.

Global tree cover loss 2000-2012 Image courtesy World Resource Institute

It is estimated that half of the world’s forests have now been lost to deforestation. Studies conducted by the United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and other scientific and environmental societies, show that up to 18 million acres (7.3 million hectares), of forests are being cleared each year.

The Earth’s forests are the second largest storehouses of carbon behind its oceans, and are often referred to as carbon sinks. Subsequently they play a vital role in the carbon cycle.

A 2005 study done by the FAO calculated the world’s forests contained approximately 638 billion tonnes of carbon, while current estimates suggest tropical forests (where most deforestation occurs), hold more than 210 billion tonnes.

At present greenhouse gas emissions from deforestation exceed that of all the cars, trucks and planes on Earth combined.

Transport produces 14 percent of global greenhouse gases annually, while emissions from deforestation are estimated to be over 5.2 billion tonnes each year, accounting for between 15 and 20 percent of total anthropogenic emissions.

And ironically, by continuing to cut down the world’s forests, not only are we emitting billions more tonnes of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, we are also depriving ourselves and the Earth of one of the most effective ways of capturing the excess CO² and safely storing it.

Deforestation occurs for many reasons and comes in many forms, including clear-cutting for agriculture, livestock and urban development, unsustainable logging for timber, fire, and land degradation. Each effecting the environment in numerous ways.

Tropical forests span both sides of the Equator, thriving in the warm, usually wet, climate, under the Sun’s most direct rays. Evergreen forests between the Tropic of Cancer (North) and Tropic of Capricorn (South) are dark green on this map, while other biomes are lighter. (Image by Robert Simmon, based on Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer Land Cover Classification data.)

After a tree loses all its moisture, half of its weight is made up of carbon. When forests are cleared by fire, the carbon stored in the trees is released directly into the atmosphere in the form of CO².

Studies have shown that when a vast area of forest has been cleared and left bare, by such as fire or unsustainable logging it can lead to aridity and even periods of drought. Particularly during extended warmer periods such as El Nino events.

Trees not only emit carbon dioxide, they also release water vapour into the atmosphere. It is estimated that 30 percent of rainfall in tropical forests is produced from water that has been recycled back into the air from the soil and vegetation. This released water vapour serves two important purposes. Firstly condensing into clouds, falling again as rain in a perpetual self-watering cycle, and also cooling the atmosphere. If there are no trees to emit water vapour, the area can become drier and hotter.

Deforestation can lead to land aridity and even drought. Image courtesy Liliana Usvat

As does the forest’s floor. The soils which form the floor of a forest are usually moist, carpeted with a thick layer of organic matter in various stages of decay. This organic matter known as peat, dries out quickly without the canopy of the forest to shield it from the sun. And as it dries it releases even more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

Once the peat has dried it also becomes highly flammable, and if burnt, whether by the ever increasing chances of natural fire, or ignited by human hands to clear the last vestiges of forest, it again emits more greenhouse gases.

AGRICULTURE

The predominant reasons for deforestation both currently and historically has been for urbanisation and agriculture. As the world’s population has grown, so has the demand for both housing and food.

The FAO estimates that we are using 70 percent more land for agriculture than we were a century ago. A third of the Earth’s land mass is now being used for agriculture, and because the global consumption of meat has doubled in the last 50 years, approximately two thirds of agricultural land is now put aside for livestock. Of the 25 percent of land left for crops, a third of that is used to feed that livestock.

A third of the world’s land mass is now being used for agriculture. Image courtesy Our World in Data

Agriculture produces approximately five billion tonnes of greenhouse gases each year, accounting for 15 percent of total global anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions.

However unlike emissions from the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation which are predominantly CO², agricultural emissions are made up mostly of methane – a greenhouse gas 25 times more potent than CO².

Much of that methane is emitted by cattle through enteric fermentation. Cows contribute 40 percent of total agricultural greenhouse gas emissions. Although contrary to the belief of many they release methane through belching, not from an “emission of wind” from the other end. An adult cow is responsible for emitting the same amount of greenhouse gas into the atmosphere each year as a family car.

A cow emits the same amount of greenhouse gas as a car each year. Image courtesy Dairy Australia

The waste product of livestock is the second largest contributor to agricultural emissions. Manure left on pastures and manure management make up 23 percent of total agricultural greenhouse emissions. Although also emitting methane, manure produces nitrous oxide (otherwise known as laughing gas), which is even more potent than methane.

When the ground is ploughed the carbon left in the soil is released as nitrous oxide from fertilizers and pesticides. The manipulation of soil for agriculture is responsible for another 20 percent of total agricultural emissions, while renewable energy consultancy firm Ecofys, estimates soil manipulation is responsible for 4.4 percent of total anthropogenic emissions worldwide.

An FAO report estimated that in 2010, emissions from energy use in the agriculture sector to be in excess of 785 million tonnes of CO². A 75 percent increase since 1990. While other factors that contribute to agricultural greenhouse gases include rice cultivation, the burning of savannah, and crop residues.

Like deforestation, the consequences and issues concerning agriculture are many, and by no means limited to the emission of greenhouse gases. Although together they contribute 30 percent of anthropogenic greenhouse gases into the Earth’s atmosphere, the environmental damage that can be caused both locally and regionally could outweigh even that.

Soil erosion, land degradation and water contamination can decimate areas for both animals and humans alike, and are just some of the consequences of deforestation and agriculture. While the extinction of species is at its highest rate since the dinosaurs died out some 65 million years ago.

WASTE

The third source of direct emissions is through the waste generated by civilisation. The disposal and treatment of waste produces less than four percent or about 120 million tonnes of anthropogenic greenhouses gas emissions annually.

The main contributors to waste emissions are methane and CO², both of which are released during the breakdown of organic matter in landfills. Biodegradable waste produces between 200 and 400 cubic metres of landfill gas per tonne which is made up of between 50-55% of methane and 40-45% of CO².

The incineration of waste produces CO², as often fossil fuel based products such as plastic are burnt. While other waste treatments, such as composting or fermentation of biowaste, and pre-treatment of waste for landfill, all produce methane or nitrous oxide emissions in various quantities.

Environmental impacts of land fill site. Image courtesy EPA

Even recycling produces CO², although what is emitted is only a fraction of what would be released if new raw materials were required.

Waste management and disposal methods are always improving, and although waste produces only a small percentage of total anthropogenic greenhouse gases, those emissions are lessening each year. Despite the fact more waste is produced by ever growing global population.

As is the case with deforestation and agriculture though, perhaps waste has a greater impact on the environment than it does through greenhouse gas emissions.

In landfills for example, organic and inorganic pollutants mix together to produce a concoction known as leachate. Which despite compulsory liners, can still leak from the landfill and contaminate nearby soil and groundwater.

And it is not only on land that the effects of human waste products can be found. It is estimated that six million tonnes of rubbish is thrown into the world’s oceans each year, and that in the Pacific alone there is enough plastic to cover the US state of Texas.

The impact of waste products from our civilisation can even be seen in space. NASA estimates there are over 500,000 pieces of debris, or space junk in orbit around the Earth. This space junk travels at speeds of up to 28,000 kph, which is easily fast enough for even a small piece of debris to damage a functioning satellite or spacecraft.

NASA estimates there are over 500,000 pieces of ‘space junk’ in orbit around the Earth. Image courtesy NASA

There really can be no doubt that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions have had an effect on the Earth’s surface temperature.

While an argument could perhaps be made on any of the above affecting the Earth’s climate individually, taken as a whole any argument claiming otherwise is contradictory to the hard facts.

Data from numerous scientific organisations show that in 2013 at least 35 billion tonnes of CO² and other greenhouse gases produced from by-products of human civilisation were released into the atmosphere.

According to a review paper published last month in Nature Geoscience, cumulative global anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions from 1870 to 2013 total a staggering 1,430 billion tonnes.

To put that figure into perspective, based on the figures mentioned previously, it would take all the volcanoes on Earth (and under the sea), well over 3000 years to release that amount of greenhouse gas.

The largest historical contributor to greenhouse gas emissions by far has been the United States, who have released 370 billion tonnes. The countries that now make up the European Union are responsible for 328 billion tonnes, while Chinese emissions now total 161 billion tonnes, and India are up to 44 billion tonnes.

The 20 highest emitting countries of greenhouse gases. 1) China 2) USA 3) India 4) Russia 5) Japan 6) Germany 7) South Korea 8) Iran 9) Saudi Arabia10) Canada 11) Indonesia 12) Brazil 13) Mexico 14) United Kingdom 15) South Africa 16) Italy 17) France 18) Australia 19) Thailand 20) Turkey

The European Union is the only one of those to have reduced their emissions in 2013 according to the “Global Carbon Budget 2014,” which was published in the Earth System Science Data Discussions journal in September. The other three (US, China and India), are responsible for 90 percent of the 2.3 percent increase in emissions worldwide in 2013. Had it not been for the European Union’s significant reductions, the global increase would have been over 13 percent.

If emissions rise another 2.5 percent in 2014 as predicted by the researchers, greenhouse gas emissions will be 60 times higher than the 1990 benchmark levels agreed upon in the Kyoto Protocol of 1997.

Click on image for interactive carbon atlas created by the Global Carbon Project

Although historically the US has been the highest annual emitter of GHG, they were surpassed by China in 2007, and given China’s emissions increased by a massive 57 percent last year compared to a rise of 20 percent in the US, it would appear they will hold the ignominious title for the foreseeable future.

However the US still produces more emissions per capita having released 16.4 metric tonnes per person in 2013 compared to China’s 7.2. While not ranked high in total emissions, the oil producing countries of the Middle East are the highest per capita emitters with Qatar producing 58 metric tonnes per person, followed by The UAE at 30 and Bahrain at 28. The world average emissions per person in 2013 was five metric tonnes.

The vast majority of scientists and most governments agree that CO² and anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions must be reduced. Only last week the two largest global emitters – the US and China, entered into a new agreement of greenhouse gas emission targets.

China and the United States have reached a new agreement on reducing GHG emissions. Image courtesy Mandel Ngan.

China have agreed to stop increasing their fossil fuel emissions by 2030, while the US will aim to reduce their emissions by 26 to 28 percent of 2005 levels by 2025.

However while this new agreement is welcome news, agreements between governments have been made before, and those set targets have not been reached.

Governments change and so do their policies, and while one government may be a supporter of reducing emissions, the next may not.

Australia is a perfect example of this. The previous Labour government introduced a carbon tax on large emitters, yet that tax was abolished by the current government, led by well known climate sceptic Tony Abbott.

Australian PM Tony Abbott – a renowned climate change sceptic –  repealed Australia’s carbon tax which was introduced by the previous Labour Government. Image courtesy SMH.

And with so many powerful and influential sections of society with an opposing agenda, not to mention the fact that we, the general public are loathe to give up the comforts we have become accustomed to, the reductions are proving hard to implement.

Perhaps new scientific discoveries have more hope of reducing emissions than any governmental policy put in place.

Researchers from the University of Adelaide have developed a new nanostructured metal-organic framework  which absorbs CO² molecules from the air. The researchers suggest the material could be used to remove carbon dioxide from power plant flue gases, which would significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the production of electricity.

To a certain degree, scientific advancements got us into this predicament, perhaps scientists are the only ones that can get us out.

NASA climate scientist, James E. Hansen image courtesy Fred R. Conrad

 

 

 

 

 

 

Climate Change: The 97 percent consensus

Don’t believe everything you read

No blame just the basics

Is the the Earth really warming?

IPCC release Fifth Assessment Synthesis Report

CO² and greenhouse gases

Former NASA scientist predicts ‘dark winters’ ahead

UPDATED 30th September

The fourth article in this series on climate change looks at the 97% consensus. Is it true that 97 percent of climate change scientists agree we are the cause of global warming, and why is it so important to have this consensus?

“Real scientists are sceptical by nature. We don’t believe what our colleagues tell us until we verify it for ourselves. Scientists honestly develop views of how the world works and they test those views by experimentation. As a result of approximately 150 years of climate science, the vast majority of scientists are convinced that humans are a major cause of climate change.” Professor John Abraham, University of Minnesota (2013)

Proponents of anthropological global warming regularly point out that 97% of climate scientists are of the consensus that climate change does exist, and that we are responsible.

However this figure is hotly disputed by sceptics, who suggest the actual number is far lower and lessening each year.

Perhaps foremost in this particular debate is the consensus refers to climate scientists, and or those that have published peer reviewed work on climate change and or anthropological global warming (AGW).

The figure does not refer to all scientists.

The consensus figure of 97 percent has been arrived at through a series of studies and surveys that have been carried out by various people and organisations over a number of years.

The first, published in 2005 by Professor Naomi Oreskes, looked at articles published between 1993 and 2003 using the keyword phrase “global climate change.” Of the 928 abstracts Ms Oreskes read, she found none which rejected human-caused global warming.

Professor Naomi Oreskes, looked at articles published between 1993 and 2003 using the keyword phrase “global climate change.” Image courtesy San Diego University

In 2009 a  survey consisting of two questions was conducted by researchers at the University of Illinois for the American Geophysical Union.

An invitation to participate in the survey was sent to 10,257 Earth scientists of which 3146 took part. Of those only 79 were climate scientists and 75 out of 77 (97.4%), answered yes to the following question. “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?”

While it may be true that 97.4 percent of 77 climate scientists agreed with the question, the overall response from the 3146 surveyed was only 82 percent. Although the researchers were justified in giving more weight to the opinion of climate scientists, taken on its own this survey is hardly compelling evidence that this is the consensus among climate change scientists globally.

In 2012 James Powell – who was appointed to the National Science Board twice by conservative US Presidents (Reagan, Bush Snr), conducted a study using similar criteria to Professor Oreskes. Although Powell searched for, ‘peer-reviewed scientific articles published between 1 January 1991 and 9 November 2012 that had the keyword phrases “global warming” or “global climate change”’.

He found 13,950 articles, and of those only 24 ‘clearly rejected global warming or endorsed a cause other than CO2 emissions for observed warming.’

The fourth was carried out by Sceptical Science in 2013. John Cook and Dana Nuccitelli looked at over 12,000 peer-reviewed climate science papers from 2003-2012. They found that of the literature that took a stance either way on human-caused global warming, 97 percent were in the affirmative.

While any one of these studies or surveys on their own is not enough evidence of such a consensus, all four conducted over a period of a decade yielding almost identical results, builds a very strong case.

All four studies have been vigorously challenged by sceptics. One of the most vociferous (particularly of the fourth), being Lord Christopher Monckton, a British policy adviser, writer and columnist.

Although not having any formal training in science, Monckton is one of the most cited and widely published climate sceptics on the planet. He has even testified to the U.S. Senate and Congress concerning climate change on multiple occasions.

Christopher Monckton is a renowned climate change sceptic. Image courtesy Google images

Monckton claimed in an article titled ‘The Collapsing ‘Consensus’’ that the Sceptical Science study showed that consensus among climate scientists had actually fallen from 75 percent to 45 percent.
However Monckton has misrepresented the report, as he has done on many previous occasions, when challenging the validity of any given theory connecting climate change to humankind.

In 2009 Monckton was giving a speech at the Minnesota Free Market Institute. In the audience was John Abraham, a professor of thermal and fluid sciences at the University of St. Thomas School of Engineering.

Abraham later recalled that Monckton was a gifted speaker and very convincing. “If I didn’t know the science, I would have believed him,” he recalled later.

“Frankly, the non-scientists in the audience didn’t have a chance. They had no way of knowing what he said was not true. I felt Monckton took advantage of them and he knew he was taking advantage of them.”

Professor Abraham then spent months comparing citations Monckton had used in his arguments to the actual papers he was referring to. He then contacted the authors for a response. The following year he released a video rebutting Monckton’s theories.

Professor John Abrahams from the University of Minnesota released a video rebutting the claims of Christopher Monckton. Image courtesy Google images

In 2011 during an Australian speaking tour Monckton gave a speech at Notre Dame University in Fremantle. Many of those that attended described Monckton as “pompous” and “crazy”, and claimed his arguments contained “glaring holes”.

Law student Laura Cassie, who attended the event with her sister Alex said there was much head shaking going on and noises of disagreement from the crowd during the speech.

“The people who were in there supporting him were very, very vehemently against any government involvement in anything. It was very easy for him to score points by saying the government is sticking their nose into our business,” she said.

Alex said Lord Monckton failed to reference his work or clearly explain the details. She said his speech was like being in a first-year biology lecture waiting to pull apart the subject.

It is also worth noting that Monckton receives payment for his speeches, while the afore mentioned Professor Abraham does not. Australia’s richest woman Gina Rinehart payed $30,000 to Monckton for this particular speaking engagement. The same Gina Rinehart who, if she had her way, would use nuclear weapons to mine iron ore.

 

 

The 97 percent consensus figure was again challenged in June of this year after Geological Society of Australia president Laurie Hutton released a statement in the society’s March newsletter.

It in part said, “after an extensive and extended consultation with Society members, the GSA Executive Committee has decided not to proceed with a Climate Change Position Statement.”

The Australian’s environmental editor Graham Lloyd was the first to pick up the story. Lloyd’s article, “Earth scientists split on climate change statement“, was subsequently taken up by Andrew Bolt, Jo Nova, Watts up with that, and numerous blogs.

Almost all began with Lloyd’s original lead. “Australia’s peak body of earth scientists has declared itself unable to publish a position statement on climate change due to the deep divisions within its membership on the issue.”

They all then go on various tangents to support their claim that the 97 percent consensus is completely false. However every one of them is either distorting, exaggerating or omitting facts, including the original.

Firstly, this is a society of geologists, yet as can be seen from the lead and heading they are referred to as ‘Earth scientists’. leading the reader to believe they are something they are not. Yes they are ‘earth scientists’, but they are not climate scientists as the 97 percent consensus  refers to.

Athabasca Basin uranium mine in Canada. Image courtesy Nature.com

It is also worth noting, of all earth scientists, economic geologists (those who study geology with a view to its commercial viability), are the most sceptical. Such as perhaps Australia’s  most well known skeptic, Ian Plimer,

It would appear however that is not the case of non-economic geologists. All of the above articles also point out the refusal to release the statement was largely based on ‘letters to the editor’ in the society’s quarterly newsletters.

A look at the last eight newsletters tells a completely different story.  Out of 26 letters that were submitted concerning global warming and or climate change, 20 of them believed in anthropological global warming, while only four were against, and two were neutral.

Indeed a survey by the society themselves found 75.6 percent of members disagreed with the society’s non stance on anthropological global warming.

A number of contributors laid  the blame of the non statement on those within the society with a vested interest in mining.  A very influential group within  the society.

Almost half of geologists do believe in AGW, although the vast majority of those are non economic geologists. Image courtesy Google Images

Below are excerpts of four of the comments from the newsletters. Full versions of the society’s newsletters can be found here.

“I am confounded that of all the scientific groups, geologists seem the least accepting of anthropogenic climate change.” Peter Lane (2013)

“We must acknowledge that humans are affecting Earth’s climate in our Climate Change Statement. I would have expected members of the Geological Society of Australia to use evidence-based science before making statements on climate change.” David Denham (2013)

“It is curious that Marc Hendrickx and Phillip Playford, in the March 2014 issue [TAG 170] do not attempt to rebut anthropogenic global warming (AGW) by referring to peer-reviewed articles in the scientific literature. This is presumably because there is no body of peer-reviewed science refuting AGW.”  Stephen Sheppard (2014)

“The statement is a whitewash, a complete and total capitulation to the climate-change deniers and/or mining giants/political bosses, and is gutless, totally gutless. Worse, it is not even a document worthy of a scientific organisation.” Martin Van Kranendonk

And although the current statement over rode any prior statement, it did not stop Andrew Bolt from ‘citing’ the society’s 2012 version. Although perhaps ‘cite’ is a bit generous as Bolt has used part of a sentence that suits his agenda, but left the last part off because it did not.

However Monckton, Bolt and their fellow sceptics are not alone when it comes to altering omitting or exaggerating certain facts to suit their agenda.

The IPCC was accused earlier this month by  Brandon Shollenberger of altering the data of their AR5 Report. He provides a comparison of the original data alongside the ‘amended’ data.

In 2010 Dr Murari Lal admitted to using non peer reviewed theories in a Nobel Prize winning report released by the IPCC which he co-authored. He stated in the report the Himalayan glaciers will have melted by the year 2035.

The fact is there was no real evidence of this and the theories were nothing more than educated speculation at best. Yet he justified it by saying it was for the benefit of the region.

In 2010 Dr Murari Lal falsly stated in a Nobel Prize winning report the Himalayan glaciers will have melted by the year 2035. Image courtesy Wired.com

As Professor Rob MacKenzie from the University of Birmingham noted in an article titled “Climate change: it’s only human to exaggerate, but science itself does not. “There is little difference between politicians and scientists when both are engaged in public advocacy,” he writes.

“Both will use whatever rhetorical devices they have to win an argument,” he says.

Although MacKenzie did not refer to the media, as conveyors of information, they too should be included with politicians and scientists. The two examples shown above are evidence of that.

However he also claims that this is not the case when, “scientists speak publicly through their own very special form of mass media – peer-reviewed literature.”

While admitting peer reviews are, “by no means flawless, it does tend to make scientists cautious in their statements and wary of adversarial debate,” he says.

Although the first two studies that claimed a 97 percent consensus did not purely rely on peer reviewed papers in their findings, the third and fourth did. Yet they did all come to the same conclusion, forming a very strong argument that a 97 percent consensus is indeed the case.

So why is such an emphasis put on the 97 percent consensus?

Research has shown that the perception of consensus by the general public is linked to support for climate policy. If people are aware of an expert consensus on any issue, they are more likely to support taking action to solve the problem. This is particularly true of the climate change debate.

The consensus gap. Image coutesy Sceptical Science

Sceptics and opponents of climate action are well aware of this. In 2002 in a leaked memo from Western Fuels Association, communication strategist Frank Lutz advised Republicans “to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate.”

Sceptics often start their argument with a statement along the lines of, “the 97 consensus among scientists is a lie.” Which of course is a misleading statement, easily backed up by real evidence, and therefore very believable.

It puts what seems legitimate doubt into people’s minds through the omission of a single word, or in the case of the Geological Society non-statement example, the use of another.

As has already been established. This is not the claim. The 97 consensus is among climate scientists and those that have published peer reviewed papers. Not all scientists. Although it does appear that the majority agree.

Currently only 45 percent of the public believe there is a 97 percent consensus among climate scientists, even though the evidence strongly suggests  that is the case. Is it the figures that are misleading, or the sceptics who challenge them?

However even if the consensus is not as high as 97 percent, what is certain is that the vast majority of climate scientists do believe we are the cause of the global warming.

Indeed there has rarely, if ever been such a consensus amongst scientists on any given scientific issue, and that is cause for concern.

Proponents of AGW have also been at pains to point out the similarities between the climate change debate and that of tobacco last century.

The tobacco giants were continually able to produce experts that would categorically state, and even testify in front of governmental hearings, that smoking did not cause cancer, or any other of the myriad of diseases now associated with it. Despite the ever growing evidence to the contrary.

And we all know how that turned out.

Proponents of AGW suggest the global warming debate and that of tobacco are alike in many ways. Image courtesy Google Images

Below are statements on AGW from a number of scientific, governmental and corporate institutions both here in Australia and overseas.

International academies: Joint statement

“Climate change is real. There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system as complex as the world’s climate. However there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring. The evidence comes from direct measurements of rising surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures and from phenomena such as increases in average global sea levels, retreating glaciers, and changes to many physical and biological systems. It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities (IPCC 2001).” (2005, 11 international science academies)

The Royal Society

“Climate change is one of the defining issues of our time. It is now more certain than ever, based on many lines of evidence, that humans are changing Earth’s climate.” (2014)

International Coral Reef Science Community

“The international Coral Reef Science Community calls on all governments to ensure the future of coral reefs, through global action to reduce the emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, and via improved local protection of coral reefs. Coral reefs are important ecosystems of ecological, economic and cultural value yet they are in decline worldwide due to human activities. Land-based sources of pollution, sedimentation, overfishing and climate change are the major threats, and all of them are expected to increase in severity.”

Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO)

“Multiple lines of evidence show that global warming continues and that human activities are mainly responsible.” (2014).

Australian Bureau of Meteorology (BOM)

“The Australian region warming is very similar to that seen at the global scale. Australian land and sea surface temperatures have now warmed about 1 °C, with the majority of the warming occurring since 1950.” (2014)

Australian Academy of Science

“Although the Australian Academy was not involved in the drafting of the statement because it is not a member of this group, we do endorse the concerns expressed in the statement. As recently summarised by the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the increases in global average temperature and sea level are unambiguous and are almost certainly primarily due to greenhouse gas emissions.” (2014)

American Association for the Advancement of Science

“The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society.” (2006)

American Chemical Society

“Comprehensive scientific assessments of our current and potential future climates clearly indicate that climate change is real, largely attributable to emissions from human activities, and potentially a very serious problem.” (2004)

American Geophysical Union

“Human‐induced climate change requires urgent action. Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes.” (Adopted 2003, revised and reaffirmed 2007, 2012, 2013

American Medical Association

“Our AMA … supports the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s fourth assessment report and concurs with the scientific consensus that the Earth is undergoing adverse global climate change and that anthropogenic contributions are significant.” (2013)

American Meteorological Society

“It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide.” (2012)

American Physical Society

“The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.” (2007)

The Geological Society of America

“The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse‐gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s.” (2006; revised 2010)

U.S. National Academy of Sciences

“The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify taking steps to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.” (2005)

U.S. Global Change Research Program

“The global warming of the past 50 years is due primarily to human-induced increases in heat-trapping gases. Human ‘fingerprints’ also have been identified in many other aspects of the climate system, including changes in ocean heat content, precipitation, atmospheric moisture, and Arctic sea ice.” (2009, 13 U.S. government departments and agencies)

Network of African Science Academies (NASAC)

A consensus, based on current evidence, now exists within the global scientific community that human activities are the main source of climate change and that the burning of fossil fuels is largely responsible for driving this change.

Australian Psychological Society

“Accepts the consensus of the Australian and international scientific communities that human activities have resulted in substantial global warming over the last 60 years and that the continued growth in greenhouse gas concentrations by these activities is generating a high risk of dangerous climate change .” (2010)Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely* due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.”

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

“Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.”

European Union

“The changes that our planet has undergone throughout its history are a result of natural factors like tiny changes in the Earth’s path around the sun, volcanic activity and fluctuations within the climate system. However, humans are having an increasing influence on our climate by burning fossil fuels, cutting down rainforests and farming livestock.”

The Australian Red Cross

” Climate change will have a significant impact on billions of people, in particular, the poor, elderly, physically and mentally ill, on those who rely on climate such as subsistence/commercial farmers, and Indigenous communities, and on those living in areas of extreme climate.” (2009)

Rio Tinto

“Rio Tinto recognises that climate change is occurring and is largely caused by human activities. It poses significant risks for, and in many cases is already affecting, a broad range of human and natural systems.” (2012)

Global Investor Statement on Climate Change

The 2014 Global Investor Statement on Climate Change has been signed by over 350 investors with more than $24 trillion in assets. It represents an important contribution by the global investment community to supporting the UN Climate Summit and encouraging strong domestic and international climate and clean energy policies. The Statement sets out steps that institutional investors (both asset owners and asset managers) can take to address climate change, and calls on governments to support a new global agreement on climate change by 2015, in addition to national and regional policy measures.

The next article in this series on climate change will look at the human factors that climate scientists claim have instigated a change in our climate over the last 130 years, such as greenhouse gases, deforestation, water contamination, and over farming.

Don’t believe everything you read

No blame just the basics

Is the Earth really warming?

 

Climate Change: Is the earth really warming?

Don’t believe everything you read

No blame just the basics

The 97 percent consensus

IPCC release Fifth Assessment Synthesis Report

CO² and greenhouse gases

Former NASA scientist predicts ‘dark winters’ ahead

The previous article in this series on climate change looked at what climate change actually is and how it occurs naturally. In the third we investigate whether the Earth is warming, and if it is, is it any more than could be expected to occur naturally.

Some climat change models predict some parts of the planet will be inhabitable by 2050

Much of the fear and predictions of doom that surround the climate change debate have been due to the results of the myriad of climate models, which forecast catastrophic consequences for the planet due to anthropological global warming. Some even predicting many parts of the planet will be uninhabitable within 50 years.

However recent figures show Earth’s temperature has remained steady for the last 18 years. Sceptics around the globe have leapt on the figures, using them as irrefutable evidence climate change does not exist and justifiably calling into question the reliability of climate models.

Director of the University of Alabama/Huntsville’s Earth System Science Centre Dr John Christy and former NASA scientist Roy Spencer, compiled the figures, which came from raw data collected from 14 instruments on board a number of weather satellites orbiting Earth.

The data shows conclusively the Earth’s surface temperature has ‘plateaued’ over the last 18 years, totally contradicting all of the 73 computer climate models cited in the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2014 Fifth Assessment Report.

The average predicted rise in the Earth’s surface temperature from those 73 models was 0.8° Celsius by 2014, and 1.2° Celsius by 2023. So far the actual rise in that period has been only 0.1° Celsius.

Average predicted rise from the 73 UN climate models and actual rise.

When asked by CNN.com why the real time results differed so much from the climate models, Dr Christy was forthright in his response. “You’re going back to a fundamental question of science that when you understand a system, you are able to predict its behaviour. The fact that no one predicted what’s happened in the past 18 years indicates we have a long way to go to understand the climate system.”

Many theories have been put forward as to why the levelling out has occurred, including but by no means limited to, low solar activity, warmer oceans and fewer El Ninos. A list of theories and links to their original papers, reports and articles can be found here.

So what does this tell us? Well much to the sceptic’s delight, it shows at this point in time, and no matter who creates them, climate models cannot be relied upon to accurately predict changes in our climate. At least not until we are better equipped to do so, either through more advanced technology or a better understanding of the subject.

However neither is this ‘plateau’ evidence that the Earth is not warming, despite what the sceptics are shouting from the rooftops and would have you believe. Indeed this levelling out has occurred before, and quite recently. Although this seems to have escaped the attention of many – most notably those using it as evidence global warming does not exist.

While the Earth’s surface temperature may have levelled out over recent years, figures from NASA show it has actually risen 0.7° Celsius since 1880. This figure is supported in separate studies from the Australian CSIRO, the Japanese Meteorological Agency and the US National Climatic Data Centre amongst others.

These studies also show that while a rise in surface temperature of 0.3° Celsius occurred in the first half of the 20th century, it leveled out (as it has now), from just before 1950 to 1975. This was followed by an even more rapid rise of 0.4° Celsius that lasted until 1997, and the ‘plateau’ we are experiencing now.

So although we are experiencing a plateau currently, there is no evidence to say this will continue into the future. Just as there is no evidence to say that it will not. The only data that is reliable is historical, anything else is conjecture.

Such as further data by both NASA and the CSIRO which shows that despite the Earth’s surface temperature remaining stable for the past 18 years, nine of the last 10 have been the hottest on record. 1998 is the only year prior to this century to be in the top ten.

It is important to note that 1998 was only a year after an El Nino weather event – the most recent we have experienced.  So it would be expected that surface temperatures would either level out or subside over the following few years.

As was also established in ‘No blame just the basics’, we currently live in an interglacial period, meaning a very gradual increase in the surface temperature of the Earth is expected. However even the highest scientific estimates put that rise at 7° Celsius over the previous 5000 years, or 0.014° every century. In the last 100 years the Earth’s surface temperature has risen 20 times faster than the 50 centuries preceding it.

The 10 hottest years on record acoording to both NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

This is not speculation or theory, it is historical data confirmed by numerous legitimate sources. As has been shown historical data is the only real evidence we have, and anything else, such as computer generated climate models is nothing more than speculation.

The historical data leaves little doubt that the Earth’s surface temperature has risen dramatically over the last century or so, but whether or not that continues into the future still remains to be seen.

However given the uncertainty surrounding the future, it is vital we examine the past and present (which is all we can actually rely upon), to find the reason behind the rise in surface temperature that has occurred in this relatively short period of time.

Are we to blame?

Proponents of anthropological global warming regularly point out that 97% of climate scientists are of the consensus that we are. Although of course this figure is hotly disputed by sceptics, who suggest the actual number is far lower and lessening each year.

So who is right, and where does this figure come from?

The next article in this series on climate change will look at the 97% consensus. Is it true that 97 percent of climate change believe we are the cause of global warming, and why is it so important to have this consensus?

Don’t believe everything you read

No blame just the basics

The 97 percent consensus