A Cool Look At Global Warming

Following on the post about Russian scepticism over Anthropogenic Global Warming, I see scientific doubts from China too…

“Even though the CO2 greenhouse effect on global climate change is unsuspicious, it could have been excessively exaggerated. It is high time to re-consider the trend of global climate changes”

Multi-scale analysis of global temperature changes and trend of a drop in temperature in the next 20 years, Lin Zhen-Shan and Sun Xian, The School of Geographic Sciences, Nanjing Normal University, Nanjing, P. R. China, Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics, July 2006

In the context of global warming (“climate change”) we so often hear the mantras “the debate is now over” and the “overwhelming scientific consensus is blah blah“.

But there are plenty of scientists who don’t follow the supposed party line. One such is Habibullo Abdusamatov, the head of the space research laboratory at the St. Petersburg-based Pulkovo Observatory.

In an interview with the Russian News & Information Agency Dr Abdusamatov stated:

“Global warming results not from the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, but from an unusually high level of solar radiation and a lengthy – almost throughout the last century – growth in its intensity. It is no secret that when they go up, temperatures in the world’s oceans trigger the emission of large amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. So the common view that man’s industrial activity is a deciding factor in global warming has emerged from a misinterpretation of cause and effect relations” [Jan 15 2007]

The point is not so much that he is right (though of course he may be). Rather it gives the lie to the idea that the men in white coats are of one mind on this (apart from a few big-oil-financed lackeys!)

Of course fanatical warmers are prone to respond to this kind of counter-example by saying “ah, when we say consensus we don’t mean by that that you can’t find academics with top qualifications in mathematics, physics, or whatever who disagree with us. Rather we mean that if you look at a select list of peer-reviewed journals, then you will find consensus. Oh, and by the way, we’ll tell you which are the ‘good’ journals in which to look for the consensus“

I think this is a key battle line in the debate. The concept of “peer-reviewed consensus” is being put forward as lying at the heart of the methodology of science. It is essential for the warmers’ case that that are able to hold the line on this.

But can “peer-reviewed consensus” carry the weight that the warmers want to put on it?

If we are to test a scientific conjecture by its predictions, how damming should it be to the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) to discover that Arctic sea levels have been falling, not rising, by about 2mm per year over the last decade?

Well in fact that is exactly what has been happening if we are to believe the data from the European Space Agency’s (ESA) ERS-2 satellite. There is a BBC report on the findings here.

Of course against this we have to consider that the satellite measurement of sea level is extremely tricky. Also it may well be that a sea level fall in the Arctic is “just” a local phenomenon. Elsewhere sea levels may be rising – and indeed a collation of satellite measurements is thought to indicate a global rise of 3.2mm per year from 1992 to 2006.

But then the forecasts for rising sea levels are so apocalyptic they seem to leave little room for falling levels anywhere! For example, writing in Science Express (December 2006) Dr Stephen Rahmstorf from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research is predicting a sea level rise of between 0.5 to 1.4 metres above 1990 levels by 2100.

Well it seems to me that taken overall the measured rate is lagging significantly behind this predicted rate. And in the Arctic the Gods of the sea level just don’t seem to be playing ball and would appear to be completely deaf to the AGW agenda!