Nexus - 0906 - New Times Magazine-pages

Page Content (OCR)

atmosphere, where the heat is trapped, before warming the surface of the Earth below. If this science is correct, then one of the temperature records must be incorrect, most likely the surface record that shows the warming, because of known errors. But if there has been no warming in the last two decades, then many of the IPCC's claims which depend on such warming are simply false. Likewise, prior warming shown in the surface temperature record may be false. Even worse, if both temperature records are correct, then our understanding of the greenhouse effect is incorrect. This is a huge dilemma for the science, and there is a great deal of speculation about it, some of which is alluded to in the third paragraph quoted. It should be noted that there is a widespread misconception that a National Academy of Sciences panel resolved this issue in January 2000. In fact, the panel concluded just what I have said above: that we do not understand how this contradiction can arise, if both temperature records are correct. Simply to gloss over this deep scientific uncertainty is a major omission indeed— perhaps the greatest omission in the UN IPCC SPM. by +0.05 +0.10°C per decade, but the global average surface tem- perature has increased significantly by +0.15 +0.05°C per decade. The difference in the warming rates is statistically significant. This difference occurs primarily over the tropical and sub-tropical regions. "The lowest 8 kilometres of the atmosphere and the surface are influenced differently by factors such as stratospheric ozone deple- tion, atmospheric aerosols and the El Nifio phenomenon. Hence, it is physically plausible to expect that over a short time period (e.g., 20 years) there may be differences in temperature trends. In addi- tion, spatial sampling techniques can also explain some of the dif- ferences in trends, but these differences are not fully resolved." These three paragraphs mask a profound contradiction in cli- mate change science, a contradiction that should be highlighted and discussed but is merely glossed over—namely, that the satel- lite temperature record contradicts the surface record. What the section headline does not say is that virtually all of the atmospheric warming is in the balloon record of the first two decades of the four-decade period—the 1960s and 1970s—when the surface record shows only a little warming. Then the surface record shows rapid warming for two decades while the (then new) satellite record shows virtually no warming at all, except for the 1998 El Nifio. Thus, while the statement in the first paragraph that the trends are "similar" is statistically correct, it ignores the fact that the changes occur at completely different times. The last two para- graphs state correctly that these are significant differences that are not fully resolved, but any discussion of what it means is simply omitted. What is omitted is the fact that climate science cannot explain this contradiction. Greenhouse gases have to warm the Uncertainty due to Aerosols The IPCC has suppressed the far-reaching significance of aerosol forcing, not only in the WGI SPM text but in the model- ling as well. The enormous—and growing—uncertainty as to the effect of aerosols on climate is masked in the discussion and is deliberately suppressed in predicting the future. If included, the UN IPCC's 100-year prediction would embrace the possibility of no warming, or even cooling. Discussion of aerosols in the UN IPCC WGI SPM begins on page 5 with this headline: "Emissions of greenhouse gases and The global mean radiative forcing of the climate system for the year 2000, relative to 1750 Mineral Dust Aviation-induced Contrails Cirrus. Solar (albedo) only 26 ¢ NEXUS Level of Scientific Understanding SPM Figure 3: SPM presentation of forcings www.nexusmagazine.com OCTOBER — NOVEMBER 2002