This is a review of a talk found on YouTube “Glacier Change
and Sea Level Rise” by Dr. Alex Gardner from JPL. https://youtu.be/ZJYs8L84L4s
Accepted Facts
The science in this presentation is very impressive.
The following are facts that I accept
- CO2 is increasing
- Global Temperatures are rising
- Oceans are rising
I agree that this can have an enormous economic impact as we
try to address increased flooding in coastline areas and other costs.
Some helpful points from the video:
At 4:58, The discussion of solar heating and thermal cooling.
At 7:38, the presentation of ice cores for determining
climate history (CO2 levels and temperature levels)
At 10:42, the current CO2 levels
At 15:28, the presentation of rising temperatures and the
discussion of the hiatus.
At 16:39, the discussion of how much of an impact a small
temperature change can have.
At 17:08, the discussion of rising sea levels
At 19:24, the mostly negative effects of climate
change. I give Dr. Gardner credit for
actually showing a positive consequence, such as more land and improved
agriculture (this shows intellectual honesty).
At 21:03, the melting of the glaciers
At 25:37 to 27:59, the discussion of the impressive sensors
that NASA has to measure glacier loss and sea level rises.
At 28:00 to 33:30, the discussion of what is happening today
At 43:40 to 46:44, presents impressive future satellites
that will be deployed to help measure changes.
At 47:20 An argument for the attention to Climate Change is
that the attention has resulted in investment that has contributed to
improvements to the science.
Disputed Science
I dispute the public discussion of climate change science because
it excludes the following points:
- Ice loss has been occurring for 400 years and is primarily due to an over accumulation of ice in the last mini ice age
- As the earth warms, the thermal emissions get proportionally greater with an increased counter cooling effect.
- Model predictions of the future are unreliable.
I discuss these points in further detail.
Lacks full Disclosure of Causes for Climate Change
The IPCC technical report states our current glaciers are
out of balance since the build up during the “Little Ice Age” and have been
melting for about 400 years and will continue melting even without man-made
warming .
“There is high confidence that current glacier extents are
out of balance with current climatic conditions, indicating that glaciers will
continue to shrink in the future even without further temperature increase.”[1]
The IPCC technical report is the only place I’ve seen this
information and I’ve never heard it discussed by climate change supporters.
59:45 A question was asked about when was the last ice
age. This would have been a perfect
opportunity to talk about the “Little Ice Age” but the question wasn’t
answered.
Model predictions of the future are unreliable
I have over a decade of experience in scientific modeling. This experience includes using real world
data to validate the models. All models
use approximations and the smallest thing can result in an inaccurate
model. The “Butterfly Effect” is proof
of the instability in predictive models for complex systems. While the power of modern computing and
sophistication of the science that goes into models is awe inspiring, it can
blind the scientist to these limitations.
35:00 “What happens next?” The presentation begins a lengthy
discussion of numerical modeling which is used to predict 50 to 100 years in
the future.
Dr Gardner shows his bias towards the value of models with
statements like:
·
“One thing we can be certain of” (13:18),
·
“Fantastic ocean models” (39:56)
·
“We know where it’s going in the future” (35:57)
·
“The question is not if this is gonna happen..
That was already determined” (47:44)
The problem that I have with model predictions is that you
can’t predict the future. While CO2
levels and temperature are strongly correlated, there are many other factors
that prevent models from predicting decades into the future.
1.
Water is a more significant greenhouse gas than
CO2, yet our models can’t tell what will happen as the earth warms. Will more water evaporate, creating a blanket
that blocks the sun and results in cooling?
2.
There are large natural cycles in CO2 and temperature. What natural forces were at play? How will nature respond to increased CO2 over
the coming decades? For example, increased
CO2 results in more plants. Will a
greener planet clean up the CO2 naturally?
I might accept a model predicting trends a few years into
the future but decades as shown in:
·
Presentation of temperatures at the end of the
century (13:18)
·
Shows a 1 to 2 meter rise in sea levels over the
next century (18:31)
·
Simulation of melting glaciers runs to the year
2500 (36:55)
Dr. Gardner does provide acknowledgement of some of the
limitations
·
“The problem is that we only have a very short
record” (38:56)
·
“We’re working on the details of how much and
how fast” (47:44)
Disregard for Thermal Cooling
As the earth heats up, the amount of thermal cooling is
proportional to the 4th power of temperature. I ran MODTRAN simulations to determine that
temperature changes were about a quarter of the predictions found in the literature
at the time (2009).[2]
The latest IPCC technical report seems to have corrected this mistake, however
there seems to be a general disregard for this powerful cooling effect.
At 50:00 in the video, the first question from the audience
was regarding runaway temperatures after all of the ice melts. Dr. Gardner’s response included no insight on
how the earth temperatures would be moderated by thermal cooling. It’s not the ice that is keeping earth cool.
At 51:42 in the video, Dr Gardner does allude to this
cooling by stating that temperature rises more slowly as CO2 levels get higher
and higher.
Attitudes of Alarmist and Deniers
I also take issue both Climate Change Alarmists and Climate
Change Deniers on the following points:
·
The attitudes they take towards each other
·
The sensationalism of information
·
Ignoring information
·
Taking a balanced approach instead of all or
nothing
An example of attitudes toward others is found at 3:24 when Dr
Gardner tells the story of his surgeon asking if humans are contributing to
climate warming. He then refers to
climate change as “a done deal” and wonders why “we haven’t been able to reach
these smart individuals”. The audience
laughs. He brings up his surgeon again
in a dismissive tone at 20:46.
Regarding sensationalizing, both sides use it to support
their viewpoints. For example, a climate
change denier might point to a freezing winter scene and ask sarcastically, “What
Global Warming?”
At, 23:40 a video of an iceberg calving is shown. It’s stated that this represents 1% of all
the ice in New Zealand, but the video is of a glacier in Greenland. Creating a statistic using an unrelated smaller
land mass is sensationalizing. Dr.
Gardner states that the calving event was so large that it was measured by a
seismograph in North Dakota. This is
sensationalizing the event. Is climate
change creating much larger seismic calving events or do regular, seasonal calving
events also trigger seismic readings?
Extreme events happen so let’s be honest when they are due
to normal seasonal changes.
Perspective
At 48:03, the perspective is given showing that on a tiny
spec of a planet, all known life exists.
I believe that man has stewardship over the earth and a
responsibility to take care of it. The
problem is that if we put an imbalanced focus on climate change, we may
allocate more attention on this problem than potentially more critical
environmental concerns such as managing our resources: the oceans, forests,
etc. and limiting other sources of
damaging pollution.
Let’s be more honest about climate change. Man doesn’t have as much to do with climate
change as the alarmists claim and we can’t know what will be happening 50 to
100 years in the future.