Setting the record straight about climate science

Editor:

The letter from Ben VanHees (April 21: Climate scientists have done nothing to earn respect) contains a number of misleading statements which need to be corrected.

To start, the IPCC scientists did not and do not work for pay from the UN. The IPCC website clearly states, “Experts contributing to the review will do so without any remuneration.” And they didn’t work for a solid year: a glance at the call for applications at the IPCC website mentions frequent week-end gatherings and rely on email the rest of the time.

Secondly, the hockey stick graph, based on an analysis of tree rings (used as temperature estimations) showed clearly how temperatures were fairly steady for hundreds of years and then spiked in the last part of the 20th Century.

The hockey stick graph has been the focus of attacks by certain right wing national newspapers, perhaps because it was prominent in the Third IPCC Report (we’ve received the Fourth and IPCC is working on the Fifth) and in Al Gore’s film. Yes, two Canadians found errors in the Mann “hockey stick” paper, not by visiting trees, but by obtaining the original data and re-analyzing it. However, independent assessments agree that, although there was one small error in the paper, the overall conclusions were reasonable. This website http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptic_arguments/fakeddata.html has a nice summary of the controversy.

VanHees says that replication is the basis of the “scientific method” and charges that Michael Mann, one of the authors of the hockey stick graph, refuses to release all of his data. How then did the two Canadians re-analyze it? In fact, Mann’s data are available (see the website above for links). More importantly, the research findings shown in the hockey stick graph have been replicated again and again, using different temperature proxies and different methodologies. The findings have been published in peer-reviewed journals, such as SCIENCE (arguably one of the top science journals in the world) unlike attempts to discredit the research.

That the earth is warming is accepted by the national academies of the G8 countries (http://www.nationalacademies.org/includes/G8+5energy-climate09.pdf) and even by most skeptics who now focus on the cause. There are local temperature changes such as receding glaciers and earlier spring break-ups. More importantly, global temperature averages show the warming (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/). Quick action is imperative.
________

Mark Sandilands

Published in the Lethbridge Herald 2010-4-29, page A8

Global warming is real and urgent (Letter to the Herald, Jan. 12, 2009

Editor:

Several letters recently published in The Herald have said current signs of global warming are part of a natural cycle. Further they say we should not take any precautionary steps to reduce our CO2 emissions because they might be too expensive. The warming we're seeing is NOT part of a natural cycle but is the result of an increase of CO2 and other greenhouse gases that humans have put in the atmosphere over the past 150 years. Glaciers are retreating, arctic ice is disappearing, methane is bubbling up from the permafrost, and islands are submerging.

How do we know the cause is CO2? First, CO2 concentration has increased from 284 ppm (parts per million) from the early 1800s to 387 ppm currently. Second, based on research done over 100 years ago, CO2 in the atmosphere is a greenhouse gas that traps heat. The planet Venus, for example, has vastly more CO2 in its atmosphere than Earth. Its surface temperature is 467° C, not because it's closer to the Sun, but because of the CO2.

Two main factors in global temperature are the sun and CO2. If we only use fluctuations of solar radiation (the sun) over the past 50 years, we are just like someone who tries to predict a child's height based only on the height of one parent. However, if we use solar radiation and CO2 levels over the past 50 years, we get better results. The test of accuracy of our prediction is to compare the actual temperature record with the results of prediction models. Climate scientists have found that their set of predicted temperatures are most accurate if they include CO2 and solar radiation in their models. If they don't include CO2, their prediction runs are inaccurate.

Global warming is real and it's urgent to take steps immediately to reduce our use of fossil fuels. It's nothing short of insane to listen to those who say it's a natural cycle and we can continue to spew CO2 into the atmosphere.

A final note: 1970's ice age predictions were predominantly media based with the majority of scientific papers (42 to 7) predicting warming (http://tinyurl.com/2vdj8u). We've had the information for years. At this point, there should be no debate, only urgently needed action.
________
Mark Sandilands

Lethbridge