Nieuwe klimaatkritische publicaties

Hans von Storch, University of Hamburg

Deze uitspraak is juist als men uitsluitend zijn licht opsteekt binnen de kring van aanhangers van de menselijke broeikashypothese (AGW = Anthropogenic Global Warming). Binnen klimaatsceptische kringen zijn echter wèl hypothesen geformuleerd die een antwoord op die vraag zouden kunnen geven.

Het bekende wetenschappelijke tijdschrift, 'Energy & Environment', is zojuist uitgekomen met een speciaal nummer gewijd aan de klimaatproblematiek onder gastredactie van Arthur Rörsch en Peter Ziegler.

Hieronder volgt de tekst van hun redactionele inleiding.

The Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) concept, which claims that during the last 40-50 years man-made CO2 emissions played a central role in progressive warming of the Earth’s climate, is the rationale of the Kyoto Protocol, adopted in 2005 by 191 countries. However, at the renewal of this protocol in late 2012, only a minority of its former supporters committed themselves to continued reduction of anthropogenic CO2 emissions. By early 2013, Canada, Japan, New Zealand and Russia had withdrawn from the Kyoto Protocol while the USA had never ratified it.

The Kyoto Protocol is based on the assessment reports of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which is responsible for the scientific rationale that justifies reduction of the anthropogenic emission of so-called ‘greenhouse gases’. While the IPCC does not conduct research on its own, it compiles and evaluates scientific literature on climate change and climate-forcing mechanisms. Of its three Working Groups, only WG1 addresses the science of climatology.

In 2012, when the first phase of the Kyoto Protocol ended, only the European Union, Australia, Iceland, Norway, Switzerland and Croatia endorsed its extension to 2020. With this limited number of supporters, the Kyoto Protocol ceased to be internationally binding. Despite increasing concerns about implications arising from Kyoto Protocol stipulations for energy and development policies, the IPCC continues, with strong support of the European Union, to propagate prevention of putative catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW). The IPCC and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), which claim to possess quasi-exclusive authority and the support of the best scientists in the field of climate science, concluded, based on computer simulations, that only anthropogenic emissions can be invoked to explain the global warming observed since the middle of the 20th century (see IPCC AR4, 2007, fig. 9.5).

Despite obvious uncertainties, the IPCC devoted its efforts mainly to advocating the AGW postulate instead of demonstrating that increased atmospheric CO2 concentration is indeed responsible for the observed warming, and assessing possible alternative explanations for the observed climate change. Due to this lack of balance in climate research, scientists not affiliated with the IPCC network, and who are therefore not funded by national governments and international organizations such as the EU, have for years seriously challenged the AGW hypothesis and IPCC predictions. Scientists criticizing the AGW hypothesis, also referred to as AGW antagonists, climate sceptics or simply deniers have repeatedly sought a direct dialogue with the IPCC network. Yet, AGW protagonists persistently resisted a free exchange of views with antagonists. Moreover, lead authors of IPCC draft assessment reports largely disregarded invited comments submitted by AGW antagonists.

Given the socioeconomically harmful consequences arising from implementing the climate-engineering policies of the Kyoto Protocol, it is vital to critically assess the validity of scientific arguments backing the AGW postulate. This is the objective of this Special Issue of Energy & Environment that addresses a selection of key controversial processes inherent to the concept of anthropogenic climate change.

The coincidence of rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations and increasing average surface temperatures can, however, no longer be considered as conclusive evidence for the AGW concept, as postulated by the IPCC in its Summaries for Policy Makers. This postulate, which is fundamental to the AGW concept, is based on the fact that CO2 absorbs and emits infrared (IR) radiation. This leads to theoretical descriptions of radiation transfer processes in atmospheric columns that are based on the well-known Planck and Lambert-Beer physical laws. The question arises, however, whether these ‘laws’, considered in their restricted sense only, also apply in the complex global climate system as assumed at first sight.

Invoking the properties of so called thermal reservoirs in the climate system, R. Clark discusses how energy transfer processes in the atmosphere can be identified, thus challenging the prominence of the greenhouse gas effect, as suggested by basic physical properties.

Moreover, it is obvious that climate variability studies at geological time scales provide important insight in so far as particular phenomena may be physically related or coincide fortuitously. This leads to the crucial question of ‘what is cause and what is effect’ and, if so, ‘to what extent in a complex system’. This is illustrated by the paper of H.N.A. Priem that reviews the continuous change in average global temperatures and atmospheric CO2 concentrations through geological times.

The emphasis of the IPCC on the fact that atmospheric CO2 concentrations continuously increased during the last century while surface temperatures rose cyclically, tempts to seek correlations with other signals of climate variability, although this is fundamentally questionable due to the complexity of natural climate variability. For instance, M. Khandekar shows that the frequency of extreme weather events has not increased during the last few decades, despite numerous contrary press reports and forecasts by the IPCC.

Furthermore N-A. Mörner, reviewing the AGW postulate of an ongoing rapid rise in sea level, finds that the alarmist scenario of impending flooding of low lying coastal areas is not compatible with factual data.

The ‘projections’ of future climate development, often wrongly referred to as ‘predictions’, are based on so-called General Circulation Models (GCM). In two short notes S.F. Singer addresses the validity of these models, stressing their chaotic character and how this can be overcome, and that observational evidence contradicts the occurrence of tropical Hot Spots.

In the same vein, F. Engelbeen evaluates the way aerosol effects are accounted for in GCM and concludes that reality is simply disregarded.

In their concluding paper A. Rörsch & P.A. Ziegler further elaborate on misunderstandings inherent to the AGW concept that arise from the neglect of new insights gained from Complexity Theory. The danger of man-made global warming has been widely challenged by independent scientists since warming during the last 100 years is limited to about 0.80C. In this context, the use of a global average temperature increase as an important signal must be challenged.

In a short note D.H. Douglass & J.R. Christy address the disparity between observed surface and troposphere warming rates.

A. Rosema et al report on METEOSAT thermal infrared band observations of the Earth surface temperature change during 1982-2006, which indicate a slight global surface temperature decrease. Some spots show, however, a temperature increase, that can be explained in terms of major human interventions with the water balance at the Earth’s surface.

Since the dominant climate-forcing effect of human CO2 emissions, as postulated by the IPCC, is seriously questioned and probably plays only a subordinate role, the well-documented variations in solar activity probably underlay the documented fluctuations in global surface temperatures during geological, historic and recent times. In this context, van Geel & Ziegler present evidence that the effect of variations in solar activity has been seriously underestimated by the IPCC.

Furthermore, N. Scafetta shows that climate changes are mainly regulated by solar, astronomical and lunar harmonics at multiple scales. Moreover, he shows that climate models supporting the AGW concept fail to reproduce two major aspects of climate fluctuations, namely that (1) the claim of the GCM that variations in solar activity contribute little to climate change, akin to the hockey stick model, is not consistent with modern temperature reconstructions reflecting large millennial oscillations in solar activity, (2) the GCM fail to correctly reproduce all natural climatic oscillations at decadal and multidecadal scales.

I.R.G. Wilson presents evidence for lunar tidal control on the ENSO oscillation and solar-lunar tidal control on the Pacific Decadal Oscillation.

In their concluding paper A. Rörsch & P.A. Ziegler address further shortcomings of the AGW concept. Furthermore, they point out that solar activity, varying in response to planetary forcing, and related feedback mechanisms probably dominates climate fluctuations, with anthropogenic CO2 emissions playing a subordinate, though discernible role.

All papers of this compendium were reviewed by at least two referees and whenever possible by AGW supporters and critics. In case of a negative review report, comments by additional referees were sought. In several cases this led to an extensive exchange of views between authors and referees and corresponding manuscript revisions, which were subject to a second round of peer review prior to acceptance for publication.

We gratefully acknowledge the participation of fifty reviewers who invested their time to critically assess papers forming this special issue.

Prof. (em.) Dr Arthur Rörsch, The Netherlands, Former vice president of the Netherlands Organization for Applied Research, TNO.

Prof. (em.), Dr Dr h.c. Peter A. Ziegler, Switzerland, Member (em.) Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences, KNAW.

Voor mijn eerdere DDS-bijdragen, zie hier.