Climate Change Part II, science

About 1970 with the advent of large computers, scientists could, for the first time, do computer models of the atmosphere.  They could ask how much reflectivity and retention of heat occurred when certain chemicals were added or subtracted to an atmosphere.  So you might ask what happens if I have an atmosphere with a lot more methane as in the early days of the planet? Or before forests, in say, the Devonian age, CO2 was probably 20 times as high, so what would happen in the computer model if we changed that?  The answers were that increasing CO2 makes it warmer and increasing SO2 makes it colder.  Indeed CO2 can be produced by man.  The models predicted rapid temp increases the amount of CO2 could be radically increased.   Perhaps this could be produced by man due to modern activity and machines.  This speculation developed into a political issue since an obvious solution would be to limit CO2 output.  The Left could warn of dire climate changes caused by industrial progress and could attempt to control people (which is their real desire) and their emissions. But were the models correct?  Actual climate observations after CO2 emissions have been much less pronounced.

            The climatologists knew there were other effects.  Among them was cloud cover and haze.  Humidity or haze tends to trap heat while cloud clover tends to cool the climate.  The tops of clouds are 98% reflective—brilliant white.  So the obvious question: what’s the effect of increased clouds and can this be observed.  This is what the atmospheric scientists in conjunction with NASA were doing in flyovers of northern OK in the 90’s and bringing those atmospheric scientists to my hotel. 

            Ocean currents and changes are also important.  The oceans are 14,000-18,000 feet deep and fairly uniform in depth.  But only the upper 500 feet has currents and changes in temperature. Below that the water is uniformly cold. Since water holds 5 times the heat energy per volume as land, the oceans are the climate moderators of the earth.  But what if by some turbulence or other effect, some of the deep cold water is mixed with the surface? This would immediately change climate.  Or vice versa, what if the surface gets more laminar and less mixed?  Then you have more heat. 

            Finally there is solar radiation’s fluctuation .  This is least well-understood since we don’t know how the sun changes. Run models based on just 1% loss of radiation and climate changes disastrously.

            Now comes an important point.  The order of importance of each of these 4 effects (radiation, currents, clouds, chemistry) goes in reverse order.  In other words, we think solar radiation is the biggest effect.  After all it changed the Little Ice Age suddenly and radically.  Next in importance are oceanic effects that are suspected in the Dust Bowl, Younger-Dryas, and Sahara desertifications.  Next in importance are the clouds, finally the chemical content.  So then if CO2 changes are present, they may easily be outdone by the other changes.  Moreover it is not well-known how much man’s emissions of CO2 affect the entire amount.  Estimates of total CO2 in the atmosphere vary enormously, by a factor of ten!  When you see such unknowns in gathered data, it raises a red flag with most thoughtful scientists.  Then what is the amount of CO2 that is manmade?  Estimates vary widely again. You can see how some have concluded that Manmade Global Warming via CO2 emissions is a hoax or a miniscule effect.  And indeed, since about 1980 we have been measuring ocean temperatures.  From 1980 to 2000 about half a degree of warming was observed.  But then since 2000 we have lost about a quarter of a degree.  Something unknown caused the world to cool down.  Couldn’t be man’s activities since much of the 3^rd World has gone from bicycles to autos. So when you see folks like Senator Inhofe calling global warming a hoax, this is why.