Green Thinking – is it science?
Posted on February 10, 2015 by Euan Mearns
I first coined the term Wrong Thinking a few years ago and upon realising the derogatory connotations I re-christened it as Green Thinking. Greens appear not to mind being identified as Greens and so I hope I am on solid and respectable ground.
I have struggled with Green Thinking for many years, and in particular the repeated claims that it is embodied in science. This post explores the scientific credentials of Green Thinkers.
My post last week on Northern Hemisphere Snow Cover attracted what I thought was an unusual large number of comments from Green Thinking commenters. These comments provide the opportunity to analyse the essence of Green Thinking and to decide if it is scientific or not.
First let’s take a look at some the key observations I made from the global snow cover data shown above.
So what does the data have to say? At first glance remarkably little (see chart above). The mid-winter peaks and late summer troughs have been remarkably stable for a planet rumoured to be melting under the burden of atmospheric CO2 and it is necessary to interrogate the data in some fine detail to tease out the interesting story that the data have to tell.
and
In summary, for the six months September to February snow area has actually been increasing 1967 to 2014! That has to be a surprise. And for the six months March to August snow area has been decreasing. The trends are generally very gradual and barely significant. But what the data show is that the northern hemisphere is getting snowier winters accompanied by more rapid melt in spring and summer. The latter is not surprising since we know that the lower troposphere is warming (at least we think we know that to be the case).
and
A look at the January chart above (actually below) shows that January snow cover has been consistently between 45 and 50 million square kms since 1967, though a regression shows a gradual increase with time.
and
Perhaps the most significant aspect about the trends in global snow cover since 1967 is how little it has actually changed. Even though the January maximum shows a positive gradient, it is effectively a flat line. The January anomaly distribution is effectively down to “random weather”.
I feel these are very balanced, measured and accurate observations. But Green Thinking commenters for some reason begged to differ. Kit Carruthers got the ball rolling with this comment:
Warmer climate = more atmospheric moisture = more snow in winter
Warmer climate = faster snow melt in spring = more time without snow…
…which leads to lower albedo = more warming in the future
Seems pretty straightforward science (except working out magnitudes of change, of course), and observations match what is expected.
So what is wrong with this? For a start there is scant evidence of more winter snow. The maximum January snow extent is basically a flat line (see below). How on Earth can anyone seek to explain this flat line by global warming and have the audacity to claim it is straightforward science?
In addition to that we have no data for snow depth. Lesser depth may actually be put forward as an explanation for the more rapid spring melt (see below) in which case we would have less snow fall not more snow fall. The positive gradient through the data for September to December means that snows come earlier, not that there is necessarily more of it.
The suggestion that a warmer climate will lead to more atmospheric moisture is embodied in the Clausius–Clapeyron theory. There is little evidence for increased snow fall but Kit still wants to explain it using Clausius-Clapeyron that becomes a focus for Green commenters. Kit thinks that observations match what is expected. Now if this were science what is expected to happen should not change with time. Paul Matthews (not Green) points out a quote from UAE climate scientist Dr David Viner who said in the year 2000:
However, the warming is so far manifesting itself more in winters which are less cold than in much hotter summers. According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”.
“Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he said.
So what is the prediction? Does warming lead to more snow or less snow? The reality is that N hemisphere mid-winter snow extent is virtually unchanged from 1967.
Alexander then joined in with:
Euan, this is quite a weak analysis, unfortunately.
He doesn’t say why. I get the feeling that he is disagreeing with what I have to say out of principle. Alexander then joins in the discussion about temperature and water vapour content of the atmosphere saying:
Winters are much drier than summers. Simply because cold temperatures means small water vapor content
To which I reply:
I’m pretty sure where I stay this is utter rubbish. Will take me a while to muster the plots, but I’m pretty sure its rubbish for NW Europe.
The Mediterranean countries get virtually all their rain in winter. I think that’s probably true for the deserts as well. I suspect also for the Arctic where they get shed loads of summer sunshine and loads of snow in winter.
So where does this leave Alexander? While I had a good recollection of rainfall patterns in and around Europe, further afield my perceptions were much less accurate and it is just as easy to find examples where summer rainfall is higher.
So was Alexander right or was he wrong? Alexander actually links to a good presentation from The University of Washington that touches on some of the controversy surrounding water vapour feedback which I find quite insightful and helpful.
How did we get to this point? It boils down to the Green Thinkers wanting to explain an imagined increase in snow fall by global warming and in particular the pretext that a warmer world will lead to greater precipitation. So lets take a look at what satellite measurements of atmospheric water vapour have to tell us.
The chart is borrowed from Clive Best and shows us a number of things.
- Annual cycles in atmospheric water vapour with peaks centred on the N Hemisphere summer. This is counterintuitive for me since most of the ocean is in the south.
- A gradual but significant rise in water vapour from 1988 to 1998 followed by a small drop and then levelling of the trend.
Clive compares water vapour with CO2 and shows that the apparent relationship up to 1998 breaks down afterwards. What would be more interesting to see is a comparison with temperature. The data appear to be consistent with rising temperatures to 1998 and flat temperatures thereafter as recorded by the satellite temperature record. I would judge this to lend support to Clausius-Clapeyron. However, elsewhere Green Thinkers are trying to discredit the satellite temperature record in favour of the ground based thermometer record where there is extensive evidence of data tampering.
Alexander goes on:
Over the long-term (decades/centuries) of course there *IS* (or if you like, will be) a significant correlation between less snow cover and warming of the atmosphere.
Which I find intriguing. Alexander actually agrees with me that warming should lead to less snow but in the interim is happy to argue that warming will lead to more snow even though there is no evidence for more snow. And he considers my analysis to be weak.
Also warmer = wetter is simplification – it is better said – warmer = more extreme (i.e. wetter and drier at the same time).
And so here we drift into every variation in climate conceivable being explained by global warming. What about the glaciations which were much colder and much more extreme climate than we have today?
Early in the discussion thread Willem Post (non-Green Thinking) introduces an interesting point:
Your article mentioned snow cover, but what about snow cover thickness, which would indicate a measure of snow fall; there is melting between snow fall events during a season.
Any quicker uncovering of the ground due to snow cover melting would occur sooner, if covers were not thick.
In the US Rocky Mountains, snow cover thickness has been less, which means existing drinking reservoirs do not fill enough to satisfy increasing demands. More reservoirs are being built to capture more water that would otherwise be “lost”.
In New England, during some winters, when in the middle of April the snow cover was about 1 meter thick on the meadows, April and May are colder than usual, crops are planted later, harvests are less due to the shorter growing season, farmers are complaining, prices of local foods are higher.
This comment actually links to observations since the Rocky Mountains are one area that had more spring and summer snow cover back in 1967 and less spring snow cover in 2014. Willem’s comment conflates two processes 1) intra seasonal melting and 2) reduced precipitation which based on the need to build more reservoirs seems the more likely option. New commenter A. Webster joined in:
I would be interested in knowing how this data relates to total or accumulative snow fall. I ask because, growing up in the Sierra Nevadas and having spent much of my adult life in the Rockies and now living in northern Alberta, I find that it doesn’t snow nearly as much as it used to (in all of these places). I’m talking about several feet accumulative compared to snowing only a few times each season. There is definitely less total snowfall (without any charts to prove this, just ask all the locals), so I’m wondering if it’s possible to explain why the surface area of snowfall is increasing while experiencing a reduction in accumulative snowfall?
So, while we cannot admit the anecdotal information from Willem Post and A. Webster as evidence it certainly seems to be a plausible theory that the earlier spring melt comes about by lesser snow depth in a few very specific areas as detailed in my original post 1) the Rocky Mountains and 2) the Himalayas and 3) Baffin Island.
So where does this leave the Green Thinking theory as expressed by Kit. Is it Science?
Warmer climate = more atmospheric moisture = more snow in winter
Warmer climate = faster snow melt in spring = more time without snow…
…which leads to lower albedo = more warming in the future
Seems pretty straightforward science (except working out magnitudes of change, of course), and observations match what is expected.
This example clearly has nothing to do with science at all. It begins with the inaccurate observation that northern hemisphere snow fall is increasing and then seeks to explain this incorrect observation by global warming using Clausius-Clapeyron theory that is lifted from the handbook of Green thinking. In the Rocky Mountains it seems equally plausible that lesser amounts of snow fall explains the earlier spring melt and this of course is the exact opposite of the non-scientific explanation offered by the Green Thinkers. But rest assured if lesser snow fall was proven it would be explained by global warming.
A few months ago via email Roger confided that the one issue that climate science could not handle would be no change at all. Infinitely flexible rules are being abused and bent to explain all climate change by increasing CO2; warming and cooling; more rain and less rain; more ice and less ice; more snow and less snow. It should be patently obvious to anyone that this is all simply rubbish. That is not to say that increasing CO2 and other activities of mankind are not changing the climate, it is just that the changes are very subtle and not at all easy to identify against a backdrop of continual, cyclical natural change. Readers may think it is unfair to tar the official IPCC line with a brush coloured by a few unguarded comments made by bloggers. Well I assure you it is equally straightforward to expose the non-scientific line in official IPCC thinking.
I want to conclude with this comment from Retired Dave that sums things up pretty well:
The problem I see with most settled science advocates is the ability to ignore anything that doesn’t fit with the AGW theory. It seems that anything unfortunate like “the pause” gets repudiated for a decade, (in fact even 4 years ago the UKMO said it didn’t exist) then it gets admitted to, when it can’t be blocked out any longer. Then even though it is the opposite of what was predicted they say that it was what we predicted OR it is due to natural variability, which it might be. BUT natural variability didn’t exist when temps were rising, it was all due to CO2. Then we get 60+ excuses for the pause which if all were true we would be in the next glacial.
We have seen it with Antarctic sea Ice – 13 months ago “scientists” who went to prove how it was all melting like their model said, got stuck in it miles from where it was a century ago. Then it dawned and so we now have – well increasing Antarctic sea ice is what we would have expected.
We have seen it with NH winters – H/T to Paul Matthews for David Viner’s March 2000 prediction above – now the polar vortex and cold NH winters are due to global warming.
It is all just epicycles and phlogiston.
The next thing will be Arctic sea ice, which was predicted to have gone in Summer by now, but somehow it is still there and going back towards the satellite era mean – it is being ignored at the moment and the credulous MSM are, as always, still printing catastrophic melting stories usually showing a polar bear – how long before we are told that increasing Arctic sea ice and increasing polar bear numbers are signs of Global Warming.
I am not suggesting that AGW theory is completely wrong, but a scientist should always be sceptical and there is no proof yet that CO2 is a Major driver of our climate. It remains a theory and some clever computer models which have not been right yet. The constant fiddling with the temperature record, always in the same slant, leads one to further skepticism.
http://euanmearns.com/green-thinking-is-it-science/#more-7037
|
