• Mon
  • Dec 22, 2014
  • Updated: 12:46am

Astounding to deny that climate change is caused by humans

PUBLISHED : Friday, 03 January, 2014, 3:38am
UPDATED : Friday, 03 January, 2014, 3:38am

I refer to G. Bailey's letter ("Still a lot of doubts about climate change", December 17).

He wrote: "No one denies climate change; the climate changes all the time."

However, that definition of climate change cannot be described as its mainstream meaning with all its widely understood connotations, a meaning that is accepted by the overwhelming majority of climate scientists. As such, he takes a position antipodal to that of numerous people believing in, or working on various parts of, the "climate change regime" in which the term "climate change" has a standard definition which he denies.

People like Danish astrophysicist Henrik Svensmark, who believe that solar activity variations have large impacts on global temperature, are only partially correct because they conveniently ignore two scientific facts. First, solar activity variations have roughly an 11-year cycle (hence, short term) and, by themselves, are not a determinant of long-term global warming or cooling. Second, decreased solar cycle intensity, as is currently the case, reduces heating of the earth but by a small fraction of the long-term - and increasing - heating of it due to rising atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide.

Atmospheric carbon dioxide is now pushing 400 parts per million and increasing. Its gain since 1800 has already caused a global temperature rise of 0.8 degrees Celsius. Its major human- caused sources are land-use changes and fossil fuel combustion. Its heat-trapping physics are well known. Satellite data has unequivocally shown that the earth has been re-radiating less energy back to space than the solar radiation it receives. This trapped heat is somewhere in the earth's system, causing whatever system it is in to warm up.

The earth's oceans are monitored by more than 3,000 Argo floats. These floats measure the oceans' temperature, salinity, and current from the surface down to a depth of two kilometres. Fifteen years of Argo data show that the upper 2,000 metres of oceans have been gaining heat at a rate faster than that due to solar cycle variability.

Satellite radar, photo, and gravity data has confirmed a global sea level rise and ice loss from Greenland, Antarctica, and glaciers. Sea levels rise because the oceans' waters are warming and expanding, and because ice sheets are warming and melting.

Persistent denials of the causative relationship between climate change and anthropogenic carbon dioxide are astounding.

Patrick C. Lui, Palo Alto, California, US


More on this story

For unlimited access to:

SCMP.com SCMP Tablet Edition SCMP Mobile Edition 10-year news archive



This article is now closed to comments

What news editors won't tell you;
The scientific consensus is "could be" NOT "will be" a crisis and find us one IPCC warning that agrees beyond "could be" a crisis.
"Climate change is real and is happening and COULD (never "will be" or "inevitable" or "eventual"..) lead to unstoppable warming."
"could be" is not "will be" a crisis.
Perhaps the "loss" in credibility is due to massive funding to push climate change from an accepted topic into a controversial one?
The Sun and the climate are not showing a positive relationship to claim the solar activity is the major player in the current climate change.
Antarctica is gaining sea ice (which sees seasonal growth and loss), but losing land ice.
Surface air temperature is not how the climate is measured. The Earth is still warming.
I'm assuming you are supporting the climate change argument because water vapour amplifies the effect of CO2 in warming the planet.
A new study shows that water vapor high in the sky and the temperature at the Earth‘s surface are linked in a “feedback loop” that further warms our climate. Published today, this study gives the first estimate of the size of the feedback‘s effect, which may help researchers improve modeling to better understand climate change.
“Water vapor in the stratosphere increases in tandem with increases in the Earth‘s surface temperature,” said coauthor Sean Davis, a scientist with the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES) at the University of Colorado Boulder, who works at the NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory. “Because water vapor is a greenhouse gas, this generates additional warming. We show that this feedback loop could be about 10% of the climate warming from all greenhouse gases.”
The new study, published online on September 30 in the prestigious journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, quantifies the magnitude of the stratospheric water vapor feedback for the first time, making use of satellite observations and a climate model
“While it‘s not really surprising that this process is going on, we were surprised at how important the process is for our climate system,” said Andrew Dessler, an atmospheric sciences professor at Texas A&M University, lead author of the paper. Dessler was a CIRES Visiting Fellow this year, working with Davis and other colleagues on this paper
You can read the report here : ****link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10712-011-9123-5/fulltext.html
It's unfortunate that such articles are published, when the author has little scientific understanding. Sunspot cycles are are typically 11 years. However, their intensity varies greatly from cycle to cycle. The Maunder minimum went for about 80 years, with extremely low sunspot activity, which coincided with the Little Ice Age. No-one expects an 11 year temperature cycle.
The 0.8 degC increase was over the past 160 years, starting about 1910 - well before significant human emissions. Why did the temperature start increasing in 1910?
Sea level has been increasing for the past 20,000 years. Why is it suddenly caused by anthropogenic global warming?
The Earth has been warming - what do you expect as we come out of the Little Ice Age - it's nothing unusual.
Antarctic ice area has been increasing for as long as records have been kept - I suppose that's "global warming"
Remember the famous signature "hot spot" above the tropics? This is what the computer models predicted, and was going to prove once and for all that anthropogenic warming was real - can't be found.
Lastly, there's the computer models - all predicted steady temperature rise. Not one predicted the pause over the past 17 years, despite increasing CO2 - all failures.
The last paragraph refers to denial of the causative relationship. What causative relationship? You might cherry pick a period with correlation, but certainly not causation. I challenge you to produce a real causation relationship.
Yes, there IS climate change. The world is getting cooler, and is positively freezing in parts of the northern hemisphere.
That is just general scientific writing. You will rarely see scientists deal with absolutes because they aren't omniscient.
XYZ - "The Sun and the climate are not showing a positive relationship to claim the solar activity is the major player in the current climate change." Did I say it was? However, it's difficult to ignore the timing of the Little Ice Age, and Maunder period.
The theory of water vapout amplifying warming has merit, but it fails to allow for negative feedback (eg increased cloud cover, causing cooling). The theory is yet to be backed up by any supporting data.
There are mixed reports on total Antarctic ice mass. Jay Zwally in his report "Mass Gains of the Antarctic Ice Sheet Exceed Losses” concluded that "During 2003 to 2008, the mass gain of the Antarctic ice sheet from snow accumulation exceeded the mass loss from ice discharge by 49 Gt/yr (2.5% of input), as derived from ICESat laser measurements of elevation change."
Don't believe everything you read on John Cook's skepticalscience blog site. John has confessed that he's no more than a self employed cartoonist. The site is dominated and moderated by alarmists, and contrary views are heavily censored, and when cornered, it often resorts to abuse. I suggest you broaden your information sources.
Yes, you did implied it.
I would appreciate it If you would be so kind as to provide me with a link to Zwally's full journal article. The abstract mentions a mass gain, but doesn't specific how much.
Just like there are "alarmist" sites, there are also "denier" ones. Mr. Cook's website may be a blog, but he references multiple journal articles to back up his own claim. Please do not resort to ad hominem attacks.
Thanks, though I was hoping for the Zwally 2012 paper that you quoted. In the 2011 paper you linked me, Zwally's finding didn't support the larger rate/volume of loss estimated by other studies, but still concluded that the Antarctic is losing ice mass.



SCMP.com Account