A note on points related to the science of climate change in ‘ An appeal

to reason: a cool look at global warming’ by Nigel Lawson

There has been no global warming since the turn of the century – even
though carbon dioxide emissions have been rising faster than ever.
It is true that global average temperature has remained roughly constant over
the past decade, but this in no way undermines the evidence that greenhouse
gases are causing warming. The key point is that short-term temperature
trends are meaningless in the context of global warming, because global
average temperature fluctuates from year to year and from decade to decade
due to natural, internal processes in the climate system, such as the ‘El Niño
Southern Oscillation’ (ENSO). Over a short number of years, the variability
caused by these processes is large compared to the changes expected due to
greenhouse gases, so it is not at all surprising when the temperature trend is
constant or negative over a period of a decade or so (close examination of the
temperature record reveals that this has been the case many times during the
20th century). In order to see the effects of greenhouse gases, it is necessary
to examine the long-term trend, which has clearly been upward (global
average temperatures are now about 0.75°C warmer than they were 100
years ago, and the last decade has been the hottest since records began).

Global average temperature change (relative to the 1961-1990 average) from 1850
until 2009. Blue line represents the smoothed data series. Grey bars represent the
95% uncertainty range on the annual averages.

Computer models failed to predict this ‘21st century standstill’.

We are reasonably certain about the change in global average temperature
that we would expect from a given change in greenhouse gas concentrations
(about 3°C for a doubling of carbon dioxide concentration). It remains very
difficult, however, to predict year to year changes caused by short-term,
internal processes in the climate system such as ENSO – primarily because

1
the climate system is chaotic1. This is why scientists have more confidence in
projections of temperature change over several decades than they do in
projections of temperature change from one year to the next. It is also why
they are not surprised when decadal-scale predictions are ‘wrong’, but would
be extremely surprised if temperatures weren’t warmer than today in 30 years
time. Our ability to make accurate decadal-scale predictions is improving all
the time, as our understanding of the climate system improves.

Global average temperature was higher in 1998 than during any year
between 2001 and 2007.
It is meaningless to compare global average temperature in any two years
within a period of a decade or two, because natural climate variability can
cause temperatures to fluctuate by up to about 0.3°C from year to year,
meaning that it is very likely that a particular year will be cooler than a
preceding year over such a short time period. 1998 was an unusually warm
year, largely due to a natural climate phenomenon known as an El Niño
event, so it is not surprising that the following years were cooler. It is the long-
term trend in temperature that reflects increasing greenhouse gas
concentrations, and this remains upward. As noted above, the decade 2000-
2009 has been warmer, on average, than any other decade in the previous
150 years.

Solar activity may explain recent temperature changes, including the

‘standstill’ since the end of the 20th century.
Changes in solar activity do affect climate — indeed, model simulations show
they may have been an important cause of warming during the early 20th
century — but they cannot account for the warming observed since the middle
of the twentieth century. There is no correlation between solar activity and the
strong warming over this period. Direct measurements of solar output since
1978 show a steady rise and fall over the 11-year sunspot cycle, but no
overall trend. Similarly, there is no trend in direct measurements of the Sun's
ultraviolet output or in cosmic rays2. So, for the period for which we have
direct, reliable records, the Earth has warmed dramatically even though there
has been no corresponding rise in any kind of solar activity.

Calculations of global average temperature are unreliable due to (i)

difficulties associated with calculating a global average from the
individual weather stations around the world, and (ii) errors in data from
1
It is worth noting that models do indicate that the warming due to increases in greenhouse
gases will not be smooth from year to year but will vary, including occasional periods of
cooling, even if it is not possible to predict exactly when such periods of cooling will occur.
2
There has been speculation that changes in solar activity could affect cloudiness, but the
mechanisms are not clear, and the magnitude is uncertain.

2
much of the developing world and the former Soviet Union, particularly
before the past few decades.
Global average temperature is calculated from measurements taken at over
4,000 land-based weather stations and over 3,000 free-floating buoys, as well
as ships and moored buoys. Scientists who calculate global average
temperature from these measurements are well aware of the issues involved
in doing so, including incomplete coverage and the fact that some
temperature measurements are less accurate than others. They use
advanced statistical techniques to provide robust estimates of global
temperatures with error bars that factor in uncertainties from these sources.
The temperature increase over the twentieth century greatly exceeds these
uncertainties.

Independent estimates of air temperature near the surface over land, sea
surface temperatures and air temperatures measured from the decks of ships
at night all show a similar global trend in warming (with a slightly greater
warming over land, as expected from both basic physics and model
simulations). Measurements of atmospheric temperatures over the last few
decades also show warming.

Furthermore, the evidence that the world is warming does not rest solely on
the robustness or otherwise of the direct temperature record. Warming can be
seen in a range of other variables: the extent of summer minimum Arctic sea
ice has decreased by 0.6 million km² each decade since the 1970s, spring
now arrives on average about ten days earlier in the UK than it did in the early
1970s, and global sea level has increased by about 10 cm in the last 50
years.

The record of temperature change in the United States, which ought to

be a reasonable proxy for the Northern Hemisphere, shows more
cooling in the middle of the twentieth century than the Met Office Hadley
Centre’s record of average Northern Hemisphere temperature.
Furthermore, in the US record only 3 of the last 12 years are among the
warmest since records began and the warmest year of all was 1934.
Global warming is not expected to be spatially uniform because the
atmosphere and the oceans redistribute heat around the world. Thus, it is not
surprising that different regions show different patterns of warming.
Temperatures have increased in the contiguous United States over the past
few decades, but the rate of warming has been lower than in other parts of the
world (1934 is indeed the warmest year in the record) due to the patterns of
atmospheric and oceanic circulation that determine temperatures in North
America. The U.S. comprises less than 2% of the surface area of the globe,
so temperatures in this region are not representative of the Northern
Hemisphere as a whole.

3
The expansion of urban areas can explain recent warming.
The effect of urban areas on temperature has been examined thoroughly and
found to have a negligible effect on the global temperature record. Urban
areas do affect temperature locally, but climate scientists are well aware of
this effect and account for it in datasets of land temperatures. It is also worth
noting that urbanisation cannot have had any effect on the widespread
warming observed in rural areas and over the ocean.

Water vapour is far and away the most important greenhouse gas
Water vapour is indeed the most important contributor to the ‘greenhouse
effect’ – the natural warming of the Earth’s surface caused by greenhouse
gases, which keeps the planet about 30°C warmer than it would be otherwise.
However, this in no way undermines the conclusion that human emissions of
CO2 and other greenhouse gases are the main cause of recent warming – for
two reasons. First, human activities are not directly adding significant
quantities of water vapour to the atmosphere. Second, the concentration of
water vapour in the atmosphere is determined mainly by temperature, with
any excess ‘raining out’ within a few days – so even if human activities were
adding more water vapour to the atmosphere, it would not accumulate there
(in contrast, CO2 and other greenhouse gases emitted by human activities
have relatively long lifetimes – decades or longer – in the atmosphere and so
accumulate, causing warming). It is worth noting that although water vapour
is not a direct cause of global warming, it does play a significant role as a
‘feedback’ effect, because the atmosphere can hold more water vapour at
higher temperatures, which in turn causes more warming.

CO2 is not pollution — plants need it to survive, and the more there is,
the more plants will grow.
Plants do indeed need CO2 to survive, and increasing levels of CO2 can
stimulate plant growth. This is known as the ‘CO 2 fertilisation effect’,
and it may increase the productivity of some plants if CO2
concentrations continue to rise. However, scientists have shown that
increases in productivity caused by this effect will not be universal
because other conditions (such as nutrient availability)
quickly become limiting. In addition, climate changes caused by
increasing CO2 concentrations are likely to decrease productivity in
many regions.

The science of clouds, which have a critical effect on climate, remains

uncertain. Also, they way they are included in climate models gives a
warming bias. Thus, we can’t say with certainty that most of the
observed increase in temperature is due to greenhouse gases.

4
It is true that it is difficult to represent clouds in climate models (although there
is no compelling evidence that they introduce a warm bias) and that both the
response of clouds to climate change and the associated feedbacks are not
fully understood. However, climate modellers are well aware of the
uncertainties these issues introduce and factor them into the uncertainties
associated with model simulations. Furthermore, some attribution studies rely
on the pattern (in time and space) of the observed and simulated changes in
climate and so are insensitive to errors in the magnitude of model simulations.
The IPCC took these factors into account when it concluded that most of the
observed increase in global temperatures since the mid-20th century is “very
likely” (i.e. more than a 90% probability) due to the human-induced increase in
greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere – so the uncertainties certainly don’t
undermine this conclusion.

We can’t be sure that most of the observed increase in temperature is

due to greenhouse gases because global temperatures haven’t followed
changes in greenhouse gas concentrations over the 20th century,
particularly in the middle of the 20th century, when temperatures fell, and
during the early 20th century, when the concentrations of both
greenhouse gases and aerosols increased.
It is true that the trend in CO2 concentrations over the last century does not
exactly match the trend in temperature. But we do not expect it to –
mainly because greenhouse gases are not the only determinant of
temperature. Factors such as solar activity, volcanic eruptions and
human emissions of aerosols also have an effect. During the early 20th
century, increasing solar activity, and perhaps a reduction in volcanic
activity, may have contributed to the warming observed. The slight
cooling during the middle of the 20th century appears to have been
associated with an increase in the concentration of sulphate aerosols in
the atmosphere caused by the increase in industrial activity at the end
of the Second World War and a large volcanic eruption in 1963.

Satellite records of warming in the tropical troposphere (lower

atmosphere) are not consistent with what climate models say we should
expect.
In the tropics, warming is expected to be slightly greater in the troposphere
than at the surface, due to changes in the amount of water vapour in the
atmosphere as it warms. This difference is not seen in some satellite records
– but the critical point here is that the differences are within the uncertainties
of the satellite observations. Uncertainties are particularly large for satellite
records (they are currently an order of magnitude larger than in surface-based
records) because satellite measurements are affected by non-climate effects

5
such as the body temperature of the instrument and satellite drift in orbit,
which need to be accounted for correctly.

A leading climate scientist (Kevin Trenberth) has stated that “…none of

the models used by the IPCC are initialized to the observed state and
none of the climate states in the models correspond even remotely to
the current climate”.
In the article in which this statement appears, the author points out that
climate models can provide robust projections of global climate change
without reproducing every feature of the current climate state because the
projections are based on the amount of climate change between two points in
time. However, he also points out that a different modelling technique — in
which models are ‘initialized’ with observations of the current climate state —
can provide more accurate forecasts, particularly over the first few years.
Most modellers agree with this statement and a number of groups are working
to develop this method (including the UK’s Met Office Hadley Centre), but the
technique is still being validated, is expensive and time-consuming, and relies
on the availability of observations, so it may be some time before it can be
widely used to make climate predictions.

Earth’s climate has experienced natural variations, so natural factors

could be responsible for recent climate change.
Natural processes such as changes in solar output, volcanic eruptions and
changes in the Earth’s orbit around the Sun can affect climate and have led to
relatively warm periods in the past, some of which were warmer than today.
However, the spatial pattern and trend of recent warming can only be fully
explained by human emissions of greenhouse gases (over the past three
decades there has been no long term trend in solar activity but there have
been a number of major volcanic eruptions, which cool climate). It’s also worth
noting that warm periods in the past were not without consequences. For
example, during the last interglacial, when temperatures were only a few
degrees higher than today, sea level was 4 to 6 metres higher — a rise
sufficient to inundate many of the world's coastal cities.

The ‘hockey stick’ curve, which was included in the IPCC’s Third
Assessment Report, has been comprehensively discredited.
The ‘hockey stick’ graph was the result of the first comprehensive attempt to
reconstruct the average Northern Hemisphere temperature over the past
1,000 years. It was based on a number of different temperature indicators,
including ice cores and tree rings. The graph indicates that the average
Northern Hemisphere temperature remained relatively constant until the last
part of the 20th century, when it increased relatively suddenly. The methods
(particularly the statistical methods that underpin it) and data used to

6
construct the graph have been criticized, and most climate scientists agree
that the original graph can be, and has been, improved. However, most
scientists also agree that the main conclusion drawn from the graph — that
the warming of the late 20th century is unprecedented in the past 1,000 years
— is likely to be true3.

Climate change varies across the world — for example, the Greenland
ice sheet is melting at its edges but thickening at its centre — allowing
climate-change alarmists to ‘cherry pick’ the examples they use to
support their position.
Climate change due to greenhouse gases is not expected to be uniform
around the world. All the examples presented are consistent with our
understanding of how greenhouse gases affect climate. Specifically, high
latitudes warm faster than low latitudes due to feedback effects associated
with the retreat of snow and ice. Glaciers have advanced in some regions
because glacier extent is determined by the amount of snowfall as well as
temperature and climate change has increased snowfall in some regions
(though overall the trend is for an accelerating rate of mass loss). Similarly,
snowfall has increased over the cold interior of the Greenland ice sheet,
increasing its thickness there, but rising temperatures have increased melting
around the ice sheet’s edge.

Sea levels have been rising very gradually for as long as records exist
and there is little sign of any acceleration so far. Indeed one study 4
indicates that the rate may have been lower in the second half of the 20 th
century than during the first. Over the last few decades sea level has
been falling in the Maldives sea level rise has been negligible in Tuvalu.
In contrast to the assertions made, the best available records of global sea
level change indicate that the rate of sea level rise accelerated between the
late 19th century (when reliable records began) and the late 20 th century,
reaching an average of 1.8 mm yr-1 over the period 1961-2003. Geological
records indicate that over the previous 2,000 years, sea level change was
small, ranging from 0.0 to 0.2 mm yr-1.

Sea level change is not expected to be uniform around the world because
factors such as ocean temperature, salinity, winds and ocean circulation all
affect sea level at regional scales, particularly on short timescales. Satellite
measurements indicate, for example, that between 1993 and 2003 the rate of
sea level rise was several times the global mean in some regions, while it fell

3
Note that this is a much weaker conclusion than that based on the instrumental temperature
record over the last 100 years which was assessed to be “unequivocal”, reflecting the poorer
quantity and reliability of palaeo-reconstructions, particularly in the earlier years.
4
Holgate, S.J. 2007 On the decadal rates of sea level change during the twentieth century.
GRL, 34 (1).

7
in the eastern Pacific and western Indian Oceans. A recent study by Church
et al. (2006)5 estimated sea level rise at Tuvalu to be 2.0±1.7mm/yr from the
two available records starting in 1977 and 1993.

Potential impacts of global warming have been greatly exaggerated, in

particular the claims that: there will be a sharp rise in the intensity of
hurricanes, the Arctic and Antarctic ice sheets will melt, and the Atlantic
thermohaline circulation will shut down.
Mainstream scientists do not claim that these changes are likely to occur, at
least over the next hundred years or so. With regard to hurricanes, the IPCC’s
Fourth Assessment Report concluded that there is more than a 66% chance
that future tropical cyclones (typhoons and hurricanes) will become more
intense, but did not suggest that there will be a sudden change, and noted
that there could be a decrease in the total number of tropical cyclones
globally. On ice sheets, it concluded that neither rapid loss of the Greenland
Ice Sheet or collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet are likely to occur in the
21st century, although it also noted that the Greenland Ice Sheet is likely to
shrink considerably if temperatures continue to rise, and that imperfect
knowledge of ice sheet dynamics means that more abrupt changes could
occur. Finally, it concluded that there is more than a 90% chance that the
meridional overturning circulation (MOC) in the Atlantic Ocean will slow down
to some degree during the 21st century, but that there is a less than 10%
chance that it will undergo a large, abrupt transition during this period.
Importantly, however, the report also concluded that the likelihood of such
‘low probability, high impact’ events occurring increases as temperatures rise.

There is no evidence that the Greenland ice sheet is experiencing net ice
loss. This is not surprising because the 1930s and 1940s were the
warmest decades on record in Greenland. 90% of the Antarctic ice sheet
is increasing in size.
There is strong evidence that the Greenland Ice Sheet has decreased in size
over the last 10-15 years, with thickening in central regions due to increased
snowfall more than offset by increased melting in coastal regions (it is difficult
to tell how the mass changed before the early 1990s due to a lack of
observations). Temperatures in the high Arctic are indeed thought to have
been similar to today in the 1930s, but this in no way undermines the
conclusion that recent changes are due to greenhouse gas emissions. The
pattern of warming in the 1930s (which was localised at high latitudes) shows
that the high temperatures in the Arctic were caused by a natural, internal
process in the climate system known as the “Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation”,

5
Church et al, 2006, Sea level rise at tropical Pacific and Indian Ocean islands. Global Planet.
Change, 53, 155-168.

8
whereas the widespread warming observed over recent decades is consistent
with it being the result of increasing greenhouse gas concentrations.

There is considerable uncertainty about recent changes in the total size of the
Antarctic ice sheet. Recent work indicates that it has been roughly neutral to
slightly negative over recent years. What is important to note here, however,
is that we would not expect the size of the Antarctic Ice Sheet to have
decreased significantly, partly because atmospheric circulation around the
continent prevents warmer air from reaching it. There has also been a small
increase in Antarctic sea ice extent since the satellite record began in 1978.
This small change is consistent with the combined effects of greenhouse gas
increases and reductions in the ozone layer, which cause increases in some
regions, such as the Ross Sea, and decreases in others, such as the
Amundsen-Bellingshausen Sea.