Michael Mann's Hockey Stick Book on Global Warming

Michael Mann, the father of global warming theology, has written a book, entitled "The Hockey Stick And the Climate Wars"..

Based upon Michael Mann's previous writings and other reports, I already know his position and will not read the book. Rather, I will base my comments on the book report by Rudy Baum, in the December 10 issue of C&E News. Rudy recently retired as Editor-In-Chief of C&E News and is now a Chemical and Engineering News Editor-at-Large. During his previous term of office, he produced several articles on global warming. Those articles indicated that he was a clear advocate and supporter of the theory that mankind's recent activities has resulted in global warming. In spite of that predisposition to bias, I will use Rudy's book report as a basis for my comments on Michael Mann's positions.

Rudy reports that Michael Mann bemoans the details of release of his emails,by a hacker, attempts of persecution by Virginia Attorney General Kenneth Cuccinelli, and general attacks on his character. Such things are routine in emotional discussions by two sides having diverse opinions. I am not interested in those at present. Rather I prefer to discuss the science of the subject.

However, there is one consideration which questions Michael Mann's qualifications as a true scientist. That is, the use of the term "Hockey Stick" in referring to his graph on global warming data. The term is very catchy, such that it would normally be attributed to a promoter, rather than a scientist.

Rudy indicates that Michael makes five scientific points. I am listing these in detail and commenting on each.

1. Human activity has increased carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere.

There can be no dispute about this. Measurements of carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere over a number of years has shown that there is an increase. The increase is also logical, because in the burning of organic fuels, such as coal, petroleum, gas, wood, etc., carbon dioxide is formed. In addition the world increases in human population and also requires more animals, both of which release carbon dioxide through respiration. The only question is whether the increase is significant to climate change. It should be noted that present atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration is only 0.05%.

2. The increase in CO2 and other trace gases produced by humans has a warming affect on Earth's surface.

That is probably a true statement but lacks quantification, such that it can be misleading. To obtain a proper perspective, one must consider global warming. The mechanism is that the sun's radiation is of such wavelength that it passes through the atmosphere to the earth unimpeded. At the Earth's surface, much of it is converted to heat. The heat tends to pass back to the stratosphere, but the wavelength is now such that atmospheric gases impede the passage and the Earth's temperature is higher than it would be without an atmosphere. The greenhouse gas effect of the atmosphere tends to stabilize Earth's temperatures, such that there is relatively little difference between night and day temperatures as compared to celestial bodies without atmosphere, such as the moon.

Measurement of a greenhouse gas effect can be done in the laboratory. Carbon dioxide is approximately twice as effective as the normal atmosphere in resisting the passage of heat. The transmission numbers, which are the reverse of insulation numbers are 14 mW/(mK) for carbon dioxide and 24 mW/(mK) for the atmosphere in general. However, keep in mind that the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is only 0.05%. To put it in perspective, a lighted match can burn your finger, but does it SIGNIFICANTLY increase the temperature of a room.

3. Thermometer measurements show that, by the mid-1990s, Earth had warmed by about 1°F since preindustrial times.

There seems to be no reason to dispute this statement. If proper measurements show that to be the case, so be it. However, let us be careful to not read into the statement that man has caused the 1°F increase. There is another potential cause for the increase, and that is the sun's activity with respect to radiation output and distance from Earth.

4. Sophisticated models have been developed to investigate the causal mechanism behind changes in Earth's climate.

This is an intimidation statement. As the word "sophisticated" is used, the message is that it is so intellectually complex, a normal person cannot understand it. Hogwash! If a normal person cannot understand it, it probably doesn't exist. In addition, most scientists will agree that models can be developed to show anything that one wants to show. The only way to prove the veracity of the model is to ferret out each of the assumptions on which the model is based. We also have a nice example of how fiction can pervade reality in videos showing Spiderman walking up the sides of buildings.

I would like to see one model showing a believable causal mechanism for low atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration to significantly affect global temperatures.

5. Only when human factors are included do those models reproduce all of the observed warming.

I don't understand why this was included as a separate item. Presumably, Item 4 was a study to prove that atmospheric carbon dioxide affected the Earth's climate and that the believable mechanism must have included carbon dioxide concentration.

There is no doubt that with the burning of fossil fuels and respiration of increased humans and cattle, there is an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration. Proof or even plausible speculation that such carbon dioxide concentration increase has had a significant effect on global temperatures is yet to be forthcoming.