IMPACT

IMPACT

BACK TO GENESIS
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

A Realistic Look at
APOLOGETICS

BACK TO GENESIS

STEWARDSHIP

GLOBAL WARMING
CREATION Q & A

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

RESEARCH

APOLOGETICS

STEWARDSHIP

CREATION Q & A

RESEARCH

FROM THE EDITOR

LEGACY

CONTENTS

V E R N O N

R .

C U P P S ,

. D . ,

ince the late 1980s, global warming has been hotly debated,
with many arguing that Earth is undergoing potentially catastrophic man-made climate change. Is Earth getting warmer? Is such warming, if real, dangerous? And is it caused by
human-produced carbon dioxide (CO2)? Or, to put it another way, is
catastrophic anthropogenic (man-made) global warming (abbreviated as CAGW) real?
There has been a warming trend for much of the 20th century.
In fact, ICR scientist Larry Vardiman did his own independent analysis of three different datasets and concluded that warming had probably occurred for at least the last 30 to 50 years.1
10

ACTS

&

FACTS

APRIL 2016

a n d

J A K E

H E B E R T ,

. D .

But past warming is no indication that such warming will necessarily continue. In fact, there has been an apparent pause in this
warming trend for the last 18 years.2 Nor does a warming trend automatically prove that human activity is responsible.
A recent article in Eos, however, attempted to establish as fact
that human activities drive global warming.3 The author, Dr. Shaun
Lovejoy, did this by supposedly disproving the only alternativethat
observed warming is due to natural causes. He calls those who support this alternative hypothesis denialists because they supposedly
deny the obvious facts of science.
Lovejoy attempts to show that increased amounts of atmo-

spheric carbon dioxide are responsible for an increase in global temperatures of about 1 Celsius over the last 125 years. He does this by
making a plot of change in global temperature against a stand in or
proxy for radiative forcing due to atmospheric CO2 (Figure 1).4 Radiative forcing is an indication of a gass ability to affect the earths climate. (See the sidebar for a more detailed discussion.) Lovejoy argues
that there is only a one-in-three-million chance that natural causes
could produce this temperature rise, although he later acknowledges
that a more realistic estimate is one in a thousand.

Radiative Forcing
Most of the suns energy striking the earth warms our planets
surface and atmosphere, but some of this energy ultimately escapes
back into space. If the total energy absorbed by the Earth-atmosphere
system is a little greater than the amount lost to space, then this net
gain in energy will have a global warming effect. But if this input of
energy is a little less than the energy lost to space, then global cooling
will occur.
Radiative forcing (DF) is a measure of the ability of a greenhouse
gas like CO2 to affect this energy balance. It is equal to the change,
caused by a change in concentration of the gas, in the net energy
input per unit time (measured in watts) to a square meter (and at a
specified height) of the earths atmosphere. Radiative forcing is approximately equal to:

{ }
W
m

C in units of
D F A 1n
2

Log2 (co (t)/co pre)

2
2

CO2 radiative forcing proxy

C0

The constant A depends on which greenhouse gas is being studied. For CO2, A is 5.35 W/(m2). C is the concentration (in parts per
million by volume) of the greenhouse gas in question, and C0 is a
reference concentration of the gas, normally taken to be that from the
pre-industrial era.
One expects increased atmospheric carbon dioxide to result in a
higher average global surface temperature. This increase in temperature is called the temperature anomaly and is indicated by the symbol
DT. But the actual amount of this warming depends on a quantity
called the climate sensitivity , measured in C/(W/m2).

D T D F in units of C

Figure 1.
Image Credit: American Geophysical Union. Adapted for use in accordance with federal copyright (fair use doctrine) law. Usage by ICR does not imply endorsement of copyright holder.

A History Lesson
But are long-lasting changes in climate really that unlikely?
Abundant historical evidence shows that significant, long-term climate fluctuations lasting hundreds of years have taken place. These
fluctuations occurred long before human CO2 contributions became
significant. Even scientists who believe that humans are causing global warming acknowledge that human contributions to atmospheric
CO2 were practically negligible until the early- to mid-1900s.5

Because the atmospheres behavior is quite complicated, there

are feedback processes that can either enhance or diminish any potential warming caused by an increase in atmospheric CO2. These
processes affect the value of , which in turn affects the amount of
warming that actually occurs. A high value of (for CO2) would imply that a given increase in atmospheric CO2 will result in significant
warming, while a lower value would imply that it would not. Those who
are very concerned about this issue generally argue that the climate
is very sensitive to increased atmospheric CO2, with a high value of
(say, 1.2C/(W/m2)), while those who are less concerned tend to
argue that the sensitivity for CO2 is smaller (say, 0.4C/(W/m2)). For
this reason, the true sensitivity of the climate to increases in atmospheric CO2 is at the heart of the climate change debate.
This issue of sensitivity is closely related to the reason past
climate models have often failed to accurately predict future warmingcomplicated feedback processes in the Earth-climate system
make this a difficult exercise.

APRIL 2016

ACTS

&

FACTS

11

EVENTS
IMPACT
BACK TO GENESIS

Yet thereTO
have
beenEDITOR
two significant changes in climate within
LETTERS
THE

the last thousand yearsthe Medieval Warm Period (roughly 950

APOLOGETICS
1250 A. D.) and the Little Ice Age (roughly 13001850 A. D.). Because
these changes in climate occurred before humans could have caused
STEWARDSHIP
them, the mere existence of these two periods is a real problem for
CREATION
& Athe possibility of natural changes in climate.
any attempt to Q
dismiss
For this reason, some who believe in CAGW have attempted to miniRESEARCH
mize the significance of these past climate fluctuations, despite abundant historical evidence for their reality.6,7
For instance, one of the best-known images in the global
warming debate is the hockey stick graph of Penn State University
climatologist Michael Mann, so-called because it resembles a hockey
stick turned on its side with the blade pointing up. The hockey stick
has been used to argue that the late 20th century was characterized
by unprecedented warming, since Manns statistical analysis significantly cooled the Medieval Warm period. However, Manns work
has been widely criticized, and a more conventional analysis indicates
that 20th-century warming is not unprecedented (Figure 2).8
0.5

Temperature Index (deg C)

0.4

Corrected version:
20th century no longer highest

0.3
0.2
0.1
0
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3

Mann et. al. 1998 contains data errors

-0.4

-0.5
1400 1450 1500 1550 1600 1650 1700 1750 1800 1850 1900 1950

Figure 2. The red line is the smoothed version of Manns estimated

northern hemisphere temperature anomalies index for 14001950 A.D.
The blue line shows the results if the data are analyzed correctly rather
than using Manns unconventional approach. The Medieval Warm Period dramatically re-emerges, and the 1990s ceases to be the hottest period of the millennium.
Image credit: Multi-Science Publishing Co. Ltd. Adapted for use in accordance with federal copyright (fair
use doctrine) law. Usage by ICR does not imply endorsement of copyright holder.

The Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age raise an obvious question about Lovejoys reasoning. If not one but two significant
long-term changes in climate have occurred within the last thousand
years, before humans could have influenced climate to any significant
degree, then perhaps such naturally occurring changes in climate are
not nearly as unlikely as Lovejoy claims!
Moreover, Lovejoy seems to be underestimating the probability
of natural changes in climate. His argument assumes that temperatures from hundreds of years ago can be known accurately to within
just one-tenth of a degree Celsius (0.1C).3 But these temperatures
12

ACTS

&

FACTS

APRIL 2016

were not measured with thermometersnot even crude thermometers. Rather, they were estimated from things like tree rings, boreholes, ice cores, etc. Because these are indirect estimates of temperatures, the true uncertainty is almost surely a lot more than Lovejoys
optimistic estimate of 0.1C. Using the same reasoning he used, but
with larger estimates for these temperature uncertainties, would imply that significant natural changes in climate are much more probable than he asserts.9
An interesting side note is that many evolutionists absolutely
dismiss out of hand the possibility that any observed global warming
could be due primarily to natural causes. For instance, the National
Center for Science Education has made advocacy of a belief in manmade global warming a priority.10 Yet even by Lovejoys own calculations, the lowest probability he can estimate against recent warming
being the result of natural causes is one in three million (1 in 3106).
Compare this to a probability of 1 in 110106 that the simple protein insulin can form by pure chance.11 Yet evolutionists claim that
the insulin protein did somehow form by chance, even though such
an event is much less likely (by their own reasoning) than long-term
natural climate variation, which many of them confidently dismiss
as an impossibility. Why? Could it have something to do with their
worldview?
Lovejoy quickly dismisses other factors that can affect climate,
such as changes in solar activity. But mounting evidence shows that
the sun can indeed subtly influence weather and climate by affecting
the number of cosmic rays (energetic protons) entering the atmosphere. In fact, the Ph.D. work of one of this articles authors found
additional evidence for this possibility.12 Also, increases in temperature can actually cause an increase in atmospheric CO2 via releases
from the oceans. A well-known rule in chemistry called Henrys law
states that the amount of gas that can be dissolved in a liquid decreases with increasing temperature at constant pressure. This is the
reason a can of soda goes flat as it warms. Indeed, some datasets show
atmospheric CO2 increasing before temperature goes up.13 So, are
temperatures, particularly ocean temperatures, causing an increase in
atmospheric CO2, or are warmer temperatures the result of increased
atmospheric CO2, or is it some of both?
Another problem with the argument that human-produced
carbon dioxide could lead to climate catastrophe is that this argument implicitly assumes that the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide in the pre-industrial era was consistently much lower,
about 270 parts per million (ppm), than todays value of about 400
ppm. It also assumes that todays value is truly abnormal.
Systematic measurements of atmospheric carbon dioxide have
been made at Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii since 1959, and
these measurements do indeed show an increase in CO2 from about
310 ppm to todays value of 400 ppm.14 However, scientists also made
thousands of measurements of atmospheric CO2 between 1812 and
1958. Although not as precise as the modern Mauna Loa readings,

many of these older measurements are estimated to have been accurate to within 3% of the true values and were good enough to show a
seasonal cycle that is also apparent in the Mauna Loa measurements.
These suggest high values of atmospheric carbon dioxide around the
years 1825, 1857, and 1942, with the 1942 value comparable to todays value of 400 ppm.15
Specialists are aware of these data but generally dismiss them in
favor of estimates of atmospheric CO2 inferred from ice cores. However, gases tend to escape from the cores after their removal from the
surrounding ice, which implies that such estimates will tend to be
lower than the true values. Even so, there is evidence from a shallow
Antarctic ice core that amounts of CO2 may have been as high as 328
ppm within the last hundred years or so.16 But recent jumps in the
amount of atmospheric CO2, both before and during the industrial
period, suggest that atmospheric CO2 can vary due to natural causes,
not just human influences. We have already mentioned one possible
source for such variationwarming oceans, which would release
more CO2 into the atmosphere.
The Climate Change Model Problem
Finally, much of the alarmism surrounding this issue results
from climate computer models that predict considerably higher temperatures in the coming decades as a result of increasing atmospheric
carbon dioxide. Obviously, the particulars of different models will
vary, but a general overview is presented in the sidebar. However, in
the past these climate models have consistently overestimated the
amount of future warming, as shown in Figure 3.17 If one looks at
these climate change model predictions for the temperature anomaly
from the present to 2050, they vary from 0 to 2.5C, a significant disparity between models. The observational data are very near 0 for the
temperature anomaly.

Figure 3. ExxonMobils compendium of observed data and model predictions, based upon IPCC reports, for global temperature change over
the next 35 years.
Image Credit: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Adapted for use in accordance with federal copyright
(fair use doctrine) law. Usage by ICR does not imply endorsement of copyright holder.

Clearly, there are major disagreements between different models about any significant global warming. But the data accumulated

thus far seem to support the models (hypotheses) predicting global

warming of no more than 0.5C through 2050.
It should also be remembered that carbon dioxide was part of
Gods very good creation (Genesis 1:31). Plants breathe carbon
dioxide, and there is evidence that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is causing more plants to grow, even in dry areas.18 There are
also indications that the pre-Flood world may have had more atmospheric carbon dioxide than we do at present, and this increased
CO2 may have contributed to a much more temperate pre-Flood climate.19 So even if CO2 is warming the planet today, Christians have
no reason to panic over this issue.
So many variables affect Earths climate that its difficult to see
how a computer model can accurately predict future changes, especially given our present imperfect understanding. Earths atmosphere
is subject to numerous intricate interactions, and we still dont have
a firm understanding of its overall long-term sensitivity. If we want
a realistic assessment of climate change, we need to 1) do our homework and learn from history, 2) continue to study the data with
great diligence, and 3) refrain from jumping to conclusions based on
skewed climate models and short-sighted assumptions.
To be sure, God has appointed man to be custodian of His
Earth. We should be good stewards of what He has given us, but we
enter dangerous territory if we presume to be able to control and
shape to our will what God has made. The law of unanticipated consequences inevitably intervenes.
References
1. Vardiman, L. 2007. Evidence for global warming. Acts & Facts. 36 (4).
2. IPCC AR5 Working Group 1 Highlights. Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis.
Center for Climate and Energy Solutions. Posted on c2es.org, accessed January 21, 2016.
3. Lovejoy, S. Climate Closure. Eos. Posted on eos.org October 20, 2015, accessed January 21, 2016.
4. Ibid, Figure 1a.
5. Stocker, T. F. et al. 2013. Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. T. F. Stocker, eds. New
York: Cambridge University Press, 51.
6. Klevberg, P. and M. J. Oard. 2011. The Little Ice Age in the North Atlantic Region Part I: Introduction to Paleoclimatology. Creation Research Society Quarterly. 47 (3): 213-227.
7. Watts, A. The truth about We have to get rid of the medieval warm period. Watts Up With
That? Posted on wattsupwiththat.com December 8, 2013, accessed January 21, 2016.
8. McIntyre, S. and R. McKitrick. 2003. Corrections to the Mann. et. al., (1998). Proxy Data Base
and Northern Hemispheric Average Temperature Series. Energy & Environment. 14 (6): 751771. Figure 2 of this article was taken from Figure 8 of the McIntyre and McKitrick paper.
9. This was astutely noted by commenter Tyler Durden in the Comments section below the
online version of Lovejoys article (reference 3).
10. Showstack, R. 2012. Defending climate science. Eos. 93 (5): 51.
11. Coppedge, J. F. 1977. Evolution: Possible or Impossible? Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 102.
12. Hebert, L., B. A. Tinsley, and L. Zhou. 2012. Global electric circuit modulation of winter cyclone
vorticity in the northern high latitudes. Advances in Space Research. 50 (6): 806-818.
13. Vardiman, L. 2008. Does Carbon Dioxide Drive Global Warming? Acts & Facts. 37 (10): 10.
14. Full Mauna Loa CO2 Record. NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory. Posted on esrl.gov,
accessed January 18, 2016.
15. Beck, E. G. 2007. 180 Years of Atmospheric CO2 Gas Analysis by Chemical Methods. Energy &
Environment. 18 (2): 259-282.
16. Jaworowski, Z. Climate Change: Incorrect information on pre-industrial CO2. Statement written for the Hearing before the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation March 19, 2004. Posted on john-daly.com, accessed January 18, 2016.
17. Adapted from Figure TS.14 in Stocker et al, Climate Change 2013, 87.
18. Thomas, B. Global Warming? Trees to the Rescue! Creation Science Update. Posted on ICR.org
July 22, 2013, accessed January 21. 2016.
19. Humphreys, R. Gods global warming worked just fine. Creation Ministries International. Posted on creation.com August 11, 2009, accessed
January 18, 2016.

Drs. Cupps and Hebert are Research Associates

at the Institute for Creation Research. Dr. Cupps
received his Ph.D. in nuclear physics at Indiana
University-Bloomington. Dr. Hebert received
his Ph.D. in physics from the University of Texas
at Dallas.

APRIL 2016

ACTS

&

FACTS

13