The National Climate Assessment – 2014 (NCA) is a masterpiece of marketing that shows for the first time the full capabilities of the Obama Administration to spin a scientific topic as they see fit, without regard to the underlying facts. With hundreds of pages written by hundreds of captive scientists and marketing specialists, the administration presents their case for extreme climate alarm. This is a rebuttal drafted by 14 independent meteorology and climatology experts.
As independent scientists, we know that apparent evidence of “Climate Change,” however scary, is not proof of anything. Science derives its objectivity from robust logic and honest evidence repeatedly tested by all knowledgeable scientists, not just those paid to support the administration’s version of “Global Warming,” “Climate Change,” “Climate Disruption,” or whatever their marketing specialists call it today.
We are asked to believe that humans are drastically changing the earth’s climate by burning fossil fuels. The problem with their theory is very simple: It is NOT true.
Here we address the administration’s basic thesis and the essential evidence that they claim support extreme concern.
The theory of ‘Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming’ (CAGW) is based on a string of inferences that begins with the assumptions that carbon dioxide is a ‘greenhouse gas’ and that we are slowly driving up the atmospheric concentration by burning fossil fuels. It is therefore claimed as self-evident that the Global Average Surface Temperature (GAST) has already risen significantly and will continue to do so. Higher GAST is then presumed to lead to all sorts of negative consequences, especially Extreme Weather. They promote their ‘Climate Models’ as a reliable way to predict the future climate. But these models dramatically fail basic verification tests. Nowhere do they admit to these well-known failures. Instead, we are led to believe that their climate models are close to perfection.
This document is structured around a “fact-check,” where we quote a number of the government’s key claims in the NCA and show each to be invalid. The first three claims involve their three crucial scientific arguments (Three Lines of Evidence or 3 LoE), which, if valid, would satisfy a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for making their case. But each is easily shown to be false; and because each is crucial, their entire theory collapses. That means that all of the overblown “Climate Disruption” evidence that they mention, whether true or not, cannot be tied back to man’s burning of fossil fuels. Hence, efforts to reduce or eliminate Extreme Weather by reducing the burning of fossil fuels are completely nonsensical.
NCA CLAIM #1: “First ‘Line of Evidence’ (LoE) – Fundamental Understanding of GH Gases”
“The conclusion that human influences are the primary driver of recent climate change is based on multiple lines of independent evidence. The first line of evidence is our fundamental understanding of how certain gases trap heat, how the climate system responds to increases in these gases, and how other human and natural factors influence climate.” (NCA, Page 23)
RESPONSE: Many scientists have provided ample evidence that the government’s finding, used by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), is grossly flawed. In its Endangerment Finding, EPA claimed with 90-99% certainty that observed warming in the latter half of the twentieth century resulted from human activity. Using the most credible empirical data available, it is relatively straightforward to soundly reject each of EPA’s Three LoE. This U.S. Supreme Court Amicus brief contains the details: http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/GW-Amicus-2013-05-23-Br-of-Amici-Curiae-Scientists-ISO-Petitions-fo…2.pdf
EPA’s Greenhouse Gas ‘Hot Spot’ theory is that in the tropics, the mid-troposphere must warm faster than the lower troposphere, and the lower troposphere must warm faster than the surface, all due to rising CO2 concentrations. However, this is totally at odds with multiple robust, consistent, independently-derived empirical datasets, all showing no statistically significant positive (or negative) trend in temperature and thus, no difference in trend slope by altitude. Therefore, EPA’s theory as to how CO2 impacts GAST must be rejected. Below is a graphical comparison of their Hot Spot theory versus reality, where reds denote warming and blues, cooling. Clearly, the government’s understanding of how CO2 gas traps heat is fundamentally flawed.
Models (top) vs. Measured Temperatures Changes (bottom)
NCA CLAIM #2: “Second LoE – Unusual Warming in recent decades”
“The second line of evidence is from reconstructions of past climates using evidence such as tree rings, ice cores, and corals. These show that global surface temperatures over the last several decades are clearly unusual, with the last decade (2000-2009) warmer than any time in at least the last 1,300 years and perhaps much longer.” (NCA, Page 23)
RESPONSE: “Global Warming” has not been global and has not set regional records where warming has occurred. For example, over the last fifty years, while the Arctic has warmed, the tropical oceans had a flat trend (see e.g. NOAA Buoy Data: NINO 3.4, Degrees C, available at http://www.cpc.ncep. noaa.gov/data/indices/ersst3b.nino.mth.81-10.ascii,) and the Antarctic cooled slightly.
The most significant warming during this period occurred in the Northern Hemisphere, north of the tropics but that ceased over the last 15 years or more. Also, as the figure below shows, over the last 130 years the decade of the 1930’s still has the most U.S. State High Temperatures records. And, over the past 50 years, there were more new State Record Lows set than Record Highs. In fact, roughly 70% of the current State Record Highs were set prior to 1940.
See NOAA National Climatic Data Ctr., State Climate Extremes Committee, Records, https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/extremes/scec/records (last visited 12/15/ 2013)
If the observed warming over the last half century can anywhere be claimed to be unusual, it would have to be where it was greatest – in the Arctic. Both satellite and surface station data show a warming of about two degrees Celsius since the 1970’s. But the surface station data (see the Figure below) show that warming in context. Recent warming was very similar to the previous warming from 1900 to 1940, reaching virtually the same peak.
This refutes the government claim that recent warming (which occurred when man-made CO2 was rising) was notably different from an era when man-made CO2 was not claimed to be a factor.
It also points out an essential feature of most credible thermometer records that cover many decades. Our climate is highly cyclical, driven in fact by ocean and solar cycles, not carbon dioxide.
Using only the upward trend of the most recent half cycle to suggest relentless warming is very deceptive.
NCA CLAIM #3: Third LoE – “The Climate Models”
The third line of evidence comes from using climate models to simulate the climate of the past century, separating the human and natural factors that influence climate. (NCA, Page 24)
RESPONSE: The Administration relied upon Climate Models, all predicated on the GHG Hot Spot Theory, that all fail standard model validation and forecast reliability tests.
These Climate Models are simulations of reality and far from exact solutions of the fundamental physics. The models all forecast rising temperatures beyond 2000 although the GAST trend has recently been flat. See the figure below. This is not surprising because EPA never carried out any published forecast reliability tests. The government’s hugely expensive climate models are monumental failures.
NCA CLAIM #4: “Extreme Weather – Temperatures”
“global temperatures are still on the rise and are expected to rise further.” (NCA, Page 8)
“The most recent decade was the nation’s and the world’s hottest on record, and 2012 was the hottest year on record in the continental United States. All U.S. regions have experienced warming in recent decades, but the extent of warming has not been uniform. (NCA, Page 8)
RESPONSE: As mentioned in the response to CLAIM #2, most of the warming in the second half of the 20th century occurred north of the tropics. But as shown below, this warming stopped over 17 years ago. Furthermore, the Hadley Centre (upon which the government and the UN IPCC heavily relied) recently announced a forecast that the GAST trend line will likely remain flat for another five years. See Decadal forecast, Met Office, http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/seasonal-to-decadal/long-range/decadal-fc (last visited Dec. 15, 2013).
As for claims about record setting U.S. temperatures, please see our response to CLAIM #2 above.
See National Space Sci. & Tech.Ctr., North of 20 North Temperature Anomalies UAH Satellite Data: Lower Troposphere Degrees C, available at http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/ t2lt/uahncdc.lt (last visited May 17, 2013).
The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) was critical of the draft National Climate Assessment, saying that “An overly narrow focus can encourage one-sided solutions, for instance by giving an impression that reducing greenhouse gas emissions alone will solve all of the major environmental concerns discussed in this report.” The NAS has also criticized “the lack of explicit discussion about the uncertainties associated with the regional model projections,” saying that “Decision makers need a clear understanding of these uncertainties in order to fairly evaluate the actual utility of using these projections as a basis for planning decisions.”
NCA CLAIM #5
“Extreme Weather – Hurricanes”
“The intensity, frequency, and duration of North Atlantic hurricanes, as well as the frequency of the strongest (Category 4 and 5) hurricanes, have all increased since the early 1980s.” (NCA, Page 20)
“Extreme Weather – “Droughts and Floods”
“both extreme wetness and extreme dryness are projected to increase in many areas.” (NCA, Page 33)
RESPONSE: According to the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC,) there is “high agreement” among leading experts that long-term trends in weather disasters are not attributable to our use of fossil fuels.
Hurricanes have not increased in the United States in frequency, intensity, or normalized damage since at least 1900. Currently, the U.S. is enjoying a period of over eight years without a Category 3 or stronger hurricane making landfall. Government data also indicate no association between use of fossil fuels and tornado activity.
The data on droughts paint a similar picture. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration found that “Climate change was not a significant part” of the recent drought in Texas. And the IPCC found that “in some regions, droughts have become less frequent, less intense, or shorter, for example, central North America ….” The IPCC also states there is “low confidence” in any climate-related trends for flood magnitude or frequency on a global scale.
Still More NCA CLAIMS
RESPONSE: All of the other government claims worth discussing have been answered effectively in other commentaries. These include those related to ocean and lake ice levels, sea levels, and ocean alkalinity. Detailed rebuttals of such government claims can be found in reports available from CATO, CEI, Climate Depot, Heritage, ICECAP, TWTW, and WUWT.
SUMMARY
The Obama Administration’s National Climate Assessment begins with probably their most preposterous claims:
“Climate change, once considered an issue for a distant future, has moved firmly into the present.” (NCA, Page 1)
“Evidence for climate change abounds, from the top of the atmosphere to the depths of the oceans.” (NCA, Page 7)
“There is still time to act to limit the amount of change and the extent of damaging impacts” (NCA, Page 2)
RESPONSE: This is pure rhetorical nonsense born of a cynical attempt to exploit short term memories and/or little knowledge of the Earth’s climate history and climate processes.
Our climate is constantly changing for perfectly natural reasons that have nothing to do with carbon dioxide.
With the Earth’s vast oceans and atmosphere never in complete equilibrium, our climate will always be changing on time scales from weeks to months to years to decades to centuries and beyond. With a star varying cyclically as our heat source and with an enormous planet like Jupiter tugging on our orbit around the Sun, dramatic climate changes are expected to occur. (See pages 39-50 in USCA, Case #09-1322, Document #1312291, Filed: 06/08/2011.) However, none of these dramatic climate changes have any connection to our use of fossil fuels.
Yet the Obama Administration insists on building a House of Cards predicated on their Three Lines of Evidence as discussed in CLAIMS 1, 2, and 3 above. With all three of their Lines of Evidence shown to be invalid, their entire House of Cards collapses. For example, if increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations do not yield higher GAST, the claimed CO2 connection to higher sea levels is lost.
What about their frequent claims that nearly all scientists agree with their analysis findings? By ignoring and even denouncing growing criticism, they have lost the benefit of crucial scientific debates which are critical to keeping their analyses honest and objective. In fact, as documented above in response to Claims 4 and 5, they are even disregarding their usual allies, the UN IPCC and US National Academy of Sciences, both of whom have been dialing back apocalyptic claims, not amplifying them due at least in part to such critical feedback.
Bottom-Line: This NCA is so grossly flawed it should play no role in U.S. Energy Policy Analyses and CO2 regulatory processes. As this rebuttal makes clear, the NCA provides no scientific basis whatsoever for regulating CO2 emissions.
NCA REBUTTAL AUTHORS/REVIEWERS
Joseph S. D’Aleo
Certified Consultant Meteorologist,
American Meteorological Society Fellow
M.S., Meteorology, University of Wisconsin
B.S., Meteorology (cum laude), University of Wisconsin
Dr. Harold H. Doiron
Retired VP, Engineering Analysis and Test Division, InDyne, Inc.
Ex-NASA JSC, Aerospace Consultant
B.S. Physics, University of Louisiana – Lafayette
M.S., PhD. Mechanical Engineering, University of Houston
Dr. Don J. Easterbrook
Emeritus Professor of Geology, Western Washington University
Ph.D., Geology, University of Washington, Seattle
M.S., Geology, University of Washington, Seattle
B.S., Geology, University of Washington, Seattle
Dr. Theodore R. Eck
Ph.D., Economics, Mich. State U.; M.A, Economics, U. of Michigan
Fulbright Professor of International Economics
Former Chief Economist of Amoco Corp. and Exxon Venezuela
Advisory Board of the Gas Technology Institute and Energy Intelligence Group
Dr. Neil Frank
B.S., Chemistry, Southwestern College
M.S., Ph.D. Meteorology, Florida State
Former Director of the National Hurricane Center
Dr. Gordon J. Fulks
Ph.D., Physics, University of Chicago
M.S., Physics, University of Chicago
B.S., Physics, University of Chicago
Dr. William M. Gray
Emeritus Professor of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University
Ph.D., Geophysical Sciences, University of Chicago
M.S., Meteorology, University of Chicago
B.S., Geography, George Washington University
Art Horn
B.Sc. Meteorology Lyndon State College
Teaches Meteorology/Climatology at Tunxis Community College
TV Meteorologist 25 years, lecturer, expert witness, radio broadcaster
Dr. Thomas P. Sheahen
Ph.D., Physics, M.I.T.
B.S., Physics, M.I.T.
Dr. S. Fred Singer
Fellow AAAS, APS, AGU
Prof Emeritus of Environmental Sciences, U of VA
Ph. D., Physics, Princeton University
BEE, Ohio State University
Dr. Anthony R. Lupo
IPCC Expert Reviewer
Professor, Atmospheric Science, University of Missouri
Ph.D., Atmospheric Science, Purdue University
M.S., Atmospheric Science, Purdue University
Dr. Madhav Khandekar
Retired Scientist, Environment Canada
Expert Reviewer IPCC 2007 Climate Change Documents
George Taylor
Certified Consulting Meteorologist
President Applied Climate Services
Two time President of the American Association of State Climatologists
B.A. Mathematics, University of California
M.S. Meteorology University of Utah
Dr. James P. Wallace III
Jim Wallace & Associates, LLC
Ph.D., Economics, Minor in Engineering, Brown University
M.S., Mechanical Engineering, Brown University
B.S., Aeronautical Engineering, Brown University
Dr. George T. Wolff
Former Chair EPA’s Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee
Ph.D., Environmental Sciences, Rutgers University
M.S., Meteorology, New York University
B.S., Chemical Engineering, New Jersey Institute of Technology
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Well done, Been hoping for something along these lines, and hope there’s much more to come. The NCA needs to be exposed as the outrageous affront to rational though that it is. It’s as blatant an example of propaganda as can be imagined from a modern, democratic government.
I thought there was a 97% consensus? What went wrong?
I confess to having lost some acuity of wit (fancy for maybe not being so smart anymore) so I need some help with LoE Two. Why go after “Global Temperatures” rather than Global Temperature. Showing that the number of record highs hasn’t changed much would not seem to me to show that a global mean has not increased. I assume the the Obama gang was driving at Global Mean, whatever that might actually imply.
Is there really an apples to pears comparison here?
These guys are pretty respectable, so I assume I just don’t get it.
The ones who make their living being right appear to disagree with those who make their living by telling the government what it wants to hear.
The old adage comes into play – you get what you pay for. And the government is getting what they paid for. The problem is it is just not accurate or factual.
Great rebuttal. We should probably refer to NCA’s “Lines _in_ Evidence” , the acronym works better.
“Our climate is highly cyclical, driven in fact by ocean and solar cycles, not carbon dioxide.”
Though I suspect this is correct, I do not think that it is any more proven scientifically than the CO2 claim. Making equally dubious counter claims does not seem productive.
The rest of the material seems solid and well founded. IMO, This one claim weakens the report.
I love the term “captive scientists.” That ought to rankle any who are employed by the government to produce politically correct balderdash. After all, this is “The Land Of The Free.” To be anything less than free is shameful. At some point the shame may drive some to throw off the yoke of slavery, and tell the government what they can do with their balderdash.
some might want to respond here!
White House to host Google+ Hangout on climate
change
A Google+ Hangout hosted by the White House will be a chance for US energy
secretary Ernest Moniz and Environment Protection Agency chief Gina McCarthy
to address the biggest environmental move of Obama’s presidency so far: his
plans to cut emissions from existing coal-fired power plants…
The Hangout will take place on Monday 19 May at 1pm ET, and participants can
submit questions to Moniz and McCarthy over Google+, Facebook and Twitter,
using the hashtag #WHClimateChat…
RTCC understands that the White House is now recruiting new staff to revamp
its climate change division ahead of next year’s UN conference in Paris…
http://www.rtcc.org/2014/05/15/white-house-to-host-google-hangout-on-climate-change/
Sadly we are dealing with the left here, which means no morals, no ethics, lie as much as you want because the end justifies any means (Goebbels would be proud). I just wonder how long until the concentration camps start up and people start getting herded?(agenda 21 for those unsure of what I am talking about).
The push is already on, so called scientific ethicists talking about abortions up to 10 years old, euthanasia for children as young as 10. They are just acclimatising us to a depopulation that is coming in the not too distant future. They also are attacking the family unit, which is the only thing that will stop them, break up the family and you have a population of sheep, easily led, controlled and culled when needed. It all seems unrelated to the climate debate, but it an integral part of what they are planning, and have been for many years.
Is going to get ugly people, so get in, hang on and enjoy the ride, if you survive it that is. But in the end, it will be worth it, as they will self destruct like all genocidal organisations before them, or they will be destroyed by right minded people eventually.
A sterling effort and, for academics, remarkably concise. However, it touches — without addressing — the fundamental problem: consensus. In an ideal world facts, objective analysis, scientific rigour, etc. would invariably trump consensus. In the real world consensus, unfortunately, is what counts. Gifted propagandists have always understood this. (“Four legs good; two legs better!”)
For the science to win, it is desirable to hammer the truth hard — but it is imperative to establish a consensus that seriously rivals the ‘authorised version’. Victor Hugo observed (very roughly) that nothing can withstand an idea whose time has come. The trouble is, the idea is not required to be true, decent or useful — merely popular.
As the information media are substantially in the hands of the warmists, so is the power to establish and defend a consensus. The main obstacles to this are not a few competent scientists of high integrity, or even a few decent blogs. The main obstacles are the physical and financial inconvenience of the (supposedly) necessary changes to our modes of living, and the malicious refusal of global temperatures to increase for nearly two decades.
By all means trumpet the scientific shortcomings of the Green Machine, but don’t forget to keep pushing the points that strike the most responsive chords. One day the flaws of CAGW, Climate Change, etc. should be a humorous footnote to history, but that day is still some way off and, if warming — for whatever reason — resumes, the shortcomings of the warmists’ arguments will be brushed aside.
Which “modern, democratic government” are you referring to?
Certainly we could use one in Washington.
The “captive scientists” (great term), label should carry the same or greater stigma as the one that is placed on the deniers as having been funded by big oil or big oil interests. Truth is truth, no matter who funded it.
“Which “modern, democratic government” are you referring to?
Certainly we could use one in Washington.”
***
Which of course is precisely my point.
j ferguson says:
May 19, 2014 at 4:28 am
I confess to having lost some acuity of wit (fancy for maybe not being so smart anymore) so I need some help with LoE Two. Why go after “Global Temperatures” rather than Global Temperature. Showing that the number of record highs hasn’t changed much would not seem to me to show that a global mean has not increased.
Yes, I wonder about that also.
Where’s the mention of 15 to 17 + years of statistically no cooling or warming atmospheric temperature in this portion of the rebuttal?
Succinct and on target. Nice Job!
Could this be the first edition of the Climate Change Vetting Council?
It is quite obvious the current administration does not have the capabilities to do such.
I am hopeful that others will find this important enough to formally and publicly endorse.
While the authors’ efforts are commendable, the issue is important enough to have warranted an attempt at standard, grammar, punctuation, and capitalization. Justly or not, such factors affect a piece’s persuasiveness and ability to attract endorsement.
Well done. Only one problem. If you haven’t noticed that culturally now we don’t think we feel. And we feel that CO2 is doing great danage and we feel that redistributing wealth is a good idea and we feel a CO2 apocalypse is a great excuse to do so. Stop hiding behind science slip on your mood ring, breathe, and feel. We and Gia are one.
http://news.yahoo.com/quickly-rising-antarctica-suggests-runny-earth-110749008.html
apologies if this is a repeated posting.
You can’t confuse the EPA with facts. It was never about science; it is just politics.
How does science respond to a PR policy campaign in the first place? A PR campaign barely makes any effort to organize or acknowledge facts. At best it resorts to cherry picked data and disgraced studies like the hockey stick fraud. A PR campaign is all about win-the-day presentations with minimal checking by biased reporters and commentators.
Gorebots will see Exxon on there and cry foul, effectively. But I think the meltdown is far enough along now that the ramped up nastiness is motivating cooler heads in academia to finally speak out against alarm finally. The Achilles heal of leftists is their attachment to appearances and high moral authority so no, I don’t think my Upper West Side anti-fracking neighbors could stomach reeducation camps or anything else that made them look bad to non-activist observers. And until scientific bodies return to proper skepticism, in a way they remain moral in their outlook merely by assuming all the wiggly line plots are bogus on the skeptical side as those scientific bodies indeed at least indirectly claim in a blanket sense. With Obama and our new socialist mayor there is now actually a lot less political vibe to my dear neighbors than the spitting mad Bush era of now evaporated anti-war protests and constant political chatter. Despite the recession we are living in decadent times rather than highly oppressive times the likes of which breed deadly fanaticism in whole cultures.
I see Global Warming as a non-political wedge issue that is in fact highly political for the activist left however, so resistance to reason becomes an investment, the alternative likely being the collapse of the good reputation of the left against excesses of the right, including avid anti-science sentiments based on religious insecurities and outright Puritanism. Limiting life-saving stem cell funding was simply evil and Bush banned Edison bulbs too, and witness now just how little actual skeptical fight conservatives are putting up to spill the beans on climate fraud. Besides Inhofe, few are actually on the offensive and few actually cry foul instead of mere error. Where is the *Republican* all night (skeptical) presentation? Where is a huge investigation?
Citing the “on record” bits is particularly meaningless given what a miniscule slice of climate that record is. Billions of years of climate versus at most 130 years of records. Meaningless.
Galloping Camel is right. This is about politics, not science. The 2014 NCA is intended merely to provide cover for the new EPA emission rules which take effect in June. There will be large accompanying rate shocks for electricity ratepayers. NCA is simply intended to provide a response to the horde of complaints that will follow.
Fine job. However, does anyone predict any policy change from this U.S. administration.
Neil,
While I agree with you that the main goal has always been dramatic population reduction – blatantly stated when all this started a half-century ago, now much more subtle as the people behind it have gotten more devious – we in the West have little to fear – it’s in the developing 3rd world where the “human parasite” is really targeted for reduction. The people in the 3rd world are always the ones who the cretins behind these movements claim they most want to help, and it’s always those same vulnerable people who get hurt most. Here in the developed West I think it’s more just ever- increasing governmental control and a continuing slow move towards another supposed Marxist utopia, where everyone just sits around taking soma and there are never any problems. I’m not as confident as you are that the truth will prevail – the people behind all these movements never seem to get hurt, and simply go on to the next farce. Let’s hope I am wrong and this charade really blows up in their faces for once. Sites like this one (thanks Anthony!) are one reason why they all might just get caught this time.
I would still like to see a cost benefit analysis re: what it is costing us in jobs and GDP right now, let alone in the future, compared to what benefits are derived from the present attempts to mitigate ‘climate change’ or whatever they are now calling it. And remember, GDP includes government spending!