Guest essay by Steve Goreham
Originally published in The Washington Times
On September 23, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is scheduled to release the first portion of its Fifth Assessment Report (AR5). AR5 will conclude once again that mankind is causing dangerous climate change. But one week prior on September 17, the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) will release its second report, titled Climate Change Reconsidered II (CCR-II). My advance review of CCR-II shows it to be a powerful scientific counter to the theory of man-made global warming.
Today, 193 of 194 national heads of state say they believe humans are causing dangerous climate change. The IPCC of the United Nations has been remarkably successful in convincing the majority of the world that greenhouse gas emissions must be drastically curtailed for humanity to prosper.
The IPCC was established in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Program. Over the last 25 years, the IPCC became the “gold standard” of climate science, quoted by all the governments of the world. IPCC conclusions are the basis for climate policies imposed by national, provincial, state, and local authorities. Cap-and-trade markets, carbon taxes, ethanol and biodiesel fuel mandates, renewable energy mandates, electric car subsidies, the banning of incandescent light bulbs, and many other questionable policies are the result. In 2007, the IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore shared the Nobel Peace Prize for work on climate change.
But a counter position was developing. In 2007, the Global Warming Petition Project published a list of more than 31,000 scientists, including more than 9,000 PhDs, who stated, “There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.” At the same time, an effort was underway to provide a credible scientific counter to the alarming assertions of the IPCC.
The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change was begun in 2003 by Dr. Fred Singer, emeritus professor of atmospheric physics from the University of Virginia. Dr. Singer and other scientists were concerned that IPCC reports selected evidence that supported the theory of man-made warming and ignored science that showed that natural factors dominated the climate. They formed the NIPCC to offer an independent second opinion on global warming.
Climate Change Reconsidered I (CCR-I) was published in 2009 as the first scientific rebuttal to the findings of the IPCC. Earlier this summer, CCR-I was translated into Chinese and accepted by the Chinese Academy of Sciences as an alternative point-of-view on climate change.
Climate Change Reconsidered II is a 1,200-page report that references more than one thousand peer-reviewed scientific papers, compiled by about 40 scientists from around the world. While the IPCC reports cover the physical science, impacts, and mitigation efforts, CCR-II is strictly focused on the physical science of climate change. Its seven chapters discuss the global climate models, forcings and feedbacks, solar forcing of the climate, and observations on temperature, the icecaps, the water cycle and oceans, and weather.
Among the key findings of CCR-II are:
· Doubling of CO2 from its pre-industrial level would likely cause a warming of only about 1oC, hardly cause for alarm.
· The global surface temperature increase since about 1860 corresponds to a recovery from the Little Ice Age, modulated by natural ocean and atmosphere cycles, without need for additional forcing by greenhouse gases.
· There is nothing unusual about either the magnitude or rate of the late 20th century warming, when compared with previous natural temperature variations.
· The global climate models projected an atmospheric warming of more than 0.3oC over the last 15 years, but instead, flat or cooling temperatures have occurred.
The science presented by the CCR-II report directly challenges the conclusions of the IPCC. Extensive peer-reviewed evidence is presented that climate change is natural and man-made influences are small. Fifteen years of flat temperatures show that the climate models are in error.
Each year the world spends over $250 billion to try to decarbonize industries and national economies, while other serious needs are underfunded. Suppose we take a step back and “reconsider” our commitment to fighting climate change?
The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change is a project supported by three independent nonprofit organizations: Science and Environmental Policy Project, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, and The Heartland Institute. Steve Goreham is Executive Director of the Climate Science Coalition of America and author of the book The Mad, Mad, Mad World of Climatism: Mankind and Climate Change Mania.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Just to make sure that no one misunderstands, that “1oC” should be read as “1 degree C.”
As A lot of people don’t know that, remark.
The mercury from only one Fluorecent tube can contaminate
up to 30,000 litres of water,
beyond a safe standard to drink.
Also it is an offence to dispose of your domestic florries in your dust bin.(UK that is).
Now who put a 6foot tube in a 2foot 6 inch bin…….Whole?
One often-unsaid aspect of the public discussion on whether human-induced climate change is real, is ideology. Several months ago, the University of Kentucky hosted of forum on climate change with three excellent speakers who were all self-described conservatives. Liberals reported how they better understand that there are thoughtful conservative perspectives on, and solutions to, climate change, thus allowing for a broadened public discussion. In turn, conservatives in attendance learned the same thing. You can watch the recording of this event at http://bit.ly/135gvNa. The starting time for each speaker is noted at this page, so you can listen to the speakers of greatest interest to you.
Dear nick and jai mitchell, please just clarify a few things for me:
Human emissions of CO2 have caused all of the temperature increase since (at least) 1896? Yes or No will do.
Only the human component of CO2 in the atmosphere causes such warming? Yes or No will do.
Human CO2 emissions will cause catastrophic global warming/climate change? Yes or No will do again.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24034954
Hockey schtik, hockey stick, hockey fraud. Where were these periods in Manns stick???? Poor mammoths, if only they had known the evils of coal and oil.
regards
You come to WUWT and talk about tobacco funding, oil funding and the objectivity of the IPCC. Let me re-educate you as to what’s going on beyond your horizon.
FOSSIL FUEL FUNDING
TOBACCO
The BBC is so concerned about climate change that it invested some of its pension funds in a carbon scheme. It also did something else. The BBC Pension fund, as at 31 March 2012, had investments in the following tobacco companies:
British American Tobacco, Imperial Tobacco, Reynolds American, Altria Group, Philip Morris International
—
Al Gore, the climate change campaigner, has been quoted in 1996 by the New York Times saying:
Earlier in the same article the New York Times said:
—
In 2007 the Union of Concerned Scientists issued a report called “ExxonMobil’s Tobacco-like Disinformation Campaign on Global Warming Science”.
The Union of Concerned Scientists has in the past received funding from the Grantham Foundation, which is bankrolled by hedge-fund manager Jeremy Grantham. At the time of the funding the foundation had holdings in tobacco giant Philip Morris. In August of 2011 his fund owned millions of shares in fossil fuel companies such as Exxon Mobil.
—
One of the founders of the wildlife and climate campaigning WWF is Dr. Anton Rupert. The now deceased Dr. Rupert made his fortune from the cigarette manufacturing company called Voorbrand, re-named Rembrandt, now consolidated into Rothmans.
Ref: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/1508360/Anton-Rupert.html
IPCC OBJECTIVITY
IPCC Invites In the Activists as ‘expert’ reviewers.
Peer into the Heart of the IPCC, Find Greenpeace
How the WWF Infiltrated the IPCC – Part 1
and there’s lots, lots more on the IPCC and activism.
Doubling of CO2 from its pre-industrial level would likely cause a warming of only about 1oC, hardly cause for alarm.
This statement is wrong. It should actually say; “All things being equal , doubling of CO2 from its pre-industrial level should cause a warming of only about 1°C, hardly cause for alarm.”
I would add that to date, no solid evidence exists that the increased C02 has in fact caused a rise in temperature. The reason is that in nature, as opposed to the laboratory, not all things are equal. Not by a long shot. We also know that the temperature record has been skewed upwards, by as much as 2x what the actual temperature rise has been, due to faulty sensor placement, UHI, station drop-out (mostly from rural sites, which are cooler), etc.
“My Lord, – the prosecution charges that the insignificant increase in global average temperatures which arose from the late ‘seventies and ceased more than a decade and a half ago, was caused by man’s release of carbon dioxide and other radiative gases into the atmosphere. They claim that the supposed warming arises from something that they label the ‘atmospheric greenhouse effect’ which they theorise flows from ‘back-radiation’ and subsequent ‘tipping points’ They claim that the cessation is due to unknown factors but that this cessation is but temporary. They claim that our ‘carbon footprint’ must be drastically reduced, thus transferring the supposed devil status from carbon dioxide to carbon itself. The prosecution’s case rests on a very slim foundation – the ‘green-house effect’
“The prosecution clearly does not understand the very distinct difference between radiation and the transfer of thermal energy – radiation and thermaldynamics. The second law of thermodynamics, stated simply, says that heat travels from hot to cold. The law has been articulated in many verbose versions but when referring to it the law is generally taken to refer to the version of nineteenth century scientist, Claudius. The practical accuracy of the law can be readily demonstrated, while its reverse cannot.
“The foundation of the prosecution’s case consists in essence of the supposed ‘greenhouse effect’ without which it cannot survive. Yet the 2nd law of thermodynamics, which has never been.falsified, demonstrates the no such effect can exist. Without falsification the prosecution’s case has no foundation whatever.
“My Lord, I submit that there is no case to answer.”
So all we need now is a scientific debunking/rebuttal of the ‘CO2 must cause some warming’ consensus (as *any* consensus is unscientific & prone to confirmation bias). Oh, wait a minute, there is, from the scuentists at PSI.
Jai says “Carbon Dioxide and other green house gasses warm the atmosphere and human sourced emissions are causing global warming. This is an undeniable scientific fact.”
I’m not sure what you mean by “a scientific fact”. My training always told me science is limited to the interpretation of evidence, and absolute facts are incompatible with science.
Regarding CO2 warming, I like the following analogy for Beer’s Law. If you are lying on your bed, feeling cold, a quilt will help you to feel more comfortable. Another quilt might help even more, but by the seventh quilt, you will probably not notice much difference. Adding the seventh quilt does not contradict the effect of the first or second quilts.
Now what do we expect to see if you are feeling comfortable under seven quilts, and somebody wants to add an eighth quilt?
A. Not much difference, or
B. The bed will reach a tipping point, causing positive feedback effects and a sudden jump in temperature. Your life will be threatened.
When put into the models, crocodiles crawling out from under the bed and eating you up for breakfast can be shown to be consistent with scenario B.
Where are you on the above scenarios Jai?
There is a simple explanation for the recovery from the LIA. An analogy helps. Consider driving down a freeway at 70 mph, you come to a construction zone and slow down to 50 mph. After the construction you speed back up to 70 mph. There could also be accidents or traffic jams that cause the slowdown. However, as soon as the problem causing the slowdown is removed we speed back up to our cruising speed. Certain problems, like traffic, might slowly dissipate causing a very slow return to our cruising speed.
I believe this is pretty much how the temperature works. An interglacial has a base temperature (cruising speed) that will be maintained as long as nothing gets in the way. However, there can be problems that lead to a reduction. Maybe a cluster of large volcanic eruptions. However, as soon as these clear the base temperature returns. Of course, we’re talking geological time spans. The return to the base temperature can take a couple of centuries because the problem itself (aerosols in this case) is slow to disappear just like the traffic in my analogy.
Essentially it all comes down to a regression to the mean.
We have now reached a milestone in terms of CO2.
In the log relationship, we have now made it to 51% of the doubling impact/forcing.
So, we should have seen 51% of the warming already. And what have got? just 0.75C (or 0.5C taking into account the fake adjustments to the temperature record).
So halfway already and nothing has happened.
——————
Or alternatively, we could look at the forcing in W/m2.
–> Direct Anthro/GHG/Aerosol Forcing 2013 –> 2.1 W/m2
–> Indirect Feedbacks (water vapour, clouds, Albedo) should be –> 1.4 W/m2
–> Total Forcing which should be evident –> 3.5 W/m2
–> Actual Observations (oceans, atmosphere, ice-melt) –> 0.535 W/m2
–> Missing Energy (incorrect theory, faster emissions from Earth not accounted for in theory) –> 3.0 W/m2
Steve Mosher wrote:
Science works to explain. doubt is a tool in science, but in the end if you dont have an explanation you lose to the guy who does have an explanation, EVEN IF his explanation is partial and incomplete.
===============
What you say is true, but not in all cases. It’s true for single, or some isolated cases. But the recovery from the LIA is not an isolated event. It is part of a recurring cycle that has existed for several millennia following the last ice age.
Attributing THIS cycle of warming solely or mostley to CO2 requires it to be a unique event, and it is not.
Imagine the prehistoiric “skeptic” who tries to prevent his village from sacrificing children to stop the solar eclipse. They attribute it to an angry god, the “skeptic” claims he has seen it before and it will go away on its own. One has a mechanism, the other does not.
It is quite reasonable to reject a hypothesis for cyclical, recurring phenomena that treats the most recent one as a special event.
And we all know how much time, effort and $$$ have been invested in to prove that the warming of the last 160 years is somehow unique.
Stephen Pruett says:
September 10, 2013 at 6:23 pm
The point is that temperatures have increased and decreased forever, and we don’t know why.
————–
This may be going a little under most people’s heads, but at the risk of appearing to make a complete fool of myself, I’ll say it anyway.
Over the longer term, on the order of centuries or longer, the average temperature at earth’s surface would be expected to increase when the earth is absorbing more energy from space than it is emitting to space, and to decrease when it is emitting more energy than it is absorbing. Also, given the size of the planet, average global temperature would be expected to lag behind the changes in absorption and emission by a considerable period as heat was progressively stored in or removed from the ground or the oceans in response to changes in this absorption/emission balance.
The earth may also display a natural average temperature oscillation over time analogous to the vibration of a piano wire or the swing of a pendulum as the measured rising or falling temperature alternately overshoots the assumed temperature based on a simple analysis of the energy balance. This is merely a supposition on my part. I make no claims concerning the existence of such a mechanism.
While the above doesn’t fully explain the “why” , I think it may go part of the way.
milodonharlani says:
September 10, 2013 at 5:06 pm
jai mitchell says:
September 10, 2013 at 4:35 pm
The recovery from the LIA is no different than the recoveries from the Dark Ages Cold Period, other cold periods since the Holocene Climatic Optimum, the 8200 BP event & the Younger Dryas, just as the warm periods in between the cold periods were also natural, as is the current one. The warm periods are recoveries to the trend line from the cold periods that preceded them. They’re all natural cycles (or chaotic variations, if you prefer) around the trend since the HCO, which is markedly down in temperature.
It is incumbent upon CACA charlatans to show that the current recovery is any different from those which preceded it.
jai mitchell I echo your post.
What we have now is potentially the first ture prolonged solar minimum since the Dalton ,and I think if this prolonged solar minimum (following several years of sub-solar activity in general,started in year 2005) meets it’s potential that the solar /climate correlations will start to manifest themselves in the climatic system of earth.
Those being in response to direct changes in solar parameters and the associated secondary effects to those earth originating climatic items that influence the climate of the earth through random changes, absent any extreme solar changes which I feel will exert an influence on those earth originating random earth climatic items.
Items, such as clouds, volcanic activity, enso etc. etc.
If(IF) the degree of magnitude change and duration of time of the solar changes meets certain criteria.
THOSE BEING AS FOLLOWS:
solar flux sub 90.
solar wind 350 km/sec.
cosmic ray count north of 6500 per minute.
ap index sub 5 ,98+% of time.
solar irradiance off .015% or more.
EUV light wavelengths 0-105nm, intensity of sub 100 or lower.
All of the above sustained. If these conditions are acomplished going forward I am of the strong opinion they will be exerting an ever increasing influence on the climate of the earth going forward both through the direct solar changes and the secondary effects from those direct solar changes.
This recovery(likely over now) from the Little Ice Age was feeble compared to recoveries from past more distant cold periods. Infact I would say this is one of the WEAKEST recoveries from a previous colder period over the past 20000 years.
Deb Rudnick says:
September 10, 2013 at 4:46 pm
Please read Steve McIntyre on IPCC “scientists”:
http://climateaudit.org/2013/09/11/ipcc-and-the-end-of-summer/#comments
Jai Mitchell makes spurious claims with nothing to back them up, and yet claims that WE are the ones that need to provide evidence? There’s a laugh for ya.
At least the Steve Goddard graph of sea ice is a graph, I saw NOTHING WHATSOEVER from Jai Mitchell to refute the graph other than an UNSUBSTANTIATED CLAIM that the graph was incorrect.
Truly it is sad to see that Jai can do no better than that.
Steve Mosher wrote:
Science works to explain. doubt is a tool in science, but in the end if you dont have an explanation you lose to the guy who does have an explanation, EVEN IF his explanation is partial and incomplete.
________________________
So, Steve, you apparently believe in the reading of goat entrails, at least until I can come up with something that better predicts the future?
Yes, that is the current status of climate science today. Their models don’t work. They have an explanation from basic physics as to why it has warmed. They’ve jerrymandered data to eliminate prior natural variability and show the effects of current warming in order to bolster their claim and show an anthropogenic ‘finger print’ where none exists.
Then they drop the scientific shroud altogether and proclaim, very unscientifically, that catastrophic consequences are coming, caused by our sins of emissions. The actual science says no such thing. It says CO2 in a plastic CO2 bottle retains LW radiation better than N. That’s all. Gravity says everything falls (accelerates) toward the center of the earth at 9.8m/s/s. Go watch Old Faithful sometime. Realize that the water spewed forth is actually accelerating toward the center of the earth, even as it rises 100’s of feet above the surface . . . and then some of it evaporates into the atmosphere and doesn’t actually fall back on the 9.8m/s/s schedule, as gravity would predict.
Science doesn’t say how people will be affected. Politicians and advocates do. Charlatans who claim to be scientists do.
Real science predicts warming, but not as much as commonly advertised. ‘Runaway’ warming, or ‘tipping points’ do not exist at all in the actual science. Sorry Al Gore.
But I am glad that you, Nick, Jai, and the thousands upon thousands of ‘true believers’ who never dare to post, come to this site. It’s not propaganda here. It isn’t funded by big oil or endowed by some foundation or university.
This is honest and open debate. Largely without ad hominem attacks. Go speak your mind against the CAGW consensus at Skeptical Science or one of the mainstream AGW websites. See how long your posts remain.
There is no ‘big oil’ boogey man funding skepticism. There is no advantage to me, in wasting a lot of time studying actual scientific papers, following the careers of this person and that. I believe my children’s children will benefit greatly from not living under a totalitarian regime. I believe people living in under developed nations will benefit greatly by being allowed access to energy. I’ve made mine. I’m going to be just fine.
Final thought; One side of this argument repeatedly asserts ‘consensus’ and denigrates any and all who doubt their knowledge and authority. I now ask you to consider Galileo’s take regarding which side of any debate resorts to appeal to authority, consensus, and relies heavily on punishing and denigrating heretics.
Stephen Mosher wrote:
“Science works to explain. doubt is a tool in science, but in the end if you dont have an explanation you lose to the guy who does have an explanation, EVEN IF his explanation is partial and incomplete.”
I am sorry Mosh, that sounds WAY to much like “the wrong answer is preferable to no answer”.
I was always taught as a scientist that sometimes it is better to leave the answer to a question blank than it is to reveal your own ignorance.
TonyU says:
September 10, 2013 at 4:23 pm
Consider please the lack of peer-reviewed science in IPCC:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/7725266/Climate-body-chief-defends-use-of-grey-literature.html
PeterB in Indianapolis says:
September 11, 2013 at 10:08 am
Stephen Mosher wrote:
“Science works to explain. doubt is a tool in science, but in the end if you dont have an explanation you lose to the guy who does have an explanation, EVEN IF his explanation is partial and incomplete.”
I am sorry Mosh, that sounds WAY to much like “the wrong answer is preferable to no answer”.
I was always taught as a scientist that sometimes it is better to leave the answer to a question blank than it is to reveal your own ignorance.
###############
Sorry doesnt work that way. the answers given by science are ALWAYS WRONG. the issue is how wrong.
Remaining silent may work with the cops, but not in science, because someone somewhere will always have an explanation and the best explanation wins.
So if you are silent you lose.
This is honest and open debate. Largely without ad hominem attacks. Go speak your mind against the CAGW consensus at Skeptical Science or one of the mainstream AGW websites. See how long your posts remain.
#########
science is not a debate. for the record I’ve endured more ad hominem attacks here than any other place. i draw NO CONCLUSION ABOUT SCIENCE from this factual observation about the society here. basically, the openness or closeness around debate is not a fact that has anything to do with AGW. and the fact that there is name calling on sides is funny but irrelevant
Bill Illis says:
September 11, 2013 at 5:43 am
We have now reached a milestone in terms of CO2.
In the log relationship, we have now made it to 51% of the doubling impact/forcing.
So, we should have seen 51% of the warming already. And what have got? just 0.75C (or 0.5C taking into account the fake adjustments to the temperature record).
So halfway already and nothing has happened.
###############################
wrong. you have to look at all forcings. jeez, if you want to attack the explanation you first have to get it right
The temperature response is a reaction to the sum of ALL FORCING. since the LIA C02 forcing represents about 50% of ALL forcing.
Steven Mosher says:
September 11, 2013 at 10:20 am
The problem with CACA, is that its charlatan purveyors are intentionally, willfully, fraudulently wrong. They’re wrong & know it, but still spew the same garbage for public consumption.