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
This should be:
Dr.Joseph S. D’Aleo
Certified Consultant Meteorologist,
American Meteorological Society Fellow
Ph.D., Honorary, Lyndon State College
M.S., Meteorology, University of Wisconsin
B.S., Meteorology (cum laude), University of Wisconsin
http://lyndonstate.edu/academic-department/atmospheric-sciences/honorary-degree-for-broadcast-meteorology-pioneer-joe-daleo/
The reason I find the National Climate Assessment Report so wanting is that it is grossly incomplete . If this report were to be issued in the private industry it would not get past the most basic review . The fundamental error is that it does not speak to all the critical climate risks. There is an equal risk that global warming as described in the report will not happen in the short term (next 2-3 decades) nor in the long term ( 2100 and beyond ). There is now clear observable evidence that instead of warming as predicted , the climate is now in a pause for 17 year plus and even cooling during fall, spring and especially during the winter. Peer reviewed papers by Wallace S. Broecker of Columbia University dated 1998 and called The End of the Present Inter glacial: How and When? , stated that “ periods of extreme warmth appear to be roughly one half of a precession cycle (ie.aprox. 11,000 years . He also states that the current or latest warmth period may already be 11,500 years . Are we are living on borrowed time?. This dwarfs the potential impact or risk from any minor warmth increase due to future ocean cycle and even less from any co2 level increases. Instead of just warning the people about global warming induced climate change, they should also be looking with greater energy on how we could survive a major cold cycle during the early phase of a glaciation period . Historical records show that the glaciation period once started, drops temperatures quite quickly. The 2013/2014 winter could be just a forerunner of what may lie ahead . We may have 20-30 years of cold weather in the immediate future but by 2060-2100, we may have an entirely different ball game in the world to worry about and it may not be global warming at all . It reminds of the modified story of the boy crying wolf all the time and everyone focused on him only. No one noticed the bear that was lurking much closer in the bushes until it was too late .
Simply, thank you guys for writing sanity.
an aside, if I may provide some info I’m just now seeing, on how biased such general climate assessments have been from the start, long before the NCAs (but providing a template for 27 years of climate science activism posing as neutral science). This is info on the 1987 workshops and summary document which spurred the whole process leading into UNFCCC, IPCC, and now entities like the NCAs.
Speaking of scientific ACTIVISTS:
Biased at birth??
This crucial 1987 process which led toward the UNFCCC and the IPCC had as core sponsors three groups which have included the following activist scientists:
(1) Michael Oppenheimer – EDF
(2) John Holdren, WHRC
(3) Paul Ehrlich and Jane Lubchenko, Beijer Inst. (current affiliations, don’t know yet who might have been involved in 1987)
Far from any attempt at an objective, unbiased representation of scientists, this process was advocacy and activism at its core. No wonder they were providing a range of temp. increases estimated at 0.3C to 0.8C per DECADE without drastic action.
(1) “Interesting” that the Environmental Defense Fund was one of the 3 core groups listed as initiating the whole process in 1987!
(2) Along with the “Woods Hole Research Center” (this is John Holdren’s activist group and NOT the famed Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Holdren merely glommed onto the reputation of WHOI with his activist group’s name…. resulting in lots of confusion through the years)
(3) The 3rd of the initiating groups may be more more scientifically respectable, perhaps, (the Beijer Institute affiliated with the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences — although still activist in orientation) — it lists Paul Ehrlich and Jane Lubchenko among its “Fellows” who seem to have very long term affiliations with the Beijer…. although I don’t see what the make-up was in the late ’80s.
http://www.princeton.edu/step/people/faculty/michael-oppenheimer/Villach-Bellagio-WMO-report.pdf
Here’s your answer http://greattransition.org/document/human-rights-in-the-age-of-climate-change
I have been calling attention to the Great Transition intentions, but it is hard to ignore the real intention here to “We need to reinvent state authority to take urgent and equitable action.”
Reinvent state authority to force us all into submission to a new governance agenda. Lovely.
of course this is up for discussion, but the general consensus is that humans are playing a role in global warming. for the 15 listed here, there are 100s that say otherwise: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a7/Climate_science_opinion2.png
also, look up these scientists. here’s a quote from Joseph S. D’Aleo:
“We believe Earth and its ecosystems — created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence — are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth’s climate system is no exception.”
WHY??
Why do they do this?
It is plain to see that the report is sub par, so how can the President along with all those highly paid advisers push it with such vigor?
When we work out the motivation behind this abuse of power, we will be a long way closer to defeating it.
Thank you for such a detailed reply. Global warming was attempted 30 years ago, and it didn’t work that time either. Obama’s corrupt agenda knows no bounds. Look at all he has done to destroy America and Americans at the taxpayer’s expense. Global warming will greatly raise utility costs which would hurt the middle class the most.
wrong one first time haha
“””””…..jon says:
May 20, 2014 at 4:14 pm
of course this is up for discussion, but the general consensus is that humans are playing a role in global warming. for the 15 listed here, there are 100s that say otherwise: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a7/Climate_science_opinion2.png
also, look up these scientists. here’s a quote from Joseph S. D’Aleo:
“We believe Earth and its ecosystems — created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence — are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth’s climate system is no exception.”…..”””””
Well Jon, I don’t know if the OTHER 14 distinguished scientist authors listed here would agree (or disagree) with what Joe expressed here; but rest assured that there are hundreds; maybe millions that do; so how many agree with your interpretation of the data ?
OOoops ! I guess we don’t have your learned interpretation; just a glimpse of your Wikipedia skills.
This whole site is the biggest joke I have ever seen. The graphs and statistics are handpicked to disclaim certain facts. There are not enough samples used in the graphs above, such as only 2 satellites or 4 weather balloons. The majority of scientists and climatologists are confident that the globe is warming due to anthropogenic effects. The science is simple, CO2 is a greenhouse gas and higher concentrations would cause an increase in warming. I can’t do anything to change your beliefs, but you all will see in the coming decades as our climate continues to warm. Already glaciers across the world have retreated by miles. How do you explain that as a part of the natural cycle.
“michael” — perhaps you can explain these insightful graphs from alarmists circa 1987…… hype has been there from the beginning but the natural reality has not cooperated:
take a look at what was used to “sell” and guide the initial creation of the UNFCCC – IPCC:
(first figure is 3 ranges of projected global temps., lower figure is 3 ranges of projected sea level rise)
Oppenheimer et al. 1987, figures on pp. 4-5
[the salvation of the “low” scenario was to be only if govts agreed to take drastic actions promptly in late ’80s/early ’90s]
Michael:
Your entire post at May 20, 2014 at 9:25 pm says
I understand your pain. It really hurts when your faith is challenged by realities you cannot dispute..
You provide no evidence for your several assertions which include a blatant falsehood and a false doctrine of the ‘Cult of Global Warming’.
You assert “our climate continues to warm”. You don’t say which “climate” you mean and there are climates where there has been recent warming; e.g. the Arctic.. But other climates have experienced recent cooling; e.g. the Antarctic. Importantly, global warming (discernible at 95% confidence) ceased at least 17 years ago so it cannot “continue to warm”: the present cessation of global temperature change may end with warming or cooling.
Your cult’s doctrine is false because it is incomplete; it would be true if it said CO2 is a greenhouse gas and higher concentrations would cause an increase in warming IF ALL ELSE WERE HELD CONSTANT. But, of course, in reality the climate system alters in response to any imposed change.
All of this will make sense to you if you can understand the scientific method so I will explain the Null Hypothesis for you.
The Null Hypothesis says it must be assumed a system has not experienced a change unless there is evidence of a change.
The Null Hypothesis is a fundamental scientific principle and forms the basis of all scientific understanding, investigation and interpretation. Indeed, it is the basic principle of experimental procedure where an input to a system is altered to discern a change: if the system is not observed to respond to the alteration then it has to be assumed the system did not respond to the alteration.
In the case of climate science there is a hypothesis that increased greenhouse gases (GHGs, notably CO2) in the air will increase global temperature. There are good reasons to suppose this hypothesis may be true, but the Null Hypothesis says it must be assumed the GHG changes have no effect unless and until increased GHGs are observed to increase global temperature. That is what the scientific method decrees. It does not matter how certain some people may be that the hypothesis is right because observation of reality (i.e. empiricism) trumps all opinions.
Please note that the Null Hypothesis is a hypothesis which exists to be refuted by empirical observation. It is a rejection of the scientific method to assert that one can “choose” any subjective Null Hypothesis one likes. There is only one Null Hypothesis: i.e. it has to be assumed a system has not changed unless it is observed that the system has changed.
However, deciding a method which would discern a change may require a detailed statistical specification.
In the case of global climate no unprecedented climate behaviours are observed so the Null Hypothesis decrees that the climate system has not changed.
Importantly, an effect may be real but not overcome the Null Hypothesis because it is too trivial for the effect to be observable. Human activities have some effect on global temperature for several reasons. An example of an anthropogenic effect on global temperature is the urban heat island (UHI). Cities are warmer than the land around them, so cities cause some warming. But the temperature rise from cities is too small to be detected when averaged over the entire surface of the planet, although this global warming from cities can be estimated by measuring the warming of all cities and their areas.
Clearly, the Null Hypothesis decrees that UHI is not affecting global temperature although there are good reasons to think UHI has some effect. Similarly, it is very probable that AGW from GHG emissions are too trivial to have observable effects.
The feedbacks in the climate system are negative and, therefore, any effect of increased CO2 will be probably too small to discern because natural climate variability is much, much larger. This concurs with the empirically determined values of low climate sensitivity.
Empirical – n.b. not model-derived – determinations indicate climate sensitivity is less than 1.0°C for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 equivalent. This is indicated by the studies of
Idso from surface measurements
http://www.warwickhughes.com/papers/Idso_CR_1998.pdf
and Lindzen & Choi from ERBE satellite data
http://www.drroyspencer.com/Lindzen-and-Choi-GRL-2009.pdf
and Gregory from balloon radiosonde data
http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/OLR&NGF_June2011.pdf
Indeed, because climate sensitivity is less than 1.0°C for a doubling of CO2 equivalent, it is physically impossible for the man-made global warming to be large enough to be detected (just as the global warming from UHI is too small to be detected). If something exists but is too small to be detected then it only has an abstract existence; it does not have a discernible existence that has effects (observation of the effects would be its detection).
To date there are no discernible effects of AGW. Hence, the Null Hypothesis decrees that AGW does not affect global climate to a discernible degree. That is the ONLY scientific conclusion possible at present.
Richard
“””””…..michael says:
May 20, 2014 at 9:25 pm
This whole site is the biggest joke I have ever seen. The graphs and statistics are handpicked to disclaim certain facts. There are not enough samples used in the graphs above, such as only 2 satellites or 4 weather balloons. …..”””””
Well thank you Michael for saving me the trouble of having to spend hours, reading through all the trash they print here.
In future I can just ask for your advice.
So I should ignore the continuous monitoring by two satellites, or the less than continuous monitoring by four balloons, of the actual real planet earth, and instead take advantage of the countless millions of computer simulations of an imaginary virtual earth, which constantly give us the same answers; but always are different from what measurements show has already happened.
So when you move on from this joke site Michael, to other pastures more in tune with your natural capabilities, do be sure and tell all your friends to come over here for a good laugh.
But do come back, and tell us where it is that you have found a better place to spend your time educating idiots.
By the way, I was brought up being taught that the best way to convince people of something, is to hand pick graphs and statistics that support or disclaim the facts. Isn’t it kind of silly to disclaim the facts; I mean facts are after all, facts. It’s silly to say facts are not facts; they have to be, so why not present information that supports them; or of course disclaims them, in the instances where the facts are not facts.
Oh as for the glaciers retreating; that has been going on for a long time. As I recall, it actually started long before there even were any anthropogenes anywhere in the Americas, and just a very few on the whole planet, so they certainly didn’t cause it.
Although Obama is head of state for the USA & is ultimately responsible for for all that befalls the nation, his lies about CAGW are of no consequence to the unthinking Democrat party voters who suck at the government teat. The demographics of the USA are changing & the Republican party is unlikely to be voted back into government.
Here in the UK, all the major political parties will do & say anything to retain or regain power, such as the Conservatives led by shyster Cameron, Labour under millionaire Red Ed Miliband, the son of a Belgian-born Marxist academic & the perverted LimpDems
http://www.scribd.com/doc/222877990/Merged-Document-2
headed by Clegg, previously a Member of the European Parliament. In April 2014, Clegg refused to hold an inquiry into what he called the “repugnant” actions of former Rochdale MP Cyril Smith. Greater Manchester Police have stated that Smith, who died in 2010, abused young boys. Clegg said: “My party, the Liberal Democrats, did not know about these actions.” Clegg stated that the child abuse allegations were a matter for the police.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/nick-clegg/10765504/Nick-Clegg-refuses-to-hold-inquiry-into-Cyril-Smith-child-abuse-allegations.html
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil, is that good men do nothing.
I have seen this rebuttal at a couple of other places now. The more the better, as it does a great job at exposing some of the most fraudulent science in the report from Obama.
There are some excellent verbal communicators of authentic science that do an outstanding job when put in a debate or television interview setting.
Marc Morano is at the top of the list:
Roy Spencer, Timothy Ball and of course, Lord Monckton are also excellent.
It’s great that all of you non-scientist politicos think this is the bees’ knees. Unfortunately, objective climate scientists well beyond the government – not the bought-and-paid-for amateurs/partisans who wrote this masterpiece of data cherry-picking – nearly unanimously disagree. That’s about 10,000+ against the 15 or so on this list. As a reminder to the lay public, professional scientists as a group are collectively the MOST skeptical, the QUICKEST to shout foul, and the MOST eager to offer contrary explanations for anything – ESPECIALLY for topics within their area of expertise – on the planet. The fact that those researching climate for a living (not the weathermen, retirees, engineers, oil geologists, political advisors, economists, community college instructors, and those with obvious conflicts of interest that comprise the majority on “review” board listed here) have reached ANY consensus, let alone a >95% one, on the causes of climate change should be objectively staggering. Instead, a well-shrouded but clearly scientifically flawed attempt such as this is presented to confirm the prejudices of those who will never know any better. As a professional scientist regularly engaged in peer review and editing research, I can confidently say that this piece would not withstand even the least stringent peer review. I’ll dispense with a detailed critique, as it’s all been established over and over and over in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, and it would obviously be lost on most of this audience.
Christopher Wheeler,
I see that the “carbon” scare has colonized your mind. FYI, there are far more legitimate scientists reading, commenting and posting articles here than you can find at realclimate, skeptical science [SkS is run by a cartoonist], or similar blogs.
You are also wrong about your imaginary “consensus”, and I can prove it: A few years ago there was a petition opposing the Kyoto Protocol. More than 31,000 American scientists and engineers co-signed the following statement:
Each of those 31,000+ co-signers had to mail in a postage paid, signed hard copy of that statement; no emails were accepted. They had to go out of their way to agree.
The climate alarmist clique has never been able to round up anywhere near that number of scientists and engineers who believe in the AGW scare. Thus, the true consensus is with skeptics of the media’s carbon narrative. And of course the “97%” nonsense has been thoroughly deconstructed. It is a number with no connection to reality.
You’re young yet. As you mature, you will see things differently. Unless, of course, AGW is your religion. If that is the case, nothing can rescue you. Glaciers could descend over Chicago a mile deep once again, and you would still be preaching your religion. Let’s hope you can start to think for yourself. The scientific facts are here, if you want to learn.
Finally, you have a personal, vested interest in taking your position. Expressing any skepticism would result in your not receiving your next pay raise, or your next promotion. You could be fired. You would certainly be ostracized, as happened to Dr Bengtsson. Pressure would be brought, and you would cave. But they would never trust you again. We know how it works. You simply cannot disagree with the narrative. You are a victim of conformity.
I can respect that your views are based on something other than science, just please don’t try to convince me they’re objective or scientific. In return, I would ask that you accept that public/global scientific consensus is not overtly biased by non-science. You can assure me all you want about your evaluation of valid science and scientists, but I’m still skeptical – that’s just what I do. My field is not climatology (so my paycheck/professional acceptance has nothing to do with my position on it), I am a Christian (as if it’s any of your business), and I’m hardly young (as if that has anything to do with capacity for objective thought). Despite not being a climatologist, however, I generate, evaluate and read scientific literature daily and almost exclusively; as an academic editor I recognize faulty logic and dishonest statistics irrespective of the topic; and as a responsible citizen scientist I follow the general science literature on climate change. As a matter of further education, consensus in science is the result of years of hypothesis testing, controversy, and vetting to arrive at the most empirically supported and logical conclusion possible. Hence, there’s very rarely a major change in direction once scientific consensus is established, unlike consensus in almost every other walk of life. In that context, the “skepticism” you cite against the Kyoto treaty came toward the beginning/middle of that empirical consensus-building process (although the “greenhouse gas” theory itself was already many decades old). We are now much closer to the end of it, wherein the consensus has been dictated by years of appropriately vetted empirical data all pointing to an overwhelmingly supported conclusion, with exclusion of major alternatives. Don’t take my word for it: pick up any general scientific journal (Nature, Science, PLoS, PNAS from any major nation, etc.) and see for yourself – these have no vested interest in pushing one scientific viewpoint over another (with minor exceptions, as in everything), and in fact thrive more on ongoing scientific controversy than anything else, provided the science is sound. That’s the point: there is now (not “a few years back”, which is ancient history in science) very little sound science NOT consistent with human activity as a major cause of climate change, and a ton of vetted, published data in support of it. Further, every one of the “scientist” signatories to the amateurish compilation above is affiliated with a known climate denial group, and most receive direct stipends or are regularly paid to speak for them. Several others have been employed long-term in industries traditionally opposed to fossil fuel regulations, or have stated religious agenda. Do your own research – I’ve done enough hand holding for today – or choose to remain the victim you accuse others of being.
“Further, every one of the “scientist” signatories to the amateurish compilation above is affiliated with a known climate denial group, and most receive direct stipends or are regularly paid to speak for them. Several others have been employed long-term in industries traditionally opposed to fossil fuel regulations, or have stated religious agenda”
typical ad-hominem. Your credibility is therefore nil.
Let’s try this since you seem to be fond of it: 100% of the pro-AGW researchers have personal and professional monetary interests in obtaining, increasing or maintaining grants, subsidies or other funding sources. Their livelihood is bound to the AGW gravy train.
Michael- you are certainly proof of free speech here on the site you say is so ridiculous.
A [typical] troll drive by attack that has no evidence, is incoherent and based upon the same viral stupidity that has the Gvernor of California, in its icy grip.
AGW is not a theory it is a conjecture, look it up. It failed to make it to a theory even, how pathetic is that?
Actually, I researched the public data on each author – multiple verifiable sources for each – and made a factual summary statement based on that; I can’t vouch for the validity of the public data, but the fact that there are obvious conflicts of interests from their own stated credentials, and the fact that they oppose an overwhelming scientific consensus, justifies more than routine suspicion. If you do the same work, you can verify this for yourself, as I have no expectation what I say will convince you, nor should it….but I also don’t expect working to establish truth is the goal of many here. It is correct that the science is now quite clear, but don’t take my word or any other single source’s word for it – read the primary, public scientific literature if you can (not political, not popular, not editorials, and certainly not internet) – go to an actual library, or even better, your local college/university’s science library. Best yet, ask a reputable climate scientist (that would include all but the 15 authors here) or 100 of them. The article, again, is a shining example of data bias and misuse, but you’d have to know a bit about scientific data, statistics and/or logic to appreciate that assessment – hence its beauty from a propaganda perspective. I’m not into wasting more time teaching basic concepts to a predominantly hostile audience, so if further interested you’re on your own.
@ur momisugly Christopher Wheeler. Thank you. Your clearly written explanation falls on ears keen to ignore songs not liked. Most who comment here, including the site manager, are slowly painting themselves into a corner that they themselves can easily escape, but those who their actions do affect and who deal with life and death decisions, cannot. To argue ideology is one thing. To do so regardless of the consequences to others is unconscionable. Over my 40+ years in science and industry I have seen this act played out time and time again. Those who do not understand the science feel threatened and resort to a defense of inflexible ideology, eventually ending up on the short end of the stick. For most here this science-denial pantomime has little consequence, except for those such absurdity affects most direly.
Christopher Wheeler,
All of your comments amount to nothing more than a big ol’ Appeal to Authority. They are merely assertions. No science is posted, just name-dropping. Sorry, that doesn’t fly here at the internet’s Best Science & Technology site. Put up or shut up.
I will begin by putting up some verifiable scientific facts:
1. The climate Null Hypothesis has never been falsified. See richardscourtney’s excellent post at 11:38 pm above.
2. On all time scales, from months to hundreds of millennia, ∆CO2 has followed ∆temperature [T]. Effect can not precede cause. The rise in CO2 is caused by the rise in T. There is no empirical evidence for the opposite causality.
3. Despite the inexorable rise in harmless, beneficial CO2, global temperature stopped rising more than 17 years ago. Where is your god now?
4. Sea level rise has not accelerated, as was universally predicted by the alarmist cult. As always, their predictions were wrong.
5. Based on the ocean intake pipe at the Monterey Bay aquarium, ocean pH has not risen. All such “acidification” claims are nonsense when compared with real world data.
6. Predictions of global ice disappearing are likewise completely wrong. Global polar ice is above its long term average.
7. The very same step rises in global T have happened repeatedly without regard to CO2 [data provided by über-alarmist Phil Jones].
8. The reason that global warming is not observed is because at current levels the effect of CO2 is minuscule. It is swamped by first- and second-order forcings [CO2 is a minor, 3rd order forcing, which can be completely disregarded for all practical purposes].
9. The planet is starved of CO2. More is better for the biosphere. In the past, CO2 has been up to twenty times higher, during times when the biosphere teemed with life and diversity. The planet has been measurably greening due directly to the rise in CO2.
10. The recent *minor* warming fluctuation is insignificant in the context of the Holocene. There was a coincidental correlation between CO2 and T from about 1979 – 1997. But that has broken down, and we have seen 17+ years of flat to cooling T.
I would post more facts, but I am concerned that your head might explode. The same for Johnathan Grady, who as a typical CAGW Kool Aid drinker, relies on assertions rather than on empricial, testable measurements.
Your side has no credible evidence showing that human activity causes measurable global warming. As the IPCC WG-3 co-chair Ottmar Edenhofer stated:
“One must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore.”
There is no credible, testable, measurable scientific evidence to support the “carbon” scare. It is nothing but a pseudo-scientific money scam. That is why none of your big players like Michael Mann are willing to debate the question. Instead, they tuck tail and run away. And all we get from your side are baseless assertions. Not nearly good enough. That’s why you’re losing the debate. The public smells a rat.
I disagree with almost everything you stated, not to mention its delivery. I’m sure you’ll understand if I continue to promote trained scientists’ views on a scientific matter, over those of the general population, whose track record in “winning” scientific debates (even if this no longer is one) is fairly dismal. Here are a few objective references – one is from a government agency (NASA). I understand that may provoke a reflexive negative response, but it also provides links to verifiable outside sources, including position letters from numerous independent, non-governmental scientific societies devoid of financial stakes in climate research (please read some of these). I also included an open access article that tracks the distinctly different viewpoints of the public and of scientists on anthropogenic climate change (including non-climate scientists with no stake in the research outcomes). The article establishes with empirical data that the debate is essentially now a skunk game in the scientific community, but not with the general public (just over 50% “believe” there…or rather are swayed by valid science). Based on those numbers and most responses here, I’d guess this blogsite is representative of a microscopic fringe segment of the general public. The last site is particularly user-friendly, adjusting language to describe the consensus according to your scientific knowledge level. It also provides 174 common arguments against anthropogenic climate change and in-depth rebuttals to each. There are many hundreds more sources, of course, but these 4 or 5 are a good start. Please read thoroughly without prejudice, if possible.
http://www.wunderground.com/resources/climate/928.asp#consensus
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm