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.
Wheeler says:
I disagree with almost everything you stated, not to mention its delivery.
Of course you do, because as usual you posted no empirical, testable scientific evidence to support your religious True Belief. And be aware that you started the denigration of just about everyone here. What did you expect, a kissy-face response? Now you’re getting pushback, and you don’t like it? Tough noogies.
Next, your comment about ‘trained scientists’ doing well in debates is risible. In every debate conducted in a fair, moderated venue, the alarmist scientists have gotten their heads handed to them:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/24/lord-monckton-wins-global-warming-debate-at-oxford-union
http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=5ac1c0d6-802a-23ad-4a8c-ee5a888dfe7e
http://www.john-daly.com/cru/emails.htm
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/05/agw-proponents-lose-yet-another-debate-down-under/
There are more. The alarmist clique refuses to debate any more, because they always lose.
Your links are not science. They all talk about the “consensus”, as if that is science. It’s not. It is strictly politics. And I note that you never responded to any of the verifiable, empirical evidence I posted proving beyond any doubt that the “carbon” scare is pseudo-scientific nonsense.
You claim that “this blogsite is representative of a microscopic fringe segment of the general public.” You are a fool. WUWT has won the internet’s Best Science & Technology website award three years running. Numerous well known climate scientists post their articles and comment here. This site has more than 182 million unique views, and a million reader comments — far more than all the alarmist blogs combined. That is not a “microscopic fringe”, so your comment displays ignorance.
The bottom line is this: every prediction made by the climate alarmist clique has been flat wrong. When someone is 100.0% wrong, rational folks will reject that world view. That is what is happening. Despite the flogging of the cAGW scare, the public is not impressed. You are losing the P.R. battle, and losing it badly. Only someone who lives in a thinly-trafficked scare blog like you do would not see what is happening.
We have had 150 years of a true “Goldilocks” climate. Amazingly, global T has not varied more than 0.7ºC over that time. In the last 12,000 years global T has varied by tens of degrees — within only a couple decades — and during times when CO2 was very low.
All you have are baseless assertions. We have empirical, testable, measureable scientific evidence proving that the “carbon” scare is complete hogwash.
Any time you want to have a debate based on the science, let me know. I’ll give you a good spanking. I promise. ☺
🙂 You’re funny. No, I certainly didn’t expect popularity from this site, but I just can’t let willful ignorance go without a fight. Since I see you didn’t, I’ll repeat: read, and learn, for yourself – don’t trust me and especially don’t trust sycophants on sites like this one.
@Christopher Wheeler
Then start with yourself. You have yet to address a single point dbstealey has raised. Your failure to do so shows you did not come here to inform, but to lecture – as a parent to a child. Your problem is that you found a site of adults, not children.
Christopher Wheeler
As usual, you did not respond to any of the scientific evidence provided. Because you can’t. You are completely impotent when it comes to facts. All you have are your baseless assertions.
Go away, unless you want to debate facts. I am ready, as always. You alarmist clowns have no scientific evidence to support your religious True Belief. You are incredible.
Re-reading your comments, all I see are assertions. That is inadequate at the best science site on the internet. But it is all you have. That is why the public is laughing at you.
If you have any verifiable, measurable, empirical and testable evidence to support your beliefs, post it here. I will deconstruct it, because that is the essence of the Scientific Method. Posting anything else is self-serving propaganda.
The ball is in your court now. Return service, or be a chump in front of millions of readers.
@Christopher Wheeler says:
May 21, 2014 at 6:29 pm
I think your biggest mistake was linking to Skeptical Science about consensus. You won’t get much traction on this site by doing that.
Just read the notes (links) at the right side of thread here:
“Unreliable*
Skeptical Science – John Cook
* Due to (1) deletion, extension and amending of user comments, and (2) undated post-publication revisions of article contents after significant user commenting.”
Anyone have further reasons (3) (4) (5) etc. for not believing what’s posted on the Skeptical Science site?
Thank you db. I believe that was a smackdown.
I was hoping, however, that wheeler would at least try…….
I hate to tell you guys who wrote it that you did not use the best available science to debunk these claims. Let’s start with the Arctic. You make the point that the warming from 1900 to 1940 was very similar to the warming we are experiencing now. Very true, but then you drop the ball without putting it into context. The context is that Arctic warming started from nothing in 1900, after 2000 years of slow, linear, cooling. It is totally impossible for any greenhouse warming to behave that way because laws of physics would be violated. I made that point in my article that came out in 2021 (E&E 22(8):1069-1083) but you are blissfully unaware of the existence of my work. Since it was clear that greenhouse warming was out as a cause the only possible cause was a sudden start of warming at the turn of the century. Clearly it started as a rearrangement of the North Atlantic current system at the turn of the century that began to carry warm Gulf Stream water into the Arctic Ocean. I even unearthed direct measurements of ocean temperature reaching the Arctic that were warmer than anytime within the last 2000 years. I also used the NOAA Arctic Report card for 2010 to demonstrate that it was a two-part warming, interrupted by thirty years of cooling in mid-century. All this amounts to proof of the absence of greenhouse warming since the start of the twentieth century, and really proof that there has been no greenhouse warming at all in the Arctic for the last 2000 years.This is what you should have hammered in at them instead of that nambi-pambi talk of yours. And our climate is not cyclical, with the exception of ENSO for which a physical explanation exists (see my book). Another thing you should have pointed out is that their climate models are worthless and their use should be discontinued. It started with Hansen in 1988 when he showed three models. His model A was an attempt to project the existing climate ahead for the next 31 years. It was a miserable failure as comparison of his projections with what actually happened shows. He did it on an IBM mainframe but since then they have gone to supercomputers running million-line code. They have had 24 years to get their house in order but the output of these high-falutin’ models is no better than Hansen’s was in 1988. It is misleading and should not be used in any climate predictions at all. As you point out, “…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…” But a greenhouse gas requires the greenhouse effect before it can influence climate. It can be demonstrated that Hansen did not discover the greenhouse effect in 1988 as he claims. What he did was to point to a 100 year stretch of “greenhouse” warming and claim that its existence proved the existence of the greenhouse effect. But when you check the Congressional Record for that 100 year greenhouse warming you find that it isn’t. What he has done is to include a manifestly non-greenhouse warming from 1910 to 1940 as part of that “100 year greenhouse warming.” This requires that any warming older than 1940 cannot count as part of the proof of his greenhouse effect. Removing everything below 1940 leaves a wiggly temperature curve consisting of 25 years of cooling and 23 years of warming. You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to understand that no way can this remnant curve be used to prove that the greenhouse effect exists. Hansen simply did not observe the greenhouse effect in 1988 but said he did. And since nobody checked his science he has been getting away with this for the last 26 years. Since that time the IPCC has been using Hansen’s imaginary greenhouse effect in their calculations and producing nothing but imaginary CAGW with that.
ok, class is over – yawn. Don’t fall all over yourselves as I leave your world for the real one 😀
I wrote to Christopher Wheeler:
Go away, unless you want to debate facts.
Wheeler has chosen to run away. That is obviously because he cannot debate scientific facts. All his comments are assertions. The beauty of WUWT is that the scientific evidence is debated, and gradually the wrong notions are weeded out.
Mr Wheeler’s comments are self-serving nonsense. He can’t take the heat of debate here, because he will not discuss factual evidence. Wheeler says:
…I leave your world for the real one…
As if. Wheeler inhabits fantasy blogs like the thinly trafficked SkepticalScience and realclimate, where the head-nodding zombies are all in agreement for one reason: contrary comments are censored out. That is not scientific debate. It is much more akin to a Jehovah’s Witness meeting. On the other hand, WUWT has received more than 180 million unique views, and one million reader comments. Those numbers are far greater than SkS and RC combined – just like the OISM co-signers number far more than Wheeler’s relatively small clique of alarmist scientists. Therefore, WUWT is the ‘real world’. QED
Wheeler might not comment, but he will certainly read this. His carbon scare is built on media hype, not on credible science. Wheeler is feeding at the trough of pseudo-scientific ignorance. He rides the climate gravy train, terrified of seeing the public question his scam. Wheeler might even believe his swivel-eyed nonsense. But what he preaches is no more science than astrology, or phrenology. In Wheeler’s case, it is deliberate, willful ignorance.
We are fortunate to be living in a true “Goldilocks” climate. For the past century and a half, global T has fluctuated by only a few tenths of a degree. Only a dozen millennia past, global T fluctuated by TENS of degrees — within only a decade or two. That is scary!
Agricultural production has risen substantially, due directly to the rise in harmless CO2. There are millions of people who are alive today as a direct result of the added CO2. But the Wheelers of the world do not care that their ongoing scam would result in mass starvation, if their proposed schemes were effected. People like Wheeler have no morals, and no conscience.
I invited Wheeler to discuss scientific facts instead of making his baseless assertions, or be a chump. We can see what his decision was. He tucked tail and ran.
===========================
Arno, you always post good facts. I read everything you write, because there is always plenty of meat on the bone. But each of us debates in our own way. Scolding someone for not mentioning certain facts isn’t very helpful.
With notable exceptions for children, lawyers, and the insane, only those impervious to reason and logic debate facts, and constructive debate is predicated upon both. This is precisely why no one capable will accept your invitation to debate, and precisely why this site and the mindset most attracted to it are self-fulfilling, self-congratulatory microcosms. Feel free to write a few hundred more words to further prove the point – or some other rambling one – but it won’t change facts.
Once again Wheeler avoids any mention of scientific facts, or measurable, testable evidence. He tucks his tail between his quivering hind legs and runs off yelping at any mention of debate.
I do not need to debate, even though I could easily clean the floor with Wheeler types. But the alarmist clique runs and hides out from debating eminent climatologists like Spencer, Lindzen, Christy, and many others who reject their catastrophic AGW nonsense.
And nonsense it is, too. That is why Wheeler types are terrified of any fair, moderated debate. All his verbiage does nothing to cover up his fear of debate. Lindzen has authored more than twenty dozen peer reviewed climate papers, and he has destroyed his debate opponents. So all the BS emitted by Wheeler is just a coverup for his abject fear.
Wheeler talks about “facts”, but he has yet to reference a single one. All his comment are just baseless assertions. On the other hand, skeptics have mountains of facts and evidence that debunk the “carbon” nonsense. If Wheeler ever wants to pick an item of evidence to support the CAGW nonsense, we are here to refute him — with facts and evidence, not with always wrong models, appeals to corrupt authorities, and baseless assertions.
To moderator:
In the para above named “NCA Claim #2: …” ,
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 link :
http://www.cpc.ncep. noaa.gov/data/indices/ersst3b.nino.mth.81-10.ascii
appears to have a typo in it, and does not work.
Can you fix?
With great appreciation to you for running this blog,
Regards,
Geert
(physicist, does not accept the CO2-does-it religion,)
yaaawwwnnnn – here’s a single fact: the complete list of “peer reviewed” public (i.e., not commissioned) papers on climate change by Lindzer – took me all of 2 minutes to retrieve all 5 (not “twenty dozen”) from the primary scientific literature. Oh, and by the way, two are commentaries (not peer reviewed research), one is a review, and all but one (the one on which he is a lesser author) are truly ancient in general scientific terms, let alone of climatology time lines – that leaves one research paper on which he was a major author (FYI, because I’m sure you don’t know, first and last authorships are the only major positions in scientific publishing). As is plain by now, your idea of “wiping the floor” is, like most ideas presented here, utterly independent of verifiable scientific documentation. If I thought it was time well spent, I’m sure I could debunk each and every other point raised here. I’m mainly just doing this for my own entertainment at this point, however, and it’s obviously not worth the odd two minutes or so here and there.
1.
Space observations of cold-cloud phase change.
Choi YS, Lindzen RS, Ho CH, Kim J.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2010 Jun 22;107(25):11211-6. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1006241107. Epub 2010 Jun 7.
2.
Can increasing carbon dioxide cause climate change?
Lindzen RS.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1997 Aug 5;94(16):8335-42.
3.
On the scientific basis for global warming scenarios.
Lindzen RS.
Environ Pollut. 1994;83(1-2):125-34.
4.
Global warming report.
Lindzen RS.
Science. 1990 Jan 5;247(4938):14. No abstract available.
5.
New greenhouse report.
Lindzen RS.
Science. 1990 Sep 7;249(4973):1093. No abstract available.
“Lindzen” – sorry for the typo.
I have a few things I would like to point out, these are things that in my mind make the climate skeptics argument much weaker. I am completely for scientific disagreement on issues, this is how science moves forward. But the following things hold back the entire debate over climate science, and for the most part these things come from the skeptic camp.
1. Actually read the things you are “rebutting”, I have no doubt that <10% of the commenters here have read the NCA. This means you are in no way qualified to make statements on what is or is not accurate in that report. The report could be complete bullshit, but you wouldn’t know if you haven’t read it.
2. CITATIONS. If you read the NCA, you would see that every single statement references a research paper (or multiple) supporting that statement. The above “rebuttal”, has very few references for important statements. I’m very confused why this doesn’t bother anybody on here. Just listing the source as “Various” and not providing links, reduces your credibility. The vast majority of statements above do not have links, count up unverified statements for yourself. For example, take the following statement from the 3rd rebuttal; “The Administration relied upon Climate Models, all predicated on the GHG Hot Spot Theory, that all fail standard model validation and forecast reliability tests.” This is a smart sounding statement that means nothing. Someone please explain to me what “standard model validation and forecast reliability tests” are. Just saying that statement and not saying what statistical tests are being used is completely useless. Show me a paper or article outlining the deficiencies, you can’t just make unsupported statements, then be upset when no one listens to you. Climate scientists are not being academically dishonest, the people that wrote this article are.
3. Stop being actively deceitful in some arguments. This may be the most important one. I really have a hard time being sympathetic to climate skeptic’s point of view when there are arguments that are one of two things, 1. Actively trying to deceive the audience or 2. Ignorant beyond comprehension. The 2nd rebuttal above is the perfect example of this. Nowhere in the NCA does it claim the number of record setting heat days as evidence, or as an effect of global warming. There’s no reason they should because this is a poor indicator of overall climate. This one attempted rebuttal ruins the entire article for me. Either the article’s authors didn’t understand the material they were reading (not good), or they are trying to deceive people who haven’t read the NCA either (much worse).
4. The common theme I hear from skeptics is that certain aspects of climate change are being ignored by climate scientists, namely that climate sensitivity needs further validation and that natural factors are not taken into account. This is where I have to implore you to do your own research. The internet is a wonderful tool; don’t just read the articles that WUWT or other blogs give to you. Work your way through academic articles on the topic. Or, a slightly easier way, take a point that WUWT makes in an article. Go to google, and try and prove it wrong. After you do that, take whatever it was that convinced you it was wrong, and try and prove that wrong (essentially debating yourself with the help of valid sources). Continue to do this until you can’t find anything else to read. When you get there, congratulations! You most likely have a much better understanding of the topic than 99% of the general public.
To reiterate, I hope you will take this as a genuine attempt to communicate, not to bash you. These are the main problems that I see with this site and others like it. I hope you all consider the things I said on their merit, and do not have a knee jerk reaction to disagree. The most important part of the scientific method is being able to know when the data doesn’t support your position. There have certainly been instances on both sides of the debate of forgetting this, but as of late it has mostly come from the skeptics’ camp.
There are many claims made against the National Climate Assessment’s “lack of explicit discussion about the uncertainties” surrounding their assertions, however you provide no such argument yourself. This article fails to address any important and relevant findings that are in the research. There are more than 5 claims made in the NCA and it would be more interesting to read a response to all of these claims rather than a few biased accusations with your own “lack of explicit discussion about the uncertainties”.
John Smith:
It would require writing a book to refute all of the mistaken assertions in your post at May 28, 2014 at 4:05 pm which is here.
I answer one of your points because it encompasses all that you have misunderstood.
You write
You don’t say which “skeptics” claim “climate sensitivity” is “being ignored”. I have not come across any such and – contrary to your assertion in your post – they are not typical of contributors to WUWT.
Use the WUWT Search facility to look for ‘climate sensitivity’ and you will instantly see you are wrong. What is true is that the most recent report (AR5) of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has lowered its estimate of climate sensitivity in response to the cessation of global warming which has happened over the most recent 17+ years.
I commend that you read this WUWT item
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/10/animated-analysis-shows-that-ipcc-ar5-global-warming-prediction-is-lower-than-ar4-tar-and-far/
as a start to your education in these matters which you astonishingly suggest WUWT readers should obtain!
Your suggestion that one uses Google to learn what the WUWT Search facility provides is mistaken. And I offer you the following explanation of why climate sensitivity and the climate Null Hypothesis are important. I suggest you study it until you understand it because then “You most likely have a much better understanding of the topic than 99% of the general public.”
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
It is certainly possible I have misunderstood skeptic claims/disagreements. And yes, I most likely make the mistake of lumping skeptics together, I apologize. I do realize there are honestly people who are skeptical about GW for sound reasons, these are not the people I am directing this post at.
This doesn’t change the fact that the article I’m commenting on was very intellectually dishonest and a poor advocate for your case. And I would be curious to hear your opinion on the article in general.
I do in fact understand a null hypothesis, and you make it seem much more straight forward than it actually is. Your null hypothesis is too broad to be either proven or disproven so it is not useful in anyways. There could be a near infinite amount of null hypotheses related to global warming, so I’m not understanding your point.
John Smith, thanks for trying, but logic and reason, and especially scientific method, will not convince “some” of the skeptics on this site. They elevate this blog’s cherry-picking tactics to the level of the entirely of the peer-reviewed scientific literature on the matter, and in opposition to the vast majority of it. A few of them have proven over and over just in this single post alone that, while they may recall some science buzz words from school, they have a remedial understanding of the concepts behind them at the very best. Unfortunately, your hunch about the intentions of the article’s authors is probably closer to deliberate deception, based on their known financial, religious and/or political sources of support. My advice to you would be not to waste too much of your time on this, as the best you can hope for is reams of anti-science and anti-intellectualism posing as the opposite.
Wheeler.
Your claim is based on “peer-review” on one hand, and baseless castigations against skeptics on the other hand. What, please, is your actual evidence to justify the immediate and needless death of millions (due to enforced energy starvation between now and 2100), and the continued forced poverty, starvation, malnutrition, drought, suffering, and illness of billions more (due to your requirements and calls for additional energy deprivation)?
You have presented no evidence other than the government-paid claims of your chosen priests who are promoted by your faith in their claims. You have no evidence, only 100–year long assumptions of future computer models that have failed even in ten years.
When CO2 was steady, temperatures have risen, been steady, and fallen.
While CO2 increases were small, temperatures have risen, been steady, and fallen.
When CO2 increases were high, temperatures have risen, been steady and fallen.
SO, why should we kill millions of people to stop beneficial CO2 and temperature increases?
See, the evidence and the calculations show that YOUR “final solutions” to this non-crisis ARE the worse thing possible to do to the patient – who is actually not at all sick in any way. YOU are the one calling for chemotherapy and mastectomy and electro-shock therapy, amputation and cauterization of person’s limbs under Civil War conditions with bone saws and no anesthetic. All because of the person is ill from hunger, cold, thirst, and parasitic infections.
Cure the people. Cure the patient with food, clothing, shelter, and clean water. With electric power, concrete, steel, refrigeration, sterilized medical devices and streets and windows and screens and air conditioning, tractors, trucks, bridges and canals.
Oh. Yeah. All those require energy and effort. Not bureaucracies and death panels of UN-led Brussel spouts enforcing “green laws” fro THEIR air-conditioned fortresses of books and restaurants.