By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, William M. Briggs, David R. Legates, Anthony Lupo, Istvan Marko, Dennis Mitchell and Willie Soon
With acknowledgement to breitbart.com
Some 375 political activists attached to the National Academy of Sciences, supporting the totalitarian view on the climate question, have recently issued an open letter saying we “caused most of the historical increase in atmospheric levels of heat-trapping greenhouse gases.”
In fact, the extent of our influence on climate is not “settled science.” Only 0.3% of twelve thousand papers published in learned journals claimed that recent warming was mostly manmade. The 375 activists are entitled to their opinion, but the scientific community’s peer-reviewed results overwhelmingly fail to endorse their narrow view that recent warming was predominately manmade.
True, we influence climate, by returning to the air some of the carbon dioxide that was there before. But so do termites, by emitting more methane than all the world’s farm animals combined. So do plants, by taking carbon dioxide; storing the carbon in leaves, stems, and trunks; and returning the oxygen to the air. So does the Sun, by supplying nearly all the Earth’s radiant energy. So do volcanoes, by emitting hot rocks that warm the air and ejecta that shade the Earth from the Sun and cause cooling. So do the oceans, by helping to keep the Earth’s temperature within a few degrees either side of the period mean for more than 800,000 years.
The activists say we are warming the oceans. But in the first 11 full years of the least ill-resolved dataset we have, the 3500+ Argo bathythermograph buoys, the upper mile and a quarter of the world’s oceans warmed at a rate equivalent to just 1 Celsius degree every 430 years, and the warming rate, negligible at the surface, rises faster the deeper the measurements are taken. The oceans are warming not from above, which they would if we were warming the air and the air was warming the oceans, but from below.
The activists say we are warming the lower atmosphere. Yet on all datasets, the atmosphere is warming at less than half the rate originally predicted by their fellow-activists at the error-prone Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — who have a vested interest in overstating the supposed extent of our influence on climate. For, otherwise, the Panel would be – as it should now be – abolished. The Panel is political, but science is not science unless it is scientific, and unless it is free, in particular, from the political totalitarianism that sullenly insists that only one opinion – the Party Line – may be uttered.
The activists say the oceans are “acidifying.” The truth is that, aside from a few transects and a few local studies, science has no idea whether or at what rate the oceans are “acidifying.” What is known, however, is that the oceans are not acid (as rainwater is): they are pronouncedly alkaline. It is also known that, under anything like modern conditions, they are so powerfully buffered that alkaline they must remain.
The activists say our influence on climate is evident in “altered rainfall patterns,” but in this they are at odds with their fellow-activists at the ill-fated Intergovernmental Panel, whose special report on extreme weather (2012) and whose fifth and most recent (2013) Assessment Report on the climate question find little or no evidence of a link between our industries and enterprises on the one hand and global rainfall patterns on the other.
The activists say we are to blame for retreating Arctic sea ice. But Arctic sea ice variations, if objectively quantified with proper error estimates, are fully within the large natural range of changes that have no need of any unique explanation by rising atmospheric carbon dioxide. In addition, Antarctic sea ice, which they somehow do not mention, has largely offset the loss of Arctic ice.
True scientists, like any other citizens, are entitled and even encouraged to take part in the political process, and to state their opinions. This applies to non-USA-citizens, which many of the 375 are. What true scientists must not do, however, is pretend, as the activists did, that their totalitarian point of view is unchallengeable. In all material respects, unfolding events have proven their extremist viewpoint prodigiously exaggerated at best, plain wrong at worst.
Specifically, the activists complain that, during the presidential primary campaign, “claims were made that the Earth is not warming.” Yet early in the primary campaign it was correct to say the Earth had not been warming for almost 19 years.
The graph displayed by Senator Ted Cruz at a Senate hearing late in 2015
More recently there has been a naturally-occurring El Niño event, which has raised the trend a little, but it remains true that the early predictions of medium-term warming were badly exaggerated.
The activists declare their faith in the doctrine “that the problem of human-caused climate change is real, serious and immediate, and that this problem poses significant risks” to everything from national security via health and agriculture to biodiversity. But this statement is based wholly on faith and is unsupported by reality. We know this because of the serially failed predictions made by alarmists.
The activists say, “We know that the climate system has tipping points.” Yet, revealingly, “Tipping point” is not a scientific but a political term. The activists say that “rapid warming of the planet increases the risk of crossing climatic points of no return,” but there is no evidence for rapid warming of the planet today. At the end of the Maunder Minimum, the Earth’s atmosphere warmed more rapidly in response to the naturally-occurring recovery of solar activity from 1695-1735 than it has warmed in any subsequent 40-year period. There is nothing unprecedented either about today’s global temperatures or about the rate at which those temperatures have been changing.
The activists say warmer weather will “possibly” set in motion “large-scale ocean circulation changes.” The scientific truth is that, while the wind blows, the Earth rotates and its land-masses are approximately where they are, the ocean circulation must remain much as it is now. To suggest otherwise is mere rodomontade.
The activists say warmer weather will cause “the loss of major ice sheets.” But if the great ice sheet that covered most of North America to a depth of two miles had not melted owing to naturally-occurring global warming 10,000 years ago, where would the United States be today? Antarctic snowfall accumulation has not exhibited a massive meltdown over the past 40 to 60 years, and there has been no change to speak of in northern-hemisphere snow cover. There is little evidence that the tiny global warming that has occurred is at all likely to have major effects, whether on the cryosphere or on anything else, and still less evidence that those effects would be deleterious, and still less that, even if they were deleterious, the proposed measures to prevent them would make any detectable difference, and still less that, even if proposed measures might work, the imagined benefits would exceed the extravagant cost of their implementation.
The activists are also wrong in their assertion that any appreciable human influence on the climate will be detectable for many thousands of years. Their fellow activists on the Panel say that very nearly all of the feedbacks from the small warming that may be caused by our enriching the atmosphere with plant food act over timescales of hours to – at most – decades.
The activists are wrong to state that “it is of great concern that the Republican nominee for President has advocated U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Accord.” On the scientific evidence to date, it is abundantly clear that the original predictions made by the totalitarians were extreme exaggerations.
It is also clear that, though the world may warm a little, it will not warm a lot; that adding CO2 to the air will be of benefit to plants in reducing their need for water, which is why the world’s desert regions are beginning to green; and that the cost of futilely playing Canute with the climate is 10-100 times greater than the cost of any realistically foreseeable net disbenefit from warmer weather.
It would, therefore, be entirely proper for a presidential candidate to argue that the United States should withdraw from the Paris climate treaty, except for one inconvenient truth. The United States has not ratified the treaty. Any such ratification requires a two-thirds majority of the Senate, and the collapse of the totalitarians’ scientific case for “climate action” now renders any such two-thirds majority impossible to achieve.
Though the activists have attempted – falsely and improperly – to convey the impression that it is somehow illegal, immoral or damaging to the planet to vote for the Republican party’s candidate in the forthcoming presidential election because he disagrees with the totalitarian position on the climate question that they espouse with such religious fervor and such disregard for science, in truth it is not the business of scientists to abuse the authority of their white lab-coats by collectively suggesting that “Science” demands the voters should or should not cast their vote in any particular direction.
Therefore, the signatories hereto repudiate the letter issued by the 375 activists as reflecting not scientific truth but quasi-religious dogma and totalitarian error; we urge the voters to disregard that regrettable and anti-scientific letter; and we invite every citizen to make up his or her own mind whom to elect to the nation’s highest office without fear of the multifarious bugaboos conjured into terrifying but scientifically unjustifiable existence by the totalitarian activists who have for decades so disrespected, disgraced and disfigured climate science.
Footnote
Those who are eagerly awaiting the next installment in the Feet of Clay series about climate sensitivity may like to know that I had the honor of presenting the principal ideas, including the central error in the models that has caused such large exaggerations in the high-end predictions of climate sensitivity, at the recent London climate conference.
It is now clear that the central error – which was about to be revealed in the Feet of Clay series – is indeed an error. Several electronic engineers who were present have confirmed its seriousness. I have been advised that, although it was permissible to discuss the error at a scientific conference, publication in a learned journal would be prejudiced if I were to post a detailed consideration of the error here at WUWT.
However, readers can obtain an idea of the nature, scope and effect of the error by going to the following YouTube link to the full broadcast of my talk at the London conference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58MEotH79rg.
I gave a short impromptu piano recital during the closing-night party. A link to a recording of one of the items on the program – Schubert’s Sechs Ecossaisen der Ehemaligen, a semi-strophic suite of six little Scottish dances written on a visit to Scotland when he was just 18, and nowadays seldom heard furth of the Highlands – is below.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/i2m2l3g5fer93v9/Schubert-6-Ecossaisen-der-Ehemaligen.mp3?dl=0
The piece is much loved in the Highlands, where we tend to play it, as here, languidly and meditatively in the fashion of an oran talaidh or lullaby. It is affectionately known to bairns all over the Highlands as the “Sleepy Woodpecker”, after the simple but very beautiful woodpecker’s chorus between each of the dances, which is written to be played staccato but is here played legatissimo in the Highland fashion. Played resonantly (the Bösendorfer helps here), the piece will usually send even the most insomniac baby to sleep within minutes.
Many of the ideas that Schubert would incorporate into his music throughout his life are represented in this early work. He went on to write several dozen Ecossaises, though all of the others, in the modern fashion, were in 2:4 time rather than in the old-style 3:4 time of this work. The composer takes a few simple figures and weaves them together into a tonally complex though harmonically simple skein, exploring them from every angle.
The closing Ecossaise, “In the moonlight”, which serves as the coda, is remarkable in that, after a few initial bars linking to the preceding chorus, the melody consists of just two notes, the tonic and its leader. It is one of the loveliest codas in the entire Classical canon. Enjoy!
Since the notice of the “Open Letter … ” I saw headlined Stephen Hawking being a signer , I assume there must be a fair number of pedigreed physicists among the 375 signers . Therefore , my open letter in response asks specifically for the quantitative and therefore experimentally testable equation enabling and explaining the “trapping” of heat in excess of calculated radiant equilibrium by some spectral phenomenon .
http://cosy.com/y16/Science_Warm_Response0921.jpg
It remains the fact that I have never seen such an equation from either side within the GHG paradigm .
Bob Armstrong
In philosophical terms the missing item is not an equation but rather is an argument, the conclusion of which has been cross validated.
No . It is lack of a quantitative equation and any experimental demonstration of the asserted effect .
It seems this field is so divorced from the classical analytical methods of normal branches of applied physics that few even know how to calculate the equilibrium temperature for an arbitrary spectrum heated by an arbitrary spectrum an just , for decades now , parrot the special case of producing the 255K meme as shown by the “alarmist” spectrum in this graph from http://cosy.com/Science/RadiativeBalanceGraphSummary.html .
http://cosy.com/Science/ScaledSpectra%26hyp.jpg
Precise values can be calculated for any arbitrary spectra , and even the computations for any varicolored spectra over a ball is not much more difficult to express in an APL . And the variation for the small change in overall spectrum due to changes in CO2 at these level is de minimis .
NO equation exists explaining how some spectral effect “traps” kinetic energy to a higher average density in the interior of a ball than that calculated by the computations outlined above . That is why their has been no convergence in this cargo-cult imitation of real physics in decades .
People can play around in complex Navier-Stokes chaos all they want , but until they can demonstrate and quantify and explain by equation the effect in simple 1 dimensional analog with source on one end and sink on the other , it’s not physics .
Re Sherrington’s comment.He is correct in noting that a common mistake in climate science temperature evaluations is to confuse precision (measurement) error with bias error.Using modern sensors and data acquisition systems,precision errors are usually negligible.The concern should be with bias error,which is seldom properly discussed in climate science.Bias errors that are understood can be corrected for.The problem is the bias errors that are not understood,or not even recognized–the “unknown unknowns” made famous by Donald Rumsfeld.
A Mills,
One might look at that first graph from Christopher’s header and wonder why the annual peak happens before and during the Southern Hemisphere summer. Of course, the NH ocean area is smaller, but lacking immediate access to the numbers of floats used in each hemisphere (and even disregarding the tropics where the sun is overhead twice each year) one might have expected to see some bumps from the NH summer.
But that graphical granularity showing increments of 0.001 K is what has me laughing the most. What worries me the most is the cavalier attitude to bias, be it systematic or occasional that must be present in the data to some degree, but not found on this graph in a form able to be seen and explained. Bias is like that.
Remember how quickly the XBT float design was dropped when Argo was thought to have showed XBT bias? You should be prepared for ARGO to be dropped when the next magic black box is introduced ‘because of unexpected errors found in the Argo floats… .. but able to be reconstructed and homogenised to match the latest measurements.’ or some such news release.
There is a pressing need for climate researchers to use error estimation formally and correctly. At present, apart from a few papers, error quantification is a joke, a bad joke, written by ignorant fools.
In response to Mr Sherrington’s excellent points about the claimed precision of the ARGO floats, one reason why they have to use thousandths of a degree is that the ocean is only warming in thousandths of a degree.
The only global temperature dataset that presents a separate accounting for bias uncertainty is UAH, which publishes monthly data for both coverage and bias uncertainties.
“Hats off to Bob Carter”
Here here to the happy warrior
Der friolica kriegsman
You might like to cite Harold Black instead of or in addition to Bode.
Bob Armstrong:
Equations that explain are worthless for the purpose of controlling a system. Needed for control of a physical system is a model that predicts the outcomes of those events whose outcomes are to be controlled.Today’s climate models make no predictions. They make “projections” and though projections are frequently conflated with projections the two concepts differ.