climate issues & facts - sonoma state university€¦ · climate issues & facts james v....

The Marshall Institute — Science for Better Public Policy

Climate Issues & Facts

Fourth Edition

Copyright © 2015

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form without permission from the George Marshall Institute.

The George C. Marshall InstituteThe George C. Marshall Institute, a nonprofit research group founded in 1984, isdedicated to fostering and preserving the integrity of science in the policy process. TheInstitute conducts technical assessments of scientific developments with a major impacton public policy and communicates the results of its analyses to the press, Congressand the public in clear, readily understandable language. The Institute differs from otherthink tanks in its exclusive focus on areas of scientific importance, as well as a Boardwhose composition reflects a high level of scientific credibility and technical expertise.Its emphasis is public policy and national security issues primarily involving the physicalsciences, in particular the areas of missile defense and global climate change.

The views expressed in this document do not necessarily represent the views andpolicies of the George C. Marshall Institute, but its publication is an important contri-bution to the debate.

Climate Issues & Facts

James V. DeLong

George C. Marshall InstituteArlington, Va.

About the Author

James V. DeLong is Vice President & Senior Analyst of the Convergence Law Institute,a non-profit organization dedicated to research and education on public policy issues,especially in the areas of energy, technology, and intellectual property. He is an adjunctscholar with the Competitive Enterprise Institute and the Heartland Institute. Mr. DeLong has also been Senior Fellow at The Progress & Freedom Foundation;Senior Analyst at the Competitive Enterprise Institute; and Vice President of theNational Legal Center for the Public Interest.

Earlier jobs included a period as an independent lawyer and consultant, workingprimarily on environmental and energy matters, and tours as Research Director of theAdministrative Conference of the United States, as Assistant Director for SpecialProjects in the Bureau of Consumer Protection of the Federal Trade Commission, andas a Senior Analyst in the Office of Program Evaluation of the United States Bureau ofthe Budget.

Mr. DeLong is a magna cum laude graduate of the Harvard Law School, where hewas Book Review Editor of the Harvard Law Review, and a cum laude graduate ofHarvard College, where he majored in U.S. History. He is the author of numerousbooks and articles on property rights, environmental issues, energy, technology policy,and politics, including Property Matters: How Property Rights Are Under Assault—And Why You Should Care (Free Press 1997) and Ending ‘Big SIS’ (the SpecialInterest State) and Renewing the American Republic (CreateSpace 2012).

Introduction

The purpose of this document is to identify fundamental questions about climatechange and provide straightforward answers that separate fact from speculation andadvocacy.

The most important fact is that the repeated assertion that “the science is settled” isnot only wrong but contrary to the scientific process. Science is never settled. Theoriesare continuously refined by the discovery of new knowledge, and sometimes long-settled “consensus” is completely upended.

Experts agree that the earth’s temperature has warmed slightly over the past 200years, that the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide is higher than it was in thepre-industrial era, and that humans affect climate.

Everything else is subject to debate—the degree of warming; the reliability of thetemperature record; whether warming would be harmful; the causes of warming; thelikely future path of global temperatures; the role of solar effects; the reliability ofproxies such as ice cores; the effect on extreme weather; the major factors causingclimate change; and more.

The concern about a serious human impact on the climate system, while legitimatelyraised, has been exaggerated.No validated scientific knowledge confirms the propo-sition that human activities are having or will have adverse effects on the climate systemor that the world faces a climate crisis.

In most fields of human endeavor, debate leads to the advancement of knowledge andunderstanding. That is not true with the climate change debate. Advocates of the viewthat catastrophic human-caused climate change is imminent attack those who disagreewith a level of viciousness rarely seen outside of partisan politics. Those who chal-lenge climate orthodoxy are called “deniers”, equating them to those who denied theholocaust, and perpetrators of crimes against humanity

Intensity of feeling does not promote accuracy of analysis, and is a barrier to discoveryand resolution. An abundance of evidence establishes that the case put forward by theadvocates that catastrophic climate change is imminent rests on a shaky foundation.

The complexity of the climate system and limitations in our state of knowledge havecreated opportunities for special interests, both ideological and economic to advancetheir agendas, gain funding for research and subsidies for “green” energy, or enhancetheir personal reputations. Climate change is big business; the U.S. governmentspends $21 billion per year on research, subsidies, and tax breaks premised on the ideathat the threat is real and immediate, and imposes uncounted but huge regulatory costson the private sector as a consequence.

Because the climate debate is agenda-driven, it has short-circuited the rigors of thescientific process and serious journalism. In particular, too much emphasis has beenplaced on appeals to authority as a substitute for the laborious processes of scientificstudy, hypothesis testing, validation, and replication.

As a result, there is serious misunderstanding and confusion over what we actuallyknow about the climate system, past climate changes and their causes, and humanimpacts on the climate system. There is also an unwarranted faith in and reliance oncomplex climate models.

Much of the supposed “consensus” is embodied by the work of the IntergovernmentalPanel on Climate Change (IPCC). The IPCC is a complex organization. While it drawson the work of distinguished scientists and technical experts, it is also subject to politicalpressures from the governments that lead it. Its Summaries for Policy Makers, oftenthe only documents read by the press, are notorious for departing from the measuredlanguage of the technical experts in favor of alarmist views dictated by political needs,a habit first documented by a panel of the National Academy of Sciences in 2001.

Although interest in climate is as old as mankind, climate science is a new field. Itemerged only since the 1970s, when advances in computer technology enabled devel-opment of complex climate models, when satellites became available to provide accu-rate temperature data, and more recently with the development of effective systems formeasuring ocean temperatures.

This time period from the 1970s until today is too short to provide a comprehensiveunderstanding of the processes that make up our complex climate system.

The implications of policy decisions make it is imperative that policy makers givegreater weight to factual accuracy, the scientific process, and the many uncertainties inour understanding of the climate system. The current situation calls not for alarmismbut for continuing research to expand our understanding, and for a respect for theimportance of abundant and affordable energy for the world’s economic wellbeing.

Table of Contents

1. Is the global warming since the start of the 20th century unique?

2. How much does the global climate vary naturally?

3. What do we know about human influence on climate?

4. What are greenhouse gases (GHGs) and what is their concentration in theEarth’s atmosphere?

5. What are past atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2)?

6. Why is CO2 called a pollutant?

7. Why is CO2 sometimes called “the elixir of life?”

8. How is global average temperature determined and how accurate are themeasurements?

9. Why do satellites and surface temperature measurements give different results?

10. What do we know about the relation between increases in the atmosphericconcentrations of CO2, other greenhouse gases and temperature?

11. If temperature changes cannot be correlated with the increase in atmosphericconcentrations of CO2 and other greenhouse gases, what is causing them?

12. As global temperatures have increased over the past century, have extremeweather events increased as well? Will the number of tropical cyclones(hurricanes, typhoons) increase and will they become more intense?

13. What are the causes of sea level rise?

14. Isn’t the thinning of Arctic sea ice a cause for concern about sea level rise?

15. Is evidence of increased ocean heat storage a major reason for the pause inwarming and what is the likelihood of that heat being released?

16. What has recent research on solar activity told us about the influence of the Sunon global climate?

17. What is carbon cycle feedback and how does it affect the climate system?

18. What are climate models, how accurate are they, and what are the limits onpredicting climate?

19. What is the basis for forecasts of large temperature increases and adverseclimate impacts?

20. What is the risk of abrupt climate change?

21. Why should IPCC reports be viewed with a degree of skepticism?

22. What does it mean to claim a “scientific consensus on climate change”?

23. How does the IPCC present statistical information and characterize certainty anduncertainty?

1


A committee of the National Academy of Science estimated that the Earth warmed by0.6ºC (1ºF) during the 20th Century. Since 1998, however, satellites, which providethe most accurate global measurements, have recorded no warming.

The warming during the 20th century is far from unusual. Climate is subject to manyforces, and the globe’s temperature is constantly adjusting, both up and down. Within thepast millennium, during the Medieval Warming (MWP) (800-1400) the temperature waswarmer it is than now, and during the Little Ice Age (LIA) (1400–1850), it was colder.

Much of the concern about “global warming” compares current temperatures to thoseof the Little Ice Age.

It should also be noted that the estimate of 0.6ºC of warming during the 20th Centuryis highly uncertain. Before the development of satellite temperature measurements in1979, climatologists relied on ground-based systems that were developed for purposesof local weather forecasting, not for scientific assessment of global climate trends. Manyof the thermometers were badly placed; for example, they were in urban heat islands.

Recent research indicates that the surface warming during the 20th century may havebeen over-estimated. The authors of an extensive study of the surface temperaturerecord concluded, “Instrumental data for the pre-satellite era (1850-1980) have beenso widely, systematically, and uni-directionally tampered with that it cannot be crediblyasserted that there has been any significant ‘global warming’ in the 20th century.”


Historic temperature reconstruction using proxies like ice cores and tree rings suggestthat there is considerable natural variation on a time-scale of decades to millennia,variation that long pre-dates intensive human use of fossil fuels.

However, all data are fragmentary and open to question. More detail on research onthe causes and magnitude of natural climate variability can be found in the MarshallInstitute report Natural Climate Variability.

On time scales of hundreds of thousands of years, the planet alternates betweenextended periods of low temperatures and brief periods of warming. One of theoddities of the climate change debate is the assumption that cooler must be better,when in fact a return to the colder earth of 25,000 years ago would destroy civilization,and most of humanity with it.

2


Humans certainly influence climate at a local and regional level through land use,creation of urban heat islands, deforestation and re-forestation, water management,and soil conservation practices.

Whether humans significantly influence climate on a global scale is the question thathas been debated since the late 1980s.

Almost all climate experts believe:

Emissions of CO2 from fossil fuels will raise the overall temperature of the earthsomewhat, and are probably a factor in the recent rise in global temperature. Thecontroversy is over the doubling sensitivity, how much the temperature will rise ifatmospheric concentrations of CO are doubled.

Emissions of aerosols—small solid or liquid particles—may also affect global climate,either by increasing cloud cover, which cools, or by reducing the earth’s ability toreflect solar radiation, which warms. We are certain that aerosols affect temperaturebecause of our experience with volcanic eruptions. There is controversy over themagnitude, and even sign, of temperature changes produced by manmade aerosols.

Both CO2 and aerosols are also generated by natural processes, as is discussed in the answer to Question 17 on the carbon cycle, so the important question is whateffect will incremental anthropogenic emissions have on the climate system, especiallysince the effect is non-linear and, as a result, incremental emissions must have adiminishing impact.

Fig.2. Reconstructed global temperature over the past 420,000 years based on the Vostok icecore from the Antarctica (Petit et al. 2001). The record spans over four glacial periods andfive interglacials, including the present. The horizontal line indicates the modern temperature.

3

4. What are greenhouse gases (GHGs) and what is their concentration inthe Earth’s atmosphere?

By volume percentage, 99% of dry air is nitrogen (78%) and oxygen (21%). Most ofthe rest is argon (0.93%), with carbon dioxide amounting to only 0.04%, but slowlyincreasing. Even smaller amounts of other gases, neon, helium, methane etc., make up the remainder.

Air also contains water vapor (H2O), from as much as 7% in the humid tropics to lessthan 1% on a cold winter day. Human exhaled breath typically contains 4% to 5% CO2and about 6% H2O.

The sun delivers energy to the earth in the form of short-wave-length electromagneticradiation, mostly visible and near-infrared. About 30 percent of this is reflected backinto space by clouds, or by the surfaces of the oceans and land. This reflectivity is calledthe earth’s albedo. The unreflected energy is absorbed by the oceans and the land.

All bodies with a temperature greater than absolute zero emit electromagnetic energy.For the earth, with an average surface temperature of about 15ºC, the emissionwavelengths are on the order 10 micro meters. Such radiation is often called long-waveinfrared or LWIR in the climate literature. The intensity of outgoing radiation increasesas the temperature of the earth rises.

If the earth had no atmosphere or had an atmosphere that was perfectly transparentfor radiation, it would come to a temperature of approximately -18ºC or 0.4ºF, atwhich the emitted energy of the earth would equal the absorbed energy from the sun.

But the earth’s temperature is actually about 15ºC (59ºF). The difference is due to thepresence in the atmosphere of GHGs, gases that are nearly transparent to sunlight butsignificantly opaque to the thermal radiation emitted by the earth’s surface. Thesewarm the earth by absorbing some of the outgoing radiation and then re-radiatingsome of it back toward the earth.

Of the gases that comprise the earth’s atmosphere, nitrogen (N), oxygen (O), andargon (Ar) are not GHGs. Carbon dioxide (CO2) and water vapor (H2O) are GHGs, asare some of the trace gases such as methane.

The most important GHG is water vapor. It is usually omitted from charts showing thecomposition of the atmosphere because it is a variable, ranging from near zero in cold,dry polar air, to as high as 7 percent in high humidity, tropical air or in human exhaledbreath. For the atmosphere as a whole, water vapor averages 4 percent.

The omission of water vapor from descriptions of the composition of the atmospheredistorts our thinking. To speak of a doubling of CO2 sounds scary; but doubling CO2from its present level would represent less than a one percent increase in the concen-tration of the combined GHGs of H2O and CO2—a less alarming-sounding proposition.

A crucial characteristic of GHGs is that each absorbs outgoing infrared radiation onlyon a limited number of specific wavelengths, which limits the effect of increases in theGHG. Once a gas absorbs all the radiation of specific wavelengths it has only minimalfurther warming effect.

Carbon dioxide exhibits this saturation effect, which is why a doubling of the CO2 levelcan cause only a small rise in temperature, probably as little as 1ºC.

While the alarmist literature demonizes that carbon dioxide (CO2 ), it cannot be repeatedtoo often that it is a natural and beneficial constituent of the atmosphere. AtmosphericCO2 is essential to life on earth, since plants use sunlight to combine CO2 molecules fromthe air with H2O molecules to make carbohydrates (for example, sugar) and other organiccompounds. In the process, oxygen molecules (C\O2) are released to the atmosphere.At CO2 levels of less than 0.015%, most plants stop growing. Over most of the history ofmulticellular life on earth, CO2 levels have been three or four times higher than presentlevels. Current CO2 levels of 0.04% are much less than optimum for most plant growth.


To start with facts that are accepted by almost everyone: the current concentration ofCO2 is about 400 parts per million. This represents an increase from 316 ppmrecorded for 1959.

4

5

The source of this official figure is an observatory at Mauna Loa, Hawaii. The obser-vations began in 1958, and these data represent the longest-running series in existence

For earlier times, the data are less reliable because they are based on proxies. For thepast million years, one can estimate past atmospheric CO2 levels from bubbles of airtrapped in ice cores taken from Greenland and Antarctica. Other proxy records, forexample, the number of stomata in fossil leaves and the C12 to C13 isotope ratios infossil organic materials and paleosols, permit modelling of atmospheric CO2 levels forthe entire Phanerozoic period. (The Phanerozoic is the period from 542 million yearsago to the present.)

The record derived from these proxy measurements shows that concentrations havevaried widely over the earth’s history, from as much as 7,500 ppm some 500 millionyears ago, then to approximately 400 ppm as of 300 million years ago (a level that isthe same as the current level), to more than 1,500 ppm as of 220 million years ago.

For the past 420,000 years, the level appears to have oscillated between 180 and 290ppm. Then, with the onset of the industrial revolution, the concentration increased toits current level of 400 ppm.

However, two question marks should be placed beside this generally-acceptedassessment:

First, for pre-1958, when precision CO2 observations became available, estimatesof CO2 concentrations are based on ice core data. Ignored are thousands of directmeasurements of CO2 that show substantially higher concentrations. This workhas been criticized but the reasons for the discrepancies between ice-core data anddirect measurements have not yet been fully resolved. Some fossil evidence is alsoat odds with ice core data.

Second, some experts question the accuracy of the ice core data, arguing that itunderestimates peak levels of CO2. Again, the debate is technical, and the issue isnot settled.


The reason, according to Princeton Professor William Happer, has nothing to do withscience and everything to do with the utility of “‘Carbon pollution’ [as] a propagandaslogan for the campaign against carbon dioxide (CO2).” He said:

Atmospheric CO2 is not a pollutant but is essential for plant growth. Current CO2levels are far below optimum for most plants, and far below norms of geologicalhistory, when CO2 concentrations averaged several times higher than presentvalues. A substantial fraction, about 15%, of current world food production is dueto the higher levels of CO2 compared to preindustrial values.

6

CO2 is a natural substance, and is constantly exchanged between the air and oceans orearth. Vegetation and soils plus the oceans contribute 200 gigatons of carbon per yearto the atmosphere, while fossil fuels and industrial processes combined with land usechanges contribute only about 8 gigatons.

CO2 was classified as “pollutant” for legal purposes when a Supreme Court decision in2007, Massachusetts v EPA, ruled that the Clean Air Act’s definition of the term “airpollutant” included CO2. The Court ignored the fact that Congress, in reauthorizing the Clean Air Act, specifically decided not to grant EPA the authority to regulate CO2 emissions.


Without CO2 in its atmosphere, the earth would be a lifeless rock. A minimum CO2level of about 150 ppm is necessary for plants, and these in turn emit the oxygen thatis essential to animal life.

About 300 million years ago, CO2 got dangerously close to that level. Those con-cerned about runaway increases in CO2 may be looking in the wrong direction.

At times in the past, CO2 levels have been much higher than they are now. Dr. TimBall notes that “most plants, especially the complex vascular plants evolved in the last300 million years. The average level of atmospheric CO2 over that period wasapproximately 1200 ppm.”

According to Patrick Moore, a founder of Greenpeace:

At 400 parts per million, all our food crops, forests, and natural ecosystems arestill on a starvation diet for carbon dioxide. The optimum level of carbon dioxidefor plant growth, given enough water and nutrients, is about 1,500 parts permillion, nearly four times higher than today.

8. How is global average temperature determined and how accurate arethe measurements?

The ability to determine temperatures over time with reasonable accuracy is a product ofthe industrial age, and even now many problems exist. Past temperatures can be assessedonly roughly, which makes all comparisons difficult and precise comparisons impossible.

We can be confident of our measurements of temperature only for the period after 1979,when satellites were launched that can measure atmospheric temperatures with accuracy.This record indicates that warming occurred between 1979 and 1998, but not since.

Before 1979, knowledge of the temperature record can be divided into several periods.

For pre-human history, the time between the formation of the earth 4 billion years agoand the beginning of systematically recorded human history, we must depend on

7

various proxy evidence, such as oxygen isotope levels, content of marine fossils, icecores, and other markers. Researchers are confident about the rough outlines of thisrecord (i.e., ice ages were cold), but precision is not possible. Recorded history addedhuman observations to the proxy data, but the information is sketchy and anecdotal.

The development of the thermometer between the 17th and 19th centuries enabledbetter temperature measurements, and the modern record starts around 1850.However, temperatures were recorded for weather prediction purposes, not for long-term climate analysis, and the data were not acquired systematically.

Beginning in the 1980s, institutions in the U.S. and Europe began collecting historicdata from weather stations selected for geographical representativeness and compre-hensiveness of data, and arranging for systematic future collection.

The accuracy of these measurements for both past and present is the subject of debate.The questions involve the siting of the measuring devices; the selection of already-extant stations; the effect of urban heat islands; the adjustments made to both currenttemperatures and the past temperature record; and the techniques used to developdata for areas which have few measuring devices.

Most experts, including those who regard themselves as “climate skeptics”, agree thatsome level of warming has occurred during the 20th century, and accept the 0.6ºCfigure as reasonable. (For a caveat, see the answer to Question No. 1.)

9. Why do satellites and surface temperature measurements give differ-ent results?

The two systems measure different phenomena and so yield different sets of data.

Satellite measurements examine microwave radiation from the lowest five miles of theatmosphere for use as a proxy for surface temperature. As described by Roy Spencer:

Since 1979, NOAA satellites have been carrying instruments which measure thenatural microwave thermal emissions from oxygen in the atmosphere. The in-tensity of the signals these microwave radiometers measure at different microwavefrequencies is directly proportional to the temperature of different, deep layers ofthe atmosphere. Every month, John Christy and I update global temperaturedatasets. . . that represent the piecing together of the temperature data from a totalof fourteen instruments flying on different satellites over the years.

The result is the UAH Satellite Based Temperature Record. (UAH is for University ofAlabama – Huntsville.)

Surface systems rely on direct measurements of the temperature at the surface asrecorded by networks of monitoring stations. As noted in the answer to Questions 1and 7, these systems have been criticized on a number of grounds.

8

Realistically, it is not possible for a system dependent on surface measurements to beas accurate as a system that measures atmospheric temperatures. Temperatures on thesurface are affected by numerous local factors of population density, terrain, andweather, and deploying enough monitoring stations to provide a detailed picture wouldbe virtually impossible. And until recently, surface measurements did not include theoceans, which cover over 70% of the earth.

10. What do we know about the relation between increases in the atmos-pheric concentrations of CO2, other greenhouse gases and temperature?

Anthropogenic emissions of CO2 have certainly increased since the beginning of theindustrial age in the 19th century, and it is generally thought that atmosphericconcentrations have also increased.

As discussed in the answer to Question 5, however, reliable data on CO2 begin onlywith the measurement system at Mauna Loa in 1958, and we are confident that CO2in the atmosphere has increased from 320 ppm in 1958 to 400 ppm in 2015.

However, no obvious correlation exists between the concentration levels of CO2 andtemperature, because CO2 increases on a generally smooth, steady path whiletemperature rises, flattens, or declines without any apparent connection.

It is also generally accepted that the earth’s temperature has increased during thisperiod because of natural variability, the end of the Little Ice Age, and increases in CO2emissions. And yet, the combination of natural variability and CO2 emissions has onlyproduced a 0.6ºC increase.

Delving further back into history, the lack of correlation between CO2 levels and temp-erature is even more striking. Proxy data say that CO2 concentrations were constantfrom 1000 to 1750, but the Earth experienced a warm period from 800 to 1200,followed by a cold period from 1400 to about 1850, as described in Question No. 1.

If greenhouse gases were the dominant factor affecting climate, temperature shouldhave been stable between 1000 and 1750.

Going even further back into geologic time, it becomes even more difficult to find theconnection between CO2 levels and temperature. At times, CO2 levels have been manytimes current levels while temperatures have been colder. At other times, CO2 levelshave been lower and temperatures higher.

11. If temperature changes cannot be correlated with the increase in atmo-spheric concentrations of CO2 and other greenhouse gases, what is caus-ing them?

The earth’s climate has always varied, as discussed in the answer to Question 2.

9

One possible explanation, as an alternative to AGW theory, is variances in solar effects,as discussed in more detail in Question 15.

Another possible explanation is aerosols, fine particles discharged into the air. Theseare usually thought to have a cooling effect by providing seeds for extra cloudformation, which reflects sunlight back into space. Years with large volcanic eruptionshave notably cooler temperatures; 1816, the year after the eruption of Mount Tamborain Indonesia, was called “the year without a summer”.

However, the particles called “black carbon” can have a warming effect by reducing theearth’s albedo and permitting more radiation to penetrate. If black carbon particlessettle on snow and ice, they facilitate warming and melting. It has been suggested thatEuropean glaciers began to decline during the 19th century, before any significantwarming, because of black carbon.

Another possible explanation is the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) which warms thesea surface in the Pacific during its positive periods and cools it during its negativeperiod. Climate expert Roy Spencer says:

The Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) is an internal switch between two slightlydifferent circulation patterns that occurs every 30 years or so in the North PacificOcean. . . . I now believe that the PDO is critical to our understanding of globalwarming. This is because a change in weather circulation patterns can cause asmall change in global-average cloudiness. And since clouds represent the singlelargest internal control on global temperatures (through their ability to reflectsunlight), a change in cloudiness associated with the PDO might explain most ofthe climate change we’ve seen in the last 100 years or more.

In general, the climate system is nonlinear, which means “alterations of an initial state[do not necessarily] produce proportional alterations in any subsequent states.” It is acomplex set of interactions among solar energy, clouds, particulates, water vapor andother greenhouse gases, albedo, ocean heat sinks, volcanic activity, and gravitationalpulls of the sun, moon, and planets. These may cause temperatures to change accord-ing to rules as yet beyond our ken.

The failure to adequately consider natural variability is a major flaw in the work of the IPCC.

12. As global temperatures have increased over the past century, have ex-treme weather events increased as well? Will the number of tropical cy-clones (hurricanes, typhoons) increase and will they become more intense?

In recent years, there has been a tendency on the part of advocates of AGW theory toclaim that any weather event out of the ordinary is a result of human-induced climatechange. The media finds these claims newsworthy.

10

In fact, extreme weather events have not increased, and they cannot be linked toclimate change.

Climatologist Roger Pielke, Jr., testified on this matter before a subcommittee of theU.S. House of Representatives in December 2013. He listed as “Take-Home Points”:

■ There exists exceedingly little scientific support for claims found in the media andpolitical debate that hurricanes, tornadoes, floods and drought have increased infrequency or intensity on climate timescales [periods of the 30-50 years andlonger] either in the United States or globally.

■ These conclusions are supported by a broad scientific consensus, including thatrecently reported by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in itsfifth assessment report (2013) as well as in its recent special report on extremeevents (2012).

He added figures establishing his point for a number of the specific phenomena at issue.

Indeed, the panicky fears about extreme weather cannot be justified in theory. Extremeevents occur largely as a result of temperature differences. Were the earth to warm,most of the warming would take the form of warming in cold latitudes, which wouldreduce differences. The result would be fewer extreme events,

As Dr. Roy Spencer has explained, weather is caused by energy imbalances of twoprimary types: between different geographic regions and between the earth’s surfaceand the upper atmosphere. Global warming would have greater effect on cold airmasses than on warm, so it would actually reduce imbalances.

Even the IPCC, which is not shy about viewing climate change with alarm, does notlink it to any increase in extreme weather events.

The media is filled with dire predictions, but not the serious literature. Gavin Schmidt,director of the Goddard Institute of Space Science, said:

General statements about extremes are almost nowhere to be found in theliterature but seem to abound in the popular media. . . . It’s this popular perceptionthat global warming means all extremes have to increase all the time, even thoughif anyone thinks about that for 10 seconds they realize that’s nonsense.


A report from the Global Warming Policy Foundation observes that sea level rise is“one of the most feared” impacts of global warming, but the danger appears minimal.

Seal levels can rise due to either ocean warming or ice melting.

Water is at its maximum density at 4ºC (39ºF), where it weighs 1000 kilograms percubic meter (1000/kg/m3). As it warms, it expands by a factor of 0.00021 for each1ºC rise in temperature.

11

Sea level will also rise if land ice (glaciers) melt. It is not affected by sea ice, which isformed from sea water. Archimedes’ Principle teaches that a floating object displacesan amount of water equal to its own weight. Consequently, when sea ice melts it turnsinto a volume of water equal to the volume of water that had been displaced by the ice.The sea level does not change.

As the earth has warmed since the last ice age, sea levels have risen, and they continueto rise between 1 and 2mm per year, a rate at which between 500 and 1000 yearswould be required for a rise of one meter (39 inches). The IPCC estimates that about0.4 mm/year of the rise is due to thermal expansion, and 0.7 mm/year to melting.

A significant rise in sea levels would occur only as a result of serious melting affectingthe world’s two biggest landmass ice sheets: Antarctica (5.4 million square miles/7000feet thick) and Greenland (0.7 million square miles/6000 feet thick).

Neither event is likely under any reasonable assumptions about possible futuretemperatures. Furthermore, any significant sea level rise would require centuries.


Arctic ice is formed from sea water, so melting has no effect on sea levels, because ofArchimedes’ Principle. When sea ice melts it turns into a volume of water equal to thevolume of water that had been displaced by the ice and the sea level does not change.

Sea level concerns aside, the Arctic ice issue has received considerable publicity basedon the assumption that a thinning of the ice sheet is an ominous sign of warming.

The concern is over-wrought. Arctic ice has always fluctuated, judging by historicalaccounts, and good quantitative measures of its extent were not available until quiterecently. Researchers estimate that its extent declined by 40% between the late 1970sand the present, but, lacking measurements of thickness, the import of this is uncertain.

Nor is it clear that overall warming is responsible for any loss of Arctic ice. Climateexpert Judith Curry Arctic recently told a committee of the U.S. House ofrepresentatives that Arctic ice reached a summertime minima between 2007 and2012, but “volume (a metric that combines both horizontal extent and ice thickness)shows a continuing increase since 2012.”

She added:

Clearly, there is a lot going on with respect to variability in Arctic and Antarctic seaice that cannot be explained directly or even indirectly by warming from Human-caused greenhouse gases. Climate models do not simulate correctly the ocean heattransport and its variations. Scientists do not agree on the explanation for theincreasing Antarctic sea ice extent, and the key issue as to whether human-causedwarming is the dominant cause of the recent Arctic sea ice loss remains unresolved.

12

15. Is evidence of increased ocean heat storage a major reason for thepause in warming and what is the likelihood of that heat being released?

The trend of increasing global temperatures has paused for eighteen years. More thansixty explanations have been offered, one of which is that the deep oceans are warm-ing, out of the sight of our measurements, and that the additional heat is stored thererather than in the atmosphere.

The “deep ocean heat” explanation is only a hypothesis, unsupported by empiricalobservations, and recent work contradicts it. Furthermore, no mechanism can beidentified by which deep oceans could warm without leaving a detectable signal in theupper oceans.

It is certainly true that the oceans are a crucial part of the climate system. Accordingto Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution scientist Raymond Schmitt, the oceans have“1,100 times the heat capacity of the atmosphere (99.9% of the heat capacity of theEarth’s fluids).”

It is also true that the Earth has been warming since the end of the Little Ice Age inthe late 1800s, so it is not surprising that the oceans are warming. Indeed, from a long-term perspective, as Professor Carl Wunsch of MIT has pointed out, the oceans havebeen warming since the end of the last glaciation over 10,000 years ago and willcontinue to warm until the next glaciation.

Good data on ocean temperatures has only been available for about twenty years. It comes primarily from Argo floats and altimetric satellite measurements. Prior to this, not enough data existed to make accurate calculations. According to ProfessorWunsch, paleoceanographic data, which comes from proxies, are interesting but toosparse to use for computing an accurate average and the conversion of these data totemperature is “very uncertain.”

16. What has recent research on solar activity told us about the influenceof the Sun on global climate?

Because almost all of the earth’s energy comes from the sun, it seems axiomatic thatchanges in solar output will have an impact on the climate.

However, the IPCC takes the position that short-term climate variations have norelation to solar change. It agrees that longer-term climate cycles are influenced by thevariations in the sun’s energy that are related to changes in the earth’s orbit.

The IPCC position is based on the fact that short-term variations in total solarirradiance (TSI) associated with the 11-year sunspot cycle are only about 0.1%, whichis not great enough to affect significantly the energy reaching the earth.

This dismissal is hasty and unscientific. Looking at only TSI is too simplistic, andalternative explanations based on more sophisticated analyses of solar effects onclimate change are gathering momentum.

13

A good summary of the current state of the work is recounted in The Neglected Sun(2013) by Professor Fritz Vahrenholt, a German scientist, industrialist, and environ-mentalist, and Sebastian Luning, an expert in geology and paleontology.

A crucial point is that while TSI varies little with the sunspot cycle, ultraviolet irradiancefluctuates by up to 70%, and UV light is converted to heat in the earth’s atmosphere.

The sun’s magnetic field also fluctuates with the 11-year cycle, and this affects cosmicrays striking the earth, according to a theory associated with Henrik Svensmark. Whenthe magnetic field is weak, more cosmic rays penetrate, and these create ions that inturn seed clouds in the lower atmosphere, which has a cooling effect. Svensmark’stheory was regarded with great skepticism by the climate establishment, butexperiments at CERN in 2011 provided important confirmation, as well as opening upnew fields for inquiry.

Recognition of the possible importance of the 11-year cycle is only the first step. Thesun has several other cycles, and on a grander scale, the earth’s orbit around the sunvaries between an ellipse and a circle, and its axis changes over time, creatingMilankovitch cycles, measured in tens or hundreds of thousands of years, related to theeccentricity of the Earth’s orbit.


Despite all the attention paid to fossil fuels and CO2 emissions, humans are actually bit players in the great cycle whereby carbon is exchanged between the land, theocean, and the atmosphere.

Fossil fuels and industrialprocesses combined with landuse changes contribute about7.9 gigatons of carbon peryear to the atmosphere, whilevegetation and soils plus theocean contribute 200 gigatons.

Natural processes remove anestimated 203 gigatons peryear, which leaves an excessthat is thought to be the causeof the steady increase in atmo-spheric CO2 concentrations.

What is not known is: overtime, will the increase in

human emissions result in a continuing increase in CO2 atmospheric concentrations,or will natural processes adjust to absorb more CO2 and reduce the concentration?

18. What are climate models, how accurate are they, and what are thelimits on predicting climate?

A climate model is a set of equations designed to simulate the interactions of theincoming solar energy, the atmosphere, the oceans, and the land surface. Their focusfor the past few decades has been to predict the effect of increases in CO2 on globaltemperatures.

Billions of dollars have been spent on the development of models, but their track recordis not good, as John Christy demonstrated in congressional testimony in 2013, whenhe compared the predictions of numerous models with actual temperatures. He foundthat the models responded to increased CO2 levels by factors of two to five times whathad actually occurred, that “the models on average failed a simple hypothesis test tocheck whether they could represent the path the real world took on tropicalatmospheric temperatures.”

14

As renowned physicist Freeman Dyson said, explaining the hazards of over-reliance onclimate models:

The models do a very good job of describing the fluid motions of the atmosphereand the oceans. They do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, thechemistry and the biology of fields and farms and forests. They do not begin todescribe the real world that we live in. The real world is muddy andmessy and full of things that we do not yet understand.

An extensive literature exists describing specific problems with the models.

19. What is the basis for forecasts of large temperature increases and adverse climate impacts?

The basic physics of the greenhouse effect dictates that a doubling of CO2 wouldproduce a rise in temperature of around 1° C.

Departures from this estimate in either direction assume that the initial change wouldproduce either positive feedback, which increases the temperature still further, ornegative feedback, which reduces the change. For the most part, the question offeedback depends on the effect of increases in CO2 on water vapor and cloudformation.

The models all assume that feedbacks will be positive, and predictions of dire effectsdepend upon assumptions that feedbacks will be both positive and large. No actual datasupport this assumption of positive feedbacks. However, the lack of data, instead ofimposing limits on the predictions of disaster, has the opposite effect of giving free reinto the modelers’ imaginations.

Available observational evidence indicates that feedbacks are negative, dampening theinitial impact of an increase in CO2, so the doubling sensitivity could be less than 1º C.


The U.S. Geological Service defines “abrupt climate change” as “a large-scale changein the climate system that takes place over a few decades or less, persists (or isanticipated to persist) for at least a few decades, and causes substantial disruptions inhuman and natural systems.”

According to the National Research Council:

Large, abrupt climate changes have repeatedly affected much or all of the earth,locally reaching as much as 10°C change in 10 years. Available evidence suggeststhat abrupt climate changes are not only possible but likely in the future, potentiallywith large impacts on ecosystems and societies.

15

Over the last million years, the Earth’s climate has shifted dramatically between ice agesand warmer periods like the present one. The glacial periods, with major advances ofice sheets, have generally lasted about 100,000 years, while the interglacial periodshave lasted about 10,000 years. The transition between glacial and interglacialconditions can take place in less than a thousand years—sometimes in as little asdecades. Such dramatic climatic shifts occurred near the end of the last major ice age, about 15,000 years ago. First, a brief warming occurred, and then the ice agereturned for roughly a thousand years. Finally, by 11,500 years ago, the climatequickly warmed again.

Ice core data indicate that temperatures in central Greenland rose by 7°C or more ina few decades. Other proxy measurements indicate that broad regions of the worldwarmed in thirty years or less.

Available evidence indicates that ice ages are the result of changes in the amount ofsolar energy reaching the Earth’s surface, not changes in greenhouse gas concentrations

Abrupt changes are more likely to take the form of cooling, which would be far moredamaging to humans.

We should strive to create a resilient society, one ready to meet many possible typesof challenges, including cooling as well as warming.


The International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was created in 1988 under theauspices of the United Nations to address issues of climate change. It presents itself asa broad-based scientific organization that dispassionately assesses information onclimate change.

This description is misleading. The IPCC was established in response to alarmist storiesconcerning CO2 and global warming. The premise of its founding was political and notscientific—its function is to review the impact of anthropogenic emissions of CO2 onthe climate. The answer to the question whether such impacts exist at all or are seriouswas assumed to be “yes.”

In 1992, this underlying premise was made explicit in the United Nations FrameworkConvention on Climate Change, which declared its objective is to “stabilize greenhousegas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthro-pogenic interference with the climate system.”

In making these assumptions the IPCC is pre-judging many issues that are in factsubject to great uncertainty and ignoring important parts of the scientific literature onmany crucial questions, such as past temperatures; effects of a CO2 doubling; positiveand negative feedbacks; effects of black carbon; solar variations; accuracy of models;the direction of the cause/effect relationship between past CO2 increases and temp-erature increases; sea level impacts; species losses.

16

Professor Judith Curry diagnosed the IPCC as suffering from “paradigm paralysis”—an “inability or refusal to see beyond the current models of thinking,” and concluded

“The vast amount of scientific and political capital invested in the IPCC hasbecome self-reinforcing, so it is not clear how move past this paralysis as long asthe IPCC remains in existence.”

To be clear, many of the IPCC’s conclusions are widely accepted. All scientists agreethat the climate of the earth changes. They also agree that the earth has warmedsomewhat since the end of the Little Ice Age in the mid-nineteenth century. Almost allbelieve that human impacts contribute to warming. The differences concern theamount of the warming that is attributable to human activity, the magnitude anddirection of natural responses to this warming, whether there is any harm due towarming, and the impact of future emissions of CO2.


News media and political advocates constantly claim a consensus exists that the“science is settled” on climate change. An oft-used number is that “97%” of climatescientists or climate articles agree that human activities are causing a dangerous levelof warming.

The first response to these claims is that science works by experiment, observation,and data and not by consensus. No matter what scientists think, if their views are notsupported by data, they are not acting as scientists.

However, non-experts, such as government officials, cannot weigh the evidence for them-selves, so they must be heavily influenced by dominant opinion among the experts.

Therefore, it is important to note that the “97%” consensus figure is bogus. It has twodifferent sources, neither of which is valid.

Sometimes the claim is made that “97% of climate scientists agree.” This derives froma short questionnaire sent out by, Eos, the magazine of the American GeophysicalUnion, in 2009. It went to 10,257 earth scientists at universities and research labora-tories. Of these, 79 said that “human activity a ‘significant” contributing factor’ to arise in temperature since the pre-1800s, and through the magic of numerical manipu-lation this became a “97% consensus.”

The second appearance of “97 percent” is that “97% of climate articles agree.” Thiscomes from a 2013 article by John Cook, et. al. that examined abstracts of 11,944scientific articles and concluded, “among abstracts expressing a position on AGW,97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.”

Cook’s piece has been subjected to withering criticism. A review of his data found that“only 41 papers—0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent—had been found to endorse” the claimthat human activity is causing most of the current warming.

17

23. How does the IPCC present statistical information and characterizecertainty and uncertainty?

The IPCC’s directions on the treatment of uncertainty are set forth in its GuidanceNote for Lead Authors of the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report on ConsistentTreatment of Uncertainties. The guidance is intended by the IPCC to provide greaterconsistency in AR5 than what existed in prior reports, for which different workinggroups developed their own criteria for conveying uncertainty.

In general, the IPCC relies heavily on the concept of the “likelihood scale,” whichattaches a numerical probability to specific propositions.

A problem is that the concept of confidence levels, such as “99%”, is borrowed fromformal statistics, but in that context the term “confidence level” has a precise meaning.To assign a confidence interval of 99% means the data at issue is within three standarddeviations of the mean. The confidence interval of 95% commonly used in statisticaltests encompasses data within two standard deviations.

The IPCC applies this language of confidence percentages to subjective and collectivejudgments by teams of experts. To apply it to human judgments about unknown factsand relationships does not accord with the canons of science.

The IPCC assessment that it is 95% certain that humans are responsible for climatechange is in reality a subjective belief parading as science. As climate scientist JudithCurry said: “The 95% is basically expert judgment, it is a negotiated figure among theauthors . . . I have no idea what goes on in the sausage factory. 95%—take it with agrain of salt . . . That’s their story, and they’re sticking to it.”

18

References

Introduction

Government expenditures:Federal Climate Change Expenditures Report to Congress (Aug. 2013).https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/legislative_reports/fcce-report-to-congress.pdf

NAS panel:Committee on the Science of Climate Change, National Research Council. Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions (2001).http://www.nap.edu/catalog/10139/climate-change-science-an-analysis-of-some-key-questions


NAS study: Committee on Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years, NationalResearch Council, Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2000 Years (2006).http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11676/surface-temperature-reconstructions-for-the-last-2000-years

Surface temperature record: Joseph D’Aleo & Anthony Watts, Surface Temperature Records: Policy DrivenDeception? Science and Public Policy Institute (Aug. 27, 2010).http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/surface_temp.pdf


Study of natural variation:George C. Marshall Institute, 2005: Natural Climate Variability 2005)..http://marshall.org/article.php?id=340

Chart on global temperature record: Climate4You –The Big Picture. http://www.climate4you.com/index.htm


4. What are greenhouse gases (GHGs) and what is their concentration in theEarth’s atmosphere?


Description of Mauna Loa: R. F. Keeling, et. al. Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Record From Mauna Loa. CarbonDioxide Information Analysis Center (2008). http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/sio-mlo.html

Direct measurements: The major work is: Ernst-Georg Beck. 100Years of Atmospheric CO2 Gas Analysis byChemical Methods. Energy & Environment. Vol. 18, No. 2 (2007)http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/files/documents/CO2%20Gas%20Analysis-Ernst-Georg%20Beck.pdf

19

Ice cores data: James McCown. Problems with Statistical Tests of Pre-1958 Atmospheric CO2Concentration Data. Watts Up With That. Aug. 29, 2014. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/29/problems-with-statistical-tests-of-pre-1958-atmospheric-co2-concentration-data

Zbigniew Jaworowski. Climate Change: Incorrect information on pre-industrial CO2.Statement written for the US Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, andTransportation (March 2004). http://www.john-daly.com/zjiceco2.htm

Ronald Voisin. An Engineer’s Ice-Cores Thought Experiment #2 – the Follow-Up.Watts Up With That. April 4, 2015. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/04/04/an-engineers-ice-core-thought-experiment-2-the-follow-up-2/


Happer quotation: William Happer. The Myth of Carbon Pollution. Marshall Institute Video (Oct. 15, 2014).http://marshall.org/events/the-myth-of-carbon-pollution/

Massachusetts v EPA: Massachusetts v, EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007).


CO2 levels: Tim Ball. Plants encouraged as CO2 levels reach 400 ppm. Watts Up With That. (May 9, 2015). http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/05/09/plants-encouraged-as-co2-levels-reach-400-ppm/

Moore quotation: Patrick Moore. Why I am a Climate Change Skeptic. Heartlander. (March 20,2015).http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2015/03/20/why-i-am-climate-change-skeptic

8. How is global average temperature determined and how accurate are themeasurements?

9. Why do satellites and surface temperature measurements give differentresults?

Spencer quotation:Roy Spencer. Latest Global Temps. http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/

10. What do we know about the relation between increases in the atmosphericconcentrations of CO2, other greenhouse gases and temperature?

11. If temperature changes cannot be correlated with the increase in atmosphericconcentrations of CO2 and other greenhouse gases, what is causing them?

European glaciers and black carbon:Anthony Watts. Black Carbon Soot shrank the 19th century glaciers – but why isn’t itlisted as a culprit today? Watts Up With That. (Sept. 13, 2013).http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/04/black-carbon-soot-shrank-the-19th-century-glaciers/

20

Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO): Roy Spencer. The Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO): Key to the Global WarmingDebate? Global Warming blog. http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-background-articles/the-pacific-decadal-oscillation/

Chaos: Kip Hansen, Chaos & Climate – Part 1: Linearity. Watts Up With That. (March 15,2015). http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/03/15/chaos-climate-part-1-linearity/

IPCC failure to adequately consider natural variability: Roy Spencer. The Great Global Warming Blunder: How Mother Nature Fooled theWorld’s Top Scientists (2012).

12. As global temperatures have increased over the past century, have extremeweather events increased as well? Will the number of tropical cyclones(hurricanes, typhoons) increase and will they become more intense?

Pielke statement:Dr. Roger Pielke, Jr. Statement to the Subcommittee on Environment of the Com-mittee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives, Hearingon A Factual Look at the Relationship of Climate and Weather. (Dec. 2013). http://science.house.gov/sites/republicans.science.house.gov/files/documents/HHRG-113-SY18-WState-RPielke-20131211.pdf

Spencer:Roy Spencer. How much weather is being caused by climate change? Maybe 1 part in1,000. Global Warming blog. (February 14th, 2014), http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/02/how-much-weather-is-being-caused-by-climate-change-maybe-1-part-in-1000/

IPCC: Roger Andrews. “Climate Scientists Confirm No Global Increase in Extreme WeatherEvents.” Energy Matters. (April 1, 2015). http://euanmearns.com/climate-scientists-confirm-no-global-increase-in-extreme-weather-events/

Schmitt quotation:Quoted in Henry Gass. “Scientists assert there is less weather variability,globally, than most people believe.” Environment & Energy Publishing. (Aug. 5,2013).1 http://www.eenews.net/stories/1059985592


GWPF Report: William P. de Lange & Robert M. Carter. Sea Level Change: Living with Uncertainty.Global Warming Policy Foundation (2014). http://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2014/05/Sea-level-report.pdf

IPCC estimate:AR5, Chapter 13, p. 1150. http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter13_FINAL.pdf - p.1150


Curry quotation:Dr. Judith Curry, Statement to the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology ofthe U.S. House of Representatives, Hearing on The President’s U.N. Climate Pledge,April 5, 2015. http://science.house.gov/sites/republicans.science.house.gov/files/documents/HHRG-114-SY-WState-JCurry-20150415_0.pdf

21

15. Is evidence of increased ocean heat storage a major reason for the pause inwarming and what is the likelihood of that heat being released?

Schmitt quotation: Dr. Raymond W. Schmitt. The Global Water Cycle. Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute.(Sept. 11, 2007). http://www.whoi.edu/sbl/liteSite.do?litesiteid=18912

Wunsch quotation: Carl Wunsch. Sea Level as a Scientific Problem. Presentation at the Nansen Institute,Bergen, Norway (Nov. 2011). http://www.nersc.no/sites/www.nersc.no/files/3-wunsch_sealevel_bergen_2011.pdf

16. What has recent research on solar activity told us about the influence of theSun on global climate?

Neglected Sun:Franz Vahrenholt & Sebastian Luning. The Neglected Sun: Why the Sun PrecludesClimate Catastrophe (2013). ,http://www.amazon.com/Neglected-Sun-Precludes-Catastrophe-Independent-ebook/dp/B00I2O5WDQ/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1426514489&sr=1-1&keywords=vahrenholt


Carbon cycle chart:Univ. of Michigan. The Global Carbon Cycle (Nov. 28, 2010). http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange1/current/lectures/kling/carbon_cycle/carbon_cycle.html

18. What are climate models, how accurate are they, and what are the limits onpredicting climate?

Christy:John R. Christy, A Factual Look at the Relationship Between Climate and Weather:Statement to the Subcommittee on Environment, Committee on Science, Space andTechnology of the U.S. House of Representatives (Dec. 11, 2013). http://docs.house.gov/meetings/SY/SY18/20131211/101589/HHRG-113-SY18-Wstate-ChristyJ-20131211.pdf

Dyson quotation: Freeman Dyson. Heretical Thoughts about Science and Society. Edge (Aug. 8, 2007).http://edge.org/documents/archive/edge219.html#dysonf

Example of critique of the models:Steven E. Koonin, “Climate Science is Not Settled.” Wall Street Journal (Sept. 19,2014). Annotated edition: http://cusp.nyu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Climate-article-annotated1.pdf

Jason Johnston. “The Cost of Cartelization: The IPCC Process and the Crisis ofCredibility in Climate Science,” in Institutions and Incentives in Regulatory Science (2012).

19. What is the basis for forecasts of large temperature increases and adverseclimate impacts?

Conclusion that a doubling of CO2 would produce a rise in temperature of around 1° C:Rchard S. Lindzen. Global Warming: How to Approach the Science. Seminar at theHouse of Commons Committee Rooms, London. (Feb. 22, 2012). http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02148/RSL-HouseOfCommons_2148505a.pdf

22

23

Richard S. Lindzen & Yong-Sang Choi. On the Observational Determination of ClimateSensitivity and Its Implications. Asia-Pacific J. Atmos. Sci., 47(4), 377-390 (2011).

Anthony Watts. “Yet another significant paper finds low climate sensitivity to CO2, suggestingthere is no global warming crisis at hand.” Watts Up With That. (Oct. 14, 2014).http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/10/14/yet-another-significicant-paper-finds-low-climate-sensitivity-to-co2-suggesting-there-is-no-global-warming-crisis-at-hand/


Definition: USGS. Climate and Land Use Change Research and Development Program.http://www.usgs.gov/climate_landuse/clu_rd/pt_abrupt_cc.asp

NRC quotation:National Research Council, Abrupt Climate Change: Inevitable Surprises (2002).http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309074347


IPCC:IPCC. Organization. http://www.ipcc.ch/organization/organization.shtml

Framework Convention: United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Wikipedia.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Framework_Convention_on_Climate_Change

IPCC pre-judgment:Jason Johnston. “The Cost of Cartelization: The IPCC Process and the Crisis ofCredibility in Climate Science,” in Institutions and Incentives in Regulatory Science(2012).

Curry quotation:Judith Curry. “IPCC diagnosis – permanent paradigm paralysis.” Climate, etc. blog.Sept. 28, 2013. http://judithcurry.com/2013/09/28/ipcc-diagnosis-permanent-paradigm-paralysis/


Eos survey: “Examining the scientific consensus on climate change.” Eos. Vol. 90, No. 3 (Jan.2009). http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf

Cook paper:John Cook, et. al. “Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in thescientific literature.” Environmental Research Letters. Vol. 8, No. 2 (May 15, 2013).http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article

Criticism of Cook: Joseph Bast & Roy Spencer, “The Myth of the Climate Change 97%,” Wall StreetJournal (May 26, 2014). http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136

David Henderson, “1.6%, Not 97%, Agree that Humans are the Main Cause of GlobalWarming,” Library of Economics and Liberty blog (March 1, 2014).http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2014/03/16_not_97_agree.html

23. How does the IPCC present statistical information and characterize certaintyand uncertainty?

IPCC guidance: IPCC, Guidance Note for Lead Authors of the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report onConsistent Treatment of Uncertainties (July 2010).https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/supporting-material/uncertainty-guidance-note.pdf

Confidence levels:“Lord Monckton devastates AP reporter on IPCC 95% confidence claim”JunkScience.com (Sept. 24, 2013). http://junkscience.com/2013/09/24/lord-monckton-devastates-ap-reporter-on-ipcc-95-confidence-claim/

Curry quotation:Judith Curry. “95% (?),” Climate, etc. blog (Sept. 27, 2013).http://judithcurry.com/2013/09/27/95/

24

BOARD OF DIRECTORS

Will Happer, ChairmanPrinceton University

William O’Keefe, Chief Executive OfficerSolutions Consulting

John Sheldon, Executive Director

Greg CanavanLos Alamos National Laboratory

Mark Millsfounder and CEO of the Digital Power Group

John H. MooreGrove City College

Rodney NicholsPresident & CEO Emeritus

New York Academy of Sciences

Mitch NikolichCACI

Dr. Roy SpencerUniversity of Alabama in Huntsville.

1601 North Kent Street, Suite 802Arlington, VA 22209

Phone571-970-3180

[email protected]

Websitemarshall.org

August 2015

climate issues & facts - sonoma state university€¦ · climate issues & facts james v....

Documents