From: The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF)

By: Dr John R. Christy

Date: May 8, 2019

THE TROPICAL SKIES Falsifying climate alarm

Contents

• About the author ----- vi
• 1- Measuring the greenhouse effect ----- 1
• 2- The importance of the troposphere ----- 2
• 3- Another metric ----- 4
• 4- Hiding the problem ----- 7

THE TROPICAL SKIES Falsifying climate alarm

Numerous efforts to validate the results of climate studies have been hampered by refusal of climate researchers to permit open access to study data, statistical data analysis methods, computer code and other study information. This refusal by climate researchers has spawned numerous Freedom of Information Act requests, resulting in significant delays and occasional lawsuits when FOIA requests were denied.

The efforts of the Committee on Climate Security (CCS) to evaluate the potential impacts of climate change on national and environmental security could be seriously hindered by refusal of climate scientists to provide CCS with access to study information. Therefore, the Administration should establish ground rules regarding cooperation with the CCS; and, new ground rules for funding of future climate science research.

Most US climate science is funded by Executive Branch agencies and much of the research is conducted by these agencies. The CCS is an Executive Branch effort and is entitled to full cooperation in its investigations from other elements of the Executive Branch. The Administration should clearly establish this requirement for cooperation and the consequences of failure to cooperate.

Any agency administrator who refuses to cooperate with the efforts of the CCS should be summarily relieved of duty. Any agency researcher who refuses to cooperate with the CCS should be suspended without pay until such cooperation is forthcoming. Any researcher working on an agency funded program who refuses to cooperate with CCS regarding either current or past programs should have current program funding suspended until such cooperation is forthcoming.

Researchers involved in past studies performed for Federal agencies or conducted with Federal funds who refuse to cooperate with CCS reviews of their studies should be prohibited from participating in or benefiting from future federally funded research programs.

Future Federal Requests for Proposals (RFPs) for climate research should require proposers to agree to provide open access to all aspects of the proposed program, both during the research effort and upon its completion. Any non-compliant proposal should be summarily rejected. Any researcher or research institution which fails to meet this open access requirement upon completion of the research program should be sued for recovery of the Federal funds expended on the program.

No research results not supported by open access to the full program information should be used as justification for any new or expanded regulation. The only exception to this stipulation would be the personal information of study participants in the case of human health studies related to climate.

The Administration can expect significant resistance to the CCS and its efforts, based on the history of resistance to open access in the climate science community. However, the crisis of irreproducibility in climate science research, including the demonstrated inability of federal agencies, including NASA, NOAA and NCEI to reproduce the results of their own research, demands open access and critical review of study results and conclusions.

The severity of the projected future climate catastrophe and the magnitude of the social and economic upheaval proposed to avoid that catastrophe require a far more rigorous approach to climate research than is the case today. That more rigorous approach is long overdue.

By: Clear Energy Alliance

Elements of the consensed climate science community, the consensed climate change commentariat and numerous environmental activist groups have recently been “triggered” by Administration discussions regarding the formation of a Committee on Climate Security (CCS) to critically evaluate whether climate change is a national security and environmental threat. The CCS would be chaired by Dr. William Happer, an eminent physicist with extensive academic and government experience, who is currently a Senior Director at the National Security Council.

The discussions regarding formation of the CCS are occurring against the background of the formation of the new Select Committee on the Climate Crisis by the House of Representatives and the fanfare regarding the Green New Deal (GND) recently introduced by Senator Edward Markey (D,MA) and Representative Alexandria Ocasio Cortez (D,NY). The House leadership has clearly accepted the assertion that there is a climate crisis, while the GND describes climate change as an existential threat.

Much of the reaction to the Administration proposal is based on the view of the consensed climate science community that “the science is settled” and that the time for debate is over, which is echoed incessantly by the climate change commentariat. This reaction is exacerbated by the selection of Dr. Happer, who is an acknowledged skeptic regarding catastrophic anthropogenic climate change. The New York Times labeled Dr. Happer as a “climate denialist”, though Dr. Happer clearly does not deny that the earth has a climate. The choice of the term “denialist” is an attempt to isolate and disparage Dr. Happer. The reaction to the CCS is so intense that Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D,NY) has threatened to introduce legislation to defund the effort, referring to it as a “fake climate panel”.

The consensed climate science community has a long history of resisting skeptical evaluations of its studies and conclusions by refusing to provide open access to the data on which the studies are based and the statistical analysis methods and computer codes used to analyze the data and reach the study conclusions. These efforts are comprehensively documented in the Climategate emails and in the continuing efforts of Dr. Michael Mann and others to resist skeptical examination of their work.

The CCS bears some similarity to the “Red Team / Blue Team” evaluation effort proposed by former EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt and the “Tiger Team” evaluation suggested by some skeptical climate scientists. The CCS, or a “Red Team” or “Tiger Team” would logically be composed primarily of exclusively skeptical scientists, since the studies they would be reviewing have been performed and peer reviewed by members of the consensed climate science community.

The principal concerns of the CCS would focus on the current inability of climate models to competently model the real climate and produce reliable projections of future climate, since the concerns about catastrophic anthropogenic climate change and any national security risks resulting from such climate change are based on the climate models. The models are currently projecting significantly greater warming than is being observed by either the near-surface or satellite temperature anomaly products.

By: Clear Energy Alliance

The concern regarding potential catastrophic anthropogenic climate change is based upon projected future conditions produced by unverified climate models driven by uncertain climate sensitivity, feedbacks and forcings. Therefore, it is interesting and instructive to periodically assess the accuracy of the climate model projections relative to the observations of global temperature. In this context, it is important to remember that the observations of near-surface temperature are routinely “adjusted” and thus are no longer the actual observations originally recorded. It is also important to remember that the models have been “hindcast” over a prior period, compared to the observations over that prior period and then “tweaked” to minimize the differences between the model output and the observations.

The most famous of the climate models and the model with the longest projection period after “tweaking” is the climate model used by Dr. James Hansen of NASA GISS as the basis for his 1988 presentation to Congress. Hansen modeled three CO2 emissions scenarios:

Scenario A: Continued annual emissions growth of ~1.5% per year

Scenario B: Continued emissions at current (mid-1980s) rates

Scenario C: Drastically reduced emissions rates from 1990 – 2000

Scenario A, which projects the greatest warming based on continued “business as usual” emissions growth, projected a 2018 temperature anomaly of approximately 1.3°C.

Scenario B, which projects more moderate warming based on relative emissions stability in the future, projected a 2018 temperature anomaly of approximately 1.15°C.

Scenario C, which projects the least warming based on drastically reduced emissions in the future, projected a 2018 temperature anomaly of approximately 0.6°C

Emissions since Hansen’s presentation have approximated the emissions path in Scenario A. The observed HadCRUT near-surface temperature anomaly in 2018 was approximately 0.32°C (X in graph), or approximately half of Hansen’s Scenario C projection and approximately one quarter of Hansen’s Scenario A projection. Clearly, Hansen’s model has been falsified.

“It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.” Richard P. Feynman

There are numerous climate models other than the Hansen model, most of which are included in the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5). The projections of 90 of these models are compared with each other and with the observations of both the HadCRUT4 near-surface temperature anomaly observations and the UAH lower tropospheric temperature observations through 2013 in the graph below prepared by Dr. Roy Spencer of UAH. As noted above, the HadCRUT near-surface temperature anomaly in 2018 was approximately 0.32°C. The UAH lower tropospheric temperature anomaly in 2018 was approximately 0.23°C. Both of these observed anomalies remain below all but 1 or 2 of the 90 models.

The black line plotted through the outputs of the 90 models is typically referred to as the model mean, or the mid-point of the model outputs in each year. The HadCRUT4 anomaly in 2018 is approximately 40% of the model mean, while the UAH 2018 anomaly is approximately 29% of the model mean. This suggests that the model mean is essentially meaningless, since it is the mean of the outputs of 90 models, 88 of which are already demonstrably inaccurate. Note that these models appear to have been “tweaked” approximately 20 years ago, so that the period of projection is only 20 years, compared to the 30-year period assumed to represent climate.

Clearly these models are being progressively falsified by ongoing observations. Equally clearly, these models are not a solid basis upon which to develop public policies regarding climate change.

By: Clear Energy Alliance

In my commentary “Emissions or Equity”, I discussed the philosophical issues regarding global “greenhouse gas” emissions reductions. Now let’s look at the numbers.

The graph below shows the trends in global emissions for the major emitters through 2016. (NOTE: The version of the graph at the linked source is interactive.) Emissions grew by 1.6% in 2017 and are expected to have grown by approximately 2.7% in 2018.

The emissions of these nations are generally stable to down, with the exception of China and India. China’s emissions have increased by a factor of approximately 3 in the 21st century, while India’s emissions have increased by a factor of approximately 2.5. China’s emissions stagnated after 2010 as a result of an economic slowdown but have now resumed their growth.

The chart below illustrates the percentage of annual emissions in 2014 by country. As shown in the graph above, only India’s emissions continued to grow significantly in 2015 and 2016. US emissions resumed their growth in 2017 and 2018 at approximately 2.5%. China’s emissions also returned to approximately 5% growth, while India’s emissions continued their approximately 6 - 7% growth.

China’s annual emissions are now approximately twice US emissions and are greater than the emissions of the US and the EU combined. China made no commitment to reduce its CO2 emissions as part of the Paris Accords, but rather indicated a willingness to begin reducing emissions after 2030. India took a similar approach to the Paris Accords.

The ten-year time horizon proposed in the “Green New Deal” (GND) for achieving net-zero emissions in the US economy would approximately offset the projected growth of China’s emissions over the same period, thus resulting in no net reduction in global annual emissions. Assuming continuation of India’s annual emissions growth, global annual emissions would continue to increase at a rate of 0.5% per year, depending on the changes in emissions rates among the remaining nations of the globe. Therefore, it appears highly unlikely that global annual emissions would begin to decrease prior to 2030, absent heroic efforts on the part of nations other than the US; and, it appears virtually impossible if the US does not adopt the GND, which also appears highly unlikely.

Adoption of the GND in the US would likely cause significant industrial relocations to nations such as China and India, which have no such plans to reduce emissions prior to 2030; and, no clear plans to begin reducing emissions at that time. Such industrial relocation would likely increase the emissions growth rates in China, India and other nations with no firm emissions reduction plans. This would further add to the increasing emissions rates through 2030.

Adoption of the GND in the US, with its estimated total cost of approximately $100 trillion would also seriously limit the ability of future US administrations to make the expected contributions to the US Green Climate Fund, thus limiting the funds available for renewable energy development in the developing and not-yet-developing nations.

“The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.” Lady Margaret Thatcher

From: Watts Up With That?

By: Iain Aitken

Date: May 6, 2019

Climate Change Misconceived

"In this essay I propose that there are many things about climate change that the general public, journalists, academics, environmentalists and politicians may think they ‘know’ to certainly be true that are actually, at the least, highly equivocal (or demonstrably false) and that once these misconceptions are corrected perceptions of the issue are (or, at least, should be) transformed. Note that throughout I use the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) definition of ‘climate change’: ‘a statistically significant variation in either the mean state of the climate or in its variability, persisting for an extended period (typically decades or longer)’. By ‘global warming’ I mean a rise in the Global Average Surface Temperature of the Earth."

Climate Change Misconceived

The first argument of the consensed climate science community is that global “greenhouse gas” emissions must be reduced to avoid a potential future climate catastrophe if the global average near-surface temperature increase exceeds 1.5°C or 2°C. This argument logically leads to the conclusion that all nations must stop increasing their annual “greenhouse gas” emissions and begin reducing them rapidly towards zero net annual emissions. This logic, while scientifically sound, is judged to be philosophically unsound.

The alternative argument is that developing nations and not-yet-developing nations must be allowed to continue to increase their “greenhouse gas’ emissions to support their continued economic development. The major advocates of this position are China and India, both of which have refused to agree to halt the growth of their emissions until at least 2030. This position is supported by the majority of the members of the Group of 77 developing countries.

The UN, through both the UNFCCC and the IPCC, finds itself on both sides of the issue. In the meantime, global annual “greenhouse gas” emissions continue to rise; and, therefore, global atmospheric “greenhouse gas” concentrations continue to rise as well. The increase in atmospheric “greenhouse gas” emissions cannot be halted until the reductions in emissions by numerous countries match or exceed the annual increases in emissions by numerous other countries. Correspondingly, the increase in atmospheric “greenhouse gas” concentrations cannot be halted until all nations cease adding “greenhouse gases” to the atmosphere.

Therefore, even if the US aggressively pursued the climate change aspects of the “Green New Deal” (GND), global annual atmospheric “greenhouse gas” emissions would continue to increase until the rate of decrease of emissions by the US and other countries decreasing their emissions equaled the rate of increase of emissions by developing and not-yet-developing countries increasing their annual emissions. Global annual “greenhouse gas” emissions would then stabilize and perhaps begin to decline.

However, the atmospheric concentration of “greenhouse gases” would not stabilize until all nations achieved net-zero annual emissions, which is not likely to happen until mid-century, since neither China nor India plans to cease increasing their annual emissions until at least 2030, if then. China is also providing coal generation facilities to a number of other countries, which would also continue to increase their annual emissions as their economies grow.

Of course, it is not possible to accurately estimate the ultimate “greenhouse gas” concentrations which would be reached because most nations’ commitments to reducing emissions are not firm, nor are other nations’ intentions to increase emissions. It is also not possible to accurately estimate the additional increases in the global temperature anomaly which would supposedly result from these increased emissions, since the current climate models do not accurately model the real climate.

In this atmosphere of continued uncertainty, we can expect to continue to be provided with projections of potential future scary scenarios. However, we can expect that these scenarios would be based on our progress in achieving reductions in our emissions, rather than on the lack of progress by developing and not-yet-developing nations.

It would seem that, at least in the minds of some in the consensed climate science community, climate “justice” is more important than climate catastrophe avoidance. If they prevail and we experience a climate catastrophe, at least it would be a “just” catastrophe.

Makes you feel warm all over, doesn’t it?

The United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP) predicted in 2005 that 50 million people could become climate refugees by 2010. UNEP produced a map identifying areas of the globe threatened in various ways by climate change.

The President of the UN General Assembly said in 2008 that it had been estimated that between 50 and 200 million people could become climate refugees. The Environmental Justice Foundation warned that “10% of the global population is at risk of forced displacement due to climate change.” Some scientists have been claiming for years that there are already 25 million climate refugees. These predictions, statements and claims have failed to materialize and have been abandoned. The Asian Correspondent published an article asking what happened to these climate refugees, which concluded as follows:

“However, a very cursory look at the first available evidence seems to show that the places identified by the UNEP as most at risk of having climate refugees are not only not losing people, they are actually among the fastest growing regions in the world.”

More recently, there has been a concerted effort to link migration from the Middle East and Africa to climate change, primarily by correlating climate “stress” with the climates of war, poverty, religious persecution and gang violence in the countries from which they are fleeing. In some cases, weather events such as droughts and floods have been conflated with climate change, as if to suggest that such events had not occurred previously in these countries, though this is hardly the case.

Most recently, former US Vice President Al Gore and others have asserted that the refugee caravans fleeing Central America are the result of climate change. These assertions are essentially denied by the refugees themselves, who acknowledge that they are fleeing high unemployment, poverty, gang violence and, in some cases, adverse weather events. They are seeking a better life in the US, not merely refugee status in Mexico.

However, these Central American refugee caravans appear not to be spontaneous responses to conditions in their countries. Rather, these caravans are organized, funded, directed and supported by individuals or organizations which have chosen to keep their identities secret; and, aided by the UN Migration Agency. The organization of these caravans is obvious, based on the food, water, sanitation and transportation resources which have been provided along their routes of travel. The direction being provided has caused the caravans to travel greater distances to approach the US border at California, rather than Arizona, New Mexico or Texas.

The first and so far, only self-declared climate refugee, a resident of the island nation of Tuvalu, was denied refugee status in New Zealand since Tuvalu, rather than succumbing to the ravages of rising sea levels, is actually increasing in area. The Maldives, which at one point were the “poster child” for imminent climate refugee migration to higher land, are also growing in land area.

The issue of climate refugees, should there ever be any such refugees, would give rise to demands for financial support and ultimately compensation, raising again the issue of the standards of evidence applied to support and compensation decisions.

By: Clear Energy Alliance

Our understanding of global warming and cooling is based on both paleoclimatic analysis and instrumental data. Our understanding of climate change is based on observations of temperatures, sea level changes, hurricane and tornado frequency and intensity, flood and drought frequency and intensity, and other factors. Our understanding of anthropogenic climate change is based on the estimated impacts of emissions and land use changes.

Our understanding of potential catastrophic anthropogenic climate change is based on unverified models, tuned against “adjusted” temperature history, fed with estimated climate sensitivities and feedbacks and uncertain climate forcings. These models are typically referred to as climate models, which suggests that they actually model the real climate. However, the model developers acknowledge that there are numerous factors which affect the climate which are not included in the models because they are not sufficiently well understood. There are also likely to be multiple factors which also affect climate but are not known to do so.

Therefore, it is not reasonable to expect that projections made years ago based on these models would match the observed changes in climate over the recent past; and, it is totally unreasonable to expect that these models have any predictive value regarding future climate. The only way that the current models could match the changes in the real climate is if the factors currently included in the models are modeled accurately, the sensitivities, feedbacks and forcings selected are correct, and the factors which are not currently modeled perfectly cancel each other over the modeled period. In a complex, chaotic environment, these conditions are exceeding unlikely to be met.

Dr. Patrick Frank of the Stanford Synchrotron Radiation Lightsource/SLAC at Stanford University, has recently suggested that errors in climate models are large and that they propagate over the period modeled.

“GCM global air temperature projections are no more than linear extrapolations of green house gas forcing. Linear propagation of error is therefore directly warranted. GCMs make large thermal errors. Propagation of these errors through a global air temperature projection will inevitably produce large uncertainty bars.”

Dr. Frank calculated that current models, using Representative Consumption Pathway 8.5 estimates of future global CO2 emissions, would experience an uncertainty envelope of +/-17°C.

“The large uncertainty bars do not indicate possible increases or decreases in air temperature. They indicate a state of knowledge. The uncertainty bars are an ignorance width.”

This uncertainty envelope is enormous relative to the projected future temperature anomalies. Dr. Frank compared this uncertainty envelope with the Hansen 1988 temperature anomaly projections here at 28:17. Clearly uncertainty of this magnitude suggests that modeled scenarios of potential future climate conditions are of no significant scientific value, though their political value should not be underestimated.

Uncertainties in projections of future climate of this magnitude make a mockery of assertions that “the science is settled”. These uncertainties also highlight the scientific uselessness and political motivation of the numerous “scary scenario” studies funded with federal resources which might otherwise be used to advance the state of climate science.

From: reason.com

By: Ronald Bailey

Good News! No Need to Have a Mental Breakdown Over 'Climate Collapse'

"What if I told you there was a paper on climate change that was so uniquely catastrophic, so perspective-altering, and so absolutely depressing that it's sent people to support groups and encouraged them to quit their jobs and move to the countryside?" asks reporter Zing Tsjeng over at Vice. She is citing Cumbria University Professor of Sustainability Leadership Jem Bendell's "Deep Adaptation" paper, which asserts that man-made climate change will result in "a near-term collapse in society with serious ramifications for the lives of readers." How near-term? In about 10 years or so..."

Good News! No Need to Have a Mental Breakdown Over 'Climate Collapse'

In the current mantra of the consensed climate science community, every adverse weather-related event is alleged to have been caused by, or worsened by, climate change. Unverified climate models are being used in attribution studies to calculate the supposed percentage by which certain events were worsened by climate change. The attributed percentages vary wildly, depending on which model is used and which assumptions are input to the model.

Perhaps the most absurd collection of attributions relates to the recent wildfires in California. State government officials have been quick to attribute the occurrence or increased extent and intensity of most of these wildfires to climate change. Post-fire investigations have established that the fires were the result of numerous causes including arson, out-of-control homeless camp cooking and heating fires, and improperly maintained and operated electric transmission facilities.

The most destructive of the recent wildfires, the Camp Fire, is believed to have been caused by electric transmission facilities owned and operated by Pacific Gas and Electric Corporation, California’s largest utility.

“Cal Fire has determined that PG&E likely broke state law in connection with 12 of the 2017 fires, and is investigating the utility’s possible role in the Camp Fire. The Nov. 8 wildfire killed 86 people in the Paradise area, more than any other fire in California history. In disclosures to the state Public Utilities Commission, PG&E has acknowledged significant problems occurred on a transmission tower near the site where the Camp Fire is believed to have started.”

PG&E has since filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection because of its potential legal liability resulting from the numerous wildfires believed to have been caused by its facilities. The Wall Street Journal described the PG&E bankruptcy as: “The First Climate-Change Bankruptcy”, though it has since provided a more comprehensive attribution. However, based on the Cal Fire determination shown above, numerous studies of forest management practices and analysis of the growing urban-forest interface, it appears absurd to attribute the PG&E bankruptcy or the California wildfires to climate change.

Wildfires occur for a number of reasons. It is not possible to prevent wildfires, but it is possible to minimize their occurrence and reduce the damages they cause. Improved forest management practices have the potential to greatly reduce wildfire damage, but are frequently resisted by environmentalists on the grounds that active forest management disturbs the natural order. Unfortunately, in many cases, wildfires are the natural order.

Attribution of wildfires and other naturally-occurring events to climate change is politically convenient, in that it diverts attention from other causes, focusing it instead on catastrophic anthropogenic global warming and climate disruption. Climate change does not start wildfires. Climate change does not add fuel sources to the forest floor which contribute to the intensity and spread of wildfires. The alleged contribution of climate change is changes in precipitation which encourage the growth of various types of plants when precipitation increases, providing an increased stock of combustible material when precipitation decreases. However, precipitation has varied seasonally and annually for as long as man has been monitoring precipitation; and, wildfires were occurring long before anthropogenic climate change became an issue.

Focusing attention away from the actual causes of wildfires will do nothing to reduce their occurrence or effects.