A Crusade in Pursuit of a Fantasy

Executive Summary

The sun at the center of our solar system is the source of virtually all of the thermal energy the planets receive. Their distance from the sun determines the incident solar energy received by each of them. Their atmospheres determine the fraction of the incident solar radiation which reaches each planet’s surface; and, the fraction of the incident solar radiation which is reradiated by each planet’s surface. This energy balance determines the temperature near each planet’s surface. Our focus is on the Earth, the “water planet”.

The earth rotates around its own axis, ... Read More

A Crusade in Pursuit of a Fantasy

Earth’s climate system is extremely complex, chaotic and not particularly well understood. The factors which have caused climate change over the past millennia continue to cause climate change today and will likely continue to cause climate change in the future do not operate independently, but rather interact with each other over differing timescales to produce the effects we are able to detect and measure.

The consensed climate science community is focused on the anthropogenic factors which it believes cause or contribute to climate change, primarily the increased atmospheric concentrations of CO2 and other greenhouse gases. However, these anthropogenic factors operate against a background of numerous, pre-existing, complex natural factors which also cause or contribute to climate change. Therefore, as complex as detecting climate change might be, attributing climate change to the plethora of natural and anthropogenic causative or contributing factors is far more complex.

Anthropogenic factors are not generally believed to cause hurricanes, typhoons, tornadoes, severe storms, droughts, floods, heat or cold waves, heavy snowfalls, sea level rise, etc. because all these weather events existed prior to the period since ~1950 during which increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations are believed to affect climate. Rather, anthropogenic effects are typically alleged to make these events more frequent or more severe or more damaging.

Since there are no identified climate change effects which demonstrably have anthropogenic factors as their sole cause, there is growing interest in attribution studies intended to identify or estimate the relative impacts of the various natural and anthropogenic factors which contribute to climate change. However, the primary weakness of this approach is its reliance on unverified climate models and undefined climate sensitivities, forcing and feedbacks used as inputs to those models. It is not currently possible to measure or otherwise document anthropogenic impacts.

Attribution has been an issue recently regarding the extent to which anthropogenic climate change might have worsened the effects of Hurricanes Sandy, Harvey, Irma and Maria. Interestingly, no such issues were raised regarding the 12-year period with no landfalling strong hurricanes. Arguably, a 12-year period with no landfalling major hurricanes is at least as unusual as a year (2017) with 3 major landfalling hurricanes.

The weakness of the current state of attribution studies is highlighted by the range of estimates of anthropogenic impacts on various events studied. World Weather Attribution scientists have estimated that climate change made Hurricane Harvey 3 times more likely and its rainfalls 15% more intense. Other sources estimate that tropical cyclones might be 2-11% more intense by 2100.

Attribution studies attempt to evaluate the likelihood that anthropogenic climate change might impact the frequency or severity of natural weather events; and, the likely magnitude of the impacts. However, these studies are severely limited by their reliance on unverified climate models for their estimates. This again emphasizes the importance of improving and verifying climate models, to assure that they are actually modeling the real climate. Estimates of the potential impacts of anthropogenic effects on weather events in a make believe climate are worse than useless.

By: Clear Energy Alliance

            “Predictions are hard, especially about the future.” Yogi Berra, American philosopher

The consensed climate science community and its animated spokespersons have made numerous predictions regarding future climate change and its impacts on the earth and its population. Initially, many of these predictions were made for the near future, within the expected lifespans of the predictors and their audiences. Many of these short-time-frame predictions have proven to be erroneous; and, have become a significant embarrassment to those who made the predictions.

Some notable examples of such erroneous short-term predictions include:

• an ice-free Arctic Ocean and an ice-free North Pole;
• inundation of coastal areas and islands;
• massive crop failures and starvation;
• more frequent, longer and more severe droughts;
• more frequent heavy rain events and more severe flooding;
• more numerous and intense hurricanes, typhoons and tornados;
• massive numbers of climate refugees; and,
• widespread climate change induced deaths.

I suspect that only those who made the erroneous predictions might regret that they were erroneous.

The consensed climate science community has responded to this record of erroneous short-term predictions by vastly extending the time frame of its predictions to periods beyond the expected lifespans of the predictors and their audiences. Predictions of potential conditions or events in 2100 and beyond are far less likely to embarrass those making the predictions. However, these long-term predictions have also proven to be far less effective in inducing action on the part of their audiences.

All these predictions, regardless of time-frame, are based on various climate models using various climate sensitivity, climate forcing and climate feedback assumptions. However, members of the climate science community have recently acknowledged that the climate models are “running hot”; and, that the data against which the models have been hindcast to “tune” them are suspect. “Re-tuning” the climate models, even to the existing “adjusted” data, would result in reduced magnitude of any predicted results of climate change.

Recent research suggests that, at the current rate of increase of atmospheric CO2 concentrations, the feared doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentrations would not occur until approximately 2100. Most of the “scary scenarios” currently predicted by the climate models are based on the IPCC Representative Concentration Pathways 8.5 (RCP8.5), which projects a far more rapid increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations. However, it is becoming increasingly obvious that RCP8.5 is unrealistic; and, perhaps impossible.

Regrettably, the climate models also failed to predict numerous positive climate-related events, including:

• the ~20 year “hiatus” or “pause” in global temperatures;
• the recent 12 year dearth of land-falling major hurricanes;
• the declines in weather/climate related damage and death;
• the documented greening of the globe; and,
• the positive effects of increased CO2 on plant growth and production.

Hopefully, the recent recognition of the shortcomings of the climate data and the climate models will result in serious efforts to improve the comprehensiveness and quality of the climate data and to improve and eventually validate the climate models.

By: Garth Paltridge
for Climate Etc.   April 18, 2018

Four Questions on Climate Change

1) Is the science of climate change 'settled'?

2) What is the effect on climate science of public advocacy for the message of disastrous anthropogenic global warming (AGW)?

3) What are the barriers to public dissemination of results casting doubt on the theory of disastrous anthropogenic global warming (AGW)?

4) What are the implications for climate science of public acceptance of the idea that there is a 'consensus among scientists' on anthropogenic global warming (AGW)?

Four Questions on Climate Change

REPRINT (with permission) from National Association of Scholars (NAS)

Edward A. Reid, Jr. has fifty years of experience in the energy industry in technical research and development, market development, marketing and consulting. He writes frequently on climate science.

The recent report by the National Association of Scholars, The Irreproducibility Crisis of Modern Science, describes a crisis which pervades modern science in general. It refers only peripherally to issues with climate science, which shares most of the aspects of the broad crisis, but has its own distinctive issues as well.

Albert Einstein is alleged to have defined insanity as continuing to do the same things and expecting different results. He might perhaps have defined irreproducibility as continuing to do the same things and achieving different results.

The earth’s climate is a constantly changing, extremely complex chaotic system, driven by the sun and influenced by numerous external factors including the positions of the other planets in the solar system and cosmic radiation. Many of the factors which influence climate are not well understood. Therefore, while it is reasonable to assume that human activities can influence climate, it is not reasonable to assume that humans could effectively control a complex, chaotic system they do not understand.

Modern climate science focuses on three primary issues: changes in land and ocean temperatures; changes in sea level; and, efforts to model the future of those changes. The climate science community is perceived to have formed a consensus that human emissions of “greenhouse gases”, such as carbon dioxide and methane, into the atmosphere are driving climate change which is manifesting as increased near-surface and ocean temperatures, causing rising sea levels and ultimately leading to a climate catastrophe.

This consensus is viewed as climate orthodoxy and is aggressively defended by the orthodox climate science community. Those who question the orthodoxy have been labeled “deniers” and “anti-science”; and, efforts have been made to prevent publication of their work in major scientific journals and to exclude their work from the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). One member of the orthodox climate science community even expressed a willingness to destroy data, rather than make it available to a team questioning the statistical techniques used to analyze the data.

The approach to measuring and tracking changes in near-surface temperatures is fraught with issues. The instruments used to measure near-surface temperature are acknowledged to be in error by an average of more than 2°C in the United States, where the instrument sites have been surveyed and rated. It is reasonable to assume that the instruments located in other nations have similar issues. Therefore, these temperature data are “adjusted” in an effort to resolve the errors. However, once “adjusted”, the temperatures are no longer data, but merely estimates of what the data might have been, had they been collected timely from properly selected, calibrated, sited, installed and maintained instruments.

Unfortunately, there is a history of multiple adjustments to the temperature anomalies over time. The graph below displays two instances of “adjustments” to, or “re-analysis” of, the global temperature record made by NASA GISS. The climate over the period from 1880 to 1980 and its actual anomaly from the reference period did not change. However, the reported anomaly over the period did change. The anomaly was reduced by as much as ~0.2°C early in the period, thus increasing the apparent rate of increase of the anomaly over the period, as shown in the area highlighted in yellow in the graph. The climate over the period from 1980 to 2001 and its actual anomaly from the reference period also did not change. However, the reported anomaly over the period did change. The anomaly was increased by as much as 0.2°C late in the period, as shown in the area highlighted in green in the graph, again increasing the apparent rate of increase of the anomaly over the period. We cannot determine from the information in the graph the number of times the anomalies were “adjusted” or “re-analyzed”. We can only determine the cumulative effects of the “adjustments” or “re-analyses”, which appear to total ~0.4°C, or approximately 1/3 of the reported anomaly change over the entire 136 year period. We do not know which, if any, of the anomaly plots contained in this graph is accurate. We do know, however, that they cannot all be accurate.

Source: Tony Heller, Real Climate Science

A generous assessment of the differing anomaly plots of the ‘adjusted” temperatures shown in the graph above might be that NASA GISS has an internal irreproducibility issue. There are also less generous assessments.

There are several major issues facing climate science:

•             understanding the relationship between near-surface temperature measurements and satellite temperature measurements;

•             resolving the significant differences between surface-based and satellite sea level and sea level rise measurements;

•             establishing discrete values for climate sensitivity, forcings and feedbacks; and,

•             verifying a climate model which actually models the real climate.

The orthodox climate science community has been very quick to accept the satellite-based sea level rise measurements, which are approximately twice the measurements produced by the surface-based instruments. However, they have so far been reluctant to accept the satellite-based temperature measurements, which typically show smaller anomalies than the near-surface temperature measurements.

In the face of these unresolved issues, the US government and other national governments and funding sources have squandered massive funding on studies using unverified models, uncertain climate sensitivities and ill-defined climate forcings and feedbacks, combined with the most aggressive Representative Concentration Pathway in the IPCC studies (RCP8.5) to produce “scary scenarios” of future climate catastrophes. These studies have no apparent scientific value. They are intended solely to scare the populace into accepting the climate orthodoxy and the actions identified as essential to avoid the “scary scenarios”. 

Fortunately, over the past several months, there have been four developments which suggest the possibility of improvement in the general status of climate science:

•             a group of climate scientists has explicitly acknowledged the shortcomings of the existing near-surface temperature measurement network and called for the development of a global land surface climate fiducial reference measurements network;

•             another group of climate scientists has explicitly acknowledged that the current ensemble of global climate models is “running hot”, largely as the result of high climate sensitivity estimates;

•             EPA Administrator Pruitt has proposed to end the use of “secret science” in EPA rulemakings; and

•             NASA Goddard Institute of Space Studies Director Gavin Schmidt has voiced support for more climate research transparency.

These developments might lead to a refocusing of climate science funding on resolving the major issues facing climate science, rather than on the creation of model-driven “scary scenarios”.

• David Randall and Christopher Welser
• National Association of Scholars
• April 2018

"The study you have before you is an examination of the use and abuse of statistics in the sciences. Its natural audience is members of the scientific community who use statistics in their professional research. We hope, however, to reach a broader audience of intelligent readers who recognize the importance to our society of maintaining integrity in the sciences."

THE IRREPRODUCIBILITY CRISIS OF MODERN SCIENCE

“Anybody having to make a decision about climate science needs to understand the full spectrum of what we know and what we don’t know.” Dr. Steven E. Koonin, former Under Secretary for Science, U.S. Department of Energy

Dr. Koonin makes an important point, particularly regarding the extremely complex science of global climate and the numerous factors which cause or influence, or are thought to cause or influence, climate to change over time.

So, what do we know about climate and climate change?

• Climate has warmed and cooled in the past.
• Climate is changing now.
• Human activities can influence climate and apparent climate.
• CO2 absorbs and reradiates energy in portions of the infrared wavelength band.
• Sea level rises when climate warms and falls when climate cools.

And, what do we merely hypothesize about climate and climate change?

• The sensitivity of climate to anthropogenic emissions.
• The direction and magnitude of climate forcings.
• The future rate and extent of temperature change.
• The future rate and extent of sea level rise.
• The effects of human activities on extreme weather frequency and intensity.
• The effects of some degree of warming or cooling on agriculture.
• The effects of some degree of warming or cooling.
• The influence of climate on cloud formation.
• The influence of clouds on climate.

And, what do we not yet understand that affects climate.

• The El Nino Southern Oscillation.
• The Pacific Decadal Oscillation.
• The Atlantic Multi-Decadal Oscillation.
• The Atlantic Conveyor.

In summary, everything about the earth is connected; and, we do not understand how they are connected, or how they influence and are influenced by climate and climate change.

Koonin’s concern is especially relevant in light of the numerous lawsuits being filed against the Administration, the oil companies and others regarding climate change. The distinction between what is known and what is merely believed, or assumed, or hypothesized will be critical to a fair resolution of these lawsuits.

Perhaps the most fundamental question in these proceedings is: “What is a fact?”

• Is an “adjusted” temperature a fact or an estimate?
• Is an “adjusted” temperature anomaly a fact or an estimate?
• Is an “infilled” temperature a fact or an estimate?
• Is a range of climate sensitivity a fact or an estimate?
• Is a range of climate forcings a fact or an estimate?
• Is a range of Resource Consumption Pathways a fact or an estimate?
• Do a multitude of climate models produce facts or estimates?
• Are inconsistent measurements of sea level rise facts or estimates?
• Are inconsistent rates of sea level rise facts or estimates?

In the cases of ranges of values, we cannot even state as fact that the real value lies within the ranges. In the case of multiple climate models, we cannot even state as fact that the actual future climate response lies within the range of scenarios produced by the models, no less that any one of the models accurately models the real climate, either currently or in the future.

“There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. These are things we don't know we don't know.” Donald Rumsfeld

“Anybody having to make a decision about climate science needs to understand the full spectrum of what we know and what we don’t know.” Dr. Steven E. Koonin, former Under Secretary for Science, U.S. Department of Energy

“We are not concerned with warming per se, but with how much warming. It is essential to avoid the environmental tendency to regard anything that may be bad in large quantities to be avoided at any level however small. In point of fact small warming is likely to be beneficial on many counts.” Dr. Richard Lindzen, Professor Emeritus, MIT

“Predicting climate temperatures isn't science – it's science fiction." Dr. William Happer, Professor Emeritus, Princeton

“Too much of the science of climate change relies on computer models and those models are crude mathematical approximations of the real world.” Dr. Freeman Dyson, Professor Emeritus, Princeton. These models then are "useful for understanding climate but not for predicting climate."

“It remains difficult to quantify the contribution to this warming from internal variability, natural forcing and anthropogenic forcing, due to forcing and response uncertainties and incomplete observational coverage.” IPCC AR5

“It is premature to conclude that human activities–and particularly greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming–have already had a detectable impact on Atlantic hurricane or global tropical cyclone activity. ...” NOAA Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory

“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution.” Christiana Figueres, Former Chair, UNFCCC

“Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental protection. The next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world’s resources will be negotiated.” Ottmar Edenhofer, IPCC

“Instead of trying to make fossil fuels so expensive that no one wants them – which will never work – we should make green energy so cheap everybody will shift to it.” Bjorn Lomborg, President, Copenhagen Consensus Center

“The anthropogenic global warming we can now expect will be small, slow, harmless, and even net-beneficial. It is only going to be about 1.2 K this century, or 1.2 K per CO2 doubling.” Viscount Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

“There is little scientific basis in support of claims that extreme weather events – specifically, hurricanes, floods, drought, tornadoes – and their economic damage have increased in recent decades due to the emission of greenhouse gases. The lack of evidence to support claims of increasing frequency or intensity of hurricanes, floods, drought or tornadoes on climate timescales is also supported by the most recent assessments of the IPCC and the broader peer reviewed literature on which the IPCC is based.” Dr. Roger Pielke Jr., Professor, Colorado State University

"The conclusive findings of this research are that the three GAST data sets are not a valid representation of reality. In fact, the magnitude of their historical data adjustments, that removed their cyclical temperature patterns, are totally inconsistent with published and credible U.S. and other temperature data. Thus, it is impossible to conclude from the three published GAST data sets that recent years have been the warmest ever –despite current claims of record setting warming.” Drs. James P. Wallace III, Joseph S. D’Aleo, Craig D. Idso

“While it is beyond question that the climate system has changed since instrumental records were instigated, we can improve our collective ability to characterize these changes through instigating and maintaining a global surface fiducial reference network.” P. W. Thorne, et al

“The climate is always changing; changes like those of the past half-century are common in the geologic record, driven by powerful natural phenomena. Human influences on the climate are a small (1%) perturbation to natural energy flows. It is not possible to tell how much of the modest recent warming can be ascribed to human influences. There have been no detrimental changes observed in the most salient climate variables and today’s projections of future changes are highly uncertain.” Drs. Richard Lindzen, Steven Koonin and William Happer

“There is no “consensus” among scientists that recent global warming was chiefly anthropogenic, still less that unmitigated anthropogenic warming has been or will be dangerous or catastrophic. Even if it be assumed [for the sake of argument] that all of the 0.8 [degree Celsius] global warming since anthropogenic influence first became potentially significant in 1950 was attributable to us, in the present century little more than 1.2 [C] of global warming is to be expected, not the 3.3 [C] that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) had predicted.” Lord Monckton, Drs. Willie Soon and David Legates, and William Briggs

“The scientific conclusion here, if one follows the scientific method, is that the average model trend fails to represent the actual trend of the past 38 years by a highly significant amount. As a result, applying the traditional scientific method, one would accept this failure and not promote the model trends as something truthful about the recent past or the future. Rather, the scientist would return to the project and seek to understand why the failure occurred. The most obvious answer is that the models are simply too sensitive to the extra GHGs that are being added to both the model and the real world.” Dr. John Christy, Professor, UAH

“95% of Climate Models Agree: The Observations Must be Wrong.” Dr. Roy Spencer, Professor, UAH

“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.” Dr. Richard Feynman, Professor, Cal Tech

“Data is immutable; “adjusted” temperature records, not so much.” Edward Reid

By: Andy May

"It’s more likely mostly due to both, but that isn’t really the question. Virtually everyone accepts that climate changes and that CO2 and methane are greenhouse gases; and probably everyone remembers from grade school that the Sun is a variable star. The debate is over how much of recent global warming is due to the Sun, either its internal variability or changes in the Earth’s orbit, and how much is due to human greenhouse gas emissions, mostly from fossil fuels?"

Climate Change, due to Solar Variability or Greenhouse Gases? Part A

Climate Change, due to Solar Variability or Greenhouse Gases? Part B

Judge William H. Alsup of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division will hear the case “The People of the State of California vs. B.P. P.L.C., et al. This case is a civil suit against five major oil companies for alleged present and alleged potential damages caused by global warming and climate change.

The judge has invited a tutorial on the best science available on global warming and climate change as a prelude to the trial. This tutorial is to be provided by both the plaintiff(s) and the defendants. The court has also received an Administrative Motion for leave to submit a tutorial presentation from climate scientists William Happer, Stephen Koonin and Richard Lindzen. The Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP) is pursuing the possibility of filing an amicus brief with the court as well, since it believes it has been slandered in the City of Oakland complaint which is part of the suit.

The Happer / Koonin / Lindzen (HKL) presentation responds point by point to the questions raised by the judge to be responded to in the tutorial. The overview section of the HKL presentation makes the following points:

1. “the climate is always changing; changes like those of the past half century are common in the geological record, driven by powerful phenomena;
2. human influences on the climate are a small (1%) perturbation to natural energy flows;
3. it is not possible to tell how much of the modest recent warming can be ascribed to human influences; and,
4. there have been no detrimental changes observed in most salient climate variables and projections of future changes are highly uncertain.

The presentation then provides detailed responses to the questions posed by the judge.

The SEPP brief would likely focus on the “standards of evidence: direct or indirect; physical or bureaucratic.”

“Physical evidence is hard data showing CO2 is the primary cause of global warming. Increasing emissions, changing climate, etc. are not physical evidence of cause. Bureaucratic evidence includes global climate models that fail basic testing, and group think such as organizations that fail to address the key issue in their reports, etc. The key issue is: do carbon dioxide emissions cause dire warming of the atmosphere? SEPP’s answer is no, and CO2 emissions are beneficial to humanity and the environment.”

SEPP would be expected to stress that:

1. there are no hard data on the contribution of anthropogenic CO2 emissions to recent climate warming or sea level rise;
2. the available temperature data are of questionable accuracy and provide incomplete global coverage;
3. the available climate models are unverified, are acknowledged to be unrepresentative of the actual climate and have demonstrated no predictive ability; and,
4. the available sea level rise data show no acceleration during the period of interest (post 1950).

Viscount Christopher Monckton of Brenchley and a group of scientist colleagues also filed a brief with the court, asserting that: ““the Court should reject Plaintiff’s case and should also reject those of Defendants’ submissions that assert that global warming is a serious problem requiring urgent mitigation.” This brief is most likely based on a recent scientific paper the group has submitted for publication.

Dr. Judith Curry has posted a detailed response to the eighth question posed by the judge for the tutorial at her website. It is unclear whether Dr. Curry intends to file a response with the court.

There is no current information regarding potential filings by other skeptical climate scientists, though that is certainly a possibility. Since much of the concern expressed by the plaintiff regards the potential future impacts of sea level rise, separately and in combination with more frequent and stronger storms, a presentation on these issues by Dr. Roger Pielke, Jr. might be a significant contribution.

“I don’t know of any judge who has asked for a tutorial like this,” said Steven E. Koonin, a physicist and former Energy Department undersecretary known for his contrarian views on global warming research. “I think it is a great idea. Anybody having to make a decision about climate science needs to understand the full spectrum of what we know and what we don’t know.”

“There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know.”, Donald Rumsfeld
 

Recent research suggests far lower climate sensitivity to CO2 doubling.

Temperature anomaly producers still “adjusting” flawed temperature measurements.

Climate modelers finally acknowledge that models are “running hot”.

No climate model has yet been verified or demonstrated predictive skill.

Satellites document global greening. CO2 improves growth rates and water management.

Large disparity between satellite and tide gauge sea level rise measurements persists.

Recent research shows no linkage between climate change and extreme weather events.

Climate model based “scary scenario” studies dominate media coverage of climate change.

Recent research documents solar influence on earth’s climate and cloud formation.

UNFCCC already claiming that the Paris Accords do not go far enough to reduce CO2.

The US has begun its exit from the Paris Accords and the Green Climate Fund (GCF).

The UNFCCC seeks to increase GCF funding from $100 Billion to $425 Billion per year.

The US has terminated contributions to the Green Climate Fund.

The US has not begun its exit from the UNFCCC, as required by US law.

US EPA has proposed an open debate on the status of climate science.

US EPA has not begun efforts to remove the 2009 Endangerment Finding.

US EPA has disavowed “Sue and Settle” approach to environmentalist lawsuits.

Environmentalists are threatening numerous lawsuits against US EPA over Clean Power Plan.

Recent research documents that renewables increase electricity costs, despite claims.

Meeting US energy demand with wind turbines would require ~2.3 million 3MW turbines.

Energy efficiency of US economy continues to increase.

Meeting US energy demand with solar would require ~12 million square miles of collectors.

Solar and wind equipment efficiency is increasing; and, equipment cost is decreasing.

Storage technology to support full renewable transition is not currently economically available.

The consensed climate science community and the globalist political community have been partners in a mutual adoration society for several decades. This relationship culminated in the signing of the Paris Accords, which committed the signatories to a globalist response to the impending climate crises envisioned by the climate model scenarios generated by the consensed climate science community. The dream of decades appeared to be within reach.

However, the inauguration of an openly skeptical Administration in the US and its subsequent decision to withdraw the US from the Paris Accords has caused dissension in the ranks of the mutual adoration society. The US has been the primary source of funding for both the consensed climate science community and the globalist political community. However, the current US Administration has reduced funding for the advancement of both the climate science consensus and the globalist political consensus.

The new skepticism on the part of the major source of climate research funding has caused the consensed climate science community to acknowledge the technical weaknesses of both the Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN) process for collecting and analyzing near-surface temperatures and the use of the current ensemble of climate models for the production and analysis of potential future climate scenarios.

The consensed climate science community has recently called for the construction of a global near-surface temperature measurement network similar to the US Climate Reference Network. The consensed climate science community has also recently acknowledged that the current ensemble of climate models is “running hot”, producing potential future scenarios with temperature anomalies two to three times the anomalies present in the “adjusted” near-surface observations.

It is unlikely that the call for a global Climate Reference Network is totally altruistic, in that there has been no significant effort to extend the existing GHCN measurement program to areas where there is currently no measurement activity. It appears unlikely that nations which have been unwilling to install and operate the far less expensive GHCN measurement stations would be willing to install the far more expensive Climate Reference Network measurement stations. However, the pursuit of such a program would continue the efforts of the consensed climate science community to ignore or minimize the importance of the satellite tropospheric temperature measurements, which are made in the region of the atmosphere in which CO2 absorption of solar radiation actually occurs.

It appears equally unlikely that the acknowledgment of the shortcomings of the current climate models is altruistic. Rather, it appears that this acknowledgment is a response to the growing realization that the models are not, in fact, modeling the real climate, largely as the result of the use of unrealistically large climate sensitivity estimates; and, perhaps also, the use of incorrect cloud forcings.

Recent research suggests that climate sensitivity to CO2 is at or perhaps even below the low end of the range of values used by the IPCC. Recent research also suggests that the Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP 8.5) used in the climate models to produce many of the failed “scary scenarios” is totally unrealistic.

“There is a total absence of data supporting the notion of a present sea level rise; on the contrary all available facts indicate present sea level stability. On the centennial timescale, there was a +70 cm high level in the 16th and 17th centuries, a -50 cm low in the 18th century and a stability (with some oscillations) in the 19th, 20th and early 21st centuries.” Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner

“Over 1000 of the world’s Tide Gauges show pure linear trends, along with minimal (mostly thermal expansion and glacial melt) increases. There are none showing any acceleration of Sea Level rise rate in tectonically inert areas.” Thomas Wysmuller, former NASA meteorologist

“The rate of sea level change was found to be larger in the early part of last century (2.03 ± 0.35 mm/yr 1904–1953), in comparison with the latter part (1.45 ± 0.34 mm/yr 1954–2003).” Dr. Simon Holgate

“Global sea level has been rising over the past century, and the rate has increased in recent decades.” NOAA

“Satellite altimetry has shown that global mean sea level has been rising at a rate of ∼3 ± 0.4 mm/y since 1993. Using the altimeter record coupled with careful consideration of interannual and decadal variability as well as potential instrument errors, we show that this rate is accelerating at 0.084 ± 0.025 mm/y², which agrees well with climate model projections.” Nerem et al

It is not unreasonable to assume that actual global sea level rise lies somewhere between zero and ~3 millimeters per year. It is also not unreasonable to assume that the rate of acceleration of global sea level rise lies somewhere between zero and ~0.084 millimeters per year per year. However, those ranges are quite large; and, they are hardly reflective of “settled science”.

Data from tide gauges documents sea level rise of ~1.45 millimeters per year, only half as rapid as the ~3.0 millimeter per year rise calculated from satellites measurements. It is certainly possible that one of these rates of sea level rise is correct, but it is not possible that both are correct; and, it is possible that neither is correct and that the actual rate of sea level rise does not lie between these two rates.

This large discrepancy in estimates of global sea level rise would seem to argue for an expanded focus on resolving these differences. Research to resolve the differences is certainly more important and more valuable than numerous “scary scenario” studies based on unverified climate models, fed with the higher of the rate of rise estimates and the unrealistic IPCC Representative Concentrations Pathway (RCP) 8.5 scenario. These “scary scenario” studies attract the interest of the media and the public, but do nothing to advance the state of the science.

This large discrepancy in rate of rise of sea level estimates should be a subject of the Red Team / Blue Team debate proposed by EPA Administrator Pruitt. The procedures used to convert the satellite data to estimates of the rate of sea level rise should also be subject to analysis by Tiger Teams at NOAA and NASA. It is long past time to settle this aspect of climate change science.

State of the Climate 2017

The Global Warming Policy Foundation

By: Ole Humlum - former Professor of Physical Geography at the University Centre in Svalbard, Norway, and Emeritus Professor of Physical Geography, University of Oslo, Norway.

1. It is likely that 2017 was one of the warmest years, according to temperature records from the instrumental period (since about 1850). However, it was cooler than 2016.

2. At the end of 2017 the average global air temperature was dropping back towards the level characterising the years before the strong 2015–16 oceanographic El Niño episode. This underscores that the global surface temperature peak of 2015–16 was caused mainly by this Pacific oceanographic phenomenon. It also suggests … Complete Report