Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

The Coming Paradigm Shift on Climate

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
    And, your solution is?
    A significant increase in the use of Nuclear Power is a viable solution (though we are looking at a 15 to 20 year window to bring sufficient plants online if we started today).

    Comment


    • Originally posted by robertb View Post
      A significant increase in the use of Nuclear Power is a viable solution (though we are looking at a 15 to 20 year window to bring sufficient plants online if we started today).
      But that just makes sense -- not because of global warming alarmism. I'm all for doing what we can to be good stewards of our planet.
      "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
        But that just makes sense -- not because of global warming alarmism. I'm all for doing what we can to be good stewards of our planet.
        Not sure what you mean by alarmism, do you mean media hype? If so, then yes, the media seems to do more harm than good on this issue.

        However, nuclear power will address climate related issues associated with the current use of fossil fuels.

        Comment


        • The Coming Paradigm Shift on Climate

          From NEWSMAX [emphases added by -JR]:
          Scientists Rebut White House Global Warming Claims

          Sunday, 18 May 2014 06:30 PM

          By Jennifer G. Hickey

          A group of independent scientists, economists, and meteorologists has issued a pointed response to the scientific foundation of the Obama administration's claims that humans are drastically changing the climate by burning fossil fuels.

          With expertise in multiple disciplines, including climate research, weather modeling, physics, geology, statistical analysis, engineering, and economics, the 15 signers make the case that the foundation of the White House National Climate Assessment (NCA) is a "masterpiece of marketing" that crumbles like a "house of cards" under the weight of real-world evidence.

          "They promote their 'Climate Models' as a reliable way to predict the future climate. But these models dramatically fail basic verification tests. Nowhere do they admit to these well-known failures. Instead, we are led to believe that their climate models are close to perfection," assert the scientists.

          The 829-page NCA report was released on May 6 and was characterized by administration officials as "the most comprehensive, authoritative, transparent scientific report on U.S. climate change impacts ever generated."

          The administration seized on the NCA findings as justification for its push to further regulate the fossil-fuel industry and to bolster alternative green-energy sources.

          The scientists' rebuttal, however, strongly challenges the theory of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW), which it says is "based on a string of inferences that begins with the assumptions" that human burning of fossil fuels is driving up atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide and "is so grossly flawed it should play no role in U.S. Energy Policy Analyses and CO2 regulatory processes."

          The scientists do not have any affiliation with any particular organization and have worked together pro bono for several years.

          Among the signatories are: Dr. George Wolff, who formerly chaired the Environmental Protection Agency's Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee; Joseph S. D'Aleo, a fellow with the American Meteorological Society; Dr. Neil Laverne Frank, former director of the National Hurricane Center in Florida; and William M. "Bill" Gray, emeritus professor of atmospheric science at Colorado State University.

          The authors criticize the NCA report for a lack of objectivity and its failure to include input from scientists who may question whether climate change is irrefutable and that a robust regulatory response is required.

          "Science derives its objectivity from robust logic and honest evidence repeatedly tested by all knowledgeable scientists, not just those paid to support the administration's version of "Global Warming,' 'Climate Change,' 'Climate Disruption,' or whatever their marketing specialists call it today," they said.

          The NCA and the White House assert that urgent action is needed because increasing average temperatures in the United States are responsible for a greater frequency of extreme weather events.

          According to the NCA, average temperatures have increased between 1.3 degrees Fahrenheit and 1.9 degrees Fahrenheit since 1895 and forecasting models show a potential increase of an additional 4 degrees Fahrenheit if countermeasures are not adopted, including cap-and-trade, greater subsidization of green energy, and reduced fossil fuel production.

          According to the NCA, "human influences are the primary driver of recent climate change is based on multiple lines of independent evidence."

          The scientists describe that contention as "grossly flawed" and take issue with the EPA's claim — used to justify greenhouse gas regulation — that there is "90-99 percent certainty that observed warming in the latter half of the twentieth century resulted from human activity."

          That claim "is totally at odds with multiple robust, consistent, independently-derived empirical datasets, all showing no statistically significant positive (or negative) trend in temperature," they wrote. "Therefore, EPA's theory … must be rejected."

          The group of scientists made similar points in a Supreme Court amicus involving EPA regulation of greenhouse gas emissions from new motor vehicles.

          In the brief the scientists assert EPA's entire hypothesis that CO2 emissions endanger human health and safety has been falsified by real-world evidence.

          "As the most important example, EPA asserts as its central 'line of evidence' for CO2 'endangerment' that CO2 will warm the surface temperature of the earth through a mechanism by which rising CO2 concentrations in the troposphere in the tropics block heat transfer into outer space."

          They said that if EPA's hypothesis were accurate there would necessarily be an observable "hot spot" in the tropical upper troposphere. But that has not been proven to exist, therefore, they write "the basis that EPA has for this rulemaking is no basis," they wrote.

          According to their rebuttal report, "over the last 130 years the decade of the 1930s still has the most U.S. state high temperatures records."

          Their assertion that climate disruptions are not increasing, ironically, is echoed in the most recent report issued by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which the White House often cites to support its own argument.

          Globally, according to the IPCC in its 2012 special report on extreme events, "since the 1950s some regions of the world have experienced a trend to more intense and longer droughts, in particular in southern Europe and West Africa, but in some regions droughts have become less frequent, less intense, or shorter, for example, in central North America and northwestern Australia."

          Furthermore, the IPCC in 2013 concluded that "current datasets indicate no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency over the past century" and "no robust trends in annual numbers of tropical storms, hurricanes and major hurricanes counts have been identified over the past 100 years in the North Atlantic basin."

          The scientists also dispute the administration's claims that proposed regulation of carbon dioxide can be achieved in a cost-effective manner that will create jobs and produce economic benefit. Rather, they argue, those policies will restrict economic growth causing harm to the poor.

          "Unilateral CO2 emission control by the United States promises to damage the economy of the United States without any benefits. In fact, increasing CO2 in the atmosphere facilitates achieving the goal of raising the poor out of poverty through increasing food production," the scientists wrote in their amicus brief.

          Comment


          • The scientists do not have any affiliation with any particular organization and have worked together pro bono for several years.
            Dr. George T. Wolff, Principal Scientist

            Professional Experience

            2008-Present -- Principal Scientist, Air Improvement Resource, Inc.
            2003-2008 -- Technical Fellow, Principal Scientist, General Motors Public Policy Center
            1998-2000 -- Adjunct Professor, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Michigan State University
            1996-2003 -- Principal Scientist, General Motors Public Policy Center
            1992-1996 -- Chairman, U.S. EPA Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC)
            1992-1996 -- Executive Committee, U.S. EPA Science Advisory Board
            1992-1996 -- Principal Scientist, General Motors Environmental and Energy Staff
            1992-2003 -- Michigan Environmental Science Board
            1991-1995 -- Adjunct Professor, Department of Environmental Science, School of Public Health, University of Michigan
            1990-1992 -- Principal Research Scientist and Manager, Air Quality and Global Warming Programs, General Motors Research Laboratories
            1987-1997 -- U.S. EPA Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC)
            1987-1990 -- Principal Research Scientist and Manager, Atmospheric Modeling and Assessment and Climate Change Programs, General Motors Research Laboratories
            1985-2006 -- U.S. EPA Science Advisory Board
            1984-1988 -- Adjunct Professor, Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, University of Michigan
            1981-1987 -- Senior Staff Research Scientist and Group Leader, Atmospheric Sampling and Analysis Group, Environmental Science Department, General Motors Research Laboratories
            1978-1981 -- Group Leader and Senior Research Scientist, Atmospheric Sampling and Analysis Group, Environmental Science Department, General Motors Research Laboratories
            1977-1978 -- Senior Research Scientist, Environmental Science Department, General Motors Research Laboratories
            1975-1977 -- Associate Engineer and Director of Air Pollution Program, Interstate Sanitation Commission, New York, NY
            1973-1975 -- Senior Air Pollution Engineer, Interstate Sanitation Commission, New York, NY

            Clients

            Manufacturing Companies

            Briggs and Stratton
            Caterpillar
            Cummins
            Daimler
            Detroit Diesel Corporation
            Ford Motor Company
            General Motors
            International
            Lyondell Chemical Company
            Mack
            POET
            Toyota


            Trade Associations

            Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers
            American Association for Clean Coal Electricity
            American Coal Council
            American Petroleum Institute
            Association of International Automobile Manufacturers
            Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers Association
            Engine Manufacturers Association
            Growth Energy
            Minnesota Corn Growers
            National Biodiesel Board
            New Fuels Alliance
            Outdoor Power Equipment Institute
            Pacific Ethanol
            Renewable Fuels Association
            U.S. Chamber of Commerce
            Utility Air Regulatory Group
            Western States Petroleum Association


            Governments

            Environment Canada
            Environmental Protection Agency
            Southeast Michigan Council of Governments
            State of California
            State of Colorado
            State of Michigan


            Other

            American Enterprise Institute
            Annapolis Center
            Consumers Energy Company
            Coordinating Research Council
            DTE Energy
            DTE Energy Resources
            Entergy
            Fraser Institute
            Hunton and Williams
            Kirkland and Ellis
            Moore and VanAllen
            New York Law
            Save Our Shoreline
            We Energies
            White Energy

            Comment


            • Originally posted by robertb View Post
              Not sure what you mean by alarmism, do you mean media hype? If so, then yes, the media seems to do more harm than good on this issue.
              Yes, and Al Gore's contribution - scare tactics, hype and drama.

              However, nuclear power will address climate related issues associated with the current use of fossil fuels.
              Agreed - but it makes sense, so it probably won't happen.
              "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                Yes, and Al Gore's contribution - scare tactics, hype and drama.



                Agreed - but it makes sense, so it probably won't happen.
                That and too much bad press and factually incorrect information about nuclear power.

                A shame...

                Comment


                • POSTED ON MAY 22, 2014 BY STEVEN HAYWARD IN CLIMATE at Powerline.com.

                  DECEPTIONS OF THE CLIMATISTAS

                  The New York Times is doing its job as an echo chamber for the Climatistas with a piece earlier this week on arctic and Antarctic ice melt, featuring this pairing of photographs of the Muir glacier in southwestern Alaska in 1941 and 2004. I’ve used these same two photos myself in presentations about the observable climate changes in the world. But is this proof that it is human-caused, in whole or in part?

                  Times on Big Melt copyTurns out the Times and others who use this photo pairing leave something out. Paul Homewood of NotALotofPeopleKnowThat blog points us to this next photo, from 1951, showing that much of the retreat of the Muir glacier occurred between 1941 and 1951—largely before the modern warming spurt that has Al Gore soiling his BVDs.

                  Muir 1951 copy http://www.powerlineblog.com/admin/e...-Melt-copy.jpg

                  Actually it turns out the Muir glacier has been retreating for more than 200 years. Homewood notes this report from the U.S. Geological Survey, which provides this map of the extent of glaciation in Glacier Bay since the late 18th century.

                  Glacier Map copy http://www.powerlineblog.com/admin/e...-1951-copy.jpg

                  http://www.powerlineblog.com/admin/e...r-Map-copy.jpg

                  Gee—I wonder why the Climatistas and their media toadies would leave this out?

                  JOHN adds: In general, haven’t the world’s glaciers been retreating since the end of the last Ice Age, 10,000 or more years ago? I believe so. Certainly since the end of the Little Ice Age. Do people really not understand this? Perhaps not. More to come on this topic later in the day.
                  Last edited by John Reece; 05-22-2014, 02:54 PM.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by lao tzu
                    Start by admitting there's a problem, then work it.
                    There are literally a billion other human problems more important, more worthy of intelligent attention, and more solvable than this one.

                    Set a goal, find one solution, then find a better one, and then a cheaper one. Rinse, repeat. We are, after all, the country that sent a man to the moon.
                    Not anymore, thanks to yourself and your liberal allies' penchant for allowing in immigrants from Third World countries whose voting patterns and living habits show no regard whatsoever for environmentalist platitudes and living arrangements. The country that sent the men to the moon was a very different country indeed.

                    This is just another science and engineering problem. We can find a way.
                    It most certainly is not. It's a pernicious fashion, a gigantic waste of useful time and money, an encouragement for the laziest type of corporate positive thinking, a regression of discourse, a fake morality for people who've lost the Bible and now prefer recycling as their personal moral statement, a fake cause for people who've lost their regard for their fellow American citizens and now prefer working to prevent unspecified disasters in unspecified places, a fake apocalypse for the discontented who've lost the hope of regeneration in Christ, but a very real source of cash to the Al Gores and power to the Michael Manns of the world, who see advocacy against global warming as nothing but the perfect excuse to consolidate money and power for their own benefit. They believe not a word they say, they're in this for the early buy-in, and will be the first to cash out as soon as the popularity of the issue fades, which will be sooner rather than later.

                    Comment


                    • The Coming Paradigm Shift on Climate

                      John Hinderaker at Powerline.com.
                      WORRIED ABOUT FLOODS DUE TO RISING SEA LEVEL? FORGET IT: NOT HAPPENING

                      The global warming hysterics’ favorite fantasy these days is that Antarctic ice will melt due to hypothetical warming, leading to catastrophic flooding as the level of the oceans rises. It is commonly asserted that sea level will rise at least three feet by the end of the century. Put aside whether the Earth actually will warm and whether a three-foot rise would really be catastrophic. Put aside, too, any doubts about how much melting will occur even if the Earth warms by a few degrees, given that the average annual high temperature in Antarctica is -49 F. Does the reality of melting ice bear any mathematical relation to the oft-predicted flood scenario?

                      A reader who is familiar with geometry and arithmetic–which means he is not a reporter–decided to test the hysterical claim. I will reproduce his email in full:

                      The rest of the article continues here

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by John Reece View Post
                        JOHN adds: In general, haven’t the world’s glaciers been retreating since the end of the last Ice Age, 10,000 or more years ago? ...
                        No. There was, of course, a MASSIVE retreat of glaciers and ice caps -- in particular the total loss of huge ice caps over North America and Eurasia as we came out of the last ice age... and this occurred about 11,000 years ago. There was also a huge rise in sea level at that time -- much greater than anything projected for the next couple of centuries.

                        But THAT retreat happened and finished and peaked about 8,000 years ago. Since then, the world has been mostly in a very slow decline in temperature, with the usual short term excursions up and down overlying longer trends.

                        The worldwide retreat of glaciers that is occurring now is new -- not a continuation of the retreats that occurred and finished thousands of years ago at the end of the last ice age (or glacial). The current retreat comes with a rise in temperatures starting last century, ending the long slow decline from the Holocene Climatic Optimum about 8,000 years ago.

                        Cheers -- sylas

                        Comment


                        • The Coming Paradigm Shift on Climate

                          Good news from John Fund at National Review:
                          MAY 23, 2014 4:00 AM

                          The Hard Sell on Climate Change

                          Media outlets continue to push a crisis scenario, and the public isn’t buying.

                          By John Fund [emphasis added by John Reece]

                          Jeff Zucker, the president of CNN, was very forthright about his media priorities at a Society of Professional Journalists dinner in New York City on Monday.

                          He told Bill Carter of the New York Times: “Climate change is one of those stories that deserves more attention, that we all talk about. But we haven’t figured out how to engage the audience in that story in a meaningful way. When we do do those stories, there does tend to be a tremendous amount of lack of interest on the audience’s part.”

                          Americans hold views on climate change that at first are encouraging to environmentalists: In a Pew poll last year, 69 percent believed the earth was warming. But only 33 percent said it was a “very” serious problem, and when Pew asked respondents what issues should be a “top priority” for the federal government, dealing with global warming came in dead last, with only 28 percent holding that view. There is a real basis for such a stance: Global temperatures haven’t risen appreciably in about 15 years.

                          More and more people in the middle of America — both geographically and culturally — have come to believe either that global warming is manageable or that extraordinary efforts to slow the economy to combat it aren’t worth the cost. But that “doesn’t faze the bicoastal urban media elite,” says Myron Ebell of the Competitive Enterprise Institute. These elites, he adds, “have become more hysterical in their treatment of the issue, blaming everything from drought to wildfires to hurricanes on climate change.” It doesn’t matter that there is clear evidence such phenomena are cyclical, and that — for instance — while California is experiencing a severe drought, Florida residents have recently experienced some of the quietest hurricane seasons in decades.

                          So even as public concern about climate change declines, the media continue to give airtime and space to global-warming alarmists. Everyone from Al Gore to Joe Biden touts the “fact” that 97 percent of all scientists are part of a consensus on the serious nature of climate change.

                          But that number hides some important facts. Anyone who dissents from the climate-change orthodoxy is dealt with ruthlessly.

                          Consider the case of Lennart Bengtsson, a leading Swedish meteorologist affiliated with Britain’s Reading University. In April, he announced he was joining the skeptical Global Warming Policy Foundation think tank because he felt it important to analyze “why the warming of the Earth has been much weaker than what climate models show.”

                          His affiliation didn’t last long. Three weeks later he resigned, writing:
                          I have been put under such an enormous group pressure in recent days from all over the world that it has become virtually unbearable to me. If this is going to continue I will be unable to conduct my normal work and will even start to worry about my health and safety. . . . Colleagues are withdrawing their support, other colleagues are withdrawing from joint authorship etc. I see no limit and end to what will happen. It is a situation that reminds me of the time of McCarthy.

                          The Institute of Physics, which had declined to publish a paper by Professor Bengtsson, insisted that their decision was based solely on his paper’s not meeting their high editorial standards. David Gee, an emeritus professor at Sweden’s Uppsala University, said the pressure placed on his friend “simply confirms the worst elements of politicized science.”

                          It is ironic that as witch hunts for climate-change skeptics have been intensifying, the public’s interest in climate change has been declining steadily. Researchers William Anderegg from Princeton University and Gregory Goldsmith from Oxford University analyzed Google Trends data for search terms such as “global warming” and “climate change” and concluded that “overall public interest in the topic has steadily waned since 2007.”

                          “Global-warming alarmists have turned off the public by hyping their claims, and people over time have seen through it,” Ebell told me. “Now that the disasters that were predicted for the time period we’re in haven’t materialized, the alarmists have started to say that every climate change is part of an unfolding disaster.” The problem is that people understand weather has long been variable and has had extremes. So the environmentalist message isn’t selling.

                          But don’t expect that to stop the Jeff Zuckers of the world. The lame-stream media will continue to hype climate change with little or no nuance in their reporting. But over time the cumulative effect of the media hype will be a continuing decline in the public’s credulity. When media outlets blindly join a cause that has the air of a secular crusade, truth is the first casualty; ratings are the second casualty. Just look at CNN’s numbers: Its ratings continue to plunge in part because it insists on running stories — like those on climate change — that audiences just aren’t buying.

                          John Fund is national-affairs columnist for National Review Online.
                          Last edited by John Reece; 05-23-2014, 05:31 PM.

                          Comment


                          • This is a followup to my last post above, wherein John Fund reported that there has been no global warming for the past 15 years. That time period is now more than two years out of date, as explained in an online article by Peter Ferrara at forbes.com, from which excerpts:
                            The Period Of No Global Warming Will Soon Be Longer Than the Period of Actual Global Warming

                            If you look at the record of global temperature data, you will find that the late 20th Century period of global warming actually lasted about 20 years, from the late 1970s to the late 1990s. Before that, the globe was dominated by about 30 years of global cooling, giving rise in the 1970s to media discussions of the return of the Little Ice Age (circa 1450 to 1850), or worse.

                            But the record of satellite measurements of global atmospheric temperatures now shows no warming for at least 17 years and 5 months, from September, 1996 to January, 2014, as shown on the accompanying graphic. That is surely 17 years and 6 months now, accounting for February.

                            When the period of no global warming began, the alarmist global warming establishment responded that even several years of temperature data does not establish a climate trend. That takes much longer. But when the period of no global warming gets longer than the period of actual global warming, what is the climate trend then?

                            Graphic: http://blogs-images.forbes.com/peter...4/02/peter.png

                            Even worse for the theory of catastrophic, anthropogenic (human caused), global warming is that during this now extended period of no global warming mankind’s emissions of the carbon dioxide (CO2) that are supposed to be predominant in causing global warming continued to explode, with one third of all CO2 added to the atmosphere since the industrial revolution occurring during this period. The Economist magazine shocked the global warming establishment with an article in March, 2013 that began with this lede:
                            “OVER the past 15 years air temperatures at the Earth’s surface have been flat while greenhouse-gas emissions have continued to soar. The world added roughly 100 billion tonnes of carbon to the atmosphere between 2000 and 2010. That is about a quarter of all the CO2 put there by humanity since 1750.”

                            [Snip]

                            Moreover, the now extended trend of no global warming is not turning around any time soon. That increasingly established trend is being produced by long term natural causes. Even rank amateurs among the general public can see that the sun is the dominant influence on the Earth’s temperatures. Even the most politicized scientists know that they cannot deny that solar activity such as sun spot cycles, and variations in solar magnetic fields or in the flux of cosmic rays, have contributed to major climate changes of the past, such as the Little Ice Age, particularly pronounced from roughly 1650 AD to 1850 AD, the Medieval Warm period from about 950 AD to 1250 AD, during which global temperatures were higher than today, and the early 20th century Warming Period from 1910 to 1940 AD.

                            [Snip]

                            Britain’s Met Office, an international cheerleading headquarters for global warming hysteria, conceded in December, 2012 that there would be no further warming at least through 2017, which would make 21 years with no global warming. The German Herald reported on March 31, 2013 regarding Russian scientist Dr Habibullo Abdussamatov from the St. Petersburg Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory, “Talking to German media the scientist who first made his prediction in 2005 said that after studying sunspots and their relationship with climate change on Earth, we are now on an ‘unavoidable advance towards a deep temperature drop.’” His colleague Yuri Nagovitsyn is quoted in The Voice of Russia saying, “we could be in for a cooling period that lasts 200-250 years.” Skepticism over the theory of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming is increasingly embraced in China and elsewhere in Asia as well.

                            [Snip]

                            The foundation for the establishment argument for global warming are 73 climate models collected by the UN’s IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). But the problem is that the warming trends projected by these models are all diverging farther and farther from the real world trend of actual temperature observations discussed above, as I showed in a previous column, with another graphic. Because none of these models have been scientifically validated based on past temperature observations, they constitute a very weak scientific argument that does not remotely establish that the “science is settled,” and “global warming is a fact.” The current data discussed above establishes indisputably that global warming is not a fact today. The politicians seeking to browbeat down any continuing public debate are abusing their positions and authority with modern Lysenkoism, meaning “politically correct” science not established by the scientific method, but politically imposed.

                            [Snip]

                            Comment


                            • This is a followup to my last post above, wherein Peter Ferrara reported that, on average over a period of time, I think he meant to say, there has been no global warming for the past 17+ years.
                              Senate EPW Hearing on the President’s Climate Action Plan

                              Posted on January 16, 2014 | 679 Comments

                              by Judith Curry (see curriculum vitae here)

                              The hearing is now concluded, I’m on a plane flying back to Atlanta.

                              The testimony from each of the witnesses is now online [here]. The link for my testimony is [here].

                              The content of my verbal remarks is below (emphases added by JR]:
                              I would like to thank the Committee for the opportunity to present testimony this morning. I am Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. I have devoted 30 years to conducting research on topics including climate of the Arctic, the role of clouds and aerosols in the climate system, and the climate dynamics of extreme weather events.

                              The premise of the President’s Climate Action Plan is that there is an overwhelming judgment of science that anthropogenic global warming is already producing devastating impacts. Anthropogenic greenhouse warming is a theory whose basic mechanism is well understood, but whose magnitude is highly uncertain. Multiple lines of evidence presented in the recent IPCC 5th assessment report suggest that the case for anthropogenic warming is now weaker than in 2007, when the 4th assessment report was published.

                              My written testimony documented the following evidence:

                              For the past 16 years, there has been no significant increase in surface temperature. There is a growing discrepancy between observations and climate model projections. Observations since 2011 have fallen below the 90% envelope of climate model projections.

                              The IPCC does not have a convincing or confident explanation for this hiatus in warming.

                              There is growing evidence of decreased climate sensitivity to atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations.

                              Based on expert judgment in light of this evidence, the IPCC 5th assessment report lowered its surface temperature projection relative to the model projections for the period 2016-2036.


                              The growing evidence that climate models are too sensitive to CO2 has implications for the attribution of late 20th century warming and projections of 21st century climate change. Sensitivity of the climate to carbon dioxide, and the level of uncertainty in its value, is a key input into the economic models that drive cost-benefit analyses, including estimates of the social cost of carbon.

                              If the recent warming hiatus is caused by natural variability, then this raises the question as to what extent the warming between 1975 and 2000 can also be explained by natural climate variability. In a recent journal publication, I provided a rationale for projecting that the hiatus in warming could extend to the 2030’s. By contrast, according to climate model projections, the probability of the hiatus extending beyond 20 years is vanishing small. If the hiatus does extend beyond 20 years, then a very substantial reconsideration will be needed of the 20th century attribution and the 21st century projections of climate change.

                              Attempts to modify the climate through reducing CO2 emissions may turn out to be futile. The stagnation in greenhouse warming observed over the past 15+ years demonstrates that CO2 is not a control knob that can fine tune climate variability on decadal and multi-decadal time scales. Even if CO2 mitigation strategies are successfully implemented and climate model projections are correct, an impact on the climate would not be expected for a number of decades. Further, solar variability, volcanic eruptions and natural internal climate variability will continue to be sources of unpredictable climate surprises.

                              As a result of the hiatus in warming, there is growing appreciation for the importance of natural climate variability on multi-decadal timescales. Further, the IPCC AR5 and Special Report on Extreme Events published in 2012, find little evidence that supports an increase in most extreme weather events that can be attributed to humans.

                              The perception that humans are causing an increase in extreme weather events is a primary motivation for the President’s Climate Change Plan. However, in the U.S., most types of weather extremes were worse in the 1930’s and even in the 1950’s than in the current climate, while the weather was overall more benign in the 1970’s. The extremes of the 1930’s and 1950’s are not attributable to greenhouse warming and are associated with natural climate variability (and in the case of the dustbowl drought and heat waves, also to land use practices). This sense that extreme weather events are now more frequent and intense is symptomatic of pre-1970 ‘weather amnesia’.

                              The frequency and intensity of extreme weather events is heavily influenced by natural climate variability. Whether or not anthropogenic climate change is exacerbating extreme weather events, vulnerability to extreme weather events will continue to increase owing to increasing population and concentration of wealth in vulnerable regions. Regions that find solutions to current problems of climate variability and extreme weather events and address challenges associated with an increasing population are likely to be well prepared to cope with any additional stresses from climate change.

                              Nevertheless, the premise of dangerous anthropogenic climate change is the foundation for a far-reaching plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and reduce vulnerability to extreme weather events. Elements of this Plan may be argued as important for associated energy policy reasons, economics, and/or public health and safety. However, claiming an overwhelming scientific justification for the Plan based upon anthropogenic global warming does a disservice both to climate science and to the policy process.

                              Good judgment requires recognizing that climate change is characterized by conditions of deep uncertainty. Robust policy options that can be justified by associated policy reasons whether or not anthropogenic climate change is dangerous avoids the hubris of pretending to know what will happen with the 21st century climate.


                              This concludes my testimony.
                              Last edited by John Reece; 06-03-2014, 07:24 AM.

                              Comment


                              • An editor of a weather forecasting service suggests that the emerging El Nino will be similar to the 1972-73 El Nino. He suggests also that proponents of global warming get overly excited about what after all are multi-year weather patterns.
                                The greater number of laws . . . , the more thieves . . . there will be. ---- Lao-Tzu

                                [T]he truth I’m after and the truth never harmed anyone. What harms us is to persist in self-deceit and ignorance -— Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Cow Poke, Yesterday, 07:50 PM
                                10 responses
                                64 views
                                2 likes
                                Last Post Teallaura  
                                Started by CivilDiscourse, Yesterday, 06:53 AM
                                32 responses
                                119 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post CivilDiscourse  
                                Started by Gondwanaland, 05-16-2021, 06:43 PM
                                5 responses
                                70 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Teallaura  
                                Started by CivilDiscourse, 05-16-2021, 07:22 AM
                                11 responses
                                93 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by rogue06, 05-16-2021, 07:05 AM
                                2 responses
                                63 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Working...
                                X