The Coming Paradigm Shift on Climate

[robertb]

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).

[Cow Poke]

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.

[robertb]

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.

[John Reece]

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." 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.

[robertb]

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

[Cow Poke]

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.

[robertb]

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...

[John Reece]

POSTED ON MAY 22, 2014 BY STEVEN HAYWARD IN CLIMATE at Powerline.com.NotALotofPeopleKnowThat bloghttp://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

[Epoetker]

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.

[John Reece]

The Coming Paradigm Shift on Climate

John Hinderaker at Powerline.com.

The rest of the article continues here

[sylas]

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

[John Reece]

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

Anyone who dissents from the climate-change orthodoxy is dealt with ruthlessly

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.

John Fund is national-affairs columnist for National Review Online.

[John Reece]

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

[John Reece]

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.

Posted on January 16, 2014 | 679 Comments

by Judith Curry (see curriculum vitae herehere]. The link for my testimony is [here].

The content of my verbal remarks is below (emphases added by JR]:

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 . 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 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.

[Truthseeker]

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.