THERE IS NO CARBON DIOXIDE INDUCED GLOBAL …api.ning.com/files/gcLuxwC6btVsAQQE*5VmD2bLq3WrZt39kaNjOxE0Z… · Climate Simulation and Radiative Forcing ... The last climate minimum

R. Clark PhD No CO2 Induced global Warming Ventura Photonics, 5/21/11

1

THERE IS NO CARBON DIOXIDE INDUCED GLOBALWARMING AND THERE CAN BE NO INCREASE INSEA LEVEL ABOVE THE PRESENT LONG TERM

TREND

Roy Clark PhDPresident

Ventura Photonics

1336 N. Moorpark Road #224

Thousand Oaks

CA 91360

5/21/11

Section 4

Climate Simulation and Radiative Forcing

The evidence for Climate Simulation Fraud

The full report was submitted to the US Department of Fish and Game in response to proposedregulations to protect the Western Snowy Plover under the Endangered Species Act.http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FWS-R8-ES-2010-0070-0127 .

This partial report contains the Sections related to climate simulation fraud.

200

2000

cm-1km

0

3

H2OH2O

CO2

200

2000

cm-1km

0

3

H2OH2O

CO2

200

2000

cm-1km

0

3

H2OH2O

CO2entura Photonics

Photonics Solutions 200

2000

cm-1km

0

3

H2OH2O

CO2

200

2000

cm-1km

0

3

H2OH2O

CO2

200

2000

cm-1km

0

3

H2OH2O

CO2entura Photonics

Photonics Solutions

http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FWS-R8-ES-2010-0070-0127


2

CONTENTS

Summary......................................................................................................................................... 4

1.0 Introduction............................................................................................................................... 5

4.0 Climate Simulation and Radiative Forcing............................................................................... 9

4.1 Scientific Misconduct by the Climate Community and the Collapse of the Peer ReviewProcess. ..................................................................................................................................... 12

4.2 False and Alarmist Claims of Global Warming Disasters .................................................. 14

4.2.1 Global Warming and the IPCC ‘Scenarios’................................................................. 14

4.2.2 Climate Record ‘Homogenization’ and ‘Adjustment’................................................. 17

4.2.3 Sea Ice Extent .............................................................................................................. 19

4.2.4 Glacier Retreat ............................................................................................................. 21

4.2.5 Extreme Climate Events .............................................................................................. 23

6.0 Conclusions............................................................................................................................. 26

Appendix B: Climate Fraud .......................................................................................................... 27

References..................................................................................................................................... 40


3

Climate Astrology

The CO2 comet has appeared in the sky andall global warming disasters must occur




4

SUMMARY

There is no evidence of any rise in sea level that can be attributed to the observed increase of 70ppm in atmospheric CO2 concentration that has occurred over the last 50 years. Furthermore, norise in sea level can be expected from any additional increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrationincluding the much discussed ‘CO2 doubling’ to 560 ppm. In fact it is simply impossible for theobserved increase in CO2 concentration to have caused any kind of climate change. The direocean flooding and other global warming disasters predicted by the United Nations (UN)Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports and others are based on nothingmore than invalid computer simulations. All such predictions have been demonstrated to beincorrect.

There are two fundamental errors that have been made in the computer simulations of globalwarming. The first is the assumption that there is some form of climate equilibrium that can beanalyzed using perturbation theory. This approach is known as radiative forcing. The second isthe substitution of the meteorological surface air temperature (MSAT) as a surrogate for the realsurface temperature. The MSAT is the temperature of the air measured in an enclosure placed ateye level above the ground. There is no simple or obvious relationship between the MSAT andthe surface temperature of the ground underneath the enclosure. The whole global warmingargument is based on the empirical speculation that the observed increase in atmospheric CO2

concentration has caused a rise in the long term global average ‘equilibrium surfacetemperature’. The two unrelated graphs of the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration andthe long term MSAT trend were scaled and made to overlap. This created the so called ‘hockeystick’ curve that has been used to justify the global warming argument. A false empiricalrelationship between the rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration and the MSAT was created byusing the small increase in the downward long wave infrared (LWIR) flux from the increase inCO2 concentration as a ‘calibration factor’ for the global warming simulations. The computerclimate models have been ‘hard wired’ using a circular argument to create global warming froman increase in ‘greenhouse gases’. If the concentration of the ‘greenhouse gases’ increases thenby definition, the surface temperature must increase. The hockey stick is just propagating itself.This is empirical pseudoscience that can only be described as climate astrology or computationalscience fiction.

When the real energy transfer physics that determines the surface temperature is examined indetail, it becomes clear that the observed increase in CO2 concentration cannot cause anymeasurable rise in surface temperature. The greenhouse effect cannot be explained using climateequilibrium arguments. Instead, it has to be described in terms of the dynamics of the surfaceenergy transfer. There are six different time dependent energy transfer processes that have to beconsidered. These are discussed in detail in this review. Once the dynamic properties of thegreenhouse effect are understood, the observed changes in the MSAT record can be explained interms of variations in ocean surface temperatures coupled with observational bias in the MSATstation record caused by urban heat island effects. Temperatures in urban areas have increasedcompared to the surrounding rural areas because of the additional heat stored in the urbaninfrastructure. The MSAT record has also been ‘adjusted’ or ‘homogenized’ in various ways toproduce the climate record and these have resulted in additional temperature increases that werenot part of the original MSAT data.


5

1.0 INTRODUCTION

In order to understand the relationship between sea level and climate change it is necessary toconsider the effects of at least four different climate cycles that occur on different time scales.Over recent geological time, the Earth has cycled through an Ice Age with a period ofapproximately 100,000 years [Augustin et al; 2004; Barbante et al. 2006]. This is linked tochanges in the ellipticity of the Earth’s orbit around the sun caused by planetary perturbations,mainly by Jupiter and Saturn [Varadi et al, 2003]. At the last glacial maximum, about 20,000years ago, sea level was approximately 120 m lower than it is today [Lambeck, 2004]. Duringrecent recorded history, the Earth’s climate has fluctuated with a period of a few hundred years[Loehle & Huston, 2008]. The last climate minimum was the Maunder Minimum in theseventeenth century. This was preceded by the Medieval Warming Period when the Vikingssettled in Greenland and along the eastern coast of N. America. It now appears that the Earth hasstarted to cool again after another ‘Modern Maximum’ warm period. This warming cycle islinked to long term changes in the sunspot cycle. During the Maunder Minimum, very fewsunspots were observed for 70 years from 1645 to 1715 [Harvey, 1997]. As the Earth haswarmed from the Maunder Minimum, sea levels have risen at a rate of approximately 8 inchesper century [Akasofu, 2010]. This rate now appears to be slowing down [Houston & Dean,2011].

The Earth’s climate is also influenced by periodic fluctuations in ocean surface temperatures.The N. Pacific and N. Atlantic Oceans have well established variations in surface temperaturewith periods of approximately sixty years known as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) andthe Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) [Cheetham, 2011]. These have been linked to thedust bowl droughts in the 1930’s and are the underlying cause of the ‘global warming’ that hasbeen erroneously attributed to CO2. The PDO is the dominant trend found in the Californiaclimate record [Clark, 2010a]. In addition there is the well known short term El Nino SouthernOscillation (ENSO) in the Equatorial Pacific Ocean that fluctuates with a period between 3 and 7years [NOAA, 2011]. The changes in air pressure and wind patterns produced during the ENSOcycle influence the sea levels that are measured by tide gauges and satellite altimetry. Sucheffects have been misinterpreted as an increase in sea level caused by rising levels ofatmospheric CO2 [Morner, 2010].

The idea that infrared active gases in the atmosphere can trap IR radiation and warm the Earthwas first proposed by Joseph Fourier in 1827 [Fourier, 1827]. Speculation that changes inatmospheric CO2 concentration can cause Ice Age fluctuations started in the middle of thenineteenth century. John Tyndall began his studies of the infra red (IR) absorption of gases in1859 and correctly identified water vapor, followed by carbon dioxide as the most important IRabsorbing gases in the atmosphere [Tyndall, 1863]. He was also interested in the study ofglaciers and accepted the Ice Age glaciation theories of Louis Agassiz [Agassiz, 1840]. This ledhim to propose that changes in CO2 concentration might be responsible for climate change.These empirical speculations have continued unabated for 150 years [Weart, 1997]. However,when the effect of the observed increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration on the surface energytransfer is analyzed in detail, it becomes very clear that it is impossible for this increase to havecaused any kind of climate change [Clark, 2010b, 2010c].


6

The conventional greenhouse effect is explained in terms of incorrect equilibrium assumptions.The average solar flux reaching the Earth’s surface is 240 W.m-2, which corresponds to anemission temperature of 255 K. The Earth’s surface is at an average temperature of 288 K. This33 K difference is attributed to ‘greenhouse gas trapping of IR radiation’ that warms the surface[Taylor, 2006]. Since it is assumed, incorrectly that there is some form climate equilibrium, anincrease in ‘greenhouse gas concentration’ must therefore increase this ‘IR trapping’ and causean increase in surface temperature. This argument has no basis in climate reality. There is noequilibrium on any time scale. The local surface temperature varies on a diurnal and seasonaltime scale. The long term average is a mathematical construct that has little connection to theobserved local surface temperature. The starting point for any realistic analysis of thegreenhouse effect is the simple observation that the dry sand on the beaches of areas such asSouthern California is almost too hot to walk on once it has been heated by the summer sun. Theground warms up during the day as it is heated by the sun and cools off at night. The fullsummer flux reaching the surface is approximately 1000 W.m-2. If the sun were to shine longenough to reach thermal equilibrium, the equilibrium surface temperature would be 93 C.Similarly, the Earth is always cooling by long wave infrared (LWIR) emission to space. If thesun stopped shining, the Earth would continue to cool until it reached the temperature of outerspace. We are fortunate that the Earth is warmed by the sun during the day and cools at night insuch a way that extremes of temperature are avoided. The surface temperature is maintained bya dynamic balance between the solar heating flux, moist convection and LWIR emission. Thereare six different energy transfer processes that interact to maintain the Earth’s surfacetemperature: the surface energy transfer at the air-ocean and the air-land interfaces, thedownward LWIR flux from the atmosphere, the direct surface emission to space, the convectivetransport through the atmosphere and the LWIR emission to space from the atmosphere.

During the 1960’s, a mathematical concept known as radiative forcing was introduced intoclimate science and climate model simulations [Manabe & Wetherald, 1967]. This made someincorrect assumptions about climate energy transfer and long term ‘climate equilibrium states’that allowed the effect of an increase in CO2 concentration on the Earth’s ‘equilibrium surfacetemperature’ to be calculated using the rather limited computational capabilities available at thetime. The ‘equilibrium surface temperature’ so defined is not a valid measurable climatevariable. However, this was conveniently ignored and the meteorological surface air temperature(MSAT) was substituted for the real surface temperature [Hansen, 2005a; Jones et al, 1999]. TheMSAT is the air temperature measured in an enclosure placed at eye level 1.5 to 2 m above theground [Quayle et al, 1991]. There is no simple or obvious connection between the real surfacetemperature and the MSAT. The calculated increases in ‘surface temperature’ produced by theincrease in CO2 flux alone were too low to match the MSAT record, so additional ‘water vaporfeedback’ effects were created to increase the calculated rise surface temperature [Held & Soden,2000]. These have now been shown to be incorrect [Lindzen & Choi, 2009]. It was claimed thata 1 C rise in ‘average equilibrium surface temperature’ found in the long term MSAT record wasproduced by CO2. This claim is based on nothing more than the overlap of two unrelated curves:the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration and the long term increase in the MSAT. Apurely empirical pseudoscientific reasoning was then applied to give an aura of quantitativeanalysis [Clark, 2010b].

It was determined that the observed 100 ppm increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration over thelast 200 years had produced an increase in downward long wave infrared (LWIR) flux of 1.7W.m-2. This is derived from independent radiative transfer calculations using the spectroscopic


7

data from the HITRAN database [Clark, 2010b; Rothman et al, 2005]. The number is correct for‘clear sky’ conditions at a surface temperature near 288 K. This change in flux is too small tocause any measurable change in surface temperature based on actual engineering calculations ofthe dynamically varying surface heat transfer [Clark, 2010c]. Instead an empirical ‘radiativeforcing constant’ was created by dividing the observed ‘average’ increase in the MSATtemperature record by the increase in LWIR flux from CO2: over the last century: 1/1.5 = 2/3C/(W.m-2). This ‘magic recipe’ can then be applied as a ‘calibration constant’ for other IR activegases. The HITRAN database is used to determine the increase in downward atmospheric LWIRflux produced by an estimated increase in ‘greenhouse gas concentration’. Multiply the increasein flux by the 2/3 ‘calibration constant’ for CO2 and the warming of every ‘greenhouse gas’ canbe calculated. This is nothing more than climate astrology, but it is the basis of all of the IPCCclimate change predictions and sea level rise claims [Alley et al, 2007; Hansen, 2005a; Hansen etal, 2005b; Knutti et al, 2008; Solomon et al, 2009]. Using this method, increases in ‘greenhousegas’ concentrations can only produce an increase in surface temperature. In order to ‘adjust’ thetemperature rise, aerosol effects and other ‘natural forcing constants’ have been introduced toprovide empirical cooling effects to offset or modulate the empirical greenhouse gas warmingconstants. These are based for example on manipulations of the estimated cooling produced byvolcanic aerosols from eruptions such as Mount Pinatubo. This allows the climate models to beempirically ‘tuned’ to match measured temperatures for ‘hindcasting’[Eschenbach, 2010].

In November of 2009, a large archive of e mails and other files from the Climate Research Unitof the University of East Anglia Climate was released on the Internet [Monckton, 2009;Montford, 2010; Mosher & Fuller, 2010]. This revealed a pattern of egregious scientificmisconduct that extended back over several decades. Climate data had been manipulated tocreate warming where none existed, particularly for tree ring data. Legitimate requests forinformation made under the Freedom of Information Act were routinely circumvented or denied.The entire publication and grant awarding peer review process in climate science had beencorrupted. Friends and associates reviewed each other’s papers to make sure only articles thatagreed with their global warming position were published regardless of scientific merit. Pressurewas applied to journal editors to reject papers that presented opposing views. Even now,journals such as Nature and Science show a strong editorial bias towards global warming.Similarly, climate scientists and other self interested parties have tried to influence the world’smajor scientific societies to support global warming. Such statements of support should bediscounted. The Royal Society has recently reviewed and revised its policies in this area [RoyalSociety, 2010]. A small group of climate scientists has also controlled the content of the IPCCreports. This is the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. It is a politicalbody tasked with the job of identifying anthropogenic global warming whether it really exists ornot [McLean, 2010a; Cheetham, 2009]. The four major IPCC reports and the computer modelsused to predict climate change in the ‘IPCC scenarios’ should not be introduced as scientificevidence of climate change.

As discussed above, the climate simulation computer models are based on nothing more than acircular empirical argument. Carbon dioxide must cause global warming therefore more carbondioxide must cause more global warming. This is the pseudoscience built into the radiativeforcing constants used in the climate simulation models. Once the erroneous equilibriumassumptions are removed, there can be no CO2 induced global warming. This means that all ofthe predictions of catastrophic rises in sea level, increases in hurricane intensities, polar ice


8

melting, extreme weather events, receding glaciers and other global warming related disasters areinvalid. There is no evidence to support any of the global warming disaster claims.

The four climate cycles and their effects on sea level will now be reviewed in Section 2.0. Abrief discussion of the energy transfer processes that underlie the greenhouse effect will beprovided in Section 3.0 and an overview of the assumptions used in the IPCC climate simulationmodels will be given in Section 4.0. This will provide the background information needed forthe review of the tide gauge and other sea level related data presented in Section 5.0.Conclusions are given in Section 6.0. Additional data on the tide gauge data are provided inAppendix A and further details on the IPCC climate fraud are provided in Appendix B.


9

4.0 CLIMATE SIMULATION AND RADIATIVE FORCING

The large scale climate simulation models used by the IPCC researchers to predict globalwarming, sea level increases and other ‘catastrophes’ are based on the concept of radiativeforcing. This was introduced by Manabe and Wetherald in 1967, although the basic ideapredates this publication. In order for the Earth’s climate to be stable, the First Law ofThermodynamics, conservation of energy, requires that the long term LWIR emission from theEarth balance the incoming solar radiation. As discussed above, this is a dynamic balance, not aformal equilibrium requirement. Radiative forcing assumes, without justification or validationthat long term averages of transient, non-equilibrium climate variables can be analyzed as asystem that is in equilibrium. This is, quite simply, wrong. The upward and downward fluxes atsome rather ill defined boundary in the atmosphere such as an ‘average tropopause’ are thenassumed to be equal and equivalent. Spectroscopic considerations of the molecular emissionlinewidth show that these fluxes are not equivalent. This is discussed above in Section 3.7 andillustrated in Error! Reference source not found.. A change in CO2 concentration is introducedto ‘perturb’ this ‘equilibrium’ and the change in flux is used to calculate a new ‘equilibriumsurface temperature’. This calculated ‘equilibrium surface temperature’ produced by suchmodels is not a measurable climate variable. It assumes that the sun is shining all the time andthat the unperturbed surface is a mathematically defined blackbody surface that is initiallyreceiving and emitting a flux of 390 W.m-2. Small, 1 to 4 W.m-2 changes in flux in astratospheric layer of air at 217 K and 0.22 atm. are assumed to be capable of warming a surfaceat 288 K through 11 km of warmer, higher density air. This requires a flagrant violation of theSecond Law of Thermodynamics. The increase in ‘equilibrium surface temperature’ calculatedby such models using just the increase in the CO2 flux is too low, so additional ‘water vaporfeedback’ was created to explain away the inadequacies. The increase in LWIR flux from CO2

produced additional water evaporation which in turn produces more heating. This is justmathematical fiction. The cooling of the surface by convection, the conversion of IR radiationinto other forms of energy and the heat capacity/thermal storage properties of the surface are alsoconveniently ignored.

However, the idea that an increase in CO2 concentration must lead to an increase in surfacetemperature was initially accepted almost without question. Careful analysis of themeteorological surface temperature record starting in the 1980s revealed a small increasing trendthat was immediately correlated by empirical speculation to the rise in CO2 concentration [Joneset al, 1999]. This conveniently ignores a very similar increase that occurred during the dust bowldroughts in the 1930s before there was any significant increase in CO2 concentration. The USMSAT anomaly record is shown above in Error! Reference source not found. [NASA,GHCNM, 2011; D’Aleo, 2008]. It should also be noted that the GISS GHCNM climate recordhas been periodically ‘adjusted’ to reduce the dust bowl peak [D’Aleo, 2010]. The dependenceof meteorological surface air temperature on weather patterns, ocean surface temperatures, solarillumination and surface absorption was ignored and empirical correlation is not proof. Twounrelated plots of meteorological surface temperature and CO2 concentration were overlaid andmade to coincide to produce the so called ‘hockey stick’ graph. Concern over ozone depletionthen led to the inclusion of other greenhouse gases into the radiative forcing models. Anelaborate set of radiative forcing constants that related small changes in IR emission to surfacetemperatures was constructed [Hansen, 2005a]. This was ‘calibrated’ using the change in the


10

meteorological surface temperature (MSAT) that was empirically assumed to be caused by CO2.This ‘global warming’ has no relationship to the true ground surface temperature that is neededto calculate the IR surface flux and no demonstrated causal relationship to the change in CO2

concentration. This whole approach is pseudoscience. The same technique is used in astrology.While the positions of the planets can be calculated quite accurately, they have no relationship tohuman behavior. The only ‘proof’ ever provided for radiative forcing is that the results from oneinvalid model can be made to agree with those from another. No experimental verification isapparently required, nor can any measurement of ‘equilibrium surface temperature’ beperformed. When realistic values for the surface flux terms are used in an engineeringcalculation of the surface temperature, an increase of 1.7 W.m-2 in LWIR flux from a 100 ppmincrease in atmospheric CO2 concentration cannot change the surface temperature. This isshown above in Section 3.3. However, instead of rejecting the concept of radiative forcing as afailed hypothesis, it was argued that the increase in LWIR flux produced an increase in surfaceevaporation which introduced a ‘positive feedback’ that amplified the effect of CO2 on thesurface temperature. An analysis of ERBE satellite data has shown this to be incorrect [Lindzen& Choi, 2009].

The radiative forcing assumptions used in the IPCC climate simulation models have no basis inphysical reality. The equilibrium average assumptions and the use of perturbation theory areinvalid. There is no justification for the use of the meteorological surface air temperature(MSAT) as a surrogate for the measured local surface temperature. The models are ‘hard wired’using empirical ‘radiative forcing constants’ and ‘water vapor feedback’ to produce globalwarming from CO2 and other ‘greenhouse gases’ with a complete and arrogant disregard of thebasic laws of physics including the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics. The observedchanges in MSAT can be explained as a consequence of the influence of ocean surfacetemperatures such as the AMO and PDO on the bulk air temperature of the Earth’s weathersystems. This can be clearly seen in the weather station record for the State of California asshown above in Section 2.3. Superimposed on the ocean temperature fluctuations are urban heatisland effects. These may be clearly identified for the State of California using the PDO as areference [Clark, R. 2010b]. .

The ‘hockey stick’ temperature increase for CO2 from 1958 may be calculated by multiplying theincrease in LWIR flux from CO2 by the empirical ‘radiative forcing calibration constant’, 0.67C/(W.m-2). The resulting increase in ‘predicted average surface temperature’ is 0.8 C. If thelinear slopes of the PDO and AMO are averaged and an offset of 0.267 C is added, then theresulting line is an almost exact linear fit to the hockey stick curve for CO2 forcing. This showsquite clearly the influence of ocean temperatures, urban heat island effects and other‘adjustments’ on the long term weather station trends that were manipulated to derive the‘hockey stick’ curve. Recent work by Wyatt et al [2011] has shown that the long termtemperature fluctuations measured in the northern hemisphere can be matched by a simplecombination of the AMO and PDO indices. This is shown in Figure 4-2. This is similar to thework of D’Aleo [2008] on the US continental temperature record.


11

Figure 4-1: AMO and PDO and trend lines plotted from 1960. The hockey stick surface temperatureprediction is also shown. When the average AMO+PDO trend line is offset by 0.267 C it almost overlaps the

hockey stick prediction.

Figure 4-2: Relationship between northern hemisphere temperature and the combined AMO and PDOindices. The fit is almost exact [Wyatt et al, 2011].

-1.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Year

An

om

aly

(C)

PDO

AMO

HockeyStick

AMO+PDOAv. Trend

AMO+PDOAv. Trend + 0.267 C

AMO Trend

PDOTrend

-1.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Year

An

om

aly

(C)

PDO

AMO

HockeyStick

AMO+PDOAv. Trend

AMO+PDOAv. Trend + 0.267 C

AMO Trend

PDOTrend


12

4.1 Scientific Misconduct by the Climate Community and the Collapse of the Peer ReviewProcess.

Claims of catastrophic climate change caused by carbon dioxide induced global warming haveproved very effective as a means for obtaining research funding and a whole generation ofscientists has become accustomed to this source of income. A global warming industry ofscientists, engineers, economists and politicians has benefited significantly from the invalidclimate predictions. It is now clear that all of these claims are false and a large and influentialgroup of people have been trapped in a web of lies. The IPCC has been shown to be a corruptpolitical body. The release of a large archive of e-mails and other files from the UK HadleyClimate Center has provided abundant evidence of scientific misconduct. These matters areunder investigation and will be dealt with in due course by the appropriate authorities. However,radiative forcing has been in use since 1967 and the whole peer review process in climate sciencehas collapsed. Numerous papers have found their way into ‘respected’ scientific journals such asNature, Science and Proceedings of the National Academy of Science (PNAS) that were basedon research should never have been funded and results that should have been rejected as invalidand never published. Every single result and conclusion that has been based on the use ofradiative forcing is invalid and should not be used in any kind of policy making decision.

By way of example, all of the climate change papers published by Hansen et al that are listed onthe NASA GISS website are invalid and the related NASA GISS discussion of radiative forcingis nothing more than climate astrology. Two papers illustrate the issue quite clearly. These are:

J. Hansen, M. Sato, R. Ruedy, L. Nazarenko, A. Lacis, G. A. Schmidt, G. Russell, I. Aleinov, M.Bauer, S. Bauer, N. Bell, B. Cairns, V. Canuto, M. Chandler, Y. Cheng, A. D. Genio, G. Faluvegi, E.Fleming, A. Friend, T. Hall, C. Jackman, M. Kelley, N. Kiang, D. Koch, J. Lean, J. Lerner, K. Lo, S.Menon, R. Miller, P. Minnis, T. Novakov, V. Oinas, Ja. Perlwitz, Ju. Perlwitz, D. Rind, A. Romanou,D. Shindell, P. Stone, S. Sun, N. Tausnev, D. Thresher, B. Wielicki, T. Wong, M. Yao, and S. Zhang,J. Geophys. Research, 110 D18104 pp1-45 (2005) ‘Efficacy of climate forcings’

J. Hansen; L. Nazarenko, R. Ruedy, M. Sato, J. Willis, A. D. Genio, D. Koch, A. Lacis, K. Lo. S.Menon, T. Novakov, J Perlwitz, G. Russell, G. A. Schmidt and N. Tausnev., Science 308 1431-1435(2005), Earth's energy imbalance: confirmation and implications

The first paper starts from the a-priori assumption that CO2 has been the cause of the observedchange in the meteorological surface temperature record as described in the hockey stick plot.This presumed, invalid relationship between CO2 and the MSAT record is then used to constructan elaborate set of radiative forcing constants for other greenhouse gases. The models aretherefore empirically hard wired to produce global warming as the concentration of the variousgreenhouse gases increases. The ‘equilibrium surface temperature’ can only increase as thegreenhouse gas concentration increases. The principal way to produce cooling in such a model isto add aerosol effects, so these are empirically adjusted to make the model output appear tomatch the observed MSAT record. Aerosol emissions from volcanic eruptions are used for ‘finetuning’[Eschenbach, 2011]. The model is run to simulate a time period of up to 300 years forvarious ‘forcing’ conditions. It takes a time period simulation of approximately 100 years for themodel to settle down and achieve some form of computational stability. This does not mean that


13

the ‘stable’ results have any relationship to physical reality. It is also important to note that someof the authors of this paper also control one of the principal climate records maintained byNASA GISS. Neither the model code, nor the data processing used to produce the GISS climaterecords have been published, so there are fundamental conflict of interest issues that need to beresolved. Mysterious ‘adjustments’ to the GISS climate data sets have already been documented[D’Aleo, 2010].

The authors also state in the paper ‘Principal model shortcomings include ~25% regionaldeficiency of summer stratus cloud cover off the west coast of the continents with resultingexcessive absorption of solar radiation by as much as 50 W/m2, deficiency in absorbed solarradiation and net radiation over other tropical regions by typically 20 W/m2, sea level pressuretoo high by 4–8 hPa in the winter in the Arctic and 2–4 hPa too low in all seasons in the tropics,deficiency of rainfall over the Amazon basin by about 20%, deficiency in summer cloud cover inthe western United States and central Asia by ~25% with a corresponding ~5°C excessivesummer warmth in these regions’. In spite of 50 W/m2 deficiencies in flux and 5 C temperatureerrors, such model results were allowed to be published by the journal reviewers.

In the second paper, the a-priori assumption is made that an observed increase in ocean heatcontent (temperature) has been caused by the observed increase in CO2 concentration. Asdiscussed above in Section 3.2, this is simply impossible. The daily solar flux into the oceanscan easily exceed 20 MJ.m-2.day-1. The observed increase in downward ‘clear sky’ LWIR fluxfrom CO2 has been 0.15 MJ. m-2.day-1 over 200 years, coupled into the first 100 micron of theocean surface. Here it produces an insignificant change in the wind driven fluctuations insurface evaporation. The model used in the ocean heat content simulations did not include anyocean oscillations, and used empirical ‘radiative forcing’ techniques to simulate changes oceantemperatures. The model was unable to reproduce the tropical ocean heat content because it didinclude any of the relevant energy transfer physics, yet the paper still passed through peerreview.

Other examples of papers that should never have been published include

R. Knutti, M. R. Allen, M. R. P. Friedlingstein, J. M. Gregory, G. C. Hegerl, G. A. Meehl, M.Meinshausen, J. M. Murphy, G. K. Plattner, S. C. B. Raper, T. F., Stocker, P. A. Stott, H. Teng and T.M. L. Wigley, T. M. L., Journal of Climate 21(11) 2651-2663 (2008), ‘A Review of Uncertainties inGlobal Temperature Projections over the Twenty-First Century’

G. A. Meehl, C. Covey, T. Delworth, M. Latif, B. McAvaney, J. F. B. Mitchell and R. J. Stouffer,Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 88(9) 1383-1394 (2007), ‘The WCRP CMIP3multimodel dataset’

S. Solomon, G-K. Plattner, R. Knutti and P. Freidlingstein, Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 106 1704-1709(2009), ‘Irreversible climate change due to carbon dioxide emissions’

In all of these papers, it is assumed that models are capable of simulating ‘equilibrium surfacetemperatures’ and that these temperatures somehow are mysteriously related to the MSATrecord. Most of the error discussion is related to the uncertainties in the CO2 emission‘scenarios’. The fact that these models have no basis in physical reality is ignored.


14

‘Experiments’ consist of nothing more than comparing the results of one invalid model withanother.

It should be clear from this discussion that the authors of these papers have completely lostcontact with the realities of climate physics. The peer review process has collapsed and theauthors have acted using a ‘buddy system’ to review each other’s papers and grant proposals.The e-mail correspondence revealed in the ‘climategate’ archive makes it clear that this is aclosed community that shares a common religious belief in global warming. No other ideasoutside of invalid radiative forcing concepts are accepted and any work that does not supportglobal warming is suppressed. These authors have tried to control the content o the paperspublished in Nature, Science, PNAS, J. Climate and other journals. It is only recently that thisdominance has been challenged and the egregious level of scientific misconduct has becomeapparent [Mosher & Fuller, 2010]. All of the scientific papers published by this network ofauthors should be discounted as scientifically invalid. Other issues, such as the fraudulent use ofresearch funds will not be considered in this discussion, but these matters clearly requireindependent investigation.

4.2 False and Alarmist Claims of Global Warming Disasters

The use of invalid empirical radiative forcing models to predict global warming has resulted in alarge number of fraudulent claims of global warming disasters. As discussed above, these arebased on nothing more than empirical assumptions that can only be described as climateastrology. The primary claim is that the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration has led toglobal warming and that further increases in ‘greenhouse gases’ will lead to further globalwarming. The major second claim is that there will be a large rise in sea level. This will beassociated with the melting of the ice caps and glaciers. The third major claim is that there willincreases in climate extremes. There will more floods, fires, droughts etc. This is the climate‘apocalypse’ claim. None of these claims have any basis in reality, but they have been widelyreported in the main stream news media. The claims of sea level rise will be examined in detailin Section 5.0, but it is worthwhile to provide a brief overview of the alarmist claims related toglobal warming and compare the predictions to measured climate variables. Further details maybe found in the reference provided. Most of this information has been published on line becausethe collapse of the peer review process discussed above has restricted access to various scientificpublications.

4.2.1 Global Warming and the IPCC ‘Scenarios’

The whole global warming argument is based on a misinterpretation of the climate record. Aninvalid empirical relationship between the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration and themeteorological surface air temperature (MSAT) record has been assumed and used in a circularfashion to create the global warming scare. This is a classic example of the extrapolation of apseudo-linear increasing trend from the upward part of a ‘bell’ or Gaussian type of curve. TheIPCC ‘scenario’ projections are illustrated in Figure 4-3 [Schreuder, 2011]. These are fromFigure 10.4, p 767 of the IPCC 2007 report [Alley et al, 2007]. The various scenarios refer toprojected increases in atmospheric CO2 concentration. The temperature record from 1998 to


15

November 2010 has been added to the original IPCC figure. The projections begin in 1998 andthere has been no increase in the observed global average MSAT or lower tropospheric satellitetemperature since then. Figure 4-4 shows the first part of Figure 4-3 with the NASA GHCNM[2011] and the RSS Satellite records superimposed [REMSS, 2011]. The NASA record has beenoffset downwards 0.3 C to overlap the satellite record. The important point is that both curvesshow no increase in average since 1998. This clearly shows that the IPCC ‘Scenario’ projectionshave no basis in physical reality. There are even more discrepancies between the temperaturerecord and projections made 10 years earlier by Hansen in 1988 [Hansen et al, 1988]. Thisclearly shows that the IPCC ‘Scenario’ projections based on climate simulations using radiativeforcing assumptions have no basis in physical reality. Similar observations have been made byother authors. Figure 4-5 shows a similar comparison to Figure 4-3 based on a sinusoidalprojection of the decadal temperature oscillations overlaid on a linear temperature increaserepresenting the recovery from the Little Ice Age or Maunder Minimum [Akasofu, 2010]. If therecent decrease in sunspot activity continues, then the projected linear increase may not besustained and further decreases in temperature may occur.

Figure 4-3: IPCC ‘Scenario’ projections of climate temperature increases based on various levels of CO2emissions. The predictions began in 1998. There has been no increase in global temperature since then.


16

Figure 4-4: Expanded 1900 to 2010 temperature curve from Figure 4.3 with the recent temperature recordsuperimposed. There has been no increase in observed average temperature since 1998.

Figure 4-5: Temperature record considered as a linear recovery from the Little Ice Age (Maunder Minimum)with decadal oscillations superimposed. The IPCC extrapolation error is clearly shown [Akasofu, 2010].

-0.8

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000

GHCNM 1 Yr Av -0.3 Offset

REMSS TLT 1 Yr Av

Flat average since 1998

1900 2000

1.0

0.0

-1.0

-0.8

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000

GHCNM 1 Yr Av -0.3 Offset

REMSS TLT 1 Yr Av

Flat average since 1998

1900 2000

1.0

0.0

-1.0


17

4.2.2 Climate Record ‘Homogenization’ and ‘Adjustment’

Versions of the climate record are maintained by three groups: the Hadley climate Center in theUK (HadCRU), the NOAA Global Historic Climate Network (GHCN) and the NASA GoddardInstitute for Space Studies (GISTEMP). These are derived in different ways mainly from theGHCN data. The raw climate data is processed to ‘homgenize’ the data. This was originallyintended to account for station bias and the change in the number and location of the weathermonitoring stations with time. Instead it has become a means of ‘fixing’ the data so that itsupports the global warming predictions. This has been discussed in various articles and issummarized in some detail by Cheetham [2011b]. Figure 4-6 compares the 1999 and 2001NASA GISTEMP records following the NASA 2001 ‘adjustments. The black dots are theannual mean and the black line is the 5 year average of the 1999 data. The blue dots and the redline are the 2001 data.

Figure 4-6: Comparison of US NASA GISTEMP data for 1999 (black) and 2001 (red/blue) following theNASA 2000 ‘adjustments.

There are also issues with the extrapolation of station data over large distances where there is norecorded data, particularly at high latitudes. The number of weather stations used in the climaterecord has also decreased and this has resulted in an increase in the average global temperaturerecord. This is illustrated in Figure 4-7 [Cheetham, 2011b]. The important to note is thatconsiderable caution is needed in using the published climate record to justify global warming.An even more blatant example was the manipulation of tree ring data to ‘remove’ the MaunderMinimum from the earlier proxy based climate record [Dawson, 2010; Wedgman et al, 2010].


18

Figure 4-7 Changes in the number of reporting stations and average temperatures from 1950 to 2000.

Since 1979, air temperature data has been available from satellite sensors. This record iscompiled by two groups, the University of Alabama, Huntsville (UAH) and Remote SensingSystems (RSS). There is little difference between these two data sets and they are free ofweather station ‘homogenization’. One of the most important results from the satellite data is thedemonstration of the importance of the ENSO El Nino events in changing the air temperatures inthe lower troposphere. Figure 4-8 shows the RSS lower troposphere global average temperature.There was no trend in the data from 1979 to 1997 [REMSS, 2011]. After the major El Ninoevent of 1997/8 there was a step increase in temperature followed by stable record with no trend.This is the recent temperature record that should be used in the interpretation tidal data.

Figure 4-8: RSS lower troposphere global average satellite temperature data

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Te

mp

era

ture

An

om

aly

(C)

1997/8

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Te

mp

era

ture

An

om

aly

(C)

1997/8


19

4.2.3 Sea Ice Extent

The Earth’s climate has been warming since the end of the Little Ice Age in the early eighteenthcentury. Unfortunately, detailed satellite observations of ice extent are only available from the1970’s. One long term record that is available is the summer limit of the ice edge in theNorwegian Sea. This is shown in Figure 4-9, along with part of the more recent satellite record[Akasofu, 2010]. The Norwegian Sea ice edge retreat shows an approximately linear decrease inice extent from 1800. Superimposed on this are periodic fluctuations from ocean oscillations.Minima occur near 1860, 1940 and 2010. Maxima occur near 1920 and 1950. Sinceatmospheric CO2 levels did not begin to increase significantly until the 1960’s, there is no reasonto attribute any of the observed changes to CO2 induced global warming.

Figure 4-9: August ice edge of the Norwegian Sea relative to the 1961-1990 mean, 79.1°N and satellite iceextent data from 1970 to 1998 [Akasofu, 2010].

Figure 4-10 and Figure 4-11 show the ice area extent anomaly for the Northern and SouthernHemispheres [Cryosphere Today, 2011]. This is the deviation in the area from the 1979-2008mean. There was a decrease in ice area in the Arctic in 2007 that was caused by unusual weather


20

conditions [Lindsay et al, 2009]. Since then, the ice area has recovered. There was a generaldownward trend from about 1995 that has leveled off after 2007. However the record is stillonly half of the duration of the typical 60 year ocean cycle. The Antarctic ice area has beenstable or has increased slightly over the period of observation. The total global sea ice area andanomaly are presented in Figure 4-12. This shows a slight decrease over the period ofobservation that is consistent with a continued recovery from the Little Ice Age. There is noobvious trend in the data to indicate any effect from increased atmospheric CO2 levels, norshould any be expected.

Figure 4-10: Northern hemisphere sea ice area anomaly (deviation from 1979-2008 mean).


21

Figure 4-11: Southern hemisphere sea ice area anomaly (deviation from 1979-2008 mean).

Figure 4-12: Global sea ice area and anomaly 1979 to present (March 2011).

4.2.4 Glacier Retreat

As the Earth’s climate has warmed since the end of the Little Ice Age, glaciers have generallydecreased in length [Oerlemans’ 2005]. Glaciers are flowing rivers of ice and the length dependson the glacier mass balance which is related to the precipitation, solar radiation and airtemperature. Figure 4-13 shows the observed changes in length for 5 glaciers from different


22

parts of the world. These glaciers have clearly been retreating since the end of the Little Ice Age.Figure 4-14 shows the temperature changes derived from glacier length/mass balance analysis.There is nothing to indicate any effects on glacier length that could be attributed to an increase inatmospheric CO2 concentration. It should also be noted that recent claims of Himalayan Glaciermelting by the IPCC have been shown to be incorrect [McLean, 2010b]. In addition, loss of icecover on Mount Kilimanjaro has been attributed to long term climate changes that have resultedin increased sublimation of the ice [Fairman et al, 2011]. Again, no CO2 induced globalwarming is involved.

Figure 4-13: Glacier length data for 5 glaciers in different parts of the world [Oerlemans’ 2005].


23

Figure 4-14: Temperature changes derived from glacier length data [Oerlemans’ 2005].

4.2.5 Extreme Climate Events

One of the most egregious claims used in the global warming argument is that the observedincrease in atmospheric CO2 concentration is causing an increase in ‘extreme weather events’.This has allowed the IPCC and its ‘climate team’ to make numerous sensational claims aboutglobal warming as the cause of local temperature records, floods, droughts, hurricanes and othernatural disasters including a decline in polar bear population and coral bleaching. None of theseclaims have any basis in reality. Consider for example the heat wave and forest fires thatoccurred in Russia during the summer of 2010. These were caused by a persistent ‘blockinghigh’ over Western Europe. This is part of the normal fluctuation in weather patterns overWestern Russia. There has been no change in the long term trend of July monthly temperaturessince 1880. Similarly, the 2010/2011 cold winter along the Pacific Coast of S. America is part ofa natural weather sequence that has been documented since Aztec times [Ambler, 2010]. Thelong term temperature record for the continental US shown above in Error! Reference sourcenot found. and the Northern Hemisphere temperature record shown in Figure 4-2 demonstratethe relationship between ocean surface temperatures and the long term climate temperaturerecords.

There have also been numerous fraudulent claims of relationships between global warming anddroughts. Various regions of the world, including parts of North America and the Sahel (subSahara) region in Africa have experienced extended droughts. All of these have been related tochanges in ocean surface temperatures [Hagos & Cook, 2008; McCabe et al, 2008]. Extendedperiods of low rainfall in parts of the US for periods of 30 years or longer should be consideredas normal climate variation consistent with ocean cycle variations. Figures 4-15 and 4-16 bothshow the average annual rainfall for the US since 1895 [NOAA, Rainfall, 2011]. The totals have


24

remained within the 29±5 inch range for over 100 years. There has been a slight increase inaverage rainfall of 2 inches over this period as determined using a simple linear fit to the data.However, a more careful examination reveals a climate shift in the 1970’s related to the El Ninoevent in 1977-78. When the rainfall data is separate into 2 data series with a split at 1970, theclimate shift becomes apparent.

Figure 4-15: Average annual rainfall for the continental US from 1895 showing a simple linear trend.

Figure 4-16: Data from Figure 4-15 showing the step increase in rainfall from the 1977 climate shift.

24

26

28

30

32

34

1895 1905 1915 1925 1935 1945 1955 1965 1975 1985 1995 2005

Year

Av

era

ge

Pre

cip

ita

tio

n(i

n)

y = 0.0181x - 6.0971

R2 = 0.0772

24

26

28

30

32

34

1895 1905 1915 1925 1935 1945 1955 1965 1975 1985 1995 2005

Year

Av

era

ge

Pre

cip

ita

tio

n(i

n)


25

In addition to droughts, numerous fraudulent claims of increases in cyclone (hurricane) intensityhave also been made. These also have no basis in reality. Figure 4-17 shows the estimatedglobal and Northern Hemisphere cyclone intensities from 1972 inwards. The intensities areplotted as accumulated cyclone energy or ACE, which a combination of the square of the windspeed and the duration of the event. Current cyclone activity is at rather low levels [COAPS,2011]. In addition, there have been fewer hurricanes making landfalls in the US. It is alsoimportant to separate hurricane damage from hurricane intensity. In the US, the increase inpopulation in areas such as Florida means that the amount of damage that even a modesthurricane can cause has increased significantly in recent rears.

Figure 4-17: Global and Northern Hemisphere cyclone intensities from 1972

From this brief discussion of the occurrence of extreme weather events it should be clear that theobserved increase of 70 ppm in atmospheric CO2 concentration over the last 50 years has had noeffect whatsoever on the Earth’s climate. This can be seen by examining by temperature, rainfalland cyclone intensity records. In addition, the Arctic Ice area has recovered from the 2007minimum. However, even agencies such as NOAA and NASA continue to try and perpetuatethe myth of extreme weather events related to global warming [D’Aleo, 2011]. This wasdiscussed in testimony by Dr. John Christy to the House Subcommittee on Energy and PowerCommittee on Energy and Commerce, March 8th 2011. Further details are provided inAppendix B.


26

6.0 CONCLUSIONS

When the recent data on global warming are reviewed, it is clear that there is no evidencewhatsoever of any carbon dioxide induced global warming. It is highly unlikely that there willbe any acceleration of the rise in sea level above that observed over the last 100 years. In fact,the rise in sea level has been slowing along the U. S. west coast since 1990.

The whole global warming argument is based on the false, empirical assumption that the longterm rise in globally averaged meteorological surface air temperature (MSAT) record has beencaused by an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration of approximately 100 ppm.The analysis presented above in Section 3.0 clearly shows that it is impossible for this to haveoccurred. Instead, the increase in MSAT can be explained in terms of increases in ocean surfacetemperatures caused by natural ocean cycles. The PDO is now in its negative phase. There hasbeen no increase in global tropospheric air temperatures since the El Nino event in 1997/8. TheMSAT record also includes local weather station biases caused by urban heat island effects andclimate record compensation ‘adjustments’ that have been used to create additional warming.The argument that global warming has induced more ‘climate extremes’ is also incorrect.

All of the computer models that use the concept of radiative forcing to ‘predict’ global warmingare invalid. None of the publications that rely on these results should be considered as validevidence of global warming. Unfortunately, the peer review process in climate science hascollapsed and many such studies based on radiative forcing have been published, even in‘respected’ journals. These articles need to be discounted, regardless of the journal in whichthey were published.

The fact that CO2 induced global warming is impossible is based on an analysis of the dynamicenergy transfer processed involved and the available empirical evidence. Unfortunately, theglobal warming argument has become detached from its foundations in physics and degeneratedinto a quasi-religious cult. Belief in global warming is more important than physical reality.This concept extends beyond just global warming into many areas of environmental science andenergy policy. A review of the scientific evidence does not support any of the claims of CO2

induced global warming and belief in climate astrology should not be allowed to intrude intoGovernment policy decisions.


27

APPENDIX B: CLIMATE FRAUD

It is simply impossible for the observed increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration of 70 ppmover the last 50 years to have caused any kind climate change. This follows from astraightforward analysis of the dynamic energy transfer processes involved. This is discussed indetail in Section 3.0 above. The global warming argument starts from the incorrect assumptionthat long term averages of dynamic, non-equilibrium climate variables such as surfacetemperature somehow form an ‘equilibrium climate state’ that can be analyzed usingperturbation theory. This equilibrium assumption may be regarded as a failed hypothesis.However, instead of rejecting this equilibrium hypothesis and replacing it with climate modelsbased on dynamic energy transfer to simulate real climate physics, the equilibrium assumptionwas retained and augmented using empirical pseudoscience.

It was decreed that a 1 W.m-2 increase in the downward LWIR flux from CO2 had produced anincrease in ‘equilibrium surface temperature’ of 2/3 C (0.67 C). This ‘equilibrium surfacetemperature’ was not even the surface temperature defined using incorrect black bodyequilibrium arguments, but the meteorological surface air temperature (MSAT) measured in anenclosure placed at eye level above the ground. A 1 W.m-2 increase in blackbody flux at 288 Krequires a temperature rise of only 0.18 C. The other 0.49 C had to be created using ‘waterfeedback’ mechanism to mysteriously amplify the effect of CO2. An elaborate façade of‘radiative forcing constants’ was created for other greenhouse gases using the ‘radiative forcingconstant’ for CO2 as a ‘calibration’. Additional ‘forcing constants’ were created for variousaerosols and other factors that could change the downward atmospheric LWIR flux. No physicsis required. The total change in ‘forcing flux’ magically changes the surface temperature topredict global warming. This is the underlying basis of the global warming fraud. To furtherenhance the pseudoscience of global warming a second fraudulent claim was added. Globalwarming would now lead to an increase in ‘climate extremes’. Every record temperature, forestfire, flood, glacier retreat, ice melt, hurricane and other disaster, limited only by the imaginationof those creating this propaganda, could be blamed on CO2 induced global warming. All of thisis just plain fraud. However, this approach was very effective at generating research funds somany researchers jumped on the funding bandwagon and the whole peer review processcollapsed. CO2 had to produce global warming because my research funds required it to do so.Global warming became the best science that politics could buy. Sadly, this is only justbeginning to change. In this Appendix, some of the information on the global warming fraudthat has recently become available will be briefly reviewed and references will be provided tomore detailed information. The physical reality, that CO2 cannot cause any kind of climatechange has already been established.

In November of 2009, a large archive of e mails and other files from the Climate Research Unitof the University of East Anglia Climate was released on the Internet. This revealed to manypeople outside of the close knit climate community that there had been an ongoing fraud formany years to promote the global warming agenda and prevent the publication of material thatdid not support the prevailing global warming dogma. Climate science had become detachedfrom its foundation in physical science and degenerated into a quasi religious cult. Belief inglobal warming was a prerequisite for funding in climate science. The release of this climate


28

archive became known as ‘Climategate’. The information provided has been analyzed in detailby several authors [Monckton, 2009; Montford 2010; Mosher & Fuller, 2010]. The actualarchive is available at E. Anglia Confirmed [2011]. The following example is an e-mail fromKevin Trenberth (bold emphasis added):

From: Kevin Trenberth [email protected]

To: Michael Mann [email protected]

Subject: Re: BBC U-turn on climate

Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 08:57:37 -0600

Cc: Stephen H Schneider <[email protected]>, Myles Allen <[email protected]>, peter stott<[email protected]>, "Philip D. Jones" <[email protected]>, Benjamin Santer<[email protected]>, Tom Wigley <[email protected]>, Thomas R Karl<[email protected]>, Gavin Schmidt <[email protected]>, James Hansen<[email protected]>, Michael Oppenheimer [email protected]

Hi all

Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming? We are asking that here in Boulderwhere we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. We had 4 inches ofsnow. The high the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it smashed the previousrecords for these days by 10F. The low was about 18F and also a record low, well below the previousrecord low. This is January weather (see the Rockies baseball playoff game was canceled on saturdayand then played last night in below freezing weather). Trenberth, K. E., 2009: An imperative forclimate change planning: tracking Earth's global energy. Current Opinion in EnvironmentalSustainability, 1, 19-27, oi:10.1016/j.cosust.2009.06.001. [1][PDF] (A PDF of the published versioncan be obtained from the author.) The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at themoment and it is a travesty that we can't. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09supplement on 2008 how there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Ourobserving system is inadequate. That said there is a LOT of nonsense about the PDO. People likeCPC are tracking PDO on a monthly basis but it is highly correlated with ENSO. Most of what theyare seeing is the change in ENSO not real PDO. It surely isn't decadal. The PDO is already reversingwith the switch to El Nino. The PDO index became positive in September for first time since Sept2007. see

[2]http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/GODAS/ocean_briefing_gif/global_ocean_monitoring_current.ppt

Kevin

Michael Mann wrote:

extremely disappointing to see something like this appear on BBC. its particularly odd, since climateis usually Richard Black's beat at BBC (and he does a great job). From what I can tell, this guy wasformerly a weather person at the Met Office. We may do something about this on Real Climate, butmeanwhile it might be appropriate for the Met Office to have a say about this, I might ask RichardBlack what's up here?

mike

The release of the Climategate archive provided the incentive to look much more closely at theworkings of the IPCC and the climate data on which the IPCC reports were based. This has

mailto:[email protected]


29

revealed a pattern of systematic fraud and distortion. Some of these include ‘Glaciergate’,‘Kiwigate’ and ‘Amazongate’ [McLean 2010a; ICSC 2010; Eschenbach, 2010b]. The firstinvolved unfounded claims of melting of the Himalayan glaciers and related disasters that werebased on magazine articles that had never been peer reviewed, contrary to IPCC claims that theyused only reference peer reviewed articles. The second involved ‘adjustments’ to the climaterecord of New Zealand that were just plain fraudulent. The third involved unsubstantiatedclaims of droughts in the Amazon basin.

It must also be emphasized that the IPCC is a political body, not a scientific one [McLean,2010a; Cheetham 2009]. The IPCC was formed in 1988 with the purpose of assessing “thescientific, technical and socioeconomic information relevant for the understanding of the risk ofhuman-induced climate change.” Its main goal is based on the assumption of “human-inducedclimate change” – there was never an attempt to evaluate the scientific evidence of the cause.The IPCC reports are edited by a small number of carefully selected reviewers that are allbelievers in the global warming religion. The predictions of global warming published by theIPCC have no basis in physical reality. The IPCC climate models are hard wired using radiativeforcing constants to create global warming.

Various scientific societies, including the Royal Society, the American Physical Society and theAmerican Chemical Society have published strong statements supporting global warming. Theseare based on little more than the IPCC reports and reflect the vested interests of the influentialmembers of these societies that wrote and supported these reports. Attempts by other membersof these societies to change or retract these statements of support have not been very successful.Professor Hal Lewis, a very senior and respected scientist at the University of Santa Barbararecently reigned from APS because of its position on global warming. His letter of resignationreads in part [Lewis, 2011]:

It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that hascorrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest andmost successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has thefaintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay itbare. (Montford's book organizes the facts very well.) I don't believe that any real physicist, nayscientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of theword scientist.

So what has the APS, as an organization, done in the face of this challenge? It has accepted thecorruption as the norm, and gone along with it.

In the interim the ClimateGate scandal broke into the news, and the machinations of the principalalarmists were revealed to the world. It was a fraud on a scale I have never seen, and I lack the wordsto describe its enormity. Effect on the APS position: none. None at all. This is not science; otherforces are at work.

It should also be noted that the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to Al Gore and other IPCCcommittee members based on results from totally fraudulent computer simulations. The USSupreme Court decision on CO2 pollution was based on the same fraudulent climate modelresults. The US Environmental Protection Agency has already elected to ignore the scientificevidence from the public comments it received on its CO2 endangerment finding and finalized


30

regulations that have no foundation in physical reality. Prof. Richard Lindzen and Prof JohnChristy, both respected climate scientists have recently testified before Congress on globalwarming [Christy, 2011; Lindzen, 2010]. Their testimony clearly explains many aspects theglobal warming fraud. Selected text from their testimony is given below:

Global Warming: How to approach the science.

Richard S. Lindzen

Program in Atmospheres, Oceans, and Climate

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Testimony: House Subcommittee on Science and Technology hearing on A Rational Discussion ofClimate Change: the Science, the Evidence, the Response

November 17, 2010

I wish to thank the House Committee on Science and Technology for the opportunity to present myviews on the issue of climate change –or as it was once referred to: global warming. The writtentestimony is, of course, far more detailed than my oral summary will be. In the summary, I willsimply try to clarify what the debate over climate change is really about. It most certainly is not aboutwhether climate is changing: it always is. It is not about whether CO2 is increasing: it clearly is. It isnot about whether the increase in CO2, by itself, will lead to some warming: it should. The debate issimply over the matter of how much warming the increase in CO2 can lead to, and the connection ofsuch warming to the innumerable claimed catastrophes. The evidence is that the increase in CO2 willlead to very little warming, and that the connection of this minimal warming (or even significantwarming) to the purported catastrophes is also minimal. The arguments on which the catastrophicclaims are made are extremely weak –and commonly acknowledged as such.

In my long experience with the issue of global warming, I’ve come to realize that the vast majority oflaymen --including policymakers –do not actually know what the scientific debate is about. In thistestimony, I will try to clarify this. Some of you may, for example, be surprised to hear that the debateis not about whether it is warming or not or even about whether man is contributing some portion ofwhatever is happening. I’ll explain this in this testimony. Unfortunately, some part of the confusion isexplicitly due to members of the scientific community whose role as partisans has dominated anyother role they may be playing.

Here are two statements that are completely agreed on by the IPCC. It is crucial to be aware of theirimplications.

1. A doubling of CO2, by itself, contributes only about 1C to greenhouse warming. All models projectmore warming, because, within models, there are positive feedbacks from water vapor and clouds,and these feedbacks are considered by the IPCC to be uncertain.

2. If one assumes all warming over the past century is due to anthropogenic greenhouse forcing, thenthe derived sensitivity of the climate to a doubling of CO2 is less than 1C. The higher sensitivity ofexisting models is made consistent with observed warming by invoking unknown additional negativeforcings from aerosols and solar variability as arbitrary adjustments.

Given the above, the notion that alarming warming is ‘settled science’ should be offensive to anysentient individual, though to be sure, the above is hardly emphasized by the IPCC.

The usual rationale for alarm comes from models. The notion that models are our only tool, even, if itwere true, depends on models being objective and not arbitrarily adjusted (unfortunately unwarrantedassumptions).


31

However, models are hardly our only tool, though they are sometimes useful. Models can show whythey get the results they get. The reasons involve physical processes that can be independentlyassessed by both observations and basic theory. This has, in fact, been done, and the results suggestthat all models are exaggerating warming.

The details of some such studies will be shown later in this testimony.

Quite apart from the science itself, there are numerous reasons why an intelligent observer should besuspicious of the presentation of alarm.

1. The claim of ‘incontrovertibility.’

2. Arguing from ‘authority’ in lieu of scientific reasoning and data or even elementary logic.

3. Use of term ‘global warming’ without either definition or quantification.

4. Identification of complex phenomena with multiple causes with global warming and even as‘proof’ of global warming.

5. Conflation of existence of climate change with anthropogenic climate change.

Some Salient Points:

1. Virtually by definition, nothing in science is ‘incontrovertible’ –especially in a primitive andcomplex field as climate. ‘Incontrovertibility’ belongs to religion where it is referred to as dogma.

2. As noted, the value of ‘authority’ in a primitive and politicized field like climate is of dubiousvalue –it is essential to deal with the science itself. This may present less challenge to the layman thanis commonly supposed.

3. ‘Global Warming’ refers to an obscure statistical quantity, globally averaged temperature anomaly,the small residue of far larger and mostly uncorrelated local anomalies. This quantity is highlyuncertain, but may be on the order of 0.7C over the past 150 years. This quantity is always varying atthis level and there have been periods of both warming and cooling on virtually all time scales. On thetime scale of from 1 year to 100 years, there is no need for any externally specified forcing. Theclimate system is never in equilibrium because, among other things, the ocean transports heatbetween the surface and the depths. To be sure, however, there are other sources of internal variabilityas well.

Because the quantity we are speaking of is so small, and the error bars are so large, the quantity iseasy to abuse in a variety of ways.

Some current problems with science

1. Questionable data. (Climategate and involvement of all three centers tracking global averagetemperature anomaly.) This is a complicated ethical issue for several reasons. Small temperaturechanges are not abnormal and even claimed changes are consistent with low climate sensitivity.However, the public has been mislead to believe that whether it is warming or cooling –no matterhow little –is of vital importance. Tilting the record slightly is thus of little consequence to the sciencebut of great importance to the public perception.

2. More sophisticated data is being analyzed with the aim of supporting rather than testing models(validation rather than testing). That certainly has been my experience during service with both theIPCC and the National Climate Assessment Program. It is also evident in the recent scandalconcerning Himalayan glaciers.

(Note that in both cases, we are not dealing with simple measurements, but rather with hugecollections of sometimes dubious measurements that are subject to often subjective analysis –sometimes referred to as ‘massaging.’)

3. Sensitivity is a crucial issue. This refers to how much warming one expects from a given change inCO2 (usually a doubling). It cannot be determined by assuming that one knows the cause of change. Ifthe cause is not what one assumes, it yields infinite sensitivity. This problem infects most attempts toinfer climate sensitivity from paleoclimate data


32

.4. Models cannot be tested by comparing models with models. Attribution cannot be based on theability or lack thereof of faulty models to simulate a small portion of the record. Models are simplynot basic physics.

All the above and more are, nonetheless, central to the IPCC reports that supposedly are‘authoritative’ and have been endorsed by National Academies and numerous professional societies.

Where do we go from here?

Given that this has become a quasi-religious issue, it is hard to tell. However, my personal hope isthat we will return to normative science, and try to understand how the climate actually behaves. Ourpresent approach of dealing with climate as completely specified by a single number, globallyaveraged surface temperature anomaly, that is forced by another single number, atmospheric CO2

levels, for example, clearly limits real understanding; so does the replacement of theory by modelsimulation. In point of fact, there has been progress along these lines and none of it demonstrates aprominent role for CO2. It has been possible to account for the cycle of ice ages simply with orbitalvariations (as was thought to be the case before global warming mania); tests of sensitivityindependent of the assumption that warming is due to CO2 (a circular assumption) show sensitivitieslower than models show; the resolution of the early faint sun paradox which could not be resolved bygreenhouse gases, is readily resolved by clouds acting as negative feedbacks.

Testimony of Dr. John Christy at House Subcommittee on Energy and Power Hearing

Written Statement of John R. Christy

The University of Alabama in Huntsville

Subcommittee on Energy and Power Committee on Energy and Commerce

8 March 2011

I am John R. Christy, Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science, Alabama’s StateClimatologist and Director of the Earth System Science Center at The University of Alabama inHuntsville. I have served as a Lead Author and Contributing Author of IPCC assessments. It is aprivilege for me to offer my view of climate change based on my experience as a climate scientist.My research area might be best described as building climate datasets from scratch to advance ourunderstanding of what the climate is doing and why. This often involves weeks and months of tediousexamination of paper records and digitization of data for use computational analysis. I have usedtraditional surface observations as well as measurements from balloons and satellites to document theclimate story. Many of my datasets are used to test hypotheses of climate variability and change. Inthe following I will address six issues that are part of the discussion of climate change today, some ofwhich will be assisted by the datasets I have built and published.

EXTREME EVENTS

Recently it has become popular to try and attribute certain extreme events to human causation. TheEarth, however, is very large, the weather is very dynamic, especially at local scales, so that extremeevents of one type or another will occur somewhere on the planet in every year. Since there areinnumerable ways to define an extreme event (i.e. record high/low temperatures, number of days of acertain quantity, precipitation over 1, 2, 10 … days, snowfall amounts, etc.) this essentially requiresthere to be numerous “extreme events” in every year. The following assess some of the recent“extreme events” and explanations that have been offered as to their cause

Australia

The tragic flooding in the second half of 2010 in NE Australia was examined in two ways, (1) interms of financial costs and (2) in terms of climate history. First, when one normalizes the flood costsyear by year, meaning if one could imagine that the infrastructure now in place was unchanging


33

during the entire study period, the analysis shows there are no long-term trends in damages. In anupdate of Crompton and McAneney (2008) of normalized disaster losses in Australia which includesan estimate for 2010, they show absolutely no trend since 1966. Secondly, regarding the recentAustralian flooding as a physical event in the context climate history (with the estimated 2010maximum river height added to the chart below) one sees a relative lull in flooding events after 1900.Only four events reached the moderate category in the past 110 years, while 14 such events wererecorded in the 60 years before 1900. Indeed, the recent flood magnitude had been exceeded six timesin the last 170 years, twice by almost double the level of flooding as observed in 2010. Such historycharts indicate that severe flooding is an extreme event that has occurred from natural, unforcedvariability. There is also a suggestion that emergency releases of water from the Wivenhoe Damupstream of Brisbane caused “more than 80 per cent of the flood in the Brisbane River. … Withoutthis unprecedented and massive release ... the flooding in Brisbane would have been minimal.” (TheAustralian 18 Jan 2011.) (See http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2011/02/flood-disasters-and-human-caused.html where Roger Pielke Jr. discusses extreme events and supplies some of the informationused here.)

England Floods

Svensson et al. 2006 discuss the possibility of detecting trends in river floods, noting that much of thefindings relate to “changes in atmospheric circulation patterns” such as the North Atlantic Oscillation(i.e. natural, unforced variability) which affects England. For the Thames River, there has been notrend in floods since records began in 1880 (their Fig. 5), though multi-decadal variability indicates alull in flooding events from 1965 to 1990. The authors caution that analyzing flooding events thatstart during this lull will create a false positive trend with respect to the full climate record. Floodingevents on the Thames since 1990 are similar to, but generally slightly less than those experiencedprior to 1940. One wonders that if there are no long-term increases in flood events in England, howcould a single event (Fall 2000) be pinned on human causation as in Pall et al. 2011, while previous,similar events obviously could not? Indeed, on a remarkable point of fact, Pall et al. 2011 did noteven examine the actual history of flood data in England to understand where the 2000 event mighthave fit. As best I can tell, this study compared models with models. Indeed, studies that use climatemodels to make claims about precipitation events might benefit from the study by Stephens et al.2010 whose title sums up the issue, “The dreary state of precipitation in global models.” In mainlandEurope as well, there is a similar lack of increased flooding (Barredo 2009). Looking at a large,global sample, Svensson et al. found the following.

A recent study of trends in long time series of annual maximum river flows at 195 gauging stationsworldwide suggests that the majority of these flow records (70%) do not exhibit any statisticallysignificant trends. Trends in the remaining records are almost evenly split between having a positiveand a negative direction.

Russia and Pakistan

An unusual weather situation developed in the summer of 2010 in which Russia experienced a verylong stretch of high temperatures while a basin in Pakistan was inundated with flooding rains. NOAAexamined the weather pattern and issued this statement indicating this extreme event was a part of thenatural cycle of variability (i.e. natural, unforced variability) and unrelated to greenhouse gas forcing."...greenhouse gas forcing fails to explain the 2010 heat wave over western Russia. The naturalprocess of atmospheric blocking, and the climate impacts induced by such blocking, are the principalcause for this heat wave. It is not known whether, or to what extent, greenhouse gas emissions mayaffect the frequency or intensity of blocking during summer. It is important to note that observationsreveal no trend in a daily frequency of July blocking over the period since 1948, nor is there anappreciable trend in the absolute values of upper tropospheric summertime heights over westernRussia for the period since 1900. The indications are that the current blocking event is intrinsic to thenatural variability of summer climate in this region, a region which has a climatological vulnerabilityto blocking and associated heat waves (e.g., 1960, 1972, 1988)."


34

Snowfall in the United States

Snowfall in the eastern US reached record levels in 2009-10 and 2010-11 in some locations. NOAA’sClimate Scene Investigators committee issued the following statement regarding this, indicating againthat natural, unforced variability explains the events. Specifically, they wanted to know if human-induced global warming could have caused the snowstorms due to the fact that a warmer atmosphereholds more water vapor. The CSI Team’s analysis indicates that’s not likely. They found no evidence— no human “fingerprints” — to implicate our involvement in the snowstorms. If global warmingwas the culprit, the team would have expected to find a gradual increase in heavy snowstorms in themid-Atlantic region as temperatures rose during the past century. But historical analysis revealed nosuch increase in snowfall. In some of my own studies I have looked closely at the snowfall records ofthe Sierra Nevada mountains, which includes data not part of the national archive. Long- term trendsin snowfall (and thus water resources) in this part of California are essentially zero, indicating nochange in this valuable resource to the state (Christy and Hnilo, 2010.)

Looking at a long record of weather patterns

A project which seeks to generate consistent and systematic weather maps back to 1871 (20thCentury Reanalyisis Project, http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/data/20thC_Rean/) has taken a look at thethree major indices which are often related to extreme events. As Dr. Gill Campo of the University ofColorado, leader of the study, noted to the Wall Street Journal (10 Feb 2011) that “… we weresurprised that none of the three major indices of climate variability that we used show a trend ofincreased circulation going back to 1871.” (The three indices were the Pacific Walker Circulation, theNorth Atlantic Oscillation and the Pacific-North America Oscillation, Compo et al. 2011.) In otherwords, there appears to be no supporting evidence over this period that human factors have influencedthe major circulation patterns which drive the larger-scale extreme events. Again we point to natural,unforced variability as the dominant feature of events that have transpired in the past 140 years. Whatthis means today should be considered a warning – that the climate system has always had withinitself the capability of causing devastating events and these will certainly continue with or withouthuman influence. Thus, societies should plan for their infrastructure projects to be able to withstandthe worst that we already know has occurred, and to recognize, in such a dynamical system, that evenworse events should be expected. In other words, the set of the measured extreme events of the smallclimate history we have, since about 1880, does not represent the full range of extreme events that theclimate system can actually generate. The most recent 130 years is simply our current era’s smallsample of the long history of climate. There will certainly be events in this coming century thatexceed the magnitude of extremes measured in the past 130 years in many locations. To put it anotherway, a large percentage of the worst extremes over the period 1880 to 2100 will occur after 2011simply by statistical probability without any appeal to human forcing at all. Going further, one wouldassume that about 10 percent of the record extremes that occur over a thousand-year period ending in2100 should occur in the 21st century. Are we prepared to deal with events even worse than we’veseen so far? Spending resources on creating resiliency to these sure-to-come extremes, particularlydrought/flood extremes, seems rather prudent to me.

A sample study of why extreme events are poor metrics for global changes

In the examples above, we don’t see alarming increases in extreme events, but we must certainly beready for more to come as part of nature’s variability. I want to illustrate how one might use extremeevents to conclude (improperly I believe) that the weather in the USA is becoming less extremeand/or colder. For each of the 50 states, there are records kept for the extreme high and lowtemperatures back to the late 19th century. In examining the years in which these extremes occurred(and depending on how one deals with “repeats” of events) we find about 80 percent of the statesrecorded their hottest temperature prior to 1955. And, about 60 percent of the states experienced theirrecord cold temperatures prior to that date too. One could conclude, if they were so inclined, that theclimate of the US is becoming less extreme because the occurrence of state extremes of hot and coldhas diminished dramatically since 1955. Since 100 of anything is a fairly large sample (2 values for


35

each of 50 states), this on the surface seems a reasonable conclusion. Then, one might look at themore recent record of extremes and learn that no state has achieved a record high temperature in thelast 15 years (though one state has tied theirs.) However, five states have observed their all-timerecord low temperature in these past 15 years (plus one tie.) This includes last month’s record low of31°F below zero in Oklahoma, breaking their previous record by a rather remarkable 4°F. If one wereso inclined, one could conclude that the weather that people worry about (extreme cold) is gettingworse in the US. (Note: this lowering of absolute cold temperature records is nowhere forecast inclimate model projections, nor is a significant drop in the occurrence of extreme high temperaturerecords.) I am not using these statistics to prove the weather in the US is becoming less extremeand/or colder. My point is that extreme events are poor metrics to use for detecting climate change.Indeed, because of their rarity (by definition) using extreme events to bolster a claim about any typeof climate change (warming or cooling) runs the risk of setting up the classic “non-falsifiablehypothesis.” For example, we were told by the IPCC that “milder winter temperatures will decreaseheavy snowstorms” (TAR WG2, 15.2.4.1.2.4). After the winters of 2009-10 and 2010-11, we are toldthe opposite by advocates of the IPCC position, “Climate Change Makes Major Snowstorms MoreLikely” (http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/climate-change-makes-snowstorms-more-likely-0506.html).

The non-falsifiable hypotheses works this way, “whatever happens is consistent with my hypothesis.”In other words, there is no event that would “falsify” the hypothesis. As such, these assertions cannotbe considered science or in anyway informative since the hypothesis’ fundamental prediction is“anything may happen.” In the example above if winters become milder or they become snowier, thehypothesis stands. This is not science. As noted above, there are innumerable types of events that canbe defined as extreme events – so for the enterprising individual (unencumbered by the scientificmethod), weather statistics can supply an almost unlimited set of targets in which to discover a“useful” extreme event. Thus, when such an individual observes an unusual event, it may be temptingto define it as a once-for-all extreme metric to “prove” a point about climate change. This works bothways with extremes. If one were prescient enough to have predicted in 1996 that over the next 15years, five states would break record cold temperatures while zero states would break record hightemperatures as evidence for cooling, would that prove CO2 emissions have no impact on climate?No. Extreme events happen, and their causes are intricately tied to semi-unstable dynamical situationsthat can occur out of an environment of natural, unforced variability. Science checks hypotheses(assertions) by testing specific, falsifiable predictions implied by those hypotheses. The predictionsare to be made in a manner that, as much as possible, is blind to the data against which the predictionis evaluated. It is the testable predictions from hypotheses, derived from climate model output, thatrun into trouble. Before going on, the main point here is that extreme events do not lend themselvesas being rigorous metrics for convicting human emissions of being guilty of causing them.

THE UNDERLYING TEMPERATURE TREND

As noted earlier, my main research projects deal with building climate datasets from scratch todocument what the climate has done and to test assertions and hypotheses about climate change. In1994, Nature magazine published a study of mine in which we estimated the underlying rate at whichthe world was warming by removing the impacts of volcanoes and El Niños (Christy and McNider1994.) This was important to do because in that particular 15-year period (1979-1993) there weresome significant volcanic cooling episodes and strong El Niños that convoluted what would havebeen the underlying trend. The result of that study indicated the underlying trend for 1979-1993 was+0.09 °C/decade which at the time was one third the rate of warming that should have been occurringaccording to estimates by climate model simulations. Above: update of Christy and McNider 1994:Top curve: Monthly global atmospheric temperature anomalies 1979-2010 (TLT). 2nd: (SST) theinfluence of tropical sea surface temperature variations on the global temperature. 3rd: (TLT-SST)global temperature anomalies without the SST influence. 4th (VOL) The effect of volcanic cooling onglobal temperatures (El Chichon 1982 and Mt. Pinatubo 1991). Bottom: (TLT-SST-VOL) underlying


36

trend once SST and VOL effects are removed. The average underlying trend of TLT-SST-VOLgenerated from several parametric variations of the criteria used in these experiments was +0.09°C/decade. Lines are separated by 1°C. I have repeated that study for this testimony with data whichnow cover 32 years as shown above (1979-2010.) In an interesting result, the new underlying trendremains a modest +0.09 C/decade for the global tropospheric temperature, which is still only onethird of the average rate the climate models project for the current era (+0.26°C/decade.) There is noevidence of acceleration in this trend. This evidence strongly suggests that climate model simulationson average are simply too sensitive to increasing greenhouse gases and thus overstate the warming ofthe climate system (see below under climate sensitivity.) This is an example of a model simulation(i.e. hypothesis) which can provide a “prediction” to test: that “prediction” being the rate at which theEarth’s atmosphere should be warming in the current era. In this case, the model-average rate ofwarming fails the test (see next.)

PATTERNS OF WARMING

Through the years there have been a number of publications which have specifically targeted twoaspects of temperature change in which observations and models can be compared. The results ofboth comparisons suggest there are significant problems with the way climate models represent theprocesses which govern the atmospheric temperature. In the first aspect of temperature change, wehave shown that the pattern of change at the surface does indeed show warming over land. However,in very detailed analyses of localized areas in the US and Africa we found that this warming isdominated by increases in nighttime temperatures, with little change in daytime temperatures. Thispattern of warming is a classic signature of surface development (land cover and land use change) byhuman activities. The facts that (a) the daytime temperatures do not show significant warming inthese studies and (b) the daytime temperature is much more representative of the deep atmospherictemperature where the warming due to the enhanced greenhouse effect should be evident, lead us toconclude that much of the surface temperature warming is related to surface development around thethermometer sites. This type of surface development interacts with complexities of the nighttimeboundary layer which leads to warming not related to greenhouse warming (Christy et al. 2006, 2009,see also Walters et al. 2007, Pielke, Sr. 2008.)

The second set of studies investigates one of the clearest signatures or fingerprints of greenhouse gaswarming as depicted in climate models. This signature consists of a region of the tropical upperatmosphere which in models is shown to warm at least twice as fast as the surface rate of warming.We, and others, have tested this specific signature, i.e. this hypothesis, against several observationaldatasets and conclude that this pervasive result from climate models has not been detected in the realatmosphere. In addition, the global upper atmosphere is also depicted in models to warm at a ratefaster than the surface. Again, we did not find this to be true in observations (Klotzbach et al. 2010.)

The following are quotes from three of the recent papers which come to essentially the sameconclusion as earlier work published in Christy et al. 2007 and Douglass et al. 2007. Table 2 displaysthe new per decade linear trend calculations [of difference between global surface and troposphereusing model amplification factor] … over land and ocean. All trends are significant[ly different] atthe 95% level. Klotzbach et al. 2010. [Our] result is inconsistent with model projections which showthat significant amplification of the modeled surface trends occurs in the modeled tropospheric trends.Christy et al. 2010. Over the interval 1979-2009, model-projected temperature trends are two to fourtimes larger than observed trends in both the lower and mid-troposphere and the differences arestatistically significant at the 99% level. McKitrick et al 2010.

Again we note that these (and other) studies have taken “predictions” from climate model simulations(model outputs are simply hypotheses), have tested these predictions against observations, and foundsignificant differences.

CLIMATE SENSITIVITY AND FEEDBACKS


37

One of the most misunderstood and contentious issues in climate science surrounds the notion ofclimate sensitivity. Climate sensitivity is a basic variable that seeks to quantify the temperatureresponse of the Earth to a particular forcing, for example answering the question, how much warmingcan be expected if the warming effect of doubling CO2 acts on the planet? The temperature used inthis formulation is nearly always the surface temperature, which is a rather poor metric to serve as aproxy for the total heat content of the climate system, but that is the convention in use today. In anycase, it is fairly well agreed that the surface temperature will rise about 1°C as a modest response to adoubling of atmospheric CO2 if the rest of the component processes of the climate system remainindependent of this response. This is where the issue becomes uncertain: the complexity andinterrelatedness of the various components of the climate system (e.g. clouds) mean they will not sitby independently while CO2 warms the planet a little, but will get into the act too. The fundamentalissue in this debate is whether the net response of these interrelated actors will add to the basic CO2

warming (i.e. positive feedbacks) or subtract from the basic CO2 warming (i.e. negative feedbacks.)

Since climate models project a temperature rise on the order of 3 °C for a doubling of CO2, it is clearthat in the models, positive feedbacks come into play to increase the temperature over and above thewarming effect of CO2 alone, which is only about 1°C. However, given such observational results asnoted earlier (i.e. warming rates of models being about three times that of observations) one canhypothesize that there must be negative feedbacks in the real world that counteract the positivefeedbacks which dominate model processes. My colleague at UAHuntsville, Dr. Roy Spencer, hassearched tediously for a way to calculate climate sensitivity from satellite observations which at thesame time would reveal the net response of the feedbacks which is so uncertain today. NASA andNOAA have placed in orbit some terrific assets to answer questions like this. Unfortunately, the bestobservations to address this issue are only about 10 years in length, which prevents us from directlycalculating the sensitivity to 100 years of increasing CO2. However, the climate sensitivity overshorter periods to natural, unforced variability can be assessed, and this is what Dr. Spencer has done.To put it simply, Spencer tracks large global temperature changes over periods of several weeks. Itturns out the global temperature rises and falls by many tenths of a degree over such periods. Spenceris able to measure the amount of heat that accumulates in (departs from) the climate system as thetemperature rises (falls) with temperature changes. When all of the math is done, he finds the realclimate system is dominated by negative feedbacks (probably related to cloud variations) that workagainst changes in temperature once that temperature change has occurred. When this same analysisis applied to climate model output (i.e. apples to apples comparisons), the result is very different, withall models showing positive feedbacks, i.e. helping a warming impulse to warm the atmosphere evenmore (see figure below.) Thus, the observations and models are again inconsistent. On this time scalein which feedbacks can be assessed, Spencer sees a significant difference between the way the realEarth processes heat and the way models do. This difference is very likely found in the way modelstreat cloudiness, precipitation and/or heat deposition into the ocean. This appears to offer a strongclue as to why climate models tend to overstate the warming rate of the global atmosphere low:Climate feedback parameter from observations (blue, top line) and IPCC AR4 model simulations(other lines, derived from results in Spencer and Braswell 2010.) Model parameters cluster in agrouping that indicates considerably more sensitivity to forcing than indicated by observations. Thebottom line of this on-going research is that over time periods for which we are able to determineclimate sensitivity, the evidence suggests that all models are characterized by feedback processes thatare more positive than feedback processes measured in nature.

CONSENSUS SCIENCE

The term “consensus science” will often be appealed to in arguments about climate change. This is aform of “argument from authority.” Consensus, however, is a political notion, not a scientific notion.As I testified to the Inter-Academy Council last June, the IPCC and other similar Assessments do notrepresent for me a consensus of much more than the consensus of those who already agree with aparticular consensus. The content of these reports is actually under the control of a relatively small


38

number of individuals - I often refer to them as the “climate establishment” – who through the years,in my opinion, came to act as gatekeepers of scientific opinion and information, rather than brokers.The voices of those of us who object to various statements and emphases in these assessments are by-in-large dismissed rather than acknowledged. I’ve often stated that climate science is a “murkyscience.” We do not have laboratory methods of testing our hypotheses as many other sciences do. Asa result, opinion, arguments from authority, dramatic press releases, and notions of consensus tend topass for science in our field when they should not.

I noticed the House has passed an amendment to de-fund the Intergovernmental Panel on ClimateChange (IPCC.) I have a proposal here. If the IPCC activity is ultimately funded by US taxpayers,then I propose that ten percent of the funds be allocated to a group of well-credentialed scientists withhelp from individuals experienced in creating verifiable reports, to produce an assessment thatexpresses alternative hypotheses that have been (in their view) marginalized, misrepresented orminimized in previous IPCC reports. We know from climategate emails and many other sources ofinformation that the IPCC has had problems with those who take different positions on climatechange. Topics to be addresses in this assessment, for example, would include (a) evidence for a lowclimate sensitivity to increasing greenhouse gases, (b) the role and importance of natural, unforcedvariability, (c) a rigorous evaluation of climate model output, (d) a thorough discussion ofuncertainty, (e) a focus on metrics that most directly relate to the rate of accumulation of heat in theclimate system (which, for example, the problematic surface temperature record does not represent),(f) analysis of the many consequences, including benefits, that result from CO2 increases, and (g) theimportance that accessible energy has to human health and welfare. What this proposal seeks toaccomplish is to provide to the congress and other policymakers a parallel, scientifically-basedassessment regarding the state of climate science which addresses issues which here-to-for have beenun- or under-represented by previous tax-payer funded, government-directed climate reports.

IMPACT OF EMISSION CONTROL MEASURES

The evidence above suggests that climate models overestimate the response of temperature togreenhouse gas increases. Even so, using these climate model simulations we calculate that theimpact of legislative actions being considered on the global temperature is essentially imperceptible.These actions will not result in a measurable climate effect that can be attributable or predictable withany level of confidence, especially at the regional level. When I testified before the Energy andCommerce Oversight and Investigations subcommittee in 2006 I provided information on animaginary world in which 1,000 1.4 gW nuclear power plants would be built and operated by 2020.This, of course, will not happen. Even so, this Herculean effort would result in at most a 10 percentreduction in global CO2 emissions, and thus exert a tiny impact on whatever the climate is going todo. Indeed, with these most recent estimates of climate sensitivity, the impact of these emissioncontrol measures will be even tinier since the climate system doesn’t seem to be very sensitive to CO2

emissions. (Note: we have not considered the many positive benefits of higher concentrations of CO2

in the atmosphere, especially for the biological world, nor the tremendous boost to human health,welfare, and security provided by affordable, carbon-based energy. As someone who has lived in adeveloping country, I can assure the subcommittee that without energy, life is brutal and short.) Coaluse, which generates a major portion of CO2 emissions, will continue to rise as indicated by theEnergy Information Administration’s chart below. Developing countries in Asia already burn morethan twice the coal that North America does, and that discrepancy will continue to expand. The factour legislative actions will be inconsequential in the grand scheme of things can be seen by notingthat these actions attempt to bend the blue, North American curve, which is already fairly flat, down alittle. So, downward adjustments to North American coal use will have virtually no effect on globalCO2 emissions (or the climate), no matter how sensitive one thinks the climate system might be to theextra CO2 we are putting back into the atmosphere. Thus, if the country deems it necessary to de-carbonize civilization’s main energy sources, sound and indeed compelling reasons beyond human-induced climate change need to be offered. Climate change alone is a weak leg on which to stand for


39

such a massive undertaking. (I’ll not address the fact there is really no demonstrated technologyexcept nuclear that can replace large portions of the carbon-based energy production.)

Thank you for this opportunity to offer my views on climate change.

References

Barredo, J.I., 2009: Normalized flood losses in Europe: 1970-2006. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 9,97-104.

Christy, J.R. and J.J. Hnilo, 2010: Changes in snowfall in the southern Sierra Nevada of Californiasince 1916. Energy & Env., 21, 223-234.

Christy, J.R., W.B. Norris and R.T. McNider, 2009: Surface temperature variations in East Africa andpossible causes. J. Clim. 22, DOI: 10.1175/2008JCLI2726.1.

Christy, J. R., W. B. Norris, R. W. Spencer, and J. J. Hnilo, 2007: Tropospheric temperature changesince 1979 from tropical radiosonde and satellite measurements, J. Geophys. Res., 112, D06102,doi:10.1029/2005JD006881.

Christy, J.R., W.B. Norris, K. Redmond and K. Gallo, 2006: Methodology and results of calculatingcentral California surface temperature trends: Evidence of human- induced climate change? J.Climate, 19, 548-563.

Christy, J.R. and R.T. McNider, 1994: Satellite greenhouse signal? Nature, 367, 325. Compo, G.P. etal. 2011. Review Article: The Twentieth Century Reanalysis Project. Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc., 137, 1-28.

Crompton, R. and J. McAneney, 2008: The cost of natural disasters in Australia: the case for disasterrisk reduction. Australian J. Emerg. Manag., 23, 43-46. Douglass,

D.H., J.R. Christy, B.D. Pearson and S.F. Singer, 2007: A comparison of tropical temperature trendswith model predictions. International J. Climatology, DOI: 10.1002/joc.1651.

Klotzbach, P. J., R. A. Pielke Sr., R. A. Pielke Jr., J. R. Christy, and R. T. McNider (2009), Analternative explanation for differential temperature trends at the surface and in the lower troposphere,J. Geophys. Res., 114, D21102, doi:10.1029/2009JD011841.

Pall, P., T. Aina, D. A. Stone, P. A. Stott, T. Nozawa, A. G. J. Hilberts, D. Lohmann and M. R. Allen,2011: , Nature.

Spencer, R.W. and W.D. Braswell, 2010: Stephens, G. et al. 2010: The dreary state of precipitation inglobal models. J. Geophys. Res., 115, doi:101029/1010JD014532.

Svensson, C., J. Hannaford, Z. Kundzewicz and T. Marsh, 2006: Trends in river floods, why is thereno clear signal in the observations? Frontiers in flood research.

Tchiguirinskaia, I., Thein, K., Hubert, P. International Association of Hydrological Sciences,International Hydrological Programme, Publ 305, 1-18.

Walters, J.T., R.T. McNider, X. Shi, W.B. Norris and J.R. Christy, 2007: Positive surface temperaturefeedback in the stable nocturnal boundary layer. Geophys. Res. Lett. doi:10.1029/2007GL029505.


40

REFERENCES

Agassiz, L. Etudes sur les Glaciers, Neuchatel, Paris, (1840)

Akasofu, S-I , Natural Science 2(11) 1211-1224 (2010), ‘On the recovery from the Little IceAge’Alley R. B., et al, (51 authors), IPCC, Summary for Policymakers, Climate Change 2007: ThePhysical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment, eds:Solomon, S., Qin, D., Manning, M., Chen, Z., Marquis, M., Averyt, K. B. Tignor, M. and Miller,H. L., Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press,Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA., 2007

Ambler, D., Extreme weather, extreme claims, SPPI, 2010 [Accessed 5/14/2011]

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/extreme_weather_extreme_claims.html

AmeriFlux, http://public.ornl.gov/ameriflux/index.html, AmeriFlux Network Data, [Accessed5/14/2011]

ARGO Float Data, http://floats.pmel.noaa.gov/index.html Argo Profiling CTD Floats, NOAAPacific Marine Environmental Laboratory. [Accessed 5/14/11]

ASTM G173 http://rredc.nrel.gov/solar/spectra/am1.5/ASTMG173/ASTMG173.xls [Accessed5/14/2011].

Augustin, L. et al, EPICA community members, (56 Authors), Nature 429 623-628 (2004),‘Eight glacial cycles from an Antarctic ice core’

AVISO, Mean Sea level products and images, [Accessed 5/14/2011]http://www.aviso.oceanobs.com/en/news/ocean-indicators/mean-sea-level/products-images/index.html

Baldocchi, D. D., Global Change Biology 9 1-14 (2003), ‘Assessing the eddy covariancetechnique for evaluating carbon dioxide exchange rates of ecosystems: past, present and future’

Barbante, C. et al, EPICA community members, (84 Authors), 2006, Nature 444 195-198 (2006),‘One to one coupling of glacial climate variability in Greenland and Antarctica’

Cheetham, A., 2011a, Ocean Oscillations,http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/PDO_AMO.htm [Accessed 5/10/11]

Cheetham, A., 2011b, Hansen’s climate model predictions, [Accessed 5/14/11]

http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/HansenModel.htm

Cheetham, A., A history of the global warming scare, SPPI, 2009, [Accessed 5/11/2011]http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/reprint/history_of_global_warming_scare.html?Itemid=0Christy, J. Congressional Testimony [Accessed 5/18/2011]http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2011/03/testimony-of-dr-john-christy-at-house.htmlClark, R., 2010a, ‘CA Climate Change is Caused by the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, Not byCarbon Dioxide’, SPPI Sept 16 th 2010,http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/pacific_decadal.html [Accessed 5/10/11]

Clark, R., 2010b, Energy and Environment 21(4) 171-200 (2010), ‘A null hypothesis for CO2’

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/extreme_weather_extreme_claims.html

http://public.ornl.gov/ameriflux/index.html

http://floats.pmel.noaa.gov/index.html

http://rredc.nrel.gov/solar/spectra/am1.5/ASTMG173/ASTMG173.xls

http://www.aviso.oceanobs.com/en/news/ocean-indicators/mean-sea-level/products-images/index.html

http://www.aviso.oceanobs.com/en/news/ocean-indicators/mean-sea-level/products-images/index.html

http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/PDO_AMO.htm

http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/HansenModel.htm

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2011/03/testimony-of-dr-john-christy-at-house.html

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/pacific_decadal.html


41

Clark, R., 2010c, What surface temperature is your model really predicting?,http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/posts/what-surface-temperature-is-your-model-really-predicting-190.php [Accessed 5/10/2011]

Clark. R., 2010d, Gravity rules over the photons in the greenhouse effect. [Accessed 5/10/2011]http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/posts/greenhouse-effect-vs.-gravity---guest-post-by-roy-clark-201.php

COAPS, Florida State University, Global tropical cyclone activity [Accessed 5/14/2011]http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/

Cryosphere Today, Polar Research, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaignhttp://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/ [Accessed 5/14/2011]

D’Aleo, Why the NOAA and NASA proclamations should be ignored, SPPI, 2011 [Accessed5/14/11] http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/noaa_and_nasa_proclamations.html

D’Aleo, J Effects of AMO and PDO on temperatures Intellicast, May 2008.

http://www.intellicast.com/Community/Content.aspx?a=127 [Accessed 5/14/2011]

D’Aleo, J. ‘Progressive Enhancement of Global Temperature Trends’, Science and Public PolicyInstitute, July 2010. [Accessed 5/14/2011]http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/progressive_enhancement.htmlDawson, J., The tree ring circus [Accessed 5/14/2010]http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/the_tree_ring_circus.pdfE. Anglia Confirmed, The Climategate Archive [Accessed 5/17/2011]http://www.eastangliaemails.com/index.phpEschenbach, W., 12/19/2010, Model Charged with Excessive Use of Forcinghttp://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/19/model-charged-with-excessive-use-of-forcing/,Eschenbach, W. [2010b] Out in the Ama-Zone, SPPI 4/7/2010 [Accessed 5/17/11].

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/reprint/out_in_the_ama_zone.html

Fairman, J. G., Jr., U. S. Nair, S. A. Christopher, and T. Mölg (2011), J. Geophys. Res., 116,D03110, ‘Land use change impacts on regional climate over Kilimanjaro’

Follows, M. J.; T. Ito and S. Dutkiewicz, Ocean Modeling 12 290-301 (2006), ‘On the solutionof the carbonate chemistry system in ocean biogeochemistry models’

Fourier, B. J. B., Mem. R. Sci. Inst. 7 527-604 (1827), ‘Memoire sur les temperatures du globeterrestre et des espaces planetaires’ [Translation available at:http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/fourier_1827/ ]

Gilbert, W.C., Energy and Environment 21(4) 263-276 (2010) ‘The thermodynamic relationshipbetween surface temperature and water vapor concentration in the troposphere’

Gray, V. R., South Pacific sea level: a reassessment, SSPI, Aug 16, 2010 [Accessed 5/18/2011]http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/south_pacific.htmlHagos, S. M. and K. H. Cook, Journal of Climate 21(15) 3797-3814 (2008), ‘Ocean warmingand late-twentieth-century Sahel drought and recovery’

Hale, G. M. and Querry, M. R., Optical constants of water in the 200 nm to 200 µm regionApplied Optics, 1973, 12(3) 555-563 (1973), ‘Optical constants of water in the 200 nm to 200µm region’

Hansen, J. et al, (45 authors), J. Geophys. Research 110 D18104 1-45 (2005) ‘Efficacy ofclimate forcings’

http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/posts/what-surface-temperature-is-your-model-really-predicting-190.php

http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/posts/what-surface-temperature-is-your-model-really-predicting-190.php

http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/posts/greenhouse-effect-vs.-gravity---guest-post-by-roy-clark-201.php

http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/posts/greenhouse-effect-vs.-gravity---guest-post-by-roy-clark-201.php

http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/noaa_and_nasa_proclamations.html

http://www.intellicast.com/Community/Content.aspx?a=127

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/progressive_enhancement.html

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/progressive_enhancement.html

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/the_tree_ring_circus.pdf

http://www.eastangliaemails.com/index.php

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/reprint/out_in_the_ama_zone.html

http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/fourier_1827/

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/south_pacific.html


42

Hansen, J., (2005b) Nazarenko, L., Ruedy, R., Sato, M., Willis, J., Genio, A. D., Koch, D., Lacis,A., Lo, K., Menon, S., Novakov, T., Perlwitz, J., Russell, G., Schmidt, G. A. and Tausnev, N.,Science 308 1431-1435 (2005) ‘Earth's energy imbalance: confirmation and implications’

Hansen, J., I. Fung, A. Lacis, D. Rind, Lebedeff, R. Ruedy, G. Russell, and P. Stone, J. Geophys.Res., 93 9341-9364 (1988), ‘Global climate changes as forecast by Goddard Institute for SpaceStudies three-dimensional model’

Harvey, K. L., Proc. 2nd Annual Lowell Observatory Fall Workshop, Oct 5-7, (1997), Hall, J.C., ed., Solar Analogs: Characteristics and Optimum Candidates, ‘The solar activity cycle andsun-as-a-star variability in the visible and IR’

Held, I. M. and B. J. Soden, Annual Review Energy and Environ. 25 441-475 (2000), ‘Watervapor feedback and global warming’Helliker, B. R. and S. L. Richter, Nature 454 511-514 (2008), ‘Subtropical to boreal convergenceof tree leaf temperatures’Houston J. R. and R.G. Dean, Journal of Coastal Research (2011) Online:http://www.jcronline.org/doi/abs/10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-10-00157.1, ‘Sea-level accelerationbased on U.S. tide gauges and extensions of previous global-gauge analyses’ [Accessed 5/10/11]ICSC, ‘KIWIGATE’ NZ Crown Agency taken to court over temp records, 9/7/2010 [Accessed5/17/11]http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=325:kiwigate&catid=1:latest

Indermuhle, A., Monnin, E., Stauffer, B. and Stocker, T.F., Geophysical Research Letters 27:735-738 (2000), ‘Atmospheric CO2 concentration from 60 to 20 kyr BP from the Taylor Domeice core, Antarctica’

Jenkins, F. A. and H. E. White, Fundamentals of Optics, McGraw Hill, NY, NY, 4th ed. 1976Chapter 25

JISAO, PDO Data, http://jisao.washington.edu/pdo/PDO.latest [Accessed 5/11/2011]

JMA, ENSO Data, ftp://www.coaps.fsu.edu/pub/JMA_SST_Index/jmasst1868-today.filter-5[Accessed 5/12/11].

Jones, P. D., New, M., Parker, D. E., Martin, S. and Rigor, I. G., Rev. Geophysics 37(2) 173-199(1999), ‘Surface air temperature and its changes over the past 150 years’

Keeling, Atmospheric CO2 Data, http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/data/in_situ_co2/monthly_mlo.csv[Accessed, 5/14/2011]

Kiehl, J.T. and K. E. Trenberth, Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 78(2) 197-208 (1979), ‘Earth's annualglobal mean energy budget’ (FAQ 1.1, Figure 1, p. 96 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, 2007)

Knutti, R., Allen, M. R., Friedlingstein, P., Gregory, J. M., Hegerl, G. C., Meehl, G. A.,Meinshausen, M., Murphy, J. M., Plattner, G-K., Raper, S. C. B., Stocker, T. F., Stott, P. A.,Teng, H. and Wigley, T. M. L. Journal of Climate 21(11) 2651-2663 (2008), ‘A review ofuncertainties in global temperature projections over the twenty-first century’

Lambeck, K., Comptes Rendus Geoscience 336 667-689 (2004), ‘Sea level change through thelast glacial cycle: geophysical, glaciological and paleogeographic consequences’

Levitus, S.; J. I. Antonov, T. P. Boyer R. A. Locarini, H. E. Garcia and A. V. Mishinov,Geophysical Research Letters 36 L07608 1-5 (2009), ‘Global ocean heat content 1955-2008 inlight of recently revealed instrumentation problems’ Data available at:http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/ [Accessed 5/14/2011]

http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=325:kiwigate&catid=1:latest

http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=325:kiwigate&catid=1:latest

http://jisao.washington.edu/pdo/PDO.latest

ftp://www.coaps.fsu.edu/pub/JMA_SST_Index/jmasst1868-today.filter-5

http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/data/in_situ_co2/monthly_mlo.csv

http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/


43

Lewis, H., Letter of Resignation from the American Physical Society [Accessed 5/18/2011]http://www.thegwpf.org/the-climate-record/1670-hal-lewis-my-resignation-from-the-american-physical-society.html

Lindsay, R. W.; J. Zhang, A. Schweiger, M. Steele and H. Stern, Journal of Climate 22(1) 165-176 (2009), ‘Arctic sea ice retreat in 2007 follows thinning trend’Lindzen, R. S., Congressional Testimony 11/17/2010, ‘Global warming: how to approach thescience’ SPPI Reprint 2/28/11, [Accessed 5/19/2011]

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/reprint/how_to_approach_the_science.html

Lindzen, R. S. and Y-S. Choi, Geophys Res. Letts. 36 L16705 1-6 (2009), ‘On the determinationof climate feedbacks from ERBE data’

Loehle, C. and J. Huston, Energy and Environment 19(1) 93-100 (2008), ‘Correction to: A 2000year global temperature reconstruction based on non-tree ring proxies’

Manabe, S. and Wetherald, R. T., J. Atmos. Sci., 24 241-249 (1967), ‘Thermal equilibrium of theatmosphere with a given distribution of relative humidity’

McCabe, G. J.; J. L. Betancourt, S. T. Gray, M. A. Palecki and H. G. Hidalgo, QuaternaryInternational 188 31-40 (2008), ‘Associations of multi-decadal sea-surface temperaturevariability with US drought’McLean, J., 2010a, ‘We have been conned – an independent review of the IPCC’, SPPI 2010[Accessed 5/20/2010] http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/we_have_been_conned.htmlMcLean, J., 2010b, GlacierGate highlights IPCC's flaws, SPPI 2010, [Accessed 5/14/2011]http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/glacier_gate.htmlMilankovitch, M., Théorie Mathématique des Phénomenes Thermiques Produits par laRadiation Solaire, Gauthier-Villars, Paris (1920); Canon of Insolation and the Ice-Age Problem,Royal Serbian Acad. Sp. Pub. 132 (1941), Israel Program Sci. Trans., Jerusalem (1969)

Monckton, C., SPPI, 2009: Climategate: caught green-handed,http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/climategate.html [Accessed 5/18/2011]Montford, A. W., The Hockey Stick Illusion, Stacey International, 2010

Morner, N-A., 21st Century Science and Technology, pp.7-17 (Fall 2010), ‘There is no alarmingsea level rise’Mosher, S. and T. W. Fuller, Climategate: The Crutape Letters, Create Space, 2010NASA, U. S. Standard Atmosphere, NASA-TM-X-74335, 1976.NASA, AMO Data, http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/data/correlation/amon.us.long.data [Accessed5/11/2011]NASA, GHCNM Data, http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/ghcnm/time-series/index.php?surface=land_ocean&region=90S.90N&month=2&beg_trend_year=1880&end_trend_year=2010&submitted=Submit [Accessed 5/11/2011]

NASA Sunspot Cycle, http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/SunspotCycle.shtml [Accessed5/11/2011]NOAA, ENSO http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/teleconnections/enso/ [Accessed 5/10/2011]

NOAA, Rainfall Data, [Accessed 5/14/2011]

http://climvis.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/cag3/hr-display3.pl

NOAA, Sunspot Index, [Accessed 5/14/2011].

ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/SOLAR_DATA/SUNSPOT_NUMBERS/INTERNATIONAL/yearly/YEARLY

http://www.thegwpf.org/the-climate-record/1670-hal-lewis-my-resignation-from-the-american-physical-society.html

http://www.thegwpf.org/the-climate-record/1670-hal-lewis-my-resignation-from-the-american-physical-society.html

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/reprint/how_to_approach_the_science.html

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/we_have_been_conned.html

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/glacier_gate.html

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/climategate.html

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/data/correlation/amon.us.long.data

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/ghcnm/time-series/index.php?surface=land_ocean&region=90S.90N&month=2&beg_trend_year=1880&end_trend_year=2010&submitted=Submit



http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/SunspotCycle.shtml

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/teleconnections/enso/

http://climvis.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/cag3/hr-display3.pl




44

NOAA, Tides and Currents, Monthly tide data, [Accessed 5/14/2011]http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/station_retrieve.shtml?type=Historic+Tide+DataOerlemans, J., Science 308 675-677 (2005), ‘Extracting a climate signal from 169 glacierrecords’Quayle, R. G., Easterlin, D. R., Karl, T. R. and Hughes, P. Y., Bull. Amer. Met. Soc. 72(11)1718-1723 (1991), ‘Effects of recent thermometer changes in the cooperative station network’

REMSS, http://www.remss.com/msu/msu_data_description.html [Accessed 5/14/2011]

Rothman, L. S. et al, (30 authors), J. Quant. Spectrosc. Rad. Trans. 96 139-204 (2005), ‘TheHITRAN 2004 molecular spectroscopic database’

Royal Society, Climate change: a summary of the science, September 2010

Schreuder, H. Ten physics facts – setting the record straight [Accessed 5/14/2011]

http://climatechangedispatch.com/home/8931-ten-physics-facts-setting-the-record-straight

Seidel, D. J.; M. Free and J. Wang, J. Geophys Res. 110 D090102 1-13 (2005), ‘Diurnal cycle ofupper air temperature estimated from radiosondes’

Solomon, S., Plattner, G-K, Knutti, R. and Freidlingstein, P., Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 106(6)1704-1709 (2009) ‘Irreversible climate change due to carbon dioxide emissions’

Taylor, F. W., Elementary Climate Physics, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2006, chapter 7

Tsonis, A. A., An Introduction to Atmospheric Thermodynamics, 2nd edn., CambridgeUniversity Press, Cambridge, UK, 2007, p. 127.

Tyndall, J., Proc. Roy Inst. Jan 23 pp 200-206 (1863), ‘On radiation through the Earth'satmosphere’

Varadi, F., B. Runnegar, B. and Ghil, M., Astrophys. J., 562 620-630 (2003), ‘Successiverefinements in long term integrations of planetary orbits’

U. Hawaii, Sea level Center, http://uhslc.soest.hawaii.edu/ [Accessed 5/12/2011]

USGS, The San Andreas Fault, http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/earthq3/contents.html, [Accessed5/14/2011]

VIRGO, SOHO Satellite VIRO Radiometer Data [Accessed 5/11/2011]

http://www.pmodwrc.ch/pmod.php?topic=tsi/virgo/proj_space_virgo#VIRGO_Radiometry

Weart, S. R., Physics Today 50(1) 34-40 (1997), ‘The discovery of the risk of global warming’

Wyatt, M. G.; S. Kravtsoc & A. A. Tsonis, AMO and N. Hemisphere's climate variability(Climate Dynamics, to be published) [Accessed 5/14/2011]

https://pantherfile.uwm.edu/kravtsov/www/downloads/WKT_poster.pdf

Yu, L., J. Climate, 20(21) 5376-5390 (2007), ‘Global variations in oceanic evaporation (1958-2005): The role of the changing wind speed’

Yu, L., Jin, X. and Weller R. A., OAFlux Project Technical Report (OA-2008-01) Jan 2008,‘Multidecade Global Flux Datasets from the Objectively Analyzed Air-sea Fluxes (OAFlux)Project: Latent and Sensible Heat Fluxes, Ocean Evaporation, and Related SurfaceMeteorological Variables’ (Available at: http://oaflux.whoi.edu/publications.html )

http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/station_retrieve.shtml?type=Historic+Tide+Data

http://www.remss.com/msu/msu_data_description.html

http://climatechangedispatch.com/home/8931-ten-physics-facts-setting-the-record-straight

http://uhslc.soest.hawaii.edu/

http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/earthq3/contents.html

https://pantherfile.uwm.edu/kravtsov/www/downloads/WKT_poster.pdf

http://oaflux.whoi.edu/publications.html

Documents

THERE IS NO CARBON DIOXIDE INDUCED GLOBAL …api.ning.com/files/gcLuxwC6btVsAQQE*5VmD2bLq3WrZt39kaNjOxE0Z… · Climate Simulation and Radiative Forcing ... The last climate minimum