Tuesday, March 27, 2018

Human Caused Global Warming: Some scientific rebuttals

No empirical evidence in observational data

1…. that atmospheric CO2 is responsive to fossil fuel emissions


2…. that there exists an ECS parameter that determines temperature according to atmospheric CO2


3…. that there exists a TCRE parameter that determines temperature according to cumulative emissions


4…. a parody of the flaw in TCRE


5…. Conclusion: No empirical evidence to support the “human caused global warming” hypothesis.


A Third Brief to Climate Tutorial

I just found out, thanks to Francis Menton, that a third skeptical brief was submitted to Judge Alsup in reference to his tutorial.  The thrust apparently is to show that the temperature record does not support the claim that recent variability is anything out of the ordinary.

The article by Francis Menton is Klimate Kraziness: A California Judge Holds A “Tutorial” On Climate Science  posted at Manhatton Contrarian.

The third friend of the court brief  was by  The Concerned Household Electricity Consumers Council, which presented work of many scientists, most notably James Wallace III, Joseph D’Aleo, John Christie, and Craig Idso.  Menton’s explanation below from his article.

Not to downplay the work of my co-amici, but we are the one of the three groups that emphatically made the essential scientific point that the most credible data as to world temperatures, properly analyzed, preclude rejection of the null hypothesis that natural factors are the predominant if not only cause of the observed warming. As stated in our submission:

The conclusion of the work is that each of EPA’s “lines of evidence” has been invalidated by the best empirical evidence, and therefore the attribution of any observed climate change, including global warming, to rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations has not been established.

And, further on in our presentation:

[T]hese natural factor impacts fully explain the trends in all relevant temperature data sets over the last 50 or more years. This research, like Wallace (2016), found that rising atmospheric concentrations did not have a statistically significant impact on any of the (14) temperature data sets that were analyzed. Wallace 2017 concludes that, “at this point, there is no statistically valid proof that past increases in atmospheric CO2 concentrations have caused what have been officially reported as rising, or even record setting, temperatures.”


The post The Climate Story (Illustrated) provides a set of graphics making the same argument:  The temperature record does not support climate alarm.

Independently the prestigious Société de Calcul Mathématique (Society for Mathematical Calculation) has written a detailed 195-page White Paper that presente a blistering point-by-point critique of the key dogmas of global warming, starting with the temperature record.  See Bonn COP23 Briefing for Realists


Some crazy things are taking place in the lawsuit of the People of California against the Big Oil

OK, San Francisco's city hall and some other Northern Californian carefully selected left-wing nut jobs have boldly called themselves "the People of California" and sued six Big Oil companies to create a lawsuit "People of California vs BP p.l.c." with some extra words. Richard Lindzen, Will Happer, and Steve Koonin (a lukewarmer from the Obama administration) submitted some materials to the court and they're great. But look what Chevron officially wrote:

Chevron agreed with the latest scientific assessment from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC), which was released in 2013 and 2014, the oil company’s lawyer said. [...]
Holy crap, "Chevron agrees with the IPCC report". To make this story doubly comical, and to complete the reversal of the sides, some green activists denounced this support for the IPCC as a tobacco industry tactic. Well, I am not sure. How can someone "agree with the IPCC report"? It has some thousands of pages in total. Some of it is boring data, some of them are accurate, some of them are not, most of them can't be verified by an individual who hasn't spent years on the measurements themselves. But a big fraction – which is still some hundreds of pages – are creative interpretations and at least some 1/2 of those are just rubbish.

So every intelligent person – including co-authors of the IPCC report themselves – would surely still find a huge number of pages he or they would disagree with. In particular, every intelligent person who has looked into the topic knows that the IPCC report doesn't contain any evidence supporting the idea that Chevron should change its business because of some climate phenomena.

Can these assertions that "Chevron agrees with the IPCC assessment" help the good cause in any way? I don't believe it. Such a claim clearly contradicts what the actual scientists – such as Lindzen, Happer, and Koonin – say about the problem. Chevron is turning into a company of clowns. I think that their lawyer simply has to be an alarmist activist himself. Do you have an alternative explanation? Maybe Chevron wants to make its future profits from the green regulations and its friendship with the government bureaucrats instead of fossil fuels?

Why would a big oil company ever hire a climate alarmist as its lawyer? Have the alarmists reversed their divestment campaigns, bought most of the stocks, and guarantee the alarmist behavior of the company through the stockholders' meetings? There are so many crazy things going on here.

So what Lindzen, Happer, and Koonin wrote – and what Spencer wrote elsewhere (he pointed out that the climate models don't actually start with any "feedbacks" so the term "feedback" is just one possible approximate a posteriori description of the behavior of the models after you learned about the results, not something well-defined that enters the calculations at the beginning) – is very interesting but these actual scientific arguments make very little impact on the debate because the key events are still being decided by the green brain of Mr John Kelly, or the idiotic green lawyer at Chevron. For these people, it's enough to say "the debate is over" or "we agree with the whole IPCC report" and for many others, it's an order to end any debate or doubt and continue in the unlimited hysteria.

Sadly, if Trump fails to fix the underlying cause of this mess – the corruption in this scientific discipline – he will be tilting at the windmills. You can't really cure a disease by addressing the symptoms only.

It's ironic but now, under the Trump presidency, we may see how the alarmist climate science community was created. It was created by the likes of General Kelly and the Chevron lawyer. Such people with no understanding of the science have made arbitrary oversimplified and almost entirely untrue yet officially "authoritative" statements – and they defined constraints that the buildup of the climatological community had to adapt to. So a soldier told you "it's a matter of patriotism to end the debate and fight climate change" or an idiotic lawyer or administrator turned out to be influential and said that it was right to "agree with the whole IPCC report". So everyone was "obliged" to agree with it – who would want to be unpatriotic or contradict the main lawyer in your organization? – and only alarmists were hired.

This has nothing to do with science and it's no surprise that the field is mess. Climatology is special because it's so "interesting" for politicians, lawyers, and even generals. No general or lawyer has ever pushed scientists to agree or disagree with the Higgs boson because the army and lawyers don't know what the Higgs boson is and how to make it interesting for their well-being. But climate change is an entirely different issue.


Alarmism Takes A Big Hit…Flood Of New Scientific Findings Show Nothing Unusual Happening Climatically

Two days ago Kenneth presented an impressive flurry of scientific, peer-reviewed charts published over the past 15 months (46 alone in 2018). Much to the surprise of alarmist scientists, global warming is weak at best.

Lack of warming a global phenomenon
According to Kenneth, these new papers show that “nothing climatically unusual is happening”. For example a publication by Polovodova Asteman et al shows that continental Europe’s temperatures are lower today than they were on other occasions over the past 2000 years:

Today’s warming doesn’t stand out

The authors write that the contemporary warming of the 20th century “does not stand out in the 2500-year perspective” and is “of the same magnitude as the Roman Warm Period and the Medieval Climate Anomaly.”

A number of strident global warming scientists prefer to dismiss the significance of Europe’s temperature record, claiming that it is local in nature and does not tell us what is really happening globally. However, other papers fully contradict this. For example, a paper by Wündsch et al., 2018 shows us that the warming today in South Africa also is nothing unusual.

It’s global, stupid

Temperature reconstructions show the same is true in Southeast Australia, according to  McGowan et al., 2018, Northern Alaska (Hanna et al., 2018), the Tibetan Plateau (Li et al., 2018), South Korea (Song et al., 2018), Antarctica (Mikis, 2018), to cite just a few among dozens of others.

“Warming holes” surprise scientists

Meanwhile new findings by Partridge et al., 2018 show in fact that other regions have cooled. The eastern US “annual maximum and minimum temperatures decreased by 0.46°C and 0.83°C respectively.”
The surprising winter cooling has led scientists to dub the eastern US a “warming hole”, where scientists blame oceanic cycles for the unexpected cooling.

Greenland within normal, cooler than 1930s

Greenland often gets cited by alarmists as a climate canary in a coal mine due to its massive ice sheets and their potential to cause dramatic sea level rise should they melt. But a brand new study by Mikkelsen et al., 2018 shows that surface temperatures going back over 150 years are lower than they were in the 1930s!

Looking at the above Greenland surface temperature chart, we see that the mercury plummeted some 5°C from 1930s to the 1980s before thankfully rebounding in the 1990s and 2000s. Here as well there exist no signs for warming alarm.

Greenland cooling again since 2000

Furthermore, much to the surprise of global warming scientists, Greenland temperatures have again been falling since 2000. Westergaard-Nielsen et al., 2018 examined the most recent and detailed trends based on MODIS (2001–2015) and concluded that if there is any general trend for Greenland it is “mostly cooling”.

South Pole cooling, getting icier

At the other end of the planet at the South Pole, new findings by Cerrone and Fusco, 2018 confirm the large increase in the southern hemisphere sea ice and suggest it “arises from the impact of climate modes and their long-term trends”.

They write that the results indicate a progressive cooling has affected the year-to-year climate of the sub-Antarctic since the 1990s and that the SIC [sea ice concentration] shows upward annual, spring, and summer trends.

SOURCE (See the original for links, graphics etc.)

Philippines to hold inquiry on global warming's impact on human rights

The Commission on Human Rights (CHR) will hold its first public hearing this week on a landmark complaint alleging that several multinational oil and mining firms have violated the human rights of Filipinos by causing global warming that has led to natural disasters.

Among those named in the complaint are international oil giants Chevron and BP, as well as miner Tio Tinto, according to petitioner Greenpeace.

Can Philippine storm survivors hold companies to account for climate damage?

The CHR told ANC on Sunday that while the agency cannot impose penalties, the hearings will set as a precedent towards fighting climate change.

"We have sent the message that we are here not to establish any financial liability. We are here to establish whether or not human activity, so-called anthropogenic processes are involved in bringing about climate change," said CHR Commissioner Roberto Cadiz.

The first of the series of hearings will be held from March 27th to 28th.




Preserving the graphics:  Most graphics on this site are hotlinked from elsewhere.  But hotlinked graphics sometimes have only a short life -- as little as a week in some cases.  After that they no longer come up.  From January 2011 on, therefore, I have posted a monthly copy of everything on this blog to a separate site where I can host text and graphics together -- which should make the graphics available even if they are no longer coming up on this site.  See  here or here


No comments: