Evidence-Based Climate Science. Data Opposing CO2 Emissions as the Primary Source of Global Warming

397 Pages·2016·103.894 MB·English

by  Don Easterbrook

EVIDENCE-BASED
CLIMATE SCIENCE
DATA OPPOSING CO EMISSIONS AS THE PRIMARY
2
SOURCE OF GLOBAL WARMING
SECOND EDITION
Edited by
D J. E
ON ASTERBROOK
AMSTERDAMlBOSTONl HEIDELBERG l LONDON lNEWYORK lOXFORD
PARIS lSANDIEGO lSANFRANCISCOlSINGAPORE lSYDNEY lTOKYO
Elsevier
Radarweg29,POBox211,1000AEAmsterdam,Netherlands
TheBoulevard,LangfordLane,Kidlington,OxfordOX51GB,UnitedKingdom
50HampshireStreet,5thFloor,Cambridge,MA02139,UnitedStates
Copyright©2016,2011ElsevierInc.Allrightsreserved.
Nopartofthispublicationmaybereproducedortransmittedinanyformorbyanymeans,electronicormechanical,
includingphotocopying,recording,oranyinformationstorageandretrievalsystem,withoutpermissioninwritingfrom
thepublisher.Detailsonhowtoseekpermission,furtherinformationaboutthePublisher’spermissionspoliciesandour
arrangementswithorganizationssuchastheCopyrightClearanceCenterandtheCopyrightLicensingAgency,canbe
foundatourwebsite:www.elsevier.com/permissions.
ThisbookandtheindividualcontributionscontainedinitareprotectedundercopyrightbythePublisher(otherthanas
maybenotedherein).
Notices
Knowledgeandbestpracticeinthisfieldareconstantlychanging.Asnewresearchandexperiencebroadenour
understanding,changesinresearchmethods,professionalpractices,ormedicaltreatmentmaybecomenecessary.
Practitionersandresearchersmustalwaysrelyontheirownexperienceandknowledgeinevaluatingandusingany
information,methods,compounds,orexperimentsdescribedherein.Inusingsuchinformationormethodstheyshouldbe
mindfuloftheirownsafetyandthesafetyofothers,includingpartiesforwhomtheyhaveaprofessionalresponsibility.
Tothefullestextentofthelaw,neitherthePublishernortheauthors,contributors,oreditors,assumeanyliabilityforany
injuryand/ordamagetopersonsorpropertyasamatterofproductsliability,negligenceorotherwise,orfromanyuseor
operationofanymethods,products,instructions,orideascontainedinthematerialherein.
LibraryofCongressCataloging-in-PublicationData
AcatalogrecordforthisbookisavailablefromtheLibraryofCongress
BritishLibraryCataloguing-in-PublicationData
AcataloguerecordforthisbookisavailablefromtheBritishLibrary
ISBN:978-0-12-804588-6
ForinformationonallElsevierpublications
visitourwebsiteathttps://www.elsevier.com/
Publisher:CandiceJanco
AcquisitionEditor:LouisaHutchins
EditorialProjectManager:EmilyThomson
ProductionProjectManager:MariaBernard
Designer:MariaInesCruz
TypesetbyTNQBooksandJournals
List of Contributors
J.W.Abbot The ClimateModelling Laboratory,NoosaHeads,QLD, Australia;InstituteofPublicAffairs,Melbourne,
VIC,Australia
H.I.Abdussamatov PulkovoObservatory ofthe RAS,St.Petersburg,Russia
D.Archibald RhaetianManagement,CityBeach,WA,Australia
ChristopherMoncktonofBenchley ScienceandPublicPolicyInstitute, Washington,DC,United States
J.S.D’Aleo American MeteorologicalSociety,Hudson,NH,UnitedStates
D.J.Easterbrook WesternWashington University,Bellingham,WA,UnitedStates
D.M.W.Evans ScienceSpeak,Perth,Australia
E.L.Fix Avionics Fix,Beavercreek,OH,UnitedStates
T.Heller Doctors forDisasterPreparedness
M.Khandekar Expert ReviewerIPCC2007Climate ChangeDocuments,Toronto, ON,Canada
S.Lu¨ning IndependentResearcher,Lisbon,Portugal
J.J.Marohasy The ClimateModellingLaboratory,NoosaHeads,QLD,Australia;InstituteofPublicAffairs,Melbourne,
VIC,Australia
P.Moore EcosenseEnvironmental Inc.,Vancouver,BC,Canada;FrontierCentreforPublicPolicy
N.-A.Mo¨rner Paleogeophysics&Geodynamics, Saltsjo¨baden,Sweden
F.Vahrenholt GermanWildlifeFoundation, Hamburg,Germany
xi
Preface
The question of “global warming” as a result of rising CO has raised contentious issues. Arguments for this
2
assertioninIntergovernmentalPanelonClimateChange(IPCC)reportsdependheavilyoncomputerclimatemodels
andso-called“consensusamongscientists”claims,whereasskepticsofthiscontentiondependonapplicationofthe
scientificmethodtoactualmeasureddata.
Plottingoftheaverageof102IPCCclimatemodelsrunsagainstmeasuredtemperaturesoverthesametimeperiod
(Fig.1,Spencer,2015;Christy,2016)showsthatcomputermodelshavefailedmiserably,overestimatingtemperatures
bylargeamounts.
InhisFebruary2,2016,testimonybeforetheHouseCommitteeonScience,Space,andTechnology,Dr.JohnChristy
pointedout:
“Becausethisresultchallengesthecurrenttheoryofgreenhousewarminginrelativelystraightforwardfashion,therehavebeenseveral
well-fundedattacksonthoseofuswhobuildandusesuchdatasetsandonthedatasetsthemselves.Asaclimatescientist,I’vefound
myself,alongwithfellowlike-mindedcolleagues,tossedintoaworldmorecloselyassociatedwithcharacterassassinationandmisdirec-
tion, found in Washington politics, for example, rather than objective dispassionate discourse commonly assumed for the scientific
endeavor.Investigationsofusbycongressandthemediaarespurredbytheideathatanyonewhodisagreeswiththeclimateestablish-
ment’sviewofdangerousclimatechangemustbeonthepayrollofscurrilousorganizationsorotherwisementallydeficient.Alsothrust
intothismilieuispromotionalmaterial,i.e.,propaganda,attemptingtodiscreditthesedata(andresearchers)withclaimsthatamountto
nothing.”“Itisclearthatclimatemodelsfallshortonsomeverybasicissuesofclimatevariablility,beingunabletoreproduce‘what’has
happenedregardingglobaltemperature,andthereforenotknowing‘why’anyofithappened.”
Christy(2016)commentson“thefailureofthescientificcommunitytoobjectivelyapproachthestudyofclimateandclimatechange.”
“Climatescienceisamurkysciencewithlargeuncertaintiesonmanycriticalcomponentssuchasclouddistributionsandsurfaceheatex-
changes.”“Oursciencehasalsoseenthemovetoward‘consensus’sciencewhere‘agreement’betweenpeopleandgroupsiselevatedabove
determined,objectiveinvestigation.Thesadprogressionofeventsherehasevenledtocongressionalinvestigationsdesignedtosilence
(withsomesuccess)thosewhosevoices,includingmyown,havechallengedthepolitically-correctviewsonclimate.”“Whenacontrarian
proposalissubmittedthatseekstodiscoverotherpossibleexplanationsbesidesgreenhousegasesforthesmallchangeswenowsee,orone
thatseekstorigorouslyandobjectivelyinvestigateclimatemodeloutput,thereisvirtuallynochanceforfunding.”“Theterm‘consensus
science’willoftenbeappealedtoregardingargumentsaboutclimatechangetobolsteranassertion.Thisisaformof‘argumentfromau-
thority.’Consensus,however,isapoliticalnotion,notascientificnotion.”“Wedonothavelaboratorymethodsoftestingourhypothesesas
manyothersciencesdo.Asaresultwhatpassesforscienceincludes,opinion,argumentsefromeauthority,dramaticpressreleases,and
fuzzynotionsofconsensusgeneratedbypreselectedgroups.Thisisnotscience.”
FIGURE1
1.0 Averageof102computermodelruns
Global Bulk Atmospheric Temperature (Surface-50K ft) plottedagainstobservedtemperaturesfromsatellites
andweather balloons. Thecomputermodelsbadly
0.8 overestimateglobaltemperatures(Christy,2016).
Average of 102 IPCC CMIP-5
Climate Model runs
0.6
°C 0.4
0.2
Observations
Circles - Avg 4 Balloon datasets
0.0 Squares- Avg 3 Satellite datasets
The linear trend (based on 1979-2015 only) of all time JR Christy. Univ. Alabamo in Huntsville
series intersects at zero at 1979 Model output: KNMI Climate Explorer
-0.2
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025
xiii
xiv
PREFACE
Intheend,dataspeaksfarlouderthanrhetoricor“consensus.”Thatistheunderlyingconceptforthisbook,which
bringstogetherfactualdataonmostofthetopicsrelatedtoglobalclimatedhencethetitle“Evidence-basedClimate
Science.”Thedataspeaksforitself.“Dogmaisanimpedimenttothefreeexerciseofthought.Itparalysestheintel-
ligence.Conclusionsbaseduponpreconceivedideasarevalueless.Itisonlytheopenmindthatreallythinks(Patricia
Wentworth,1949).”
C H A P T E R
1
Climate Perspectives
D.J. Easterbrook
WesternWashington University,Bellingham, WA, United States
O U T L I N E
1. Introduction 3 6. Hottest-Year-Ever Claims 6
2. The “97%” Myth 3 7. Data Corruption 7
3. The ScientificMethod Versus Dogma 4 8. The PastIsthe Key tothe Future 7
4. Comparison ofComputer Modelingof Climate References 8
With Measured Temperatures 5
5. No Global Warming for 18 Years and 8 Months 5
1. INTRODUCTION
TheclimaticchangesthattheEarthhasexperiencedinthepastseveraldecadeshaveledtoanintenseinterestin
their cause, with contentions by the United Nations (UN) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC),
activists, politicians, some climate scientists, and virtually all of the news media that catastrophic global warming
and sea level rise due to increased atmospheric CO will occur by the end of this century or before. However,
2
many scientists point to data strongly suggesting that climate changes are a result of natural cycles, which have
beenoccurringforthousandsofyears.Unfortunately,manynonscientistactivistsandthenewsmediahaveentered
thedebateand their arguments have taken onpolitical aspects with little or noscientific basis.
Sowhatisthephysicalevidenceforthecauseofglobalwarmingandcooling?ProponentsofCO -causedwarming
2
contendthatthecoincidenceofglobalwarmingsince1978withrisingCO meansthatCO isthecauseofthewarm-
2 2
ing,andthat97%ofallscientistsagreethatthiswillresultincatastrophiceventsbeforetheendofthecentury.How-
ever,thisisnotproofofanythingdjustbecausetwothingshappencoincidentlydoesnotprovethatoneisthecause
of the other. After 1945, CO emissions soared for the next 30years, but the climate cooled, rather than warmed,
2
showing a total lack of correlation between CO and climate. Then, in 1977, temperatures switched abruptly from
2
cool to warmandthe climate began to warmwith no change in the rate of increase ofCO
2.
2. THE “97%” MYTH
Every day, the news media, activists, politicians, and some climate scientists proclaim that 97% of all scientists
agree that atmospheric CO causes global warming and rising CO will lead to global catastrophes. This claim
2 2
has been echoed by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), National Oceanic and Atmo-
sphericAdministration(NOAA),variousscientificorganizations,governments,PresidentObama,SecretaryofState
Evidence-BasedClimateScience,SecondEdition
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-804588-6.00001-X 3 Copyright©2016ElsevierInc.Allrightsreserved.
4
1. CLIMATEPERSPECTIVES
JohnKerry,andmanyothers.Wheredidthe97%numbercomefromdwastheresomeworldwidesurveyofallsci-
entists?The97%numberisbasedontwopublicationsdthefirstbyDoranandZimmerman(2009)andalateroneby
Cooket al. (2013).
The Doran and Zimmerman paper was a University of Illinois master’s thesis by Maggie Zimmeran and her
thesis advisor, Peter Doran, who claimed that “97% of climate scientists agree” that global warming is caused by
rising CO . They sent an Internet survey to 10,257 people working at universities and government agencies and
2
received3146replies.Ofthese,only5%identifiedthemselvesas“climatescientists.”Onlytwoquestionswereasked:
(1) “When compared with pre-1800 levels, do you think that global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or
remain relatively constant?” and (2) “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing
mean global temperature?” Of the 3146 replies, Doran and Zimmerman arbitrarily selected 79 responses, of
whom 77 replied “yes.” They divided 77 by 79 to get 97%, which was then elevated to “97% of all scientists” by
variousproponents of CO .The propernumbershould have been 77 divided by 3146, which equals 2%.
2
The Cook et al. (2013) paper was based on counting abstracts of climate papers. The authors contended that
“Among [4014] abstracts expressing a position of AGW [Anthropogenic Global Warming], 97% endorsed the
consensuspositionhumansarecausingglobalwarming.”However,Legatesetal.(2013)pointoutthat“theauthor’s
own analysis shows that only 0.5% of all 11,944 abstracts, and 1.6% of the 4014 abstracts expressing a position,
endorsed anthropogenic warming as they haddefined it.”
Thus, thecontention that “97% of allscientistsagreethatglobalwarming iscaused by CO ” issimply nottrue,
2
andthosewhocontinuetoassertthisareeitheruniformedorperpetuatingafalsestatement.Legatesetal.(2013)and
BastandSpencer(2014)conclude“The97.1%consensusclaimedbyCooketal.(2013)turnsoutuponinspectionto
benot97.1%but0.3%.Theirclaimof97.1%consensus,therefore,isarguablyoneofthegreatestitemsofmisinfor-
mationin history.”
Ontheotherhand,thefollowingstatementhasbeensignedby31,478Americanscientists,9021withPhDs,aspart
of theGlobal Warming PetitionProject.All signers must havea degreein a scientificfield.
Thereisnoconvincingscientificevidencethathumanreleaseofcarbondioxide,methane,orothergreenhousegasesiscausingorwill,
intheforeseeablefuture,causecatastrophicheatingoftheEarth’satmosphereanddisruptionoftheEarth’sclimate.
Anotherrelevantquestionhereiswhetherornoteveniftherewasaconsensus,woulditproveanythingatall.As
Feynman has pointed out, “The number of scientists who believe something is irrelevant to the validity of a
concept.” (“Consensus” means nothing.) As Galileo and other scientists have shown, it only takes one to prove a
hypothesis wrong.
3. THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD VERSUS DOGMA
Thescientificmethodisdefinedas“amethodorprocedurethathascharacterizednaturalsciencesincetheseven-
teenth century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing,
and modification of hypotheses.” Richard Feynman, Noble Prize winner in physics, has spoken and written
eloquently about the methodology:
Scienceisamethodoffindingthingsoutbyobservation,experimentation,andtesting,whichistheultimatejudgeofthetruthofa
concept.Ingeneral,welookforanewlawbythefollowingprocess:Firstweguessit;thenwecomputetheconsequencesoftheguess
toseewhatwouldbeimpliedifthislawthatweguessedisright;thenwecomparetheresultofthecomputationtonature,withexperiment
orexperience,compareitdirectlywithobservation,toseeifitworks.Ifitdisagreeswithexperiment,itiswrong.Inthatsimplestatementis
thekeytoscience.Itdoesnotmakeanydifferencehowbeautifulyourguessis,itdoesnotmakeanydifferencehowsmartyouare,who
madetheguess,orwhathisnameisdifitdisagreeswithexperiment,itiswrong.
RichardFeynman
If any exception to a concept can be proven by observation or experimentation, the concept is wrong. After
EinsteinpublishedhisTheoryofRelativity,agroupof100physicistswasformedtoattempttoprovethatthetheory
was wrong.When asked about this, Einstein replied, I don’t know why they need 100, it only takes one.
Pro-CO activistshaveattemptedtoridiculethosewhoareskepticalofCO -causedglobalwarming.However,as
2 2
Einstein,Feynman,andothershavepointedout,allscientistsareskepticsditisimportanttodoubtinordertotest
conceptsand look in new directions. Anyone who is nota skeptic isnot a scientist.
I. CLIMATICPERSPECTIVES
5
5. NOGLOBALWARMINGFOR18YEARSAND8MONTHS
The arguments for CO -caused global warming are not based on the scientific method, but on unsupported
2
assertionsandcomputermodeling(whichhasproventobehighlyinaccurate).Ahigh-levelUNIPCCofficial,com-
mentingonscientificproofofhypotheses,stated:“Proofisformathematicaltheoremsandalcoholicbeverages.It’s
notforscience.Scienceisallabout“credibletheories”and“bestexplanations.” Youdon’tneed“proof”whenyou
have“credibletheories.”Inotherwords,thescientificmethod,practicedfor500years,isnowpasse´ andallthatis
neededisenoughfollowerstosupportatheory.Mostpro-CO assertionsarethereforedogmas,principleslaiddown
2
by anauthority asincontrovertibly true and whichmay not bechallenged by data, changed, ordiscarded.
4. COMPARISON OF COMPUTER MODELING OF CLIMATE
WITH MEASURED TEMPERATURES
BecauseoftheabsenceofanyphysicalevidencethatCO causesglobalwarming,themainargumentforCO as
2 2
thecauseofwarmingrestslargelyoncomputermodeling.Thus,thequestionbecomes,howgoodarethecomputer
modelsinpredictingclimate?WecantestthisbycomparingglobalwarmingpredictedbytheIPCCmodelsagainst
actualclimatechangeoverthepasttwodecades.Fig.1.1showsacomparisonofpredictedtemperaturemadeby90
computer models with measured temperatures. The climate models failed miserably and didn’t come anywhere
near the temperaturesthat werelater measured.
5. NO GLOBAL WARMING FOR 18 YEARS AND 8 MONTHS
A critical test of assertions that CO causes global warming is that through December 2015, there has been no
2
global warmingat all(Fig. 1.2)even thoughCO has continuedto rise.
2
FIGURE 1.1 Comparison of computer model predictions and satellite and surface measurements. Computer climate models have failed
dismallytopredicttemperaturechanges. ModifiedfromSpencer(2015),http://www.drroyspencer.com.
I. CLIMATICPERSPECTIVES
6
1. CLIMATEPERSPECTIVES
FIGURE1.2 RemoteSensingSystems(RSS)satellitetemperaturemeasurementsprovethattherehasbeennoglobalwarmingatallfor18years
and8months(Monckton,2015,https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/12/04/the-robust-pause-resists-a-robust-el-nio-still-no-global-warming-at-
all-for-18-years-9-months/).
6. HOTTEST-YEAR-EVER CLAIMS
NASAandNOAAhavemaderepeatedclaimsthatglobaltemperaturesforseveralyearshavebeen“thehottest
everrecorded.”However,theseassertionsarebasedonbadlycorruptedsurfacedatathatiscontradictedbyuncor-
rupted University ofAlabamaat Huntsville and Remote Sensing Systems satellite data (Fig. 1.3).
FIGURE1.3 UniversityofAlabamaatHuntsville(UAH)andRemoteSensingSystems(RSS)satellitetemperaturedatacontradictingclaims
that2014and2015werethe“hottestyearsever.”Morethanadozentemperaturepeaksarehigherthanthe2014temperature.
I. CLIMATICPERSPECTIVES
7
8. THEPASTISTHEKEYTOTHEFUTURE
FIGURE1.4 TemperaturedatacorruptionbyNOAA.Measuredtemperaturesareshowninblue,corruptedNOAAtemperaturesareshownin
red.NotethatNOAAdecreasedmeasuredtemperaturesinthe1930sand1940sbyafulldegreebutmadenochangestotemperaturesfromabout
1990onward,thuschangingacoolingtrendintoawarmingtrend(Heller,2001,https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/).
7. DATA CORRUPTION
BlatanttemperaturedatacorruptionbyNOAAandNASAisdiscussedinChapter2ofthisvolume.Oneexample
of thisis shown in Fig. 1.4.
8. THE PAST IS THE KEY TO THE FUTURE
IfCO isincapableofexplainingglobalwarming,whatnaturalpossibilitiesexist?Avastamountofphysicalev-
2
idence of climate changeover the past centuries and millennia has been gathered by scientists. Significant climate
changes have clearly been going on for many thousands of years, long before the recent rise in atmospheric CO .
2
In order to understand modern climate changes, we need to look at the past history of climate changes. The past
is the key to the futuredto know where we are headed in the future, we need to know where we have been in
the past. This volume is intended to document past climate changes and present physical evidence for possible
causes. It includes data related to the causes of global climate change by experts in meteorology, geology, atmo-
spheric physics, solar physics, geophysics,climatology, andcomputer modeling.
Timeandnaturewillbethefinaljudgeofthecauseofglobalwarming.Thenextdecadeshouldtellustheanswer.
(cid:1)
IfCO isthecauseofglobalwarmingandthecomputermodelsarecorrect,thenwarmingof2 Fsince2000should
2
occurby2040.Iftheclimatecontinuestocool,thenthecomputermodelsmustbeconsideredinvalid,andwemust
looktoothercauses.AsweentertheGrandSolarMinimumandcoolingdeepensinthenextdecade,asitdidin1790
and1645,than a strongcase can bemade for solar variationas the main causeof climate change.
The reader is invited to toss aside all of the political rhetoric that has been introduced into the global warming
debate,focusonthescientificevidencepresentedinthechaptersinthisvolume,anddrawhisorherownconclu-
sions.Dogmaisanimpedimenttothefreeexerciseofthoughtditparalysestheintelligent.Conclusionsbasedupon
preconceived ideas arevaluelessdit is only the open mind that reallythinks.
I. CLIMATICPERSPECTIVES