With all this discussion about “heated rhetoric”, I wanted to return to a discussion involving both heat and rhetoric – that covering Anthropogenic (Man-Caused) Global Warming (AGW). To bring everyone up to speed: California is poised to implement the country’s only version of Cap&Trade based on a scientific fraud, with that implementation occurring at the hands of one of the most draconian, punitive, power-mongering bureaucracies known to man.
The proponents of the AGW state that there is “scientific consensus” and little disagreement with their conclusions. It has been my pleasure to meet some of the best scientists in this country, and they have the following message: THERE IS NO CONSENSUS ON MAN-MADE GLOBAL WARMING. I had the chance to hear Dr. S. Fred Singer speak during a presentation by the Lynceans. There were AWG proponents in the audience. There was debate. There was no consensus. Yet, it was a very polite and civilized exchange of data and interpretations.
Singer is the Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia and the Chairman of the NIPCC (Non-governmental International Panel on Climate Change). His NIPCC group, among other activities, analyzes the data utilized by the IPCC (the United Nation’s International Panel on Climate Change. The IPCC says these data demonstrate that man is causing global warming. However, using the same material, the NPICC asserts that 20th century global warming was the result of natural causes. Singer theory is that the bulk of climate change is the result of natural causes.
“The IPCC used adjustable parameters,” noted Singer. “The analysis is simply an exercise in curve-filling. The NIPCC emphasizes a broad collection of real data.” To sum-up for the non-scientist:
• IPCC relies on computer models, in which many different parameters can be selected at the discretion of the individual scientist.
• NIPCC uses almost exclusively real data actually attained in the real world.
Nothing beats using real data to do real science!
Below is a graph that displays the difference between the models and the hard data. the context is the prediction by the climate models (shown in red) that there should be a “hot spot” at upper altitudes in the tropical zone – an altitude where the temperature would increase much faster than it does on the surface. This hot spot would then be a “fingerprint” of human-caused greenhouse gas warming. The problem is that the observations (blue and green) do not find such a hot spot, when data taken over several decades are compiled. The warming trend is observed trend actually decreases with increasing height in the atmosphere, and there is actual cooling at some altitudes.
“When the IPCC report was released, and it became apparent the observations of actual data did not agree with the model, they fudged,” Singer said. “The IPCC’s Executive Summary simply said there was some trouble with the tropical zone But the tropical zone is important because of its large area and the huge amount of energy it receives from the sun.
Singer and his team then prepared a report in March 2008: Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate. The NIPCC took a look at the collected data and came to the conclusion that natural causes impacted the climate most significantly. The IPCC would have none of that! Supporters of strong anthropogenic global warming prepared a counter-report, based on even more computer model information (the core of that analysis is presented graphically below). The green curve is typical of the actual data obtained from balloons over several decades, and the thick black curve is an average of the model predictions.
Singer explained that the IPCC did its best to make it seem like the computer models used actually mirrored the data collected from balloons and satellites. “The trends from the re-analysis are spurious,” noted Singer.
Singer then turned to a display of the actual satellite-measured global average temperature.
Singer discussed a better way to analyze the data: The degree change per decade over a 30-plus period of time in the Middle and Lower Troposphere – which shows no truly significant change, especially in the last few years.
Singer covered one of the major problems with the IPCC computer models: chaos. “The models are non-liner differential equations, which by their nature are highly chaotic. The trend line calculated during one run can be ten times of another. Models produce results that are highly variable.” This graphic shows how variable the model results can be:
How many runs does a computer model need to complete before it stops being so variable? To examine this, he used 1000 years of temperature data, dividing it into 25 chunks of 40 years each and using an “unforced model.” Singer found fairly steady results after a minimum of about 10 runs.
How many runs do the IPCC model results rely on? “Running ten models would be very expensive; about half the 22 data points the IPCC used were based on 1-2 runs, and the most runs on a model would be about five. Furthermore, because the IPCC is international, it had to use data from all models submitted – not necessarily the just best ones.”
“Nature changes climate all the time; the time-scale is what differs,” described Singer. “Over millions of years, it is plate tectonics; over hundreds-of-thousands of years, it is changes in the Earth’s orbit; over decades, it is solar activity.”
Singer points to stalagmite records in Oman as just one of the many proofs that the climate is influenced the most by solar activity. The cave readings show Carbon-14 levels (a proxy for solar activity) is directly proportional to Oxygen-18 levels (a recognized proxy for temperature). When the sun is more active, the Earth is warmer. This same fluctuation is also observed on other planets.
What can be done about climate change? Lorraine Yapps Cohen sums up Singer’s thoughts in her piece:
Breaking from protocol with a few economic and political remarks, Singer announced that climate change is a non-problem. Regarding politicians holding climate change as a social issue, Singer lamented that they’re destroying the economy.
“The best solution is to do nothing,” he said, adding an opinion that “it takes real courage for politicians to do nothing.” After all, politicians must think we elect them to do something, even if that something does nothing, costs dearly, or, at the worst, ruins the nation.”
Dr. Singer’s authoritative grasp of climate science was fully evident. During and after the talk, an attendee from the Scripps Institute of Oceanography argued that Singer was ignoring the basic temperature trends. He was not; rather Singer was dissecting the trend data to examine what was happening at higher altitudes in the Tropical Zone. Dr. Singer simply replied “That’s interesting” and was seen later giving the SIO gentleman a consultation.