The Heartland Institute’s Fourth International Conference on Climate Change will be held in Chicago, Illinois on May 16-18, 2010 at the Chicago Marriott Magnificent Mile Hotel, 540 North Michigan Avenue, Chicago. It will call attention to new scientific research on the causes and consequences of climate change, and to economic analyses of the cost and effectiveness of proposals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Donations: We have been asked if we accept donations – we assure you most willingly! Please make your check out to SEPP and mail to 1600 S Eads St., # 712-S, Arlington, VA 22202
Quote of the Week
“One of the surprising privileges of intellectuals is that they are free to be scandalously asinine without harming their reputation.”
~ Eric Hoffer as quoted by Thomas Sowell in his book “Intellectuals and Society”
THIS WEEK:
Last week’s TWTW contained Fred Singer’s science editorial on the report from the UK House of Commons Select Committee investigating ClimateGate. Fred termed the report a “whitewash.” Fred’s editorial was also carried on “Watts Up With That” blog by Anthony Watts. Richard S. Courtney, who generally agrees with Fred’s views, took exception to the term “whitewash” and posted comments on the blog. In a paper published by SPPI, Richard Courtney more fully develops his views.
If we understand his comments correctly, the Committee had no choice but to conclude its investigation as it did. The methodology used by the Committee was the type used by a court of law with the rules of evidence used by courts. These rules of evidence include weighing the credibility of opinions expressed. Greater credibility may be given to those in positions of authority than those who are not in such positions of authority.
Of course, this is contrary to the rules of evidence in physical science whereby credibility comes from the rigors of observations of the physical world. Authority be hanged. If the above interpretation is correct, then those litigating against the EPAmust recognize this difference. Fortunately, in ruling that carbon dioxide is a pollutant, the Supreme Court called for a scientific determination that carbon dioxide endangers human health and welfare, not a legal one.
A robust discussion on this issue may be appropriate.
This week two well known skeptics of the claim humans are the major cause of global warming released separate findings that many alarmists will no doubt declare supports human- caused global warming. On his web site, Roy Spencer reported that March 2010 temperatures measured by satellites were well above the 32-year average. This continues the atmospheric warming trend that started in the fall. William Gray, the founder of modern hurricane forecasting, with his colleague Philip J. Klotzbach released their predictions of a stronger than normal hurricane season in 2010. [For Spencer see http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-globaltemperatures]
Alarmists will immediately seize upon both reports as supporting their cause which they do not. As both these researchers, and others, explain, such changes are likely natural, internal to the earth’s climate system, and not due to human influences. By promptly publishing their findings, Spencer, Klotzbach and Gray exhibit the integrity of reporting scientific results so essential for the advancement of science.
In other news, it appears that the alternative- energy edicts passed by California when unemployment was less than 5% and government coffers were full may be too expensive now that unemployment is 12.5% and government coffers are empty. Of course, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) continues to advocate “green jobs.” Affordable, reliable electricity greatly contributed to prosperity and welfare of this country. Yet many government officials continue to insist that more expensive, unreliable electricity is the key to future prosperity.
It appears that other countries such as Australia and New Zealand are also questioning the wisdom of imposing cap-and-trade or similar measures. Yet the UN alarmists continue to meet in planning for the next big offensive.
Casting aside any scientific or legal restraint, US EPA continues its march to control the US economy, more to follow in the next TWTW.
IPCC Latest Assessment Report (AR4): As discussed in the past few TWTWs, the IPCC claimed that it was less than 10% probable that the recent warming was caused by natural changes and less than 5% probable the warming was cause by changes internal to the earth’s climate system. Calculations from the IPCC report show the IPCC models project increases in greenhouse gases are about 25 times more powerful in causing warming than all natural causes. [Please note that the analysis ignored aerosols which are poorly understood.] As expressed in last week’s TWTW, greenhouse gases cannot begin to explain the extensive warm period known as the Holocene Climate Optimum about 5000 to 8000 years ago when it was about 2-3 degrees C warmer than today.
In the Paleoclimate section of AR4, IPCC admits the Holocene Climate Optimum existed but declares it was not global. According to the IPCC the Holocene Climate Optimum did not exist in the tropical Pacific and Indian Oceans – their models show a prolonged cooling in this area.
Here the logic becomes breathtaking. The El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) influences the temperatures of the tropical Pacific and Indian Oceans. During the Holocene Climate Optimum, ENSO was less pronounced than today, and was largely in the cool La Niña phase. There is some evidence that when, say Europe, is warm, the ENSO is in a cool La Niña phase and the reverse. Therefore, the logic goes, during the Holocene Climate Optimum when the northern part of the Northern Hemisphere was very warm, the tropical Pacific and Indian Oceans were about 0.5 to 2 degrees C colder than today because ENSO was in the cool La Niña phase. Thus, according to the IPCC, the warming was not global and should be discounted.
Needless to say, the physical evidence presented by the IPCC is less than compelling – scanty at best. But the logic is staggering for two reasons. One, the IPCC rejects the hypothesis that a warm El Niño phase of the ENSO (that may be associated with the Pacific Decadal Oscillation) could be a cause of the recent warming. And, two, satellite measurements demonstrate the recent warming is not uniformly global but mainly concentrated in the upper latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere.
Logic and physical evidence challenge the IPCC models and its conclusions.
[Recent studies, including one by McLean, de Freitas, and Carter “Influence of the Southern Oscillation on tropospheric temperature,” show a strong correlation between ENSO and tropospheric temperature with a 7 month lag. Of course, correlation is not causation.]Please Note: Mark Gillar has begun a new radio show featuring well known skeptics. For more information please visit: http://www. globalcoolingradio.com.