nature not human activity rules the climate n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Nature – not Human Activity – Rules the Climate PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Nature – not Human Activity – Rules the Climate

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 44

Nature – not Human Activity – Rules the Climate - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

  • Uploaded on

Nature – not Human Activity – Rules the Climate. Lyncean Society, San Diego Jan. 12, 2011 S. Fred Singer, Science & Environmental Policy Project <Singer@NIPCC>. 20 th Cy Warming: AGW or Natural?. Both are plausible. What says the evidence ?

I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Nature – not Human Activity – Rules the Climate' - gabe

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
nature not human activity rules the climate

Nature – not Human Activity – Rules the Climate

Lyncean Society, San Diego

Jan. 12, 2011

S. Fred Singer, Science & Environmental Policy Project


20 th cy warming agw or natural
20th Cy Warming: AGW or Natural?
  • Both are plausible. What says the evidence?
  • Comparison of observations and models
  • IPCC-4: Global mean sfc temp vs a composite calculated curve, using adjustable parameters. But this is simply an exercise in ‘curve-fitting.’
  • IPCC-2, CCSP-1.1 and NIPCC use fingerprint method (latitude&altitude patterns of trends): Comparison of balloon/sat data vs GH-models
  • Douglass et al (2007) vs Santer et al (2008)

CCSP 1.1 – Chapter 1, Figure 1.3F PCM Simulations of Zonal-Mean Atmospheric Temperature Change

non governmental international panel on climate change nipcc
Non-Governmental International Panel on Climate Change -- NIPCC

An independent examination of published IPCC evidence by an international group of some 30 climate experts from 16 nations

Organized in 2003 by Prof. S. Fred Singer as “Team B;” workshop in Vienna, April 2007

Summary for Policy-Makers and Technical Summary, published by Heartland Institute in March 2008

which set of temp observations
Which set of temp observations ?
  • Santer et al 2008 [S08] relies on visual overlap between obs and modeled trends
  • Direct sonde data: authors are not retracting
  • Trends from re-analysis likely spurious -Christy
  • But S08 shows both data sets agree with sat
  • Hence, we need better discriminant: MT – LT is sensitive to Upper Trop
temperature changes from more than 30 years of satellite observations
Temperature Changes from more than 30 Years of Satellite Observations


uncertainties of modeled trends
Uncertainties of Modeled Trends
  • Structural Uncertainties: model differences
    • Choice of forcings
    • Choice of parameters (clouds, etc)
  • Chaotic Uncertainty: sensitive to initial values
    • Typically an order of magnitude – or more
    • How many model runs (“simulations”) are necessary to get the ‘true’ temp trend: 5,10, 25?
    • IPCC Practice: First form the “ensemble-means” and then average over all models (but most models trends are based on only one or two runs)
empirical study of model ensemble mean em
Empirical Study of Model ‘Ensemble-Mean’ (EM)
  • Choose an Unforced 1000-yr Model
  • Divide into 25 chunks of 40 years each
  • Calculate ‘ensemble-mean’ vs no. of runs: its value must be zero (for an unforced model)
    • The EM reaches asymptotic value after ~10 runs
  • Repeat: Create trends for 100 runs
    • Trends show a Gaussian distribution
summing up obs and gh models not consistent
Summing Up: Obs and GH Models NOT Consistent
  • Santer + 16 coauthors [Intl J Clim 2008] claim: “Consistency of Modeled and Observed Temp Trends…” BUT
  • New set of troposphere temp is spurious
  • Analysis of model uncertainties is incomplete
climate fears distort energy policy
Climate fears distort energy policy
  • Climate change is a non-problem; not amenable to human influence or control
  • Our problem are politicians who claim to “save the climate” and destroy the economy
  • It takes real courage for politicians to resist the urge and “do nothing”
  • Example: RES (Renewable Electricity Standard) – calls for 15%+ use of wind and solar
renewable electricity standard
Renewable Electricity Standard
  • Bi-partisan madness: Bingaman, Brownback et al – high-cost, intermittent, unreliable power
  • A FRAUD: Will not reduce CO2 emissions. Will not reduce oil imports. Why not nuclear?
  • A HOAX: CO2 is NOT a pollutant; has negligible effect on climate.
  • A RIP-OFF: Taxpayer pays for govt subsidies; ratepayers milked by “feed-in tariff”
two economic issues
Two Economic Issues
  • 1. Cost-Benefit Analysis
  • 2. Cap & Trade
dilemma for politicians
Dilemma for Politicians

When the facts change, I change my opinion. What do you do, Sir?

John M. Keynes

other scientific issues
Other Scientific Issues
  • Sea Level rise
  • ‘Hockeystick’ controversy
  • Climate models shortcomings;
  • IPCC-2 changes; IPCC-4 curve-fitting
  • Solar control of climate change; GCRclouds
  • IPCC efforts to simulate 20th century temps
  • D-O events; 1500-yr cycle; Temp-CO2 relation
  • SST problems: Skin effects; OHC; Buoys
  • Climate Sensitivity;Feedback issues; Saturation



Temperature Deviation (C)


Stalagmite Records in Oman

14C – a Proxy for Solar Activity

18O – a Proxy for Temperature

The stalagmite record shows a remarkably close correlation between 14C and 18O over a period of more than 3,000 years.

Thus, a strong association exists between solar activity and temperature.

Neff et al. (2001)

 One Century Duration!

a drastic re consideration
A Drastic Re-Consideration
  • Contrary to IPCC, Santer, the ‘hot spot’ is due to ‘moist adiabat’ [Riehl, Lindzen]--not GH gas
  • Any sfc warming will lead to troposph hot spot
  • But MSU-UAH sat data show no wmg (‘79-’97)
  • Hence the reported (CRU) sfc wrmg is suspect
  • This would explain many puzzling results [NAS 2000; Santer et al 2005; proxy data; etc]
  • Could the cause be ‘Neg Feedback’? Unlikely; any sfc wmg would create NF (incl 1910-40?)




Urban Heat Island Effect

Temperature Trends at 107 Californian Stations 1909 to 1994

Stratified by 1990 population of the county where station is located

(A) Large Counties:

More than 1 million people

Average 29 stations

(B) Midsized Counties:

100,000 to 1 million people

Average 51 stations

Temperature in degF

(C) Small Counties:

Less than 100,000 people

Average 27 stations

temperature changes from more than 30 years of satellite observations1
Temperature Changes from more than 30 Years of Satellite Observations