Transcript Document

Apocalypse? NO!
The scientific, macroeconomic,
and geopolitical reasons why
“global warming” is not a global crisis
1
Is the IPCC inept
or fraudulent?
2
BEFORE (#1)
“None of the studies cited above
has shown clear evidence that we
can attribute the observed
[climate] changes to the specific
cause of increases in greenhouse
gases.”
IPCC (1995)
3
BEFORE (#2)
“No study to date has positively
attributed all or part [of
observed climate change] to
anthropogenic causes.”
IPCC (1995)
4
BEFORE (#3)
“While none of these studies has
specifically considered the
attribution issue, they often draw
some attribution conclusions, for
which there is little justification.”
IPCC (1995)5
BEFORE (#4)
“Any claims of positive detection
of significant climate change are
likely to remain controversial until
uncertainties in the total natural
variability of the climate system
are reduced.”
IPCC (1995)
6
BEFORE (#5)
“When will an anthropogenic
effect on climate be identified? It is
not surprising that the best answer
to this question is, ‘We do not
know.’
IPCC (1995)
7
AFTER:
“The body of … evidence
now points to a discernible
human influence on global
climate.”
IPCC (1995) rewrite
8
IPCC bars scientists
who reject alarmism
“The IPCC
did not tell
the truth.”
Paul Reiter
9
IPCC peer review?
What peer review?
Authors of IPCC (2007), Ch. 9:
“Peer-reviewers”:
53
60
% of comments rejected:
Proper peer review?
Did 2,500 scientists check it?
53%
No
No
10
IPCC exaggerates
sea-level rise 10-fold
Metres per century
1961-2003 1993-2003
1.
2.
3.
4.
Thermosteric expansion
Glaciers and ice-caps
Greenland ice-sheets
Antarctic ice-sheets
0.042
0.050
0.050
0.140
0.160
0.077
0.210
0.210
5.
IPCC’s sum of lines 1-4:
0.110
0.280
11
IPCC exaggerates
CO2 effect 20-fold
“The CO2 radiative forcing increased by
20% during the last 10 years (1995-2005).”
IPCC (2007)
Fact:
1995 concentration 360 ppmv
2005 concentration 378 ppmv
Increased concentration:
5%
Increased radiative forcing: 1%, not 20%
12
CO2’s residence time in
the atmosphere is short …
Years
Arnold+Anderson (1957) 10
Revelle & Suess (1957)
7
Ferguson (1958)
2
Broecker (1963)
8
Bien & Suess (1967)
12
Nydal (1968)
8
Rafter & O'Brian (1970) 12
Bacastow+Keeling (1973) 7
Broecker (1974)
9
Years
Craig (1957)
Craig (1958)
Bolin & Eriksson (1959)
Craig (1963)
Monnich & Roether (1967)
Young & Fairhall (1968)
Machta (1972)
Keeling (1973)
Broecker & Peng (1974) 13
7
7
5
10
5
5
2
7
8
… at about 7 years,
it really is short …
Years
Years
Oeschger et al. (1975)
8 Peng et al. (1979)
Keeling (1979)
8 Broecker et al. (1980)
Delibrias (1980)
6 Quay & Stuiver (1980)
Siegenthaler et al. (1980) 8 Stuiver (1980)
Druffel & Suess (1983) 13 Kratz et al. (1983)
Lal & Suess (1983)
15 Peng et al. (1983)
Siegenthaler (1983)
8 Siegenthaler (1989)
Murray
(1992)
5 Segalstad (1992)
9
7
8
7
7
8
7
5
14
… that is, unless
you’re the IPCC:
“… the time required for the
atmosphere to adjust to a future
equilibrium state if emissions change
abruptly (lifetime of 50-200 years).”
15
IPCC (1990)
IPCC’s cardinal
error revealed
16
IPCC’s equation for
CO2 radiative forcing
f = z ln(C/C0)
17
IPCC cut CO2 forcing
by a sixth in 12 years …
z
1995 6.40
2001 5.35
2007 5.35
IPCC
Climate
f (2xCO2) sensitivity
–2
Wm
4.44
2.5 ºC
3.71 Wm–2 3.0 ºC
–2
3.71 Wm
3.2 ºC
… yet hiked climate sensitivity 25%
18
Empirical conversions
of energy change dE to
temperature change dT
ºK / W m–2 ≈
In 1990:
Man-made:
20.3 / 100
0.6 /
3
dT / dE
≈ 0.2 ºK W–1 m2
≈ 0.2 ºK W–1 m2
Natural greenhouse effect = 20 ºK: Houghton (2006)
1990 GHE = 100 W m–2: Kiehl & Trenberth (1997)
19
Albert Einstein’s famous
energy/mass-equivalence
relativity equation
E=
2
mc
Like another fundamental equation …
20
Theoretical evaluation
by the Stefan-Boltzmann
radiative-transfer
Equation ...
E=
4
εσT
… not mentioned once by the IPCC
21
The IPCC overstates
non-feedback forcing
Then
E = 390 W m–2
T = 288 ºK
ε = 1.000, so:
dT / dE
=
3
–1
(4εσT )
0.3
≈
0.2 ºK W
IPCC
=κ
–1
m2
22
The IPCC fudges the
feedback factor ...
Feedbacks b = 2.16 W m–2 ºK–1
amplified: B = 1 / (1 – b / 3.2)
–2
–1
= 3.08 W m ºK
λ = dT / dF = κ + Bκ2
–1
2
= 0.49 ºK W m
= 3.2 / 3.71 = 0.86 ºK W–1 m2
23
... thus exaggerating
climate sensitivity x 3
λ
=
κ + (B – 1)κ2 =
2
κ + Bκ =
Least est.
=
Central est. =
Upper est. =
dT / dF
0.26 ºK W–1 m2
0.49: x 2
0.53: x 2
0.86: x 3
1.21: x 4
24
The IPCC falsely
claims consensus
25
Source
dT/dF 2xCO2
Stefan-Boltzmann (ε = 1.000) 0.18 0.7 ºC
Hansen (2006); IPCC (2007)
0.27 1.2 ºC
What
“Consensus”
?
True climate sensitivity
Schwartz (2007)
Arrhenius (1906)
IPCC (1995: implicit)
Calculated from IPCC (2007)
IPCC (2001); Ranamathan
Houghton (2002: implicit)
Forcings x2 (IPCC, 2001)
Hansen, (20061)
Hansen, (20062)
Houghton (2006); IPCC (2007)
Hansen (20063)
Stern (2006: implicit)
0.26
0.30
0.44
0.48
0.49
0.50
0.54
0.61
0.67
0.75
0.88
1.00
1.89
1.0 ºC
1.1 ºC
1.6 ºC
1.8 ºC
1.8 ºC
1.8 ºC
2.0 ºC
2.2 ºC
2.4 ºC
2.7 ºC
3.2 ºC
3.7 ºC
26
6.9 ºC
Why did the media
not report this? #1
“Greenhouse-gas-induced
climate change … currently
cannot be distinguished
from natural climate
variability.”
Fernau et al., 1993
27
Why did the media
not report this? #2
“… the undoubtedly overemphasized contribution of
the greenhouse effect to the
global climate change.”
Kondratyev & Varotsos (1996)
28
Why did the media
not report this? #3
“Although politicians offer
simplistic remedies, such as the
Kyoto Protocol, global climate
continues to change naturally.”
Gerhard (2004)
29
Why did the media
not report this? #4
“The 20th-century contribution of
anthropogenic greenhouse gases
and aerosol remains insecure.”
Buentgen et al. (2006)
30
Why did the media
not report this? #5
“Human-induced
climatic changes
are negligible.”
31
Khilyuk and Chilingar (2006)
Why did the media
not report this? #6
“The CO2 greenhouse effect on
global climate change … could have
been excessively exaggerated. It is
high time to re-consider the trend of
global climate changes.”
Zhen-Shan and Xian (2007)
32
Why did the media
not report this? #7
“Climate has always
varied on all time-scales,
so the observed change
may be natural.”
33
Because the truth
is not sensational
“Climate has always
varied on all time-scales,
so the observed change
may be natural.” IPCC (2001)
34
The consensus:
DON’T PANIC!
Learned papers reviewed: 539
Climate “catastrophe”:
1
Schulte (2008: in press)
35
Inept or fraudulent?
Fraus
est
celare
fraudem
IPCC negates its scientists’ findings
IPCC rejects dissentient scientists
IPCC reports are not peer-reviewed
IPCC hikes sea-level rise x 10
IPCC hikes CO2 effect x 20
IPCC hikes CO2 residence time x 20
IPCC cuts forcing, hikes temperature
IPCC repeals Stefan-Boltzmann law
IPCC hikes climate sensitivity x 3
IPCC ignores non-alarmist science
IPCC falsely claims “consensus” 36
Fraudulent science
Fraus
est
celare
fraudem
IPCC negates its scientists’ findings
IPCC rejects dissentient scientists
IPCC reports are not peer-reviewed
IPCC hikes sea-level rise x 10
IPCC hikes CO2 effect x 20
IPCC hikes CO2 residence time x 20
IPCC cuts forcing, hikes temperature
IPCC repeals Stefan-Boltzmann law
IPCC hikes climate sensitivity x 3
IPCC ignores non-alarmist science
IPCC falsely claims “consensus” 37