June 21, 2018
Dear Friends and Family,
This is Segment 3 of the Climate Change series. It focuses exclusively on Fred Singer and Dennis Avery’s book “Unstoppable Global Warming” published in 2008. It is a counterpoint to Al Gore’s book “An Inconvenient Truth” (2006) which was the focus of Segment 2.
In the Segment 2 cover letter, I indicated that Climate Change cover letters for segments 2 through 7 would focus on seven points of debate – the same points that were featured in segment 2. Here are the answers to those seven points from the Segment 3 excerpts:
1. Is there a 20th century temperature rising trend acknowledged? Yes
2. Is that trend attributed to fossil fuel emissions? No
--The authors provide ten scientific reasons and/or evidence why the greenhouse effect of fossil fuel emissions is invalid or overrated which are enumerate in this segment’s excerpts.
3. What is the evidence cited to support or not support point 2 above? (As compared to the supportive evidence in segment 2)
-- The feedback effect from water vapor is not always warming – it can be cooling.
-- Future CO2 increases is not a linear addition but is logarithmic, in other words, future increments of CO2 produce less warming than if it was linear.
-- The greenhouse theory does not explain recent temperature change reality.
-- Satellite and high-altitude weather balloon temperature data is more accurate than historical surface thermometers. If satellite and high-altitude weather balloon data is used about one-half of the “official” warming disappears.
-- 240,000 years of climate history indicates that increasing levels of CO2 trail temperature increases not vice versa as is being portrayed by climate change advocates.
4. Is the trend attributed to natural causes? For the most part Yes
5. What is the evidence cited to support point 4 above? The 1500-year climate cycle developed from centuries of temperature variation history most notably that temperatures were greater than those today in the Medieval Warm period from 900 to 1300 A.D. when there were no fossil fuels emissions. (This point is expanded upon in the PDF attachment).
6. Are there severe climate consequences predicted by the author? No, in fact the author’s state: · -- Sea-level rise will only be 4 to 6 inches by 2100.
-- There will be no mass extinction of plants or animals due to global warming.
-- Global warming will lead to greater food production, not famine – because of the enhanced CO2 environment.
-- Violent weather will be less not greater with global warming (again this is expanded upon in the PDF attachment).
7. Is there any additional scientific information presented concerning the debate?
-- Evidence asserting very inconsistent or false scientific statements published by the IPCC.
-- Evidence asserting why the Global Circulation Models (GCMs) can’t be trusted.
The debate has commenced. The next segment will contain advocate points and skeptic counterpoints by individual topics of basic climate science. The advocate points will come from “A Global Warming Primer” by Jeffrey Bennett (2016) and the skeptic counterpoints will come from “Global Warming: Alarmists, Skeptics, and Deniers” by G. Dedrick Robinson and Gene D. Robinson (2012).
Happy Learning,
Harley
Dear Friends and Family,
This is Segment 3 of the Climate Change series. It focuses exclusively on Fred Singer and Dennis Avery’s book “Unstoppable Global Warming” published in 2008. It is a counterpoint to Al Gore’s book “An Inconvenient Truth” (2006) which was the focus of Segment 2.
In the Segment 2 cover letter, I indicated that Climate Change cover letters for segments 2 through 7 would focus on seven points of debate – the same points that were featured in segment 2. Here are the answers to those seven points from the Segment 3 excerpts:
1. Is there a 20th century temperature rising trend acknowledged? Yes
2. Is that trend attributed to fossil fuel emissions? No
--The authors provide ten scientific reasons and/or evidence why the greenhouse effect of fossil fuel emissions is invalid or overrated which are enumerate in this segment’s excerpts.
3. What is the evidence cited to support or not support point 2 above? (As compared to the supportive evidence in segment 2)
-- The feedback effect from water vapor is not always warming – it can be cooling.
-- Future CO2 increases is not a linear addition but is logarithmic, in other words, future increments of CO2 produce less warming than if it was linear.
-- The greenhouse theory does not explain recent temperature change reality.
-- Satellite and high-altitude weather balloon temperature data is more accurate than historical surface thermometers. If satellite and high-altitude weather balloon data is used about one-half of the “official” warming disappears.
-- 240,000 years of climate history indicates that increasing levels of CO2 trail temperature increases not vice versa as is being portrayed by climate change advocates.
4. Is the trend attributed to natural causes? For the most part Yes
5. What is the evidence cited to support point 4 above? The 1500-year climate cycle developed from centuries of temperature variation history most notably that temperatures were greater than those today in the Medieval Warm period from 900 to 1300 A.D. when there were no fossil fuels emissions. (This point is expanded upon in the PDF attachment).
6. Are there severe climate consequences predicted by the author? No, in fact the author’s state: · -- Sea-level rise will only be 4 to 6 inches by 2100.
-- There will be no mass extinction of plants or animals due to global warming.
-- Global warming will lead to greater food production, not famine – because of the enhanced CO2 environment.
-- Violent weather will be less not greater with global warming (again this is expanded upon in the PDF attachment).
7. Is there any additional scientific information presented concerning the debate?
-- Evidence asserting very inconsistent or false scientific statements published by the IPCC.
-- Evidence asserting why the Global Circulation Models (GCMs) can’t be trusted.
The debate has commenced. The next segment will contain advocate points and skeptic counterpoints by individual topics of basic climate science. The advocate points will come from “A Global Warming Primer” by Jeffrey Bennett (2016) and the skeptic counterpoints will come from “Global Warming: Alarmists, Skeptics, and Deniers” by G. Dedrick Robinson and Gene D. Robinson (2012).
Happy Learning,
Harley
CLIMATE CHANGE – SEGMENT 3
UNSTOPPABLE GLOBAL WARMING – EXCERPTS
All excerpts are from Unstoppable Global Warming by S. Fred Singer and Dennis T. Avery (2008)
WARMING AND COOLING IN HUMAN HISTORY
We know from physical evidence that our planet's climate is always cycling, warmer or cooler. We have ice cores, ancient tree rings, and stalagmite analyses to document a 1,500-year climate cycle. The Earth's climate has been dominated by this natural irregular 1,500-year cycle. The most recent examples of the cycle include the Roman Warming, which started about 20 B.C. These are the periods of this Modern Climate history.
THE FAILURES OF THE GREENHOUSE THEORY
Despite all of the evidence that the recent warming trend is natural and unstoppable, millions of well-educated people and many respected organizations – and even the national governments of major First World nations – are telling us that the Earth's current warming phase is caused by carbon dioxide (CO2) emitted from power plants and autos. The alarmists say these gases are causing Earth's natural "greenhouse" to overheat, with deadly effects. They tell us modern society will destroy the planet unless we radically change human energy production and consumption. According to the IPCC an immediate 50% to 80% reduction in emissions is necessary to just stabilize atmospheric concentrations for CO2 – the minimum scientifically defensible goal for any climate strategy. However, the alarmists don't have much evidence to support their greenhouse theory – only (1) the fact that the Earth is warming, (2) a theory that doesn't explain the warming of the past 150 years very well, and (3) some unverified computer models. Let's review the shortcoming of the greenhouse theory.
THE IPCC'S FALSE EVIDENCE OF MAN-MADE WARMING
One of the most serious problems in the public discussion of global warming is that alarmism has been promoted by essentially false statements from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). [For examples refer to the PDF attachment – pages 6 & 7]
THE "SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS" MANTRA
It is sheer fantasy to suggest that a huge majority of scientists with expertise in global climate change endorses an alarming interpretation of the recent climate data. In fact, the footnoted studies in this book include hundreds of climate science authors whose work argues against the alarmist view of climate change.
HOW FAR CAN WE TRUST GLOBAL CLIMATE MODELS?
No honest examination of the current planetary climate should begin without the elements of history and prehistory. But none of that is plugged into the computerized Global Circulation Models (GCMs). The models assume a planet with a stable climatic state, even though the million years of climate history in the ice and seabed cores offer no evidence of any such stability in the past. The climate has always been erratically warming or cooling.
BASELESS FEARS ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING
Rising Sea Levels: The most likely rate of sea level rise in the 21st century is 4 to 6 inches, the same rate increase in recent centuries. [For more data see the long set of excerpts, pages 10 & 11]
Famine and Drought: Human food production historically has increased during periods of global warming. Food production increased primarily because warming climates provided more of the things plants love: sunlight, rainfall, and longer growing seasons. During warming there is also less of the things plants hate: late spring and early fall frosts that shorten the growing season, and hailstorms that destroy fields of crops.
More Violent Weather: Earth's weather patterns are driven by the fact that the planet heats unevenly during the day and through the seasons. The equator, being the broadest part of the planet, absorbs the most heat. The polar regions, having the least surface area, absorb the least. Winds and ocean currents even out the terrestrial temperatures by carrying warm air and warm water away from the equator and circulating colder air and water back from the polar regions. The bigger the temperature difference between the equator and the poles, the more power is given to the winds, waves, and currents – and to storms. Thus, a global warming that primarily increased the polar and winter temperatures should mean fewer and milder storms, not bigger and fiercer ones.
CONCLUSION
We believe binding constraints on human emissions of greenhouse gases should not be imposed unless those who warn of climate catastrophe can demonstrate three things:
The unabbreviated version of the above can be found in the pdf document below.
UNSTOPPABLE GLOBAL WARMING – EXCERPTS
All excerpts are from Unstoppable Global Warming by S. Fred Singer and Dennis T. Avery (2008)
WARMING AND COOLING IN HUMAN HISTORY
We know from physical evidence that our planet's climate is always cycling, warmer or cooler. We have ice cores, ancient tree rings, and stalagmite analyses to document a 1,500-year climate cycle. The Earth's climate has been dominated by this natural irregular 1,500-year cycle. The most recent examples of the cycle include the Roman Warming, which started about 20 B.C. These are the periods of this Modern Climate history.
- 200 B.C. to about 600 A.D. Roman Warming
- 600 A.D. to 900 A.D. Dark Ages cold period
- 900 A.D. to 1300 A.D. Medieval Warming
- 1300 A.D. to 1850 Little Ice Age (two-stage)
- 1850 to 1940 Warming, especially between 1920 and 1940
- 1940 to 1975 Cooling trend
- 1976 to 1978 Sudden warm spurt
- 1979 to 2007 A moderate warming trend
THE FAILURES OF THE GREENHOUSE THEORY
Despite all of the evidence that the recent warming trend is natural and unstoppable, millions of well-educated people and many respected organizations – and even the national governments of major First World nations – are telling us that the Earth's current warming phase is caused by carbon dioxide (CO2) emitted from power plants and autos. The alarmists say these gases are causing Earth's natural "greenhouse" to overheat, with deadly effects. They tell us modern society will destroy the planet unless we radically change human energy production and consumption. According to the IPCC an immediate 50% to 80% reduction in emissions is necessary to just stabilize atmospheric concentrations for CO2 – the minimum scientifically defensible goal for any climate strategy. However, the alarmists don't have much evidence to support their greenhouse theory – only (1) the fact that the Earth is warming, (2) a theory that doesn't explain the warming of the past 150 years very well, and (3) some unverified computer models. Let's review the shortcoming of the greenhouse theory.
- CO2 changes do not account for the highly variable climate we know the Earth has recently had, including the Roman Warming, the Dark Ages, the Medieval Warming, and the Little Ice Age.
- The greenhouse theory does not explain recent temperature changes. Most of the current warming occurred before 1940, before there was much human-generated CO2 in the air. After 1940, temperatures declined until 1975 or so, despite a huge surge in industrial CO2 during that period.
- The early and supposedly most powerful increases in atmospheric CO2 have not produced the frightening planetary overheating that the theory and climate models told us to expect. We must discount future increments of CO in the atmosphere, because each increment of CO2 produces less warming than the unit before it. [Note: it is logarithmic versus linear]. The amounts of CO2 already added to the atmosphere may already be close to saturation levels.
- The greenhouse theory predicts that CO2-driven warming of the Earth's surface will start, and be strongest, in the North and South Polar regions. This is not happening.
- We must discount the "official" temperature record to reflect the increased size and intensity of today's urban heat islands, where most of the official thermometers are located. Using more accurate data from satellites and high-altitude weather balloons – about half of the recent "official" warming disappeared.
- The Earth's surface thermometers have recently warmed faster that the temperature readings in the lower atmosphere up to 30,000 feet. Yet the greenhouse theory says that CO2 will warm the lower atmosphere first, and then the atmospheric heat will radiate to the Earth's surface. This is not happening either.
- CO2 for at least 240,000 years has been a lagging indicator of global warming, not a casual factor. The ice cores have revealed that temperatures and CO2 levels have tracked closely together during the warmings after each of Earth's last three ice age glaciations. However, the CO2 changes have lagged about 800 years behind the temperature changes. Hence, global warming has produced more CO2, rather than more CO2 producing global warming. This accords with the reality that the oceans hold the vast majority of the planet's carbon, and the laws of physics declare that when oceans warm, they must release some of their gases to the atmosphere.
- The greenhouse theory requires that the warming effect of additional CO2 be amplified by increased water vapor in the atmosphere. But there is no evidence that the upper atmosphere is retaining more water vapor. A team of researchers from NASA and MIT recently discovered a natural climatic heat vent in the Earth's atmosphere that apparently increases the efficiency of rainfall when sea surface temperatures rise above 28 degrees C. This effect seems to be big enough to vent all the heat the models predict would be generated by a doubling of CO2.
- Most of the greenhouse effect's warming is assumed to come from water vapor. Without an assumed large positive feedback from water vapor, the contribution of other greenhouse gases would not produce a large temperature increase. The amount of water vapor in the atmosphere is not at all uniform, it changes drastically and abruptly, often in a matter of a few hours, to cause, for example thunderstorms. It takes a lot of energy to evaporate water. A molecule of water vapor "contains" much more energy that a molecule of liquid water. And quite a bit of water is evaporated every day as the Sun shines down on the Earth's vast oceans. In short, water vapor is one of the most important "storehouses" of energy in the atmosphere and in the climate system. There is also substantial scientific uncertainty about water's role as vapor or clouds. Since it has both warming and cooling effects, water is a "wild card."
- Recent research from satellite and high-altitude weather balloon data confirm that the lower atmosphere is not trapping lots of additional heat due to higher CO2 concentrations. It is hard to know how fast the Earth's highly variable surface is warming, but it is warming faster that the lower atmosphere where the CO2 is accumulating. This is strong evidence that CO2 is not the primary climate factor.
THE IPCC'S FALSE EVIDENCE OF MAN-MADE WARMING
One of the most serious problems in the public discussion of global warming is that alarmism has been promoted by essentially false statements from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). [For examples refer to the PDF attachment – pages 6 & 7]
THE "SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS" MANTRA
It is sheer fantasy to suggest that a huge majority of scientists with expertise in global climate change endorses an alarming interpretation of the recent climate data. In fact, the footnoted studies in this book include hundreds of climate science authors whose work argues against the alarmist view of climate change.
HOW FAR CAN WE TRUST GLOBAL CLIMATE MODELS?
No honest examination of the current planetary climate should begin without the elements of history and prehistory. But none of that is plugged into the computerized Global Circulation Models (GCMs). The models assume a planet with a stable climatic state, even though the million years of climate history in the ice and seabed cores offer no evidence of any such stability in the past. The climate has always been erratically warming or cooling.
- So, the GCMs assumption that the Earth's climate would be stable in the absence of human emissions we know to be false. They also assume climate change will be smoothly linear, which we also know to be false.
- Satellite and weather balloon temperature records show a very small warming trend during the past 27 and 50 years, respectively, far lower that what the models predict. The satellite and weather balloon data are real and are known to be accurate. Not so with the computer-generated forecasts.
BASELESS FEARS ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING
Rising Sea Levels: The most likely rate of sea level rise in the 21st century is 4 to 6 inches, the same rate increase in recent centuries. [For more data see the long set of excerpts, pages 10 & 11]
Famine and Drought: Human food production historically has increased during periods of global warming. Food production increased primarily because warming climates provided more of the things plants love: sunlight, rainfall, and longer growing seasons. During warming there is also less of the things plants hate: late spring and early fall frosts that shorten the growing season, and hailstorms that destroy fields of crops.
More Violent Weather: Earth's weather patterns are driven by the fact that the planet heats unevenly during the day and through the seasons. The equator, being the broadest part of the planet, absorbs the most heat. The polar regions, having the least surface area, absorb the least. Winds and ocean currents even out the terrestrial temperatures by carrying warm air and warm water away from the equator and circulating colder air and water back from the polar regions. The bigger the temperature difference between the equator and the poles, the more power is given to the winds, waves, and currents – and to storms. Thus, a global warming that primarily increased the polar and winter temperatures should mean fewer and milder storms, not bigger and fiercer ones.
CONCLUSION
We believe binding constraints on human emissions of greenhouse gases should not be imposed unless those who warn of climate catastrophe can demonstrate three things:
- That the greenhouse gases are certain to raise global temperatures significantly higher than they rose during previous natural climate warming cycles;
- That such a warming would severely harm human welfare and nature;
- That rational human-actions could actually forestall whatever warming may occur.
The unabbreviated version of the above can be found in the pdf document below.
| 03_cc_long_unstoppable_warming_--_segment_3.pdf |