Position on man-made climate change (Fred Singer)

My position on Climate Change (CC) • Heartland Panel: Paris-COP21, Hotel California Dec 7, 2015 • S. Fred Singer, Prof Emeritus, Univ. of VA Chm, SEPP <singer@sepp.org>

Burden of proof falls on alarmists • •

•

•

•

• •

CC has been ongoing for millions of years – long before humans existed on this planet.

Obviously, the causes were all of natural origin, and not anthropogenic.

There is no reason to believe that these natural causes have suddenly stopped; for example, volcanic eruptions, various types of solar influences, and (internal) atmosphere-ocean oscillations all continue today. (Note that these natural factors cannot be modeled precisely.)

Let’s call this the ‘Null Hypothesis.’ Logically therefore, the burden of proof is on alarmists to demonstrate that the Null Hypothesis is not adequate to account for empirical climate data; alarmists must provide convincing observational evidence for Anthropogenic CC (ACC) – by detailed comparison of data with GH models.

I am not aware of such proofs, only of anecdotal info – although I admit that ACC is plausible; after all, CO2 is a GH gas, and its level has been rising, mainly because of burning of fossil fuels.

However, ACC appears to be much smaller than predicted by GH models; there is even to be a period of no warming [“hiatus”] during the past 19 years – in spite of rapidly rising atmospheric CO2 levels.

There seems to be no generally accepted explanation for this discrepancy. As the gap grows bigger, the five IPCC reports insist there is no gap – with ever greater certainty: 50%, 66%,90%,95%,99%.

Even necessary conditions for empirical data (like temperature rise vs altitude and latitude; cloud cover; precip) are difficult to establish; any major disagreement with models disproves ACC.

• •

• •

IPCC’s GH models are not validated –not policy-relevant In other words, GH models have not been, and may never be validated; hence are not policy-relevant.

“They are scenario-generation machines that rest on assumptions and incomplete science -- not on actual observations [ Joe Bast].

Anyway, warming appears to be trivially small, and most likely economically beneficial overall-- as established through careful studies by leading economists.

I therefore regard the absence of any significant GH warming as settled, -- policies to limit CO2 emissions as wasting resources needed for genuine societal problems -- and even counter-productive, since CO2 promotes plant growth and raises crop yields.

Surviving a coming climate cooling •

• •

• •

•

I am much more concerned about a cooling climate, as predicted by many solar scientists , with its adverse ecological effects and severe economic consequences for humanity.

Singer and Avery have described the cyclical CC, seen during the past major glaciation; Loehle and Singer see evidence for extension of the cycles into the current Holocene.

In particular, historical records identify the recent cycle of a (beneficial) Medieval Warm Period and the (destructive) Little Ice Age (LIA) with its failed harvests, starvation, disease, and mass deaths.

I have therefore explored ways to counter the (imminently expected) next cooling phase through low-cost and low-ecological-risk methods of a specific GH effect – not based on CO2.

At the same time, assuming that our scheme does not work, we need to prepare for adaptation to a colder climate – with special attention to supply of food, and of sustainable water and energy.

The outlook appears promising – provided there is adequate preparation.

However, the coming cold period will test the survivability of our technological civilization. ________________________

Questions to ask Warmers • Explain: Why did climate warm 1910-1940?

• Why did climate cool 1940-1975? If by aerosols, explain difference between NH and SH on the basis of climate models • Why the step increase (“jump”) in 1976-77 – and again in 2001-2002?

• Why no atm warming trend since 2002?

• And – Why no warming of NMAT, atmosphere (balloon-radiosondes and also satellite-MSU data), and non-thermometer proxies?

Discrepancies between Data Sets • Criterion adopted: Temp difference 1995-1942 -------------------------------------------------------------Land-based sfc; Global (IPCC): Diff=~0.5C » US (GISS): Diff=~zero • Ocean: SST (Gouretski GRL 2012) Diff=~zero NMAT (Hadley Centre) Diff=~zero OHC (1997 -1979) “ave” Diff=<0.1C • Atm: Satellite MSU-LT (1997-79) Diff=~zero Radiosondes (1997-79) Diff=~zero • Proxies (mostly land-sfc) Diff=~zero -------------------------------------------------------------

Evidence against AGW • 1. No warming for >15 yrs – despite CO2 rise • 2. Models show GLOBAL wmg; Antarctic cools • 3. No atm wmg; models call for amplification; cannot explain absence of tropical ‘Hot Spot’ • 4. Models don’t explain GW of 1910-40 • 5. Models don’t explain NH-SH disparity • 6. Models do poorly explaining clouds&precip • 7. Models don’t show Decadal Oscillations • 8. Models don’t explain LIA (1400-1800AD), or Sunspot connection (‘MaunderMinimum’)

CCSP 1.1 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Chapter 1, Figure 1.3F PCM Simulations of Zonal-Mean Atmospheric Temperature Change

CCSP 1.1 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Chapter 5, Figure 7E

Science Debate –Settled • • 1. GW human-caused or natural?

• • 2. SLR accelerating or not?

• • 3 CO2 friend or foe?

Source : Hockey Stick? What Hockey Stick? How alarmist â&#x20AC;&#x153;scientistsâ&#x20AC;? falsely abolished the Mediaeval Warm Period, SPPO Commentary and Essay series. Page 3 Source : Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate: Summary for Policymakers of the Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, Chicago, IL: The Heartland Institute, 2008.

Figure 1

Stalagmite Records in Oman – a Proxy for Solar Activity 18O – a Proxy for Temperature 14C

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.  One Century Duration!

Neff et al. (2001)

MANN in SciAm 2 deg C by 2036

â&#x20AC;&#x153;Give me a faster computer and I will give you the wrong result soonerâ&#x20AC;&#x153; Mac Ross