A study published in June 2017 titled, On the Validity of NOAA, NASA and Hadley CRU Global Average Surface Temperature Data & The Validity of EPA’s CO2 Endangerment Finding has found ongoing data manipulation issues within the Global Average Surface Temperature (GAST) data used in the Climate Models. The study is written by Dr. James Wallace III, Dr. Joseph F. D’Aleo and Dr. Craig D. Idso. Unlike much of the work presented by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, this study has been peer-reviewed – by seven different Ph.D. scientists – all with prestigious backgrounds and multiple degrees. From the study:
The objective of this research was to test the hypothesis that Global Average Surface Temperature (GAST) data, produced by NOAA [National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration], NASA [National Aeronautics and Space Administration], and HADLEY [University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit], are sufficiently credible estimates of global average temperatures such that they can be relied upon for climate modeling and policy analysis purposes.
It was found that each new version of GAST has nearly always exhibited a steeper warming linear trend over its entire history. And, it was nearly always accomplished by systematically removing the previously existing cyclical temperature pattern. This was true for all three entities providing GAST data measurement, NOAA, NASA and Hadley CRU.
The conclusive findings of this research are that the three GAST data sets are not a valid representation of reality. In fact, the magnitude of their historical data adjustments, that removed their cyclical temperature patterns, are totally inconsistent with published and credible U.S. and other temperature data. Thus, it is impossible to conclude from the three published GAST data sets that recent years have been the warmest ever –despite current claims of record setting warming.
The Global Average Surface Temperature data provides the underpinnings for all climate modeling – including that done by the IPCC. Flaws in this data inherently dictate flaws in all outcomes from this data – including governmental policy.
I have previously written about this topic in Climate Change Debate – Politics, False Consensus, Questionable Science & Some Questions. I note inconsistencies in the data, problems with the modeling, a rebuttal of the 97% consensus figure and a look at the ClimateGate Scandal emanating from East Anglia’s CRU division. I also pose some questions which highlight problems with the entire IPCC modeling process.
The EPA’s Greenhouse Gas Emissions/CO2 Endangerment Finding, is a “2009 determination by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency that greenhouse gases are dangerous to human health and security, a ruling that serves as the foundation for the EPA’s efforts to curb climate-damaging emissions and that affects its governing of everything from automobile exhaust to power plants to refrigerators. The agency’s conclusion rested on thousands of pages of peer-reviewed research, from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, from the U.S. Global Climate Research Program, and from the National Research Council.”
The power granted to the EPA by this 2009 determination was immense – the breadth of regulatory coverage vast. And it all rests on the GAST data used by the IPCC in their Climate Models – data and models that have been created by a shockingly small group of funded scientists. And subject to little or no peer review.
The primary basis for the EPA’s control centers around the notion that CO2 is harmful to human health – and human generation of CO2 is a primary cause of Global Warming – conveniently renamed Climate Change. If you want to raise your blood pressure take a quick look at the actual Climate Change Facts portion of the EPA’s Endangerment Finding. I found it hard to believe what I was looking at. My first thought was that the contrasting “Myth vs. Fact” must be a joke website. It is not.
A quick backdrop on our atmosphere. Earth’s atmosphere is comprised primarily of nitrogen (78%) and oxygen (21%). The remaining 1% is comprised of other gases – primarily argon (0.93%) and carbon dioxide or CO2 (0.04%).
Dry air is comprised of:
- Nitrogen = 78.084%
- Oxygen = 20.946%
- Argon = 0.934%
- Carbon Dioxide = 0.040%
- Neon = 0.0018%
- Helium = 0.00052%
- Methane = 0.00019%
- Nitrous Oxide = trace
- Ozone = trace
Water vapor content is highly variable – ranging from 0.001% to 5% depending on location and temperature – and is not included in dry air volume figures. Water vapor averages roughly 1% of earth’s atmosphere at sea level. Water vapor is a powerful radiative greenhouse gas – but is not spread as evenly as CO2.
Water vapor, Carbon Dioxide (CO2) and Methane are the primary radiative greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Methane is localized and reactive – it is removed fairly quickly from the atmosphere. Carbon Dioxide is much more evenly distributed and provides the majority of greenhouse effect in dryer areas. For a quick primer on CO2 see here.
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is currently at 400 parts per million (ppm). CO2 levels have ranged from highs of 7,000 ppm during the Cambrian period (500 million years ago) to lows of 180 ppm during the Quaternary glaciation (last two million years).
We are bombarded with information telling us that CO2 is harmful – that we are on the verge of climate disaster as a result of its production. Yet, there is literally no proof of this assertion – other than the climate warming predicted by the IPCC climate models – which rest on the GAST data in question. Climate models which have failed in their predictive power in every single instance they have been employed.
It is not at all clear that higher levels of carbon dioxide are bad for our planet – and for us as its inhabitants. Plant growth accelerates markedly with accompanying higher levels of CO2. Using three decades of satellite data, a study led by Ranga Myneni, Ph.D. found our planet has experienced a significant net “greening” with approximately 70% of the growth attributed to CO2. And remember, despite some of the climate hysteria, we are still at a historically low range on the spectrum of CO2 levels.
My own view is that our climate is far more influenced by the varying output of energy from our sun than by varying CO2 levels.
But rather than continue further, I thought you might be interested in hearing some quick thoughts from true experts. There were plenty of quotes to chose from and they are worth the time to read:
“Climate models are useless….My own belief concerning anthropogenic climate change is that the models do not realistically simulate the climate system because there are many very important sub-grid scale processes that the models either replicate poorly or completely omit…Furthermore, some scientists have manipulated the observed data to justify their model results. In doing so, they neither explain what they have modified in the observations, nor explain how they did it.” – John S. Theon, retired Chief of the Climate Processes Research Program at NASA Headquarters
“There is no strong evidence to prove significant human influence on climate on a global basis. The global cooling trend from 1940 to 1970 is inconsistent with models based on anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions. There is no reliable evidence to support that the 20th century was the warmest in the last 1000 years.” – Peter Stilbs, physical chemist, chairs climate seminar Department of Physical Chemistry-Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm
“Even if the concentration of ‘greenhouse gases’ double, man would not perceive the temperature impact.” – Oleg Sorochtin of the Institute of Oceanology, Russian Academy of Sciences
“Our greatest greenhouse gas is water. Atmospheric spectroscopy reveals why water has a 95 percent and CO2 a 3.6 percent contribution to the ‘greenhouse effect.’ Carbon dioxide emissions worldwide each year total 3.2 billion tons. That equals about 0.0168 percent of the atmosphere’s CO2 concentration of about 19 trillion tons. This results in a 0.00064 percent increase in the absorption of the sun’s radiation. This is an insignificantly small number.” – Michael J. Myers, analytical chemist, specializes in spectroscopy and atmospheric sensing
“Natural processes completely eclipse anything that man can accomplish- a minor rainstorm expends more energy than a large nuclear explosive releases and the lowest category of hurricane expends more energy than all of the nuclear weapons ever produced in a short time.” – William Hunt, research scientist National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
“We are at one of the lowest points of CO2 levels today….CO2’s ability to trap heat declines rapidly, logarithmically, and reaches a point of significantly reduced future effect explaining why correlations with CO2 don’t hold. A far more consistent and significant correlation exists between the planet’s temperature and the output of energy from the sun.” – Leighton Steward, geologist, twice chaired the Audubon Nature Institute, currently the chairman of the Institute for the study of Earth and Man at SMU
“I simply can no longer buy the notion that CO2 produces any significant warming of the atmosphere at any rate. I’ve studied the atomic absorption physics to death, it simply doesn’t add up. Even if every single IR photon absorbed by a CO2 molecule were magically transformed into purely thermal translational modes , the pitifully small quantity of CO2 in the atmosphere doesn’t add up to much additional heat.” – James A. Peden, former atmospheric physicist with U.S. Space Research and Coordination Center
“The models solve the equations of fluid dynamics, and they do a very good job of describing the fluid motions of the atmosphere and the oceans. They do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry and the biology of fields and farms and forests. They do not begin to describe the real world that we live in.” – Freeman Dyson, theoretical physicist and mathematician
“I do not see any evidence in nature or data to suggest that we are in any anthropologic climate cycle….We have certainly created local climes, hot cities and deforestation that affect certain areas, but these are reversible to a large degree.” – Robert Woock, senior geophysicist at Stone Energy, past president-Southwest Louisiana Geophysical Society
“The effect of solar winds on cosmic radiation has just recently been established and, furthermore, there seems to be a good correlation between cloudiness and variations in the intensity of cosmic radiation. Here we have a mechanism which is a far better explanation to variations in global climate than the attempts by IPCC to blame it all on anthropogenic input of greenhouse gases.” – Boris Winterhalter, retired scientist of marine geology at University of Helsinki
“In point of fact, the hypothesis that solar variability and not human activity is warming the oceans goes a long way to explain the puzzling idea that the Earth’s surface may be warming while the atmosphere is not. The GHG (greenhouse gas) hypothesis does not do this….The public is not well served by this constant drumbeat of false alarms fed by computer models manipulated by advocates.” – David Wojick, UN IPCC expert reviewer, co-founded the Department of Engineering and Public Policy at Carnegie-Mellon University
“Global warming results not from the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, but from an unusually high level of solar radiation and a lengthy growth in its intensity.” – Habibullo Abdusamatov, Head of the Space Research Laboratory, Russia
“There is an irrational basis of the current scare over global warming…Compared to solar magnetic fields, however, the carbon dioxide production has as much influence on climate as a flea has on the weight of an elephant.” – Oliver K. Manuel, professor of nuclear chemistry, the University of Missouri
“Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” – Kiminori Itoh, member of IPCC process, award-winning environmental physical chemist
“NASA should be at the forefront in the collection of scientific evidence and debunking the current hysteria over human-caused, or Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW). Unfortunately, it is becoming just another agency caught up in the politics of global warming, or worse, politicized science.” – Walter Cunningham, NASA astronaut/physicist, Apollo 7
“I had the privilege of being fired by Al Gore, since I refused to go along with his alarmism….I have spent a long research career studying physics that is closely related to the greenhouse effect….Fears about man-made global warming are unwarranted and are not based on good science. The earth’s climate is changing now, as it always has. There is no evidence that the changes differ in any qualitative way from those of the past.” – Will Harper, Princeton University physicist, former Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy
“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical.” – Joanne Simpson, former NASA climate scientist
“I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change process] that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound.” – Chris Landsea, former IPCC scientist
For a common sense look at Climate Change, here is a video presentation by Nobel Prize winner in Physics, Ivar Giaever, at the Lindau Nobel Laureate Meetings in 2015. Enjoy.
older post The Strength of Opinions