Nature, Not Human Activity,

Rules the Climate

© 2008, Science and Environmental Policy Project / S. Fred Singer Published by THE HEARTLAND INSTITUTE

19 South LaSalle Street #903

Chicago, Illinois 60603 U.S.A.

phone 312/377-4000

fax 312/377-5000

www.heartland.org

All rights reserved, including the right to reproduce this book or portions thereof in any form.

Opinions expressed are solely those of the authors.

Nothing in this report should be construed as reflecting the views of the Science and Environmental Policy Project or The Heartland Institute, or as an attempt to influence pending legislation.

Additional copies of this book are available from

the Science and Environmental Policy Project and The Heartland Institute at the following prices:

1-10 copies

$7.95 per copy

11-50 copies

$6.95 per copy

51-100 copies

$5.95 per copy

101 or more

$4.95 per copy

Please use the following reference to this report:

S. Fred Singer, ed., 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.

Printed in the United States of America

978-1-934791-01-1

1-934791-01-6

First printing: March 2008

Nature, Not Human Activity,

Rules the Climate

Summary for Policymakers of the Report of the

Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change Edited by S. Fred Singer

Contributors

Warren Anderson

Fred Goldberg

Olavi Karner

Tom Segalstad

United States

Sweden

Estonia

Norway

Dennis Avery

Vincent Gray

Madhav Khandekar

S. Fred Singer

United States

New Zealand

Canada

United States

Franco Battaglia

Kenneth Haapala

William Kininmonth

Dick Thoenes

Italy

United States

Australia

Netherlands

Robert Carter

Klaus Heiss

Hans Labohm

Anton Uriarte

Australia

Austria

Netherlands

Spain

Richard Courtney

Craig Idso

Christopher Monckton

Gerd Weber

United Kingdom

United States

United Kingdom

Germany

Joseph d’Aleo

Zbigniew Jaworowski

Lubos Motl

United States

Poland

Czech Republic

Published for the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change by

Foreword

In his speech at the United Nations’ climate

scientists in the U.S. In the 1960s, he established

conference on September 24, 2007, Dr. Vaclav

and served as the first director of the U.S. Weather Klaus, president of the Czech Republic, said it

Satellite Service, now part of the National

would most help the debate on climate change if the

Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration

current monopoly and one-sidedness of the

(NOAA), and earned a U.S. Department of

scientific debate over climate change by the

Commerce Gold Medal Award for his technical

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)

leadership. In the 1980s, Singer served for five

were eliminated. He reiterated his proposal that the years as vice chairman of the National Advisory

UN organize a parallel panel and publish two

Committee for Oceans and Atmosphere (NACOA)

competing reports.

and became more directly involved in global

The present report of the Nongovernmental

environmental issues.

International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC)

Since retiring from the University of Virginia

does exactly that. It is an independent examination

and from his last federal position as chief scientist of the evidence available in the published,

of the Department of Transportation, Singer

peer-reviewed literature – examined without bias

founded and directed the nonprofit Science and

and selectivity. It includes many research papers

Environmental Policy Project, an organization I am

ignored by the IPCC, plus additional scientific

pleased to serve as chair. SEPP’s major concern has

results that became available after the IPCC

been the use of sound science rather than

deadline of May 2006.

exaggerated fears in formulating environmental

The IPCC is pre-programmed to produce reports

policies.

to support the hypotheses of anthropogenic warming

Our concern about the environment, going back

and the control of greenhouse gases, as envisioned

some 40 years, has taught us important lessons. It is in the Global Climate Treaty. The 1990 IPCC

one thing to impose drastic measures and harsh

Summary completely ignored satellite data, since

economic penalties when an environmental problem

they showed no warming. The 1995 IPCC report

is clear-cut and severe. It is foolish to do so when was notorious for the significant alterations made to the problem is largely hypothetical and not

the text after it was approved by the scientists – in substantiated by observations. As NIPCC shows by

order to convey the impression of a human

offering an independent, non-governmental ‘second

influence. The 2001 IPCC report claimed the

opinion’ on the ‘global warming’ issue, we do not

twentieth century showed ‘unusual warming’ based

currently have any convincing evidence or

on the now-discredited hockey-stick graph. The

observations of significant climate change from

latest IPCC report, published in 2007, completely

other than natural causes.

devaluates the climate contributions from changes

in solar activity, which are likely to dominate any

human influence.

The foundation for NIPCC was laid five years

Frederick Seitz

ago when a small group of scientists from the

President Emeritus, Rockefeller University

United States and Europe met in Milan during one

Past President, National Academy of Sciences

of the frequent UN climate conferences. But it got

Past President, American Physical Society

going only after a workshop held in Vienna in April

Chairman, Science and Environmental Policy

2007, with many more scientists, including some

Project

from the Southern Hemisphere.

The NIPCC project was conceived and directed

February 2008

by Dr. S. Fred Singer, professor emeritus of

environmental sciences at the University of

Virginia. He should be credited with assembling a

superb group of scientists who helped put this

volume together.

Singer is one of the most distinguished

iii

Preface

Before facing major surgery, wouldn’t you want a

for Policymakers (SPM) have been subject to

second opinion?

approval by member governments of the UN. The

When a nation faces an important decision that

scientists involved with the IPCC are almost all

risks its economic future, or perhaps the fate of the supported by government contracts, which pay not

ecology, it should do the same. It is a time-honored only for their research but for their IPCC activities.

tradition in science to set up a ‘Team B,’ which

Most travel to and hotel accommodations at exotic

examines the same original evidence but may reach

locations for the drafting authors is paid with

a different conclusion. The Nongovernmental

government funds.

International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC)

The history of the IPCC has been described in

was set up to examine the same climate data used by

several publications. What is not emphasized,

the United Nations-sponsored Intergovernmental

however, is the fact that it was an activist enterprise Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

from the very beginning. Its agenda was to justify

On the most important issue, the IPCC’s claim

control of the emission of greenhouse gases,

that “most of the observed increase in global

especially carbon dioxide. Consequently, its

average temperatures since the mid-20th century is

scientific reports have focused solely on evidence

very likely due to the observed increase in

that might point toward human-induced climate

anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations,”

change. The role of the IPCC “is to assess on a

(emphasis in the original), NIPCC reaches the

comprehensive, objective, open and transparent

opposite conclusion – namely, that natural causes

basis the latest scientific, technical and

are very likely to be the dominant cause. Note: We

socio-economic literature produced worldwide

do not say anthropogenic greenhouse (GH) gases

relevant to the understanding of the risk of

cannot produce some warming. Our conclusion is

human-induced climate change, its observed and that the evidence shows they are not playing a

projected impacts and options for adaptation and

significant role.

mitigation” (emphasis added) [IPCC 2008].

Below, we first sketch out the history of the two

The IPCC’s three chief ideologues have been

organizations and then list the conclusions and

(the late) Professor Bert Bolin, a meteorologist at

responses that form the body of the NIPCC report.

Stockholm University; Dr. Robert Watson, an

atmospheric chemist at NASA, later at the World

Bank, and now chief scientist at the UK Department

A Brief History of the IPCC

of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; and Dr.

The rise in environmental consciousness since the

John Houghton, an atmospheric radiation physicist

1970s has focused on a succession of ‘calamities’:

at Oxford University, later head of the UK Met

cancer epidemics from chemicals, extinction of

Office as Sir John Houghton.

birds and other species by pesticides, the depletion Watson had chaired a self-appointed group to

of the ozone layer by supersonic transports and later find evidence for a human effect on stratospheric

by freons, the death of forests (‘Waldsterben’)

ozone and was instrumental in pushing for the 1987

because of acid rain, and finally, global warming,

Montreal Protocol to control the emission of

the “mother of all environmental scares” (according

chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). Using the blueprint of

to the late Aaron Wildavsky).

the Montreal Protocol, environmental lawyer David

The IPCC can trace its roots to World Earth

Doniger of the Natural Resources Defense Council

Day in 1970, the Stockholm Conference in 1971-72,

then laid out a plan to achieve the same kind of

and the Villach Conferences in 1980 and 1985. In

control mechanism for greenhouse gases, a plan that

July 1986, the United Nations Environment

eventually was adopted as the Kyoto Protocol.

Program (UNEP) and the World Meteorological

From the very beginning, the IPCC was a

Organization (WMO) established the

political rather than scientific entity, with its leading Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)

scientists reflecting the positions of their

as an organ of the United Nations.

governments or seeking to induce their governments

The IPCC’s key personnel and lead authors

to adopt the IPCC position. In particular, a small

were appointed by governments, and its Summaries

group of activists wrote the all-important Summary

iv

for Policymakers (SPM) for each of the four IPCC

SAR also provoked the 1996 publication of the

reports [McKitrick et al. 2007].

Leipzig Declaration by SEPP, which was signed by

While we are often told about the thousands of

some 100 climate scientists. A booklet titled “The

scientists on whose work the Assessment reports are

Scientific Case Against the Global Climate Treaty”

based, the vast majority of these scientists have no followed in September 1997 and was translated into

direct influence on the conclusions expressed by the several languages. [SEPP 1997. All these are

IPCC. Those are produced by an inner core of

available online at www.sepp.org.]

scientists, and the SPMs are revised and agreed to,

In spite of its obvious shortcomings, the IPCC

line-by-line, by representatives of member

report provided the underpinning for the Kyoto

governments. This obviously is not how real

Protocol, which was adopted in December 1997.

scientific research is reviewed and published.

The background is described in detail in the booklet These SPMs turn out, in all cases, to be highly

“Climate Policy – From Rio to Kyoto,” published

selective summaries of the voluminous science

by the Hoover Institution [Singer 2000]. The Kyoto

reports – typically 800 or more pages, with no

Protocol also provoked the adoption of a short

indexes (except, finally, the Fourth Assessment

statement expressing doubt about its scientific

Report released in 2007), and essentially unreadable foundation by the Oregon Institute for Science and

except by dedicated scientists.

Medicine, which attracted more than 19,000

The IPCC’s First Assessment Report [IPCC-

signatures from scientists, mainly in the U.S. [The

FAR 1990] concluded that the observed temperature

statement is still attracting signatures, and can be changes were “broadly consistent” with greenhouse

viewed at www.oism.org.]

models. Without much analysis, it gave the “climate

The Third Assessment Report of the IPCC

sensitivity” of a 1.5 to 4.5º C temperature rise for a

[IPCC-TAR 2001] was noteworthy for its use of

doubling of greenhouse gases. The IPCC-FAR led

spurious scientific papers to back up its SPM claim

to the adoption of the Global Climate Treaty at the

of “new and stronger evidence” of anthropogenic

1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro.

global warming. One of these was the so called

The FAR drew a critical response [SEPP 1992].

‘hockey-stick’ paper, an analysis of proxy data,

FAR and the IPCC’s style of work also were

which claimed the twentieth century was the

criticized in two editorials in Nature [Anonymous warmest in the past 1,000 years. The paper was later 1994, Maddox 1991].

found to contain basic errors in its statistical

The IPCC’s Second Assessment Report [IPCC-

analysis. The IPCC also supported a paper that

SAR 1995] was completed in 1995 and published in

claimed pre-1940 warming was of human origin and

1996. Its SPM contained the memorable conclusion,

caused by greenhouse gases. This work, too,

“the balance of evidence suggests a discernible

contained fundamental errors in its statistical

human influence on global climate.” The SAR was

analysis. The SEPP response to TAR was a 2002

again heavily criticized, this time for having

booklet, “The Kyoto Protocol is Not Backed by

undergone significant changes in the body of the

Science” [SEPP 2002].

report to make it ‘conform’ to the SPM – after it The Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC

was finally approved by the scientists involved in

[IPCC-AR4 2007] was published in 2007; the SPM

writing the report. Not only was the report altered, of Working Group I was released in February; and

but a key graph was also doctored to suggest a

the full report from this Working Group was

human influence. The evidence presented to support

released in May – after it had been changed, once

the SPM conclusion turned out to be completely

again, to ‘conform’ to the Summary. It is significant spurious.

that AR4 no longer makes use of the hockey-stick

There is voluminous material available about

paper or the paper claiming pre-1940 human-caused

these text changes, including a Wall Street Journal warming.

editorial article by Dr. Frederick Seitz [Seitz 1996].

AR4 concluded that “most of the observed

This led to heated discussions between supporters of increase in global average temperatures since the

the IPCC and those who were aware of the altered

mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed text and graph, including an exchange of letters in

increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas

the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society concentrations” (emphasis in the original).

[Singer et al. 1997].

However, as the present report will show, it ignored v

available evidence against a human contribution to this report out of concern that the IPCC was

current warming and the substantial research of the

provoking an irrational fear of anthropogenic global past few years on the effects of solar activity on

warming based on incomplete and faulty science.

climate change.

Global warming hype has led to demands for

Why have the IPCC reports been marred by

unrealistic efficiency standards for cars, the

controversy and so frequently contradicted by

construction of uneconomic wind and solar energy

subsequent research? Certainly its agenda to find

stations, the establishment of large production

evidence of a human role in climate change is a

facilities for uneconomic biofuels such as ethanol

major reason; its organization as a government

from corn, requirements that electric companies

entity beholden to political agendas is another major purchase expensive power from so-called

reason; and the large professional and financial

‘renewable’energy sources, and plans to sequester,

rewards that go to scientists and bureaucrats who

at considerable expense, carbon dioxide emitted

are willing to bend scientific facts to match those

from power plants. While there is absolutely

agendas is yet a third major reason.

nothing wrong with initiatives to increase energy

Another reason for the IPCC’s unreliability is

efficiency or diversify energy sources, they cannot

the naive acceptance by policymakers of ‘peer-

be justified as a realistic means to control climate.

reviewed’ literature as necessarily authoritative. It In addition, policies have been developed that

has become the case that refereeing standards for

try to hide the huge cost of greenhouse gas controls, many climate-change papers are inadequate, often

such as cap and trade, a Clean Development

because of the use of an ‘invisible college’ of

Mechanism, carbon offsets, and similar scams that

reviewers of like inclination to a paper’s authors.

enrich a few at the expense of the rest of us.

[Wegman et al. 2006] Policy should be set upon a

Seeing science clearly misused to shape public

background of demonstrable science, not upon

policies that have the potential to inflict severe

simple (and often mistaken) assertions that, because economic harm, particularly on low-income groups,

a paper was refereed, its conclusions must be

we choose to speak up for science at a time when

accepted.

too few people outside the scientific community

know what is happening, and too few scientists who

know the truth have the will or the platforms to

Nongovernmental International Panel on

speak out against the IPCC.

Climate Change (NIPCC)

NIPCC is what its name suggests: an

When new errors and outright falsehoods were

international panel of nongovernment scientists and observed in the initial drafts of AR4, SEPP set up a scholars who have come together to understand the

‘Team B’ to produce an independent evaluation of

causes and consequences of climate change.

the available scientific evidence. While the initial Because we are not predisposed to believe climate

organization took place at a meeting in Milan in

change is caused by human greenhouse gas

2003, ‘Team B’ was activated after the AR4 SPM

emissions, we are able to look at evidence the IPCC

appeared in February 2007. It changed its name to

ignores. Because we do not work for any

NIPCC and organized an international climate

governments, we are not biased toward the

workshop in Vienna in April 2007.

assumption that greater government activity is

The present report stems from the Vienna

necessary.

workshop and subsequent research and

contributions by a larger group of international

scholars. For a list of those contributors, see page ii.

Looking Ahead

What was our motivation? It wasn’t financial The public’s fear of anthropogenic global warming

self-interest: No grants or contributions were

seems to be at a fever pitch. Polls show most people provided or promised in return for producing this

in most countries believe human greenhouse gas

report. It wasn’t political: No government agency

emissions are a major cause of climate change and

commissioned or authorized our efforts, and we do

that action must be taken to reduce them, although

not advise or support the candidacies of any

most people apparently are not willing to make the

politicians or candidates for public office.

financial sacrifices required [Pew 2007].

We donated our time and best efforts to produce

While the present report makes it clear that the

vi

scientific debate is tilting away from global

We regret that many advocates in the debate

warming alarmism, we are pleased to see the

have chosen to give up debating the science and

political debate also is not over. Global warming

now focus almost exclusively on questioning the

‘skeptics’ in the policy arena include Vaclav Klaus, motives of ‘skeptics,’ name-calling, and ad

president of the Czech Republic; Helmut Schmidt,

hominem attacks. We view this as a sign of

former German chancellor; and Lord Nigel Lawson,

desperation on their part, and a sign that the debate former United Kingdom chancellor of the

has shifted toward climate realism.

exchequer. On the other side are global warming

We hope the present study will help bring

fearmongers, including UK science advisor Sir

reason and balance back into the debate over

David King and his predecessor Robert May (now

climate change, and by doing so perhaps save the

Lord May), and of course Al Gore, former vice

peoples of the world from the burden of paying for

president of the U.S. In spite of increasing pressures wasteful, unnecessary energy and environmental

to join Kyoto and adopt emission limits on carbon

policies. We stand ready to defend the analysis and

dioxide, President George W. Bush in the United

conclusion in the study that follows, and to give

States has resisted – so far.

further advice to policymakers who are open-

minded on this most important topic.

S. Fred Singer

President, Science and Environmental Policy Project

Distinguished Research Professor, George Mason University Professor Emeritus of Environmental Science, University of Virginia February 2008

vii

Contents

Foreword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i i Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

2. How much of modern warming is anthropogenic? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

3. Most of modern warming is due to natural causes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

4. Climate models are not reliable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

5. The rate of sea-level rise is unlikely to increase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

6. Do anthropogenic greenhouse gases heat the oceans? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

7. How much do we know about carbon dioxide in the

atmosphere? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

8. The effects of human carbon dioxide emissions are uncertain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

9. The economic effects of modest warming are likely to be positive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

10. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

About S. Fred Singer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Recommended Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate

Summary for Policymakers of the Report of the

Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change The IPCC continues to undervalue the

1. Introduction

overwhelming evidence that, on decadal and

century-long time scales, the Sun and associated

The Fourth Assessment Report of the

atmospheric cloud effects are responsible for much

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s

of past climate change. It is therefore highly likely Working Group-1 (Science) (IPCC-AR4 2007),

that the Sun is also a major cause of twentieth-

released in 2007, is a major research effort by a

century warming, with anthropogenic GH gases

group of dedicated specialists in many topics related making only a minor contribution. In addition, the

to climate change. It forms a valuable compendium

IPCC ignores, or addresses imperfectly, other

of the current state of the science, enhanced by

science issues that call for discussion and

having an index, which had been lacking in

explanation.

previous IPCC reports. AR4 also permits access to

The present report by the Nongovernmental

the numerous critical comments submitted by expert

International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC)

reviewers, another first for the IPCC.

focuses on two major issues – the very weak

While AR4 is an impressive document, it is far

evidence that the causes of the current warming are

from being a reliable reference work on some of the

anthropogenic (Section 2) and the far more robust

most important aspects of climate change science

evidence that the causes of the current warming are

and policy. It is marred by errors and misstatements, natural (Section 3) – and then addresses a series of ignores scientific data that were available but were less crucial topics:

inconsistent with the authors’ pre-conceived

conclusions, and has already been contradicted in

! Computer models are unreliable guides to future

important parts by research published since May

climate conditions (Section 4);

2006, the IPCC’s cut-off date.

In general, the IPCC fails to consider important

! Sea-level rise is not significantly affected by

scientific issues, several of which would upset its

rise in GH gases (Section 5);

major conclusion – that “most of the observed

increase in global average temperatures since the

! The data on ocean heat content have been

mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed misused to suggest anthropogenic warming. The

increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas

role of GH gases in the reported rise in ocean

concentrations” (emphasis in the original).

temperature is largely unknown (Section 6);

The IPCC does not apply generally accepted

methodologies to determine what fraction of current

! Understanding of the atmospheric carbon

warming is natural, or how much is caused by the

dioxide budget is incomplete (Section 7);

rise in greenhouse (GH) gases. A comparison of

‘fingerprints’ from best available observations with

! Higher concentrations of GH gases are more

the results of state-of-the-art GH models leads to the likely to be beneficial to plant and animal life

conclusion that the (human-caused) GH contribution

and to human health than lower concentrations

is minor. This fingerprint evidence, though

(Section 8); and

available, was ignored by the IPCC.

1

! Conclusion: Our imperfect understanding of

consequences of warming with the causes – a

the causes and consequences of climate change

common logical error. In addition, fluctuations of

means the science is far from settled. This, in

glacier mass depend on many factors other than

turn, means proposed efforts to mitigate climate

temperature, and thus they are poor measuring

change by reducing GH gas emissions are

devices for global warming.

premature and misguided. Any attempt to

influence global temperatures by reducing such

emissions would be both futile and expensive

! The so-called ‘hockey-stick’ diagram of

(Section 9).

warming has been discredited.

Another claimed piece of ‘evidence’ for AGW

is the assertion that the twentieth century was

2. How Much of Modern Warming Is

unusually warm, the warmest in the past 1,000

years. Compared to IPCC’s Third Assessment

Anthropogenic?

Report [IPCC-TAR 2001], the latest IPCC report no

longer emphasizes the ‘hockey-stick’ analysis by

The basic question is: What are the sources of

Mann (Figure 1), which had done away with both

twentieth-century warming? What fraction is of

the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) and the Little

natural origin, a recovery from the preceding Little Ice Age (LIA).

Ice Age (LIA), and what fraction is anthropogenic,

e.g., caused by the increase in human-generated GH

gases? The answer is all-important when it comes to

policy.

AR4 [p. 10] claims “most of the observed

increase in global average temperatures since the

mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas

concentrations” (emphasis in original). AR4's

authors even assign a better-than-90 percent

probability to this conclusion, although there is no sound basis for making such a quantitative

Figure 1: The ‘hockey stick’ temperature graph was used by judgment. They offer only scant supporting

the IPCC to argue that the twentieth century was unusually evidence, none of which stands up to closer

warm [IPCC-TAR 2001, p.3].

examination. Their conclusion seems to be based on

the peculiar claim that science understands well

enough the natural drivers of climate change to rule

‘Reconstructed temperatures’ are derived from

them out as the cause of the modern warming.

an analysis of various proxy data, mainly tree rings; Therefore, by elimination, recent climate changes

surprisingly, they do not show the Medieval Climate

must be human-induced.

Optimum and the Little Ice Age, both well-known

from historic records. The ‘observed temperatures’

! Evidence of warming is not evidence that

(in red) are a version of the thermometer-based

the cause is anthropogenic.

temperature record since the end of the nineteenth

century.

It should be obvious, but apparently is not, that

The hockey-stick analysis was beset with

such facts as melting glaciers and disappearing

methodological errors, as has been demonstrated by

Arctic sea ice, while interesting, are entirely

Steven McIntyre and Ross McKitrick [2003, 2005]

irrelevant to illuminating the causes of warming.

and confirmed by statistics expert Edward Wegman

Any significant warming, whether anthropogenic or

[Wegman et al. 2006]. A National Academy of

natural, will melt ice – often quite slowly.

Sciences report [NAS 2006] skipped lightly over the

Therefore, claims that anthropogenic global

errors of the hockey-stick analysis and concluded

warming (AGW) is occurring that are backed by

that it showed only that the twentieth century was

such accounts are simply confusing the

the warmest in 400 years. But this conclusion is

2

hardly surprising, since the LIA was near its nadir

Prehistoric Temperatures from Proxy Data

400 years ago, with temperatures at their lowest.

Independent analyses of paleo-temperatures that

do not rely on tree rings have all shown a Medieval

Warm Period (MWP) warmer than current

temperatures. For example, we have data from

Greenland borehole measurements (Figure 2) by

Dahl-Jensen et al. [1999], various isotope data, and an analysis by Craig Loehle [2007] of proxy data,

which excludes tree rings. (Figure 3) Abundant

historical data also confirm the existence of a

warmer MWP [Moore 1995].

Greenland Ice-Core Bore Hole Record

Figure 3a: Surface temperatures in the Sargasso Sea (a two million square-mile region of the Atlantic Ocean) with time resolution of 50 to 100 years and ending in 1975, as determined by isotope ratios of marine organism remains in deep-sea sediments [Keigwin 1996]. The horizontal line is the average temperature for this 3,000-year period. The Little Ice Age and the Medieval Climate Optimum were naturally

occurring, extended intervals of climate departures from the mean. A value of 0.25 degrees C, which is the change in Sargasso Sea temperature between 1975 and 2006, has been added to the 1975 data in order to provide a 2006 temperature value [Robinson et al. 2007].

Figure 3b: Paleo-temperatures from proxy data (with tree rings eliminated). Note the Medieval Warm Period is much warmer than the twentieth century [Loehle 2007].

The climate cooled from 1940-1975 while CO

Figure 2: Temperature values from the GRIP ice-core borehole 2

in Greenland. The top left graph shows the past 100,000 years; was rising rapidly (Figures 4a,b). Moreover, there

the dramatic warming ending the most recent glaciation is has been no warming trend apparent, especially in

clearly visible. The top right graph shows the past 10,000 years global data from satellites, since about 2001, despite (the interglacial Holocene); one sees the Holocene Climate Optimum, a pronounced Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice a continuing rapid rise in CO emissions. The UK

2

Age, but an absence of post-1940 warming [Dahl-Jensen et al.

Met Office issued a 10-year forecast in August 2007

1999].

in which they predict further warming is unlikely

before 2009. However, they suggest at least half the years between 2009 and 2014 will be warmer than

! The correlation between temperature and

the present record set in 1998 [Met Office 2007].

carbon dioxide levels is weak and

inconclusive.

! Computer models don’t provide evidence

The IPCC cites correlation of global mean

of anthropogenic global warming.

temperature with increases in atmospheric

concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO ) in the

The IPCC has called upon climate models in

2

twentieth century to support its conclusion. The

support of its hypothesis of AGW. We discuss the

argument sounds plausible; after all, CO is a GH

shortcomings of computer models in greater detail

2

gas and its levels are increasing. However, the

below. Here we address the specific claim that the

correlation is poor and, in any case, would not prove global mean surface temperature of the twentieth

causation.

3

Global and U.S. Mean Surface Temperatures

example, the values for CS, as given by Stainforth,

involve varying just six parameters out of some 100

listed in a paper by Murphy et al. [2004]. The values of these parameters, many relating to clouds and

precipitation, are simply chosen by ‘expert opinion.’

In an empirical approach, Schwartz [2007] derives

a climate sensitivity that is less than the lowest

value quoted by the IPCC, as does Shaviv [2005] by

using a different empirical method.

Cloud feedbacks can be either positive (high

clouds) or negative (low clouds) and are widely

considered to be the largest source of uncertainty in determining CS [Cess 1990, 1996]. Spencer and

Braswell [2007] find that current observational

diagnoses of cloud feedback could be significantly

biased in a positive direction.

The IPCC undervalues the forcing arising from

changes in solar activity (solar wind and its

magnetic effects) – likely much more important than

the forcing from CO . Uncertainties for aerosols,

2

which tend to cool the climate and oppose the GH

Figure 4a: The global mean surface temperature (GMST) of effect, are even greater, as the IPCC recognizes in a the twentieth century. Note the cooling between 1940 and 1975. [NASA-GISS, http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/

table on page 32 of the AR4 report (Figure 5).

graphs/]. GMST is subject to uncertain corrections; see text for An independent critique of the IPCC points to

a discussion of the problems of land and ocean data. The the arbitrariness of the matching exercise in view of recent rise in temperatures shown here is suspect and does not agree with the measured tropospheric temperature trend the large uncertainties of some of these forcings,

(see Figure 13) or with the better-controlled US data, shown in particularly for aerosols [Schwartz, Charlson, Rodhe Figure 4b.

2007]. James Hansen, a leading climate modeler,

Figure 4b: The 2007 discovery of an error in the handling of called attention to our inadequate knowledge of

U.S. data has led to a greater amplitude of pre-1940 warming, radiative forcing from aerosols when he stated, “the which now exceeds the 1998 peak. The Arctic data exhibit a higher temperature in the 1930s than at present and correlate forcings that drive long-term climate change are not well with values of solar irradiance [Soon 2005]. Note the known with an accuracy sufficient to define future

absence of recent warming and of any post-1998 temperature climate change” [Hansen 1998].

trend.

century can be adequately simulated by combining

! Observed and predicted ‘fingerprints’

the effects of GH gases, aerosols, and such natural

don’t match.

influences as volcanoes and solar radiation. Closer

Is there a method that can distinguish AGW

examination reveals this so-called agreement is little from natural warming? The IPCC [IPCC-SAR 1996,

more than an exercise in ‘curve fitting’ with the use p. 411; IPCC-AR4 2007, p. 668] and many

of several adjustable parameters. (The famed

scientists believe the ‘fingerprint’ method is the

mathematician John von Neumann once said: “Give

only reliable one. It compares the observed pattern

me four adjustable parameters and I can simulate an

of warming with a pattern calculated from GH

elephant. Give me one more and I can make his

models. While an agreement of such fingerprints

trunk wiggle.”)

cannot prove an anthropogenic origin for warming, Current climate models can give a Climate

it would be consistent with such a conclusion. A

Sensitivity (CS) of 1.5 to 11.5 C for a doubling of

mismatch would argue strongly against any

atmospheric CO [Stainforth et al. 2005; Kiehl

2

significant contribution from GH forcing and

2007]. The wide variability is derived mainly from

support the conclusion that the observed warming is

choosing different physical parameters that enter

mostly of natural origin.

into the formation and disappearance of clouds. For

4

Figure 5: Climate forcings from various sources [IPCC-AR4 2007, p. 32]. Note the large uncertainties for aerosol forcing, exceeding the values of greenhouse gas forcing. Note also that solar forcing is based only on total solar irradiance changes and does not consider the effects of solar wind, solar magnetism, or UV changes.

Climate models all predict that, if GH gases are

driving climate change, there will be a unique

fingerprint in the form of a warming trend

increasing with altitude in the tropical troposphere, the region of the atmosphere up to about 15

kilometers (Figure 6A). Climate changes due to

solar variability or other known natural factors will not yield this characteristic pattern; only sustained greenhouse warming will do so.

The fingerprint method was first attempted in

the IPCC’s Second Assessment Report (SAR)

[IPCC-SAR 1996, p. 411]. Its Chapter 8, titled

“Detection and Attribution,” attributed observed

temperature changes to anthropogenic factors – GH

gases and aerosols. The attempted match of

warming trends with altitude turned out to be

spurious, since it depended entirely on a particular choice of time interval for the comparison [Michaels

& Knappenberger 1996]. Similarly, an attempt to

correlate the observed and calculated geographic

Figure 6: Model-calculated zonal mean atmospheric distribution of surface temperature trends [Santer

temperature change from 1890 to 1999 (degrees C per

century) as simulated by climate models from [A] well-mixed 1995] involved making changes on a published

greenhouse gases, [B] sulfate aerosols (direct effects only), [C]

graph that could and did mislead readers [Singer

stratospheric and tropospheric ozone, [D] volcanic aerosols, [E]

1999 p. 9; 2000 pp. 15, 43-44]. In spite of these

solar irradiance, and [F] all forcings [U.S. Climate Change Science Program 2006, p. 25]. Note the pronounced increase shortcomings, IPCC-SAR concluded that “the

in warming trend with altitude in figures A and F as a balance of evidence” supported AGW.

‘fingerprint’ of greenhouse forcing.

5

Figure 7: Greenhouse-model-predicted temperature trends Figure 8: By contrast, observed temperature trends versus versus latitude and altitude; this is figure 1.3F from CCSP

latitude and altitude; this is figure 5.7E from CCSP 2006, p.

2006, p. 25, and also appears in Figure 6 of the current report.

116. These trends are based on the analysis of radiosonde Note the increased temperature trends in the tropical data by the Hadley Centre and are in good agreement with the mid-troposphere, in agreement also with the IPCC result corresponding US analyses. Notice the absence of increased

[IPCC-AR4 2007, p. 675].

temperature trends in the tropical mid-troposphere.

With the availability of higher-quality

obvious disagreement shown in the body of the

temperature data, especially from balloons and

report by suggesting there might be something

satellites, and with improved GH models, it has now

wrong with both balloon and satellite data.

become possible to apply the fingerprint method in

Unfortunately, many people do not read beyond the

a more realistic way. This was done in a report

summary and have therefore been misled to believe

issued by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program

the CCSP report supports anthropogenic warming.

(CCSP) in April 2006 – making it readily available

It does not.

to the IPCC for its Fourth Assessment Report – and

The same information can also be expressed by

it permits the most realistic comparison of

plotting the difference between surface trend and

fingerprints [Karl et al. 2006].

troposphere trend for the models and for the data

The CCSP report is an outgrowth of an NAS

[Singer 2001]. As seen in Figure 9a and 9b, the

report “Reconciling Observations of Global

models show a histogram of negative values (i.e.

Temperature Change” issued in January 2000 [NAS

surface trend less than troposphere trend) indicating 2000]. That NAS report compared surface and

that atmospheric warming will be greater than

troposphere temperature trends and concluded they

surface warming. But contrast, the data show mainly

cannot be reconciled. Six years later, the CCSP

positive values for the difference in trends,

report expands considerably on the NAS study. It is

demonstrating that measured warming is occurring

essentially a specialized report addressing the most principally on the surface and not in the atmosphere.

crucial issue in the GW debate: Is current GW

The same information can be expressed in yet a

anthropogenic or natural?

different way, as seen in research papers by

The CCSP result is unequivocal. While all GH

Douglass et al. [2004, 2007], as shown in Figure 10.

models show an increasing warming trend with

The models show an increase in temperature trend

altitude, peaking around 10 km at roughly two

with altitude but the observations show the opposite.

times the surface value, the temperature data from

This mismatch of observed and calculated

balloons give the opposite result: no increasing

fingerprints clearly falsifies the hypothesis of

warming, but rather a slight cooling with altitude in anthropogenic global warming (AGW). We must

the tropical zone. See Figures 7 and 8 above, taken

conclude therefore that anthropogenic GH gases can

directly from the CCSP report.

contribute only in a minor way to the current

The Executive Summary of the CCSP report

warming, which is mainly of natural origin.

inexplicably claims agreement between observed

The IPCC seems to be aware of this contrary

and calculated patterns, the opposite of what the

evidence but has tried to ignore it or wish it away.

report itself documents. It tries to dismiss the

6

Model-Observations Disparity of

The SPM of IPCC-AR4 [2007, p. 5] distorts the

Temperature Trends

key result of the CCSP report: “New analyses of

balloon-borne and satellite measurements of lower-

and mid-tropospheric temperature show warming

rates that are similar to those of the surface

temperature record, and are consistent within their

respective uncertainties, largely reconciling a

discrepancy noted in the TAR.” How is this

possible? It is done partly by using the concept of

‘range’ instead of the statistical distribution shown in Figure 9a. But ‘range’ is not a robust statistical measure because it gives undue weight to ‘outlier’

results (Figure 9b). If robust probability

distributions were used they would show an

exceedingly low probability of any overlap of

modeled and the observed temperature trends.

If one takes GH model results seriously, then

the GH fingerprint would suggests the true surface trend should be only 30 to 50 percent of the

observed balloon/satellite trends in the troposphere.

Figure 9a: Another way of presenting the difference between In that case, one would end up with a much-reduced

temperature trends of surface and lower troposphere; this is surface warming trend, an insignificant AGW

figure 5.4G from CCSP 2006, p. 111. The model results show a spread of values (histogram); the data points show balloon effect, and a minor GH warming in the future.

and satellite trend values. Note the model results hardly overlap with the actual observed trends. (The apparent deviation of the RSS analysis of the satellite data is as yet

! The global temperature record is unreliable.

unexplained.)

Figure 9b: By contrast, the executive summary of the CCSP

It is in fact more likely that the surface data

report presents the same information as Figure 9a in terms of themselves are wrong or that the computer models

‘range’ and shows a slight overlap between modeled and are wrong – or both. Several researchers have

observed temperature trends [Figure 4G, p. 13]. However, the use of ‘range’ is clearly inappropriate [Douglass et al. 2007]

commented on the difficulty of getting access to

since it gives undue weight to ‘outliers.’

original data, which would permit independent

Figure 10: A more detailed view of the disparity of temperature trends is given in this plot of trends (in degrees C/decade) versus altitude in the tropics [Douglass et al. 2007]. Models show an increase in the trend with altitude, but observations from balloons and satellites do not.

7

verification of the IPCC’s analysis of land surface

temperatures.

Objections to the surface data are too numerous

to elaborate here in detail [see Lo, Yang, Pielke

2007; McKitrick and Michaels 2006]. They have

been vigorously criticized for failing to sufficiently control for urban heat-island effects – the fact that asphalt, buildings, air conditioning units, and other parts of urban life cause warming of urban areas that has nothing to do with greenhouse gases. One study

of temperature stations in California found no

warming in rural counties, a slight warming in

suburban counties, and rapid warming in urban

counties (Figure 11). [Goodridge 1996]

Another criticism of the temperature record is

poor geographic distribution and sampling. The

number of stations has varied greatly over time and

has decreased markedly from the 1970s, especially

in Siberia, affecting the homogeneity of the dataset (Figure 12). Ideally, the models require at least one measuring point for each 5 degrees of latitude and

longitude—2,592 grid boxes in all. With the decline

in stations, the number of grid boxes covered also

declined—from 1,200 to 600, a decline in coverage

from 46 percent to 23 percent. Further, the covered

grid boxes tend to be in the more populated areas.

Figure 12: The number of (a) global weather stations and (b) grid boxes [Peterson and Vose 1997]. The top curve (solid) shows stations providing ‘mean values’; the dashed curve shows stations supplying ‘max-min’ values. The rise and fall of covered grid boxes (of 5º x 5º) supplying ‘mean values’ (solid) and ‘max-min’ values (dashed). Coverage is seen to be rather poor since the possible number of global grid boxes is 2,592.

An error in the analysis of the NASA-GISS

surface data for the U.S. was discovered recently by Stephen McIntyre [2007]. As a result, the year 1934

has emerged as the warmest of the twentieth century

for the U.S., and the 1930s the warmest decade.

Data on sea-surface temperatures (SST) have

increasingly been obtained from buoys and satellites rather than ships – raising a different set of

problems stemming from inhomogeneous data

sources. Balloon data can overcome some of these

problems, but only satellites provide true global

coverage and a homogeneous dataset for the Earth’s

Figure 11: A demonstration of the ‘urban heat island’ effect: atmosphere.

Observed (surface) temperature trends from California weather Finally, there is a general question of how to

stations are shown to depend on population density: (A) Counties with more than 1 million people, (B) 100k to 1 million, define a trend in view of its dependence on the

(C) less than 100k people, respectively [Goodridge 1996]. But choice of an appropriate time interval. This problem note that all three [High, Medium, and Low density] show a is made more difficult by the occurrence of frequent temperature rise up to 1940, followed by a pronounced cooling.

El Niño warmings and volcanic coolings.

8

For example, it is often stated that the climate

warming trend may not be real. The global trend,

has warmed in the twentieth century – but without

derived since 1979 from satellite data, depends very mentioning that the warming up to 1940, compared

much on the choice of ending date. Figure 13 shows

to the cool LIA, was almost certainly of natural

the complete satellite data record. One can

origin and that there was cooling from 1940 to 1975

legitimately conclude there was no warming trend

(Figure 4a) when atmospheric CO levels were

prior to 1997, then a small but sudden jump in 1998, 2

rapidly increasing. Even the late twentieth-century

followed by another interval of almost no warming

since 2001.

Global Lower Tropospheric Temperature, 1978-2007

Figure 13: Lower troposphere temperatures versus time from MSU-UAH satellite data. (a) Global; (b) Northern Hemisphere; (c) Southern Hemisphere; (d) Tropics [20 N-20S]; (e) Land; and (f) Ocean [Christy 2007]. Note the absence of a significant trend before 1997 and after 1998. Evidently, the calculated linear trend values (in degrees C per decade) depend on the choice of time interval.

9

! Global warming prior to 1940 was not

of the atmosphere-ocean system. It is significant,

anthropogenic.

however, that they cannot be forecast by

conventional climate models although attempts are

Most agree that the pre-1940 warming signals a

being made to incorporate them into climate

recovery from the Little Ice Age and was not caused

forecasts to improve forecasting skill [Smith 2007;

by GH gases but by natural factors, amongst which

Kerr 2007]. On the other hand, these may be merely

solar variability was probably most important. Yet

attempts to provide ‘band-aid’ solutions to explain

the IPCC in 2001 [IPCC-TAR, p. 716] still quoted

the absence of a warming trend since 1998.

a paper that maintains the cause was anthropogenic.

That analysis [Wigley 1998] was based on an

idiosyncratic statistical approach that has been

! The role of solar influences on the climate

criticized as spurious. [Tsonis and Elsner 1999]

can no longer be neglected.

Another way to show that this analysis is wrong

is to divide the data into pre-1935 and post-1935

The IPCC has been disingenuous about solar

periods, and then apply Wigley’s statistical method.

influences on the climate. Their first report

The results for post-1935 correspond to those

completely ignored solar variability. The IPCC

derived from an unforced (i.e., no increase in GH

began to take notice only after the pioneering work

gases) model calculation. This is contrary to

of Baliunas and Jastrow [1990] and the startling

expectation and also suggests the pre-1935 warming

correlation between twentieth-century temperature

is not anthropogenic.

and solar-cycle length, published by

Friis-Christensen and Lassen [1991]. Even then,

IPCC reports have persisted up until now in

Conclusion: The claim that man is the primary concentrating on solar-cycle changes in total solar

cause of the recent warming is not supported by

irradiance (TSI), which are quite small, of the order science. The scientific evidence cited by the IPCC

of 0.1 percent [Lean 1995; Willson and Mordvinov

is largely contradicted by observations and analysis.

2003]. By disregarding or ignoring the very much

larger changes of solar ultraviolet [Haigh 1996,

2003] or of the solar wind and its magnetic-field

effect on cosmic rays and thus on cloud coverage

3. Most of Modern Warming Is Due to

[Svensmark 2007a], the IPCC has managed to

Natural Causes

trivialize the climate effects of solar variability.

The AR4 report reduced the IPCC’s already-

If human influences on global climate are minor,

too-low solar impact by about a factor of three so

what are the major influences? There are many

that it became a mere ~1/13 of the anthropogenic

causes of global climate change, each one

influence. The IPCC does not discuss or even

prominent depending on the time scale considered.

reference basic research papers in this field (by

On a time scale of decades to centuries, solar

Veizer, Shaviv, and, to some extent, Svensmark).

variability may be the most important factor. There

Such an omission is difficult to justify in a report are also natural oscillations of internal origin,

that claims to be the most definitive and inclusive

especially on a regional scale, that do not appear to assessment of knowledge on climate change.

be connected to human causes either.

However, this neglect may no longer be

acceptable. The demonstration of solar influence on

climate is now overwhelming. One of the prize

! Internal oscillations play a major role in

exhibits is seen in Figure 14 [Neff 2001], which

climate change, yet cannot be forecast.

summarizes data obtained from a stalagmite from a

cave in Oman. The carbon-14 variations are a clear

The most prominent natural climate oscillations

indication of corresponding changes in galactic

are the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO), Atlantic

cosmic rays (GCR), which are modulated by

Multi-Decadal Oscillation (AMO), Pacific Decadal

variations in solar activity. The oxygen-18 values

Oscillation (PDO), and the El Niño-Southern

are proxies for a climate parameter, like temperature Oscillation (ENSO). The IPCC report describes

or precipitation, from a shift in the Intertropical

them well and assigns them to internal oscillations

Convergence Zone (ITCZ). The correlation extends

10

well over 3,000 years, with amazingly detailed

therefore climate has been suggested and verified

correspondence. The bottom graph shows the

experimentally by Henrik Svensmark [2007a,b].

central 400 years expanded and is accurate on

More detailed work is to take place under the

almost a yearly basis, making a cause-effect

CLOUD project proposed by a group of scientists at

relationship very likely.

CERN.

The best explanation for these observations, and

There now is little doubt that solar-wind

similar ones elsewhere, is that – as has long been

variability is a primary cause of climate change on

recognized [Singer 1958] – GCR intensity is

a decadal time scale. Once the IPCC comes to terms

modulated by the strength of the solar wind and its

with this finding, it will have to concede that solar magnetic field. More recently, a detailed mechanism

variability provides a better explanation for 20th

whereby cosmic rays can affect cloudiness and

Century warming than GH effects.

Solar Activity and Climate (as seen by proxies)

Figure 14: Values of carbon-14 (produced by cosmic rays – hence a proxy for solar activity) correlate extremely well with oxygen-18 (climate proxy); data are from a stalagmite in Oman [Neff 2001]. The time interval covers more than 3,000 years, from about 9,600 to 6,200 years before present (BP). The lower graph shows a particularly well-resolved time interval from 8,350 to 7,900

years BP. It would be difficult to explain this detailed correlation except through the modulation of galactic cosmic rays by changes in the solar wind and solar magnetic activity [Singer 1958]. The mechanism whereby cosmic rays influence terrestrial climate is most likely a change in cloudiness, as suggested by Svensmark [2007a, 2007b].

11

Indeed, solar variability may explain the pre-1940

the cloud albedo. Most of the effects of parameter

warming and subsequent cooling period, the MWP

variation are caused by a small subset of parameters; and LIA – and other quasi-periodic climate

for example, the choice of entrainment coefficient in oscillation with a period of roughly 1,500 years,

clouds is associated with 30 percent of the variation going back a million years or more [Singer and

seen in climate sensitivity [Knight 2007].

Avery 2007].

Special problems arise from the chaotic nature

of climate. Small changes in initial conditions lead to vastly different outcomes. To overcome this

well-recognized feature, modelers resort to multiple 4. Climate Models Are Not Reliable

runs (‘simulations’), which are later averaged into

an ‘ensemble.’ The problem then becomes one of

In its 2001 report the IPCC admitted, “In climate

convergence, especially when the outcomes differ

research and modelling, we should recognise that

greatly from each other [Lucarini 2007]. An

we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic

additional problem arises when trying to average

system, and therefore that the long-term prediction

over different model ensembles, some based on as

of future climate states is not possible” [IPCC-TAR

many as 10 runs, some only on one run.

2001, p. 774] Further, as demonstrated in Section 3, As previously observed, current GH models do

the Earth’s climate system is subject to significant, not match the observed latitude distribution of

changing influences beyond the Earth itself that are temperature trends. In particular, one would expect

not well understood and cannot be controlled.

that the production of sulfate aerosols in the

Computer models undoubtedly have their place

Northern Hemisphere should create a reduced

as a way of projecting possible consequences when

warming trend there – or even cooling. The

one or more variables are changed. However,

observations show the opposite.

models do not represent reality, yet the IPCC

In general, models do not consider realistically

persists in treating them as if they do. The IPCC and the lack of geographic homogeneity of forcing,

its predecessors have adopted climate sensitivities

especially for aerosols. Polar trends do not agree

(for a doubling of CO ) of 1.5 to 4.5 C. But actual

with model expectations and can more easily be

2

model results exceed these ‘canonical’ limits in both explained with solar forcing [Soon 2005]. Models

directions.

reviewed by the IPCC do not employ realistic

growth figures for the GH gas methane

[Dlugokencky 1998] and do not consider the

! Computer models do not consider solar

resultant forcings caused by future changes in the

dimming and brightening.

stratosphere from increases in water vapor and

Current models do not consider the observed

ozone depletion [Singer 1971; Shindell 2001].

solar ‘dimming’ and post-1985 ‘brightening’ [Wild

Held and Soden [2006] clearly show that, for

2005b; Stanhill 2007]. Existing models do not take

the computer models used in AR4, atmospheric WV

account of the existence of water vapor (WV)

increases with surface temperature according to the

‘dimers’ (double H O molecules) [Paynter 2007]

Clausius-Clapeyron (CC) equation; precipitation

2

and their atmospheric absorption of incoming solar

and evaporation increase at a rate significantly less radiation in the near-infrared, which may lead to a

than the CC relationship. However, satellite

negative climate feedback as WV concentration

observations suggest that actual precipitation

increases in the lower troposphere.

increased twice as fast as models predict [Wentz

2007], indicating the potential of global warming to cause drought may be less than has been feared.

! Computer models do not accurately

model the role of clouds.

! Computer models do not simulate a

The differences among model results are large

possible negative feedback from water

and arise mostly from the treatment of clouds and

vapor.

the somewhat arbitrary choices of cloud-related

parameters, notably, the droplet-size distribution

The models also have problems describing the

[Senior and Mitchell 1993], which strongly affects

latitude and altitude distribution of water vapor. In 12

particular, the values of upper-troposphere (UT)

Negative Feedbacks from Water Vapor

water vapor control the heat loss to space and

thereby exert an all-important control on the Earth’s surface temperature. Measurements may give mean

values of UT water vapor; but since emission varies

as the fourth power of temperature, one cannot

thereby deduce the average value of outgoing

long-wave radiation (OLR).

Since water vapor (WV) is the most important

atmospheric greenhouse gas, it is difficult to explain in simple terms how it can also act to produce a

negative feedback, i.e., to reduce the presumed

warming effects of CO . In fact, current GH models

2

all incorporate a positive feedback from an increase in WV.

However, Richard Lindzen [1990] and others

[Ellsaesser 1984] have pointed to ways whereby

Figure 15: The cartoon suggests that drying of the upper WV can produce a negative rather than a positive

troposphere would lead to a negative feedback reducing the effects of increasing CO . The (purple) broad band shows the 2

feedback. It requires a mechanism for reducing the

atmospheric infrared emission into space (outgoing long-wave concentration of WV in the upper troposphere (UT).

radiation—OLR). The upper boundary corresponds to a dry upper troposphere (UT); the lower boundary corresponds to a Empirical evidence seems to support such a

moist UT. The peaked red band shows emission from the distribution of UTWV [Spencer et al. 2007].

surface into space through the atmospheric window (8 to 12

The negative feedback mechanism works as

microns). To keep total OLR constant, the lower boundary of this band would correspond to a dry UT, while the upper follows [see Figure 15]: With normal values of

boundary would correspond to a moist UT. This change in UTWV, IR emission into space (called the outgoing

infrared emission from the surface suggests a corresponding long-wave radiation—OLR) takes place at the low

temperature change—which ultimately reduces the warming from increased levels of CO .

2

temperature of the UT. But if the UT is dry, then the OLR emission from WV bands originates from the

much warmer boundary layer in the lower

distributed surface stations from the Global Energy

troposphere (LT). The emission from the surface

Balance Archive [Wild 2005a]. The discrepancy is

takes place in the atmospheric window (between 8

9 watts per square meter (W/m2) on average,

to 12 microns) and depends on the temperature of

several times the estimated GH forcing. It suggests

the surface, which radiates as a black body.

uncertainties in partitioning of solar energy between Note, however, that the total value of OLR must

surface and atmospheric absorption.

roughly balance the incoming absorbed solar

Beyond this, the GH models do not explain

radiation. In the case of a moist UT, more of the

many other features of Earth’s observed climate.

OLR radiation will originate from the Earth’s

For instance, the history of polar temperatures, the surface; in the case of a dry UT the opposite is true.

cooling trend of the Antarctic, the seesaw effect of Therefore, a dry UT corresponds to a warmer

Northern Hemisphere/Southern Hemisphere linked

surface; a moist UT corresponds to a cooler surface: to ocean circulation, and features such the observed Hence the distribution of WV can produce a

Madden-Julian Oscillation in the tropics, the North

negative feedback—provided the increasing CO2

Atlantic Oscillation, the Atlantic Multi-decadal

causes a particular distribution of WV.

Oscillation [Schlesinger and Ramankutty 1994], the

Pacific Decadal Oscillation [Mantua 1997], and El

Niño occurrences.

! Computer models do not explain many

In general, climate models do rather poorly in

features of the Earth’s observed climate.

predicting precipitation, particularly on a regional level (see, for example, Figure 16). Nor have they

Models overestimate the land surface insolation,

been successful in predicting such major climate

(the amount of solar radiation striking the surface) phenomena as ENSO or the Indian Monsoon.

when compared to a dataset of 760 worldwide-

13

Figure 16: A result from the U.S. National Assessment of Climate Change [NACC 2000]: Expected precipitation for 18 regions of the United States, according to the Hadley model and Canadian model. Note the huge differences between the two model results in magnitude and even in sign. For example, the Dakotas (Souris - Red - Rainy) can turn either into a swamp or into a desert, depending on which climate model is used.

“Climate models are woefully inadequate to

Canadian model to project future changes for 18

simulate and predict Asian summer Monsoon

regions of the United States. As can be seen from

precipitation. The Asian summer Monsoon is the

Figure 16, in about half the regions the two models

largest single abnormality in the global climate

gave opposite results. For example, the Dakotas

system” [Shukla 2007]. Kriplani et al. [2005]

would become either a desert or a swamp by 2100,

conclude that the Indian Monsoon shows decadal

depending on the model chosen. It is significant that variability with about 30-year cycles of above-and-the U.S.-NACC report failed to meet the tests of the below-normal rainfall and is not affected by global

Information Quality Act [2004] and was withdrawn

warming at this time.

from official government report status.

While useful in experiments to study the

sensitivity of changes in climate parameters,

! Computer models cannot produce reliable

computer models are unsuited for predictions of

predictions of regional climate change.

future climate. Kevin Trenberth, a lead author of the Computer models are notoriously inadequate in

IPCC-TAR report, recently wrote [Trenberth 2007]:

simulating or projecting regional effects,

particularly when it comes to precipitation. This fact In fact there are no predictions by IPCC at all.

can be demonstrated most clearly in the

And there never have been. The IPCC instead

proffers ‘what if’ projections of future climate

U.S.-National Assessment of Climate Change report

that correspond to certain emissions scenarios.

[NACC 2000] that used both the Hadley model and

There are a number of assumptions that go into

14

these emissions scenarios. They are intended to

5. The Rate of Sea-Level Rise Is

cover a range of possible self consistent ‘story

lines’ that then provide decision makers with

Unlikely to Increase

information about which paths might be more

desirable. But they do not consider many things

Sea level (SL) rise is one of the most feared impacts like the recovery of the ozone layer, for

instance, or observed trends in forcing agents.

of any future global warming, but public discussion

There is no estimate, even probabilistically, as

of the problem is beset by poor data and extremely

to the likelihood of any emissions scenario and

misleading analysis.

no best guess. Even if there were, the

Eminent practitioners in the field have termed

projections are based on model results that

current estimates of SL rise a “puzzle’ [Douglas and provide differences of the future climate relative

Peltier 2002], an “enigma” [Munk 2002], and even

to that today.

“fiction” [Mörner 2004].

There is neither an El Niño sequence nor

any Pacific Decadal Oscillation that replicates

the recent past; yet these are critical modes of

! Estimates of recent sea-level rise are

variability that affect Pacific Rim countries and

unreliable.

beyond. The Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation,

that may depend on the thermohaline circulation

Most discussion, including that of the IPCC, is

and thus ocean currents in the Atlantic, is not set

formulated in terms of global average sea level.

up to match today’s state, but it is a critical

Even assuming this statistic can be estimated

component of the Atlantic hurricanes, and it

undoubtedly affects forecasts for the next

accurately (see further comments below), it has little decade from Brazil to Europe.

practical policy value. Local relative sea-level

The starting climate state in several of the

(LRSL) change is all that counts for purposes of

models may depart significantly from the real

coastal planning, and this is highly variable

climate owing to model errors. I postulate that

worldwide, depending upon the differing rates at

regional climate change is impossible to deal

which particular coasts are undergoing tectonic

with properly unless the models are initialized.

uplift or subsidence. There is no meaningful global

average for LRSL [Douglas 2001].

The ‘nuclear winter’ episode of 1983-84

At one of the allegedly most endangered sites,

represents a good example of how global climate

the Maldives, condemned to disappear soon into the

models can give false results and mislead the public sea, both satellite altimetry and tide-gauge records and even many experts. Ideologically driven, the

have not registered any significant SL rise. Contrary

‘nuclear-winter’ hypothesis relied on a model

to IPCC expectations, sea level there fell by 20 to

calculation that used artificial assumptions designed 30 cm in the past 30 years [Mörner 2004].

to give the desired result, incomplete physics that

Certain observational features stand out.

neglected important atmospheric processes, and also

According to abundant and varied geological data,

some physics that was plain wrong. The

sea level has risen by about 120 meters since the

‘phenomenon’ was hyped by the popular press,

Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) 18,000 years ago

endorsed by a National Academy of Sciences panel,

[e.g., Fairbanks 1989]. Coral data also show a

and taken quite seriously by government agencies,

roughly uniform rate of rise during past centuries

including the Pentagon. It is now being resurrected

[Toscano & Macintyre 2003] (Figure 17). The best in an ‘improved’ form [Robock 2007], but with the

tide-gauge data show a fairly uniform rate of rise of same problems as the original version.

about 1.8 mm per year during most of the past

century [Trupin and Wahr 1990, Douglas 2001] in

spite of warming and cooling (Figure 18). Satellite

Conclusion: The climate models used by the IPCC

data have shown a higher rate of rise in the past 20

do not depict the chaotic, open-ended climate

years [Cazenave and Nerem 2004], but the temporal

system. They cannot make reliable predictions and

and geographic variability is so large that the

should not be used in formulating government

applicability of the data has not been generally

policy.

accepted.

15

Sea Level Since Last Glacial Maximum

Figure 17: Sea-level rise since the Last Glacial Maximum, as deduced from coral and peat data [Toscano & Macintyre 2003]. The total rise since 18,000 years before present (BP) is about 120 meters. Note the rapid rate of rise as continental ice sheets melted and the more modest and nearly constant rate of rise in the past several millennia –irrespective of global temperature fluctuations.

Sea Level 1900-1980

Some analyses [Holgate 2006] even suggest a

slowdown in the rate of SL rise during the latter half of the twentieth century. We may conclude,

therefore, that there has been an insignificant

amount of acceleration, if any, in SL rise since 1900

– in spite of temperature changes. This conclusion

is completely at variance with that of the IPCC, yet it is supported by many independent researchers

[Douglas 2001].

! ‘Bottoms-up’ modeling of future sea levels

does not uniformly predict rising sea

levels.

The four IPCC reports have all used a

Figure 18: Sea-level (SL) values for 84 tidal-gauge stations

‘bottoms-up’ modeling analysis of global average

with more than 37 years of data [Trupin and Wahr 1990]. They change in sea level. They estimate separately the

have been corrected for post-glacial rebound. The average rate of rise is ~18 cm per century. Note absence of any positive contribution to SL rise from melting

acceleration in SL rise during warming intervals. While mountain glaciers (eustatic) and thermal expansion

satellite data [Cazenave and Nerem 2004] suggest a higher of a warming ocean (steric). Obviously, this holds

rate of rise, an analysis by Holgate [2006] shows a lower rate in recent years.

16

only for the upper ocean layer as icy-cold deep-sea

indeed, it is contradicted by observational evidence: water is neither increasing in temperature nor would SL rise continued at the same rate even when the

expand if warmed. They then add the estimated net

climate was cooling from 1940 to 1975. As Nobel

values (ice loss minus ice accumulation) for the

physicist Wolfgang Pauli once said when

Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets.

confronted with a similar silliness, “This theory is The observed lack of acceleration of SL

worthless; it isn’t even wrong.”

(Figures 17 and 18) may indicate a fortuitous yet

plausible balance, in which ice accumulation on the

Antarctic plateau roughly balances the effects of

expanding ocean and melting glaciers for

short-lived (decades-long) global temperature

changes [Singer 1997, p. 18]. This is plausible since a warming ocean releases more moisture into the

atmosphere, which increases precipitation and ice

accumulation, mainly over the Antarctic continent.

If true, sea level would continue to increase at about the same rate – roughly 18 cm per century – in spite of temperature changes of short duration, measured

in decades, whether warming or cooling.

! Each successive IPCC report forecasts a

Figure 19: Estimates of sea-level rise to Year 2100 from IPCC

smaller sea-level rise.

reports of 1990, 1995, 2001, and 2007. Note the strong reduction in estimated maximum rise, presumably based on Successive IPCC reports have reduced their

better data and understanding. Also shown are the published estimates of projected sea-level rise, as shown in

seal level rise values of Hansen (H) [2006], Rahmstorf (R)

[2007], and Singer (S) [1997]. Both H and R are well outside of Figure 19, and are coming closer to a value of 18

the maximum IPCC values. The ongoing rate of rise in recent cm per century. Since this is also close to the

centuries has been 18 cm per century; therefore, the incremental rate of rise for IPCC 2007 would be 0 to 41 cm, ongoing rate of rise, this is equivalent to saying

and about 0 to 2 cm for Singer.

there will be no acceleration by AGW, i.e., no

additional sea-level rise due to warming.

There is, however, another problem: The IPCC

figures do not match the observed rate of rise

James Hansen [2006] has suggested even more

[IPCC-AR4 2007, Table TS.3, p. 50]. Most of the

extreme estimates of future SL rise – nearly 15 (or

ongoing SL rise may therefore be due to the slow

even 60) times the mean IPCC value and 30 (or

melting of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS)

even 120) times that of Singer. His 20-feet estimate

[Conway 1999]. It has been slowly melting since the

is based on speculation about the short-term fate of LGM of 18,000 years ago. If it continues at this

polar ice sheets, assuming a sudden collapse and

rate, it will disappear in about 7,000 years

melting; his 80-feet estimate is derived by

[Bindschadler 1998] – unless another ice age

comparison with previous interglacials. However,

commences.

the MWP and the much greater warmings during the

earlier Holocene showed no evidence of such

imagined catastrophes. Hansen and Rahmstorf can

! Forecasts of more rapid sea-level rise are

therefore be considered ‘contrarians’ on this issue.

not credible.

It is likely that actual SL observations within

the next few years will show such extreme estimates

Recently, Stefan Rahmstorf [2007] has

to be wrong. It is ironic that Hansen, Rahmstorf, and published a ‘top down’ approach to SL-rise

some others have attacked the IPCC as being too

prediction that exceeds the current IPCC estimates

conservative [Rahmstorf et al. 2007] and relying on

about threefold. He simply assumes the rate of rise

consensus [Oppenheimer et al. 2007].

is proportional to global mean temperature. There is no theoretical basis to support this assumption – and 17

distribution just below the skin, and record the

6. Do Anthropogenic Greenhouse

changes as the amount of DWR varies. Since we

Gases Heat the Oceans?

cannot wait for a change in CO , we could measure

2

the effect of a cloud or other IR-emitting surface on In 2005, Hansen announced he had found the

our experimental setup.

‘smoking gun’ for anthropogenic warming by

comparing the published increasing rate of ocean

Energy Inputs to Sea Surface

heat storage (during a selected time period) with an assumed energy imbalance at the top of the

atmosphere [Hansen 2005]. There are many things

wrong with this analysis.

Obviously, sea surface temperature (SST) has to

increase before heat can be stored in the deep ocean.

We know SST increased pre-1940, thus presumably

adding stored heat to the ocean, yet few really

believe the cause of that warming was

anthropogenic, since it occurred well before the

large-scale use of fossil fuels. Hansen’s analysis has been additionally invalidated by the finding that the heat storage data are over-estimated by a large

factor [Gouretski 2007] and by recent observations

that heat storage stopped increasing in the past few Figure 20: Cartoon showing the absorption of downwelling infrared radiation (from greenhouse gases and clouds) within years [Lyman 2006, Willis 2007].

a ~10-micron ‘skin’ of the ocean. It is not known how much of A more fundamental issue is the degree to

this greenhouse energy contributes to sea surface

which greenhouse effects contribute to SST.

temperature, and how much goes into re-radiation and evaporation. Note the buoys are located in the warmest part of According to basic physics, the ‘complex refractive

the ‘mixed layer’ of the ocean; therefore, the increasing index’ of water in the infrared (IR) region results in admixture of buoy data since 1980 could result in a calculated rise of sea surface temperature that is an artifact of the data IR radiation being absorbed within a thickness of

handling procedure.

the order of only 10 microns. However, the GH

effect depends on IR radiation, downwelling from

the atmosphere towards the surface, being absorbed,

In response to the claim that the observed rise in

and then adding to the normal heating by the Sun’s

ocean temperatures provides an empirical solution

visible radiation (Figure 20). But if this

to this problem, we must consider the possibility

downwelling radiation (DWR), emanating from

that the observed temperature rise is partly an

atmospheric GH gases and from clouds, is

artifact of the method of measurement. As

completely absorbed in the ‘skin’ of the ocean, what previously observed, in the past 25 years, drifter

happens to the absorbed energy? How much is

buoys have become predominant in supplying SST

re-radiated? How much is used to increase

data. But they measure temperatures within a few

evaporation?

centimeters of the surface, where solar heating is a The problem is to find out how much of the

maximum (during the day) whereas ships (the

energy is transmitted to the bulk layer beneath the

previous method of measuring ocean temperatures)

skin in order to help warm the ocean [Singer 2005a,

measure temperatures a few meters below the

b; Singer 2006]. Peter Minnett [2006] believes his

surface, where it is colder. (See Figure 20 for an

data show that all of the DWR energy contributes to

illustration of the different measurement techniques sea surface temperature (SST); others are less sure.

in use.) One can readily show that combining ship

One doesn’t see any way of answering these

data with a growing amount of buoy data likely questions definitively, except perhaps by direct

leads to a fictitious temperature rise.

measurements under different conditions of sea state Finally, we must deal with the fact that as SST

and surface ripples.

increases, evaporation increases even more rapidly

One would measure the DWR, the upwelling IR

– setting effective upper limits to SST values

from the skin, and the detailed temperature

[Priestley 1996, Held & Soden 2006, Wentz et al.

18

2007]. But which temperature should one use: SST

dating back to the nineteenth century, has shown

(as climate models calculate) or the generally cooler rather large variations, including a major increase

‘skin’? Empirically, the situation is complicated

roughly coincident with a rise in ocean temperatures since rate of evaporation depends also on the

from 1920 to 1940 [Beck 2007]. Others have

relative humidity of the overlying atmosphere,

disputed the significance of these measurements; the surface winds and sea state, and the occurrence of

issue has not yet been fully resolved.

precipitation.

On the other hand, the observed latitudinal

Nowhere does the IPCC discuss these problems

distribution of CO , and its development over time,

2

in any detail or offer any suggestions for their

as seen by CO monitoring stations around the

2

solution. Yet it is clearly of fundamental importance world, provide important evidence for a substantial

to know what fraction of the greenhouse effect

human component of CO growth. Figure 21 shows

2

contributes to ocean heating – not least because

CO concentrations are highest in the Northern

2

oceans cover 70 percent of the Earth’s surface.

Hemisphere, with the seasonal cycle diminishing in

amplitude in the Southern Hemisphere, as would be

expected. But the secular increase of the amplitude

points to an expansion of the biosphere –

7. How Much Do We Know About

presumably as the result of CO fertilization.

Carbon Dioxide in the Atmosphere?

2

Measurements of increased ocean acidity give

us little additional information about the sources of What fraction of carbon dioxide from human

CO increases. Although higher concentrations of

2

activities contributes to the observed increase in

carbon dioxide reduce the pH of the ocean to some

carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and how much

degree, it still remains slightly alkaline; pH values ends up in poorly understood sinks? What fraction

range from 8.2 (in the Norwegian Sea of the North

is contributed by a warming ocean and absorbed by

Atlantic) to 7.9 (in the Eastern Pacific and Arabian an expanding biosphere?

Sea) [Doney 2006]. There seems no imminent

Unknown outgassing associated with a warmer

danger of impact on shell formation by marine

ocean, changing exchange between the surface

creatures. The much-feared effects on coral growth

layers and the deep ocean (where carbon is locked

are not supported by actual data. [Lough & Brnes up for thousands of years), unknown biosphere

1997; Fine & Tchernov 2007]

uptake in a warmer climate – all contribute

The observed increase over time in the

uncertainties as to future scenarios of atmospheric

amplitude of the seasonal CO cycle suggests that

2

CO concentration.

CO fertilization is expanding the biosphere and

2

2

The real policy question, then, is this: Can the

thus creating a negative feedback, as will be

rate of increase in atmospheric CO concentration be discussed below. The IPCC report also lacks a

2

explained with sufficient accuracy, taking account

thorough discussion of the data necessary to analyze of the various sources and sinks and the

this issue. It mentions [IPCC-AR4, p. 139] the great uncertainties associated with them, to predict the

uncertainty (between 6 percent and 39 percent) in

effects of mandated reductions in anthropogenic GH

the contribution from land-use changes to CO2

emissions?

growth rate.

Isotopic information on carbon-13 appears to be

adequate to resolve the problem [Marchitto 2005,

! Past trends in atmospheric levels of CO

Boehm 2002]. Similarly, the measured decrease in

2

are poorly understood and controversial.

atmospheric oxygen over time [Keeling 1992, 1996]

not only verifies that fossil fuels have been burned Zbigniew Jaworowski [1994, 1992] has

but clarifies some of the details of the CO budget.

repeatedly pointed to the unreliability of ice-core

2

Figure 22 shows trends in global emissions of

data to establish pre-1958 CO concentrations, thus

2

CO from use of fossil fuels from 1850 to 2000.

creating doubt about the magnitude of the human

2

Emissions grew at an annual rate of 4.4 percent

contribution to the current atmospheric CO2

from 1850 to 1915, slowed to 1.3 percent from 1915

concentration.

to 1945 (reflecting the global economic depression), Ernst-Georg Beck, by assembling more than

rose to 4.3 percent during the recovery from 1945 to 90,000 pre-1958 measurements of atmospheric CO2

19

Figure 21: CO levels versus latitude and time [http://www.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccgg]. The level of atmospheric 2

CO is color-coded to the ordinate scale. Data come from the marine boundary layer. Note the latitude 2

variation, indicating a CO source in the Northern Hemisphere. Note the increase in the amplitude of the 2

seasonal variation, suggesting an increase in terrestrial biomass.

1975, and finally slowed once again to 1.2 percent

atmosphere varies considerably and seems to

a year in the period from 1975 to 2000, reflecting

correlate with ocean temperature, El Niño

the spread of more energy-efficient technologies.

warmings, and the coolings from volcanic eruptions,

Figure 23 compares changes in human CO

not to human emission of CO .

2

2

emissions to changes in atmospheric CO since

2

1960. The fraction of emissions retained in the

Figure 23: The year-to-year increase of CO vs. time. The bar 2

Figure 22: Growth of CO emissions (in megatons per year of graph shows an increase in the atmospheric levels, an irregular 2

carbon) from fossil fuels [Marland 2007]. The top curve gives pattern that correlates well with El Niño warming events and the total values and growth rates as shown. Note the rapid rise volcanic cooling events. Yet the release of CO from fossil-fuel 2

of oil use and then natural gas. Note also that the vertical scale burning (upper curve) increases smoothly [IPCC 2007, p. 516].

is logarithmic; an exponential rise in emission therefore will Presumably, there are strong temperature-dependent

appear to be ‘linear.’

variations in the CO absorption of the ocean.

2

20

! Carbon dioxide sources and sinks are

atmosphere are not consistent with that

poorly understood.

interpretation but are more consistent with models

that show a smaller NH carbon sink and possibly

Present carbon-cycle models rely on unknown

strong carbon uptake in the tropics.

sinks to explain recent trends. Presumably, these

additional sinks were not operating prior to

industrialization and have emerged as a

! The role of oceans as CO sources and

2

consequence of the increasing atmospheric

sinks is a major source of uncertainty.

concentration. In the future, will these ‘missing

sinks’ amplify or diminish the human contribution

The role played by a warming ocean seems to

to atmospheric CO ?

be unquestioned. The solubility of CO in water

2

2

It is conventionally assumed that the difference

decreases with increasing temperature – roughly by

between emitted anthropogenic CO and the

4 percent per degree C. Therefore, the ability of a

2

measured increase must be absorbed in ocean, soils,

warming ocean to absorb CO diminishes – or

2

and biosphere or partly buffered in the upper mixed

conversely, a warming ocean will give up CO to a

2

ocean. Yet there are few data to support this and the warming atmosphere. Observationally, ice-core data

literature talks about an unidentified ‘carbon sink’

show that atmospheric CO increases followed (did 2

– renamed as ‘residual land sink’ [IPCC-AR4 2007,

not precede) the rapid warmings of past

p. 26]. Recent speculation assigns this sink to

deglaciations [Fischer 1999] by many centuries –

tropical forests.

although the increased CO may well operate in a

2

The observed increase in the seasonal change of

feedback loop and contribute to further warming.

CO concentration suggests increasing uptake by an

The details of this process are rather

2

expanding biosphere and the upper mixed ocean

complicated. The IPCC does not discuss it beyond

buffer. Unknown outgassing associated with a

mentioning that CO is absorbed in the colder parts

2

warmer ocean, changing exchange between the

of the ocean and may be released from upwelling

surface layers and the deep ocean (where carbon is

water in the warmer parts. A proper treatment

locked up for thousands of years), unknown

requires knowing the detailed temperature

biosphere uptake in a warmer and wetter climate,

distribution of the ocean in latitude and longitude. It increasing decay of biomass, as well as some

must take into account ocean circulation and how

outgassing of (permafrost) soils, etc., all lead to

this brings CO -rich colder water to the surface. It 2

uncertainties in future values of atmospheric CO

also involves knowing the degree of saturation of

2

concentration.

ocean masses as a function of time and the thickness Less than half of the CO emitted by fossil-fuel

of the mixed layer, likely a function of surface

2

burning remains in the atmosphere; the rest is

winds and sea state.

absorbed by the ocean or incorporated by the

The rate of CO uptake by the ocean depends on

2

terrestrial biosphere in roughly equal measures

the difference between the partial pressure of CO in 2

[Baker 2007]. In order to understand the relative

the atmosphere and the pressure that would exist if

role of different parts of the terrestrial biosphere as the ocean and the atmosphere were at equilibrium.

carbon sinks, global measurements of atmospheric

Le Quere [2007] reports that the rate of uptake by

CO concentration must be interpreted by

the Southern Ocean, one of the most important

2

‘inversion’ models to determine how uptake,

CO -absorbing regions, has slowed relative to what

2

emission, and transport contribute to the seasonal

would be expected based solely on how fast the

and regional differences.

concentration of atmospheric CO has risen since

2

Previous studies [IPCC-AR4 2007, p. 522] have

1981. They attribute this shortfall to an increase in suggested there must be a strong carbon sink in the

windiness over the Southern Ocean, conveniently

Northern Hemisphere, and that the tropics are a net

blamed on global warming. The authors predict this

carbon source. There is some evidence, considered

relative trend will continue.

controversial, from detailed CO data [Fan 1998]

2

that North America is a net carbon sink [IPCC-AR4

2007, p. 523]. However, Stephens [2007] reports

that global vertical distributions of CO in the

2

21

calculate the associated forcing and predict the

8. The Effects of Human Carbon Dioxide

response of climate system variables such as

Emissions Are Benign.

surface temperature and precipitation (Figure

10.1). At each step, uncertainty in the true signal

Answers to questions regarding where CO comes

of climate change is introduced by errors in the

2

representation of Earth system processes in

from and where it goes are of obvious importance in

models (e.g., Palmer et al. 2005) and by internal

predicting more accurately the effectiveness of

climate variability (e.g., Selten et al., 2004). ...

controls on human CO emissions. But they are not

2

Such limitations imply that distribution of future

nearly as important as knowledge of future

climate responses from ensemble simulations

consumption of fossil fuels or the likely effects of are themselves subject to uncertainty... [p. 797]

higher CO concentrations on the planet’s plants and 2

wildlife.

Regarding the former, there is reason to believe

The IPCC grossly exaggerates the long-term

the IPCC has exaggerated future emission trends,

(though not the short-term) increase in emissions

invalidating the temperature projections that rest on from poor countries. It does so by converting Gross

the accuracy of those emission scenarios. Regarding

Domestic Product estimates for wealthy and poor

the latter, there is clear and compelling evidence

countries into a common currency (U.S. dollars)

that higher levels of CO , even if accompanied by

using market exchange rates instead of purchasing

2

higher temperatures and changes in precipitation,

power parity. This method overstates the baseline

would be more beneficial than harmful.

income disparity. Because the IPCC projects that

poor nations will catch up to or even surpass

wealthy nations in per-capita income by the end of

! The IPCC’s estimates of future

the century, the inflated disparity in starting

anthropogenic CO emissions are too

2

positions means much greater economic activity

high.

must take place, and more greenhouse gas emissions

would be released into the atmosphere.

The IPCC used essentially the same

The assumption that poor countries would grow

methodology for producing emission scenarios in

as fast as the IPCC predicts is entirely implausible its AR4 as it did for TAR, a methodology that was

and would be unprecedented in the history of the

vigorously critiqued by Ian Castles and David

world. For example, the IPCC predicts all of Asia

Henderson in 2003 for containing basic errors in

would increase real incomes by a factor of 70 to 1,

economics and the handling of economic statistics,

whereas incomes even in fast-growing Japan

excluding from consideration relevant published

increased by ‘only’ a factor of 20 to 1 in the

sources, and excluding economists from its writing

twentieth century. According to even the most

and peer review processes [Castles and Henderson

conservative story lines used by the IPCC,

2003; Henderson 2005].

per-capita GDP in the U.S. in 2100 would be

For AR4, the IPCC ran computer simulations

surpassed by Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, North

for one scenario that appeared in TAR (A2) and two

Korea, Malaysia, Singapore, Hong Kong, Libya,

new scenarios (B1 and A1B) [IPCC-AR4 p. 761].

Algeria, Tunisia, and Argentina [Castles and

The IPCC frankly admits in the body of AR4,

Henderson 2003].

though not in the SPM, that there is considerable

uncertainty about the reliability of all of these

scenarios and their possible effects on climate:

! Higher concentrations of CO would be

2

beneficial to plant and animal life.

Uncertainty in predictions of anthropogenic

climate change arises at all stages of the

An extensive scholarly literature documents the

modelling process described in Section 10.1.

fact that increases in CO give rise to many changes The specification of future emissions of

2

that are beneficial. In the geologic past, CO levels greenhouse gases, aerosols and their precursors

2

have been many times higher than present values

is uncertain (e.g. Nakicenovic and Swart, 2000).

It is then necessary to convert these emissions

(Figure 24) and have sustained a large flora and

into concentrations of radiatively active species,

fauna [Berner 1997;Berner and Kothaualla 2001;

IPCC-AR4 2007, p. 441].

22

Figure 24: Phanerozoic CO : CO concentrations for the past 600 million years, in parts per million (left) 2

2

and as multiples (up to a factor ~20) of current concentration (right). The past 400,000-year period is squeezed into a thin sliver on the left. Dots represent data, and lines represent various models [Hayden 2007]. Note the significant downard trend in CO levels in the past 200 million years.

2

Plants use CO to produce the organic matter

other environmental stresses, including high soil

2

out of which they construct their tissues. Higher

salinity, high air temperature, low light intensity, levels of CO in the air enable plants to grow bigger, low levels of soil fertility [Idso and Idso 1994], low 2

produce more branches and leaves, expand their

temperature stress [Boese et al. 1997], oxidative

root systems, and produce more flowers and fruit

stress [Badiani et al. 1997], and the stress of

[Idso 1989]. Laboratory experiments show that a

herbivory (insect and animal grazing) [Gleadow et

300 ppm increase in the CO content typically raises al. 1998].

2

the productivity of most herbaceous plants by about

Concerns have been raised that coral reefs could

one-third [Kimball 1983; Idso 1992]. Some 176

be harmed by rising CO emissions through a

2

experiments on trees and other woody plants reveal

CO -induced acidification of the world’s oceans.

2

a mean growth enhancement of 48 percent for a 300

But a study of calcification rates of Porites coral

ppm increase in atmospheric CO content [Poorter

colonies on Australia’s Great Barrier Reef (GBR)

2

1993; Ceulemans and Mousseau 1994; Wullschleger

found “the 20th century has witnessed the second

et al. 1995, 1997].

highest period of above-average calcification in the Higher levels of CO cause plants to produce

past 237 years” [Lough and Barnes 1997]. Research

2

fewer leaf stomatal pores per unit area of leaf

by the same authors has found GBR calcification

surface, and to open those pores less widely

rates were linearly related to average annual sea

[Woodward 1987; Morison 1987]. Both of these

surface temperature, such that “a 1ºC rise in average changes tend to reduce most plants’ rates of water

annual SST increased average annual calcification

loss by transpiration, making them better able to

by 0.39 g cm-2year-1.”

withstand drought conditions [Tuba et al. 1998],

Warmer ocean temperatures are likely to

enabling terrestrial vegetation to begin to win back increase coral reef calcification “due to an

lands previously lost to desertification [Idso and

enhancement in coral metabolism and/or increases

Quinn 1983].

in photosynthetic rates of their symbiotic algae”

Atmospheric CO enrichment, finally, helps

[McNeil et al. 2004]. This biologically driven

2

plants cope with the negative effects of a number of process may account for the ability of coral to

23

survive major changes in temperature over the

(Figure 25). The chart shows 25 extreme high

course of millions of years.

temperature records set in 1934 and 29 in 1936, but

The evident survival of polar bears and other

none in 2001, 2003, 2004, or 2005. There is no

species, of polar ice sheets and glaciers, and of

evidence from U.S. records that extreme high

corals, all demonstrate that warmer temperatures

temperatures are on the increase.

have not been catastrophic, as many seem to fear. In Heat waves in Europe can almost entirely be

contrast, a markedly colder climate would certainly

explained by more frequent occurrence of

be harmful. Were a warmer climate also to be

circulation anomalies (more southerly flow). The

harmful, then logic would seem to dictate that the

role of CO in causing those circulation anomalies

2

present climate is optimal – an unlikely occurrence.

is poorly understood, making attribution impossible

at this time.

There has been an intense debate also whether

! Higher concentrations of CO are not

a warmer climate will lead to more severe storms

2

responsible for weather extremes, storms,

and to more frequent and/or more intense tropical

or hurricanes.

cyclones. Regarding storms, claims that heavy

precipitation events in the U.S. increased between

According to the IPCC, “It is very likely that

1900 and 1990 [Karl and Knight 1998] fails to

hot extremes, heat waves, and heavy precipitation

provide evidence that the increase has anything to

events will continue to become more frequent”

do with greenhouse gases or temperature,

[IPCC-AR4 2007, SPM, p.12]. This argument is

particularly since there was a slight decline in

expanded on in the main report. The phrase

temperatures during that period. Increases in

“continue to become more frequent” implies that

maximum annual 24-hour precipitation amounts

these events have already become more frequent.

have not been observed in Germany in the past 50

But have they?

years [DWD, German National Weather Service],

Bruce Hall [2007] has reviewed climate data for

the Iberian Peninsula [Gallego et al. 2006] or in

the 50 U.S. states; his chart of the number of

parts of China [Wu et al. 2007].

record-high temperatures by year goes back to 1884

It seems quite plausible that higher values of

Figure 25: Extreme high-temperature values recorded, by state, in the United States since 1880 [Hart 2007]. Note the peaking around 1940 but not during recent decades; it suggests that the 1930s – not the 1990s – were the warmest decade of the twentieth century.

24

SST would produce stronger hurricanes [Emanuel

and Infectious Diseases, Paris, France, who points

2005; Emanuel and Mann 2006]. But historic

out that the incidence of malaria depends on a

records of Atlantic hurricanes do not bear out such

number of factors, few of them related to climate or a prediction [Goldenberg et al. 2001; Landsea 2005,

temperature. Historically, malaria was widespread

2006, 2007]. Recent work by Vecchi and Soden

throughout many areas in the temperate or even

[2007] suggests a warmer climate would lead to

colder regions of the mid-latitudes [Reiter 2005].

increased vertical wind shear, which would impede

the development of tropical cyclones (hurricanes).

And regarding mid-latitude storms, a global

! Economic benefits from global warming

warming will lead to a lessening of temperature

gradients between the equator and the poles and

Beneficial economic effects of warmer

therefore to fewer and/or less intense storms

temperatures include longer growing seasons in

[Legates 2004, Khandekar 2005].

temperate climates, benefitting agriculture and

forestry industries, lower heating bills, and lower

construction costs. Robert Mendelsohn and James

E. Neumann [1999] presented a synthesis of

9. The Economic Effects of Modest

previous studies on the costs and benefits of global Warming Are Likely to be Positive

warming, which is summarized in Figure 26.

Concern that anthropogenic global warming

Estimated Annual Impact on U.S. of

might result in harm to human health and welfare

Doubling of CO (billions of 1990$)

2

asserts connections between modest increases in

Sector

2060 economy

1990 economy

temperature and increased morbidity and mortality

Market sector impact estimates

due to heat stress, the spread of tropical diseases

such as malaria and dengue fever, and the negative

Agriculture

+$41.4

+$11.3

effects of warming on some industries. There is

Timber

+$3.4

+$3.4

little evidence to support these claims, and

considerable evidence in support of the opposite

Water resources -

- $3.7

-$3.7

market only

conclusion, that warmer temperatures benefit human

health and prosperity.

Energy

-$4.1

-$2.5

Coastal structures

-$0.1

-$0.1

! Human health benefits from warmer

Commercial

-$0.4 to +$0.4

-$0.4 to +$0.4

temperatures.

fishing

Total (market

+$36.9

+$8.4

In temperate regions, human mortality and

sectors)

(+0.2% of 2060

(+0.2% of 1990

morbidity tend to show clear maxima in the winter

GDP)

GDP)

and secondary maxima in the summer. While the

Nonmarket sector impact estimates

secondary maxima are more pronounced in regions

with warmer summer climates, as in the southern

Water quality

-$5.7

-$5.7

U.S. and southern Europe, even in those regions the

Recreation

+$3.5

+$4.2

secondary maxima are smaller than the winter

maxima. A warming of even 3ºC in the next 100

Figure 26. The net effects of the modest warming caused by years would, on balance, be beneficial to humans

a doubling of carbon dioxide concentrations are likely to be because the reduction of wintertime

positive in the U.S., with benefits exceeding costs by some mortality/morbidity would be several times larger

$36.9 billion a year in 2060 (+0.2 percent of 2060 GDP.

Adapted from Mendelsohn and Neumann 1999, Table 12.2, than the increase in summertime heat stress-related

page 320.

mortality/morbidity [Laaidi et al. 2006, Keatinge et al. 2000].

The claim that malaria would spread under a

Mendelsohn and Neumann assumed an increase

warmer climate has been severely critiqued by Paul

in temperature of 2.5°C, a 7 percent increase in

Reiter, professor, Institute Pasteur, Unit of Insects precipitation, and an increase to 530 ppm

25

atmospheric carbon dioxide by 2060, which they

method. Using data published by the IPCC and

admit “may be somewhat more severe than the most

further elaborated in the U.S.-sponsored CCSP

recent scientific assessment in IPCC (1996a).” They

report, we have shown that observed temperature-

found the net impact of global warming on the U.S.

trend patterns disagree sharply with those calculated economy in the year 2060, if no action were taken

from greenhouse models.

to slow or stop emissions, would be positive, to the It is significant that the IPCC has never made

tune of $36.9 billion, or about 0.2 percent of

such a comparison, or it would have discovered the

projected GDP. In 2001 dollars this would be about

same result – namely that the current warming is

$11.5 billion. The benefits of global warming to the primarily of natural origin rather than

agricultural and timber industries more than

anthropogenic. Instead, the IPCC relied for its

outweigh losses to the energy industry or damage to

conclusion (on AGW) on circumstantial ‘evidence’

coastal structures.

that does not hold up under scrutiny. We show that

Economist Thomas Gale Moore [1998]also

the twentieth century is in no way unusual and that

found that earlier estimates exaggerated the costs of warming periods of greater magnitude have

warming. Moore used historical data to calculate

occurred in the historic past – without any

that if temperatures were 4.5ºF warmer in the U.S.,

catastrophic consequences. We also discuss the

41,000 fewer people would die each year from

many shortcomings of climate models in trying to

respiratory and circulation diseases. The annual

simulate what is happening in the real atmosphere.

benefits of global warming to the U.S., he estimates, If the human contribution to global warming

would exceed costs by $104.8 billion in 1990

due to increased levels of greenhouse gases is

dollars.

insignificant, why do greenhouse gas models

calculate large temperature increases, i.e., show high values of ‘climate sensitivity’? The most likely

explanation is that models ignore the negative

10. Conclusion

feedbacks that occur in the real atmosphere. New

observations reported from satellites suggest it is the The central problems for policymakers in the debate

distribution of water vapor that could produce such

over global warming are (a) is the reported warming

strong negative feedbacks.

trend real and how significant is it? (b) how much of If current warming is not due to increasing

the warming trend is due to natural causes and how

greenhouse gases, what are the natural causes that

much is due to human-generated greenhouse gases?

might be responsible for both warming and cooling

and (c) would the effects of continued warming be

episodes – as so amply demonstrated in the historic, harmful or beneficial to plant and wildlife and to

pre-industrial climate record? Empirical evidence

human civilization?

suggests very strongly that the main cause of

In this NIPCC report we have presented

warming and cooling on a decadal scale derives

evidence that helps provide answers to all three

from solar activity via its modulation of cosmic rays questions. The extent of the modern warming – the

that in turn affect atmospheric cloudiness.

subject of the first question – appears to be less than According to published research, cosmic-ray

is claimed by the IPCC and in the popular media.

variations are also responsible for major climate

We have documented shortcomings of surface data,

changes observed in the paleo-record going back

affected by urban heat islands and by the poor

500 million years.

distribution of land-based observing stations. Data

The third question concerns the effects of

from oceans, covering 70 percent of the globe, are

modest warming. A major scare associated with a

also subject to uncertainties. The only truly global putative future warming is a rapid rise in sea level, observations come from weather satellites, and these but even the IPCC has been scaling its estimates.

have not shown any warming trend since 1998, for

We show here that there will be little if any

the past 10 years.

acceleration, and therefore no additional increase in This report shows conclusively that the human

the rate of ongoing sea-level rise. This holds true

greenhouse gas contribution to current warming is

even if there is a decades-long warming, whether

insignificant. Our argument is based on the well-

natural or manmade.

established and generally agreed-to ‘fingerprint’

Other effects of a putative increase in

26

temperature and carbon dioxide are likely to be

treaty to Kyoto, are unnecessary, would be

benign, promoting not only the growth of crops and

ineffective if implemented, and would waste

forests but also benefitting human health. Ocean

resources that can better be applied to genuine

acidification is not judged to be a problem, as

societal problems [Singer, Revelle and Starr 1991].

indicated by available data. After all, CO levels

Even if a substantial part of global warming

2

have been up to 20 times the present value during

were due to greenhouse gases – and it is not – any

the Phanerozoic Period, the past 500 million years.

control efforts currently contemplated would give

During this time Earth’s climate has been

only feeble results. For example, the Kyoto Protocol remarkably stable, with no ‘run-away’ greenhouse

– even if punctiliously observed by all participating effects – indicating strong negative feedbacks.

nations – would decrease calculated future

If, for whatever reason, a modest warming were

temperatures by only 0.02 degrees C by 2050, an

to occur – even one that matches temperatures seen

undetectable amount.

during the Medieval Warm Period of around 1100

In conclusion, this NIPCC report falsifies the

AD or the much larger ones recorded during the

principal IPCC conclusion that the reported

Holocene Climate Optimum of some 6,000 years

warming (since 1979) is very likely caused by the

ago – the impact would not be damaging but would

human emission of greenhouse gases. In other

probably be, on the whole, beneficial. [Table 1]

words, increasing carbon dioxide is not responsible

for current warming. Policies adopted and called for in the name of ‘fighting global warming’ are

! Policy Implications

unnecessary.

It is regrettable that the public debate over

Our findings, if sustained, point to natural

climate change, fueled by the errors and

causes and a moderate warming trend with

exaggerations contained in the reports of the IPCC,

beneficial effects for humanity and wildlife. This

has strayed so far from scientific truth. It is an

has obvious policy implications: Schemes proposed

embarrassment to science that hype has replaced

for controlling CO emissions, including the Kyoto

2

reason in the global debate over so important an

Protocol, proposals in the U.S. for federal and state issue.

actions, and proposals for a successor international 27

About S. Fred Singer

S. Fred Singer, an atmospheric and space physicist, is founder and president of the Science and Environmental Policy Project, a nonprofit research and education organization based in Arlington, Virginia.

He is also distinguished research professor at George Mason University and professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia.

Singer is the author or coauthor of many books and scholarly articles. Recently he coauthored, with Dennis Avery, Unstoppable Global Warming – Every 1,500 Years (Rowman & Littlefield, 2007), which was on the New York Times bestsellers list. Singer’s previous books include The Greenhouse Debate Continued: An Analysis and Critique of the IPCC Climate Assessment (ICS Press, 1992), Climate Policy – From Rio to Kyoto (Hoover Institution, 2000), and Hot Talk Cold Science – Global Warming’s Unfinished Debate (Independent Institute, 1997, 1999).

Singer has been a pioneer in many ways. At the Applied Physics Laboratory of Johns Hopkins University, he participated in the first experiments using high-altitude research rockets, measuring the energy spectrum of primary cosmic rays and the distribution of stratospheric ozone; he is generally credited with the discovery of the equatorial electrojet current flowing in the ionosphere. In academic science during the 1950s, he published the first studies on subatomic particles trapped in the Earth’s magnetic field – radiation belts, later discovered by James Van Allen. He was the first to make the correct calculations for using atomic clocks in orbit, contributing to the verification of Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity, and now essential in the GPS

system of satellite navigation. He also designed satellites and instrumentation for remote sensing of the atmosphere and received a White House Presidential Commendation for this work.

In 1971 he calculated the anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric methane, an important greenhouse gas. He also predicted that methane, once reaching the stratosphere, would transform into water vapor, which could then deplete stratospheric ozone. A few years later, methane levels were indeed found to be rising, and the increase in stratospheric water vapor was confirmed in 1995.

Singer has served as chief scientist, U.S. Department of Transportation (1987- 89); deputy assistant administrator for policy, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1970-71); deputy assistant secretary for water quality and research, U.S. Department of the Interior (1967- 70); founding dean of the School of Environmental and Planetary Sciences, University of Miami (1964-67); first director of the National Weather Satellite Service (1962-64); and director of the Center for Atmospheric and Space Physics, University of Maryland (1953-62).

In the 1980s, Singer served for five years as vice chairman of the National Advisory Committee for Oceans and Atmosphere (NACOA). He currently directs the nonprofit Science and Environmental Policy Project, which he founded in 1990 and incorporated in 1992 after retiring from the University of Virginia.

For more information, visit the Web site of the Science and Environmental Policy Project at www.sepp.org.

29

References

Anonymous 1994. IPCC’s ritual on global warming. Nature Conway, H. et al. 1999. Past and future grounding-line retreat 371: 269.

of the WAIS. Science 286: 280-288.

Badiani, M., Paolacci, A.R., D’Annibale, A., Miglietta, F., and Dahl-Jensen, D. et al. 1999. Past temperature directly from the Raschi, A. 1997. Can rising CO2 alleviate oxidative risk for the Greenland Ice Sheet. Science 282: 268-271.

plant cell? Testing the hypothesis under natural CO2

enrichment. In: Raschi, A., Miglietta, F., Tognetti, R., and van Dlugokencky, E.J., K.A. Masarie, P.M. Lang, and P.P. Tans Gardingen, P.R., Eds. Plant Responses to Elevated CO2: 1998. Continuing decline in the growth rate of the atmospheric Evidence from Natural Springs. Cambridge University Press, methane burden. Nature 393: 447-450.

Cambridge, United Kingdom, pp. 221-241.

Doney, S.C., 2006. The Dangers of Ocean Acidification.

Baker, D.F. 2007. Reassessing carbon sinks. Science 316: Scientific American 294: 58-65.

1708-1709. DOI10.1126/science.1144863.

Douglas, B., M. Kearney, S. Leatherman (eds) 2001. Sea Baliunas, S., and R. Jastrow 1990. Evidence for long-term Level Rise History and Consequences. Academic Press.

brightness changes of solar-type stars. Nature 348: 520-522.

Douglas, B.C. and W.R. Peltier 2002. The puzzle of global Beck, E-G. 2007. 180 years of atmospheric CO gas analysis by sea-level rise. Physics Today, March.

2

chemical methods. Energy & Environment 18(2).

Douglass, D.H., B. Pearson, S.F. Singer 2004. Altitude Berner, R.A. 1997. The rise of plants and their effect on dependence of atmospheric temperature trends: Climate weathering and atmospheric CO . Science 276: 544-545.

models versus observations. Geophys. Res. Letters 31.

2

Berner, R.A., and Z. Kothavala 2001. GEOCARB III: A

Douglass, D.H., J.R. Christy, B.D. Pearson, and S.F. Singer revised model of atmospheric CO over phanerozoic time. Am.

2007. A comparison of tropical temperature trends with 2

J. Sci. 301(2): 182-204.

model predictions. Intl J Climatology (Royal Meteorol Soc).

DOI:10.1002/joc.1651.

Bindschadler, R. 1998. Future of the West Antarctic ice sheet.

Science 282: 428-429.

DWD, German National Weather Service DWD (German

Weather Service). Klimatologische Werte fur das Jahr Boehm F., et al. 2002. Evidence for preindustrial variations in (Annual climate data.) Offenbach, Germany

the marine surface water carbonate system from coralline sponges. Geochem., Geophys., Geosystems, Research Letter 3.

Ellsaesser, H.W. 1984. The climate effect of CO .2

DOI:10.1029/2001GC000264.

Atmospheric Environment 18: 431-434.

Boese, S.R., Wolfe, D.W., and Melkonian, J.J. 1997. Elevated Emanuel, K. 2005. Increasing destructiveness of tropical CO2 mitigates chilling-induced water stress and photosynthetic cyclones over the past 30 years. Nature 436: 686-688.

reduction during chilling. Plant Cell Environ. 20: 625-632.

Emanuel, K.A. and M.E. Mann 2006. Atlantic hurricane Castles, I., and D. Henderson 2003. The IPCC emission trends linked to climate change. Eos 87: 233-241.

scenarios: An economic-statistical critique. Energy & Environment 14 (2-3): 159-185.

Fairbanks, R.G. 1989. A 17,000 year glacio-eustatic sea level record: Influence of glacial melting rates on the Younger Cazenave, A., and R.S. Nerem 2004. Present-day sea level Dryas event and deep-ocean circulation. Paleoceanography change: Observations and causes. Rev. Geophys., 42. RG3001.

342: 637-642.

DOI:10.1029/2003RG000139.

Fan, S., et al. 1998. A large terrestrial carbon sink in North Cess, R.D., G.L. Potter, et al. 1990. Intercomparison and America implied by atmospheric and oceanic carbon dioxide interpretation of climate feedback processes in nineteen data and models. Science 282: 442-446.

atmospheric general circulation models. Journal of Geophysical Research 95(16): 601-616, 615.

Fine, M. and D. Tchernov 2007. Scleractinian coral species survive and recover from decalcification. Science 315: 1811.

Cess, R.D., G.L. Potter, et al. 1996. Cloud feedback in atmospheric general circulation models. Journal of Geophysical Fischer, H., et al. 1999. Carbon dioxide in the Vostok ice Research 101(12): 791-812, 794.

core. Science 283: 1712-1714.

Ceulemans, R. and Mousseau M. 1994. Effects of elevated CO2

Friis-Christensen, E. and K. Lassen 1991. Length of the solar on woody plants. New Phytologist 127: 425-446.

cycle: An indicator solar activity closely associated with 31

climate. Science 254: 698-700.

Idso, K.E. and Idso, S.B. 1994. Plant responses to

atmospheric CO2 enrichment in the face of environmental Gallego et al, 2006. Change in frequency and intensity of constraints: A review of the past 10 years’ research.

daily precipitation over the Iberian Peninsula. J. Geoph. Res.

Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 69: 153-203.

111, D24105, doi: 10.1029/2006JD0077280.

Idso, S.B. 1989. Carbon Dioxide: Friend or Foe? IBR Press, Gleadow, R.M., Foley, W.J. and Woodrow, I.E. 1998.

Tempe, AZ.

Enhanced CO2 alters the relationship between

photosynthesis and defense in cyanogenic Eucalyptus

Idso, S.B., and Quinn, J.A. 1983. Vegetational Redistribution cladocalyx F. Muell. Plant Cell Environ. 21: 12-22.

in Arizona and New Mexico in Response to a Doubling of the Atmospheric CO2 Concentration. Laboratory of

Goldenberg, S.B., C.W. Landsea, A.M. Mestas-Nunez, and Climatology, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona.

W.M. Gray 2001. The recent increase in Atlantic hurricane activity: Causes and implications. Science 293: 474-479.

Information Quality Act 2004. www.it.ojp.gov/

documents/crs_iq_act_omb_guidance_and_implementation.p Gouretski, V. and K.P. Koltermann 2007. How much is the df.

ocean really warming? Geophysical Research Letters 34

L01610.

IPCC 2008. “About IPCC,” http://www.ipcc.ch/about/index.

htm, accessed 2/15/08.

Haigh, J.D. 1996: The impact of solar variability on climate.

Science 272: 981-985.

IPCC-AR4 2007. Climate Change 2007: The Physical

Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Haigh, J.D. 2003. The effects of solar variability on the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Earth’s climate. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. London Ser. A 361: Climate Change. Cambridge University Press.

95-111.

IPCC-FAR 1990. Scientific Assessment of Climate Change.

Hall, B. 2007. http://hallofrecord.blogspot.com/2007/02/

Contribution of Working Group I to the First Assessment extreme-temperatures-wheres-global.html.

Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Cambridge University Press.

Hansen, J.E. 2006. The threat to the planet. New York Review of Books 53, July 13, 2006.

IPCC-SAR 1996. Climate Change 1995: The Science of

Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group I to the Hansen, J.E., et al. 1998. Climate forcings in the industrial Second Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel era. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 95: 12753-12758.

on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press.

Hansen, J.E., et al. 2005. Earth’s energy imbalance: IPCC-TAR 2001. Climate Change 2001: The Scientific

Confirmations and implications. Science 308 (5727):

Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Third

1431-1435.

Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on

Climate Change. Cambridge University Press.

Held, I.M., and B.J. Soden 2006. Robust responses of the hydrological cycle to global warming. J. Clim. 19: 5686-Jaworowski, Z. 1994. Ancient atmosphere - validity of ice 5699.

records. Environmental Science & Pollution Research 1(3): 161-171.

Henderson, D. 2005. SRES, IPCC, and the Treatment of Economic Issues: What Has Emerged. Energy and

Jaworowski Z., Segalstad T.V., and Ono N. 1992. Do

Environment 16 (3 & 4).

glaciers tell a true atmospheric CO story? The Science of the 2

Total Environment 114: 227-284.

Holgate, S.J. 2006. On the decadal rates of sea-level change during the twentieth century. Geophys Res Lett 34. DOI: Karl, T.R., S.J. Hassol, C.D. Miller, and W.L. Murray (eds.) 10.1029/2006GL028492,2007.

2006. Temperature Trends in the Lower Atmosphere: Steps for Understanding and Reconciling Differences. A report by Idso, C.D. and Idso, K.E. 2000. Forecasting world food the Climate Change Science Program and Subcommittee on supplies: The impact of the rising atmospheric CO2

Global Change Research, http://www.climatescience.gov/

concentration. Technology 7S: 33-56.

Library/sap/sap1-1/finalreport/default.htm.

Idso, K.E. 1992. Plant responses to rising levels of carbon Karl and Knight, 1998. Secular trend of precipitation dioxide: A compilation and analysis of the results of a amount, frequency and intensity in the United States. Bull.

decade of international research into the direct biological Am. Met. Soc. 79: 231 - 242.

effects of atmospheric CO2 enrichment. Climatological Publications Scientific Paper #23, Office of Climatology, Keatinge W.R. et al, 2000. Heat related mortality in warm Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ.

and cold regions of Europe: Observational study. Brit. Med.

Journal 321: 670 - 673.

32

Keeling, R.F., S.C. Piper, and M. Heimann 1996. Global and Storms Likely to Change? George Marshall Institute,

hemispheric CO sinks deduced from changes in atmospheric Washington, D.C.

2

O2 concentration. Nature 381: 218-221.

Lindzen, R.S. 1990. Some coolness concerning global

Keeling, R.F. and S.R. Shertz 1992: Seasonal and interannual warming. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society variations in atmospheric oxygen and implications for the 71: 288-299.

global carbon cycle. Nature 358: 723-727.

Lo, J., Z. Yang, and R. A. Pielke (2008). Assessment of three Keigwin, L.D. 1996. The Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm dynamical climate downscaling methods using the Weather Period in the Sargasso Sea. Science 274: 1504-1508.

Research and Forecasting (WRF) model. J. Geophys. Res., doi:10.1029/2007JD009216, in press.

Kerr, R.A. 2007. Humans and nature duel over the next decade’s climate. Science 317: 746-747.

Loehle, C., 2007: A 2000-year global temperature

reconstruction based on non-tree-ring proxies. Energy and Khandekar M.L. 2005. Extreme weather trends vs dangerous Environment 18: 1049-1058.

climate change: A need for a critical reassessment. Energy & Environment 16: 327-331.

Lough, J.M. and Barnes, D.J. 1997. Several centuries of variation in skeletal extension, density and calcification in Kiehl, J.T. 2007. Twentieth century climate model response massive Porites colonies from the Great Barrier Reef: A and climate sensitivity. Geophys Res Lett 34: L22710.

proxy for seawater temperature and a background of

DOI:10.1029/2007GL031383.

variability against which to identify unnatural change.

Journal of Experimental and Marine Biology and Ecology Kimball, B.A. 1983. Carbon dioxide and agricultural yield: 211: 29-67.

An assemblage and analysis of 770 prior observations. U.S.

Water Conservation Laboratory, Phoenix, AZ.

Lucarini, V., S. Calmanti, A. Dell’Aquila, P.M. Ruti, and A.

Speranza 2007. Intercomparison of the northern hemisphere Knight, C.G., et al. 2007. Association of parameter, software, winter mid-latitude atmospheric variability of the

and hardware variation with large-scale behavior across IPCC models. Climate Dynamics 28: 829-848.

57,000 climate models. PNAS 104: 12259-12264.

DOI:10.1073/ pnas.0608144104.

Lyman, J.M., et al. 2006. Recent cooling of the upper ocean.

Geophys. Res. Lett. 33: L18604.

Kriplani, R.H., A. Kulkarni, S.S. Sabde, and M.L. Khandekar DOI:10.1029/2006GL027033.

2005. Indian Monsoon variability in a global warming scenario. Natural Hazards 29: 189-206.

Maddox J. 1991. Making global warming public property.

Nature 349: 189.

Laaidi, M. et al, 2006. Temperature related mortality in France, a comparison between regions with different climates Mantua, N.J., et al. 1997. A Pacific interdecadal climate from the perspective of global warming. Int. J.

oscillation with impacts on salmon production. Bull. Am.

Biometeorology, 51: 145 - 153.

Meteorol. Soc. 78: 1069-1079.

Landsea, C.W. 2005. Hurricanes and global warming:

Marchitto, et al. 2005. Deep Pacific CaCO3 compensation Arising from Emanuel 2005a. Nature 438: E11-E13.

and glacial-interglacial atmospheric CO . Earth and

2

DOI:10.1038/ nature04477.

Planetary Science Letters 231(3-4): 317-336.

Landsea, C.W. 2007. Counting Atlantic tropical cyclones McIntyre, S. 2007. IPCC and Data Access. http://www.

back to 1900. Eos 88: 197-202.

climateaudit.org/?p=640.

DOI:10.1029/2007EO180001.

McIntyre, S. and R. McKitrick 2003. Corrections to Mann et Landsea, C.W., et al. 2006. Can we detect trends in extreme al. (1998) proxy data base and northern hemisphere average tropical cyclones? Science 313: 452-454. DOI:

temperature series. Energy & Environment 14: 751-777.

10.1126/science.1128448.

McIntyre, S. and R. McKitrick 2005. Hockey sticks,

Le Quere, C. et al. 2007. Saturation of the Southern Ocean principal components and spurious significance. Geophysical CO sink due to recent climate change. Science 316:

Research Letters 32 L03710.

2

1735-1738. DOI:10.1126/science.1136188.

McKitrick, R. et al. 2007. Independent Summary for

Lean, J, J. Beer, and R. Bradley 1995. Reconstruction of Policymakers IPCC Fourth Assessment Report. Fraser

solar irradiance since 1610: Implications for climate change.

Institute.

Geophys. Res. Lett 22: 3195-3198.

McKitrick, R. and P.J. Michaels 2006. A test of corrections Legates, D.R. 2004. Global Warming and the Hydrologic for extraneous signals in gridded surface temperature data.

Cycle: How Are the Occurrence of Floods, Droughts, and Clim Res 26: 159-173.

33

McNeil, B.I., Matear, R.J. and Barnes, D.J. 2004. Coral reef Oppenheimer, et al. 2007. The limits of consensus. Science calcification and climate change: The effect of ocean 317(5844): 1505-1506.

warming. Geophysical Research Letters 31:

10.1029/2004GL021541.

Paynter, D.J., I.V. Ptashnik, K.P. Shine, and K.M. Smith 2007. Pure water vapor continuum measurements between Mendelsohn R. and J.E. Neumann (eds.) 1994. The Impact of 3100 and 4400 cm-1: Evidence for water dimer absorption in Climate Change on the United States Economy. Cambridge near atmospheric conditions. Geophys. Res. Lett. 34 DOI: University Press, Cambridge.

10.1029/2007GL029259.

Met Office 2007. The forecast for 2014, news release. U.K.

Pew 2007. Global Warming: A Divide on Causes and

Met Office, August 10, 2007.

Solutions, Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, January 24, 2007, http://pewresearch.org/pubs/282/global-Michaels, P.J. and P.C. Knappenberger 1996. Human effect warming-a-divide-on-causes-and-solutions.

on global climate? Nature 384: 522-523.

Poorter, H. 1993. Interspecific variation in the growth Minnett, P. 2006. Why greenhouse gases heat the ocean.

response of plants to an elevated ambient CO2 concentration.

Sept. 5, 2006.

Vegetatio 104/105: 77-97.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/

09/why-greenhouse-gases-heat-the-ocean/.

Priestley, C.H.B. 1996. The limitation of temperature by evaporation in hot climates. Agricultural Meteorology Moore, T. G. 1995. Global Warming: A Boon to Humans

(Elsevier) 3: 241-246.

and Other Animals. Hoover Institution, Stanford University, Stanford CA.

Rahmstorf, S. 2007. A semi-empirical approach to projecting future sea-level rise. Science 315: 368-370.

Moore, T.G. 1998. Climate of Fear: Why We Shouldn’t

Worry about Global Warming. Cato Institute.

Rahmstorf, S., et al. 2007. Recent climate observations compared to projections. Science 316(5825): 709.

Morison, J.I.L. 1987. Intercellular CO2 concentration and stomatal responses to CO2. In: Zeiger, E., Farquhar, G.D., Reiter, P., 2005. The IPCC and technical information.

and Cowan, I.R., Eds. Stomatal Function. Stanford

Example: Impacts on human health.

University Press, Stanford, California, pp. 229-251.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldselect/l deconaf/12/12we21.htm

Mörner, N.A. 2004. Estimating future sea level changes from past records. Global and Planetary Change 40 (1-2): 49-54.

Robinson, A.B., N.E. Robinson, and W. Soon 2007.

Environmental effects of increased atmospheric carbon Mörner, N.A., M. Tooley, and G. Possnert 2004. New

dioxide. Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons 12: perspectives for the future of the Maldives. Global and 79-90.

Planetary Change 40: 177-182.

Robock, A., et al. 2007. Climatic consequences of regional Munk, W. 2002. Twentieth-century sea level: An enigma.

nuclear conflicts. Atm. Chem. Phys. 7: 2003-2012.

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 99: 6550-6555.

Santer, B.D., et al. 1996. Towards the detection and Murphy, J.M., et al. 2004. Quantification of modelling attribution of an anthropogenic effect on climate. Clim. Dyn.

uncertainties in a large ensemble of climate change

12: 79-100.

simulations. Nature 429: 768-772.

Schlesinger, M.E. and N. Ramankutty 1994. An oscillation in National Assessment for Climate Change (NACC) 2000.

the global climate system of period 65-70 years. Nature 367: Climate Change Impacts on the United States. The Potential 723-726.

Consequences of Climate Variability and Change. Available at http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/Library/

Schwartz, S.E, 2007. Heat capacity, time constant, and nationalassessment/overview.htm.

sensitivity of Earth’s climate system. J. of Geophys. Res.

DOI:10.1029/2007JD008746.

NAS 2000. Reconciling Observations of Global Temperature Change. National Academy Press, Washington DC.

Schwartz, S.E., R.J. Charlson, and H. Rodhe 2007.

Quantifying climate change - too rosy a picture? Nature 2: NAS 2006. Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the 23-24.

Last 2,000 Years. National Academy Press, Washington DC.

Seitz, F. 1996. A Major Deception on Global Warming. The Neff, U., et al. 2001. Strong coherence between solar Wall Street Journal, June 12.

variability and the monsoon in Oman between 9 and 6 kyr ago. Nature 411: 290-293.

Senior, C.A. and J.F.B. Mitchell 1993. Carbon dioxide and climate: The impact of cloud parameterization. J. Clim. 6: 34

393-418.

Singer, S.F. et al. Comments on ‘Open Letter to Ben Santer.’

Bull Am Meteorolol Soc. 78: 81-82.

SEPP 1992. The Greenhouse Debate Continued: An Analysis and Critique of the IPCC Climate Assessment. ICS Press, Singer, S. F., R. Revelle and C. Starr 1991. What to do about San Francisco, CA.

Global Warming: Look Before You Leap. Cosmos 1:28-33.

SEPP 1997. The Scientific Case Against the Global Climate Singer, S. F. and D. Avery 2007. Unstoppable Global

Treaty. www.sepp.org/publications/ GWbooklet/GW.html Warming: Every 1,500 Years. Rowman & Littlefield

[Also available in German, French, and Spanish].

Publishers, Inc.

SEPP 2002. The Kyoto Protocol is Not Backed by Science.

Smith, D.M., et al., 2007. Improved surface temperature Science and Environmental Policy Project, Arlington VA.

prediction for the coming decade from a global climate model. Science 317: 796-799.

Shaviv, N.J. 2005. On climate response to changes in the cosmic ray flux and radiative budget. J. Geophys. Res. 110: Soon, W.H. 2005. Variable solar irradiance as a plausible A08105.

agent for multidecadal variations in the Arctic-wide surface air temperature record for the past 130 years. Geophys. Res.

Shindell, D.T. 2001. Climate and ozone response to

Lett. 32 L16712.

increased stratospheric water vapor. Geophys. Res. Lett. 28: 1551-1554.

Spencer, R.W., W.D. Braswell, J.R. Christy, and J. Hnilo 2007. Cloud and radiation budget changes associated with Shukla, J. 2007. Monsoon mysteries. Science 318: 204-205.

tropical intraseasonal oscillations. Geophys. Res. Lett. 34

L15707. DOI:10.1029/2007GL029698.

Singer, S.F. 1958. Cosmic-ray time variations produced by deceleration in interplanetary space. Nuovo Cimento 8, Stainforth, D.A., et al. 2005. Uncertainty in predictions of the Supple. II: 334-341.

climate response to rising levels of greenhouse gases. Nature 433: 403-406.

Singer, S. F. 1971. Stratospheric water vapour increase due to human activities. Nature 233: 543-547.

Stanhill, G. 2007. A perspective on global warming,

dimming, and brightening. EOS, Transactions, American Singer, S. F. 1997, 1999. Hot Talk Cold Science. The Geophysical Union 88: 58.

Independent Institute, Oakland CA.

Stephens, B.B., et al. 2007. Weak northern and strong Singer, S. F. 1999. Human contribution to climate change tropical land carbon uptake from vertical profiles of remains questionable. Also, Reply. Eos [Transaction AGU], atmospheric CO . Science 22(316): 1732-1735.

2

80, 33, 186-187 and 372-373.

DOI:10.1126/science.1137004.

Singer, S. F. 2000. Climate policy – From Rio to Kyoto a Svensmark, H. 2007. Cosmoclimatology: a new theory

political issue for 2000 and beyond. Essays in Public Policy emerges. Astronomy & Geophysics 48: 1.18-1.24.

102. Hoover Institution, Stanford University, Stanford CA.

Svensmark, H., et al. 2007: Experimental evidence for the Singer, S. F. 2001. Disparity of temperature trends of role of ions in particle nucleation under atmospheric atmosphere and surface. Paper presented at 12th Symposium conditions. Proc. Roy. Soc. A 463: 385-396.

on Global Climate Change, Amer. Meteorol. Soc.,

Albuquerque NM.

Toscano, M.A. and I.G. Macintyre 2003. Corrected Western Atlantic Sea Level Curve for last 11,000 years. Coral Reefs Singer S. F. 2005a. Are sea surface temperature (SST) trends 22: 257-270.

real. Abstract for the AGU Joint Assembly, May 25, 2005, New Orleans LA.

Trenberth, K. 2007. Prediction of climate. Nature weblog http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2007/06/predictions Singer S. F. 2005b. A closer look at sea surface temperature _of_climate.html.

trends: How effective is greenhouse (GH) warming of SST?

Presentation at CCSP Workshop, November 14, 2005.

Trupin, A. and J. Wahr, 1990. Spectroscopic analysis of http://www.climatescience.gov/workshop2005/posters/P-GC

global tide gauge sea level data. Geophysical Journal 2.9_Singer.S.pdf.

International 100: 441-453.

Singer, S. F. 2006. How effective is greenhouse warming of Tsonis A.A. and J.B. Elsner 1999. The autocorrelation sea surface temperatures? In A. Zichichi and R. Ragini function and human influences on climate. Technical

(eds.). International Seminar on Nuclear War and Planetary comment and response by Wigley et al. Science 258.

Emergencies. Climatology: Global Warming. World

www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/285/5427/495a.

Scientific Publishing Company, Singapore. pp. 176-182.

Tuba, Z., Csintalan, Z., Szente, K., Nagy, Z. and Grace, J.

35

1998. Carbon gains by desiccation-tolerant plants at elevated Willis, J.K., et al. 2007. Correction to “Recent cooling of the CO2. Functional Ecology 12: 39-44.

upper ocean.” Geophysical Research Letters 34: 16. DOI 10.1029/2007GL030323.

Vecchi, G. A., and B. J. Soden 2007a. Increased tropical Atlantic wind shear in model projections of global warming.

Willson, R.C. and A.V. Mordvinov 2003. Secular total Geophys. Res. Lett. 34 L08702.

irradiance trend during solar cycles 21-23. Geophys. Res.

DOI:10.1029/2006GL028905.

Lett 30. DOI:10.1029/2002GL016038.

Vecchi, G.A. and B.J. Soden 2007b. Global warming and the Woodward, F.I. 1987. Stomatal numbers are sensitive to tropical weakening circulation. Journal of Climate 20(17): increase in CO2 from pre-industrial levels. Nature 327: 4316-4340.

617-618.

Wegman, E., D.W. Scott, and Y. Said 2006. Ad Hoc

Wu et al. 2007 Wu et al, 2007. The impact of tropical Committee Report to Chairman of the House Committee on cyclones on Hainan Island’s extreme and total precipitation.

Energy & Commerce and to the Chairman of the House Int. Journ. Climate., DOI: 10.1002.

sub-committee on Oversight & Investigations on the Hockey-stick Global Climate Reconstructions. US House of Wullschleger, S.D., Norby, R.J. and Gunderson, C.A. 1997.

Representatives, Washington DC. Available at

Forest trees and their response to atmospheric CO2

http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/home/07142006

enrichment: A compilation of results. In: Advances in Wegman Report.pdf.

Carbon Dioxide Effects Research (eds Allen, L.H. et al.), pp.

79-100. American Society of Agronomy, Madison, WI.

Wentz, F.J., L. Ricciardulli, K. Hillburn, and C. Mears 2007.

et al. 2007. How much more rain will global warming bring?

Wullschleger, S.D., Post, W.M. and King, A.W. 1995. On Science 317: 233-235.

the potential for a CO2 fertilization effect in forests: Estimates of the biotic growth factor based on 58

Wigley, T.M.L., R.L. Smith, and B.D. Santer 1998.

controlled-exposure studies. In: Biotic Feedbacks in the Anthropogenic influence on the autocorrelation structure of Global Climatic System (eds Woodwell, G.M. and

hemispheric-mean temperatures. Science 282: 1676-1679.

Mackenzie, F.T.), pp. 85-107. Oxford University Press, New York.

Wild, M. 2005. Solar radiation budgets in atmospheric model intercomparisons from a surface perspective. Geophys. Res.

Lett. 32. DOI:10.1029/2005GL022421.

Wild, M., et al. 2005. From dimming to brightening: Decadal changes in solar radiation at earth’s surface. Science 308: 847-850.

36

Acronyms

AGW

Anthropogenic Global Warming

AMO

Atlantic Multi-Decadal Oscillation

AR4

Fourth Assessment Report of IPCC (2007)

CCSP

Climate Change Science Program (U.S. Government)

CS

Climate Sensitivity

DWR

Downwelling Radiation (IR)

ENSO

El Niño-Southern Oscillation

FAR

First Assessment Report of IPCC (1990)

GCR

Galactic Cosmic Rays

GH

Greenhouse

GISS

Goddard Institute of Space Science (NASA)

GW

Global Warming

HTCS

Hot Talk Cold Science book (1997, 1999)

IPCC

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (UN)

IR

Infrared

ITCZ

Intertropical Convergence Zone

LGM

Last Glacial Maximum

LIA

Little Ice Age

LRSL

Local relative sea level

LT

Lower troposphere

MJO

Madden-Julian (tropical) Oscillation

MSU

Microwave Sounding Unit (carried on weather satellites) MWP

Medieval Warm Period

NACC

National Assessment of Climate Change (U.S.)

NAO

North Atlantic Oscillation

NAS

National Academy of Sciences

NH

Northern Hemisphere

NIPCC

Non-governmental International Panel on Climate Change OLR

Outgoing Long-wave (IR) Radiation

PDO

Pacific Decadal Oscillation

SAR

Second Assessment Report of IPCC (1995)

SH

Southern Hemisphere

SL

Sea Level

SPM

Summary for Policymakers (of IPCC reports)

SST

Sea Surface Temperature

TAR

Third Assessment Report of IPCC (2001)

TSI

Total Solar Irradiance

UAH

University of Alabama – Huntsville

UTWV

Upper troposphere water vapor

WAIS

West Antarctic Ice Sheet

WV

Water vapor

37

Recommended Reading

Adler, Jonathan H. (ed.) The Costs of Kyoto. Competitive Enterprise Institute, 1997.

Bailey, Ronald (ed.). Earth Report 2000: Revisiting the True State of the Planet, chapter 2 and chapter 7.

McGraw-Hill Companies, 1999.

Balling Jr., Robert C. The Heated Debate: Greenhouse Predictions Versus Climate Reality. Pacific Research Institute, 1992.

Bast, Joseph, Peter J. Hill, and Richard Rue. Eco-Sanity: A Common-Sense Guide to Environmentalism.

The Heartland Institute, 1995, rev. edition 1996.

Bradley Jr., Robert L. Julian Simon and the Triumph of Energy Sustainability. American Legislative Exchange Council, 2000.

Bradley Jr., Robert L. Climate Alarmism Reconsidered. Institute for Economic Affairs, 2003.

Daly, John L. The Greenhouse Trap: Facts, Myths, Politics. Bantam Books, 1989.

Driessen, Paul. Eco-Imperialism: Green power -- Black death. Free Enterprise Press, 2003

Emsley, John. The Global Warming Debate: The Report of the European Science and Environment Forum, European Science and Environment Forum, 1996.

Essex, Christopher and Ross McKitrick. Taken by Storm: The Troubled Science, Policy and Politics of Global Warming. Key Porter Books, 2003.

Fretwell, Holly. The Sky’s Not Falling! Why It’sw OK to chill About Global Warming, World Ahead Media, 2007.

Hayden, Howard C. (ed.) A Primer on CO2 and Climate. Vales Lake Publishing, LLC, 2007.

Horner, Christopher C. The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming (and Environmentalism).

Regnery Publishing, 2007.

Idso, Sherwood B. Carbon Dioxide: Friend or Foe? Institute for Biospheric Research, 1989.

Idso, Sherwood B. Carbon Dioxide and Global Change: Earth in Transition. Institute for Biospheric Research, 1989.

Jastrow, Robert, William Nierenberg, and Frederick Seitz. Scientific Perspectives on the Greenhouse Problem. Jameson Books, 1990.

Kininmonth, William. Climate Change: A Natural Hazard. Multi-Science Publishing Co., 2004.

Labohm, Hans, Simon Rozendaal, and Dick Thoenes. Man-Made Global Warming: Unraveling a Dogma.

Multi-Science Publishing Co., 2004.

Lehr, Jay H. (ed.). Rational Readings on Environmental Concerns. Wiley, 1992.

38

Lehr, Jay H. and Janet Lehr (eds.). Standard Handbook of Environmental Science, Health, and Technology, chapter 22, section 1. McGraw-Hill Professional, 2000.

Lomborg, Bjorn. Cool It: The skeptical Environmentalist’s Guide to Global Warming. Knopf, 2007.

Mendelsohn, Robert and James E. Neumann (eds.). The Impact of Climate Change on the United States Economy. Cambridge University Press, 1999.

Michaels, Patrick J. Shattered Consensus: The True State of Global Warming. Rowman & Littlefield, 2005.

Michaels, Patrick J. Meltdown: The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists, Politicians, and the Media. Cato Institute, 2005.

Michaels, Patrick J. and Robert C. Balling, Jr.. The Satanic Gases: Clearing the Air about Global Warming. Cato Institute, 2000.

Moore, Thomas Gale. Climate of Fear: Why We Shouldn’t Worry about Global Warming. Cato Institute, 1998.

Nordhaus, William D. (ed.) Economics and Policy Issues in Climate Change. Resources for the Future, 1998.

Okonski, Kendra (ed.). Adapt or Die: The Science, Politics and Economics of Climate Change. Profile Business, 2003.

Ray, Dixy Lee with Lou Guzzo. Environmental Overkill: Whatever Happened to Common Sense?

Perennial, 1994.

Singer, S. Fred (ed.). Global Effects of Environmental Pollution. Reidel 1970.

Singer, S. Fred. Hot Talk, Cold Science: Global Warming’s Unfinished Debate. Independent Institute, 1997, rev. ed. 1999.

Singer, S. Fred and Dennis Avery. Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2007

Solomon, Lawrence. The Deniers: The World Renowned Scientists Who Stood Up Against Global Warming Hysteria, Political Persecution, and Fraud – And those Who Are Too Afraid to Do So. Richard Vigilante Books, 2008.

Spencer, Roy. Climate Confusion: How Global Warming Leads to Bad Science, Pandering politicians and Misguided Policies that Hurt the Poor. Encounter Books, 2008.

Svensmark, Henrik and Nigel Calder. The Chilling Stars: A New Theory of Climate Change. Icon Books, 2007.

Tuba, Zoltan (ed.). Ecolological Responses and Adaptations of Crops to Rising Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide. Food Products Press, 2005.

Walker, Charls E. , Mark A. Bloomfield, and Margo Thorning (eds.). Climate Change Policy: Practical 39

Strategies to Promote Economic Growth and Environmental Quality. American Council for Capital Formation, 1999.

Weber, Gerd R Global Warming: The Rest of the Story. Dr Boettiger Verlag, 1992.

Wildavsky, Aaron. But Is it True? A Citizen’s Guide to Environmental Health and Safety Issues. Harvard University Press, 1997.

Wittwer, S.H. Food, Climate and Carbon Dioxide. CRC Press, 1995.

40