NIPCC vs. IPCC: No Evidence for AGW 5th EIKE Conference Munich, Germany, Nov. 30, 2012 (Prof.) S. Fred Singer University of Virginia/ SEPP

NIPCC: History and Reports Non-governmental Int’l Panel on Climate Change Founded 2003, Milano. Workshop 2007, Vienna “Nature, not human activity, rules the climate” (2008) “Climate change reconsidered” (2009, 2011) (in Chinese 2013) “Nature is the main driving factor of climate change” (in Chinese 2012)

PRINCIPLES GOVERNING IPCC “The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human- induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy, although they may need to deal objectively with scientific, technical and socio-economic factors relevant to the application of particular policies. "

How to respond to AGW alarmists Just ask them: What is your single most important piece of evidence for AGW? And you will get these common responses: CO2 is increasing: True,but we need temp data ClimModels show wmg: Only obs are evidence Glacier melting, sea level rising, storms, etc: They don’t reveal the cause – or even tell temp Finally: The evidence is in the IPCC reports: OK, then, let’s see if it holds up to scrutiny

IPCC ignores model-obs disparities There are at least three major disparities: 1. No warming trend since at least 2002 – while atmospheric CO2 is increasing rapidly 2.Antarctic is cooling – models predict warming 3.Models predict “hot spot” in tropical atmosphere – up to 2x of warming trend at the surface. But radiosondes & satellites don’t observe it – implying that sfc warming trend (on decadal time-scale) is ~ zero

1. No warming – while CO2 rises UK Daily Mail on Phil Jones: /Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre- global-warming- -row-admits-data-organised.html "He further admitted that in the last 15 years there had been no ‘statistically significant’ warming, although he argued this was a blip rather than the long-term trend." Skeptical Science (an alarmist site) on Phil Jones. They include the text of his BBC interview: warming-since-1995.htm /Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre- global-warming- -row-admits-data-organised.html warming-since-1995.htm

Arctic Antarctic Arctic Arctic Trend:-0.096/dec ( ) +0.58/dec ( ) Arctic Antarctic Trend: -0.31/dec ( ) +0.16/dec ( )

CCSP 1.1 – Chapter 1, Figure 1.3F PCM Simulations of Zonal-Mean Atmospheric Temperature Change Height (km)

ATM SFC

CCSP 1.1 – Chapter 5, Figure 7E Height (km)

A more detailed view of the disparity: Douglass, Christy, Pearson, Singer IJC 2007

IPCC-2007 Claim for AGW AR-4-SPM p.10: “Most of the observed increase in global ave temps since mid-20 th cy is very likely [>90%] due to observed anthropogenic increase in GH gas concentrations.” Based on Fig 9.5 on p.AR4-684, which claims large gap between reported recent temp and unforced models – hence requiring GH forcing i.e., the IPCC-AR4 claim assumes perfect knowledge of natural forcing of models and that the only missing forcing must be from GH gases like CO2

Source: IPCC-AR4-Fig. 9.5b

IPCC-AR-5: review of Chapter 10 (“Attribution”) and Chapter 13 (“Sea Level Rise”) Chapter 10 is the most important by far. It deals with Attribution and provides the science base for the IPCC claim that recent warming is anthropogenic – in its Summary for Policymakers and elsewhere. The key result of Chapter 10 may be seen in Fig The top panel (Fig 10.1a) shows the Global Mean [Surface] Temperatures with dark grey lines (no error intervals shown) and the results of GCMs that use only “natural forcings” -- from CMIP3 and “other sources” (light grey lines) and from CIMP5 (pink lines). The time interval is 1860 to 2010.

Figure AR5-10.1a compares global mean surface temperatures and models and shows almost perfect agreement after 1965

Obs and Models agree? – “curve-fitting” How does IPCC get such perfect agreement? The answer is simple; it’s done by ‘curve fitting.’ They select just the right sensitivity of the climate model (from between 1.5 and 4.5 degrees C--- i.e. a range of 300%), this is quite easy to do but really meaningless But note lack of agreement before 1960; it shows imperfect curve-fitting – ignored! – but seen more clearly HERE

Anthrop. Frcg. Best Fit Obsv. Natural Frcg.

Curve Fitting: How to do it IPCC’s fit between models and obs ( ) is based on ‘educated’ choices of model para- meters (mainly for cloud physics) and on neglect of major natural forcings (e.g., solar activity; atm-ocean oscillations) [According to physicist Freeman Dyson, the famous mathematician John von Neumann stated: "Give me four adjustable parameters and I can fit an elephant. Give me one more, and I can make his trunk wiggle." ]

Figure 10.1b shows the same set of observations and same models (but without forcings from greenhouse gases). Now there is a strong disagreement after 1965.

Then IPCC asserts that this difference between unforced models and observations must be due to greenhouse gas forcing: this is their main piece of evidence for AGW (Anthropogenic global warming). To this claim I can offer the following 3 comments: 1. IPCC admits it really does not know all of the natural forcings that should go into the models. This is also shown by the disagreement before It is also evident that IPCC models ignore changes in solar activity as well as natural oscillations of atmosphere-ocean systems. They also ignore the huge uncertainties in aerosol forcings (which are absorbed in their choice for climate sensitivity).

Critique of IPCC “evidence” 2. My second comment relates the validity of the observations, in particular the large temperature increase starting about 1976 until the end of the century. Since these are global temperature data, they relate mainly to SST. But the latest SST data don’t show such an increase (see figure below: Gouretski and Kennedy GRL 2012) and the latest OHC (Ocean Heat Content) data (from NODC) agree that there has been little warming, if any, between 1976 and The same result is also shown by NMAT (night-time marine air temp) data from Hadley (see figures below). 3. Most important, the same models and chosen sensitivities (to fit sfc data) cannot explain also the trends for atmospheric temperatures, both global and tropical, from MSU-UAH-LT

Three Problems with IPCC ‘Evidence’ 1.IPCC forces an agreement between obs temp ( ) and models by ‘curve-fitting’ 2. ‘Evidence’ is shown only for Global average; but not for NH, SH, or Tropics. 3. ‘Evidence’ is shown only for Earth sfc case: There is ~zero ( obs-model) gap for ocean, atmosphere, or for proxy temperatures **But without such a gap between obs and unforced models, AGW must be insignificant

Again: Is there Disparity (Gap) between Modeled and Observed Temp Trends? IPCC-AR4 claims of AGW (i.e., GHG warming), are based on reported rapid rise of “obs” global mean surface (GMS) temperature since 1978 – in agreement with GHG-forced models, but not with unforced models. We can show that this is mostly a meaningless “curve-fitting” exercise, depending on suitable choices of forcings and model parameters. Also, models ignore climate effects of solar activity changes (and cosmic rays and cloudiness), as well as internal atm-ocean oscillations. But the IPCC ‘proof’ applies only to the global-mean: the same curve-fitting parameters don’t work for NH and SH separately. Also: IPCC ‘proof’ applies only to land-surface temp data. Oceanic, atmospheric, and (non-thermometer)‘proxy’ data show no significant gap – hence, only minor (human-caused) GH-gas forcing.

Discrepancies between Data Sets Criterion adopted: Temp difference Land-based sfc; Global (IPCC): Diff=~0.5C » US (GISS): Diff=~zero Ocean: SST (Gouretski GRL 2012) Diff=~zero NMAT (Hadley Centre) Diff=~zero Atm: Satellite MSU-LT ( ) Diff=~zero Radiosondes ( ) Diff=~zero Proxies (mostly land-sfc) Diff=~zero

1. Atmosphere is not warming – [and again from 2002-present] Satellite data show no significant warming in the lower troposphere – from 1979 to 2000 (ignoring the 1998 temp ‘spike’ from El Nino) Throwing some doubt on the reported warming trend reported by land-surface thermometers from weather stations [Note also the temp ‘step’ of , followed by another ~zero trend to present – contrary to GH models]

MSU UAH-v5 LT Temperature TR GL TR

2. Sea surface is not warming SST data come from many (conflicting) sources We rely on NMAT (night-time marine-air temp) ship obs -- from UK Hadley Centre NMAT doesn’t agree with IPCC’s SST Confirms the temperature rise But note that 1990s temp values do not exceed 1940 – unlike land-sfc temp, which the IPCC uses for its claim of AGW. Similarly for SST (Gouretski,Kennedy GRL2012)

5-year running NMAT Source: John Kennedy GL TR

SST (Gouretski et al GRL 2012)

3. Proxy data mostly show no warming either for Based on tree-rings, ice-cores, lake-sediments, etc. – i.e., independent non-thermometer data They confirm warming by weather stations; but show no post-1940 warming -- unlike land-sfc temp, which IPCC uses for its AGW claim (The Hockeystick authors [MBH Nature 1998] suppressed their post-1978 proxy results -- likely because they showed no warming trend. We should insist on their release and publication.)

Fig. 16. The climate record as deduced from the width of tree rings. Compared are the ring- width chronology (solid line) and the reconstruction of Arctic annual temperature anomalies (dashed line) [Jacoby et al. 1996, reprinted with permission, (c) American Association for the Advancement of Science]. Note the sharp increase between 1880 and 1940.

Tree ring

Esper et al, Nature 2012

Here are questions that require detailed quantitative answers from IPCC, with references to publications where appropriate. 1. How is Fig of AR-5 different from Fig. 9.5 of AR-4? Are the differences substantial? Explain. 2. Do “natural forcings” include volcanic eruptions and internal oscillations (ENSO, PDO, etc)? Explain 3. How do the models handle solar variability (TSI, solar-wind-cosmic-rays, etc)? 4. How do the models explain the observed warming of ? 5. What accounts for the sudden cooling around 1965 shown in model results? 6. Turning to Fig. 10.1a, which models agree best with observations of ? What are their climate sensitivities (CS)? What are the details of their direct and indirect aerosol forcings (AF), incl their geographic and temporal coverage? 7. Can Fig. 10.1a be shown separately for Tropics, NH and SH – instead of just for the Global Mean, but using the same values for CS and historic AF scenarios? 8. Finally, can Fig. 10.1a be shown for MSU atmosph temp – instead of just sfc temp?

CONCLUSION 1.IPCC’s claim for AGW is based on flimsy ‘evidence’ from global land-sfc temp -- involving only selected observations and ‘curve-fitting’ of models 2.We find no independent evidence in temp data from ocean, atmosphere or proxies, for the surface warming trend (mostly from land thermometers) claimed by IPCC-4 in support of AGW; i.e., NO GAP 3. We conclude that current warming is mostly natural and that the human contribution is minor.

Comments on AR5-Chap 13—Sea L evel rise –SLR SL rise is generally considered the most important consequence of putative global warming. Successive IPCC reports have shown decreasing estimates for future SLR. But AR-5 shows a larger rise. SLR has a data problem: there is much disagreement in published values. Therefore, projections depend greatly on (subjective) selection of data. The chapter seems to be dominated by the prejudices of the convening lead author. He has long held to the claim that SLR shows acceleration during the 20 th century. This may or may not be true; most authors claim that there is no acceleration or even deceleration (see Holgate GRL 2007).

IPCC-AR5 ignores contrary data In any case, chapter 13 is remarkable in that it ignores the work of established and respected researchers. For example, I could not find any reference to the coral studies of Fairbanks, Lightly, or Macintyre. Of course, there is no reference to Morner; but there is also no reference to Walter Munk. The list of references does not include Trupin and Wahr, Behre, or Houston. Bruce Douglas, one of the most respected workers in this field, gets one mention to a chapter in an obscure conference volume. Simon Holgate is cited only twice. On the other hand, Rahmstorf, whose so called “theory” conflicts directly with empirical data, is cited prominently.

Tidal gauge record (Holgate GRL2007)shows deceleration

The summary graph is Fig , showing ‘selected’ data for and projections to 2100

Comments on SLR: Fig AR No rise is shown from 1700 to 1880 – contrary to many published data 2. What physical event might cause a sudden acceleration at 1880? estimates/ estimates/ 3. What might cause an acceleration at ~1990? Satellite data incorrect? grasp-on-accurate-sea-level-and-ice-measurements/ grasp-on-accurate-sea-level-and-ice-measurements/ 4. AR-5 projects a linear rise of 5 to 8 mm/yr out to 2100 – depending on CO2 scenario -- 3 times the rate of rise of 20 th century tide-gauges and about twice current satellite values. The min estimate for ( ) is now doubled: ~35cm vs 18cm (in AR-4) This AR-5 projection has already been falsified by the observed SL rise since 2000.

Extra Slides

Questions to ask Warmers Explain: Why did climate warm ? Why did climate cool ? If by aerosols, explain difference between NH and SH on the basis of climate models Why the step increase (“jump”) in – and again in ? Why no warming trend since 2002? And – Why no warming of NMAT, atmosphere (balloon-radiosondes and also satellite-MSU data), and non-thermometer proxies?

Temp vs. Temp Trends A common (but misleading) reply by Warmers: “The past decade is the warmest in X years.” True, but Trend (degK/decade) was ~zero. One must not confuse Trend with Temp (degK) According to models, Temp Trend (not Level) should follow climate-forcing GH-gas Trend

Solar activity changes have greatest climate effects Most important on yearly/decadal time-scale; through energy modulation of cosmic rays by interplanetary magnetic scattering centers [Laster, Lenchek, Singer. JGR 1962] ; in turn, modulating cloudiness in lower atmosphere – thereby changing Earth albedo – and solar energy reaching sfc [Svensmark]

Stalagmite Records in Oman 14 C – a Proxy for Solar Activity 18 O – a Proxy for Temperature The stalagmite record shows a remarkably close correlation between 14 C and 18 O over a period of more than 3,000 years. Thus, a strong association exists between solar activity and temperature. Neff et al. (2001)  One Century Duration!

T CR

T SOL

IPCC-AR-5, p Finally, IPCC admits that cosmic ray changes can affects clouds – and climate: “Many empirical relationships have been reported between GCR or cosmogenic isotope archives and some aspects of the climate system (e.g., Bond et al., 2001; Dengel et al., 2009; Ram and Stolz, 1999). The forcing from changes in total solar irradiance alone does not seem to account for these observations, implying the existence of an amplifying mechanism such as the hypothesized GCR-cloud link. We focus here on observed relationships between GCR and aerosol and cloud properties.”

Our energy future is bright – IF… President Barack Obama has said that he would make electricity prices “sky-rocket” [after losing on cap & trade] “there are other ways to skin the cat” [like unleashing EPA?] the most important policy issue he would address in a second term is climate change!!!