In a related development, the peer-reviewed
Physics and Society journal has published evidence proving
that the UN IPCC's 2007 climate summary "overstated CO2's
impact on temperature by 500-2000%."
According to the
paper, "Computer models used by the UN's climate panel (IPCC)
were pre-programmed with overstated values for the three
variables whose product is "climate sensitivity" (temperature
increase in response to greenhouse-gas increase), resulting in
a 500-2000% overstatement of CO2's effect on temperature in
the IPCC's latest climate assessment report, published in
The paper also outlines evidence to confirm that
Mars, Jupiter, Neptune's largest moon, and Pluto warmed at the
same time as Earth warmed, a factor attributed to the Sun
having been more active than at almost any other time in the
past 11,400 years.
The paper concludes, "CO2 enrichment
will add little more than 1 °F (0.6 °C) to global mean surface
temperature by 2100."
this is an EXTENSIVE scientific overview, which concludes as
follows - Ken )
We have set out and then
critically examined a detailed account of the IPCC's method of
evaluating climate sensitivity. We have made explicit the
identities, interrelations, and values of the key variables,
many of which the IPCC does not explicitly describe or
quantify. The IPCC's method does not provide a secure basis
for policy-relevant conclusions. We now summarize some of its
The IPCC's methodology relies unduly – indeed,
almost exclusively – upon numerical analysis, even where the
outputs of the models upon which it so heavily relies are
manifestly and significantly at variance with theory or
observation or both. Modeled projections such as those upon
which the IPCC's entire case rests have long been proven
impossible when applied to mathematically-chaotic objects,
such as the climate, whose initial state can never be
determined to a sufficient precision. For a similar reason,
those of the IPCC's conclusions that are founded on
probability distributions in the chaotic climate object are
Not one of the key variables necessary to any
reliable evaluation of climate sensitivity can be measured
empirically. The IPCC's presentation of its principal
conclusions as though they were near-certain is accordingly
unjustifiable. We cannot even measure mean global surface
temperature anomalies to within a factor of 2; and the IPCC's
reliance upon mean global temperatures, even if they could be
correctly evaluated, itself introduces substantial errors in
its evaluation of climate sensitivity.
overstates the radiative forcing caused by increased CO2
concentration at least threefold because the models upon which
it relies have been programmed fundamentally to misunderstand
the difference between tropical and extra-tropical climates,
and to apply global averages that lead to error.
IPCC overstates the value of the base climate sensitivity
parameter for a similar reason. Indeed, its methodology would
in effect repeal the fundamental equation of radiative
transfer (Eqn. 18), yielding the impossible result that at
every level of the atmosphere ever-smaller forcings would
induce ever-greater temperature increases, even in the absence
of any temperature feedbacks.
The IPCC overstates
temperature feedbacks to such an extent that the sum of the
high-end values that it has now, for the first time,
quantified would cross the instability threshold in the Bode
feedback equation and induce a runaway greenhouse effect that
has not occurred even in geological times despite CO2
concentrations almost 20 times today's, and temperatures up to
7 ºC higher than today's.
The Bode equation,
furthermore, is of questionable utility because it was not
designed to model feedbacks in non-linear objects such as the
climate. The IPCC's quantification of temperature feedbacks
is, accordingly, inherently unreliable. It may even be that,
as Lindzen (2001) and Spencer (2007) have argued, feedbacks
are net-negative, though a more cautious assumption has been
made in this paper.
It is of no little significance
that the IPCC's value for the coefficient in the CO2 forcing
equation depends on only one paper in the literature; that its
values for the feedbacks that it believes account for
two-thirds of humankind's effect on global temperatures are
likewise taken from only one paper; and that its implicit
value of the crucial parameter κ depends upon only two papers,
one of which had been written by a lead author of the chapter
in question, and neither of which provides any theoretical or
empirical justification for a value as high as that which the
The IPCC has not drawn on thousands of
published, peer-reviewed papers to support its central
estimates for the variables from which climate sensitivity is
calculated, but on a handful.
On this brief analysis,
it seems that no great reliance can be placed upon the IPCC's
central estimates of climate sensitivity, still less on its
high-end estimates. The IPCC's assessments, in their current
state, cannot be said to be "policy-relevant". They provide no
justification for taking the very costly and drastic actions
advocated in some circles to mitigate "global warming", which
Eqn. (30) suggests will be small (<1 °C at CO2 doubling),
harmless, and beneficial.
temperature had risen above natural variability, the recent
solar Grand Maximum may have been chiefly responsible. Even if
the sun were not chiefly to blame for the past half-century's
warming, the IPCC has not demonstrated that, since CO2
occupies only one-ten-thousandth part more of the atmosphere
that it did in 1750, it has contributed more than a small
fraction of the warming. Even if carbon dioxide were chiefly
responsible for the warming that ceased in 1998 and may not
resume until 2015, the distinctive, projected fingerprint of
anthropogenic "greenhouse-gas" warming is entirely absent from
the observed record. Even if the fingerprint were present,
computer models are long proven to be inherently incapable of
providing projections of the future state of the climate that
are sound enough for policymaking. Even if per impossible the
models could ever become reliable, the present paper
demonstrates that it is not at all likely that the world will
warm as much as the IPCC imagines. Even if the world were to
warm that much, the overwhelming majority of the scientific,
peer-reviewed literature does not predict that catastrophe
would ensue. Even if catastrophe might ensue, even the most
drastic proposals to mitigate future climate change by
reducing emissions of carbon dioxide would make very little
difference to the climate. Even if mitigation were likely to
be effective, it would do more harm than good: already
millions face starvation as the dash for biofuels takes
agricultural land out of essential food production: a warning
that taking precautions, "just in case", can do untold harm
unless there is a sound, scientific basis for them. Finally,
even if mitigation might do more good than harm, adaptation as
(and if) necessary would be far more cost-effective and less
likely to be harmful.
In short, we must get the science
right, or we shall get the policy wrong. If the concluding
equation in this analysis (Eqn. 30) is correct, the IPCC's
estimates of climate sensitivity must have been very much
exaggerated. There may, therefore, be a good reason why,
contrary to the projections of the models on which the IPCC
relies, temperatures have not risen for a decade and have been
falling since the phase-transition in global temperature
trends that occurred in late 2001. Perhaps real-world climate
sensitivity is very much below the IPCC's estimates. Perhaps,
therefore, there is no "climate crisis" at all. At present,
then, in policy terms there is no case for doing anything. The
correct policy approach to a non-problem is to have the
courage to do
particularly grateful to Professors David Douglass and Robert
Knox for having patiently answered many questions over several
weeks, and for having allowed me to present a seminar on some
of these ideas to a challenging audience in the Physics
Faculty at Rochester University, New York; to Dr. David Evans
for his assistance with temperature feedbacks; to Professor
Felix Fitzroy of the University of St. Andrews for some
vigorous discussions; to Professor Larry Gould and Dr. Walter
Harrison for having given me the opportunity to present some
of the data and conclusions on radiative transfer and climate
sensitivity at a kindly-received public lecture at Hartford
University, Connecticut; to Dr. Joanna Haigh of Imperial
College, London, for having supplied a crucial piece of the
argument; to Professor Richard Lindzen of the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology for his lecture-notes and advice on
the implications of the absence of the tropical
mid-troposphere "hot-spot" for climate sensitivity; to Dr.
Willie Soon of the Harvard Center for Astrophysics for having
given much useful advice and for having traced several papers
that were not easily obtained; and to Dr. Roy Spencer of the
University of Alabama at Huntsville for having answered
several questions in connection with satellite data. Any
errors that remain are mine alone. I have not received funding
from any source for this
AKASOFU, S-I. 2008. Is the
Earth still recovering from the Little Ice Age? A possible
cause of global warming.Draft paper, revised January
ALLEN et al.2008. Warming maximum in the tropical
upper troposphere deduced from thermal winds. Nature
Geoscience, 25 May. DOI: 10.1038/ngeo208.
1945. Network analysis and feedback amplifier design. 551pp.
Van Nostrand, New York.
BONY, S., R. Colman, V.
Kattsov, R. P. Allan, C. S. Bretherton, J.-L. Dufresne, A.
Hall, S. Hallegatte, M. M. Holland, W. Ingram, D. A. Randall,
B. J. Soden, G. Tselioudis and M. J. Webb. 2006.How well do we
understand and evaluate climate change feedback processes?
Journal of Climate 19: 3445-3482.
COLMAN, R.A. 2003.A
comparison of climate feedbacks in general-circulation
models.Clim. Dyn.20: 865–873.
CESS, R.D., M.-H Zhang,
G. L. Potter, H. W. Barker, R. A. Colman, R.A. Dazlich, A.D.
Del Genio, M Esch, J. R. Fraser, V. Galin, W. L. Gates, J. J.
Hack, W. J. Ingram, J. T. Kiehl, A. A. Lacis, H. Le Treut, Z-X
Li, X. Z. Liang, J.-F, Mahfouf, B. J. McAvaney, K. P.
Meleshko, J.-J. Morcrette, D. A. Randall, E. Roeckner, J.-F.
Royer, A. P. Sokolov, P. V. Sporyshev, K. E. Taylor, W.-C.
Wang and R. T. Wetherald. 1993.Uncertainties in CO2radiative
forcing in atmospheric general circulation models. Science262:
CHYLEK, P., and Lohmann, U. 2008.Aerosol
radiative forcing and climate sensitivity deduced from the
Last Glacial Maximum to Holocene transition.Geophys. Res.
Lett.35:L04804, doi: 10.1029/2007GL032759.
R.E. 1982. In Carbon Dioxide Review, ed. W.C. Clark,
Clarendon, New York, NY, USA, pp. 101-133.
DORAN et al.
2002.Antarctic Climate Cooling and Terrestrial Ecosystem
Response.Nature 415: 517-520.
DOUGLASS, D.H., Pearson,
B.D., and Singer, S.F. 2004.Altitude dependence of atmospheric
temperature trends: climate models versus observation.
Geophys. Res. Lett. 31:L13208, doi:
GIORGI, F. 2005. Climate Change
Prediction. Climatic Change 73: 239-265: DOI:
GOURETSKI, V. and Koltermann,
K.P.2007. How much is the ocean really warming? Geophysical
Research Letters 34:doi 10.1029/2006GL027834.
J., Lacis, A., Rind, D., Russell, G., Stone, P., Fung, I.,
Ruedy, R., and Lerner, J. 1984.Climate sensitivity: analysis
of feedback mechanisms. Meteorological Monographs 29:
HANSEN, J., Fung, I., Lacis, A., Rind, D.,
Lebedeff, S., Ruedy, R., and Russell, G.1988. Global climate
changes as forecast by Goddard Institute for Space Studies
Three-Dimensional Model. J. Geophys. Res. 93 (D8):
HARTMANN, D.L. 1994. Global Physical
Climatology. Academic Press, San Diego.
H., and Wilson, Robert M. 2004. What the Sunspot Record Tells
us about Space Climate. Solar Physics 224: 5-19.
1996. The Science of Climate Change: Contribution of Working
Group I to the Second Assessment Report of the IPCC(eds. J. T.
Houghton et al.), Cambridge University Press,
IPCC. 2001.Climate Change, The Scientific
Basis,Cambridge University Press, London.
Fourth Assessment Report. Cambridge University Press,
KEELING, C.D., and Whorf, T.P.2004.Trends in
atmospheric carbon dioxide at Mauna Loa, Hawaii. Carbon
Dioxide Research Group, Scripps Institution of Oceanography,
University of California, La Jolla, California 92093-0444,
KEENLYSIDE, N.S., Latif, M., Jungclaus, J.,
Kornblueh, L., and Roeckner, E.2008. Advancing decadal-scale
climate prediction in the North Atlantic sector. Nature 453:
84-88 │ doi:10.1038/nature06921.
KIEHL, J.T. 1992.
Atmospheric general circulation modeling, in Climate System
Modeling, ed. K. E. Trenberth, Cambridge University Press, New
York, ch. 10, pp. 319-369.
KIEHL, J.T., &Trenberth,
K.E. 1997.The Earth's Radiation Budget. Bull. Am. Meteorol.
Soc. 78: 197.
LEE, M.-I, Suarez, M.J., Kang, I.-S.,
Held, I. M., and Kim, D. 2007.A Moist Benchmark Calculation
for the Atmospheric General Circulation Models. J.Clim. [in
LINDZEN, R.S., Chou, M.-D. and Hou, A.Y.
2001. Does the earth have an adaptive infrared iris?
Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society82:
LINDZEN, R.S. 2007. Taking greenhouse warming
seriously. Energy & Environment 18 (7-8):
LORENZ, Edward N. 1963. Deterministic
nonperiodic flow. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 20:
LYMAN, John M., Willis, J.K., and Johnson,
G.C. 2006. Recent cooling of the upper ocean. Geophysical
Research Letters, 33:L18604,
McKITRICK, R.R. 2007.
Quantifying the influence of anthropogenic surface processes
and inhomogeneities on global gridded climate data. J.
Geophys. Res. (Atmospheres) [in press].
Highwood, E.J., Shine, K. P., and Stordal, F. 1998.New
estimates of radiative forcing due to well-mixed greenhouse
gases. Geophys. Res. Lett. 25 (14): 2715-2718.
2006.Global annual land and ocean mean temperature anomalies.
Data downloadable from ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalies/annual.land_and_ocean.90S.90N.df_1901-2000mean.dat.
J.R., Jouzel, J., Raynaud, D., Barkov, N.I., Barnola, J.-M.,
Basile, I., Bender, M., Chappellaz, J., Davis, M., Delaygue,
G., Delmotte, M., Kotlyakov, V.M., Legrand, M., Lipenkov,
V.Y., Lorius, C., Pepin, L., Ritz, C., Saltzman, E., and
Stievenard, M. 1999. Climate and atmospheric
history of the past 420,000 years from the Vostok ice core,
Antarctica. Nature399: 429-436.
RAMANATHAN, V., R.
Cicerone, H. Singh and J. Kiehl.1985.Trace gas trends and
their potential role in climate change. J. Geophys. Res.90:
SODEN, B.J., and Held, I.M. 2006. An
assessment of climate feedbacks in coupled ocean-atmosphere
models. J. Clim.19: 3354–3360.
SOLANKI, S.K., Usoskin,
I.G., Kromer, B., Schüssler, M. and Beer, J. 2005.Unusual
activity of the Sun during recent decades compared to the
previous 11,000 years. Nature436: 174 (14 July 2005) | doi:
SOON, W.W.-H.2005. Variable solar
irradiance as a plausible agent for multidecadal variations in
the Arctic-wide surface air temperature record of the past 130
years.Geophys. Res. Lett.32: L16712 |
SPENCER, R. W., Braswell, W.
D., Christy, J. R., and Hnilo, J. 2007.Cloud and radiation
budget changes associated with tropical intraseasonal
oscillations. Geophys. Res.Lett. 34: L15707 | doi:
THORNE, P. W., D. E. Parker, B.
D. Santer, M. P. McCarthy, D. M. H. Sexton, M. J. Webb, J. M.
Murphy, M. Collins, H. A. Titchner, and G. S. Jones. 2007.
Tropical vertical temperature trends: A real discrepancy?
Geophysical Research Letters 34: L16702,
TSONIS, A. A., Swanson, K,
and Kravtsov, S. 2007.A new dynamical mechanism for major
climate shifts, Geophys.Res. Lett.,34: L13705,
WENTZ, F.J. et al. 2007. How
much more rain will global warming bring? Science
WMO. 1986. Atmospheric Ozone, 1985. Global Ozone
Research and Monitoring Project,World Meteorological
Organization, Report No. 16: Chapter 15. Geneva,
Christopher Monckton of
Carie, Rannoch, PH17 2QJ