Denier hacks embarrass themselves trying to refute NCA

[Crick]

Scientists Respond to the Obama Administration's
National Climate Assessment – 2014

file:///C:/Users/Abraham/Downloads/224538945-NCA-Rebuttal.pdf

First, the authors and reviewers of this document. These gentlemen call themselves "scientists"

Joseph S. D’Aleo
Certified Consultant Meteorologist,
American Meteorological Society Fellow
M.S., Meteorology, University of Wisconsin
B.S., Meteorology (cum laude), University of Wisconsin

Dr. Harold H. Doiron
Retired VP, Engineering Analysis and Test Division, InDyne, Inc.
Ex-NASA JSC, Aerospace Consultant
B.S. Physics, University of Louisiana - Lafayette
M.S., PhD. Mechanical Engineering, University of Houston

Dr. Don J. Easterbrook
Emeritus Professor of Geology, Western Washington University
Ph.D., Geology, University of Washington, Seattle
M.S., Geology, University of Washington, Seattle
B.S., Geology, University of Washington, Seattle

Dr. Theodore R. Eck
Ph.D., Economics, Mich. State U.; M.A, Economics, U. of Michigan
Fulbright Professor of International Economics
Former Chief Economist of Amoco Corp. and Exxon Venezuela
Advisory Board of the Gas Technology Institute and Energy Intelligence Group

Dr. Neil Frank
B.S., Chemistry, Southwestern College
M.S., Ph.D. Meteorology, Florida State
Former Director of the National Hurricane Center
NOTE: Frank is a signatory to An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming, which states that "Earth and its ecosystems – created by God's intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence – are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting".

Dr. Gordon J. Fulks
Ph.D., Physics, University of Chicago
M.S., Physics, University of Chicago
B.S., Physics, University of Chicago

Dr. William M. Gray
Emeritus Professor of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University
Ph.D., Geophysical Sciences, University of Chicago
M.S., Meteorology, University of Chicago
B.S., Geography, George Washington University
NOTE: Dr Gray is 85 years young. From his article in Wikipedia: "Gray is skeptical of current theories of human-induced global warming, which he says is supported by scientists afraid of losing grant funding and promoted by government leaders and environmentalists seeking world government. He believes that humans are not responsible for the warming of the earth and has stated that "We're brainwashing our children."

Art Horn
B.Sc. Meteorology Lyndon State College
Teaches Meteorology/Climatology at Tunxis Community College
TV Meteorologist 25 years, lecturer, expert witness, radio broadcaster
NOTE: You've got to be kidding me

Dr. Thomas P. Sheahen
Ph.D., Physics, M.I.T.
B.S., Physics, M.I.T.

Dr. S. Fred Singer
Fellow AAAS, APS, AGU
Prof Emeritus of Environmental Sciences, U of VA
Ph. D., Physics, Princeton University
BEE, Ohio State University
NOTE: Dr Singer is 89 years young. From his Wikipedia article: "he is known for... his questioning of the link between UV-B and melanoma rates, and that between CFCs and stratospheric ozone loss, his public denial of the health risks of passive smoking, and as an outspoken critic of the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming.

Dr. Anthony R. Lupo
IPCC Expert Reviewer
Professor, Atmospheric Science, University of Missouri
Ph.D., Atmospheric Science, Purdue University
M.S., Atmospheric Science, Purdue University

Dr. Madhav Khandekar
Retired Scientist [???], Environment Canada
Expert Reviewer IPCC 2007 Climate Change Documents

George Taylor
Certified Consulting Meteorologist
President Applied Climate Services
Two time President of the American Association of State Climatologists
B.A. Mathematics, University of California
M.S. Meteorology University of Utah

Dr. James P. Wallace III
Jim Wallace & Associates, LLC
Ph.D., Economics, Minor in Engineering, Brown University
M.S., Mechanical Engineering, Brown University
B.S., Aeronautical Engineering, Brown University

Dr. George T. Wolff
Former Chair EPA's Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee
Ph.D., Environmental Sciences, Rutgers University
M.S., Meteorology, New York University
B.S., Chemical Engineering, New Jersey Institute of Technology

Next, their comments:

The National Climate Assessment - 2014 (NCA) is a masterpiece of marketing that
shows for the first time the full capabilities of the Obama Administration to spin a
scientific topic as they see fit, without regard to the underlying facts. With hundreds of
pages by hundreds of captive scientists and marketing specialists, the
administration presents their case for extreme climate alarm.

This is obviously a political expression. There is not a hint of scientific content in this opening paragraph. The construct "captive scientists", no where elucidated or supported by evidence, is egregious.

As independent scientists, we know that apparent evidence of “Climate Change,”
however scary, is not proof of anything.

By "independent scientists" they mean unemployed. And again, this wouldn't qualify as a scientific opinion from a school child.

Science derives its objectivity from robust logic and honest evidence repeatedly tested by all knowledgeable scientists, not just those paid to support the administration’s version of “Global Warming,” “Climate Change,” “Climate Disruption,” or whatever their marketing specialists call it today.

There has been no restriction who can and cannot test the evidence available. The NCA is not a creation of the Obama administration. It was formed under the Global Change Research Act of 1990. The NCA has made enormous efforts to draw comment and input from the public, the research community, industry and the nation's universities. The NCA does no "marketing".

We are asked to believe that humans are drastically changing the earth's climate by
burning fossil fuels. The problem with their theory is very simple: It is NOT true.

But they will provide no valid falsification.

Here we address the administration’s basic thesis and the essential evidence that they
claim support extreme concern.

The theory of 'Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming' (CAGW)

Let's stop right there. CAGW is not a construct of the Obama Administration, the NCA, the IPCC or of the world's climate scientists. It is purely a straw man created by Anthony Watts, retired, uneducated meteorologist and anti-AGW blogger. There IS no "Theory of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming".

is based on a string of inferences that begins with the assumptions that carbon dioxide is a 'greenhouse gas' and that we are slowly driving up the atmospheric concentration by burning fossil fuels.

Being their fabrication, CAGW can be whatever they want to make it. Numerous direct measurements of the absorption spectra of carbon dioxide PROVE that it qualifies as a "greenhouse gas"; absolutely no assumption is required. Likewise, both simple bookkeeping and isotopic analysis PROVE that the increase in atmospheric CO2 levels is due to human activity; no assumption is required.

It is therefore claimed as self-evident that the Global Average Surface Temperature (GAST) has already risen significantly and will continue to do so.

There is no claim of self-evidence regarding the relationship between increasing CO2 and increasing temperatures. By direct observation CO2 is increasing and human activity is the cause. By direct observation, global temperatures have been increasing since the turn of the 20th century. An examination of the magnitude of all radiative forcings leads to the conclusion that greenhouse warming due to increased CO2 from the combustion of fossil fuels and deforestation is the primary cause of that warming.

Higher GAST is then presumed to lead to all sorts of negative consequences, especially Extreme Weather.

Why don't some of those hurricane experts speak to the correlation between sea surface temperature and hurricane intensity? It's not a presumption, it's a very consistent observation.

They promote their 'Climate Models' as a reliable way to predict the future climate. But these models dramatically fail basic verification tests. Nowhere do they admit to these well-known failures. Instead, we are led to believe that their climate models are close to perfection.

Climate models are the ONLY way to predict the future climate. Popular, contemporary climate models do NOT "dramatically fail basic verification tests" and the authors will produce no evidence to back up this charge. The performance of the models used by the NCA and the IPCC are thoroughly discussed matters of public record and include no claim that they are "close to perfection".

This document is structured around a “fact-check,” where we quote a number of the
government's key claims in the NCA and show each to be invalid.

Very similar to out-of-context nit-picking.

The first three claims involve their three crucial scientific arguments (Thre e Lines of Evidence or 3 LoE), which, if valid, would satisfy a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for making their case. But each is easily shown to be false; and because each is crucial, their entire theory collapses. That means that all of the overblown “Climate Disruption” evidence that they mention, whether true or not, cannot be tied back to man's burning of fossil fuels. Hence, efforts to reduce or eliminate Extreme Weather by reducing the burning of fossil fuels are completely nonsensical.

They seem to have assumed their results before presenting their evidence or their arguments: ie, they have assumed facts not yet in evidence. The contention that this document has any scientific validity is growing thin.

NCA CLAIM #1: “First 'Line of Evidence' (LoE) - Fundamental Understanding of
GH Gases”

“The conclusion that human influences are the primary driver of recent climate
change is based on multiple lines of independent evidence. The first line of evidence is our fundamental understanding of how certain gases trap heat, how the climate system responds to increases in these gases, and how other human and natural factors influence climate.” (NCA, Page 23)

RESPONSE: Many scientists have provided ample evidence that the government's
finding, used by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), is grossly flawed. In its
Endangerment Finding, EPA claimed with 90-99% certainty that observed warming in
the latter half of the twentieth century resulted from human activity. Using the most
credible empirical data available, it is relatively straightforward to soundly reject each of
EPA’s Three LoE. This U.S. Supreme Court Amicus brief contains the details:
http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/GW-Amicus-2013-05-23-
Br-of-Amici-Curiae-Scientists-ISO-Petitions-fo...2.pdf

The authors of the amicus brief are:

Dr. Timothy F. Ball
Joseph S. D’Aleo,
Dr. Don J. Easterbrook
Dr. Gordon J. Fulks
Dr. William M. Gray
Dr. William Happer
Dr. Anthony R. Lupo
Dr. Thomas P. Sheahen
Dr. S. Fred Singer
Dr. James P. Wallace III

If those name sound strangely familiar, that would be because they are also the authors of this "rebuttal" with the addition of Tim Ball and William Happer, both famously incompetent "climate scientist" deniers. The list also lacks the notable Art Horn and a few of the more dubious "climate scientists" found on the rebuttal.

The content of the amicus perfectly matches the claims made to this point. It will challenge that there is a GHG "fingerprint" to be seen, that the rise in temperatures since the Industrial Revolution is noteworthy and that any faith at all may be placed in current climate models. Given that, and their shared authorship, one may well wonder why this "rebuttal" article doesn't simply contain the already well composed rebuttal text. I can suggest two likely reasons: 1) the prestige of having been presented before the Supreme Court and 2) the likelihood that a significant number of reviewers will not bother to read the external text and will just assume - given that prestige - that it has some validity. You know there are readers out there who haven't a clue what an amicus brief might actually be and who will assume that the information therein is the product of - or bears some stamp of validation from - the highest court in the nation. The truth of course is that it is no such thing and that there is NOTHING that prevents an amicus brief from being a complete pack of lies.

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT

In the midst of an unsettled and vigorous international debate regarding the existence of purported global warming

In a true mimicry of the tactics of both the Intelligent Design folks and the lawyers of the tobacco industry, we begin with an attempt to claim the existence of a "vigorous international debate" where, in fact, none exists. Acceptance that the world is getting warmer is accepted by better than 99% of the world's climate scientists. There simply is no debate and this attempt is lower than specious.

and the role—if any—of human-emitted greenhouse gases (GHGs) in contributing to that alleged warming, EPA concluded with near absolute certainty that temperatures in the second half of the twentieth century were “unusually” high because of anthropogenic greenhouse gases.

That would be a conclusion at which the EPA arrived because that is what 97% of active climate scientists said was taking place.

That sweeping conclusion was a critical component of the EPA’s Endangerment Finding, and so was an impetus for the most significant and far-reaching regulatory program ever devised by a federal agency.

And why, pray tell, would these scientists care about a regulatory program? I was under the impression that they were here because they, the "Amici wish to present to this Court scientific data that bear directly on the underlying rulemaking. Specifically, amici submit that EPA’s finding of human-caused global warming is not supported by the evidentiary record that was before EPA."


The regulatory program that the EPA intends to begin has no bearing on the scientific evidence for anthropogenic global warming. It it, however, of enormous import to the fossil fuel industry: a group to which many in this select group of "experts" owe some allegiance.

EPA’s first line of evidence, its purported basic physical understanding of the effect of GHGs and other factors on climate, is invalid because it relies on the existence of an atmospheric “hot spot” or “fingerprint” that simply does not exist in the real world’s temperature data.

The position that greenhouse warming from human-emitted CO2 is the primary cause of the warming we've experienced does NOT "rely on the existence of an atmosphericc "hot spot". The hot spot is one of a multitude of characteristics that greenhouse warming was expected to produce. The hot spot HAS been seen in short term (up to 30 days) records, but not in longer records. The observations in long term records have been mixed: some DO show a hot spot, some show no spot and some actually show a cool spot. However, there are numerous other reasons to conclude that CO2 has behaved precisely as theorized and significantly inadequate reason than would constitute a falsification of a CO2 greenhouse effect.

Its second line of evidence, the assertion that temperatures around the globe rose to unusual and dangerously high levels over the last fifty years, is also demonstrably false using the best temperature data available.

The temperature increase of the last 150 years is unprecedented in at least the last 22,000 years. CO2 levels in the atmosphere are unprecedented in at least the last 800,000 years. Whether or not current temperature levels are "unusual and dangerously high" is a subjective opinion that is neither likely to have come from the EPA's research resources nor be amenable to technical address.

Likewise, EPA’s third line of evidence, involving computerized climate models, is also invalid. It can be shown that those models, premised on faulty assumptions, just do not produce forecasts that match up with the real world.

The performance of climate models - including what assumptions such models make - is widely discussed and widely publicized. The results of such model runs are of enormous value to researchers, forecasters and government and industry planners.

There is more in this document that needs discussion, but it's already gotten long enough that few will read it all. Besides, I have a really unpleasant medical procedure that needs doing and I have to step out. I will return to their "arguments" when I get back.

 

[Crick]

Per the Amicus Brief filed by Tim Ball, William Happer, Joseph S D'Aleo et al, the EPA’s purported three lines of evidence are summarized below:

1. The first line of evidence is EPA’s “basic physical understanding of the effects of changing concentrations of greenhouse gases, natural factors, and other human impacts on the climate system.” Ibid. EPA is here referring to its GHG Fingerprint (or Hot Spot) Theory, which is that, in the Tropics, the upper troposphere is warming faster than the lower troposphere and the lower is warming faster than the surface, all due to rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations blocking heat transfer into outer space. By this mechanism, increasing CO2 concentration is assumed to
increase surface temperatures.

2. The second line of evidence consists of “indirect, historical estimates of past climate changes that suggest that the changes in global surface temperature over the last several decades are unusual.” Ibid. This line of evidence refers to EPA’s claim that GAST has been rising in a dangerous fashion over the last fifty years. Ibid. concentration is assumed to increase surface temperatures.

3. EPA referenced as its third line of evidence the “use of computer-based climate models to simulate the likely patterns of response of the climate system to different forcing mechanisms (both natural and anthropogenic).” Ibid. Those climate models assume that CO2 is a key determinant of climate change, and EPA’s conclusions rely on such models to provide forecasts of future temperature conditions that are adequate for regulatory policy analysis.

*********************************************************************************
Did a Google search on "Hot Spot Theory", which these gentlemen use as a commonly understood and viable alternative for the "Greenhouse Effect". Unfortunately, the first use of the term applied as they claim to believe it used appeared on the 24th return from the search engine, halfway down page three. And the return there did not use the phrase "hot spot theory". The return was for "The Missing Tropical Hot Spot". The prediction of a tropical hotspot is not central to the Greenhouse Effect and it is most certainly not the core of the predicted process as these gentlemen would have us believe.

An increasing concentration of greenhouse gases WILL increase temperatures. There is no debate over this point.

The EPA is perfectly justified to make use of GCMs that assume CO2 will cause warming because it does. As has been pointed out here repeatedly, NO ONE has ever made a GCM that comes anywhere CLOSE to recreating the climate's behavior since the Industrial Revolution that DOESN'T include a warming effect from human-sourced CO2.