The “Climate Science Special Report” is Highly Deceptive
Yes, the report really is “special”!
Last night, my inbox was filled with how the latest “National Climate Assessment” released by the administration counters what President Donald Trump and Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt have said about the questionable assertions about man-made climate change and the policies that are derived from the ludicrous theories.
The following muck from The Washington Post is a great example of the elite media spinning a narrative that is demonstrably false in scientific terms but that fits their politically-motivated agenda:
The Trump administration released a dire scientific report Friday calling human activity the dominant driver of global warming, a conclusion at odds with White House decisions to withdraw from a key international climate accord, champion fossil fuels and reverse Obama-era climate policies.
To the surprise of some scientists, the White House did not seek to prevent the release of the government’s National Climate Assessment, which is mandated by law. The report affirms that climate change is driven almost entirely by human action, warns of a worst-case scenario where seas could rise as high as eight feet by the year 2100, and details climate-related damage across the United States that is already unfolding as a result of an average global temperature increase of 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit since 1900.
I will simply point out that the Climate Science Special Report, released by 13 federal agencies on Friday, is the product of Obama-era eco-activists who remain entrenched at those various agencies. No swamp has been harder to drain since Julius Caesar tried to get rid of the Pontine Marshes.
Furthermore, this news was released on Friday. Not only was it a Friday, but it was the day that President Trump was beginning a historic, 10-day trip to Asia.
How seriously, then, can we take this special report?
Not very, says Steven E. Koonin, undersecretary of energy for science during President Obama’s first term and is director of the Center for Urban Science and Progress at New York University.
In The Wall Street Journal, Koonin says the report “misleads by omission.”
The world’s response to climate changing under natural and human influences is best founded upon a complete portrayal of the science. The U.S. government’s Climate Science Special Report… does not provide that foundation. Instead, it reinforces alarm with incomplete information and highlights the need for more-rigorous review of climate assessments.
A team of some 30 authors chartered by the U.S. Global Change Research Program began work in spring 2016 on the report, “designed to be an authoritative assessment of the science of climate change.” An early draft was released for public comment in January and reviewed by the National Academies this spring. I, together with thousands of other scientists, had the opportunity to scrutinize and discuss the final draft when it was publicized in August by the New York Times . While much is right in the report, it is misleading in more than a few important places.
One notable example of alarm-raising is the description of sea-level rise, one of the greatest climate concerns. The report ominously notes that while global sea level rose an average 0.05 inch a year during most of the 20th century, it has risen at about twice that rate since 1993. But it fails to mention that the rate fluctuated by comparable amounts several times during the 20th century. The same research papers the report cites show that recent rates are statistically indistinguishable from peak rates earlier in the 20th century, when human influences on the climate were much smaller. The report thus misleads by omission.
The entire piece is well worth reading for those who are interested in climate science. Perhaps the most interesting portion is Koonin’s solutions, which may be applied to future reports:
Several actions are warranted. First, the report should be amended to describe the history of sea-level rise, heat waves and other trends fully and accurately. Second, the government should convene a “Red/Blue” adversarial review to stress-test the entire report, as I urged in April. Critics argue such an exercise would be superfluous given the conventional review processes, and others have questioned even the minimal time and expense that would be involved. But the report’s deficiencies demonstrate why such a review is necessary.
Finally, the institutions involved in the report should figure out how and why such shortcomings survived multiple rounds of review.
Legal Insurrection has covered the Red Team/Blue Team debate process that Pruitt was hoping to implement.
I would like to point out that The National Climate Assessment is mandated by law, and the report has been largely prepared by the Obama Administration and their holdovers in the new administration to meet specific deadlines and requirements. I do not think that the Trump Administration has people yet in place who can clear away the swamp’s scientifically unsound climate change detritus.
So, yes, the Climate Science Special Report is….special, in the SNL-Church Lady meaning of the word.
I have my own special climate report: The swamp remains quite odorous and filled with stifling, hot air.
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
“Shut up” they said.
good article that debunks said national climate assessment with science: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/11/03/what-you-wont-find-in-the-new-national-climate-assessment/
From what I’ve read, the report is merely a regurgitation of all the Gore-ist alarmism, replete with all the manipulated (if not outright fraudulent) “data” of previous reports. The models from their “data” have not reflected reality, nor have they come to fruition, even when moving the goalposts, as they are wont to do.
I concur with MathewsJW that the article he cites from Watts Up With That is an excellent rebuttal to this sham of a report.
Of course, we’ll still have the warmists all chirping and barking, “See, SEE?”. They haven’t a logical foot upon which to stand.
I read and reread an article summarizing the assessment and concluded it didn’t pass the laugh test. Man is responsible for virtually all or more of warming since the end of the Little Ice Age! Dream on.
The truth no longer means anything. It’s all about the scientific consensus!!
So liberals want our climate to remain as it has always been. They don’t want seas to rise or the temp to get any warmer. In our present day; immorality, lawlessness, a lack of respect for authority and sexual deviancy are all on the rise. Western culture is a frog that has been thrown in a pot of water on the stove and the temp is slowly being turned up to a boiling point. But when I want to reverse that rise and turn the temps back down, I’m a bigot homophobe.
Anthropogenic global warming is supported by a variety of observations findings, as well as from first principles. In particular, climate sensitivity is probably in the range of 2-5°C per doubling of CO2.
The paleoclimate record demonstrates that CO2 rises in response to an increase in temperature, not the other way around.
“It boggles the mind that I could be certain that I know what caused a half degree (C) rise in the last hundred fifty years. It’s simply not large enough to find a physical cause.”
Climate Statistics Professor Dr. Caleb Rossiter of American University
DaveGinOly: The paleoclimate record demonstrates that CO2 rises in response to an increase in temperature, not the other way around.
Atmospheric CO2 is both cause and effect in the climate system. If something sparks a warming of the Earth, such as an increase in insolation due to orbital variations, the oceans warm. Warmer oceans can hold less CO2, leading to an increase in CO2, which further warms the Earth. If something sparks a cooling of the Earth, such as an decrease in insolation due to orbital variations, the oceans cool. Cooler oceans can hold more CO2, leading to an decrease in CO2, which further cools the Earth.
DaveGinOly: “It boggles the mind that I could be certain that I know what caused a half degree (C) rise in the last hundred fifty years. It’s simply not large enough to find a physical cause.”
A 0.5°C difference in global mean surface temperature represents a very large amount of energy. The basics of of how CO2 impacts the greenhouse effect have been known for more than a century.
If it is “cause and effect” the data has to have hysteresis, but it doesn’t. Please provide a bode plot that shows the effect of CO2 is imaginary. If you can not do that, then you are making a claim that is mathematically impossible.
InEssence: If it is “cause and effect” the data has to have hysteresis
The climate system certainly exhibit hysteresis. Clearly the oceans act to slow the warming or cooling of the Earth’s climate, whatever the cause. Not sure why you would think otherwise.
The most obvious equilibrium points are ice-age and ice-free periods due to CO2 and albedo effects with turbulent transitions.
Zachriel, good grief, hysteresis is not the same as residual.
It amazes me how any technical person could argue that man has an impact on climate with CO2.
The permittivity of Oxygen and Nitrogen are the same as CO2. So how is CO2 going to bend the light differently than O and N?
The CO2 we have in the air today will only be with us about 10 years. Everyone agrees that CO2 is a thermometer. Of what use is a thermometer if it can only go up?
“Greenhouse Gas” is an oxymoron. Greenhouses allow radiation and inhibit convection. Any gas that inhibits convection is by definition, not a gas.
InEssence: hysteresis is not the same as residual.
Hysteresis is a retardation of an effect when the forces acting upon a body are changed. More generally, it is a system whose current state is dependent on its history. Such a system typically exhibits multiple equilibrium points. So with the climate system, as CO2 warms the system, removing that CO2 may no longer return the system to its previous state.
InEssence: So how is CO2 going to bend the light differently than O and N?
Unlike molecular oxygen and nitrogen, CO2 absorbs strongly in the infrared, hence atmospheric CO2 slows the escape of heat energy from the atmosphere.
InEssence: The CO2 we have in the air today will only be with us about 10 years.
The particular molecules of CO2 are exchanged with the hydrosphere and biosphere, but the atmospheric concentration has a long half-life as geological sinks work very slowly.
InEssence: Everyone agrees that CO2 is a thermometer.
Have no idea what that is supposed to mean.
InEssence: Greenhouses allow radiation and inhibit convection.
Greenhouse gases don’t work like a garden greenhouse, but slow heat radiation from the Earth through absorption.
Hysteresis is a “snap over center” affect which would cause March or November to be the coldest month April or October to be the warmest month. Your math is deficient.
In your own words, you are describing C02 as an average rather than a load. Averaging temperatures promotes life. Rapidly changing temperatures such as those in Siberia kill things. If you are worried about averaging, you should crusade against water vapor which has about one hundred times the affect of CO2. Water vapor is so strong that the temperatures are averaged the most near the ocean. You will have to retract those words or be labelled a “denier”.
We know how fast it is eliminated. As Dave said, CO2 is a thermometer, and thermometers must go up as well as down. If you don’t think CO2 is a thermometer, then you must not know that 97% of CO2 is created from plants as they rot. By measuring temperatures and CO2, everyone who has looked at the data knows its half life is 10 years or less.
In your last statement, you again say that CO2 averages the temperature, and everyone definitely wants more averaging. The “alarmists” call CO2 a “load” that heats the atmosphere, but of course, they can’t site a single scientific function which makes that happen. By calling CO2 an averaging function, you are now officially a “denier”. Welcome aboard!
InEssence: Hysteresis is …
the dependence of the state of a system on its history.
a retardation of an effect when the forces acting upon a body are changed
InEssence: If you are worried about averaging, you should crusade against water vapor which has about one hundred times the affect of CO2.
Anthropogenic water vapor doesn’t stay in the atmosphere, but is precipitated out. However, anthropogenic CO2 warms the surface which then causes an an increase in atmospheric water vapor, amplifying the original effect.
InEssence: By measuring temperatures and CO2, everyone who has looked at the data knows its half life is 10 years or less.
Already answered. Individual molecules of CO2 are constantly exchanged with the hydrosphere and biosphere (5-10 years), but the atmospheric concentration has a long half-life as geological sinks work very slowly (centuries to millennia).
InEssence: you again say that CO2 averages the temperature
CO2 increases the mean global surface temperature, by slowing Earth’s radiation of heat energy.
Hysteresis is a function that describes a “snap over center effect”. They guiding mathematics is bode. You should look it up. You are claiming positive feedback, but the data doesn’t show it. As bode mathematics show, any positive feedback moves the function to the imaginary where the temperature of the world would go to absolute zero or as hot as the sun. As it approaches imaginary, you get hysteresis which cause the spring and fall to be the hottest and coldest. But that is not the case. The data only shows a residual which is common sense. It shows no hysteresis. We all know CO2 is thermometer. Since the data has no hysteresis, then CO2 can not be a heater. How can you deny mathematical proof?
So you agree “very slowly” has a half life of about 10 years? Or are you saying that no has ever accurately plotted CO2 and temperature. This stuff has been know for a long time. Why do think they drill the ice to find the temperature of many years ago?
InEssence: You are claiming positive feedback, but the data doesn’t show it.
Actually, many different methodologies support a climate sensitivity of 2-4°C per doubling of CO2. As the direct effect of CO2 only accounts for about 1°C, the difference is due to positive feedbacks, primarily due to water vapor and albedo effects.
InEssence: So you agree “very slowly” has a half life of about 10 years?
Try to read more carefully. Individual molecules of CO2 are constantly exchanged with the hydrosphere and biosphere (half live of about 5-10 years) but results in no net change to atmospheric concentration; however, atmospheric concentration has a long half-life as geological sinks work very slowly (centuries to millennia).
We can see the data. CO2 stays in the air about 10 years maximum.
You list so many reports, but you don’t list a single function. That is for good reason. Every scientific and mathematical function proves that “alarmists” are all wet.
You are still conflating the decay of atmospheric concentration with the equilibrium exchange rate. See, for instance, Archer et al., Atmospheric Lifetime of Fossil Fuel Carbon Dioxide, Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences 2009.
You are saying that all those people who use CO2 as a thermometer, which is most everyone, are incorrect. 97% of the CO2 is caused by rotting plants. More plants implies a warmer earth. It is that simple. None of this works though, if it takes thousands of years for CO2 to go back into the earth. What good is a thermometer if it only goes up?
It is very easy; look at the data and you can see the CO2 tracking temperature with a delay of about 50 years which is about how long it takes the average plant mass to sprout, grow, die, and rot. Either CO2 is in the air or it is not. “Conflating” CO2 does not exist. It is hard facts like this that make the “alarmists” look so silly.
InEssence: You are saying that all those people who use CO2 as a thermometer, which is most everyone, are incorrect.
A thermometer is a device that measures temperature or a temperature gradient. For the second time, we have no idea what you mean.
InEssence: 97% of the CO2 is caused by rotting plants.
Yet you don’t have a predictive model that works. Until you do, you’re practicing religion.
Matt_SE: Yet you don’t have a predictive model that works.
There are many predictions of details of global climate that have been repeatedly verified, but here is a primary evidence.
But there is no model that correctly predicts the known record. Therefore we know that all currently known models are wrong. Come up with one and then we can talk.
Milhouse: But there is no model that correctly predicts the known record.
All models are wrong, some are useful. — George E.P. Box
Model vs. Observation
“Second, the government should convene a ‘Red/Blue’ adversarial review to stress-test the entire report, as I urged in April. Critics argue such an exercise would be superfluous given the conventional review processes, and others have questioned even the minimal time and expense that would be involved.”
1) Given the revelations in the ClimateGate emails, I have doubts whether there is adequate representation of contrarian viewpoints in the conventional review process. In fact, I suspect such views have been actively discriminated against and driven from the table.
2) When leftists start complaining about “expense,” you know something’s rotten.
Matt_SE: 1) Given the revelations in the ClimateGate emails, I have doubts whether there is adequate representation of contrarian viewpoints in the conventional review process. In fact, I suspect such views have been actively discriminated against and driven from the table.
There’s very little actual research that significantly undermines the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming. Climate skepticism, like evolution skepticism, is primarily a political and cultural phenomenon.
Matt_SE: 2) When leftists start complaining about “expense,” you know something’s rotten.
Don’t know about “leftists”, but scientific research dollars are always limited.
I see the Soros-paid troll is back. Or, perhaps, it is the Russians? Thanks for the chuckles.
Leslie Eastman: I see the Soros-paid troll is back.
Our views are our own, and freely given. We accept no remuneration. Notably, you ignored the content of our comment. You might point to published scientific research that significantly undermines the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming.
“Our views are our own,” etc.
Is this the royal “we,” or do you have multiple personality syndrome? Possessed by Legion, or is English your second language, comrade?
Matt_SE: Is this the royal “we,” or do you have multiple personality syndrome?
A number of theories have been proposed concerning our use of nosism. If Zachriel were legion,
Once again, the ClimateGate emails show evidence of a concerted effort to deny opposing views a voice. That would include funding for research.
I’m hoping that the Trump administration can fix that by dedicating funding specifically towards skeptics. We’ll see how much “actual research that significantly undermines the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming” is present then.
I note that your second point comports with this view.
Matt_SE: Once again, the ClimateGate emails show evidence of a concerted effort to deny opposing views a voice. That would include funding for research.
So, the answer is that there is very little actual research that significantly undermines the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming. You attribute this to suppression, even though there are a number of prominent skeptics who have access to research funding and who frequently publish in the scientific journals.
Matt_SE: I’m hoping that the Trump administration can fix that by dedicating funding specifically towards skeptics.
Scientific funding is generally allocated by scientists based on scientific criteria, not by politicians for political purposes.
“Scientific funding is generally allocated by scientists based on scientific criteria, not by politicians for political purposes.”
Not sure your personal ignorance or incredulity makes for a convincing argument.
I second the LOL. The ClimateGate emails discredit your claim.
Milhouse: The ClimateGate emails discredit your claim.
The situation was investigated by several different committees, and found there was no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct, That flatearthers have trouble getting published isn’t noteworthy.
Ha. “Several different committees” all of which were drawn from the same tiny cabal they were supposedly investigating.
Milhouse: Ha. “Several different committees” all of which were drawn from the same tiny cabal they were supposedly investigating.
In fact, investigations included a wide variety of independent institutions.
However, that does not mean the investigations did not find reason to criticize the scientists involved, and recommended a more open approach to data and methods.
Not going to call you a shill, but you are definitely a true blue believer in the cult of science. I say that as a scientist, too.
If you think funding is distributed based on some magic merit where the powers that be work against their own hypotheses to fund dissenting research, then you definitely aren’t a scientist. It happens in less controversial fields to an eye-opening extent. People just don’t want to be wrong, even when there’s little to nothing else at stake. That human bias has never been removed from the funding vehicles or peer review. What’s even more alarming is that it’s well known within the circles, but no one in the circles wants to do anything about it. It’s quite the intellectual bubble.