Five climate lies told to the US Senate on 8/1/12.
7/15/13, "Climate change showdown takes shape," The Hill, Ben Geman
"The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on Thursday will hold the first big congressional climate change hearing since President Obama unveiled his global warming plan in late June."...(List of 9 witnesses scheduled to speak. All 9 would likely agree that many more US taxpayer dollars must be transferred to the climate industry and most would benefit from that outcome. The most interesting talk will be be Roger Pielke Jr, listed 9th, who will speak about weather extremes. He has many facts on the subject but he'll be drowned out by the 8 CO2 disaster advocates.)
UK Guardian eagerly awaits more US climate action for "dramatic geopolitical impact" and to align world GDP's:
12/1/12, "America's carbon tax offers a lesson to the rest of the planet on fighting climate change," UK Guardian, Henry Porter
"The vital point is that a price on carbon in the US will have a dramatic geopolitical impact....With a settled carbon price in the US, countries with half the world's GDP will be working in a more or less consistent direction."...
Five climate lies told to the US Senate on August 1, 2012:
8/1/12, "IPCC Lead Author Misleads US Congress," RogerPielkeJr blog
"The politicization of climate science is so complete that the lead author of the IPCC's Working Group II on climate impacts feels comfortable presenting testimony to the US Congress that fundamentally misrepresents what the IPCC has concluded. I am referring to testimony given today by Christopher Field, a professor at Stanford, to the US Senate.
This is not a particularly nuanced or complex issue. What Field says the IPCC says is blantantly wrong, often 180 degrees wrong. It is one thing to disagree about scientific questions, but it is altogether different to fundamentally misrepresent an IPCC report to the US Congress. Below are five instances in which Field's testimony today completely and unambiguously misrepresented IPCC findings to the Senate. Field's testimony is here in PDF.
1. On the economic costs of disasters:
Field: "As the US copes with the aftermath of last year’s record-breaking series of 14 billion-dollar climate-related disasters and this year’s massive wildfires and storms, it is critical to understand that the link between climate change and the kinds of extremes that lead to disasters is clear."Field's assertion that the link between climate change and disasters "is clear," which he supported with reference to US "billion dollar" economic losses, is in reality scientifically unsupported by the IPCC. Period. (More on the NOAA billion-dollar disasters below.) There is good reason for this -- it is what the science says. Why fail to report to Congress the IPCC's most fundamental finding and indicate something quite the opposite?
What the IPCC actually said: "There is medium evidence and high agreement that long-term trends in normalized losses have not been attributed to natural or anthropogenic climate change"
2. On US droughts:
Field: "The report identified some areas where droughts have become longer and more intense (including southern Europe and West Africa), but others where droughts have become less frequent, less intense, or shorter."Field conveniently neglected in his testimony to mention that one place where droughts have gotten less frequent, less intense or shorter is ... the United States. Why did he fail to mention this region, surely of interest to US Senators, but did include Europe and West Africa?
What the IPCC actually said: "... in some regions droughts have become less frequent, less intense, or shorter, for example, central North America ..."
3. On NOAA's billion dollar disasters:
Field: "The US experienced 14 billion-dollar disasters in 2011, a record that far surpasses the previous maximum of 9."What NOAA actually says about its series of "billion dollar" disasters: "Caution should be used in interpreting any trends based on this [data] for a variety of reasons"
Field says nothing about the serious issues with NOAA's tabulation. The billion dollar disaster meme is a PR train wreck, not peer reviewed and is counter to the actual science summarized in the IPCC. So why mention it?
4. On attributing billion dollar disasters to climate change, case of hurricanes and tornadoes:
Field: "For several of these categories of disasters, the strength of any linkage to climate change, if there is one, is not known. Specifically, the IPCC (IPCC 2012) did not identify a trend or express confidence in projections concerning tornadoes and other small-area events. The evidence on hurricanes is mixed."Hurricanes are, of course, tropical cyclones. Far from evidence being "mixed" the IPCC was unable to attribute any trend in tropical cyclone disasters to climate change (anywhere in the world and globally overall). In fact, there has been no trend in US hurricane frequency or intensity over a century or more, and the US is currently experiencing the longest period with no intense hurricane landfalls ever seen. Field fails to report any this and invents something different. Why present testimony so easily refuted? (He did get tornadoes right!)
What the IPCC actually said (p. 269 PDF): "The statement about the absence of trends in impacts attributable to natural or anthropogenic climate change holds for tropical and extratropical storms and tornadoes"
5. On attributing billion dollar disasters to climate change, case of floods and droughts:
Field: "For other categories of climate and weather extremes, the pattern is increasingly clear. Climate change is shifting the risk of hitting an extreme. The IPCC (IPCC 2012) concludes that climate change increases the risk of heat waves (90% or greater probability), heavy precipitation (66% or greater probability), and droughts (medium confidence) for most land areas."
What the IPCC actually says (p. 269 PDF): "The absence of an attributable climate change signal in losses also holds for flood losses"
and (from above): "in some regions droughts have become less frequent, less intense, or shorter, for example, central North America"
Field fails to explain that no linkage between flood disasters and climate change has been established. Increasing precipitation is not the same thing as increasing streamflow, floods or disasters. In fact, floods may be decreasing worldwide
- and are not increasing the US.
- such obvious misrepresentations when they are so easily refuted?
- the science says what the science says.
Following are 7 scientific citations on 15+ year pause in statistically significant global warming.
*Following those is a NOAA study that 2012 US drought was not caused by human climate change.
*Following that is a May 2013 NASA peer reviewed study finding Superstorm Sandy was not caused by human induced climate change either. After decades of spending on CO2 terror the idea is at best uncertain, possibly not happening at all, at minimum clearly not a catastrophic matter concerning which Americans should pay one more penny. As it is, trillions of taxpayer dollars from poor and middle class Americans and the overall economy have been diverted to enrich millionaires and billionaires. Even if global warming were happening, US CO2 has plunged while that of other countries has risen. In any case the US has little to no effect on global CO2 due to China's high number. Clean air and water are normal concerns but are separate from CO2 terror. Americans are suffering in an endless depression with no end in sight, and have in fact already become a part time economy. The Beltway has become a mob completely separate from America. Further spending on CO2 terror and global warming that is not happening would be criminal:
1. UN IPCC, 2/21/13, “IPCC Head Pachauri Acknowledges Global Warming Standstill,” The Australian, Graham Lloyd,
"The UN’s climate change chief, Rajendra Pachauri, has acknowledged a 17-year pause in global temperature rises, confirmed recently by Britain’s Met Office."...
2. UK Met Office 1/18/13, "The British Met Office forecast even more recently that the temperature interval could continue at a high level until the end of 2017 - despite the rapidly increasing emissions of greenhouse gases . Then global warming would pause 20 years."..."The exact reasons of the temperature standstill since 1998, are not yet understood, says climate researcher Doug Smith of the Met Office."...1/18/13, “Climate change: scientists puzzle over halt in global warming,” Der Spiegel, by Axel Bojanowski (translation from German)
Der Spiegel (chart above, UK Met Office)
3. Dr. Judith Curry, 4/25/13, "STATEMENT TO THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE AND TECHNOLOGY OF THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Hearing on “Policy Relevant Climate Issues in Context," 25 April 2013, Judith A. Curry, Georgia Institute of Technology:
page 3, "Since 1998 there has been no statistically significant increase in global surface temperature. While many engaged in the public discourse on this topic dismiss the significance of a hiatus in increasing global temperatures because of expected variations associated with natural variability, analyses of climate model simulations find very unlikely a plateau or period of cooling that extends beyond 17 years in the presence of human-induced global warming....Others have suggested that the pause could last up to two decades (11) or even longer, owing to the transition to the cool phase of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation that is associated with a predominance of La Nina (cool) events."...footnote 11, Aug.-Sept. 2009, "Advancing Climate Prediction Science," WMO, Geneva (p. 3 graph shows cooling in early 2000's)
Dr. Curry says temperatures may move from flat to cool: 6/14/13, "Week in review," Climate, Etc., JudithCurry.com
4. 6/20/13, Hans von Storch of the Meteorological Institute of the University of Hamburg, "Climate Expert von Storch: Why Is Global Warming Stagnating?" Der Spiegel, Stampf and Traufetter:
"Climate experts have long predicted that temperatures would rise in parallel with greenhouse gas emissions. But, for 15 years, they haven't. In a SPIEGEL interview, meteorologist Hans von Storch discusses how this "puzzle" might force scientists to alter what could be "fundamentally wrong" models.
SPIEGEL: Mr. Storch, Germany has recently seen major flooding. Is global warming the culprit?
Storch: I'm not aware of any studies showing that floods happen more often today than in the past. I also just attended a hydrologists' conference in Koblenz, and none of the scientists there described such a finding."...
5. NOAA "State of the Climate in 2008," released in August 2009, stated that 15 year lack of warming would be point at which prediction models have failed.
Scientists in 2008 noted already a decade of no warming, a then approximate 10 year pause in rising temperatures (which as of 2013 is a 15 year pause), and that a 15 year pause would invalidate predictions:
p. 22, "Do global temperature trends over the last decade falsify climate predictions?"
"Observations indicate that global temperature rise has slowed
in the last decade (since 1998) (Fig. 2.8a)....This is despite a steady increase
in radiative forcing as a result of human activities and has led some to
century warming (Lawson 2008; Carter 2008)....
p. 23, "Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals
of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model’s internal climate variability.
The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggestingthat an observed absence of warming of
this duration is needed to create a discrepancywith the expected
present-day warming rate."
6. 11/29/12, 134 scientists write to UN Sec. Gen. Ban Ki-Moon, asking him to desist from blaming climate disasters on global warming that hasn't happened: "Global warming that has not occurred cannot have caused the extreme weather of the past few years."...“The NOAA “State of the Climate in 2008” report asserted that 15 years or more without any statistically-significant warming would indicate a discrepancy between observation and prediction. Sixteen years without warming have therefore now proven that the models are wrong by their creators’ own criterion.”…(2nd parag. fr. end of letter). “Global warming that has not occurred cannot have caused the extreme weather of the past few years.”…"Policy actions that aim to reduce CO2 emissions are unlikely to influence future climate. Policies need to focus on preparation for, and adaptation to, all dangerous climatic events, however caused."...Special to Financial Post, 12/10/12
30 year peer reviewed study finds CO2 lags global air and water temperatures. CO2 doesn't cause warming:
7. Jan. 2013, “The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature,“ Global and Planetary Change, Ole Humluma, b, , ,Kjell Stordahlc, Jan-Erik Solheimd
“Fig. 1. Monthly global atmospheric CO2“
"In our analysis we use eight well-known datasets:
1) globally averaged well-mixed marine boundary layer CO2 data,
2) HadCRUT3 surface air temperature data,
3) GISS surface air temperature data,
4) NCDC surface air temperature data,
5) HadSST2 sea surface data,
6) UAH lower troposphere temperature data series,
7) CDIAC data on release of anthropogene CO2, and
8) GWP data on volcanic eruptions....
Changes in CO2 always lagging changes in temperature. The maximum positive correlation between CO2 and temperature is found for
11–12 months in relation to global sea surface temperature,
9.5–10 months to global surface air temperature, and
about 9 months to global lower troposphere temperature.
The correlation between changes in ocean temperatures and atmospheric CO2 is high, but do not explain all observed changes."
8. NOAA study says US 2012 weather extremes due to natural causes, not global warming:
4/12/13, “Study Reveals Global Warming Not To Blame For Last Year’s Crippling Drought,” stlouis.cbslocal.com with AP
“A new federal study reveals that global warming is not to blame for last year’s extreme drought that crippled the central Great Plains. The study conducted by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Drought Task Force places the blame on natural variations.“…
9. 5/28/13, Peer reviewed NASA study says Superstorm Sandy not due to man-caused global warming or climate change:
5/28/13, "On the impact angle of Hurricane Sandy's New Jersey landfall," Geophysical Research Letters, Hall and Sobel
"Hall and Sobel report their findings in a paper published last week (29 May 2013) in Geophysical Research Letters, a journal of the American Geophysical Union."...
=====Following are two reports noting the above finding:
6/3/13, "Hurricane Sandy took highly unusual path, but climate change doesn’t get the blame – yet," blogs.AGU.org, by Sarah Charley
7/12/13, "Hurricane Sandy Was 1-in-700-Year Event," LiveScience.com, Elizabeth Howell
10. 6/10/13, CO2 emissions chart from IEA report, p. 2
Extra point: If Senators and others in the Beltway get their news only from broadcast television networks, they'll never know that global warming has "paused" for at least 15 years:
7/11/13, "Networks Do 92 Climate Change Stories; Fail to Mention 'Lull' in Warming All 92 Times, ABC, CBS and NBC ignore 'mystery' warming plateau in favor of alarmism about sea levels, allergies, weather." Wall St. Journal, Julia A. Seymour
"Just since Jan. 1, 2013, ABC, CBS and NBC morning and evening news programs have aired 92 stories about "climate change" or "global warming." Not a single one of those stories mentioned the "warming plateau" reported even by The New York Times on June 10."...