(Revised September 23, 2016 by addition of a new final section by Dr. James Wallace)
As discussed in my book, Environmentalism Gone Mad, two of the reasonable inferences from the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) hypothesis (the scientific basis for the world climate scare pushed by the United Nations and the Obama Administration) are that atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) levels should affect global temperatures, and that the resulting heat generated should be observable by a hot spot about 10 km over the tropics. In fact, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (UNIPCC) argues that both should exist and the US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) uses the hot spot as one of its three “lines of evidence” for justifying its Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Endangerment Finding (EF).
The EF, in turn, is used by EPA to justify all its climate regulations, including its ultra-expensive so-called “Clean Power Plan” (CPP} requiring that many coal plants be replaced with wind and solar-generated electric power at huge expense to ratepayers in terms of outlays and reductions in reliability as well as to taxpayers for government subsidies. The 2016 Democratic Party Platform last July now carries this approach to a new extreme by advocating that all use of fossil fuels be ended by 2050, which is highly unlikely to even be achievable at any cost.
Climate skeptic scientists have long questioned whether the effects of relatively minor (compared to other CO2 sources and sinks) human-caused emissions of CO2 have more than a minor effect on global temperatures and some have even questioned whether the UN and USEPA have even gotten the causation backwards (i.e., because on balance global temperatures affect atmospheric CO2 levels). A very interesting new study shows that their skepticism has been more than justified. By using sophisticated econometric/statistical methods on 13 different climate databases for the years 1959 to 2015 where available, the study concludes that the changes in CO2 have no measurable net effects on global temperatures but that global temperatures affect CO2 levels. The real advance in the new study is that it assumes that global temperatures may affect atmospheric CO2 levels in addition to assuming that CO2 may affect global temperatures (as assumed by UNIPCC and USEPA). This introduces complexity to the analysis but is a crucial improvement over most earlier studies.
New Research Findings Support Earlier Research by Skeptics
This conclusion is exactly what Dr. Murry Salby has independently concluded in recent years. Unfortunately, his conclusions resulted in the loss of his professorship at Macquarie University in Australia in 2013 and the confiscation of his research notes by climate alarmists at the University. As a result, his research has not been published to date in journal format as far as I know. The absence of any measurable effect of CO2 on global temperatures and the resulting missing hot spot invalidates the CAGW hypothesis in terms of the Scientific Method, and thus the EPA EF as well as the basis for the UN IPCC physical science reports and thus the scientific basis for the Paris Treaty of 2015 as well as the USEPA CPP. Alarmist scientists have tried to argue that the hot spot is actually present, but have failed to make a convincing case.
The new research report is consistent with the findings of Environmentalism Gone Mad that CAGW is invalid because reasonable inferences from it are not supported by comparisons with real world data (as required by the scientific method), but goes beyond it by providing still another, and a more sophisticated, basis for rejecting the UNIPCC/USEPA CAGW hypothesis.
The new econometric/statistical report shows that that the minor increases in global temperatures can be entirely explained by natural factors. By subtracting temperature changes due to the El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO) the report shows that there is no role for human emissions of CO2 as a cause of global warming.
The Role of ENSO in Determining Global Temperatures
It has long been evident even to a casual observer that global temperatures vary with ENSO since these temperatures consistently increase when El Nino conditions prevail and fall when La Nina conditions prevail. The alarmists have generally tried to ignore this reality, but in the last year or two even they have finally begun to recognize the role of ENSO in global temperatures and eagerly awaited the expected increase in global temperatures (the so-called highest recorded temperatures resulting from the 2016 El Nino) in order try to justify their now invalidated CAGW hypothesis.
Atmospheric CO2 levels, on the other hand, have been increasing fairly steadily and bear no obvious similarity to global temperatures. Previous skeptic studies have simply looked for the hot spot and not found it. But the new study shows that the current warming can be fully explained by including ENSO variations in the analysis and that while changes in CO2 levels must be considered in the analysis, it turned out that they can safely be ignored, which is even more than most skeptics have long argued.
The authors believe that ENSO is a natural phenomenon and I agree. There is no basis I know of for arguing that the gradual and fairly steady increases in atmospheric CO2 levels would bring about the ENSO fluctuations in the vast Central Pacific Ocean. ENSO has been observed over long periods and predated humans. The authors believe that ENSO appears to be influenced by changes in solar activity, so such oscillations are highly unlikely to be human influenced. Thus there is no basis to blame human activities for global temperature changes as the alarmists claim. And there is thus no basis for claiming that humans must reduce their CO2 emissions in order to avoid CAGW at the cost of hundreds of trillions of dollars, much less reliable energy supplies, and significantly lower economic growth by using wind and solar energy.
In the words of the new report:
- These analysis results would appear to leave very, very little doubt that EPA’s claim of a Tropical Hot Spot [THS], caused by rising atmospheric CO2 levels, simply does not exist in the real world. Also critically important, even on an all-other-things-equal basis, this analysis failed to find that the steadily rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations have had a statistically significant impact on any of the 13 temperature time series analyzed.
Thus, the analysis results invalidate each of the Three Lines of Evidence in its CO2 Endangerment Finding. Once EPA’s THS assumption is invalidated, it is obvious why the climate models they claim can be relied upon, are also invalid. And, these results clearly demonstrate — 13 times in fact — that once just the ENSO impacts on temperature data are accounted for, there is no “record setting” warming to be concerned about. In fact, there is no ENSO-Adjusted Warming at all. These natural ENSO impacts involve both changes in solar activity and the 1977 Pacific Shift.
Moreover, on an all-other-things-equal basis, there is no statistically valid proof that past increases in Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations have caused the officially reported rising, even claimed record setting temperatures. To validate their claim will require mathematically credible, publicly available, simultaneous equation parameter estimation work. Where is it?
So it is time to pursue other ways to improve the environment and not waste further time and resources on the scientifically invalid CAGW hypothesis. It is a failed hypothesis, nothing more. (Although it is true that conventional pollutants may be reduced by decreasing coal use, there are much cheaper ways to control such pollutants than reducing coal use if and when there should be a need for further such controls.) Accordingly, there is now definitive evidence that the Paris Treaty and actions taken in response to it will serve no useful purpose and should be abandoned.
Measures of Statistical Significance in Wallace et al. Report
As of September 22 two commenters have questioned the omission of some measures of statistical significance by the authors of the Wallace et al. report. Dr. James Wallace has prepared the following response to both comments:
- The DWs [Durbin-Watson statistics] were between 1.5 and 1.8; the commenters may wish to look at all the MEI [NOAA’s Multivariate ENSO Index] adjusted temperature series and note that the impacts of Volcanic Activity is evident in all the series as it should be if the ENSO removal is working properly.
Also, autocorrelation involving a DW around 1 or lower would mean that the t statistic in the first step over states the parameter estimate confidence levels. The DWs were not anywhere near those levels in my test cases.
Second, in the next step where CO2 is an explanatory variable, ignoring Autocor, which I did not do, would mean that CO2‘s t statistic could be overstating its SS. So, if it were a problem, it would lead to a false positive.
The commenters are correct that I did not discuss any of this, but as you can see, I worried about it. Glad to see some folks know about such issues. I suggest they read the KISS paper [James P. Wallace, III, Anthony Finizza, and Joseph D’Aleo, “A Simple KISS Model to Examine the Relationship Between Atmospheric CO2 Concentration, and Ocean & Land Surface Temperatures, Taking into Consideration Solar and Volcanic Activity, As Well As Fossil Fuel Use,” in Evidence-Based Climate
Science, 2011, pp. 353-382, Elsevier, Oxford, Amsterdam, ISBN: 9780123859563] if they would like to discuss any of this further.
By the way, the Cum MEI equation mentioned in one of the comments is simply used to illustrate what most folks already know–that is, what its likely most important explanatory variables are very likely to be at least over the recent time period.
[…] authors of a pathbreaking August 2016 research report, discussed here, released today a Second Edition of their report. The conclusions disproving the validity of […]
[…] The Orwellian Nature of the “March for Science” – Principia Scientific International on New Report Definitively Shows UN CAGW Hypothesis and IPCC Reports Invalid and Thus CPP and Paris Tre… […]
[…] authors of a pathbreaking August 2016 research report, discussed here, released today a Second Edition of their report. The conclusions disproving the validity of […]
Why would the absence of a “Tropical Hot Spot” prove anything either way? It appears to be nothing more than a testable hypothesis. If the test proves negative, move on to the next model.
I would like to tell you of my latest book, “Human Caused Global Warming”.
The Biggest Deception in History.
Available on ‘Amazon.ca’ and ‘Indigo/Chapters’.
Trial date for Dr Michael Mann vs Dr Tim Ball, February 20th, 2017.
http://www.drtimball.com
caitie @ September 22, 2016 at 4:56 pm
“Can someone tell me 1. what climate change scientsits get out of the “conspiracy” …”
What did the tobacco scientists get out of fudging the data on smoking? Just a job. Scientists have to provide for their families, too.
The ones on top get to build empires, with many other scientists working under them. They make a very good living.
There have been many famous names in the climate brouhaha who have, in fact, become multi-millionaires out of it all. James Hansen is one of particular note. Others have shares in “alternative energy” companies, and make beaucoups there.
“…and 2. why the incredibly wealthy petroleum/fossil fuel industry are so inept, they cant stop it – simply with cash?”
Why would they want to? There are no alternatives that can actually compete with their product. In fact, efforts to limit them only make their product more dear, so that they can sell it for the same profit with less effort expended. And, the restrictions come down especially hard on coal, their only real competitor. It’s win-win.
The oil companies are laughing all the way to the bank. In fact, they’re the ones leading the charge for “carbon taxes”.
You are being owned, in a particularly glaring and nasty way, as your overlords are using your own prejudices to make you fight against your own interests in favor of theirs’.
In reply to caitie at http://www.carlineconomics.com/archives/2958#comment-1154358 .
“Can someone tell me
1. what climate change scientsits get out of the “conspiracy”
and 2. why the incredibly wealthy petroleum/fossil fuel industry are so inept, they cant stop it – simply with cash?”
#1 – Simple. First and foremost, the top of the climate science establishment gets A) Money B) Social Power and C) a ‘legacy’.
As was shown by the climate gate emails, the scientists at the top of the pyramid work fervently to quash views that are not in line with their own. This involves efforts to undermine journal-submitted papers via the peer review process as well as ending the careers of would-be climate scientists that do not toe the line.
The United States spends roughly $20 billion per year on climate change. Approximately $3 billion of that is directed towards research and government agencies (such as NOAA and NASA) to fund research of climate issues. There has been several examples where adding “….because of climate change” to your tangentially-related paper has gotten you a research grant when your prior application was denied.
In terms of social power, the scientists that went with the flow and were rewarded got a huge boost into the public lime light in the late 80s and early 90s. They became politically connected and were brought to large events where they were put up as the icons of the movement. We have seen it, especially in science, where those that achieve “respected/eminent in their field” don’t want to have their pet theories tossed out – just look at what went on to get tectonic plates into the science books. The same thing is happening now.
In terms of their legacy, every scientist wants to be remembered as an Einstein or Newton. Few want to see their research fade into oblivion.
So, I ask you back: If I told you that all you had to do was say that the sky is red and I would pay you $250,000 a year, give you money for a staff, jet set you places for large conferences (all expenses paid), and guarantee your popularity via the media – would you say no? And, if you are not guided by money and actually say no, do you think the next 10 people I ask would be as morally stringent as yourself?
There are thousands of scientists in climate-related fields (statisticians, geologists, meteorologists, physicists) that have issues with various aspects of the dominant theory of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming. They DON’T take issue with the fact that humans are affecting the climate in some ways, but they do have issues with the hypothesis that we are so radically altering our world as to ruin it in multiple ways.
For number 2, why do you think the “petroleum/fossil fuel industry” would “stop it”? There is no immediate risk from anything that’s out or in the pipe line against fossil fuels. Wind and solar might be viable replacements in 50-100 years….by which time they will own wind and solar interests. That’s what they already tried to do – back in the 90s when it was a big hub-bub, Exxon, Mobil, Shell, and I think Texaco all bought or built wind and/or solar projects. They all got the heck out of dodge because it simply wasn’t economical – they lost more money than they brought in. The only reason that solar and wind projects are now gaining ground versus traditional fossil fuels is because of heavy subsidy – both in guaranteed initial construction loans with generous terms and guaranteed rates for generated power.
That’s where the other ~$17 billion of that previously mentioned spend goes: to companies who build wind farms, solar power projects/plants, and other technologies that can be used along side the same (battery research, etc).
When people who dislike the “petroleum/fossil fuel” industry try and see how much ‘dark money’ rolls through from them and into political or research efforts, they only find a comparatively small trickle. The last number I saw was around $1.5 million over 9 years. Let’s double that. Wait. No, let’s just assume it’s a straight $1 million per year. *Someone* _has_ to be paying all those bloggers, right? 😉
That shows how little they think this entire political debate matters. Either they make a killing on petroleum….or they’ll buy a solar or wind interest and make a killing on subsidies. They have easy paths forward.
Conversely, it also shows you how hard those that want to use climate change for their own agenda are pushing it.
Given the strong emphasis by the authors on agreement among multiple time series, I would very much like to see the authors (or an independent analyst such as Ross Mckittrick) address the issue of potential autocorrelation raised by Lutich. I think the published satellite and wx balloon data on their own make the case for rejection of the EF, but the autocorrelation question should not be left hanging.
Comment by Alan Carlin: See revised final section of my post, which now includes a response to this comment by the Report’s lead author.
Since this appears to be a site for slamming science, without actually bothereing to go into the science, nor to bother to consult experts in general – rather to pick out the handful that say the “things we agree with”.
Can anyone explain to me please, what climate change scientists get out the apparent conspiracy?
Can anyone explain to me why it’s more likely that the underfunded, rather impoverished climate change community apparently has superior resources and access to revenue than does the entire of the automotive/fossil fuel industry?
From where I sit, the “conspiracy theory” line – that climate change scientists apparently are so well armed financially they can spearhead such a major and global conspiracy, where as the poor ol Sultan of Omar has to sit weeping on his piles of billions, wringing his hands in impotency – seems a little hilarious.
Can someone tell me 1. what climate change scientsits get out of the “conspiracy” and 2. why the incredibly wealthy petroleum/fossil fuel industry are so inept, they cant stop it – simply with cash?
Ta very much.
In addition to the multicollinearity problem (for which explicit tests exist) and the simultaneity issue there is the ever present question of autocorrelation of time series data.
I do not understand why there was no discussion of autocorrelation, at least up to and including the OLS regression of one cumulative variable on another cumulative variable. That’s when I stopped reading. Not even a Durbin-Watson statistic. My experience with OLS in the presence of autocorrelation is that estimated parameter t-ratios are artificially high.
Comment by Alan Carlin: See revised final section of my post, which now includes a response to this comment by the Report’s lead author.
I don’t think the current crew of White House advisers care much about the science. I think they are Neo-Malthusian ideologues and pseudo-leftists who believe our species is squandering and depleting the Earth’s finite resources. They want to use this invented CAGW crisis as a tool to create a “better” world according to their worldview. They want to cap or severely limit economic growth in the U.S. and the West by imposing on our populations carbon taxes, mandates and wealth transfers from those who lack political clout to the politically connected cronies in the renewable energy industry who produce inefficient and uneconomic fuel.
Even if the developing world agrees to mandates, they will never enforce them. But the West is full of eco-zealots and crazy pseudo-leftists, so we will enforce them. That will hold our GDP growth at sub-optimal levels – probably somewhere around 0%-1.5% – while other countries benefit from faster growth that comes from using the most economically efficient fuels. So our standard of living will stagnate and theirs will rise. Over a few decades, the world will become “fairer” and more “equal”. That’s the goal of the globalist pseudo-leftist. In the meantime, we’ll continue to outsource our sovereignty with TPP-like trade deals, which will empower multi-lateral governmental organizations and diminish American power and sovereignty. All the while, they will keep trying to destroy the cultural and national heritage of each nation to make us all more culturally homogenous. By the latter half of this century, the 9-10 billion of us who will be living on Earth will be more culturally alike and more economically equal than any time in history. It’s really the promise of communism, except we’ll get there using a highly regulated, bureaucrat intensive crony corporatist version of free enterprise to get there. Once our souls have been crushed and our cultural and religious heritage stripped to eliminate our differences, and everybody except the elites are more or less economically equal, then it will be much easier to smash us all together into one global system. Sort of a giant hippy commune. The Utopian Wonderland leftists have been fantasizing about for a century and a half.
Maybe it won’t turn out that way (Islamic fundamentalists don’t seem too keen on the whole thing). But I think that’s what the Davos crowd has in mind for us.
They are right, as a few of us paying attention (and knowing what we are talking about) have been saying for some years now. But, practically speaking, they will be ignored until such a time as the discrepancies in the orthodox interpretation can no longer be swept under the rug.
That is probably going to require a sustained stasis or downturn in global temperatures. Fortunately for scientific truth (not so much for health and comfort), that appears to be just what the Earth’s climate system is serving up for us.
There are other empirical proofs that Humans and CO2 don’t control the Earth’s climate. They are overwhelmed when water turns to vapor or to ice, releasing and absorbing vast amounts of heat energy as CO2 cannot possibly do. When water vapor (97% of Earth’s Greenhouse gas) condenses into clouds, vast amounts of heat are released and radiated into Space. Furthermore, the inactive (Few sunspots) Sun stops blocking cloud-making cosmic Rays. Clouds reflect 90% of suns heating rays back into space. NOAA and NASA have adjusted official published temperature records downward to new lows prior to 1974. They also have been adjusting recent temperature records UP despite satellite temperature measurements matching the unadjusted records. See Paullitely.com for all the verifiable details.