On September 24th The Heartland Institute held its final conference call in a series of exclusive Tuesday noon (CT) calls previewing Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science. This Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) report resulted from a collaboration among three organizations -- Science & Environmental Policy Project, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, and The Heartland Institute.
Presented by The Heartland Institute Tuesday, September 17th, the NIPCC report was co-authored and co-edited by Craig D. Idso, Robert M. Carter, and S. Fred Singer. The report represents the most comprehensive and up-to-date review of climate science available from scientists. Free of the bias caused by political interference, Climate Change II provides the scientific balance that is missing from alarmist reports released over the years by the United Nation's sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate (IPCC), which is highly selective in their reviews of climate science and controversial with regard to projections on future climate change.
Although the United Nation's report was leaked last week, its official release will happen today, Friday, September 26th. The report is sure to provoke climate policy battles as the White House parries GOP efforts to block planned carbon emissions rules on power plants and curbing other administration plans to reduce the level of atmospheric CO2.
Expect there also to be renunciations and repercussions directed against the NIPCC September 17th report, and especially The Heartland Institute, who was called by the Economist on May 26, 2012: The World's most prominent think tank promoting skepticism about man-made climate change. NIPCC will be highly criticized and disputed in the weeks ahead by those who accept the IPCC United Nation's AR5 report as settled science. Attempts will be made to sully The Heartland Institution and its fine world-wide reputation.
In anticipation of today, the Heartland telephone conference call, with expert Dr. Robert M. Carter, did serve as a prelude to the findings promoted in the U.N. IPCC report. Without a doubt the report will be embraced by the mainstream media beginning today and will target man as the bully by filling the atmosphere with CO2.
To set the stage for what is to come, here is what Climate Depot's Marc Morano had to say about the new UN IPPC report:
You have to pity the UN. The climate events of 2013 has been one of the most devastating to the UN's political narrative on global warming. Both poles have expanding ice, with the Antarctic breaking all time records, global temperatures have failed to rise for 15 plus years, global cooling has occurred since 2002, polar bear numbers are increasing, wildfire's are well below normal, sea level rise is failing to accelerate, tornadoes are at record lows, hurricanes are at record low activity, Gore's organization is flailing and losing donors amid layoffs, former climate believers like Judith Curry are growing more skeptical by the day. I doubt many will be frightened by the UN IPCC, simply a political body masquerading as a scientific group. The thrill is gone.
Below is a compilation of thoughts expressed by Dr. Carter during his presentation and during question and answer time. Shared is how scientists responsible for the UN IPCC and Heartland's NIPCC reports, even when exploring the same issues, arrived at conflicting opinions.
1. The charting of temperature is relatively new with a history of only 150 years. This amounts to 5 data cycles of 30 years each. Although thermometers are good for charting short term temperature, they fail in the long term.
2. The way scientists work is by having ideas that form a hypothesis. The hypothesis of the United Nation's-sponsored IPCC is that global warming is man-made and that CO2 is the responsible agent. Accordingly, IPCC scientists look for and examine data that supports a hypothesis that man-made global warming is happening and will result in catastrophic happenings on Mother Earth unless checked.
Science, however, does not progress by proving a set hypotheses. Reports are fine, but they must do more than just examine facts that fit a preconceived narrative. After all, we do live on a dynamic planet. A "null" or alternative hypothesis was set up by NIPCC scientists for the purpose of determining whether global warming was based on natural factors (outside sources) rather than CO2 emissions. In so doing, scientists at the NIPCC concluded that outside natural factors were responsible for any changes that might be occurring and not an increase of CO2 in the atmosphere.
3. The released draft of the United Nation's AR5 IPCC report has toned down predictions from those reported in its 2007 AR4 report. AR5 now concedes that in many areas the global warming fear is not quite as alarming as it was when its former report was issued in 2007. The IPCC specifically admitted that the warming trend from 1998 - 2012 was smaller than any trend since 1951. There would seem to be lots of backtracking that must be done in light of today's report to explain such a pronounceddifference between the 2007 and 2013 IPCC reports.
There is this one sentence, however, that the IPCC hopes the public will latch on to. The AR5 report cites a 95% probability that human activities -- chiefly the burning of fossil fuels -- are the main cause of warming since the 1950s, while in the 2007 report the probability of human action as the cause was assessed 5 points lower at 90%.
How could there exist a toning down of alarm over man-made global warming in the current AR5 report, when in the same report IPCC scientists have raised the certainty level of man-made global to 95%, a five percentage point increase over the probability level in the 2007 IPCC report? The selected probability level of 95% in today's AR5 report was not in any way based on facts. The 95% "probability" represents what IPCC scientists think will happen. It is the opinion of IPCC scientists that there will be more storm and severe weather of all sorts in the future, so up goes the probability level. This projection of opinion could be called "hocus-pocus" science. Scientists talked their way up to 95%. It's not based on statistical evidence, just a certainty that temperatures will rise with no real data to back up.
4. According to Heartland's NIPCC report here hasn't been a rise in the ocean temperature since 2003, which contradicts the rise in temperature called for by the IPCC hypothesis. Noted was that only since 2003 has there been a sufficient amount of data on which to measure ocean temperature, and this data is based on only 1/3 of one climate data point of 30 years. Data used prior to 2003 is highly suspect.
In measuring the amount of greenhouse gas in the ocean, neither in the ocean or in the atmosphere has there been an increase of temperature for the last 15 years or so. This despite an 8% increase of CO2 in the atmosphere during the same time.
Through research an excellent review was found of a paper which notes that the heat content of the ocean has not increased since 2003. A key point cited:
The Ocean Heat Content measurement starting 10 years ago became much more objective with automated sampling systems which furthermore systematically surveyed layers of the ocean down to 700 meters. Prior to this point the surveying was using both less systematic and not consistent methods.
5. While the UN IPCC hypothesis indicates that CO2 increases before any temperature change occurs, NIPCC peer review studies and research take the opposite view that CO2 levels occur after and not before temperature change. The discrepancy exists because of faulty climate models used by IPCC in its predictions. Research in Antarctica shows CO2 following temperature by a few hundred years at most.
6. The UN IPCC tries to explain away the observation that the temperature has been flat for the past 16 years by the fact that there has been less volcanic activity. There have been no major eruptions over the last 20 - 50 years. Major volcanic eruptions inject high amount of CO2 into the atmosphere; it stays in the atmosphere from 1-1/2 to 2 years. Because of less volcanic activity, less CO2 has been injected into the the atmosphere to form a protective shield to prevent heat from reaching the earth. As heat from the sun should be reaching earth because the C02 protective shield is less dense, it makes no sense for the IPCC to use less volcanic action as the reason global warming hasn't happened in16 years as predicted by its models. Even so the IPCC continues to say with a 95% probability that global warming is happening.
7. To a question asked of Dr. Carter about how to deal with contradictory media reports which support the IPCC hypothesis that carbon sequestration is called for and other drastic measures to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere, Carter expressed being uncomfortable in answering political question, although he did relate how cracks are starting to form in the carbon catching process. The recent Australian election resulted in a climate disaster and talk of abolishing the carbon tax. Dr. Carter was hopeful that a new administration would follow the lead of Australia and Norway.
Obvious is that the IPCC and the NIPCC have a vastly different hypotheses on how to handle or treat science. IPCC treats global warming by collecting facts telling them that cyclones, tornadoes, hurricane and droughts are increasing due to global warming, when they have not. Good science doesn't go out looking for facts to support a hypothesis, but instead looks for data that proves a "null" hypothesis such as was used used by NIPCC scientists.
As related by Joe Bast, CEO and president of The Heartland Institute, the NIPCC report is not on the fringe. It represents the consensus of many scientists based on peer review studies.
On Friday, September 26, the public will have the opportunity to see the truth as presented in the NIPCC report, in contrast to the opinions arrived at by IPCC report scientists.