Apocalypse NO The scientific macroeconomic and geopolitical reasons

Apocalypse? NO! The scientific, macroeconomic, and geopolitical reasons why “global warming” is not a global crisis 1

Is the IPCC inept or fraudulent? 2

BEFORE (#1) “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed [climate] changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases. ” IPCC (1995) 3

BEFORE (#2) “No study to date has positively attributed all or part [of observed climate change] to anthropogenic causes. ” IPCC (1995) 4

BEFORE (#3) “While none of these studies has specifically considered the attribution issue, they often draw some attribution conclusions, for which there is little justification. ” IPCC (1995)5

BEFORE (#4) “Any claims of positive detection of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced. ” IPCC (1995) 6

BEFORE (#5) “When will an anthropogenic effect on climate be identified? It is not surprising that the best answer to this question is, ‘We do not know. ’ IPCC (1995) 7

AFTER: “The body of … evidence now points to a discernible human influence on global climate. ” IPCC (1995) rewrite 8

IPCC bars scientists who reject alarmism “The IPCC did not tell the truth. ” Paul Reiter 9

IPCC peer review? What peer review? Authors of IPCC (2007), Ch. 9: “Peer-reviewers”: 53 60 % of comments rejected: Proper peer review? Did 2, 500 scientists check it? 53% No No 10

IPCC exaggerates sea-level rise 10 -fold Metres per century 1. 2. 3. 4. 1961 -2003 1993 -2003 Thermosteric expansion Glaciers and ice-caps Greenland ice-sheets Antarctic ice-sheets 0. 042 0. 050 0. 140 0. 160 0. 077 0. 210 IPCC’s sum of lines 1 -4: 0. 110 0. 280 5. 11

IPCC exaggerates CO 2 effect 20 -fold “The CO 2 radiative forcing increased by 20% during the last 10 years (1995 -2005). ” IPCC (2007) Fact: 1995 concentration 360 ppmv 2005 concentration 378 ppmv Increased concentration: 5% Increased radiative forcing: 1%, not 20% 12

CO 2’s residence time in the atmosphere is short … Years Arnold+Anderson (1957) 10 Craig (1957) 7 Revelle & Suess (1957) 7 Craig (1958) 7 Ferguson (1958) 2 Bolin & Eriksson (1959) 5 Broecker (1963) 8 Craig (1963) 10 Bien & Suess (1967) 12 Monnich & Roether (1967) 5 Nydal (1968) 8 Young & Fairhall (1968) 5 Rafter & O'Brian (1970) 12 Machta (1972) 2 Bacastow+Keeling (1973) 7 Broecker (1974) 9 Broecker & Peng (1974) 13 8

… at about 7 years, it really is short … Years Oeschger et al. (1975) 8 Peng et al. (1979) Keeling (1979) 8 Broecker et al. (1980) Delibrias (1980) 6 Quay & Stuiver (1980) Siegenthaler et al. (1980) 8 Stuiver (1980) Druffel & Suess (1983) 13 Kratz et al. (1983) Lal & Suess (1983) 15 Peng et al. (1983) Siegenthaler (1983) 8 Siegenthaler (1989) Murray (1992) 5 Segalstad (1992) 9 7 8 7 5 14

… that is, unless you’re the IPCC: “… the time required for the atmosphere to adjust to a future equilibrium state if emissions change abruptly (lifetime of 50 -200 years). ” 15 IPCC (1990)

IPCC’s cardinal error revealed 16

IPCC’s equation for CO 2 radiative forcing f = z ln(C/C 0) 17

IPCC cut CO 2 forcing by a sixth in 12 years … IPCC z 1995 6. 40 2001 5. 35 2007 5. 35 Climate f (2 x. CO 2) sensitivity – 2 4. 44 Wm 2. 5 ºC 3. 71 Wm– 2 3. 0 ºC – 2 3. 71 Wm 3. 2 ºC … yet hiked climate sensitivity 25% 18

Empirical conversions of energy change d. E to temperature change d. T / d. E ºK / W m– 2 ≈ In 1990: Man-made: 20. 3 / 100 0. 6 / 3 ≈ 0. 2 ºK W– 1 m 2 Natural greenhouse effect = 20 ºK: Houghton (2006) 1990 GHE = 100 W m– 2: Kiehl & Trenberth (1997) 19

Albert Einstein’s famous energy/mass-equivalence relativity equation 2 E = mc Like another fundamental equation … 20

Theoretical evaluation by the Stefan-Boltzmann radiative-transfer Equation. . . 4 E = εσT … not mentioned once by the IPCC 21

The IPCC overstates non-feedback forcing Then E = 390 W m– 2 T = 288 ºK ε = 1. 000, so: d. T / d. E IPCC 0. 3 3 – 1 = (4εσT ) = κ 0. 2 ºK W ≈ – 1 m 222

The IPCC fudges the feedback factor. . . Feedbacks b = 2. 16 W m– 2 ºK– 1 amplified: B = 1 / (1 – b / 3. 2) – 2 – 1 = 3. 08 W m ºK λ = d. T / d. F = κ + Bκ 2 – 1 2 = 0. 49 ºK W m = 3. 2 / 3. 71 = 0. 86 ºK W– 1 m 2 23

. . . thus exaggerating climate sensitivity x 3 λ = d. T / d. F κ + (B – 1)κ 2 = 0. 26 ºK W– 1 m 2 2 κ + Bκ = 0. 49: x 2 Least est. = 0. 53: x 2 Central est. = 0. 86: x 3 Upper est. = 1. 21: x 4 24

The IPCC falsely claims consensus 25

Source d. T/d. F 2 x. CO 2 Stefan-Boltzmann (ε = 1. 000) 0. 18 0. 7 ºC Hansen (2006); IPCC (2007) 0. 27 1. 2 ºC What “Consensus” ? True climate sensitivity Schwartz (2007) Arrhenius (1906) IPCC (1995: implicit) Calculated from IPCC (2007) IPCC (2001); Ranamathan Houghton (2002: implicit) Forcings x 2 (IPCC, 2001) Hansen, (20062) Houghton (2006); IPCC (2007) Hansen (20063) Stern (2006: implicit) 0. 26 0. 30 0. 44 0. 48 0. 49 0. 50 0. 54 0. 61 0. 67 0. 75 0. 88 1. 00 1. 89 1. 0 ºC 1. 1 ºC 1. 6 ºC 1. 8 ºC 2. 0 ºC 2. 2 ºC 2. 4 ºC 2. 7 ºC 3. 2 ºC 3. 7 ºC 26 6. 9 ºC

Why did the media not report this? #1 “Greenhouse-gas-induced climate change … currently cannot be distinguished from natural climate variability. ” Fernau et al. , 1993 27

Why did the media not report this? #2 “… the undoubtedly overemphasized contribution of the greenhouse effect to the global climate change. ” Kondratyev & Varotsos (1996) 28

Why did the media not report this? #3 “Although politicians offer simplistic remedies, such as the Kyoto Protocol, global climate continues to change naturally. ” Gerhard (2004) 29

Why did the media not report this? #4 “The 20 th-century contribution of anthropogenic greenhouse gases and aerosol remains insecure. ” Buentgen et al. (2006) 30

Why did the media not report this? #5 “Human-induced climatic changes are negligible. ” 31 Khilyuk and Chilingar (2006)

Why did the media not report this? #6 “The CO 2 greenhouse effect on global climate change … could have been excessively exaggerated. It is high time to re-consider the trend of global climate changes. ” Zhen-Shan and Xian (2007) 32

Why did the media not report this? #7 “Climate has always varied on all time-scales, so the observed change may be natural. ” 33

Because the truth is not sensational “Climate has always varied on all time-scales, so the observed change may be natural. ” IPCC (2001) 34

The consensus: DON’T PANIC! Learned papers reviewed: 539 Climate “catastrophe”: 1 Schulte (2008: in press) 35

Inept or fraudulent? Fraus est celare fraudem IPCC negates its scientists’ findings IPCC rejects dissentient scientists IPCC reports are not peer-reviewed IPCC hikes sea-level rise x 10 IPCC hikes CO 2 effect x 20 IPCC hikes CO 2 residence time x 20 IPCC cuts forcing, hikes temperature IPCC repeals Stefan-Boltzmann law IPCC hikes climate sensitivity x 3 IPCC ignores non-alarmist science IPCC falsely claims “consensus” 36

Fraudulent science Fraus est celare fraudem IPCC negates its scientists’ findings IPCC rejects dissentient scientists IPCC reports are not peer-reviewed IPCC hikes sea-level rise x 10 IPCC hikes CO 2 effect x 20 IPCC hikes CO 2 residence time x 20 IPCC cuts forcing, hikes temperature IPCC repeals Stefan-Boltzmann law IPCC hikes climate sensitivity x 3 IPCC ignores non-alarmist science IPCC falsely claims “consensus” 37