P. 1
S. Fred Singer - ICCC6 - PPT

S. Fred Singer - ICCC6 - PPT

Views: 218|Likes:
Published by HeartlandInstitute

More info:

Published by: HeartlandInstitute on Jul 21, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PPT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less






Addressing the Disparity between Climate Models and Observations: Testing the Hypothesis of AGW
Heartland Institute ICCC-6 Washington, DC June 30, 2011 (Prof.) S. Fred Singer University of Virginia/ SEPP <singer@sepp.org>

Three Major Results:
“Gallia omnia est divisa in partes tres”
• 1. Controversy about “Consistency” of Temp Trends from Observations and GH Models • 2. Overcoming the Chaotic Uncertainty of Climate Models vs. Structural Uncertainties • 3. News about Climategate, Hockeystick -- and what we can say about the reality of the temperature data of the 20th century.

1. Disparity between Modeled and Observed Temperature Trends
• Attribution of observed warming trends to GH-gas increases is based largely on claimed agreement between observed (tropical) tropospheric trends and modeled ones [Santer et al., IJC 2008, Fig 6]. We show that the claimed consistency is spurious. • IPCC-AR4 claims AGW (i.e., GHG warming) based on a rapidly rising global mean surface (GMS) temperature since 1979. We can show that this is simply a meaningless “curve-fitting” exercise, depending on suitable choices of forcings and model parameters.

A Generic Problem With Greenhouse Warming Models
The character and distribution of the warming in the atmosphere (as measured) is dramatically different than predicted by the climate computer models. This brings the model’s assumptions into question. Model predicts hot spot at How can we rely on the warming predictions, if themid 8 to 13 km for models latitudes incorrectly predict atmosphere warming? Models show warming rate
(deg C per decade) at 4 to 14 km altitude, while measurements show rate is flat to 10km, then cool above.
But, the atmosphere does not warm at 8 to 13 km altitude



Trend (K/dec)


Summary of Section 1

• There is a substantial disparity between observed trends and those derived from IPCC’s greenhouse (GH) models • The anthropogenic contribution to GW is not significant

2. Overcoming Chaotic Uncertainty of Climate Models
• The IPCC’s Third Assessment Report (2001) candidly acknowledged that the limited understanding of climate processes necessarily makes climate modeling an uncertain exercise: • “In sum, a strategy must recognize what is possible. In climate research and modeling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled nonlinear chaotic system, and therefore that long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.” – IPCC-TAR 2001, Section 142.2.2, p774

Summary of Section 2
• Chaotic variability of climate models can be overcome by averaging the trends of a large number of runs of a particular model – generally 10 or more runs (depending on length of run – in years). • In practice, this means that IPCC climate models (having only one, two and never more than five runs) cannot be validated

3. Hockeystick, Climategate, and 20th Century Climate Changes
• We focus attention on the reality of the temperature trend, usually reported for the interval 1979-1997 • Trend is not seen in satellite and (indep) balloon data • Atm-Sfc “moist adiabatic” amplification is real, but is found only for shorter intervals, not on decadal scale • SST warming is questionable; may be an artifact of buoy data. Trend is not seen in OHC record • Absence of temperature rise is in accord with solar data • Proxies do not show post-1979 warming; absence of a temperature rise is “hidden”-- i.e., “Mike’s Nature trick”



Urban Heat Island Effect
Temperature Trends at 107 Californian Stations 1909 to 1994 Stratified by 1990 population of the county where station is located

Temperature in degF

(A) Large Counties: More than 1 million people Average 29 stations

(B) Midsized Counties: 100,000 to 1 million people Average 51 stations

(C) Small Counties: Less than 100,000 people Average 27 stations


Temperature Deviation (°C)


0.6 0.4 0.2 500 -0.2 -0.4 -0.6 1000 1500 2000

Climategate and Hockeystick
“Mike’s Nature trick “ to “hide the decline”
• Proxy data show no warming after 1979 • So Mike Mann stopped the Hockeystick in 1979 and hid his proxy data because they disagreed with Jones’ CRU temp record • What irony: By being “politically correct” Mann missed being scientifically correct.

Fig. 16. The climate record as deduced from the width of tree rings. Compared are the ring-width chronology (solid line) and the reconstruction of Arctic annual temperature anomalies (dashed line) [Jacoby et al. 1996, reprinted with permission, (c) American Association for the Advancement of Science]. Note the sharp increase between 1880 and 1940.

1. The US-CCSP report shows major differences between observed
temp trends and those from GH models • These disagreements are confirmed and extended by Douglass et al [in IJC 2007] and by NIPCC 2008 • Claims of “consistency’” between models and obs by Santer et al [in IJC 2008] are shown to be spurious


2. Further -- We find no evidence for the surface warming
trend claimed by IPCC-4 in support of AGW

3. Also -- IPCC-4 climate models use an insufficient number
of runs to overcome “chaotic uncertainty”  We conclude that current warming is mostly natural and that the human contribution is minor.

Stalagmite Records in Oman
C – a Proxy for Solar Activity 1 8 O – a Proxy for Temperature
1 4

The stalagmite record shows a remarkably close correlation between 14 C and 1 8 O over a period of more than 3,000 years. Thus, a strong association exists between solar activity and temperature.
 One Century Duration!
Neff et al. (2001)

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->