3/8/14, "Earth is Safe From 'Global Warming' Say the Men Who Put Man on the Moon," James Delingpole, Breitbart
"The planet is not in danger of catastrophic man made global warming. Even if we burn all the world's recoverable fossil fuels it will still only result in a temperature rise of less than 1.2 degrees C.
So say The Right Climate Stuff Research Team, a group of retired NASA Apollo scientists and engineers - the men who put Neil Armstrong on the moon - in a new report.
"It's an embarrassment to those of us who put NASA's name on the map to have people like James Hansen popping off about global warming," says the project's leader Hal Doiron.
Doiron was one of 40 ex NASA employees - including seven astronauts - who wrote in April 2012 to NASA administrator Charles Bolden protesting about the organization's promotion of climate change alarmism, notably via its resident environmental activist James Hansen.
During his stint as head of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, Hansen tirelessly promoted Anthropogenic Global Warming theory. He retired last year to spend more time on environmental campaigning and has twice been arrested with former mermaid impersonator Darryl Hannah for his part in protests against surface coal mining and the Keystone XL pipe line.
While still head of NASA GISS he once described trains carrying coal as "death trains" "no less gruesome than if they were carrying boxcars headed to crematoria and loaded with uncountable irreplaceable species." Many NASA employees and former employees found his views an embarrassment.
Doiron and his team now hope to set the record straight in a report called Bounding GHG Climate Sensitivity For Use In Regulatory Decisions.
Using calculations by George Stegemeier of the National Academy of Engineering, they estimated the total quantity of recoverable oil, gas and coal on the planet. They then used 163 years of real world temperature data to calculate Transient Climate Sensitivity (ie how much the world will warm as a result of the burning of all the carbon dioxide in the fossil fuel). The figure they came up with 1.2 degrees C which is considerably lower than the wilder claims of the IPCC, whose reports have suggested it could be as high as 4 degrees C or more.
This is because, as scientists such as the Cato Institute's Pat Michaels have long argued, "climate sensitivity" (ie how the planet's temperature responds to CO2 emissions) is considerably lower than the IPCC's computer models project. So much so that it should be called "climate insensitivity", he believes.
Doiron is similarly sceptical of the computer models used by climate alarmists. He and his team argue that the 105 models currently used by the IPCC are seriously flawed because they don't agree with each other and don't agree with empirical data.
There is no empirical data indicating Anthropogenic Global Warming will produce catastrophic climate changes. AGW can only produce modest global warming, likely to be beneficial when CO2 benefits to crop production are considered.
Doiron says: "I believe in computer models. My whole career was about using computer models to make life or death decisions. In 1963 I had to use them to calculate whether, when the lunar module landed on a 12 degree slope it would fall over or not - and design the landing gear accordingly. But if you can't validate the models - and the IPCC can't - then don't use them to make critical decisions about the economy and the planet's future.""
.
====================
From TheRightClimateStuff.com:
"Because the United States and some other nations have prematurely accepted the AGW advocates points of view and conclusions as correct, a large amount of manpower and money is being spent on an attempt to ameliorate the supposed rise in global temperature. And, also because of the colossal impact on national economies needed to make significant climate changes (if this were possible,) we believe it is critical to be certain of the reality of the conclusions on this subject. During the course of the study, reports will be provided for peer review as well as for information to the general public. When we have preliminary reports that are used for studies within the group, these will be password protected until they have reached a mature state....
We are gathering together a group of highly educated and experienced scientists & engineers from various disciplines to take on the challenge of evaluating the narratives of both the advocates of AGW and also the skeptics of AGW. A great effort will be made to understand and objectively reconcile the differences by detailed discussions of the conflicting elements of the narratives. We are being successful in our attempt to include members of the study group from both sides of the AGW argument, and we believe this is important to study all appropriate inputs and viewpoints."...
=====================
From The Right Climate Stuff via WUWT:
"TRCS Conclusions and Recommendations
Jan 2013 and Feb 2014
Detailed proof and references available at http://www.therightclimatestuff.com
in Reports dated Jan 2013, April 2013, and Feb 2014
1. The science that predicts the extent of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is not settled science. (Jan 2013)
2. Our US government is over-reacting to concerns about AGW. (Jan 2013)
3. It is scientifically embarrassing that the EPA has declared CO2 to be a pollutant that must be regulated, since it is a naturally occurring substance required to sustain human, animal and plant life, and for which there is no substitute. (Jan 2013)
4. We have concluded that the IPCC climate models are seriously flawed because they don’t agree very closely with measured empirical data. After a 35 year simulation the models over-predicted actual measured temperatures by factors of 200% to 750%. One could hardly expect them to predict with better accuracy 300 years into the future required for use in regulatory decisions. (Feb 2014)
5. We have developed a straightforward analysis, based on empirical data, not unproven models, which bounds the maximum possible global warming that could be caused by increases in atmospheric CO2 concentration. (Feb 2014)
6. We have defined and demonstrated use of a more appropriate Transient Climate Sensitivity (TCS) metric derived from empirical data for use in regulatory decisions requiring accurate predictions of global temperature changes due to changes of CO2 levels in the atmosphere. (Feb 2014)
7. There is no convincing evidence that Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) will produce catastrophic climate changes. AGW can only produce modest amounts of global warming that will likely be beneficial when the substantial benefits to crop production from more CO2 in the atmosphere are considered. (Jan 2013) and (Feb 2014)
8. Because there is no immediate threat of global warming requiring swift corrective action, we have time to study global climate changes and improve our prediction accuracy. A wider range of solution options should be studied for global warming or cooling threats from any credible cause. (Jan 2013)
9. Social Cost of Carbon (SCC) calculations should be based on empirical data-based transient climate sensitivity metrics with much less uncertainty than the inappropriate IPCC Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) metric uncertainty range that is computed from the flawed IPCC climate simulation models. (Feb 2014)
10. ECS is computed from a hypothetical, unrealistic scenario, used only for comparison of computer model results, where CO2 levels are suddenly doubled in the atmosphere and the ECS temperature change is computed over 1000 years later. It is unscientific to base CO2 regulations on ECS computed from unproven climate models, as currently planned by EPA and DoE. (Feb 2014)
11. The ECS uncertainty statistical distribution used for justifying EPA and DoE CO2 emissions regulations is based on wild speculation, not reliable empirical data. (Feb 2014)
12. A market-driven transition from fossil fuels to alternative fuels must begin by 2055 just to meet energy demand as dwindling reserves of economically recoverable fossil fuels drive up their costs. (Feb 2014)
13. Assuming an orderly market driven transition from fossil fuels to alternatives that do not emit CO2, atmospheric CO2 will remain below 600 ppm. (Feb 2014)
14. The maximum CO2 level of 600 ppm is expected to occur after 2100, probably about 2130, and will begin to decline thereafter. (Feb 2014)
15. Based on our analysis of empirical data measured over a period of 163 years, that provides a conservative TCS value of 1.6oC, the maximum expected Green House Gas (GHG) temperature rise from present levels will be less than 1.2oC (2.1oF) (Feb 2014)
16. CO2 emissions regulations should be based on climate sensitivity to CO2-only, not the higher sensitivity to all GHG incorporated into the IPCC ECS uncertainty range. (Feb 2014)
17. CO2 emissions regulations should be based on climate sensitivity to CO2 emissions, not climate sensitivity to atmospheric CO2 levels, such as in the ECS and TCS metrics, since a large fraction of CO2 emissions each year enter our oceans, not our atmosphere. (Feb 2014)
18. Transient Climate Sensitivity (TCS) has low uncertainty and is a more appropriate metric than ECS for predicting GHG global warming trends over the next few centuries since much of the uncertainty in ECS results from hypothesized climate changes that take place more than 300 years into the future. (Feb 2014)
19. High values of SCC computed by EPA and DoE using their flawed computational process, result from unrealistically high temperatures causing rapid melt of permanent ice sheets on the planet that have been growing for thousands, and in some cases, millions of years. The scientific reality of such speculation needs to be reviewed. (Feb 2014)
20. An independent and objective scientific review board should be convened to review the EPA and DoE methodology for computing Social Cost of Carbon used in regulatory decisions. (Feb 2014)."
.
========================
http://www.therightclimatestuff.com/SummaryPrelimReport.html
PDF here: ExecutiveSummaryBoundingGHGClimateSensitivityForUseInRegulatoryDecisions140228(1)
=================
among comments at WUWT:
===================
"Fabi says:
Glad to see their response, although I
hate to see them adopt the language of the cAGW crowd, especially terms
such as the Social Cost of Carbon."
=============================
==============================
=============================
They are using the EPA and DOE’s terminology."
==============================
WOW. Reality + common sense. These guys
should expect the vitriol and personal attacks to begin any minute now.
And as always it will happen without any facts or accompanying data."
.
