Sunday, 30 December 2012

EPA's carbon regs not based on sound science - d'Aleo.

In the USA, their Environmental Protection Agency has decreed the carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases must be treated as pollutants. This EPA finding and associated rulings were immediately challenged in the federal D.C. Circuit Court, which initially ruled in favor of the EPA.

Joe d'Aleo is a certified consulting meteorologist, a fellow of the American Meteorological Society and co-founder of  The Weather Channel. He is a regular contributor to the respected ICECAP, International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project.

The Washington Examiner has published an Op Ed:

EPA's carbon regs not based on sound science

If allowed to stand, the very existence of the EPA's Endangerment Finding requires regulation that would significantly increase U.S. fossil fuel and electricity prices -- negatively affecting job creation as well as energy, economic and national security.

To many scientists, this situation seems incredible, given the ample evidence that the EPA's finding is flawed. In its finding, the EPA claimed with 90 to 99 percent certainty that observed warming in the latter half of the 20th century resulted from human activity. The EPA bases its finding upon three "lines of evidence," none of which hews to the most credible empirical data available.
The Three Lines of Evidence:
  1. EPA claims that the global average surface temperature has been rising in a dangerous fashion over the last 50 years
  2. EPA argues that in the tropics, the upper troposphere is warming faster than the lower troposphere, and the lower troposphere is warming faster than the surface, all due to rising carbon concentrations
  3. EPA relied upon climate models predicated on this theory.

First,

The EPA claims that the global average surface temperature has been rising in a dangerous fashion over the last 50 years, in large part due to human-caused increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations. But "global warming" has not been global, nor has it even set records in the regions where warming has occurred. For example, over this time period, while the Arctic has warmed, the tropical oceans had a flat trend, and the Antarctic was cooling. The most significant warming during this period occurred in the Northern Hemisphere, north of the tropics. But over the last 130 years, the 1930s still has the most U.S. state high temperature records.

Second, 
The EPA argues that in the tropics, the upper troposphere is warming faster than the lower troposphere, and the lower troposphere is warming faster than the surface, all due to rising carbon concentrations. This is totally at odds with multiple robust, consistent, independently derived empirical data sets, all showing no statistically significant positive (or negative) trend in temperature, and thus no difference in trend by altitude.

Third, 
The EPA relied upon climate models predicated on this theory. All of these models fail standard model validation and forecast reliability tests. The models all forecast rising temperatures beyond 2000, although the global average surface temperature has actually been flat. This is not surprising because the EPA never carried out any published forecast reliability tests.
Mr d'Aleo finishes with the logical conclusion:
....if the EPA's three lines of evidence are so easily refuted, then the EPA's strong claim of causality, that higher carbon (dioxide) emissions affect sea levels and severe storm, flood and drought frequency, is on ever shakier ground. This is an inevitable problem when a person or agency tries to prove too much.



Hitler, Parncutt and Extermination

Google Maps
Adolf Hitler was an Austrian-born Dictator whose supremacist and racially motivated policies resulted in the deaths of an estimated 50 million people during World War II, including 6 million Jews and 5 million "non-Aryans" whose systematic extermination was ordered by him or by his close subordinates. (Wikipedia)

Professor Parncutt is an Australian-born neo-nazi who, in an article published on the University of Graz's website has called for the death of Pope Benedict. From Graz to Hitler's birthplace of Braunau am Inn (see right) is less than three hours. (If Professor Parncutt wants to kill something, please let it be the al in his country of birth.)
Karl-Franzens-University officials who were bombarded with complaints have now taken the article off-line and confirmed that the article represented the private opinion of Music Professor Richard Parncutt, and not that of the University.

In the article the professor argues that the refusal of the Vatican to advocate contraception made Pope Benedict responsible for the future death through aides of millions of people. The only reasonable reaction that was the death sentence for mass murder – he argued. (Link)
Professor Parncutt
(digitally enhanced)
He had previously called for the death of man-made global warming realists; people he called by the term deniers which is understood to be a not-so-subtle reference to Holocaust deniers. He has since made a retraction (27-28 December 2012) : (link)
"I have always been opposed to the death penalty in all cases..."
Oh well, that should make it OK, shouldn't it?

Except that, the retraction was on the 27-28 December 2012 , whilst the call for the death of the Pope was on the 29th December.

Stay tuned for another retraction.

H/t Roger C

Peer Reviewed Paper finds climate models exaggerate projected warming

Geophysical Research Letters
GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 39, L24705, 5 PP., 2012
doi:10.1029/2012GL053650 

Temperature dependent climate projection deficiencies in CMIP5 models (link)

Key Points
  • GCMs suffer from temperature-dependent biases
  • This leads to an overestimation of projections of regional temperatures
  • We estimate that 10-20% of projected warming is due to model deficiencies
Jens H. Christensen
Danish Climate Centre, Danish Meteorological Institute, Copenhagen, Denmark
Fredrik Boberg
Danish Climate Centre, Danish Meteorological Institute, Copenhagen, Denmark

Monthly mean temperatures for 34 GCMs available from the CMIP5 project are compared with observations from CRU for 26 different land regions covering all major land areas in the world for the period 1961–2000 by means of quantile-quantile (q-q) diagrams. A warm period positive temperature dependent bias is identified for many of the models within many of the chosen climate regions. However, the exact temperature dependence varies considerably between the models. We analyse the role of this difference as a contributing factor for some models to project stronger regional warming than others by looking at the entire ensemble rather than individual models. RCP4.5 temperature projections from all GCMs for two time periods (2021–2050 and 2071–2100) are compared against a linear fit to the 50% warmest months from the respective q-q plot for each model and region. Taken together, we find that in general models with a positive temperature dependent bias tend to have a large projected temperature change, and these tendencies increase with increasing global warming level. We argue that this appears to be linked with the ability of models to capture complex feedbacks accurately. In particular land-surface atmosphere interactions are treated differently and with different degree of realism between models.  

H/t Hockey Shtick  and Climate Depot