Should Catholics in Ireland worry any more about “global warming”? On the basis of a major climate science paper just published in the Orient’s leading science journal, the Science Bulletin of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, the answer is clear. Not any more.
The RSS global satellite dataset shows no global warming for 18 years 3 months. The actual warming since the United Nations’ climate panel first reported in 1990, compared to the average of all five major global temperature datasets, was half what it had predicted in that year with what it called “substantial confidence.”
Even the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s upper-ocean heat content chart, when converted back to the ocean temperature change from which NOAA calculated it, shows ocean warming over the past decade at a rate equivalent to just 0.5 C⁰/century. Not exactly a climate crisis.
Global sea-ice extent reached a satellite-era maximum late in 2014 – not that most mainstream news media reported that fact. Land area under drought has declined for 30 years. Patterns of flooding, of tropical cyclones and of extra-tropical storminess show little change. Sea level is barely rising: indeed, the GRACE gravitational-recovery satellites, the most precise method of measurement, actually showed sea level falling from 2003-2009.
The January 2015 edition of Science Bulletin, a joint publication of the Chinese Academy of Sciences and the State Science Funding Council, carries a new peer-reviewed paper (LINK-pdf) by Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, Dr Willie Soon, Professor David Legates and Matt Briggs revealing that the climate concern that is supposed to lead to an internationally binding treaty in Paris this December is based on a series of elementary but grave errors in climate models.
Without the errors, the so-called “climate crisis” melts away.
The errors of the complex climate models are chiefly attributable to one of the best-kept secrets in the climate debate. Doubling atmospheric CO2 concentrations should result in an average global warming of just 1 degree Celsius, possibly less than half that. But climate modellers erroneously assume that “temperature feedbacks” – climatic changes triggered by a direct warming such as that from CO2 – triple warming. Without the tripling, there is no problem.
Ice cores show that, over more than 800,000 years, absolute mean global temperature has probably varied by little more than 1% (or just 3 Cº) either side of the long-run average. This remarkable thermostatic behaviour suggests that a small increase in global temperature cannot trigger a far larger increase driven by feedbacks. It is more likely that temperature feedbacks attenuate the trivial direct warming caused by our sins of emission.
Models calculate the mutual amplification of distinct temperature feedbacks using a World War II equation from electronic circuit design that is inapplicable to the climate. The misconceived use of this equation is the main reason for scientists’ wild forecasts of 3, 5 or even 10 Cº global warming in response to doubling the CO2 in the air.
It is the wrong equation. Once it is removed from temperature predictions, the response to a doubling of CO2 concentration in the air falls from the currently-predicted 3.3 Celsius degrees to just 1 degree of warming – and that would take 500 years to occur.
In modern conditions the overwhelming thermostatic influence of the two giant atmospheric heat-sinks – the oceans and outer space – dampens the already small direct warming from a doubling of CO2 concentration.
Simpler climate models that do not use the erroneous equation calculate that even if all the world’s affordably recoverable CO2 were released at once only 2.2 Cº of global warming would result. This asymptote (a limit that global temperature can approach but never quite reach under modern conditions) has ruled the climate for almost a million years, but the equation misused by the official climate models to determine the “system gain” – the factor by which temperature feedbacks were thought to increase any direct warming – does not show it.
Instead, the defective equation contains what is called a “singularity” – the very opposite of an asymptote – that does not exist in the real climate. As the simulated conditions in the models approach the singularity, which climate extremists call a “tipping point”, the incorrect equation suggests sudden, massive global warming. In the real atmosphere, comfortably sandwiched between two great heat-sinks, this imagined tipping-point is impossible.The model developed by Lord Monckton and his colleagues was also designed to test whether there is unrealized global warming “in the pipeline.” The answer is No.
In blogs, in interviews and in the learned journals, climate scientists have advanced some 70 mutually-incompatible reasons why the world has not warmed as fast as the general-circulation models had predicted. The truth is that the models should not have predicted anything like as much global warming in the first place. The central estimate in the science paper shows that even if the world does absolutely nothing about global warming the weather will be less than 1 Cº warmer in 2100 than it is today.
The new, simple climate model – which a physics undergrad can run on nothing more complex than a pocket calculator – has taken the world of climate science by storm. Of the seven major science papers in the first edition of the relaunched Science Bulletin, the paper has received 3500 downloads from the journal’s website – an unusually high number for a scientific paper. Comments about the paper are appearing all over the internet. A copy is to be sent to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, where an encyclical on climate change is being prepared on behalf of the Pope.
Lord Monckton, a Knight of Malta, a former Editor of the UK Catholic newspaper The Universe, and an expert reviewer for the UN’s Fifth Assessment Report on the climate in 2013, said: “It is vital that the Pope should not lead the Church into another embarrassing Galileo moment by jumping on to the climate-change bandwagon just as the scientific wheels are falling off. Our paper marks the end of the climate scare.”
Where does the team’s research leave the UN climate negotiating process? According to a revealing statement by the UK’s “climate ambassador,” Sir David King, to the House of Commons’ Environmentalist Committee early in 2014, only two countries were then thought likely to oppose the installation of an unelected global government at this December’s Paris talks.
One was Canada: but Sir David predicted a convenient change of government early in 2015. The other was Australia, whose prime minister, Tony Abbott, has already swept away the CO2 tax. All other nations, in defiance of science and of the mounting evidence against alarm, would allow the global government to take over.
Since President Obama has unilaterally permitted China to remain part of the climate negotiations without having to cut her huge emissions – the world’s largest - China may well sign on to the UN’s world-government treaty in Paris this December, even if the Politburo reads its own Academy’s Science Bulletin.