John cook sceptical Science

From a Forbes magazine there are many more such articles.

238,073 views|May 30, 2013,8:00 am

Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring '97-Percent Consensus' Claims

James TaylorContributor

I am president of the Spark of Freedom Foundation.

 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Global warming alarmists and their allies in the liberal media have been caught doctoring the results of a widely cited paper asserting there is a 97-percent scientific consensus regarding human-caused global warming. After taking a closer look at the paper, investigative journalists report the authors’ claims of a 97-pecent consensus relied on the authors misclassifying the papers of some of the world’s most prominent global warming skeptics. At the same time, the authors deliberately presented a meaningless survey question so they could twist the responses to fit their own preconceived global warming alarmism.

Global warming alarmist John Cook, founder of the misleadingly named blog site Skeptical Science, published a paper with several other global warming alarmists claiming they reviewed nearly 12,000 abstracts of studies published in the peer-reviewed climate literature. Cook reported that he and his colleagues found that 97 percent of the papers that expressed a position on human-caused global warming “endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.”

As is the case with other ‘surveys’ alleging an overwhelming scientific consensus on global warming, the question surveyed had absolutely nothing to do with the issues of contention between global warming alarmists and global warming skeptics. The question Cook and his alarmist colleagues surveyed was simply whether humans have caused some global warming. The question is meaningless regarding the global warming debate because most skeptics as well as most alarmists believe humans have caused some global warming. The issue of contention dividing alarmists and skeptics is whether humans are causing global warming of such negative severity as to constitute a crisis demanding concerted action.

Either through idiocy, ignorance, or both, global warming alarmists and the liberal media have been reporting that the Cook study shows a 97 percent consensus that humans are causing a global warming crisis. However, that was clearly not the question surveyed.

Investigative journalists at Popular Technologylooked into precisely which papers were classified within Cook’s asserted 97 percent. The investigative journalists found Cook and his colleagues strikingly classified papers by such prominent, vigorous skeptics as Willie Soon, Craig Idso, Nicola Scafetta, Nir Shaviv, Nils-Axel Morner and Alan Carlin as supporting the 97-percent consensus.

Cook and his colleagues, for example, classified a peer-reviewed paper by scientist Craig Idso as explicitly supporting the ‘consensus’ position on global warming “without minimizing” the asserted severity of global warming. When Popular Technology asked Idso whether this was an accurate characterization of his paper, Idso responded, “That is not an accurate representation of my paper. The papers examined how the rise in atmospheric CO2 could be inducing a phase advance in the spring portion of the atmosphere’s seasonal CO2 cycle. Other literature had previously claimed a measured advance was due to rising temperatures, but we showed that it was quite likely the rise in atmospheric CO2 itself was responsible for the lion’s share of the change. It would be incorrect to claim that our paper was an endorsement of CO2-induced global warming.”

When Popular Technology asked physicist Nicola Scafetta whether Cook and his colleagues accurately classified one of his peer-reviewed papers as supporting the ‘consensus’ position, Scafetta similarly criticized the Skeptical Science classification.

“Cook et al. (2013) is based on a straw man argument because it does not correctly define the IPCC AGW theory, which is NOT that human emissions have contributed 50%+ of the global warming since 1900 but that almost 90-100% of the observed global warming was induced by human emission,” Scafetta responded. “What my papers say is that the IPCC [United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] view is erroneous because about 40-70% of the global warming observed from 1900 to 2000 was induced by the sun.”

“What it is observed right now is utter dishonesty by the IPCC advocates. … They are gradually engaging into a metamorphosis process to save face. … And in this way they will get the credit that they do not merit, and continue in defaming critics like me that actually demonstrated such a fact since 2005/2006,” Scafetta added.

Astrophysicist Nir Shaviv similarly objected to Cook and colleagues claiming he explicitly supported the ‘consensus’ position about human-induced global warming. Asked if Cook and colleagues accurately represented his paper, Shaviv responded, “Nope… it is not an accurate representation. The paper shows that if cosmic rays are included in empirical climate sensitivity analyses, then one finds that different time scales consistently give a low climate sensitivity. i.e., it supports the idea that cosmic rays affect the climate and that climate sensitivity is low. This means that part of the 20th century [warming] should be attributed to the increased solar activity and that 21st century warming under a business as usual scenario should be low (about 1°C).”

“I couldn’t write these things more explicitly in the paper because of the refereeing, however, you don’t have to be a genius to reach these conclusions from the paper,” Shaviv added.

To manufacture their misleading asserted consensus, Cook and his colleagues also misclassified various papers as taking “no position” on human-caused global warming. When Cook and his colleagues determined a paper took no position on the issue, they simply pretended, for the purpose of their 97-percent claim, that the paper did not exist.

Morner, a sea level scientist, told Popular Technology that Cook classifying one of his papers as “no position” was “Certainly not correct and certainly misleading. The paper is strongly against AGW [anthropogenic global warming], and documents its absence in the sea level observational facts. Also, it invalidates the mode of sea level handling by the IPCC.”

Soon, an astrophysicist, similarly objected to Cook classifying his paper as “no position.”

“I am sure that this rating of no position on AGW by CO2 is nowhere accurate nor correct,” said Soon.

“I hope my scientific views and conclusions are clear to anyone that will spend time reading our papers. Cook et al. (2013) is not the study to read if you want to find out about what we say and conclude in our own scientific works,” Soon emphasized.

Viewing the Cook paper in the best possible light, Cook and colleagues can perhaps claim a small amount of wiggle room in their classifications because the explicit wording of the question they analyzed is simply whether humans have caused some global warming. By restricting the question to such a minimalist, largely irrelevant question in the global warming debate and then demanding an explicit, unsolicited refutation of the assertion in order to classify a paper as a ‘consensus’ contrarian, Cook and colleagues misleadingly induce people to believe 97 percent of publishing scientists believe in a global warming crisis when that is simply not the case.

Misleading the public about consensus opinion regarding global warming, of course, is precisely what the Cook paper sought to accomplish. This is a tried and true ruse perfected by global warming alarmists. Global warming alarmists use their own biased, subjective judgment to misclassify published papers according to criteria that is largely irrelevant to the central issues in the global warming debate. Then, by carefully parsing the language of their survey questions and their published results, the alarmists encourage the media and fellow global warming alarmists to cite these biased, subjective, totally irrelevant surveys as conclusive evidence for the lie that nearly all scientists believe humans are creating a global warming crisis.

These biased, misleading, and totally irrelevant “surveys” form the best “evidence” global warming alarmists can muster in the global warming debate. And this truly shows how embarrassingly feeble their alarmist theory really is.

I am president of the Spark of Freedom Foundation. I write about energy and environment issues, frequently focusing on global warming. I have presented environmental…MORE

Loading ...

Also on Forbes Opinion

SAP BrandVoice: Digital Assistant, Make My Enterprise Sales Process As Easy As Amazon

SPORTSMONEY#Economy

The Best States For Business 2018: North Carolina Leads The Way

© 2018 Forbes Media LLC. All Rights Reserved.AdChoicesPrivacy StatementTerms and ConditionsContact UsJobs At ForbesReprints & PermissionsForbes Press RoomAdvertise

submission to the Garnaut Climate Change Review

submission to the Garnaut Climate Change Review
“The Sky is NOT Falling.”
“The Sky is NOT Falling.”“The Sky is NOT Falling.”
“The Sky is NOT Falling.”
from The Carbon Sense Coalition.
www.carbon-sense.com
January 2008 V3
“The main difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein
Executive Summary
The Carbon Sense Coalition (“Carbon Sense”) is a
voluntary group of individuals, mainly
Australians, concerned about the extent to which
carbon and carbon dioxide are wrongly vilified in
Western societies, particularly in government, the
media, the UN and in some business circles. We
aim to restore science and reason to the carbon
debate, and to explain and defend the key role of
the carbon group in producing most of our energy
for heat, light, and transport, and all of our food.
We believe climate change is a normal feature of
earth’s history. The IPCC policy proposals will be
totally ineffective in changing climate, but very
damaging to the interests of most Australians.
The chief conclusions of this submission are:
There is no unusual global warming, and
no consensus on the science.
Many prominent scientists with relevant
knowledge and qualifications have become outspoken critics of the IPCC process and conclusions. We believe this number will grow strongly.
There is substantial evidence that
contradicts the main IPCC conclusion that
Man’s Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GGE)
are the chief cause of the recent mild
global warming.
In recent eras, Earth has spent most of the
time in cold barren periods. Judging from past cycles, this warming is close to its end and the human race is more likely to
be concerned about Global Cooling.
The lessons of history and our knowledge
of natural processes indicate that most people on earth will benefit from continuation of the current mild warming trend.
Carbon dioxide (CO2) is not a pollutant,
and should not be classified as one - it is one of the four essential gases of life.
The effect of water on climate via oceans,
clouds, snow and ice cover, and water vapour is far greater than that of carbon dioxide. "In comparison to water in all of its forms,
carbon dioxide is the equivalent of but a few farts in a hurricane."
None of the IPCC computer models make
adequate allowance for the effects of water in all of its forms or the effects of solar system cycles and variations in solar radiation and magnetism.
Combustion of ALL hydrocarbons (wood,
gas, oil, coal and bio-fuel) produces varying proportions of the same two greenhouse gases, water vapour and carbon dioxide. All are warmth retainers.
Diverting cultivation, pastures and scrub
to producing ethanol and other bio-fuels will have no beneficial environmental effects but will decrease food production and increase the potential for world conflict. Bio-fuels should not be
subsidised or mandated in any way. The market and consumers should be free to decide what energy source to use.
Page 4
Publish conclusions and then edit or rewrite the supporting reports.
Climate research is now big business, paid for
overwhelmingly by taxpayers at the direction of committed officials and politicians. These big businesses need to maintain a sense of world crisis to keep the funds flowing. But there is no consensus on the science of global warming – there is widespread dispute which is now leading to international and outspoken opposition.Before we embark on a fundamental shift in economic priorities, destroy huge quantities of existing capital and skills, and impose very large costs on consumers or taxpayers, we need to be very sure that the basis of our argument is sound. We need to be CERTAIN that man-made CO2 is the cause of a problem, and CERTAIN that curbing man-made CO2 emissions will produce beneficial results.On the one hand, the Alarmist Camp is dominated by paid academics and officials appointed by governments, often on the basis of their beliefs. The IPCC report is controlled by a few whose whole reputation and future is tied to proving that global warming is caused by human activities. Their case rests more on models, forecasts and scenarios than on science and evidence. They are strongly supported by many other activist groups with other agendas, orvested interests in the result.On the other hand there is an ever growing band of independent scientists all over the world who believe that the evidence strongly favours the view that man’s activities are a minute factor in determining global temperature.For example, the EPW committee of the US Senate recently published the names of over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries who had voiced significant objections to major aspects of the “consensus” on man-made global warming. And during the Clinton era the US senate voted 95 to ZERO against the US signing Kyoto (that really was a consensus).Another 100 prominent scientists from all over the world sent a team to the Bali UN Conference and signed a letter warning the UN that it was “not possible to stop climate change, a natural phenomenon that has affected humanity through the ages.” They also warned that “attempts to do so are ultimately futile and constitute a tragic misallocation of resources...”
(See Appendix 1)
Moreover, the “Oregon Petition” has attracted over 19,000 signatures from basic and applied scientists over the last few years. This petition says, among other things “We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.”
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p1845.htm
The Canadian National Post carried a series of readable articles by prominent Global Warming
sceptics. It can be found at:
http://www.nationalpost.com/story.html?id=22003a0d-37cc-4399-8bcc-39cd20bed2f6&k=0
In 2006 a group of sixty climate and related discipline scientists wrote an open letter to Stephen Harper,the Prime Minister of Canada:
They wrote: “There is no "consensus" among climate scientists about the relative importance of the various causes of global climate change... If, back in the mid- 1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary.” It can be found at:
http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=3711460e-bd5a-475d-a6be-4db87559d605 And in the ultimate dissent, the sanctimonious prophet of the Global Warming Religion, Al Gore, has been tried and found wanting in an English court. It happened this way. The government schools inEngland started distributing Al Gore's polemic film“An Inconvenient Truth”. An irate parent took legal action on the basis that the film was one-sided propaganda and contained factual errors. The Court found that the film was misleading in 9 respects and that the Guidance Notes drafted by the Education Secretary's advisors served only to exacerbate the political propaganda in the film.
In order for the film to be shown, the Government must first amend their Guidance Notes to Teachers to make clear that:
1.) The film is a political work and promotes only one side of the argument.
2.) If teachers present the film without making this plain they may be in breach of section 406 of the Education Act 1996 and guilty of political indoctrination.
3.) Eleven inaccuracies have to be specifically drawn to the attention of school children.
:
http://www.teachernet.gov.uk/sustainableschools/news/news_detail.cfm?id=192
Guidance for teaching staff:
http://publications.teachernet.gov.uk/eOrderingDownload/7329-DCSF-Climate%20Change%20Film%20Pack.pdf
Even Pope Benedict XVI recently launched a surprise attack on climate change prophets of doom, warning them that any solutions to global warming must be based on firm evidence and not on dubious ideology.The leader of more than a billion Roman Catholics suggested that fears over man-made emissions melting the ice caps are causing a wave of unprecedented disasters were nothing more than scare-mongering.
Pope Benedict said those who prophesy catastrophic global warming caused by humans are wrong.For more information on the lack of consensus on the
Global Warming check the page by Australian paleo-climatologist Professor Bob Carter of the James Cook
University in Townsville:
http://members.iinet.net.au/~glrmc/new_page_1htm
It seems there are widening cracks in the consensus About 2,000 scientists were paid to produce the IPCC reports. Over 20,000 scientists and many non-scientists have volunteered to publicly oppose the prevailing political wisdom.There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of water vapour, carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence demonstrating that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce manybeneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.If the science is “settled”, why are so many prominent (and not so prominent) scientists and so many other thinking people actively opposed to the IPCC’s position?
4.
The Evidence
The alarmist evidence consists mainly of complexcomputer models of the atmosphere. Such models would be well understood by economists like Professor Garnaut. They all rely on lots of assumptions, inputs and equations supposedly replicating natural or real life processes. They are all “tuned” by running them against past real data and tweaking assumptions or equations until results correspond with known reality. The models are then run forward, producing all the scary scenarios needed to scare world politicians and media to act on this menace of global warming. However, such models have never accurately and consistently forecast thefuture. Even tonight (27th December 2007) our own weather bureau, when commenting on a low pressure system growing in the southern Coral Sea said “Well half of our computer models have it moving towards the coast, the other half think it will head further away from the coast.” That is about the level of accuracy that could be expected from the General Circulation Models relied on almost exclusively by the Alarmists of the IPCC.Two forecasting experts, Scott Armstrong and Kesten Green of “Public Policy Forecasting” have conducted an audit of the forecasting principles of the IPCC.Their conclusions include the comments:“The forecasts in the Report were not the outcome of scientific procedures. In effect, they present the opinions of scientists transformed by mathematics and obscured by complex writing. We found no references to the primary sources of information on forecasting despite the fact these are easily available in books, articles, and websites.“We conducted an audit of Chapter 8 of the IPCC's WG1 Report. We found enough information to make judgments on 89 out of the total of 140 principles.The forecasting procedures that were used violated 72 principles. Many of the violations were, by themselves, critical. We have been unable to identify any scientific forecasts to support global warming.
Claims that the Earth will get warmer have no more credence than saying that it will get colder."None of the IPCC models can accurately simulate all the complex interactions between variations and cycles in solar radiation and magnetism, cosmic rays, and the stabilising effect of surface and atmospheric water, and surface convection. It would therefore be foolish and extremely costly to base public policy on the IPCC models and forecastsFor a detailed assessment of the IPCC’s forecasting methods see:
http://forecastingprinciples.com/Public_Policy/global_warming_audit.html:
http://forecastingprinciples.com/Public_Policy/WarmAudit31.pdf
The growing band of sceptics point to many pieces of real observational evidence that suggest that other natural factors are far more important than man’s emissions of greenhouse gases in determining global temperatures. These include:
Ice cores and other long term records that
show that temperature changes precede
changes in CO2 levels by several hundred
years. Therefore the rising CO2 levels cannot
cause the rising temperatures. It is far more
likely to imply the reverse.
Experiments and calculations that prove that the additional global warming potential of
CO2 in the atmosphere is almost exhausted. Additional CO2 will have insignificant effects on earth’s climate. This well established fact alone indicates that reductions in man-made emissions will have an insignificant effect on average global temperature.
Actual chemical analyses of CO2 in the
atmosphere show that current levels are not extreme. A compilation of more than 90,000 direct measurements at 43 stations over the period since 1812 shows that CO2 levels have not risen smoothly - they have fluctuated, and levels in 1820 and 1940 were well above current levels.
Recognition of the huge role played by the oceans in emitting CO2 as temperatures rise,and re-absorbing CO2 as temperatures fall.
Recognition that the IPCC models give
insufficient attention to the roles of water in all of its forms. Its effect is far greater than any effect of man’s emissions of CO2. Computer models will never simulate the complex role of oceans, winds, clouds and water vapour in transferring and stabilising surface temperatures.
Discovery of the effects of solar variations on
cosmic rays, cloud formation and earth’s temperature. When the sun is more active, the solar wind deflects cosmic rays. Since cosmic rays promote cloud formation, the extra warming effect of the sun is increased by the reduction in cloud cover.
Discovery of a strong correlation between
temperature changes and solar activity. Evidence suggests that the last 50 years has seen the highest level of solar activity for several thousand years.
Discovery of a large number of undersea
volcanoes whose periodic eruptive phases can warm the oceans. Any such warming will drive out the CO2 dissolved in the oceans.Warming of the oceans causes CO2 levels in the atmosphere to rise, not the other way around.
Recognition that the earth itself, via volcanic
eruptions and undersea seeps, contributes a large but unmeasured amount of CO2 and methane to the atmosphere.
Discovery that the pattern of warming in the
atmosphere does not fit the pattern forecast by
the IPCC models.
Temperature is rising on other planets in the solar system, suggesting that the sun is the major factor in all planetary warmings.
Methane levels in the atmosphere are falling,
not rising as predicted by IPCC. And crucially, despite strong increases in man’s emission of CO2, (chiefly from rapidly increasing coal fired power generation in China and India), global surface temperatures have stubbornly refused to rise for almost a decade. (Unfortunately, the Bali conference was relying on IPCC data which had a 2005 cut-off date for submissions. It thus used out-of-date information.)
5.
What is better – Warming or Cooling?
Any study of history will show that the cold eras are the ones to be feared – the “Dark Ages” characterised by famine, starvation, migrations and wars. Warm periods, which always have more CO2 and water vapour in the atmosphere, are universally described as “Golden Ages” with benign climates,flourishing plant and animal life, and great advances in prosperity, population, culture and science.
For more information on this subject see:
http://carbon-sense.com/2007/09/25/warm-watered-and-well-fed-is-better/#more-30
6.
Is Carbon Dioxide a Dangerous Pollutant?
One of the most stupid things done in the name of environmental protection is the definition of carbon dioxide as a pollutant CO2 is a colourless, odourless, non-toxic gas which is the key recycler in the carbon cycle of life on earth. If the Chicken Littles in the EPA did manage to remove CO2 from the atmosphere, all plant life would die, followed quickly by all animal (and human) life. Like the other natural atmospheric gases (nitrogen, oxygen,and water vapour) CO2 is an essential component of life. Life on earth developed in CO2 and has survived levels of CO2 in the atmosphere far above those now causing terror among earth’s stupid children. Life needs all four atmospheric gases to survive, none is a pollutant.CO2 is not even the most significant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. Water vapour accounts for 95% of greenhouse warming. Is water our next proscribed
pollutant? The relative importance of water in all its forms (oceans, lakes, rivers, clouds, water vapour) and carbon dioxide is described by Dr Martin Hertzberg of Colorado in this way:“The most significant atmospheric component in theradiative balance between the sun and the earth is water vapor in all its forms. "In comparison to water in all of its forms, carbon dioxide is the equivalent of but a few farts in a hurricane." (Dr. Martin Hertzberg is a combustion research scientist and also served as a meteorologist with the US Navy. He teaches science and maths and has been studying the global warming issue for the last twenty years). Moreover, natural emissions provide 97% of atmospheric CO2 – humans contribute a mere 3% - are we going to plug volcanoes, put covers on swamps, stabilise the temperature of the oceans and rake up and bury deep all autumn leaves in a doomed quest to “stabilise CO2”? Benign CO2 should not be confused with real pollution currently growing in Asian skies. These debilitating clouds of noxious fumes consisting of ash particles, gaseous oxides of nitrogen and sulphur (NOX and SOX), chlorine and metal oxides are the result of dirty combustion of coal and wood in open cooking fires and obsolete furnaces and power stations(a replica of the smogs of 19th century London and Pittsburgh.) When diffused by winds and removed by rain, the aerial products of combustion of natural hydrocarbons are not dangerous, but in fact provide valuable nutrients and trace elements to soil and plants. Only when they are so concentrated by millions of dirty combustion processes concentrated in cities does the pollution become annoying and at times dangerous to human health. It would be a major benefit to the world to replace these dirty hydro-carbon fires and furnaces with clean silent invisible electricity generated in remote locations by clean modern power plants. Additional benefits could possibly be achieved by harvesting the benefits of the extra CO2 by growing trees, crops or vegetables or pastures nearby.For more information on this topic see:
http://carbon-sense.com/2007/08/26/chasing-a-will-o-the-wisp-while-ignoring-a-real-monster-in-the-sky/#more-25
7.
What about droughts and pestilence?
And so around the chorus ran “It’s keepin’ dry, no doubt.” “We’ll all be rooned,” said Hanrahan, “Before the year is out.”
John O’Brien
It is a common belief that man’s carbon emissions probably caused the recent droughts and will cause even worse droughts in future (at every mention of the new buzz words “Climate Change” a picture of parched crazed mud in an empty dam will flash on the TV screen). It should be obvious to even the blindest true beli ever that increased global temperature will cause increased evaporation from the oceans and lakes which must be released somewhere as rain, hail or snow. Global warming may change the pattern of rainfall,but it can never cause an overall increase in drought. It is the cold, dry, carbon deficient ice ages that the human race should fear. We are also threatened that, unless we mend our emissive ways, malaria will descend from the tropics to the leafy suburbs of Melbourne. However, even a cursory examination of relevant literature will show that malaria is not a tropical disease. It is found from the tropics to Alaska. It is mosquito control, not emissions control, that keeps malaria at bay.
8.
What about species extinctions?
It is said that polar bears, coral reefs and all sorts of plant and animal life will perish in the coming global warming. There is no evidence to support most of these claims. Coral and coral reefs have survived higher temperatures and higher levels of CO2 since the Palaeozoic Era about 400 million years ago; polar bears and their ancestors have survived temperatures above current temperatures; and careful species counts have shown that warming trends merely allow plants to invade cooler areas but do not cause extinctions in warmer areas. Moreover, the increased CO2 released from warming oceans is a boon for all plant life, and allows them the strength to withstand greater range
of
variations in both temperature and rainfall
.
All life
will proliferate with abundant CO2 in the atmospher
e
but would perish if by some miracle we managed to
remove and bury it all.
9.
What about Melting Ice Sheets and rising
Sea Levels?
In Antarctica, which houses most of the world’s ice
,
the temperature in the 1990’s was much lower than t
he
mean for 1961 to 1990. In the Arctic and Greenland,
the highest temperatures recorded (since recordings
started in 1874) from 43 stations were in the 1930’
s.
Greenland’s highest temperatures for the last 100
years were recorded in the 1920’s. At the summit of
the Greenland Ice sheet, the average summer
temperature has decreased by 2.2 deg per decade sin
ce
measurements started at this spot in 1987.
In general, the ice sheets are thinning at the marg
ins
(near the warming oceans) but thickening in the
centre. Satellite altimetry suggests that the
contributions from melting ice would take 1,000 yea
rs
to raise global sea levels by 5 cm.
Careful observations of sea levels all over the wor
ld,
including Tuvalu, The Maldives, Vanuatu, Hong Kong
and from satellites show no trend of sea levels ris
ing.
After 5 international meetings of sea level special
ists,
(not IPCC computer modellers) chaired by Dr Nils-
Axel Morner, they agreed we may see a sea level ris
e
of 10cm over 100 years ie 1mm per year. (see EIR
Economics 33, June 22, 2007).
People cope with daily tides that vary from 15 metr
es
in Nova Scotia to a few cm in the Mediterranean Sea
.
The human race, polar bears and corals have also
coped with sea levels which have already risen by
about 100 metres since the depth of the last Ice Ag
e.
We will probably cope with a rise of 10 cm per
century without Emission Trading or Carbon Geo-
sequestration.
For some Shocking Facts on sea level rises see:
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2007/02
/09/s
hocking-facts-about-sea-level-rise/
10.
Man’s Minute Emissions of CO2.
Let’s put puny man in perspective:
•
Carbon dioxide comprises a minute
component of the atmosphere – 0.038%.
•
Carbon dioxide comprises only 3-4% of
greenhouse gases.
•
Man’s emissions of carbon dioxide are
about 5% of total emissions.
•
Australia’s emissions are said to be about
1.4% of the world man-made emissions.
•
Over the 100 years ending in the year
2000, the century of coal, steel, electricity,
the internal combustion engine, jet planes,
two world wars and a population
explosion, the average surface temperature
rose by only 0.6 deg, and seems to be
falling now.
Garnaut Submission V3.doc
Page 9
Thus, even if Australia stopped every engine, close
d
every coal mine and power station, shot all farm
animals (they belch a lot) and all held our breath,
it
would reduce greenhouse gases in the atmosphere by
1.4% of 5% of 4% or 0.0028%. Even if greenhouse
gases were the sole factor affecting surface
temperature, Australia’s ability to affect the grow
th in
temperature over the next century is limited to
0.0028% of 0.6 deg, or, put simply, nothing at all.
Human beings may have been responsible for less tha
n
0.01 deg C of warming during the last century. For
the
government to contemplate betting our future agains
t
odds like this is an exercise in futile, reckless a
nd ill
informed speculation.
11.
Are we at a “Tipping Point”?
Regularly we are told that the situation is grave,
and
unless we repent our wasteful ways by next Saturday
,
we will all be burned in hell.
This suggests that at some point of CO2 concentrati
on
in the atmosphere, the system develops positive
feedback, becomes unstable, and with just one more
puff of CO2, temperatures will soar without end.
A look at earth’s history, a look at the physics of
CO2
in the atmosphere, and a look at the role of water
in
stabilising earth’s temperature all show that there
is no
evidence to support the belief in sudden, unstoppab
le
warming.
There have been many times where surface
temperature and CO2 content in the atmosphere were
at or above what they are now. In every case, the
automatic stabilisers went to work and the normal
state (cool to frigid) returned.
One of the very big factors in achieving this is su
rface
and atmospheric water.
The oceans are a huge heat sink. It takes a lot of
heat
to warm them, and once warm, they cool slowly no
matter what is happening in the air above. They
moderate all extremes.
As oceans heat up, evaporation speeds up, taking la
rge
amounts of heat from the oceans in the process. Thi
s
moisture ends up as clouds, which shade the surface
,
reflect the sun’s heat, and cool the surface. The h
ot air
cools by radiation to space, or by convection curre
nts
which take them to cold areas of the higher latitud
es.
There the moisture condenses as rain or snow.
Increased snow cover again cools the surface by
reflecting sunlight.
Even more important in demolishing the tipping poin
t
argument, is the behaviour of CO2 in the atmosphere
.
The first 20 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere has a
greater Greenhouse Effect than the next 300 ppm.
Increases beyond this have an ever declining impact
on atmospheric temperature. Like a runner at the en
d
of a marathon, CO2 has almost exhausted its global
warming potential.
12.
Is Mitigation an Option?
The IPCC would have us believe that if only we coul
d
cut man’s emissions of CO2, the CO2 content of the
atmosphere would fall, global warming would cease
and earth would return to bucolic equilibrium.
As Dr Martin Hertzberg points out, we have already
tried that, well before Kyoto, and it achieved noth
ing.
The economic depression of the period 1929 to 1932
caused fossil carbon production to fall by 25%, far
more than Kyoto currently demands. What happened
to CO2 content in the atmosphere? It rose steadily
during the whole period of the Great Depression.
It is the arrogant and ignorant to think that man c
an
control global temperature by trying to manipulate
the
amount of his emissions of carbon dioxide entering
the
atmosphere.
It is also a huge mistake to believe that everyone
will
accept that the world can or should be maintained a
t
today’s or yesterday’s temperature. People everywhe
re
are moving to the sun belts. No one finds Singapore
,
Cairns or the Caribbean too hot for human habitatio
n.
But the people of Siberia, Alaska, Canada, Iceland
and
the Falklands may welcome a little more warmth.
Who claims the right to play God with the world’s
thermometer?
13.
Let’s keep a Sense of Perspective on
Temperatures.
We are told that CSIRO projections (“guesses” would
be a more appropriate word) now indicate that globa
l
warming could cause an increase in average
temperature of 2 deg Celsius by 2070 – ie an averag
e
increase or one degree Celsius per 30 years.
Garnaut Submission V3.doc
Page 10
An increase of 1 deg C in temperature is equivalent
to
an Aussie resident moving north by about 100 km ie
from Sydney to Newcastle, from Ballarat to Bendigo,
from Port Pirie to Port Augusta or from Brisbane to
Nambour. As thousands of people every year shift
voluntarily from Sydney to Brisbane, it appears tha
t
even if global warming does its worst, most Austral
ian
residents would not normally take any notice.
Looking at it another way, on a typical winter day
here
where I live in South East Queensland, the
temperature may rise from 10 degrees to 25 degrees
over say 6 hours – about 2.5 deg per hour ie our
temperature rises about 1 degree every 25 minutes –
not a particularly concerning rate of warming.
I do not think I would notice or be concerned about
an
increase of 1 degree in average global temperature
(whatever that is) over 30 years.
Here is another perspective (first pointed out by L
ord
Nigel Lawson, former Chancellor of the UK
Exchequer):
•
Helsinki has an average annual temperature of
about 5 deg C.
•
Singapore has an average annual temperature
of about 27 deg C.
Both are capital cities and large numbers of humans
exist comfortably in both of them, despite a range
of
about 22 deg C in average surface temperature. As
Lord Lawson says “If man can successfully cope with
a range of 22 deg, it is not immediately apparent w
hy
he should not be able to adapt to a change of about
3
deg, when he is given a hundred years in which to d
o
so.”
14.
Is Carbon Capture and Storage ever likely to
prove economic?
CCS research is the new nirvana for those who live
on
extracting research funds from taxpayers and
shareholders, so there will always be glowing progr
ess
reports that “success is just around the corner”.
But CCS can
NEVER
be economic. There are no
benefits in removing CO2 from the atmosphere – it i
s
all cost. Therefore all the research, all the retro
-fitting
of power stations, all the expenditure on finding p
laces
suitable for carbon cemeteries, all the money spent
on
pipelines and relocation of power stations is a
COMPLETE WASTE
of funds that could be used
solving real problems, building useful infrastructu
re,
providing needed goods and services, or reducing
poverty.
The Carbon Sense Coalition believes that corporatio
ns
who use shareholders’ funds to support ill consider
ed
Global Warming policies have not done their due
diligence, and face reactions from shareholders and
customers. (Caterpillar in the US is already facing
a
boycott from some customers because of its ill
considered support of Cap and Trade regulations.)
For more information on risks to business see: "Fai
lure
to Disclose: Businesses Lobbying for Global Warming
Regulations”:
http://www.demanddebate.com,
http://www.freeenterpriser.com, and
http://www.junkscience.com
.
15.
“Cleaner and Greener than Thou?”
By some quirk of propaganda, natural gas and biofue
ls
are seen as “clean and natural” (not like the ugly
sisters – the dirty fossil fuels coal and oil.)
Every bit of coal, every bottle of natural gas (inc
luding
this year’s pin-up, coal seam methane), every bowse
r
of motor fuel and every stalk and branch of plant
material or biomass is a form of hydro-carbon. When
burnt, without exception, every one produces the sa
me
two greenhouse gases, water vapour (H2O) and CO2.
Both gases affect temperature in the atmosphere, bu
t
CO2 has been elected the fall guy. The ratios vary,
but
on greenhouse heating grounds, there is no reason t
o
laud some hydrocarbons and damn others.
(Admittedly, biofuels extract CO2 as they grow, but
they give it all back, plus some, as they are harve
sted,
transported, refined and burnt.)
16.
Burning Biomass
For most humans on earth for all of history, life h
as
been a struggle for protein and energy. All protein
is
carbon based, and the cheapest, most abundant, most
concentrated, most portable and most easily availab
le
energy sources are also carbon based (wood, coal, o
ils,
gases and bitumen).
There are only two big sources of carbon energy –
plant material or mineral fuels.
Some people think that burning biomass (residue fro
m
wheat, sugar and forests etc) is a zero cost option
that
does not compete with food
.
Garnaut Submission V3.doc
Page 11
Good soils are a scarce and limited resource. All o
ver
the world, the organic content of soils (humus and
soil
micro-life) is decreasing, mainly because of poor
agricultural practice, especially excessive cultiva
tion,
harsh fertilisers, and the harvesting or in-situ bu
rning
of all organic matter. This is reflected in declini
ng
yields, declining protein content and declining min
eral
content of crops. The micro-life and minerals in ou
r
excessively robbed soils is declining and our foods
are
becoming less nutrient dense.
This is not sustainable farming. The carbon from
biomass burnt in the power station is often coming
direct from the soil. This short-sighted policy is
just
robbing the soil of organic matter needed for food
for
future generations.
It is a far more sustainable policy to use mineral
fuels
such as coal, gas and petroleum for industry and
transport, and leave the soils to cope with the gro
wing
burden of providing food. The carbon from mineral
fuels is then a net addition to the valuable stock
of
circulating carbon.
17.
Are the Emissions Targets Achievable?
There seems to be a competition amongst the de-
carbonisers to see who can propose the most severe
punishment to the human race. New emission targets
appear daily and each new cut is reported breathles
sly
by an un-critical media.
One day it is 20% by 2020, then 50% by 2050 and
presumably 100% by 2100. Some want closure of all
coal power plants, others would eliminate all rumin
ant
animals (just the domesticated ones, we assume?),
others dream of new viruses that would decimate the
human population.
To these anti-humanists, all evidence of man’s
scientific and industrial progress since the last I
ce Age
should be blotted from the earth. (This will ensure
a
huge increase in employment as we all take up our
sickles, hoes and rakes to prepare for next year’s
wheat crop.)
Other well meaning reformers actually believe some
of
these targets are achievable without disturbing the
ir
comfortable lives in the leafy suburbs.
Since the days of first settlement, Australia has a
lways
relied on its great primary industries:
•
Wool for the mills of Manchester
•
Butter for the tables of Britain
•
Frozen lamb for the kitchens of Europe.
•
Gold and silver for the war effort.
•
Beef for the Anzac Diggers.
•
Wheat for our daily bread.
•
Copper, lead, zinc and aluminium for the
builders and engineers.
•
Coke for the smelters of Japan.
•
Steel for the backbone of industry.
•
Oil for mobility and tractive power.
•
Timber and concrete for our houses and
bridges.
•
Fish and chips for our plates.
•
Coal for silent invisible power to clean the
skies of our polluted cities.
•
Natural Gas for winter warmth and power.
•
Food to feed the world.
•
Fibre to clothe the world.
•
And now, these great primary industries are
joined by Tourism to entertain the masses.
These industries have always been the primary
generators of new wealth in Australia. Every one
generates CO2 emissions.
All Australians earn their living by finding, extra
cting,
processing, transporting, smelting, refining,
fabricating, manufacturing, supplying, taxing,
regulating, administering, observing or criticising
the
production from these basic industries. If we destr
oy
or cripple them with foolish policies, our lifestyl
e will
become unsustainable and our right to retain contro
l of
this treasure house of resource riches will be
challenged.
If we assist or do not oppose this well orchestrate
d
campaign to demonise carbon, we will be cutting our
own throats.
The Queensland Government has recently released a
document mis-named “Climate Smart 2050” This
document proposes to meet a “greenhouse reduction
target of 60% below 2000 levels by 2050”
We need to examine what this target could mean.
Suppose that the Queensland population grows by,
say, 2% per year. By 2050 it will grow to 269% of
2000 levels. That larger population is supposed to
exist on 40% of the level of carbon emissions in th
e
year 2000. This indicates that emissions per person
are
mandated to fall to 15% of 2000 levels – a reductio
n
of 85%!

Climate change surface temp and Royal commission nz

Climate change1 

Im not going to reinvent the wheel so will just "store " this here

PR Royal Commission Jan08.doc

Page 1

Time for an Australia New Zealand Royal Commission

on Global Warming.

31 Jan 2008

A group of Australian and New Zealand organisations and scientists today called on

the governments of Australia and New Zealand to set up an Australia New Zealand Royal Commission on the Science of Global Warming (to be known as “The ANZIG

Royal Commission” – the Australia New Zealand Inquiry into Global Warming).The chairman of Australia’s Carbon Sense Coalition,Mr Viv Forbes, said that many groups and individuals in Australia and New Zealand had listened with alarm anddisbelief to plans of both governments to saddle their people and industries with the burdens of carbon taxes and the risks of carbon trading which he described as “an open invitation to massive fraud”.“We also fear the enormous costs of taxing and decimating our backbone industries of farming, mining, power generation, cement making, forestry, mineral processing and tourism and subsidising many expensive and ineffective alternate energyproposals. The very high costs to society of the actions being proposed require that we settle the science before forcing the whole ANZ community into a futile and expensive exercise to solve a problem that may not exist. ‘Do it just in case’ is not an option. “The Australian Government has set up the Garnaut Review to look into the likely costs of various proposals for reducing carbon dioxide emissions. However, we need a parallel independent inquiry into the science to determine whether any action at all is required. “The science is definitely not settled. Hundreds of qualified independent scientists around the world now question whether sufficient attention has been paid to the proven historical influence of natural solar cycles, and many other aspects of climate science. Since the scientific investigations for the IPCC fourth assessment reportwere completed 18 months ago, new research and new observations have cast serious doubt on many of the IPCC’s conclusions."Everyone, from the highest government minister tothe lowliest taxpayingconsumer, must realise that unless it can be proved beyond reasonable doubt that carbon dioxide causes excessive global warming, there is no justification for imposing restrictions and costs on emitters of carbon dioxide. These burdens will pass inevitably on to the whole community, and will fall most heavily on those who can least afford them. No valid, verifiable scientific proof has yet been established.All we have are hypotheses and speculations based on computer models.Governments have a duty to create an opportunity for the full range of scientific evidence to be examined and evaluated. This can best be done by way of a Royal Commission of Inquiry,” Mr Forbes continued.“Australia and New Zealand are both heavily dependent on primary production and world trade, neither have nuclear power, and both are leaders in science in the southern hemisphere. The whole hemisphere would bevery damaged by the global warming extremism of Al Gore and old Europe. Al Gore is more motivated by PR Royal Commission Jan08.doc

Page 2 

extreme Green politics than scientific truth whileOld Europe believes that their nuclear capacity protects them from the carbon costs they plan to impose on others.”Mr Forbes said that this proposal is the joint initiative of The Carbon Sense Coalition based in Australia and the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition, and is supported by individual scientists and industry representatives such as:

•Leon Ashby (Mt Gambier, SA), Chairman Landholders Institute, President

Bushvision, and Centenary medal recipient for services to conservation and the environment.

•The Australian Beef Association, via its chairman B

rad Bellinger (Ashford,

NSW), director John Niven (Grenfell, NSW), and director, John Michelmore

BAppSc(Chem), (Eyre, SA).

•John Carter (Crookwell, NSW), rural activist and co

mmentator, founder and director of the Australian Beef Association.

•Professor Bob Carter (QLD), palaeontologist, strati

grapher, marine geologist

and environmental scientist, a research Professor at James Cook University

(Qld) and University of Adelaide (SA).

•Howard Crozier (NSW), councillor of the NSW Farmers

Federation and previously General Manager Finance and Administrati

on of CSIRO.

•Emeritus Professor Lance Endersbee AO, Former Dean

of Engineering and Pro-Vice Chancellor, Monash University. Past President, The Institution of

Engineers, Australia (1980). Author, “A Voyage of Discovery”, a history of

ideas about the earth (2005).

•Bryan Leyland MSc, FIEE, FIMechE, FIPENZ, MRSNZ, consulting engineer to the power industry and chairman of the Economics

Panel of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition.

•Owen McShane, director of the Centre for Resource Management Studies in

New Zealand, and chairman of the policy panel of the New Zealand Climate

Science Coalition.

•Dr Muriel Newman (NZ), proprietor of the New Zealand Centre for Political Research.

“We are all of the view that CO2 in the atmosphere

is a benefit not a threat to humans, and there is no need to launch a massive assault on our lifestyle, industry and prosperity to solve a non problem.

“We have four recommendations:

PR Royal Commission Jan08.doc

Page 3

1.That the Australian and New Zealand governments commission a joint public inquiry to investigate and report on the science underlying the claims that man-made CO2 causes dangerous global wa

rming. This enquiry must consider whether it is likely that human activity has had a significant effect on global warming and the extent to which the policies being proposed to cut man’s greenhouse gas emissions are likely to affect global warming or any other aspects of climate.

2.That the inquiry be under the charge of at least three commissioners including at least one Australian and one New Zealander, preferably wellqualified in science and able to take an objective, independent view of the IPCC process. The chairman should be skilled in obtaining and assessing evidence. (To ensure it has full jurisdiction in both countries, each government may appoint its own enquiry with one or two commissioners, and a common chairman, with meetings to be held concurrently, some in each country).

3.That the inquiry have the power and funding to initiate wide ranging scientific inquiries into all aspects of present knowledge on climate and to take and consider evidence on climate change and to analyse the likely effects of currently proposed policies on reducing

carbon emissions.

4.

 until such an inquiry has reported, no steps be taken to institute an emissions reduction programme of any kind in Australia or New Zealand. Mr Forbes said that it is clear there is growing concern among the world scientific community about the conclusions being promoted by the IPCC. “In contrast to the 2000 or so scientists who are claimed to have contributed to the IPCC (many of whom do not support the extremist political conclusions promoted by the IPCC) there are at least 20,000 scientists whohave signed their names in public opposition to the IPCC. (See references below). “In addition, many organisations, think tanks and business leaders have voiced opposition to the radical proposals from the IPCC, and many more are quietly dismayed. There is no consensus about the science, even if scientific questions could be decided by a show of hands. Scientific questions are determined by facts andevidence, and this is what a Royal Commission can discover and make public.“In further support of this proposal we have appended links to various submissions made recently to the Garnaut Enquiry, and other relevant documents,” Mr Forbes concluded. Terry Dunleavy, secretary of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition, comments: “An ANZ approach to this vital issue is anatural flow-on from close co-operation already existing between the two trans-Tasman neighbours. Australia and New Zealand have one of the most open economic andtrade relationships of any two countries. This is based on a comprehensive set of trade and economic arrangements,

PR Royal Commission Jan08.doc

Page 4

 known as Closer Economic Relations (CE

R), which underpin substantial flows of merchandise trade, services, investment, labour and visitors between the two countries. Implemented in 1983, CER has already seen such joint official bodies

as:

• ANZSFA, the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Authority;

• JAS-ANZ covering classifications and standards in

official statistics;

• Ensis, a joint venture of forestry R & D.

• Negotiations to form a joint Australia New Zealand Therapeutics Agency. “In New Zealand, government advocates of a carbon emissions trading regime have referred to the desirability of harmonising with Australia. Surely, it is logical to first establish that there is scientific justification for the imposition of an economically burdensome carbon emissions scheme, before going down that costly track, whether together or separately. Two countries as close together as we are in so many official

ways should have no difficulty in sorting out any jurisdictional complexities arising from the creation of a joint ANZAC Royal Commission to look at an issue that is so common to us both," said Mr Dunleavy.

Ends

1320 words

Authorised by:

Viv Forbes, BScApp, FAusIMM, FSIA

Chairman

The Carbon Sense Coalition

MS 23

Rosewood Qld

0754 640 533

www.carbon-sense.com

info@carbon-sense.com

Terry Dunleavy, MBE, JP

Secretary

The New Zealand Climate Science Coalition

New Zealand

http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php

terry.dunleavy@nzclimatescience.org.nz

tel +6494863859 (or +64274836688)

Dr Muriel Newman

Director

New Zealand Centre for Political Research

Whangarei.

New Zealand

http://www.nzcpr.com/About.htm

PR Royal Commission Jan08.doc

Page 5

Brad Bellinger

Chairman

Australian Beef Association

NSW

bbellinger@nsw.chariot.net.au

Howard Crozier

Executive Councilor of NSW Farmers Association

Australia.

crozierh@nswfarmers.org.au

---------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------

References:

1.

Submission by the Carbon Sense Coalition to the Garnaut Review

:http://carbon-sense.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/garnaut-submission.pdf

2. Submission by the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition to the New Zealand Parliament in 2006, calling for a Royal Commission:

http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=205&itemid=1

3.

Submission by The Lavoisier Society to the Garnaut

Review: http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/articles/Garnaut

FinalSubmission.pdf

4. Submission by Prof Bob Carter to the Garnaut Review:

http://carbon-sense.com/2008/01/30/submission-to-the-garnaut-review-by-prof-r-m-carter/

5.

Submission by Howard Cozier to the Garnaut Review:

See Garnaut Review website.

6.

Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made glo

bal warming:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=927b9303-802a-23ad-494b-dccb00b51a12

7.

20,000 scientists sign petition against global warm

ing hysteria:

http://www.oism.org/pproject/

8.

Over 100 Prominent Scientists Warn UN: Attempting To Control Climate Is Futile:

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=64002

In 1997, fully 90% of US State Climatologists did NOT agree with the ADW Hypotheses (Quoted in

Singer and Avery, 2007, 65-66)

9. Recent observations show that the world has not

warmed since 1998, and 2007 is the coolest year

since 2000

:http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2641

http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2007/08/08/1998-no-longer-the-hottest-year-on-record-in-usa/

10. Recent research shows the solar cycles, cosmic rays and clouds have a major effect on our climate:

PR Royal Commission Jan08.doc

Page 6

Svensmark, H. and Calder, N., 2007. The Chilling St

ars – a new theory of Climate Change, Icon

Books. ISBN-10: 1-84046-815-7

http://carbon-sense.com/2007/12/30/climate-change-is-nothing-new/

11. It is generally agreed that if greenhouse warmi

ng was occurring, the strongest warming would be

in the upper atmosphere above the tropics. Recent research shows this is not occurring, which indicates that warming is not being caused by green

house gases:

Douglass, D.H., J.R. Christy, B.D. Pearson, and S.F

. Singer. 2007. A comparison of tropical

temperature trends with model predictions. Internat

ional Journal of Climatology, DOI:

10.1002/joc.1651.

12.

Australian Parliamentary Enquiry. Dissenting report

on Geo-sequestration:

http://carbon-sense.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/geosequestration-dissent.pdf

13. Prof David Henderson: Governments are Mishandli

ng Climate Change Issues:

http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_co

ntent&task=view&id=181&itemid=1

14. Program for International Climate Change Confer

ence in New York:

http://carbon-sense.com/2008/01/28/the-2008-interna

tional-conference-on-climate-change/

15. “Climate Change Re-examined”, Joel Kauffman, 2007:

http://nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/ccr.pdf

16. Lance Endersbee reported that temperature readings from 27 rural ground stations in Australia

showed no sign of global warming over the 110 years of temperature records (to 1990). (Endersbee,

L, 2005 “

A Voyage of Discovery”,

Fig 142 , page 244).

See also his “Climate Change is Nothing New:

http://carbon-sense.com/2007/12/30/climate-change-is-nothing-new/#more-40

UAH Version 6 Global Satellite Temperature Products: 

4 Methodology and Results

5

Roy W. Spencer1

, John R. Christy1

and William D. Braswell1

6

1

7 Earth System Science Center, University of Alabama in Huntsville, 320 Sparkman Drive, 

8 Huntsville, Alabama, U.S.A.

9

10 Accepted by 

11 Asia-Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Science

12 November, 2016

27 Corresponding Author: Roy W. Spencer, Earth System Science Center, University of Alabama 

28 in Huntsville, 320 Sparkman Drive, Huntsville, Alabama 35805 

Abstract

Version 6 of the UAH MSU/AMSU global satellite temperature dataset represents an 

33 extensive revision of the procedures employed in previous versions of the UAH datasets. The 

34 two most significant results from an end-user perspective are (1) a decrease in the global-average 

35 lower tropospheric temperature (LT) trend from +0.14 C/decade to +0.11 C/decade (Jan. 1979 

36 through Dec. 2015); and (2) the geographic distribution of the LT trends, including higher spatial 

37 resolution, owing to a new method for computing LT. We describe the major changes in 

38 processing strategy, including a new method for monthly gridpoint averaging which uses all of 

39 the footprint data yet eliminates the need for limb correction; a new multi-channel (rather than 

40 multi-angle) method for computing the lower tropospheric (LT) temperature product which 

41 requires an additional tropopause (TP) channel to be used; and a new empirical method for 

42 diurnal drift correction. We show results for LT, the mid-troposphere (MT, from 

43 MSU2/AMSU5), and lower stratosphere (LS, from MSU4/AMSU9). A 0.03 C/decade reduction 

44 in the global LT trend from the Version 5.6 product is partly due to lesser sensitivity of the new 

45 LT to land surface skin temperature (est. 0.01 C/decade), with the remainder of the reduction 

46 (0.02 C/decade) due to the new diurnal drift adjustment, the more robust method of LT 

47 calculation, and other changes in processing procedures.

48

49 Key words: global temperature, satellites, climate change