SPPI Monthly CO2 Report May 2009 | Volume 1 | Issue 5

Christopher Monckton, Editor ♦ www.scienceandpublicpolicy.org

700 scientists say the M iddle A ges wer e war mer than today SPPI ’ s author itative M onthly C O 2 R epor t for M ay 2009 r eveals that mor e than 700 scientists fr om 400 institutions in 40 countr ies have contr ibuted to peer -r eviewed paper s pr oviding evidence that the M edieval W ar m Per iod, which the I PC C has tr ied to deny, was r eal, global, and war mer than the pr esent. E ditor ial, page 3.

All the facts and data that expose the climate scare – in one place. Marc Sheppard’s remarkable report from the Third Heartland International Climate Conference, in Washington DC, is the best eight-page summary of the current state of the science and politics of “global warming” that you’ll find anywhere. Pages 4-11.

The IPCC assumes CO2 concentration will reach 836 ppmv by 2100, but, for seven years, CO2 concentration has headed straight for only 575 ppmv by 2100. This alone halves all of the IPCC’s temperature projections. Pages 12-13.

Since 1980 temperature has risen at only 2.5 °F (1.5 °C)/century, not the 7 F° (3.9 C°) the IPCC imagines. Pages 14-15.

Sea level rose just 8 inches in the 20th century and has been rising at just 1 ft/century since 1993. Though James Hansen of NASA says sea level will rise 246 feet, sea level has scarcely risen since the beginning of 2006. Page 16.

Arctic sea-ice extent is about the same as it has been at this time of year in the past decade. In the Antarctic, sea ice extent – on a 30-year rising trend – reached a record high in 2007. Global sea ice extent shows little trend for 30 years. Pages 17-19.

The Accumulated Cyclone Energy Index is a 2-year running monthly sum of activity in all hurricanes, typhoons and tropical cyclones. It shows that there is now less severe tropical-storm activity than for 30 years. Page 20.

Solar activity at last shows signs of recovery. Will global cooling be replaced by global warming? Page 22. The (very few) benefits and the (very large) costs of the Waxman/Markey Bill are illustrated at Pages 23-24. Science Focus this month studies painting the world white to Save The Planet – another dumb idea. Page 25. Finally, there’s our “global warming” ready reckoner, and our monthly selection of scientific papers. Pages 26-29.

SPPI Monthly CO2 Report: May 2009 Accurate, Authoritative Analysis for Today’s Policymakers

2

VERY MONTH, it is my privilege to end the Monthly CO2 Report with Dr. Craig Idso’s summaries of the scientific papers published in the learned journals that

somehow don’t get a mention in the mainstream media. You can read these excellent summaries, in laymen’s language, at www.co2science.org, a priceless resource for everyone who wants to get the balanced view on “global warming” that the media sullenly refuse to provide.

Not the least of the many useful features at www.co2science.org is the Medieval Warm Period database – a collection of scientific papers that provide evidence from all over the world that establishes that the warm period in the Middle Ages was real, global, and warmer than today. This month, for the first time, the number of scientists contributing to peer-reviewed papers attesting to the fact that the Middle Ages were warmer worldwide than today has risen above 700. This significant milestone illustrates the growing gulf between the narrow view of the climate that is now paraded and parroted in official circles and the scientific view, which is that today’s climate is unexceptional. The world has seen it all before.

As a special feature this month, I am happy to bring you an excellent and detailed report from the Third International Heartland Conference, held in Washington DC on June 2. The report, by Marc Sheppard of the American Thinker website, is in the tradition of old-fashioned journalism, which reports what was actually said. It is a model of its kind, and gives a flavor of the growing consensus to the effect that “global warming” is not a global crisis, but merely part of a natural cycle over which humankind’s influence is minuscule.

As always, the Monthly CO2 Report contains all our usual cutting-edge graphs that demonstrate the ever-growing discrepancy between the extravagant official predictions and the often-turbulent but by no means exceptional climate of the real world. Global cooling continues. CO2 concentration is rising at half the rate predicted by the UN. Sea level continues to rise hardly at all. Sea ice is doing just fine, though the recent failure of one of satellites that monitor it has given us some difficulty in obtaining reliable data. And the new hurricane season begins on a quiet note, with Ryan Maue’s Accumulated Cyclone Energy Index at just about its lowest level in 30 years.

Interestingly, since we began publishing our monthly graphs showing that temperature has been rising since 1980 at less than half the rate the IPCC predicts for the 20th century, and that temperature has been on a downtrend for eight and a half years since late 2001, the public have begun to realize that global cooling is happening. Before we began publishing the regular global-temperature updates, the media were keeping the near-decade-long cooling a secret. It didn’t fit the story-line. Now, albeit in a surly, grudging tone, they’re beginning to report it. Of course, they say it’s only a temporary remission in a long-run warming trend. But they somehow fail to point out that the warming trend is 300 years long; that humans cannot have had anything to do with the first 270 of the 300 years’ warming; and that the warming of the last 30 years has been no more rapid than it was from 1860-1880, and again from 1910-1940. Above all, they fail to admit that the official theory simply cannot explain the current cooling of both the atmosphere and – more significantly still – the oceans. The UN’s pretence that natural influences on the climate are very small has come back to bite it – hard. Monckton of Brenchley

E

Editorial: The Middle Ages were warmer! The scientific consensus continues to move away from alarmism

3

http://www.co2science.org/�http://www.co2science.org/�

H ear tland C onference br ings climate reality to Washington DC By Marc Sheppard, American Thinker

MERE 12 WEEKS had passed since he gaveled the close of the second International Conference on Climate Change in NYC. Yet 2 June 2009 found Joseph Bast

already delivering the opening speech to its follow-up event, again featuring an elite group of scientists, economists and politicians gathered to discuss climate science and policy. But this time he stood in DC’s Washington Court Hotel, just blocks away from the chamber in which Democrats will soon attempt to pass the very legislation compelling this urgent session – the Waxman-Markey Cap-and-Trade bill.

While both public opinion and the planet’s climate have been cooling, the Left’s green fever has taken a desperate turn in the opposite direction. In April, EPA chief Lisa Jackson made good on her promise to pursue endangerment status and subsequent pollutant regulation of CO2 and five other greenhouse gases, an act likely crafted to coerce accelerated legislative action. It worked. Just weeks ago, such legislation -- the American Clean Energy Security Act (HR 2454) -- cleared its first hurdle by passing Waxman’s own House Energy and Commerce Committee.

Considering the bill’s meritless substance, potential influence on a future global accord, and outrageous price tag (hundreds of billions of dollars annually) the Heartland Institute recognized the need to once

again remind the world of the “widespread dissent to the asserted ‘consensus’ on the causes, consequences, and proper responses to climate change” and that “immediate action to reduce emissions is not necessary.” Hence, an abbreviated (single day) ICCC III: Scientific Debate and Economic Analysis was quickly organized -- and Bast was now addressing over 250 attendees who came to hear and spread the vital message.

Bast wasted no time attacking the consensus canard and cited the mainstream media’s (MSM) success in keeping the existence of tens of thousands of scientists that dispute the notion of manmade global warming mostly secret as its foundation. He likened anthropogenic global warming (AGW) hysteria to the type of crowd madness that 19th century writer Charles MacKay coined as “an Extraordinary Popular Delusion,” in which even highly intelligent people can get swept up in a fad or idea which in retrospect was obviously false.” Such crowd madness led to debacles such as the 1920’s Florida Land Boom, the uranium crash of the 1950’s and, of course, the 2001 portfolio-decimating Dot Com bubble burst. Not a bad analogy, as AGW fits both the group-think and greed-driven special-interest-group rewarding aspects associated with all such folly.

And the fiery madness is fueled by a number of complicit and self-serving groups. First and foremost, the thousands of scientists that depend upon government grants to fund their climatology research,

A

Special Report: Heartland Conference Washington DC learns that the climate debate is far from over

4

which would disappear should they fail to find either a human connection to or some new negative impact of climate change. Then there are the environmental organizations that depend upon sounding the alarm to keep the donation coffers full. And the journalists who see a “free ride” to nab front-page newspaper positions by echoing the alarmists. And the Capitalists who see, well – capital, prompting huge corporations to jump on board to exploit renewable energy subsidies and R&D grants from the federal government. Meanwhile, politicians see a great opportunity to posture about “knowing something about science” and to appear concerned for the long term and about public health and environment. And that, explained Heartland’s president and CEO, is what we’re up against in battling the bad-legislation-breeding hysteria.

With that, Joe introduced MIT’s Richard Lindzen, who explained the allure of spreading the alarm felt by climate scientists over the past 20 years. It’s no surprise that alarmists are more easily published and better funded than their colleagues. But the professor added that pro-AGW work that would normally be regarded as weak can suddenly earn its author unwarranted authority. And that they whose specialties lie outside common physics can still receive funding by relating their specialty to GW. These factors artificially swell the number of scientists who “support alarmist views.”

And with it, the claim of consensus, which as former astronaut Harrison Schmitt would later explain, usually reveals an absence of fact.

Faulty Models are Driving Faulty Policy

Addressing the scientific debate, Lindzen drew the line between the mostly accepted issues (CO2’s rise from 280ppmv to 380ppmv since start of industrial age, global mean temperature anomaly increase of 0.5-0.8°C in that time, etc) and those in conflict, such as whether the warming is sufficiently large to exclude natural origin and are the proposed policies of relevance to climate per se. Lindzen insists that the public discussion conflates the non-serious with the serious issues

“to the detriment of significant meaning,” and offers Gore’s slide show as an example of “this intentional and misleading confusion.”

Lindzen explained why the process behind the U.N’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) claim of man’s responsibility for the warming since 1954 is “an embarrassment.” First they created a number of models which could not “reasonably simulate known patterns of natural behavior (such as El Niño (ENSO), the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO)), claiming that such models nonetheless accurately depicted natural internal climate variability.” Then, when those models failed to replicate the warming episode from the mid seventies through the mid nineties, they proclaimed it proof that “forcing was necessary and that the forcing must have been due to man.” And they relied upon those same “existing poorly performing models” which are fraught with “errors in the feedback factors” to make their argument that “sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 could be anything from 1.5 to 5°C based on the claimed range of results from different models.”

What we see, then, concludes Lindzen, is that the very foundation of the issue of global warming is wrong.

S. Fred Singer added that once you recognize that we’re dealing with natural and not human forces all the to-do about this is nonsense. Attempts to mitigate CO2 -- which is not a pollutant – are pointless, very expensive and completely ineffective. They’ll have no effect on the climate and in fact will have little effect on the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Singer challenged the IPCC for proof of its claim that AWG was 90-99% certain, and to respond to the many “disputed and unsolved problems.” These included the true figure for climate sensitivity, whether water vapor and clouds represent positive or negative feedback, the impacts of natural forcings (internal oscillations, volcanism and solar), atmospheric CO2 residence time and rate of sea level rise (SLR), which Singer states has been an unalarmingly constant 7 inches per century for 3000 years.

5

http://www.ipcc.ch/�

He highlighted the U.N’s intellectual dishonesty by projecting graphs from early IPCC reports that included the Little Ice Age (LIA) and Medieval Warm Period (MWP) then those from TAR (IPPC Third Assessment Report) in which they both mysteriously vanished. Another graph depicted temperatures decreasing over the past 10 years while CO2 climbed, meaning “the relationship is meaningless” – a point repeated by several speakers over the course of the day. And addressing the models, Singer showed slide after slide in which he plotting observed v. projected temperatures and the latter always trended significantly higher. The IPCC’s explanation: Maybe there’s something wrong with the observations.

Above the laughter this elicited, Singer explained that the observations used were those published by the IPCC itself.

Carbon Dioxide is not the culprit

When solar expert Willie Soon took the stage, he insisted that CO2 is not an “air pollutant,” but rather food for plants and marine life. And that its atmospheric levels are controlled by temperature and other biological/chemical variables -- not the other way around (quipped the astrophysicist: Lung Cancer does not cause smoking). But most of all, a magical CO2 knob for controlling weather and climate simply does not exist.

Soon pondered the possible effect that forcing down CO2 levels may have on plants and ergo the food supply, and this observer couldn’t help pondering the Ethanol debacle (that would later be addressed by Christopher Monckton). Soon also questioned CO2’s GW involvement based upon the absence of winter warming in places like Salt Lake City where a phenomenon called the CO2 Urban Dome is caused by an “ineffective CO2 sink during nighttime and during winter” when the biosphere is less active. As a result, a chart of SLC CO2 levels from 2002-to-present show winter swings as high as 600 ppmv (current average is around 380). Yet there’s never been any rise in winter temperatures there. Hmmm.

On the other hand, graphs Soon displayed plotting Solar Total Irradiance against Arctic, Greenland and even Sun-Royal Oak, MD

surface temperatures in the past century are remarkably well aligned. As was Willie’s final graph plotting Sunshine Duration against Japanese and Northern Hemisphere Temperatures over the same period. Hmmm again.

Soon was the first, but actually not the last, presenter to offer this apropos quote from Einstein:

“No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong”

And Dr. Roy Spencer’s lunchtime lesson on climate “feedbacks” emphasized why policy makers should heed Einstein’s wisdom.

Were warming due only to CO2, it would be a non-issue. But all climate models exhibit “Positive Feedback” (responses to the warming by clouds, water vapor, etc) -- some by moderate and others by catastrophic amounts. IPCC models use an algorithm whereby CO2-caused warming causes a decrease in clouds, which lets in more sunlight and leads to more warming.

But Spencer offers another possibility -- perhaps weak warming actually increases clouds, letting in less sunlight and leading to less warming. After all, PDO phasing appears to correspond to periods of cloud cover and thereby both warming and cooling.

Now, the IPCC believes in Positive Cloud Feedback because warmer years often coincide with fewer clouds than cooler years. But, asks Spencer, just how do they know that warming causes less clouds rather than less clouds (perhaps caused by a change in ocean circulations) causes warming? The answer – they don’t. And this mix-up can cause “The Illusion of Positive Feedback” (aka a “sensitive” climate system).

Spencer analyzed this in a 2008 IPCC-model-expert reviewed paper he coauthored titled Potential Biases in Feedback Diagnosis from Observational Data: A Simple Model Demonstration [PDF]. Any guesses why Spencer’s press release on the paper generated not one inquiry?

6

http://www.drroyspencer.com/Spencer-and-Braswell-08.pdf�

Here’s Spenser’s: The “mix-up” means that AGW is a false alarm (0.6°C by 2100 instead of 3.0°C). But then what has caused the warming in the past 100 years? Perhaps the climate can warm all by itself. All you need is to alter cloudiness by 1% (an amount technology can only recently determine) for an extended period of time and you’ve got global warming or global cooling. In other words: The system forces itself. In fact, Spencer believes that a full 75-80% of warming could be due to cloudiness changes due to PDO.

To drill the point home, Spencer repeated loudly: Without positive feedback, manmade global warming becomes a non-issue.

John Theon, who 12 weeks prior had this to say about James Hansen, “I think the man is sincere, but he is suffering from a bad case of megalomania,” reminded us that his former employee’s alarming 1988 Senate testimony was “an embarrassment to NASA” as it did not reflect the agency’s policy. It did, however, prompt the now famous NY Times headline Global Warming Has Begun, Expert Tells Senate. The former NASA supervisor also challenged the “unprecedented warming” lie by reminding us why now-frozen Greenland was so named (it was quite warm there during the MWP).

He then disputed the credibility of the “peer review” process and used Mann’s Hockey Stick (MBH98) debacle as the perfect example. Theon subscribes to the warming oceans expel CO2 and cause atmospheric elevation theory (the reverse of the alarmist claim that CO2 drives the warming) and submitted a compelling example: Open a cold can of soda and watch it get flat as it approaches room temperature.

Craig Idso took on the alarmist issue of reef destruction from carbon-driven ocean acidification, explaining that rising CO2 and water temperatures have not been anywhere near as catastrophic to corals as models predicted – the sea-life simply adapts. In fact, the growth rate of modern corals is 31-34% greater than that of ancient specimens. And policymakers should be paying much more attention to real world observations than to theoretical projections.

Idso’s conclusion summed it up well: Rising CO2 levels are not the bane of the biosphere, but actually the boon.

Bad Data, Bad Reporting, and False versus Real Dilemmas

Anthony Watts, editor of the fabulous WUWT, reported the latest data in his ongoing evaluation of highly-critical upstream temperature data collection – and the results are nothing less than startling. His team found more than half of the 1,221 stations audited to be inaccurate by at least 2°C. These discrepancies were attributed to various data corrupting violations, including stations located on dark albedo gravel or directly in proximity to hot AC exhaust (both of which bias readings to the upside).

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) rules dictate stations be at least 100 feet away from heat sources and radiative surfaces and the number of stations disregarding this metric (90%) is breathtaking. Watts also discussed how “smoothing” adjustments are used by both the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) and NOAA to “homogenize” station data to that of surrounding stations. This actually makes temperature increase appear even steeper. In fact, Watts displayed a graph depicting NOAA’s adjustments to raw temperature data between 1940 and 1999 to be 0.5°F to the positive. That accounts for almost one half of the 1.2°F warming over the last century – think about that.

And this -- Cato’s Patrick Michaels explained the Climate of Extremes being used to promote AGW, and with it -- Waxman-Markey, by offering the false dilemma of either “There’s no such thing as Global Warming” or “We’re all going to die.” Such extremes even exist among alarmists, with Al Gore warning of a 1 meter SLR in 10 years while the IPCC puts the rise at 1.26 inches. He disproved overstatement examples of drought extent, California fire causes and other climate “catastrophes” that are reported without fact-checking. And he deftly debunked the “Robins in the Arctic” myth that there is no Eskimo word for Robin, as, before global warming-caused bird migration, Eskimos had never seen one. The MSM and many politicians (including John McCain) have floated that fallacy as a sign

7

http://www.nytimes.com/1988/06/24/us/global-warming-has-begun-expert-tells-senate.html�http://www.nytimes.com/1988/06/24/us/global-warming-has-begun-expert-tells-senate.html�http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/15557/Nature_Admits_Widely_Cited_Global_Warming_Graph_Was_Erroneous.html�http://wattsupwiththat.com/�

of unprecedented warming. Guess what? Michaels found plenty of Eskimo language references to the birds in literary quotes dating back to 1913.

Bob Carter warned that the real climate change problem is that of natural weather and climate events, and that these shift by locale. Nobody lives in a world climate. For instance, while New Zealand and San Francisco run high risks of earthquakes and volcanic eruption, other regions face a greater chance of suffering the effects of wildfires and hurricanes.

Plan A – The IPCC plan – will obviously not stop climate change. Even if we could force CO2 abatement through heavy taxation, the current logarithmic decreasing curve of CO2’s warming effect proves it would be meaningless. Even if we doubled and redoubled, that warming is not going to be dangerous.

Our Plan B must therefore be preparation for and adaptation to real natural climate change. Thusly, hypothetical human-caused climate change, should it occur, is automatically accommodated. Will 2020 be more like the LIA or the MWP?

The truth is – affirms Carter -- no one really knows.

Cap and Trade is Cap and Tax

Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis), who insists that C&T be called what it really is – cap-and-tax, believes this administration is bent on signing a treaty in Copenhagen in December and he fears they’ll do so simply for the sake of signing a treaty rather than insisting that the treaty be a good one – which means of world wide application and not significantly hurting the American economy. But their messages are mixed. On May 27th Secretary of Energy Steven Chu said we may accept targets for reducing our greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in an international treaty even if China doesn’t. Yet just a month earlier, Special Envoy for Climate Change Todd Stern testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to the imperative that any agreement include significant commitments from all nations. Asks the congressman -- What is American Policy on the issue?

For the record, Sensenbrenner doesn’t oppose carbon mitigation. He does, however, strongly oppose cap-and-tax, and believes emissions should be reduced through technology (which the notorious intellectual-property thieves in China expect us to share). And as the lone Republican to accompany Pelosi’s delegation to China a few days before, what he heard from all China interlocutors, from top on down, is that the Chinese will never go along with an international treaty that mandates the reduction of GHG, but will instead reduce GHG their own way. They demand that the developed world contribute 1% of GDP (that’s 140B from US) to a U.N controlled fund to help with their GHG reduction.

So then -- We’d borrow $140B a year from the Chinese to give the Chinese $140B a year. Readers can imagine the laughter this one induced.

Furthermore, the economic impact of C&T would be devastating. In his state (which relies on coal-fired plant for 67% of its power), he predicts a 170% increase in electric rates, 130% in natural gas rates and between 8 and 10 dollars gas at the pump. That’s not a typo.

The congressman warned that there’s no way American industry can compete against India and China if energy costs are raised so high. He refers to the idea as “economic unilateral disarmament.” And he further warns that the very same people who push the bill the most (Pelosi, Markey, Waxman, Kerry, etc) will be the ones who bring utility executives before Congress to berate them for raising rates to pay for the carbon offset credits. And they will also be the first to complain when manufacturing jobs disappear completely when whatever we have left goes to China and India.

He calls it a “Cynical political game” which will have “devastating economic consequences.” He emphasized that “we need to inform the people this is not a free lunch but a very expensive one so that we can beat this in the Congress.”

When Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) took the podium, he opened with one of the event’s funniest lines: “I know a little bit about science. I know there are protons, electrons, neutrons – and morons.”

8

His presentation was rich with personal anecdotes, including of an in-your-face encounter with Jacques-Yves Cousteau and a group of students. Overhearing the pupils being lectured that “within 10 years the oceans will be dead black goo,” the congressman decided to challenge the French oceanographer’s prediction. Rohrabacher’s reenactment of Cousteau’s arrogant “because I say so” reply marvelously lampooned the “Case closed, no more questions” attitude of the Gore and his fellow alarmists.

But on a more serious note, Rohrabacher posed a few questions he feels must be answered before taxes are raised and lives are controlled. For instance, why do AGW charts tend to use an 1850’s baseline? Could it be because that’s when the LIA ended? And what’s the big deal about a few degrees temperature rise from such historic lows? Good question, indeed.

Senator James Inhofe (R-Ok) all but assured us that Waxman-Markey would never pass the Senate. Sure, Pelosi will pass anything, so it’s likely to get through the House. And Reid has promised to bypass the Senate committee process and take the bill straight to floor. But it won’t pass the Senate, where the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, the 2003 Lieberman-McCain, the 2005 McCain-Lieberman and the 2007 Lieberman-Warner were all defeated. They simply will not pass a bill that doesn’t include developing nations.

Let’s hope that the congressman from Wisconsin and the Senator from Oklahoma are both correct in their assessments.

Economist David Tuerck, who believes that cap-and-trade can be done right, delivered a more detailed, albeit rushed, analysis of why Waxman-Markey is C&T done wrong. Borrowing from a similar term used to describe bad science he referred to the bill as “junk economics.”

And so, apparently, was Spain’s approach.

You may recall that in January of this year, Obama held out the energy policies of Spain as a shining example of how successful a “government-aided” cap-and-trade plan could be. On Tuesday, Dr.

Gabriel Calzada shredded that model. The Spanish economist revealed the devastating 18 percent “green unemployment” such policies have created. And the “green bubble” inflated by a perpetuating yet unsustainable cycle of government subsidies for “green jobs,” ($771,000 for each – also not a typo) which in reality result in a net loss of two traditional jobs for every green one created. Not to mention the fact that the majority of these “green” jobs are temporary in nature, further decimating the Spanish workforce as they sunset. And while the government continues to pump more money into inadequate power sources, energy prices skyrocket, driving industry to cheaper ground, and the job market to even lower levels.

The Marshall Institute’s Jeff Kueter called Waxman-Markey a path to energy rationing, and ultimately rationing of food and even regulation of food choices. And the doctor wisely reminded us that: “We’ve walked this road before – it doesn’t end well.”

And Finally -- Lord Christopher Monckton

Once again, Heartland recruited the Mariano Rivera of conference closers to deliver the final pitch. And once again, Monckton charmed the crowd right out of the bullpen, this time with a hysterical Pelosi quote:

“How lucky the United States is to have reserves of natural gas, because otherwise we’d have to depend on fossil fuels.”

Now, it appears that Joe Bast asked his Lordship to refrain from calling the alarmists “Bed-wetters,” so he instead referred to them as “people who have difficulty containing certain very personal bodily functions when they are [horizontally inclined].” Anyway -- The day before yesterday, those people called it “global warming.” Yesterday they called it “climate change.” Today they call it “energy security” and tomorrow – thanks to those in this room -- they will call it what it is – absolute rubbish.

He displayed and intellectually destroyed the now alarmist staple graph of 19th and 20th century global mean temperatures which has appeared everywhere from AR4 to Al Gore’s film to the recent EPA

9

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/players/5400�

CO2 pollution ruling. Monckton calls the statistical technique behind its steep rise in the past 50 years – particularly relating to the selection of endpoints for drawing linear-regression trends -- entirely bogus and states that no respectable scientist or authority would ever have used it. Of course, IPCC has a record of employing flim-flam visuals – as the famous “Hockey Stick” graph which dishonestly obliterated both the LIA and the MWP in an effort to label modern warming “unprecedented” attests.

He then took on Kofi Annan’s recent grotesque claim of 300,000 deaths per year caused by GW.

“How dare the UN ignore the unprecedented food riots in a dozen regions over the past 18 months, riots directly caused by widespread starvation, directly caused by the doubling of world food prices, directly caused by the millions of acres of agricultural land that no longer grow food for starving people that need it, but instead grow biofuels for automobiles that don’t, directly caused by a global scam, directly caused by the UN’s lunatic policy of bad science, false alarm, and pre-emptive cringe?”

There is a clear cooling trend in the data, yet GW is killing 300,000 people a year? And the MSM unquestionably reported this as fact.

Monckton then had fun with Steven Chu’s absurd suggestion that painting rooftops and roads white would have the same effect on global warming as taking all the cars in the world off the world's roads for 11 years, and, again, the MSM’s uncritical reporting of it. First scientifically – 75% of Earth’s surface is covered in water or ice, leaving 25%. Of which maybe 2% has roofs or roads on it. At most then we can paint 0.5% of the Earth’s surface. But most of the buildings and roads are not in the tropics where most of the sunlight arrives and needs reflecting back. Added to other pitfalls he delineates, Monckton estimates the paintfest will forestall a whopping 0.1% of GW. Of course the media was nonetheless eager to report the plan without attempting to verify its efficacy.

Then there’s the fiscal problem. Calculating the amount of paint required to be 168 Trillion sq. meters of paint divided by 10 sq.

meters per liter to give you 17 Trillion liters of paint, which even if you go to Wallmart and get it at a dollar a liter, you’re spending $17 Trillion Dollars to save 0.2 to 0.02 F° of GW by 2100. And that is a Bargain compared to the Markey-Waxman Bill.

And here’s why. To prevent just 2.0°F of warming, we must forgo 2 to 20 trillion tons of CO2 emissions. The annual Waxman-Markey cuts are 5 of the 6 billion tons being emitted, so the cooling per year that will be achieved will have saved 0.0005-0.005 F° per year. At that rate it would take between 1600 and 16000 years to prevent the 8°F predicted by the UN till 2100. At the $180 Billion a year the administration has leaked -- the cost of this modest proposal will be 300 to 3000 Trillion Dollars. “And it won’t start to work till we’re well into the next Ice Age anyway. If then.”

He then questioned how the warming a given increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration would cause is derived. And why it wasn’t mentioned in either of the past two IPCC reports. And made a rather technical yet easy to follow argument why the IPCC’s central estimate of climate sensitivity (3.3°C) is exaggerated by nearly an order of magnitude. And warned that:

“Whether or not any binding but pointless targets for curbing CO2 emissions are decided upon at Copenhagen, one policy they will all agree upon. The UN’s climate panel will be given new powers – at first, mere powers of monitoring, but increasingly powers of intervention and eventually of legislation.

As Maurice Strong, Jacques Chirac and their ilk had always intended, the IPCC will emerge after Copenhagen as the prototype and nucleus of a world government. We have already seen this in the EU. We have learned the hard way that supranational government is never democratic government. Nor is it honest. Nor is it cheap.

Yet the highly-placed conspirators who seek to ride the climate scare to world domination have reckoned without one thing. You. You are here, and you will not let the truth go. Thanks to you, it is becoming evident that the rent-seeking promoters of this great boondoggle,

10

http://www.heartland.org/events/WashingtonDC09/PDFs/monckton.pdf�http://www.heartland.org/events/WashingtonDC09/PDFs/monckton.pdf�

through the very scientific ignorance that they had sought to exploit in others, have merely deluded themselves.

In the end, it will be here, in the United States, that the truth will first emerge in all its glory. Not in Europe, for we are no longer free. Not in Russia or China, for they have never been free. Not in the Middle East, for while militant Islam endures it can never become free.”

And then this brilliant citizen of Great Britain placed more faith in the American spirit than do most American Liberals:

“It is the people of the United States who will surely lead and inspire the world once more in this dark hour that might have become a new dark age. You must not and you will not fail.”

Parting Thoughts

Many thanks to the folks at Heartland for boldly and adroitly bearing the torch once again. I, for one, exited Tuesday’s proceedings more confident in the failure of both the American and Copenhagen boondoggles than when I arrived.

Inhofe believes Obama needs to carry some type of victory with him to the December summit, and that it won’t be an American C&T bill. The Senator also assured us that the EPA threat isn’t going work, as Obama won’t want his fingerprints on such regulation should the projected economic devastation materialize, and that the Senate can

“easily stall it until we get a different president.” Let’s hope he’s right: The failure of Waxman-Markey would leave the American delegation with nothing more than the “promise of US regulation” with which to pressure China and India. Good luck with that, guys.

Therefore, the defeat of HR 2454 is key. For all of the reasons expressed by Tuesday’s brilliant speakers -- plus this one: While Waxman-Markey would attempt to cut US carbon emissions by 17 percent from 2005 levels by 2020, the EU is seeking to lower them to 20 percent below 1990 levels by that year. And according to an MIT study, Waxman-Markey “could cost the average household more than $3,900 per year.” Imagine the potential “negative feedback” effects an international accord might have on Waxman-Markey’s already destructive emission goals.

At ICCC II, Monckton asserted that “There is no climate crisis. There was no climate crisis. There will be no climate crisis” and that therefore “the correct policy response to the non-problem of climate change is to have the courage to do nothing.” His declaration twelve weeks to the day later that we “must not fail” accurately underscores the urgency of exacting such courage from our policymakers.

Reality must prevail. This bill must die.

11

http://www.heartland.org/events/WashingtonDC09/proceedings.html�http://blog.heritage.org/2009/04/22/earth-day-update-cap-and-trades-3900-per-family-per-year-price-tag/�http://blog.heritage.org/2009/04/22/earth-day-update-cap-and-trades-3900-per-family-per-year-price-tag/�

CO2 concentration is rising, but still well below IPCC predictions

CO2 is rising in a straight line, well below the IPCC’s projected range (pale blue region). The deseasonalized real-world data are shown as a thick, dark-blue line overlaid on the least-squares linear-regression trend. There is no sign of the exponential growth predicted by the IPCC. Data source: NOAA.

12

IPCC predicts rapid, exponential CO2 growth that is not occurring

Observed CO2 growth is linear, and is also well below the exponential-growth curves (bounding the pale blue region) predicted by the IPCC in its 2007 report. If CO2 continues on its present path, the IPCC’s central temperature projection for the year 2100 must be halved. Data source: NOAA.

13

The 29-year global warming trend is just 2.5 °F (1.5 °C) per century

Global temperature for the past 29 full years has been undershooting the IPCC’s currently-predicted warming rates (pink region). The warming trend (thick red line) has been rising at well below half of the IPCC’s central estimate. Data source: SPPI index, compiled from HadCRUt3, NCDC, RSS, and UAH.

14

Seven and a half years’ global cooling at 3.4 F° (1.9 C°) / century

For seven and a half years, global temperatures have been falling rapidly. The IPCC’s predicted warming path (pink region) bears no relation to the global cooling that has been observed in the 21st century to date. Source: SPPI global temperature index.

15

Sea level: Gore’s “Armageddon scenario” is not occurring

Sea level is scarcely rising: The average rise in sea level over the past 10,000 years was 4 feet/century. During the 20th century it was 8 inches. In the past three and a half years, sea level has scarcely risen at all. As recently as 2001, the IPCC had predicted that sea level might rise as much as 3 ft in the 21st century. However, this maximum was cut by more than one-third to less than 2 feet in the IPCC’s 2007 report. Moerner (2004) says sea level will rise about 8 inches in the 21st century. Mr. Justice Burton, in the UK High Court, bluntly commented on Al Gore’s predicted 20ft sea-level rise as follows: “The Armageddon scenario that he depicts is not based on any scientific view.” A fortiori, James Hansen’s prediction of a 246ft sea-level rise is mere rodomontade. Source: University of Colorado.

16

Arctic sea-ice extent has shrunk to within the 10-year normal range

Arctic sea ice (millions of square kilometers: left scale): The red curve shows that the extent of sea ice in the Arctic has recently declined and is now within the range that has been normal over the past decade. In 2005, 2007, and 2008, sea-ice extent during the September low season was below the 30-year minimum. However, the presence of more multi-year ice this year may prevent sea ice from declining as far this year. Summer sea ice covered its least extent in 30 years during the late summer of 2007. However, NASA has attributed that sudden decline to unusual poleward movements of heat transported by currents and winds. The decline cannot have been caused by “global warming”, because, as the SPPI Global Temperature Index shows, there has been a rapid cooling globally during the past seven and a half years. At almost the same moment as summer sea-ice extent reached its 30-year minimum in the Arctic, sea-ice extent in the Antarctic reached its 30-year maximum, though the latter event was very much less widely reported in the media than the former. Source: IARC JAXA, Japan.

17

Antarctic sea-ice extent has been rising gently for 30 years

Antarctic sea-ice extent (millions of square kilometers: left scale)shows a gentle but definite uptrend over the past 30 years. The peak extent, which occurred late in 2007, followed shortly after the sharp decline in Arctic sea ice in the late summer of that year. Source: University of Illinois, May 2009.

18

The regular “heartbeat” of global sea-ice extent: steady for 30 years

Planetary cardiogram showing global sea-ice area (millions of square kilometers): There has been a very slight decline in the trend (red) of global sea-ice extent over the decades, chiefly attributable to loss of sea ice in the Arctic during the summer, which was well below the mean in 2007, with some recovery in 2008. However, the 2008 peak sea-ice extent was exactly on the 1979-2000 mean, and current sea-ice extent is a fraction below the 1979-2000 mean. The decline in summer sea-ice extent in the Arctic, reflected in the global sea-ice anomalies over most of the past eight years, runs counter to the pronounced global atmospheric cooling trend over the same period, suggesting that the cause of the regional sea-ice loss cannot have been “global warming”. Seabed volcanic activity recently reported in the Greenland/Iceland gap, with seabed temperatures of up to 574 °F, may have contributed to the loss of Arctic sea-ice. Source: University of Illinois, May 2009.

19

Hurricane, typhoon, & tropical cyclone activity are at a record low

Hurricanes, typhoons, and other tropical cyclones have declined recently. Global activity of intense tropical storms is measured using a two-year running sum, known as the Accumulated Cyclone Energy Index, now standing at its least value in 30 years in the Northern Hemisphere, and almost at its 30-year low globally. The graph shows the 24-month running sum of tropical-cyclone accumulated cyclone energy for the entire globe (top) and the Northern Hemisphere only (green). The difference between the two time series is the Southern Hemisphere total. Data are shown from June 1979 to May 2009. Intensity estimates of southern-hemisphere cyclones are often missing before the start-date of the graph. Source: Ryan Maue, May 2009.

20

No need for a Cow-Fart Tax: methane concentration has stabilized

The atmospheric concentration of methane (parts per billion: left scale) has scarcely risen for ten years. This fact, which has been carefully kept out of most of the mainstream media and is available only in the SPPI Monthly CO2 Report, suggests that there is no need for the proposed “cow-fart tax”, a poll-tax on cattle to discourage beef and milk production in the name of Saving The Planet. Source: Ole Humlum, May 2009.

21

Signs of sunspot activity at last: will this end the global cooling?

Upper panel: Sunspot numbers (red), 15 March to 8 June 2009. Sunspot activity had been less than for 100 years, but is recovering. Lower panel: Number of days without any visible sunspots during the previous solar minimum (blue) and the present solar minimum (red). During the last ~11-year solar minimum, in September/October 2006, the longest period without sunspots was 37 days, compared with 44 days in March/April 2009. Source: Jan Alvestad, April 2009.

22

The Waxman/Markey Climate Bill will scarcely affect temperatures

T emper atur e change pr edicted by the UN, and (dotted line) adjusted to reflect the negligible impact of the Waxman/Markey Climate Bill, which might cut temperatures by 0.2-0.02 F by 2100, at a cost of $18 trillion. Source: Chip Knappenberger: cost estimates $180 bn/year from the White House.

23

The Waxman/Markey Climate Bill will scarcely affect sea level

Sea-level change pr edicted by the UN, and (dotted line) adjusted to reflect the negligible impact of the Waxman/Markey Climate Bill, which might cut sea-level by less than half an in by 2100, at a cost of $18 trillion. Source: Chip Knappenberger: cost estimates $180 bn/year from the White House.

24

I s painting the wor ld white cool? Perhaps the silliest of the growing number of remarkably stupid and still more remarkably expensive official proposals to Save The Planet from non-existent “global warming” is the suggestion by Stephen Chu, the US Energy Secretary, that the world should paint its roads and rooftops white to reflect the Sun’s rays straight back into space. Though this particular suggestion is not as bizarre as unfurling giant parasols in space, or moving the Earth’s orbit a little further from the Sun, it has been put forward – with apparent seriousness – by no less a personage than a member of President Obama’s Cabinet. Let the numbers speak for themselves.

Paint the world white: the numbers Area of the Earth’s surface 510 million km2

Paint 0.5% of that 2550 billion m2 Times 2 coats/year 5100 billion m2

Paint it 3-yearly for 100 years 168 trillion m2 At 10 m2 cover per liter of paint 17 trillion liters

At $1 per liter (bargain price) $17 trillion Labour: 10 m2/hour @ $10/hour $170 trillion

“Global warming” prevented 0.2 Fahrenheit (maybe) “Global warming” predicted 7 Fahrenheit (no way)

“Global warming” happening None since 1995

SPPI Monthly CO2 Report: Science Focus Spotlight on the changing science behind the changing climate

25

Your ‘global-warming’ ready reckoner Here is a step-by-step, do-it-yourself ready-reckoner which will let you use a pocket calculator to make your own instant estimate of global temperature change in response to increases in atmospheric CO2 concentration.

STEP 1: Decide how far into the future you want your forecast to go, and estimate how much CO2 will be in the atmosphere at that date. Example: Let us do a forecast to 2100. The Monthly CO2 Report charts show CO2 rising to C = 575 parts per million by the end of the century, compared with B = 385 parts per million in late 2008.

STEP 2: Next, work out the proportionate increase C/B in CO2 concentration. In our example, C/B = 575/385 = 1.49.

STEP 3: Take the natural logarithm ln(C/B) of the proportionate increase. If you have a scientific calculator, find the natural logarithm directly using the “ln” button. If not, look up the logarithm in the table below. In our example, ln 1.49 = 0.40.

n 1.05 1.10 1.15 1.20 1.25 1.30 1.35 1.40 1.45 1.50 1.55 1.60 1.65 1.70 1.75 1.80 1.85 1.90 1.95 2.00 ln 0.05 0.10 0.14 0.18 0.22 0.26 0.30 0.34 0.37 0.41 0.44 0.47 0.50 0.53 0.56 0.59 0.62 0.64 0.67 0.69 n 2.05 2.10 2.15 2.20 2.25 2.30 2.35 2.40 2.45 2.50 2.55 2.60 2.65 2.70 2.75 2.80 2.85 2.90 2.95 3.00 ln 0.72 0.74 0.77 0.79 0.81 0.83 0.85 0.88 0.90 0.92 0/94 0.96 0.97 0.99 1.01 1.03 1.05 1.06 1.08 1.10

STEP 4: Choose a climate sensitivity coefficient c from the table below –

Coefficient c ... SPPI minimum SPPI central SPPI maximum IPCC minimum IPCC central IPCC maximum ... for C° 0.7 1.4 2.1 2.9 4.7 6.5 ... for F° 1.25 2.50 3.75 5.25 8.5 11.75

STEP 5: Find the temperature change ΔT by multiplying the natural logarithm of the proportionate increase in CO2 concentration by your climate sensitivity coefficient. In our example, we’ll chose the IPCC central estimate c = 3.75 F. Then –

ΔT = c ln(C/B) = 3.75 x 0.40 = 1.5 F°, your predicted manmade warming to 2100. It’s as simple as that!

26

The Monthly CO2 Report summarizes key recent scientific papers, selected from those featured weekly at www.co2science.org, that significantly add to our understanding of the climate question. This month we review papers about Western North Pacific tropical cyclones, Lake Erie water level, China-influencing typhoons, and the corn-ethanol con. Our final paper gives evidence that the Middle Ages were warmer than today.

Thirty-Second Summary 709 scientists from 412 institutions in 41 countries on the co2science.org Medieval Warm Period database say the Middle Ages

were warmer than today. Tropical cyclone frequency has been declining for the past four decades in the western North pacific. Instead of declining water levels in Lake Erie as projected by models, real world data reveal a century-long increase. Typhoons that affect China have been declining at a rate of 0.9 typhoon per decade since 1951. Soil carbon sequestered on former agricultural land now in the U.S. Conservation Reserve Program was greater than the carbon

credits generated by planting corn for ethanol on the same land for 40 years and had equal or greater economic net present value.

Western North Pacific Tropical Cyclones Lu, Q-z., Hu, B-h., Wang, J. and Zhang, Y. 2008. Impact of large-scale circulation on the interdecadal variations of the western North Pacific tropical cyclone.

Journal of Tropical Meteorology 14: 1006-8775(2008) 01-0081-04.

Using the latest tropical cyclone (TC) data -- "those in the yearbooks of TC of the western North Pacific from 1960 to 2005" -- Lu et al. analyzed the interdecadal variation of western North Pacific (WNP) TCs and the large-scale circulation factors affecting them. The accompanying figure illustrates the temporal variation of WNP TC frequency derived by the four scientists, who note that "the time period from 1960 to 2005 has two high frequency periods (HFP) and two low frequency periods (LFP)." They further note, in this regard, that "in HFP, the conditions include higher sea surface temperature, lower sea level pressure, larger divergence of upper air, larger relative vorticity of low level and smaller vertical shear," while "it is otherwise true with the LFP." Although relatively higher sea surface temperatures lead to relatively more WNP TCs in terms of the periodicity evident in the authors' data, it is clear that the longer-term global warming experienced by the earth has been accompanied by a longer-term decline in WNP tropical cyclone frequency.

SPPI Monthly CO2 Report: New Science BREAKING NEWS IN THE JOURNALS, FROM www.co2science.org

27

http://www.co2science.org/�

A 265-Year Reconstruction of Lake Erie Water Level

Wiles, G.C., Krawiec, A.C. and D'Arrigo, R.D. 2009. A 265-year reconstruction of Lake Erie water levels based on North Pacific tree rings. Geophysical Research Letters 36: 10.1029/2009GL037164.

Climate alarmists have long "worried" that "increased evaporation under a possible greenhouse-enhanced climate, coupled with even more consumptive use of the Great Lakes waters, could lead to lower lake levels in the near future," as noted by Larson and Schaetzl (2001), while Changnon (2004) has stated that "recent shifts in lake levels [have] led to a major disaster-oriented assessment of the 'record' declines in recent years," stating that certain people have "attributed these to climate change from global warming." In this regard, he makes particular mention of the National Geographic Society, which in 2002 ran an article entitled "Down the Drain? The Incredible Shrinking Great Lakes" in their flagship publication National Geographic.

In the present study, Wiles et al. compared eighteen temperature sensitive ring-width series of trees from the Gulf of Alaska region with monthly Lake Erie water levels over a common period of 87 years, deriving a good relationship between the ring-width series and mean annual lake levels, after which the four ring-width series found to be most highly correlated with the Lake Erie water levels were used to extend the total length of the lake level history to 265 years." Results indicate that "reconstructed extremes have approached but not exceeded the late 20th century high levels." And in the concluding sentence of the abstract of their paper, they reiterate that "the highest lake levels in the reconstruction are found over the past few decades." As for what might be causing the observed high lake levels, Wiles et al. remark that "the recent higher stands in the 1970s-1990s, and perhaps the steady rise in lake levels over the past 100 years, may be linked to a rise in Gulf of Mexico-derived precipitation that has generally outpaced increased evaporation," and they report that "similar increases in precipitation and humidity have been noted for Lake Michigan (Sellinger et al., 2008) and relative humidity in the general lower Great Lakes regions (LaValle et al., 2000)." Thus, instead of record declines in Great Lakes' water level as projected by the models, real world data reveal just the opposite is happening.

28

China-Influencing Typhoons

Wang, Y-m., Li, W-j., Ren, F-m. and Want, X-l. 2008. Study on climatic characteristics of China-influencing typhoons and the interrelations between them and their environmental factors. Journal of Tropical Meteorology 14: 1006-8775(2008) 01-0024-04.

Wang et al. analyzed China-influencing typhoons over the period 1951-2004. The frequency of typhoons that affect China "has been declining since 1951 at a rate of 0.9 typhoon per decade, which passes the test of 0.05 significance level," emphasizing that "the past 10 years is the time that sees the least frequency." They also state that "super-typhoons have the largest drop in the frequency, showing a tendency of decreasing 0.7 typhoon per decade, which passes the test of 0.001 significance level." Thus, as the earth has warmed over the past half-century or so, China-influencing typhoons have become less frequent, especially in the case of the most intense super-typhoons.

The Corn Ethanol Con

Pineiro, G., Jobbagy, E.G., Baker, J., Murray, B.C. and Jackson, R.B. 2009. Set-asides can be better climate investment than corn ethanol. Ecological Applications 19: 277-282.

The authors evaluated "the effectiveness and economic value of corn- and cellulosic ethanol production for reducing net GHG [greenhouse gas] emissions when produced on lands that were previously under crop production, previously set aside, or remained as native vegetation, comparing them with carbon sequestration rates achieved by conservation programs," such as the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), through which the U.S. federal government establishes 10-15 year contracts with farmers and pays them to keep land out of production. Results indicated that "carbon releases from the soil after planting corn for ethanol may in some cases completely offset carbon gains attributed to biofuel generation for at least 50 years." In addition, they found that "soil carbon sequestered by setting aside former agricultural land was greater than the carbon credits generated by planting corn for ethanol on the same land for 40 years and had equal or greater economic net present value." And if forests are cleared for corn ethanol production, the outcome is determined to be even worse. Thus, in considering current ethanol incentives and typical CRP contracts, Pineiro et al. state that "extending current CRP contracts or enrolling new CRP lands appear to be cheaper strategies for sequestering GHG than converting such lands to corn ethanol for at least a century."

The Middle Ages were warmer than today: Or co R iver V alley, Nor thwester n I talian A lps, I taly

Giraudi, C. 2009. Late Holocene glacial and periglacial evolution in the upper Orco Valley, northwestern Italian Alps. Quaternary Research 71: 1-8.

Giraudi (2009) examined long-term relations among glacial activity, periglacial activity, and soil development in northwestern Italy's alpine River Orco headwaters (~45.5°N, 7.3°E). This work revealed that between about 200 BC and AD 100 -- i.e., during the Roman Warm Period -- "soils developed in areas at present devoid of vegetation and with permafrost," indicative of the likelihood that temperatures at that time "probably reached higher values than those of the present." He also concluded that "analogous conditions likely occurred during the period of [the] 11th-12th centuries AD, when a soil developed on a slope presently characterized by periglacial debris," while noting that "in the 11th-12th centuries AD, frost weathering processes were not active and, due to the higher temperatures than at present or the longer duration of a period with high temperatures, vegetation succeeded in colonizing the slope."

29

Heartland Conference brings climate reality to Washington DC