New Independent Paper Supports Slayer Climate Rationalism

Executive summary can be found here and the paper can be found here.

Research Report Executive Summary

Background

On December 15, 2009, EPA issued its Green House Gas (GHG) Endangerment Finding, which has driven very significant and costly regulations beginning with CO2. Focusing primarily on the time period since 1950, EPA’s Endangerment Finding predicated on Three Lines of Evidence, claims that Higher CO2 Emissions have led to dangerously Higher Global Average Surface Temperatures.

Relevance of this Research

The assumption of the existence of a “Tropical Hot Spot (THS){ is critical to all Three Lines of Evidence in EPA’s GHG/CO2 Endangerment Finding.

Stated simply, first, the THS is claimed to be a fingerprint or signature of atmospheric and Global Average Surface Temperatures (GAST) warming caused by increasing GHG/CO2 concentrations[1]. The proper test for the existence of the THS in the real world is very simple. Are the slopes of the three temperature trend lines (upper & lower troposphere and surface) all positive, statistically significant and do they have the proper top down rank order?

Second, higher atmospheric CO2 and other GHGs concentrations are claimed to have been the primary cause of the claimed record setting GAST over the past 50 plus years.

Third, the THS assumption is imbedded in all of the climate models that EPA still relies upon in its policy analysis supporting, for example, its Clean Power Plan – recently put on hold by a Supreme Court Stay. These climate models are also critical to EPA’s Social Cost of Carbon estimates used to justify a multitude of regulations across many U.S. Government agencies.

Objectives of the Research

The objective of this research was to determine whether or not a straightforward application of the proper mathematical methods would support EPA’s basic claim that CO2 is a pollutant. Stated simply, their claim is that GAST is primarily a function of four explanatory variables: Atmospheric CO2 Levels, Solar Activity, Volcanic Activity, and a coupled ocean-atmosphere phenomenon called the El Nino-Southern Oscillation (ENSO.)

The first objective of this research was to determine, based on the very considerable relevant and credible tropical temperature data evidence, whether or not the assumed THS actually exists in the real world.

The second related objective was to determine whether, adjusting ONLY for ENSO impacts, anything at all unusual with the Earth’s temperatures seemed to be occurring in the Tropics, Contiguous U.S. or Globally. It is a well-known meteorological fact that, other things equal, El Ninos lead to a global scale warming and La Ninas a global scale cooling, whose magnitudes are related to their ENSO strengths.

The third objective was to determine whether the rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations alone can be shown to have had a statistically significant impact on the trend slopes of often -publically -quoted temperature data.

It should be noted that in carrying out this research project, every effort was made to minimize complaints that this analysis was performed on so-called “cherry picked temperature data”. To avoid even the appearance of such activity, the authors divided up responsibilities, where Dr. Christy was tasked to provide temperature data sets that he felt were most appropriate and credible for testing the THS as well as the two other EPA Endangerment Finding hypotheses. All told, thirteen temperature time series (9 Tropics, 1 Contiguous U.S. and 3 Global) were analyzed in this research. The econometric analysis was done by Jim Wallace & Associates, LLC, and when completed, cross checked by the two other authors as well as seven reviewers.

Findings of the Research

These analysis results would appear to leave very, very little doubt but that EPA’s claim of a Tropical Hot Spot (THS), caused by rising atmospheric CO2 levels, simply does not exist in the real world. Also critically important, even on an all-other-things-equal basis, this analysis failed to find that the steadily rising Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations have had a statistically significant impact on any of the 13 critically important temperature time series data analyzed.

Thus, the analysis results invalidate each of the Three Lines of Evidence in its CO2 Endangerment Finding. Once EPA’s THS assumption is invalidated, it is obvious why the climate models they claim can be relied upon, are also invalid. And, these results clearly demonstrate – 13 times in fact – that once just the ENSO impacts on temperature data are accounted for, there is no “record setting” warming to be concerned about. In fact, there is no ENSO-Adjusted Warming at all. These natural ENSO impacts are shown in this research to involve both changes in solar activity and the well-known 1977 Pacific Climate Shift.

Moreover, on an all-other-things-equal basis, the research strongly implies that there is no statistically valid proof that past increases in Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations have caused the officially reported rising, even claimed record setting temperatures.

Finally, regarding the credibility of these research findings, the temperature data measurements that were analyzed were taken by many different entities using balloons, satellites, buoys and various land based techniques. Needless to say, if regardless of data source, the results are the same, the analysis findings should be considered highly credible.

Study Authors & Reviewers

Authors

Dr. James P. Wallace III
Jim Wallace & Associates, LLC
50 Years Mathematical Modelling Team Management
Ph.D., Economics, Minor in Engineering, Brown University
M.S., Mechanical Engineering, Brown University
B.S., Aeronautical Engineering, Brown University

Dr. John R. Christy
Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science, Alabama State Climatologist and Director of the Earth Science System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville.
Lead Author, Contributing Author and Reviewer of United Nations IPCC assessments.
Awarded NASA’s Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement.
Elected a Fellow of the American Meteorological Society in 2002

Joseph S. D’Aleo
Certified Consulting Meteorologist
Elected AMS Fellow
BS, MS Meteorology University of Wisconsin
ABD NYU Air Resources, Honorary Doctorate VSC
45 years operational and research meteorology

———

Reviewers

Dr. Harold H. Doiron
Retired VP-Engineering Analysis and Test Division, InDyne, Inc.
Ex-NASA JSC, Aerospace Consultant
B.S. Physics, University of Louisiana, Lafayette
M.S., Ph.D., Mechanical Engineering, University of Houston

Dr. Theodore R. Eck
Ph.D., Economics, Michigan State University
M.A, Economics, University of Michigan
Fulbright Professor of International Economics
Former Chief Economist of Amoco Corp. and Exxon Venezuela
Advisory Board of the Gas Technology Institute and Energy Intelligence Group

Dr. Craig D. Idso
Chairman, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change
Ph.D., Geography, Arizona State University
M.S., Agronomy, University of Nebraska, Lincoln
B.S., Geography, Arizona State University

Dr. Richard A. Keen
Instructor Emeritus of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, University of Colorado
Ph.D., Geography/Climatology, University of Colorado
M.S., Astro-Geophysics, University of Colorado
B.A., Astronomy, Northwestern University

Dr. Anthony R. Lupo
IPCC Expert Reviewer
Professor, Atmospheric Science, University of Missouri
Ph.D., Atmospheric Science, Purdue University
M.S., Atmospheric Science, Purdue University

Dr. Thomas P. Sheahen
Ph.D., Physics, M.I.T.
B.S., Physics, M.I.T. 

Dr. George T. Wolff
Former Chair EPA’s Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee
Ph.D., Environmental Sciences, Rutgers University
M.S., Meteorology, New York University
B.S., Chemical Engineering, New Jersey Institute of Technology

—–

There is no Greenhouse Effect

It’s very simple everyone:  If the theoretically measurable physical empirical impacts that a greenhouse effect is supposed to have do not exist and have not manifested, it is because the greenhouse effect does not exist.

Advertisements
Gallery | This entry was posted in Fraud of the Greenhouse Effect and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to New Independent Paper Supports Slayer Climate Rationalism

  1. geran says:

    It’s going to take me several hours to get through this. But, just the first sentence of the “abstract” is a real WOW!

    “These analysis results would appear to leave very, very little doubt but that EPA’s claim of a Tropical Hot Spot (THS), caused by rising atmospheric CO2 levels, simply does not exist in the real world.”

  2. Yah, that says it all.

  3. markstoval says:

    “… simply does not exist in the real world …”

    I hope that someday soon we will see more and more teams publish papers that recognize the simple facts. As the title says, this paper supports the slayer position. (as does Mother Nature herself)

  4. Rosco says:

    So Dr. John R. Christy is doing REAL science challenging the greenhouse effect while Roy Spencer is writing equations that fail the most basic of scientific analysis – dimensional analysis – to “prove” it exists.

    The really funny thing about Spencer, Brown, Ed Bo etc is they always claim some bullshit like –

    “The SB equation gives you the radiative flux OUTPUT of an object as function of its temperature and emissivity. It does NOT give you the temperature of an object (transient or steady state) as a function of its radiative FLUX input! You should have learned this early in your first thermo class.”

    Then they turn around and do exactly that – they add background radiation to the already hotter object’s radiation and calculate the temperature using the SB equation or Spencer’s ridiculous attempts where he adds Kelvin to Kelvin.metres.

    They try to justify it with BS like the object must increase in temperature so its output matches the input – which is adding heat from cold surroundings to a hotter body.

    If that isn’t exactly what they say you cannot do then they need to explain what they claim in real heat transfer terms – and of course they are adding the background colder radiation values to the hotter object’s radiation and calculating temperatures. There is no amount of “sciency” sounding bullshit obfuscation that contradicts the obvious fact they are so gullible they can’t even see the inconsistency in their absurd claims !

    Or are they simply liars ?

  5. markstoval says:

    “Or are they simply liars ?”

    That is a hard question.

    My take on it is that they followed group-think and did what the paymasters wanted at first and in doing so they lied to themselves for so long that they came to believe their falsehoods in a religious fashion. I don’t think they can see reality any longer.

    You could never prove that they are in error to one of these “true believers” as they have lost the ability to see beyond their own delusions.

  6. Sunsettommy says:

    “These analysis results would appear to leave very, very little doubt but that EPA’s claim of a Tropical Hot Spot (THS), caused by rising atmospheric CO2 levels, simply does not exist in the real world.”

    As of 2013, this is what it looked like:

    Their comment for this and two other charts in the link,

    “The three diagrams above (using data from HadAT and HadCRUT4) show the linear trend of the temperature change since 1979 between 20oN and 20oS to be ca. 0.00089oC/month at the surface, 0.00095oC/month at 300 hPa, and -0.00009oC/month at 200 hPa, corresponding to 0.10698, 0.11414 and -0.01022oC/decade, respectively (see bar chart above).

    Thus, these radiosonde and surface meteorological data from the Equatorial region do not at the moment display the signature of enhanced greenhouse warming. With the observed warming rate of about 0.10698oC/decade at the surface, a warming rate of about 0.21-0.31oC/decade would have been expected at the 200 and 300 hPa levels to comply with the prognosis on this derived from the CO2 hypothesis.”

    http://www.climate4you.com/

    The AGW conjecture is a total utter failure,since it was supposed to warm at least THREE TIMES the rate of surface warming.

  7. paul says:

    Hello Sir,
    i have forwarded this paper to some ‘hippie’ scientist’s i have been hammering at for a while on the climate change debate along with other various other related issues.

    The following is a reply i received from them……
    —————————————————————————————
    Please don’t insult my intelligence. This would have to be one of the worst examples of trying to pass off a scientific research paper I have ever seen. It’s embarrassing. Here is why:
    1. NOTHING IS REFERENCED properly!!!
    2. The “Scientific language” used is atrocious they even underline points they are trying to make. cringe
    3 Equations and graphs are not referenced or explained coherently.
    This thing has never been published and I would be surprised if they ever even had it graded or looked at by an academic. Just typing their names on the paper does not mean they had anything to do with it. That is, if these people even exist.

    If you want to actually see what a scientific paper looks like then open the PDF attached.
    There are plenty more if you use Google Scholar. I just don’t want you to embarrass yourself further.

    ———————————————————————————————————–
    So,thats the state of science,nothing but ‘tard’ emotionalism .Not once have any of these re-tards actually debated on the topic “climate change” itself..NOT ONCE!…It is unlikely they have read it!
    They reject it on the premise it does not fit with their bibles of scientific materialism and their emotional ego’s….AND at the same time claim they are advancing science.
    Actually most just dictate their qualifications authoritatively,revealing they really know nothing at all.
    All i get is adhom attacks,its fucking pathetic.science is pathetic.
    Recently a quick debate with a physicist,he asked “What is Eulers formula,what is Fourier mathematics,what is the signifigence of a circle?”..!!!!!!! WTF!!!!!!!! RE-TARD!!!!
    How the fuck did they get a degree?!!

    Again ..NOT ONCE have these mathematically illiterate anti life self centered fuck-tards actually debate on a scientific level let alone MATHEMATICS!!!!!
    They are more interested in career’s,investment properties,holiday home’s and job benifits! “life vanity” of materialism.Pure self interest! “Mind vomit”!!!

    I thought i was moving on up from debating with religious faith-tards,capitalists,democrats and general propaganda suckers,but science is a fucking dumb ass mess just like faith!
    It really is abrahamism “shananigins”minus ‘god’….oh dear.

    However i have been able to get through to some people,”climate change” is an excellent topic to expose the fraudulent apocylptic ideals projected by really bad science,politics,etc.

    On the bright side,I have finally got my mind around Riemann-fourier mathematics,Awsome!
    Ah glorious math…..,Sanctuary!

    Your work here is invaluable sir.

    thankyou

    Paul Bloffwitch

  8. He’s just being a hostile prick because they have nothing else. These disgusting people.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s