At the Daily Caller News Foundation on Thursday, Michael Bastasch reports on a new study that shows "the 'fingerprint' of global warming doesn't exist in the real world."
He begins the article, writing:
"One of the main lines of evidence used by the Obama administration to justify its global warming regulations doesn’t exist in the real world, according to a new report by climate researchers.
"Researchers analyzed temperature observations from satellites, weather balloons, weather stations and buoys and found the so-called “tropical hotspot” relied upon by the EPA to declare carbon dioxide a pollutant “simply does not exist in the real world.”
"They found that once El Ninos are taken into account, “there is no ‘record setting’ warming to be concerned about.”
“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,” reads the report by economist James Wallace, climatologist John Christy and meteorologist Joseph D’Aleo.
“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 analyzed,” they wrote.
"When EPA released its CO2 endangerment finding in 2009, it used three lines of evidence to bolster its argument that greenhouse gases threatened human health through global warming.
The crux of EPA’s argument rested on the existence of a “tropical hotspot” where global warming would be most apparent. That is, there should be enhanced warming in the tropical troposphere — the “fingerprint” of global warming.
"EPA’s endangerment finding is the legal basis for agency global warming regulations, including the Clean Power Plan (CPP) now being fought over in federal court. CPP aims to cut power plant carbon dioxide emissions 32 percent by 2030 and could cost $41 billion a year, according to independent estimates.
"D’Aleo and his colleagues looked at the data and controlled for El Ninos and La Ninas. What they found was that once natural oceanic warming and cooling events are accounted for, there’s no warming trend."
Read the remainder of his article for additional details and links to his source material.
One of those links takes you to the August 2016 68-page report by James Wallace, economist, John Christy, climatologist, and Joseph D'Aleo, meteorologist. Here is the report's abstract:
"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 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 involve both changes in solar activity and the 1977 Pacific Shift.
"Moreover, on an all-other-things-equal basis, there is no statistically valid proof that past increases in Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations have caused the officially reported rising, even claimed record setting temperatures. To validate their claim will require mathematically credible, publically available, simultaneous equation parameter estimation work.
"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."
The Manhattan Contrarian also reported on the Wallace, Christy and D'Aleo study last Monday, September 19, 2016 in a post entitled, "The "Science" Underlying Climate Alarmism Turns Up Missing." In addition, on Thursday, he posted an item about "Climate Alarmism Airheads."
Finally, in the Science and Environmental Policy Project's (SEPP) latest newsletter, The Week That Was, president Ken Haapala writes about the EPA's so-called endangerment finding and the hot spot, CO2, and importance to U.S. policy. His write-up is especially help because it provides a history of EPA's endangerment finding.
It's not likely any of this research will change the minds of climate change's true believers. Interestingly, though, there is a website, Skeptical Science, that is set-up as "a non-profit science education organisation." Their goal is to refute the 193 global warming & climate change myths" held by global warming skeptics. At the moment, they currently rank the tropical hot spot as myth #59, and their position is they "see a clear 'short-term hot spot' - there's various evidence for a 'long-term hot spot.'" According to Skeptical Science, "The IPCC confirms that computer modeling predicts the existence of a tropical, mid-troposphere 'hot spot' about 10km above the Earth’s surface."
I bring your attention to the Skeptical Science website chiefly because its expertise is cited in an environmental e-newsletter sponsored by Representative Don Beyer (D-Virginia), who represents portions of Northern Virginia, including Arlington County, Alexandria, Falls Church, and portions of Fairfax County. The September 22, 2016 issue of "Just the Facts" tries to dispel "several of the most common myths related to climate change," and references the Skeptical Science website because it "provides science-based responses of customizable complexity to 193 different arguments often offered by climate 'skeptics.'"
Amazing! The federal government has spent billion of dollars of American taxpayers money for global warming research, and the staff of a member of Congress is using half-baked arguments from an Australian website endorsed by Naomi Oreskes and Michael 'Hockey Stick' Mann. Incredible!
If you have a few minutes, look over the sources cited above, and write your member of Congress. Tell them your position on anthropogenic global warming, and whether you think the government should be raising the cost of electricity and other forms of energy that you use in pursuit of solutions to global warming. Contact information is available at the Library of Congress' Congress.gov. Taxpayers living in Virginia's Arlington County can contact:
- Senator Mark Warner (D) -- write to him or call (202) 224-2023
- Senator Tim Kaine (D) -- write to him or call (202) 224-4024
- Representative Don Beyer (D) -- write to him or call (202) 225-4376
Ask for a written response. And tell them ACTA sent you.