W l l March I. 2009 Draft
Proposed NCEE Comments on Draft Technical_Support
Document for Endangerment Analysis for Greenhouse Gas
A Emissions under the Clean Air Act
Based on;TSD Draft of March 9, 2009 ‘ A I
, March I, 2009 `
Oftice of Policy, Economics, and Innovation
· Office of the Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ·
‘ _ Washington, DC 20460
\!\! UNCORRECTED OCR SCAN OF DOC062509-004.pdf - VERIFY AGAINST ORIGINAL BEFORE USE !!
NCEE Comments on Draft TED for Endangerment Analysis for GHG Emissions
under CAA
V
ii March 16,
\!\! UNCORRECTED OCR SCAN OF DOC062509-004.pdf - VERIFY AGAINST ORIGINAL BEFORE USE !!
This page intentionally left blank »
\!\! UNCORRECTED OCR SCAN OF DOC062509-004.pdf - VERIFY AGAINST ORIGINAL BEFORE USE !!
NCEE Comments on Draft TED for Endangerment Analysis for GHG Emissions
under CAA
Y
PREFACE ’
We have become increasingly concerned that EPA and many other agencies and countries
have paid too little attention to the science of global warming. EPA and others have tended to
accept the findings reached by outside groups, particularly the IPCC and the CCSP, as being
correct without a careful and critical examination of their conclusions and documentation. If
they should be found to be incorrect at a later date, however, and EPA is found not to have made
a really careful review of them before reaching its decisions on endangerment, it appears likely
that it is EPA rather -than these other groups that may be blamed for this error.
. We do not maintain that we or anyone else have all the answers needed to take action now.
Some of the conclusions reached in these comments may well be shown to be incorrect by future
research. Our conclusions do represent the best science in the sense of most closely
corresponding to available observations that we currently know ori however, and are sufficiently
at variance with those of the IPCC, CCSP, and the Draft TSD that we believe they support our
increasing concern that EPA has not critically reviewed the findings by these other groups.
As discussed in these comments, we believe our concerns and reservations are sufficiently
important to warrant a serious review of the science by EPA before any attempt is made to reach
I conclusions on the subject. We believe that this review should start immediately and be a
continuing effort as long as there is a serious possibility that EPA may be called upon to
implement regulations designed to reduce global warming. The science has and undoubtedly
will continue to change and EPA must have the capability of keeping abreast of these changes if
it is to successfully discharge its responsibilities. The Draft TSD suggests to us that we do not
yet have that capability or that we have not used what we have.
We would be happy to work with and assist anyone who might wantto undertake such a A
serious review of the science.
ii _ March 16,
\!\! UNCORRECTED OCR SCAN OF DOC062509-004.pdf - VERIFY AGAINST ORIGINAL BEFORE USE !!
NCEE Comments on Draft TED for Endangerment Analysis for GHG Emissions
under CAA ‘
This page intentionally left blank .
ii March 16,
\!\! UNCORRECTED OCR SCAN OF DOC062509-004.pdf - VERIFY AGAINST ORIGINAL BEFORE USE !!
Executive Summary I
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
These comments are based on the draft Technical Support Document for Endangennent
Analysis for Greenhouse Gas Emissions under the Clean Air Act (hereafter draft TSD) issued by
the Climate Change Division of the Office of Atmospheric Programs on March 9, 2009.
I Unfortunately, because we were only given a few days to review this lengthy document these
comments are of necessity much less comprehensive and polished than they would have been if
I more time had been allowed. We are prepared, however, to provide added information, more
detailed comments on specific points raised, and any assistance in making changes if requested
. by OAR. _ A
The principal comments are as follows:
A I 1. The current Draft TSD is based largely on the IPCC AR4 report, which is at best three
years out of date in a rapidly changing field. There have been important developments in areas
that deserve careful attention in this draft. The list includes the following five:
• Global temperatures have declined—extending the current downtrend to ll years with a
particularly rapid decline in 1907-8; in addition, the PDO went negative in September, 2007 and
the AMO in January, 2009, respectively. At the same time atmospheric CO2 levels have
continued to increase and CO2 emissions have accelerated. _
• The consensus on past, present and future Atlantic hurricane behavior has changed. Initially, it
tilted towards the idea that anthropogenic global warming is leading to (and will lead to) to more ·
frequent and intense storms. Now the consensus is much more neutral, arguing that future
Atlantic tropical cyclones will be little different that those of the past. ·
• The idea that warming temperatures will cause Greenland to rapidly shed its ice has been
greatly diminished by new results indicating little evidence for the operation of such processes.
A • One of the worst economic recessions since World War II has greatly decreased GHG
emissions compared to the assumptions made by the IPCC. To the extent that ambient GHG
levels are relevant for future global temperatures, these emissions reductions should greatly
influence the adverse effects of these emissions on public health and welfare. The current draft
TSP does not reflect the changes that have already occurred nor those that are likely to occur in
the future as a result of the recession. In fact, the topic is not even discussed to our knowledge.
2009 DRAFT iii
\!\! UNCORRECTED OCR SCAN OF DOC062509-004.pdf - VERIFY AGAINST ORIGINAL BEFORE USE !!
NCEE Comments on Draft TED for Endangerment Analysis for GHG Emissions
under CAA
• A new 2009 paper finds that the crucial assumption in the GCM models used by the IPCC
. concerning strongly positive feedback from water vapor is not supported by empirical evidence I
i and that the feedback is actually negative.
• A new 2009 paper by Scafetta and West suggests that the IPCC used faulty solar data in
dismissing the direct effect of solar variability on global temperatures. Their research suggests
that solar variability could account for up to 68% of the increase in Earth’s global temperatures.
These six developments alone should greatly influence any assessment of ‘i‘vulnerability, risk,
and impacts" of climate change within the U.S. But these are just a few of the new
developments since 2006. Therefore, the extensive portions of the EPA’s Endangerment TSD
_ which are based upon the old science are no longer appropriate and need to be revised before a
new TSD is issued for comments.
Not only is the science of the TSD out-of—date but there are a number of other disturbing
inconsistencies between the temperature and other scientific data and the GHG/CO2 hypothesis
that need to be carefully explored and explained if the draft TSD is to be credible. Despite the _
complexity of the climate system the following conclusions appear to be well supported by the
available data (see Section 2 below):
A. By far the best single explanation for global temperature fluctuations is variations in
_ the PDO/ENSO. ENSO appears to operate in a 3-5 year cycle. PDO/AMO appear to
operate in about a 60-year cycle. This is not really explained in the draft TSD but
needs to be, or, at the very least, there needs to be an explanation as to why OAR
p believes that these evident cycles do not exist or why they are much more unimportant
than we believe them to be. i' ,
B. There appears to be a strong association between solar sunspots/irradiance and global
. temperature fluctuations. It is unclear exactly how this operates, but it may be through
indirect solar variability on cloud formation. This topic is not really explored in the
Draft TSD but needs to be since otherwise the effects of solar variationsmay be
misattributed to the effects of changes in GHG levels.
C. Changes in GHG concentrations appear to have so little effect that it is difficult to find
any effect in the satellite temperature record, which started in 1978.
U iv March 16,
\!\! UNCORRECTED OCR SCAN OF DOC062509-004.pdf - VERIFY AGAINST ORIGINAL BEFORE USE !!
Executive Summary
D. The surface measurements (HADCRUT) are more ambiguous than the satellite
measurements in that the increasing temperatures shown since the mid-1970s could
either be due to the rapid growth of urbanization and the heat island effect or by the l
increase in GHG levels. However, since no such increase is shown in the satellite
record it appears more likely that urbanization and the UHI effect are the most likely
cause. If so, the increases may have little to do with GHGs and everything to do with
the rapid urbanization during the period. Given the discrepancy between surface
temperature records in the 1940-75 and 1998-2008 and the increases in GHG levels
during these periods it appears even more unlikely that GHGs have much effect on
measured surface temperatures either. These points need to be very carefully and I
fully discussed in the draft TSD if it is be scientifically credible.
E. Hence it is not reasonable to conclude that there is any endangerment from changes in
GHG levels based on the satellite record, since almost all the fluctuations appear to be
due to natural causes and not human-caused pollution as defined by the Clean Air
Act. The surface record is more equivocal but needs to be carefully discussed, which
would require substantial revision of the Draft TSD. ·
F. There is a strong possibility that there are some other natural causes of global
temperature fluctuations that we do not yet fully understand and which may account
for the 1998 temperature peak which appears on both the satellite and surface
temperature records. This possibility needs to be fully explained and discussed in the _
Draft TSD. Until and unless these and many other inconsistencies referenced in these .»
comments are adequately explained it would appear premature to attribute all or even
any of what warming has occurred to changes in GHG/CO2 atmospheric levels.
These inconsistencies are so important and sufficiently abstruse that in our view EPA needs
to make an independent analysis of the science of global warming rather than adopting the
conclusions of the IPCC and CCSP without much more careful and independent EPA staff
review than is evidenced by the Draft TSP. Adopting the scientific conclusions of an outside
group such as the IPCC or CCSP without thorough review by EPA is not in the EPA tradition
anyway, and there seems to be little reason the change the tradition in this case. If their
I conclusions should be incorrect and EPA acts on them, it is EPA that will be blamed for
2009 DRAFT v
\!\! UNCORRECTED OCR SCAN OF DOC062509-004.pdf - VERIFY AGAINST ORIGINAL BEFORE USE !!
NCEE Comments on Draft TED for Endangerment Analysis for GHG Emissions
under CAA —
inadequate research and understanding and reaching a possibly inaccurate determination of
endangerment. Given the downward trend in temperatures since 1998 (which some think will
continue until at least 2030) there is no particular reason to rush into decisions based on a
scientific hypothesis that does not appear to explain most of the available data.
Finally, there is an obvious logical problem posed by steadily increasing US health and
welfare measures and the alleged endangerment of health and welfare discussed in this draft TSD
i during a period of rapid rise in at least CO2 ambient levels. This discontinuity either needs to be
carefully explained in the draft TSD or the conclusions changed.
vi March 16,
\!\! UNCORRECTED OCR SCAN OF DOC062509-004.pdf - VERIFY AGAINST ORIGINAL BEFORE USE !!
` Table of Contents I
-
Table of Contents ·
5 1. Draft TSD Is Seriously Dated and the Updates Made Are Inadequate ...........,.............................. 1
D 1.1 Where to Find a Discussion of Various Topics in These Comments ..,.....,............................... 1
1.2 Global Temperatures Have Declined'Significantly ................................................................... 1
1.3 IPCC Global Temperature Projections Look Increasingly Doubtful ......................................... 3
1.4 Consensus On Past, Present and Future Atlantic Hurricane Behavior Has Changed ................ 6
1.5 Changes in Outlook for Greenland Ice Sheet .......................................................................... 10
1.6 Serious Recession Has Greatly Decreased GHG Emissions Compared to the Assumptions
Made by the IPCC ......................................... L ..................................................,...................... 13
1.7 Long-temi Water Vapor Feedback Reported to Be Negative .................................................. 14
1.8 Scafetta and West: GHG Contribution to Global Warming May Be Much Smaller than
{ Alleged by IPCC .......................................’ . .............................................................................. 2 6
2. Some Major Inconsistencies in the Science of Global Warming that Need to be Explained ...... 29
` 2.1 What Is Science? ..........................,........................................................................................... 29
2.2 What Determines Changes in Global Temperatures? .............................................................. 30
2.2 Evidence for a Predominant Influence of Carbon Dioxide .......... . ..............................,............ 35
2.3 Pacific Decadal Oscillation/Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation and ENSO as Explanations for
‘ Global Temperature Changes ....................................,...................,......................................... 40
. 2.4 Solar Variability ....................................................................................................................... 44
2. 4.1 CERN Study .,....................................................... Z ...................................................... 46
2.5 Urban Heat Island Effects and Other Problems of Surface Temperature Measurements ............. 49
[2.4.4 Copeland and Watts ..................................................................,................................. 56
2.4.5 Summary of Evidence for CO2 and Sun/Cosmic Ray Warming Hypotheses ............... 58
?? 2.4. 6 Landscheidt (2003) Paper ..................................................................................... 59
2. 4. 7 Other Recent Research ............................................................................................... 59
2.4.8 Are Sunspot Cycles Telling Us Anything? .................................................................. 59
2.5 Solar Variability May Determine Major Climate Oscillations ............... . ................................ 61
2.6 Conclusions with Regard to the Best Explanation for Global Temperature Fluctuations ....... 61
3. Contrast between Continuing Improvements in US Health and Welfare and their Alleged
Endangerment Described in the draft TSD ........................................................ . ........................... 64
3.1 · An Inconsistency: Enhanced Greenhouse Effect May Be¤Overestimated by IPCC ................ 67
3.2 A Second Inconsistency: Do Changes in CO2 Cause Changes in Temperature'? .................... 70
3.3 A Third Inconsistency: IPCC Climate Models Inconsistent with Observed Temperatures ..... 70
4. Detailed Comments .... Q ............................ ; ......................................................................................... 73
4.1 Executive Summary ............................................................................................................. ' .... 7 3
4.2 Part II ....................................................................................................................................... 73
4.2.2 New Paper Predicts 10 Year GW "P0sq20nement" ................................................... 74
4.3 Part III ......................................... . ............................................................................................ 74
4.4 Part IV ...................................................................................................................................... 74
5. Conclusions ........................................................................................................................................ 75
References ......................................................................................... . ........................................................ 77 ‘
About the Comments ................................................................................................................................ 81
Endnotes ..................................................................................................................................................... 83
2009 DRAFT vii
\!\! UNCORRECTED OCR SCAN OF DOC062509-004.pdf - VERIFY AGAINST ORIGINAL BEFORE USE !!
' NCEE Comments on Draft TED for Endangerment Analysis for GHG Emissions
under CAA
A List of Figures
Figure 1-1(a), (b), and (c): Monthly Global Temperature Anomalies (°C) as Measured At The Surface
(Filled Circles) and in the Lower Atmosphere by Satellites (Open Circles) ............,............... 2
Figure 1-2: IPCC AR4 Figure 26 Updated ..................................................,.....,........................................... 4
Figure 1-3. Observed Tropical Cyclone Activity in Atlantic Basin, 1946-2007 (Black Lines) and Fit to
Absolute Tropical Atlantic SST (Thick Brown Line, Top) and Relative Tropical Atlantic
. SST (Thick Light Blue Line, Bottom) ..................................................................,.. Q ............... 9
‘ Figure 1-4. The K-transect in West Greenland at 67°N .............................................................................. 11
Figure 1-5. Variations in annual velocity along the K-transect over 17 years ............................................ 12
Figure 1-6. Variations in: Velocity at Various Sites in August 2006 ........................................................... 13
Figure 2-1: One View of Temperature Variation during the Holocene ...................................................... 32
Figure 2-2: Pacific Ocean Water Temperatures during a positive and negative PDOs ............................... 34
Figure 2-3: Sixty-year Cycle in Global Temperatures Showing Clear Trends .................,......................... 34
Figure 2-4: Global Temperatures and CO2 Levels, 1880-2003 ............................................................,...... 36
Figure 2-5: Global Temperature Anomaly and CO2 Levels, 1940-70 .....................................................,.. 37
Figure 2-6: Global Temperature Anomalies and CO2, 2002-8 .................................................................... 38
Figure 2-7: Common Identifications Made of Causes for Global Temperature Fluctuations ..................... 42
Figure 2-8: MSU Data with Addition of Center Lines.... ................................ Q ,........... . .............................. 43
Figure 2-9: Solar Modulation of Galactic Cosmic Rays, 1957-2001 .......................................................... 47
Figure 2-10: Galactic Cosmic Rays and Climate: Past 500 myr .......... . ...................................................... 48
Figure 2-11: Galactic Cosmic Rays & Temperatures: Last 1100 yrs .......................................................... 48
Figure 2-12; Temperature Reconstruction for the Central Alps over Last Two Millennia, Obtained from i
O-18 Composition of Speleothem from Spannagel Cave, Austria ........................................ 49
Figure 2-13: Satellite (UAH MSU LT) and land-based (HADCRUT3) Temperature Anomolies Compared
.................................................................................,.............................................................. 50
Figure 2-14: Relation of Sunspots (or Lack Thereof) to Little Ice Age Periods ......................................... 53
Figure 2-15: Solar Irradiance since 1611 .................................................................................................... 54
Fig 2-?: Sunspot Cycles Derived Entirely from Global Temperature Data ................................................ 56
Figure 2—?: Decay in Sun’s Magnetic Field since 1999 ............................................................. 4 ................. 60
_ Figure 3-1: Yields of Major Cash Crops such as Corn and Wheat ............................................................. 64
_ Figure 3-2. Average Annual Heat-Related Mortality Per Standardized Million People in the U.S. ........... 65
Figure 3-3. Trends in ozone air quality ....................................................................................................... 65
_ List of Tables
Table 2-1: Correlation between Global Temperatures and Various Explanatory Factors ........................... 36
’
viii March 16,
\!\! UNCORRECTED OCR SCAN OF DOC062509-004.pdf - VERIFY AGAINST ORIGINAL BEFORE USE !!
I List of Acronyms
_ List of Acronyms A
AR4 Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC
AMO Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation
<>C Degrees Centigrade
CAC Command and Control
CCSP Climate Change Science Program
- CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research
CFC Chlorofluorocarbon
` CO Carbon Monoxide
CO2 Carbon Dioxide
Draft TSD March 9, 2009 version of the TSD ·
I EPA Environmental Protection Agency ·
GHG Greenhouse Gas i
~ IPCC P UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — i
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration I
NOX Nitrogen Oxides V
OAR USEPA Office of Air and Radiation
PDO Pacific Decadal Oscillation
SO2 Sulfur Dioxide
TSD Technical Support Document
_ TSI Total Solar irradiance
US United States
· t US$ United States dollar ` .
` UHI Urban Heat Island
UNCED United Nations Conference on Environment and Development
I UNEP United Nations Environment Programme
USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency _
2009 DRAFT I ix
\!\! UNCORRECTED OCR SCAN OF DOC062509-004.pdf - VERIFY AGAINST ORIGINAL BEFORE USE !!
\!\! UNCORRECTED OCR SCAN OF DOC062509-004.pdf - VERIFY AGAINST ORIGINAL BEFORE USE !!
' List of Acronyms
2009 DRAFT xi
\!\! UNCORRECTED OCR SCAN OF DOC062509-004.pdf - VERIFY AGAINST ORIGINAL BEFORE USE !!
NCEE Comments on Draft TED for Endangerment Analysis forGHG Emissions under CAA
xii March 16, _
\!\! UNCORRECTED OCR SCAN OF DOC062509-004.pdf - VERIFY AGAINST ORIGINAL BEFORE USE !!
Draft TSD Is Seriously Dated and Updates Made Are Inadequate
1. Draft TSD Is Seriously Dated and the Updates Made Are A
- Inadequate
The draft endangerment TSD is largely a dated document which relies heavily on the Fourth
Assessment Report (AR4) of the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). A
lot has happened in those intervening three years since then. The IPCC’s AR4 was published in l
the spring of 2007, but to meet the deadline for inclusion in the AR4, scientific papers had to be
published by late 2005/early 2006. So, in the rapidly evolving field of climate change, by
A grounding its TSD in the IPCC AR4 the EPA is largely relying on scientific findings that are, by
early 2009, largely 3 years or more out of date. The six developments described here should in
our view greatly influence any assessment of "vulnerability, risk, and impacts" of climate change _ ‘
within the U.S. Therefore, the extensive portions of the EPA’s Endangerment TSD which are
based upon the old science are no longer appropriate and need to be revised.
1.1 Where to Find a Discussion of Various Topics in These Comments
Section 1 summarizes six of the many important new developments since the cut—off date for
the IPCC AR4 report that need to be reflected in the Draft TSD. Section 2 summarizes some of
the critical inconsistencies between the Draft TSD and dataconcerning the causes of global
warming. Section 3 summarizes data showing continuing increases in US health and welfare `
despite increasing GHG levels. Section 4 presents detailed comments on the Draft TSD. The
final section 5 summarizes the conclusions reached in these comments. A
` 1.2 — Global Temperatures Have Declined Significantly
Global temperatures have declined (Figure la)—extending the current run of time with a
statistically robust lack of global temperature rise to eight years (Figure lb), with some people ~
arguing that it can be traced back for 12 years (Figure lc).
2009 DRAFT 1
\!\! UNCORRECTED OCR SCAN OF DOC062509-004.pdf - VERIFY AGAINST ORIGINAL BEFORE USE !!
NCEE Comments on Draft TED for Endan erment Analysis for GHG Emissions under CAA
Global Temperature Anomalies, January 2000- October 2008
-? 2,...2....--.....»._-,......,._--,.........,._..,Q2; -_¢....._.,.-....-_, ..2-... -....2.2- 2..2
I .6 [gal, ‘ U
G 5 , nr *-5;
2.. -, up ,• ;__ I ·
e .4 s,__ ,·~·,»*
5 _ - (zr~—·..______ ’,F»¤.__ {LI ( _; \ T0 rf; ··»——--» --» .__
5; B ° Err ,..v · ‘’‘· *-. M., r' I"
E {jj} m`>:€.Y*·(;L-,-___ 3_· $t;r_C>
_ il _r` €*r%£·;,»*»t-.“_____ I,
Ei; -2) __l IIIIJ! "§‘·¤?-5jI.Jl";.I-:?*I 4—""· ··,._
E 2 rv _ I _ ’r .· ‘—’
*93 _ 1 I "•“r CRU Surface Observatrons r · »,.· r rl A
` I #·i>~ UAH Satellite Observations ‘ `y\}·’
.._ 2 r——,——.-~— r~r-·.-—T-»,--,·--.~—·,--—r··,—r—-—~.—-—~—T-—.·»·—-.~~-—-e ·—,»·-.·-~-——,—-r- .-—»·-—#—-ir-r—-—,—-1-——.»——.—;1~~
2006 2007 2008 2009 _
Global Temperature Anomalies, January 2001- October 2008
n? U .,,.,, .. ,.,\ .... ..., ,. ,,_. .._b, ...\. .- _.,, . A .,.,. ..
J5 · 2 gr
··~ - 9 ar
S-} .5 I......... I , M I " `
E I ~~·= J P—~»’;*E'*"$’I ’ * (
t ·" I J ·§*r ¤r,:*0·• ré wi rr·‘¥r“II{
_3k »""' 5"lr:""·.Tg-flll A-l;·lo’?g·L—DA fl`I|l,%Ir‘b
4 ‘ 2 "I L`Ai& ':€!"`I..I'! U"- I J1 C”'?:__"`ILTiY§" ‘“"··`&·(nY`?*,,-__
g . ‘ I JI_‘iIl]> I.,} V1 T atl `··' 4* |r ·.. _
E -I ‘ "*' In I It IW? I
3 ¤
§ 1 _r -·;•e· CRU Surface Observations II V I"" I'lI"
I " I ·®— UAH Satellite Observations “·* I}·t’
.2 ev-,~,»-.,.,-,»,», ».,- ~.»,,·..~e~e»»,,~,.,-,--»~,,~.-.~,,-,.-,»»,»».,», -,.. -,»,,~»,~,—.~.,e»,--,.T¤»,°L-M,-
2000 2001 2002 2000 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 ’
Global Temperature Anomalies, January 1997- October 2008 e
.8 r “*“*·"“‘j{j“*“·**"*“—*·"“*"~“*"*"“‘····"·`*—"·*““"‘—*"`*"“·
aj angry I rl *,
>» . · • . ,:1 _ P , -1%- M _` _
E -4 r~·—e···a¢··r* Mrrrrer ere- rr T- FEW »·,» * 9 W
E I A <,> ,r_ I Iir{ ,¥5?·Iri:-
:,5 2 — ·e~r ~ ~:•rr·<%~~~r»¥r*=·~ r·»re
_·- I <‘·· =¥;7··i§a»r zgr ` ‘··· I EI- E;
B3 r___rT¤ Ly rl . I pr
0 I I ‘—?‘_ r·'
,2 ··2 " O Q -~•—· CRL} Surface Observalioirb .
L ——»;::~ UAH Satelllte Observetlons
#,4 · ··**“*··*··r“··~···rMMw·*~"···*~······:‘*~·**··*···‘*r“**··"·‘····"r··‘·*·“**··*··‘r"r~·*·*···*
1995 1998 2000 2002 2004 2005 2008 2010
Figure 1-1(a), (b), and (c): Monthly Global Temperature Anomalies (°C) as
Measured At The Surface (Filled Circles) and in the Lower Atmosphere by
Satellites (Open Circles) V `
2 March 16,
\!\! UNCORRECTED OCR SCAN OF DOC062509-004.pdf - VERIFY AGAINST ORIGINAL BEFORE USE !!
A Draft TSD Is Seriously Dated and Updates Made Are Inadequate
Top (a), Last three years, January 2006—Oct0ber 2008; Middle (b) Last eight years, January
200l—October 2008; Bottom (c), last 12 years, January 1997-October 2008.
a Sources: Hadley Center; University of Alabama—Huntsville.
In addition, both the PDO and AMO have turned negative in September, 2007 and January,
J 2009, respectively (see section 2.2 below for a discussion of the crucial role played by ‘
PDO/AMO in global temperature changes). The last time that this happened, in the 1960s and
1970s, the climate in at least North America experienced record cold temperatures and generally
lower temperatures and global temperatures declined). At the same time atmospheric CO2 levels
have continued to increase and CO2 emissions have accelerated.
A _ 1.3 IPCC Global Temperature Projections Look Increasingly Doubtful
Because of recent substantial decreases in global temperatures, the IPCC projections for large
increases are looking increasingly doubtful. This is illustrated by this graph comparing the two:
IPCC AR4 TS Fig. 26 Updated J
__,.__w____._.s__.L%£.>i>_§;.lmv_LL1!r_<>_0_lrr)_,s”_.______”_
M ·-*HJadCRUT ________________,________________, ,
_ ···-UAH LT (Adj. to Sfc] L __;_,__ r,. ~‘·‘ ` ~ A ‘
:.3;, ....._.__.....__._.._._._.._
—··¤2 .
OJ ~ Commit :::4 . . . __—_
0 4 _-—i_ l J A *`; l ·—
M §·~·~·—r···—~—·· ···
,,2 J. M. ._...._._..__...._m;%_.__...._.i_.__._._.___2.______
i E r V {2
2 A .
0.1 " *···——··——~—·*···———·—j·—·——-——-———— —
g
1990 1995 2UOO 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025
·2009 DRAFT 3
\!\! UNCORRECTED OCR SCAN OF DOC062509-004.pdf - VERIFY AGAINST ORIGINAL BEFORE USE !!
NCEE Comments on Draft TED for Endangerment Analysis for GHG Emissions
under CAA
Figure 1-2: IPCC AR4 Figure 26 Updated
Source: http:llicecap.us/images/uploads/ipccchart.jpg; part of article by Marlo Lewis on Planet
Gore at
http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/‘?q=MTYwMjRiZjJhMmUxYWE2MmQONDZhOGM
0M2Q3ZWUzMmE; as reproduced on icecap.us on August 14, 2008
If global temperatures are viewed as suggested in Figure 2-8 below the large downward drop in
2007-8 appears to be simply a return to the 1978-97 _range and might not be particularly
noteworthy. If, on the other hand, global temperatures are viewed as an increasing trend, which
the Draft TSD appears to do, then the 2007-8 drop would appear to bring temperatures well
outside the likely range suggested by the IPCC projections. So if the former viewpoint is taken,
then the Draft TSD needs to explain how it could be that there has been such a great divergence
from the IPCC projections. _
[The climate system is extremely complicated and the GHG/CO2 hypothesis together with
other recognized influences ("climate forcings") on climate do not fully explain all of the
available historical climate observations even for the current Holocene Epoch. The IPCC is
basically using computer models to predict future climate and temperatures. These models are
only as good as the relationships they assume and the data that they use. The most prominent
alternatives to the GHG explanation for GW during the Holocene primarily attribute much more
significance to solar variability} These argue that changes in the sun’s eruptional activity, solar
» wind, and magnetic field, among other characteristics, have been major determinants of global
temperatures here on Earth. Since this has not been taken into account in almost all the IPCC
models to date these models may need to be changed to do so if they are to more accurately
reflect reality. Unfortunately, despite every effort to consciously avoid doing so, it is all too easy
to develop models that explain historical data by "fitting the data"; it is much harder to
1 ld. See also Theodore Landscheidt (2003), and Richard Mackey (2007). For a summary of recent I
developments in the Svensmark discussion see Jacopo Pasotti, Geophysics: Daggers Are Drawn Over
Revived Cosmic Ray—C/imate Link, 319 SCIENCE 144 (January 11, 2008). See also Vincent Courtillot,
Yves Gallet, Jean-Louis LeMoueI, Frederic Flateau, and Agnes Genevey, Are There Connections
between the Earth’s Magnetic Field and Climate, 253 EARTH AND PLANETARY SCIENCE LETTERS _
329-39 (January 30, 2007). These findings are at considerable variance with the IPCC discussion of the
contribution ofisolar variability to climate. See P. Forster, V. Ramaswamy, P. Artaxo, T. Berntsen, R.
Betts, D.W. Fahey, J. Haywood, J. Lean, D.C. Lowe, G. Myhre, J. Nganga, R. Prinn, G. Raga, M. Schulz
and R. Van Dorland, 2007: Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and in Radiative Forcing. ln: Climate
Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group lto the Fourth Assessment
Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M.
Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M.Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United
Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, pp. 188-93.
4 March 16,
\!\! UNCORRECTED OCR SCAN OF DOC062509-004.pdf - VERIFY AGAINST ORIGINAL BEFORE USE !!
Draft TSD Is Seriously Dated and Updates Made Are Inadequate
accurately predict future events using such models. One comparison of model predictions with
actual observations by Douglas Hoyt finds that the models were successful in one case,
unsuccessful in 27 and tied with observations in 4.2 So the ultimate test of the significance of
GHGs in GW may not come as a result of new scientific inquiries using current knowledge but
rather from experience over coming years and decades and comparisons of this experience with
the predictions that have been made. If global temperatures should decline further despite
continuing increases in GHG levels, as some skeptics and experts on solar cycles have predicted,
advocates of the GHG explanation for GW may have a difficult time explaining the new data in
‘ terms of their hypothesis.3 If, on the other hand, temperatures start increasing rapidly at the same
time that solar activity decreases, the skeptics may have a difficult time explaining how that
could be. In 2007 the IPCC concluded that they were at least 90 percent certain that human
q emissions of GHGs rather than natural climate variations were warming the planet. That leaves
up to a 10 percent risk according to the IPCC that this conclusion might be in error. Some
observers have pointed out that the solar magnetic field has been unusually low since a sudden
drop in late 2005 and that the next sunspot cycle 24 appears to be late starting and that this may
presage a colder period for global temperatures.4 If the increase in temperatures is not largely
2 Douglas Hoyt, "Greenhouse Warming Scorecard," April 2, 2006, available at .
http://www.warvvickhughes.com/hoyt/scorecard.htm
3 Three of the four principal indices of global temperatures recorded their highest temperatures in recent
years in 1998, so can be said to have been declining since then (see
http://wattsupwiththatwordpress.com/2008/03/08/3-of—4—gIobal-metrics—show-nearIy—flat-temperature-
anomaly-in—the—last-decade/#more—828). As usual, it is hard to distinguish random climate changes from
a new trend. But all fourof the indices show surprisingly large drops between January 2007 and January
2008, which may or may not be a precursor of further declines. This 2007-8 decline is more or less equal
to the temperature increases since 1900, depending on which index is used. Graphs for all four can be
. found at Anthony Watts, January 2008 - 4 sources say "g/oba//y coo/er" in the past 12 months, February
19, 2008, available at http://wattsupwiththatwordpress.com/2008/02/19/ianuary-2008—4—sources4say-
gIobally-cooIer—in-the—past-12—months.
Anthony Watts, Where Have All the Sunspots Gone? February 13, 2008, available at
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpresscom/2008/02/13/where—have-all-the—sunspots-gone lt is interesting but
hardly conclusive to compare the four temperature charts referenced in supra note 8 or a comparison of t
_the four (http://wattsupwiththatwordpress.com/2008/02/27/a-look—at-temperature-anomalies—for-aIl—4-
global—metrlcs) with the observed geomagnetic averaged planetary index shown by Watts in his February
13 entry, particularly the sharp drop in late 2005 with no rebound as of early 2008. Watts believes that
this drop may be significant in terms of the Sun’s internal dynamo, and may imply much lower global
temperatures to come. The relative influence of recent solar variability versus GHG changes is
questioned, however, by research published in 2007 which concludes that:
There is considerable evidence for solar influence on the Earth’s pre-industrial climate and the Sun
may well have been a factor in post-industrial climate change in the first half of the last century. Here
we show that over the past 20 years, all the trends in the Sun that could have had an influence on the
Earth’s climate have been in the opposite direction to that required to explain the observed rise in `
global mean temperatures.
2009 DRAFT 5
\!\! UNCORRECTED OCR SCAN OF DOC062509-004.pdf - VERIFY AGAINST ORIGINAL BEFORE USE !!
NCEE Comments on Draft TED for Endangerment Analysis for GHG Emissions
under CAA
due to higher GHG levels, as currently hypothesized by the IPCC, reducing GHG emissions may
have less effect than the advocates of GHG emission controls now believe.5 All this is not to
argue that the GHG explanation of current global warming is wrong—only that the climate
l system may be more complicated than our current understanding of it and that there exists more
uncertainty than is often acknowledged. The important thing is to take these uncertainties into
account in proposing an effective and efficient control approach rather than ignoring them and
making guesses as to what assumptions to make as to climate sensitivity to increased GHG levels
or adopting a single hypothesis that discounts the substantial evidence of the impact of solar
variability on Earth’s climate.
Given these mayor uncertainties, it would be very easy to conclude that very little could
. reasonably be said about how to value the economic benefits of reducing GHG emissions. This
paper, however, argues that some very important conclusions can nevertheless be reached in
spite of these uncertainties and without assuming them away.
1.4 Consensus On Past, Present and Future Atlantic Hurricane Behavior Has
Changed - W
The consensus on past, present and future Atlantic hurricane behavior has changed in our
` view. Initially, it tilted towards the idea that anthropogenic global warming is leading to (and
will lead to) to more frequent and intense storms. Now the consensus is much more neutral,
arguing that future Atlantic tropical cyclones will be little different that those of the past (e.g.
Knutson et al., 2008; Vecchi et al., 2008).
Trying to identify a statistically significant and robust human signal in the observed history
of Atlantic basin tropical cyclones, whether over the past 100+ years, or in recent decades, is
probably untenable. This conclusion is based on increases in hurricane activity in recent decades
· See Mike Lockwood and Claus Frohlich, "Recent Oppositely Directed Trends in Solar Climate Forcings
- and the Global Mean Surface Air Temperature," Proceedings Of The Royal Society A, 2007, available at
http://publishing.royalsociety.org/media/proceedings a/rspa20071880.pdf. For a contrary view see
Henrik Svensmark and Eigil Friis-Christensen, "RepIy to Lockwood and FrohIich—The Peristent Role of
I the Sun in Climate Forcing" (March, 2007), available at http://vnMN.spacecenter.dk/gublications/scientific-
report-series/Scient No. 3.pdf. Lenscheidt supra note 7, would presumably also not agree.
Nicole Scafetta and Bruce Wood, ls Climate Sensitive to So/ar Variability? PHYSICS TODAY, March
2008, pp. 50-51, conclude that the Sun "couId account for as much as 69% ofthe increase in Earth’s ‘
average temperature," contrary to the conclusions of the IPCC. "Furthermore, if the Sun does cool off, as
some solar physicists predict will happen over the next few decades, that cooling could stabilize Earth’s ‘
climate and avoid catastrophic consequences predicted in the IPCC report." -
6 March 16,
\!\! UNCORRECTED OCR SCAN OF DOC062509-004.pdf - VERIFY AGAINST ORIGINAL BEFORE USE !!
A Draft TSD Is Seriously Dated and Updates Made Are Inadequate _
· far exceeds that generally projected by climate models run with observed changes in
X anthropogenic emissions, and there is ample (and growing) evidence that the Atlantic hurricane ‘
1 record is characterized by multi-decadal oscillations that are tied to multi-decadal oscillations in
j oceancirculation, atmospheric circulations, and patterns of sea surface temperature variability.
2 That these multi-decadal oscillations can be traced backward in time for at least several
centuries, is strong indication that they are a natural part of the earth’s climate system, rather
than being primarily driven by human alterations of the earth’s atmosphere. This conclusion has
important implications for the future, as it suggests that as the sign and strength of the natural
' cycles controlling hurricane behavior wax and wane, so to will the future activity of Atlantic
· tropical cyclones, both in frequency and intensity. The contrary conclusion——that anthropogenic
"global warming" is largely controlling the activity of Atlantic tropical cyclone activity-
portends, conversely, an ever—stormier future. V
While we have tried to present clear evidence that the scientific tide seems to be turning in
the direction of a predominately "natural" origin of past, present, and future, Atlantic tropical
cyclone variability, the draft TSD appears to rely on out-dated findings to support its claims of a
significant anthropogenic impact on current and future Atlantic hurricane activity in their current
draft versions of climate change summary documents. We hope that the revised draft TSD will
revised in this regard.
. Hurricane researchers Gabriel Vecchi, Kyle Swanson, and Brian Soden published a paper in
. Science magazine which summarizes their view of the subject. They lay out the arguments for .
each case: _
Anthropogenic case:
There is a strong correlation between sea surface temperatures (SSTs) in the tropical Atlantic
Ocean and Atlantic tropical cyclone activity. And, in recent decades, as the global temperatures
have risen_(presumably from human activities) so too have the SSTs in the tropical Atlantic
which has promoted an increase in the frequency and intensity of Atlantic hurricanes. As climate
- models run with increasing levels of atmospheric greenhouse gases indicate Atlantic SSTs will
h increase in the future, so too will Atlantic tropical cyclone activity.
Natural case:
There is a strong correlation between the SST changes in the tropical Atlantic Ocean relative to
tropical SST s in other ocean basins and Atlantic tropical cyclone activity. ln recent decades, the
2009 DRAFT I 7
\!\! UNCORRECTED OCR SCAN OF DOC062509-004.pdf - VERIFY AGAINST ORIGINAL BEFORE USE !!
· NCEE Comments on Draft TED for Endangerment Analysis for GHG Emissions
under CAA
tropical Atlantic Ocean-has warmed faster than other tropical oceans and thus, Atlantic tropical
hurricane activity has picked up, both in frequency and intensity. As climate models run with
increasing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases do not project that the tropical
Atlantic will warm faster than other tropical oceans, future tropical cyclone in the Atlantic will
be driven by natural fluctuations in the pattems of tropical SST increases rather than simply an
I overall SST increase. l g
i Vecchi et al. (2008) suggest that empirical evidence is insufficient atthe current time to draw a
distinction between the two scenarios. However, if one were to turn to purely physical
I arguments or to the latest state-of—the—science dynamical calculations from high temporal and
` spatial resolution modeling efforts, one would begin to gather enough weight to start to tip the W
scale in the direction of natural cycles. Vecchi et al. (2008) lay _out these lines of evidence and
summarize their conclusions in Figure l-3. °
8 1 March 16,
\!\! UNCORRECTED OCR SCAN OF DOC062509-004.pdf - VERIFY AGAINST ORIGINAL BEFORE USE !!
Draft TSD Is Seriously Dated and Updates Made Are Inadequate
Atlanwciro icalcyclona wer dissi ationimiex anomalies
DD P DD D D DD DD DD s.sr
mo Based on Absolute SST, AX fh)r,»· r
“""“ l\1*mu;1iobSu‘i¤:d PDI (1946-200]) / **"· '
ri? .. ¤—•—-¤ Fl·»—r;·yr::¤r¤iv1s¤rva:rlPt’3l (1946—2D0h ' l _ Dj ‘
M? snr Fiféwear Pblbascd unobserved nbwlusc SST (‘19··l6·-ZD¤7);r¤= 0.79 fD¤"ff
E lm" Slazisticalieyerrrfuldewsswnling ofglobaldirrrawirniodeisi19·1i»~—2‘l0D) A _,,»·*»—"¤\,
S r,,_t D r - DD D . » D D DD x` M ‘‘!/‘‘ ' Da .·-·—~:$;i`\.¢* ‘·*’¥· -
0 ·· fndivsiiralrumlci -~·»~ m•er.•»g·ru{2·1r¤iodois ··~· wi »·<,:>» . "·-at
`S 9 fi jo _ r Ds-; if I l
g.; so D ‘ ju $ 5; `§i§`J>i¤*'$e;¥<' i` ; ‘ D
ig .*·~ I ‘i¤*,·*2 ag, 4 D
D s F M 1 '
$5 -1.0 V - ~-‘‘ J T: r,_ kgs D
‘ DE ‘ ,i D,!J`—£?§·D€ S ` !
D ~ D ··‘`» D ,,, ·¤ := »·- r R; 1, {_ D_, r
. » A Q if .;, g
. _ ,l·¥¤ ~D»rD si ·»
E Lo D lg w ra SD- , D7 1D. , ap
V5 | A 7(` g'\`,! e
#5 · - Di r Q T ‘· TW W ' r jr
‘* D 4 §D· ·D,*D.\ l ~·» ¢` D D»1·:Da¤!¥TDDDDD"T€‘{D DD DD D .._s DD ,rrD .D D DD D D D is rg
g 0 I A lajfk lj fi — ·· V- · -»-·.· - 4 . . , , ,, _D1. ,_A_g,,_D ,,,7,
Q_ ri ~.» r
‘ } `$ ` ~ i`·r ¤ ;_-·’ _ D.E..m..&..,,;~ Iiigxlrrescixriirxnnwdclprujecliuqvs{m·e·:ap:_iuni D
ALB ` *;.*5 hh - D S i
1960 1980 » 2000 2020 2040 2060 3080 2100
Year
:,- *°·° --m»¤r¤1¤¤‘a»»mu runcwwzcura
in .-_ D Fiv¤—ywzar»¤bserxrr»d PM f19¤56~2¤G7Z•
Mg E ` .... Five-yeair PDI based uri ulrserml 1·ol.iki·:e SST (‘19=16—2007l·; reil.?9
ii 'U ‘ $!.azi1_tical 5-year PN dewnsrallrsg of glam! clkrmte models (1*2-164100}
::1 L lnriivfrioalsircdel •- rPr·.•é·r.vgrief2¤iri»vdc1s L
- E ao g
V g 4.0 ` ·
E .. High-resolution medal pmicclmm (s·r>r.·Dc;w¤liou)
'E 2.0 D D #{/1 jr D ;\ _ T’gYW*·~~' -
•§‘ V V. yyxl ig"} }$;‘\'·*€& A 1*. `r ` ·,v`
Q? D 3 . Dx D r D , ` q i i -··»,.» Q §D D_1,,r - —” DD D
< · '*{· r" ‘· " `. V li I '. 'l ="¤§·. j* owl YD`} rk; -2% . rf · é
E 0 _
D ‘D·‘ DDD= — ra-#»%frii*D* .D:3`2D· L as Lax : =» ·4··r
E ¤ »;·
~—2-0 · ir ·~» " ’ a i_ 1. · ~»5D; ~D ru ,/ A il { ‘s L *1 4 2
DD D DD D D D sa Dsr·»»D*·¤s*‘°“r¤· rc if `*’D We D z·’ D ·D =¤'~’
TT1TIiYI'!T‘I3TI‘W¥NNHhTTTF?Ip¥HWT¥HNW¥N1TF¥hTUH7NTTHH¥!1’WNTHI1TUhH7HTH TT'{HW¤ Yi
me mso 2000 2020 · me me zoao 2100
s Year
Figure 1-3. Observed Tropical Cyclone Activity in Atlantic Basin, 1946-2007
Black Lines and Fit to Absolute Tro ical Atlantic SST Thick Brown Line ,
D s
Top) and Relative Tropical Atlantic SST (Thick Light Blue Line, Bottom)
Climate model projections to the year 2100 based upon the observed tropical cyclone/absolute
D SST relationshi oran e lines, to and observed tro ical c clone/relative SST relationshi blue
P Y
2009 DRAFT - 9
\!\! UNCORRECTED OCR SCAN OF DOC062509-004.pdf - VERIFY AGAINST ORIGINAL BEFORE USE !!
NCEE Comments on Draft TED for Endangerment Analysis for GHG Emissions
under CAA
lines, bottom). The projections made by high resolution dynamic hurricane models are indicated
by the green symbols on the right of each chart (see Vecchi et al., 2008 for additional details).
The top chart in Figure 1-3 shows a cumulative measure of annual Atlantic tropical cyclone
activity (thick black line), a statistical fit to the observed activity using absolute tropical Atlantic V
SSTS (thick brown line) and the climate model projections of the future Atlantic tropical cyclone
activity based upon that statistical fit (thin orange line are individual model projections, the thick
orange line is the model average). Cleary, under this scenario, Atlantic hurricane activity is _
projected to increase dramatically in the future driven by anthropogenic global warming. The
bottom chart of Figure 1-3 shows the results of the scenario in which Atlantic tropical cyclone
activity (thick black line) is driven by relative changes in the tropical Atlantic SSTs (thick light
blue line). Climate model projections of this relationship are indicated by the thin dark blue lines
and the thick blue line model average. In this scenario, global warming has little impact on
Atlantic tropical cyclone activity.
The current "best thinking" as to the impact of global warming on Atlantic tropical cyclone
activity from high resolution dynamical hurricane models is indicated by the elements in green
(stars, squares, triangles, bars) at the far right-hand side of each chart. In each case, the high-
resolution model results fall within the spaghetti of the model projections depicted in the bottom
chart and not within the spaghetti of the top chart. This implies that our best hurricane models are
lending their support to side maintaining that there is little impact from global warming, and
instead, tropical cyclones are largely modulated by natural variability. F
Obviously, there is still a lot of work that needs to be done in the arena of hurricane modeling
before this issue can be cleared up, which is the primary message that Vecchi et al (2008) want
( you to take home with you, but, along the way, Vecchi et al. (2008) strongly demonstrate that
based upon what we now know, it seems that natural multi-decadal oscillations in the climate of
the Atlantic Ocean trump anthropogenic global warming, when it comes to being the dominant
driver of 20th and 21st century Atlantic hurricane activity. A
_ 1.5 Changes in Outlook for Greenland Ice Sheet _
The idea that warming temperatures will cause Greenland to rapidly shed its ice has been
cast into doubt by new results indicating little evidence for the operation of such processes (e.g., `
v_an de Wal et al., 2008; Joughin et al., 2008). _ J
10 March 16,
\!\! UNCORRECTED OCR SCAN OF DOC062509-004.pdf - VERIFY AGAINST ORIGINAL BEFORE USE !!
Draft TSD Is Seriously Dated and Updates Made Are Inadequate
A recent article in Science has an alarming title: "Large and Rapid Melt-Induced Velocity
Changes in the Ablation Zone of the Greenland Ice Sheet." However, once one examines this
2
paper, there appears to be an amazing twist given the threatening title. To begin, the research
l
I -
; was conducted by a large team with the Institute for Marine and Atmospheric Research at
V Utrecht University, Netherlands; the authors state that "This work was supported by several
grants from the Netherlands Organization of Scientific Research and the Netherlands Polar
Programme."
, Van de Wal et al. focused their attention on measurements that are being made on the ice
alon the west coast of Greenland 'ust north of the Arctic Circle Fi ure 2 . For the ast 17 ears
. Y ¤ .
V annual measurements have been made along the "K-transect" to measure movements of the ice
sheet. However, they state "we started more detailed position measurements in 2005 by taking
advantage of technological developments of GPS equipment and data processing. The new
instruments record hourly position of stakes, which are drilled into the ice. The GPS (single-
frequency) units need to be serviced only once in a year and deliver an ice velocity record with a ·
temporal resolution of 1 day or better.” To say the least, geospatial technologies are showing up A
everywhere in our lives from the family car to the golf course and now to our favorite transects
in Greenland.
‘ 50km . "
.,·‘ _u·=e "
~ be V . =ia »·‘t `r`·, ai -,i_ ` i ‘
:4 i e_$HR it 4 ..»~ » ( 10
i ”* ,i 9 ir - V
Ki 8
rr · ,,.t .·.·.. .
. I t 5 e__-· 5 · _. c
I ~ 3a ` '°‘,; 3 `»`— T ·jj-QQFY _,,· ;_5;j;§;;g g‘_·§Tfg "
¤ ` 7 .... ‘ ,·.vr.r e
~ 1V - V ` *%t ifiiwg
erri . iiVe3 rer Rm
V e·»e · ···e V · »¤i·ee ~ ·
Figure 1-4. The K-transect in West Greenland at 67°N
The background NASA—Modis/Terra image is dated 26 August 2003. K is Kangerlussuaq,
V ' . , E uilibrium Line Altitude.
3
The equilibrium line (indicated by the black line) is at about 1500 m above sea level. The image
2009 DRAFT 11
\!\! UNCORRECTED OCR SCAN OF DOC062509-004.pdf - VERIFY AGAINST ORIGINAL BEFORE USE !!
NCEE Comments on Draft TED for Endangerment Analysis for GHG Emissions
under CAA
clearly shows zones, from right to left, of snow (Site 10), wet snow (Site 9), dark ice (Site 8), and 0
clear ice (Sites 4, 5, and SHR) (from van de Wal et al., 2008). `
Probably the largest surprise in the article can be seen in the Figure 3 in which we can see the
velocity changes at many sites over the 17-year period. The authors note that "The overall _
picture obtained by averaging all stake measurements at all sites for individual years indicates a
small but significant'(r:0.79, P < 0.05) decrease of 10% in the annual average velocity over 17
years". Despite all the talk about moulins, melting, rapid acceleration of ice, van der Wal et al.
reveal that the ice movement in western Greenland over the past 17 years has slowed
significantly!
140 P `
mu , V j i ’ . 1. A .
S . . · · aii ""“S‘* r
E too ttaz i·· a? i j
E. ~ A ` W . * · . i_ — .» -—-v-·Sl-{F1 °
IG H l ·* ._,_,¢.,;._“....€.Z’5 V l
2 yr ` 4 A _* € ‘¤_Al__l
g .60 ( zrnzlh - _ Q
V ` . . i’‘‘,‘i,, .%*11) _,,,
40 v {xii} · ’
20, _ . V .. . ..
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 .
Time (yrs) .
Figure 1-5. Variations in annual velocity along the K-transect over 17 years
Sites with a significant decrease over time are depicted as thick lines.
Source: Van de Wal etal. (2008).
In discussing their results we find some very interesting language, to say the least. At one
place they write "it has been suggested that the interaction between meltwater production and ice
velocity provides a positive feedback, leading to a more rapidand stronger response of the ice
sheet to climate warming than hitherto assumed. Our results are not quite in line with this view."
van der Wal et al. iiuther write "Longer observational records with high temporal resolution in
other ablation areas of the ice sheet are necessary to test the importance of the positive-feedback
mechanism between melt rates and ice velocities. At present, we cannot conclude that this
12 March 16,
\!\! UNCORRECTED OCR SCAN OF DOC062509-004.pdf - VERIFY AGAINST ORIGINAL BEFORE USE !!
A Draft TSD Is Seriously Dated and Updates Made Are Inadequate
feedback is important." Again, _we tend to say this moulin link to drowning the World Trade
Center Memorial is nonsense, and the empirical evidence is overwhelmingly in our favor. p
So how did this article ever get titled "Large and Rapid Melt-Induced Velocity Changes in
the Ablation Zone of the Greenland Ice Sheet"‘? Well, as seen in Figure l-6, the Garmin’s (or
some other product line) showed an unusually large increase in velocity from one site a week in
August in 2006. No one says Mother Nature is not capable of surprises, and the research team
was a bit taken back by the sudden movement. But when we examine this article, we are most
impressed with the results over the 17-year period and the lack of support for the notion that
somehow the velocity of ice is increasing during a time of greenhouse gas build-up!
.500, rsi. .. _ . I V
`··*·i··——S·4 : ·
400i, “"‘*"‘"$**'F* i . N
,__ ;.Q;..g§£ · r T
E. sony i is — . Q _
g r . ,,, ’ T
2 zoo}. _; . _
qg 5 V » if · Q V
> ·*.,, r a t T
mg W v
2 " if , ( * ’* ‘
ui . _ . ‘
_ 3-Aug 8-Aug 13-Aug 18—Aug 23-Aug 28—Aug _
» Date
Figure 1-6. Variations in Velocity at Various Sites in August 2006
Source: Van de Wal et al. (2008) _
1.6 SeriousRecession Has Greatly Decreased GHG Emissions Compared to
the Assumptions Made by the IPCC
One of the worst economic recessions since World War II has greatly decreased GHG emissions
compared to the assumptions made by the IPCC several years ago. To the extent that ambient
GHG levels are relevant for future global temperatures and to the extent that this may be much
more than a minor, short recession, these emissions reductions should greatly influence the
adverse effects of these emissions on public health and welfare. The current draft TSP does not
2009 DRAFT . 13
\!\! UNCORRECTED OCR SCAN OF DOC062509-004.pdf - VERIFY AGAINST ORIGINAL BEFORE USE !!
NCEE Comments on Draft TED for Endangerment Analysis for GHG Emissions
under CAA
reflect the changes that have already occurred nor those that are likely to occur in the future as a ·
result of the recession, but it needs to. In fact, the topic is not even discussed to our knowledge.
1.7 Long-term Water Vapor Feedback Reported to Be Negative
A newly published paper in a peer—reviewed journal (Paltridge, 2009) reaches the potentially
highly significant conclusion that
The upper—level negative trends in q are inconsistent with cIimate—model
~ ‘ calculations and are largely (but not completely) inconsistent with satellite
data. Water vapor feedback in climate models is positive mainly because of
their roughly constant relative humidity (i.e., increasing q) in the mid-to-
· · upper troposphere as the planet warms. Negative trends in q as found in the
A NCEP data would imply that long-term water vapor feedback is negative- A
that it would reduce rather than amplify the response of the climate system
to external forcing such as that from increasing atmospheric CO2.
This paper is of particular significance because it concludes with a number of
important qualifications that a key assumption in the GCM models concerning a
strong positiveiwater feedback is incorrect since it is negative rather than positive.
The following (from Gray, 2009) explains why this assumption is so crucial and why
a change in it is not only expected but of great significance:
1. Introduction
There are about 20 different General Circulation Model (GCM) groups
_ around the world that have been conducting extensive numerical modeling
simulations of the likely changes in global mean temperature that should be
expected to occur from a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2).
Carbon dioxide has so far risen about 33 percent (to 385 ppm) over its pre-
· industrial values and about 15 percent during the last 30 years. It is
expected that there will be a doubling of atmospheric CO2 by the latter part
of the 21st century. Most of these GCM simulations indicate that there will be
a 2-5oC (4-9oF) increase in global mean temperature by the time this ·
doubling takes place. Such large warming as obtained by the GCMs would
cause great changes to human society. These large warming scenarios are
highly unlikely, however. The GCMs greatly exaggerate the potential warming
that will occur. These exaggerations are due to:
1. GCMs assume that an increase in atmospheric CO2 will cause weak
global warming and an increase in global precipitation that will lead to a
large increase in upper—Ievel water vapor and cloudiness. They simulate
that this increase in water vapor and cloudiness will block large amounts
of infrared radiation emitted to space. New observations by satellite and
reanalysis data, however, do not support these GCM assumptions. The
· global warming that has occurred since the mid—1970s has been .
associated with a modest decrease of global upper tropospheric water
14 March 16,
\!\! UNCORRECTED OCR SCAN OF DOC062509-004.pdf - VERIFY AGAINST ORIGINAL BEFORE USE !!
Draft TSD Is Seriously Dated and Updates Made Are Inadequate
vapor and an increase of Outgoing Longwave Radiation (OLR). These »
measurements contradict model predictions.
2. GCMs do not currently accurately model the gIobe’s deep-water ocean
circulation. Accurately modeling the global ocean’s deep circulation is
fundamental to any realistic understanding of global temperature change,
as this circulation appears to be the primary control of global surface
temperature. The global warming we have seen since the mid—1970s and
over the last 100 years is likely largely due to reductions in the rate of
global ocean deep water circulation (or the MOC) which is viewed as being
driven by global ocean salinity variations. CO2 changes play no role in
these ocean changes. ·
The most basic AGW question appears to be how we would expect upper
level water vapor changes to respond to increases of CO2. The GCMs -
- program a very large (and in my view, quite unrealistic) upper level water » .
vapor increase as a response to CO2 doubling. This is a consequence of the
GCM’s faulty sub-grid convective parameterization schemes and the strict
interpretation of the Clausius-Clapeyron (CC) equation to upper level
temperature changes which dictate that water vapor increase with
temperature increase. Observations indicate that this is not occurring. The
cumulus convective schemes employed by the GCMs develop unrealistic high
amounts of water vapor which block too much OLR and cause artificial
warming which is 2-4 times greater than the warming that would result from
the CO2 blockage of OLR by itself.
A Observations and other theoretical analysis indicate that little or no upper
level water vapor increase will occur with a doubling of CO2. If this is true
then the CO2 induced global temperature increases will be only a quarter or
a third as much as the GCMs currently indicate.
All the various data sets (Figure 1) that I and some of my colleagues have
been working with indicate that upper level water vapor (near the radiation
emission level) should not necessarily rise with increases of CO2 and global
temperatures. Rather than rise, there appears to be a tendency for a slight
upper tropospheric decrease in water vapor as upper level temperature and
CO2 have increased. This would allow about as much water vapor induced
OLR to space after CO2 amounts have increased as they had before. Little
water vapor induced warming should result. There are good theoretical
arguments for this being the case. [This does not mean that lower
tropospheric water vapor and net precipitable water content will not slightly
rise as CO2 amounts double.]
Thunderstorms and cumulonimbus (Cb) activity are the primary
mechanisms to bring mass into the global upper troposphere. Such deep
convective activity is highly concentrated at any one time to only about 2-3
percent of the global area. The mass that goes up in the deep convective
cloudsis then advected outward from the convective areas to the
environment and sinks in response to the upper tropospheric radiational
‘ cooling, cirrus evaporation cooling, and the need for mass balance (Fig 2).
` The vertical gradient of saturation vapor pressure in the upper
troposphere is very large. Upper level subsidence requires that upper level
water vapor and RH values remain low. There appears to be no way a few
A 2009 DRAFT 15
\!\! UNCORRECTED OCR SCAN OF DOC062509-004.pdf - VERIFY AGAINST ORIGINAL BEFORE USE !!
I NCEE Comments on Draft TED for Endangerment Analysis for GHG Emissions
under CAA _
i percent increase in deep convection with CO2 doubling could raise upper
level water vapor amounts enough to significantly reduce OLR beyond the V
reduction of OLR by_ the increased CO2 by itself. _
A
1950 Rznnulysis Data 2003
y 1984 és, gl 4 2004
` } 7
A ISCCP Dato
Scfiwarlz .
was-ma
Figure 1. Data sources utilized in this study. NCEP/NCAR Reanalysis data
(1950-2008) of wind, thermodynamics and OLR derived radiation, and data
from the International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project (ISCCP) for the
period of 1984-2004 which contain a variety of radiation components are
examined.
”~.ri A
gg
(Wim ) { zen g I
t 230* _ ` ·` V
226 I C ‘ if
Emission _' . ‘ —' _
V ..1, .... * ···· · * ····
·‘
is g,_`,,'·5 {{>_;*r .‘..`.’JJ_.'r _
iii. Hr: _='»" _ 1} it gw; iP¢9·Hs?
· Evap. +
Figure 2. Idealized portrayal of how deeper and more intense
cumulonimbus (Cb) convection can lead to progressively more return flow `
dry subsidence. Enhanced upper level subsidence acts to reduce upper layer
water vapor, and enhanced OLR.
2. GCM MODELING PROBLEMS
V 916 March 16,
\!\! UNCORRECTED OCR SCAN OF DOC062509-004.pdf - VERIFY AGAINST ORIGINAL BEFORE USE !!
Draft TSD Is Seriously Dated and Updates Made Are Inadequate
Skillful initial-value numerical GCM climate prediction will likely never be
_ possible. This is due to the overly complex nature of the global
atmosphere/ocean/land system and the inability of numerical models to
realistically represent and forecast the full range of this physical complexity.
Small-Scale Problems. In order to integrate over the entire globe and
many years into the future it is necessary that the GCMs have rather large
grid spacing. This requires that the GCMs employ sub—grid scale cumulus
I parameterization schemes which can often be poor approximations of the
complex real—world, non—linear, smaII—scaIe cumulus convective processes.
’ An important deficiency in the global models is the large amount of ·
compensating up—and-down motion occurring between grid spaces that
. cannot be explicitly resolved by the models (Figure 3). These poorly—resolved ~
approximations of sub—grid scale processes are integrated by the models for
hundreds of thousands of time steps into the future. This guarantees large
errors. Realistic sub—grid scale parameterization schemes have yet to be
-deveIoped. Most GCM modelers are unfamiliar with the detailed functioning of
the hydrologic cycle. Their models assume that changes in lower and upper
tropospheric water vapor occur simultaneously whichthe observations do not
verify (Figure 4). Observations show, in fact, that as global warming has
occurred since the mid—1970s that lower tropospheric water vapor has
increased while upper tropospheric water vapor has decreased. This appears
to be a result of there being somewhat more deep Cb convection and a
higher rainfall efficiency when the globe is warmer than when it is colder.
There are slightly more deep convective updrafts and compensating mass .
subsidence drying at upper levels during times when the globe is warmer.
Much research on the small scale parameterization of cumulus convection
in terms of the large scale circulation patterns was done in the 1970s and
1980s without satisfactory resolution. The topic was too complex to be -
resolved during this period. To move forward the GCMs primarily ignored this `
difficult task. They chose not to get ‘down—in—the—trenches’ on such a
complex topic. They accepted a few simple compromised schemes (with
known problems) and went forward with their broader-scale modeling
integrations assuming that their sub-grid schemes were ‘good enough’ or ·
that the errors would average out in the end. This assumption is not valid.
There are many large and complicated variations as to how sub—grid scale
cumulus parameterization should be accomplished with respect to differences
in latitude, surface characteristics, season, and other conditions. There are
no general sub-grid parameterization schemes that can perform this function
within various regions and on long climate time—scales.
The net effect of the GCM’s sub-grid scale parameterization schemes is to
~ underestimate sub—grid subsidence drying, and to unrealistically suppress "
OLR to space. It is thus not surprising that the GCMs produce so much global ’
. warming (~2 to 5oC) for only a relatively small increase (3.7 W/m2) of
suppressed radiation to space for a doubling of CO2.
It is expected that global rainfall will increase somewhat as human-
induced greenhouse gases increase. This increased rainfall is expected to
primarily manifest itself in increased and concentrated deep cumulus
convection and increased rainfall efficiency in the normal areas where deep
2009 DRAFT 17
\!\! UNCORRECTED OCR SCAN OF DOC062509-004.pdf - VERIFY AGAINST ORIGINAL BEFORE USE !!
Q NCEE Comments on Draft TED for Endangerment Analysis for GHG Emissions
under CAA
· convection and rainfall are already occurring. This somewhat greater and
more concentrated rainfall will not bring about global upper—IeveI water vapor
and cloud increase anywhere near as much as the GCM modelers have A
. assumed. The diagram of Figure 5 gives the author’s concept of how the
i globe will handle a doubling of CO2 by the end of the 21st century. We will
not see a global warming of 2-5oC as the GCM models indicate but rather a
much more modest warming of about 0.3-0.5oC.
i J .
T .
emo l _ I I
Wd w l `°"’ l Eiiz icma 1
l
i l l l g
I U I J 1 I
Vertical Motion {ua) |'*"‘*GRm’ ’SPACE"""‘*"’I
_,l “é5i`i€`é“`3§“
3 ___. I .. ____ _ _A__ 7 lo .... y... . .. . .1
J: l—— -.2 i 1 R’~ F r l . ‘
Reel “’“i Vw _°J“»*; 1 1 I ri 1 A
&ib-grid E . · r . R’H=8l3%
_ 2 { _.. immense
up&cl:::+wn y 1 1 A . I 1 1
iTiCl‘llCll1 =z_ I _.·‘°` f”__,_._ d__,,,_.,, ' . ` _,_.,.\ F_,,_,,._
concentralionk} vakssqiséa ..,. .>’ _;}M_; T ...Ll..;l_.,*-._t,;>i
Figure 3. Idealized portrayal of how the grid size of the GCMs is too large
to accommodate real sub-grid scale vertical motion. GCMs cannot resolve
(top) the concentrated rain or the surrounding cloud downdrafts and
subsidence within the scale of its grid space (bottom). The top and bottom
diagrams contrast the mean vertical motion of the GCM (top) and the real
up—and—down vertical motion of nature if deep convection is occurring within
a grid space. Note that the unresolved vertical motion of the top diagram
allows less OLR to escape to space.
18 ' March 16,
\!\! UNCORRECTED OCR SCAN OF DOC062509-004.pdf - VERIFY AGAINST ORIGINAL BEFORE USE !!
Draft TSD Is Seriously Dated and Updates Made Are Inadequate
i N.
100
200 ` "" GCM
300 ;
JIOOD g W
E M X 2
~··—·· SCH “
(D ‘\ ..
5 000 M 1 0
§ ~ K
sc "°° ‘·
soo ‘\ 3
sm "
3;..... ..... ousesvmsosix · ` LZ
1000 g I g it
0 .2 .4 is .8 sfu 1.:1 1.4
Correlation Coefficient C
V Figure 4. Comparison of correlation coefficient between upper and lower
level tropospheric water vapor of the typical GCMs output (red) and that of
the Rawinsonde—reanaIysis observations (blue line). The GCM outputs are
programmed to have a simultaneous moistening of the lower and upper
tropospheric levels, but the observations of upper vs. lower troposphere ·
moisture shows little correlation. This high correlation of the models causes
them to artificially moisten the upper troposphere and block too much OLR to
_ space. Adapted from Sun and Held 1996.
lncmasnf -
· "§£?s2?Li“ sségtlmgts S%l2,'£?i"‘
&“Z"’%i“§s?'? V°”'” ( Wsamisg GCMS F 1
Bn ‘ E` V ..,,· 11
Rasnsass %$;_§§§ . BC
_ Space .
ms; 1
increase
f
essessssgs / REAL'"'
· aesnsass ¤f`”&`:`»s.*""s=`E`"§"s1ss `°‘3'wC
» Albedoto
Space l
Figure 5. A view of the physical process differences between the global
warming for a doubling of CO2 from the GCMs (top) and hypothesized reality
(bottom).
2009 DRAFT V 19
\!\! UNCORRECTED OCR SCAN OF DOC062509-004.pdf - VERIFY AGAINST ORIGINAL BEFORE USE !!
NCEE Comments on Draft TED for Endangerment Analysis for GHG Emissions
under CAA
° Positive or Negative Water Vapor Feedback? Most geophysical systems
react to forced imbalances by developing responses which oppose and
weaken the initial forced imbalance; hence, a negative feedback response.
Recent GCM global warming scenarios go counter to the foregoing in
hypothesizing a positive feedback response. Observations indicate that the
specific humidity and relative humidity of the middleand upper troposphere
have been going down over the last 4-5 decades (Figure 6). The assumed . .
positive water vapor increase with temperature as programmed into the
GCMs does occur however at the surface and the lower troposphere. But this
simultaneous increase of temperature and water vapor is not found in the
upper troposphere near the radiation emission level. It is not the total
precipitable water which is most important (measurements show this goes up
with temperature) but rather the amount of water vapor near the upper
tropospheric emission level which is important. This more closely specifies
the amount of OLR. (
l Ynarly évsmga Annrnalluia mr ¤fl"N»9l1'*S; n·3HD ("W50-20DBl
..,.....c.......,...,......... ...... z.....N,., .... 1,-..... .... . ..,. .2........ ................,.,.,.....N.-.. ..., e., ..~...,,.,.,.21.- ....e. ... .....
,5 _ Fil-“$E3“lQL“é§`éé'él"é`ilL§»l{lK»i§]
W. if · °i!1?&E_,_1__-_ _s_i__ _ s____,.___._.___ _
l.‘J
. na A rf _ " .
·l¤ `
-l$ »
.2
\!\! UNCORRECTED OCR SCAN OF DOC062509-004.pdf - VERIFY AGAINST ORIGINAL BEFORE USE !!
Draft TSD Is Seriously Dated and Updates Made Are Inadequate
_ in the atmosphere would accordingly rise (Figure 7 and Figure 8). e
Observations show that this is indeed a valid assumption for the lower
‘ tropospheric levels but does not observationally apply in the upper
troposphere (300-400 mb) where water vapor and relative humidity have
been observed to slightly decrease as the atmospheric temperatures rises.
Lower RH and reduced water vapor content near the upper-atmosphere
emission level act to increase the amount of OLR which will be emitted to
space. .
The GCMs which test the influence of CO2 increases have accepted the
hypothesized NAS — Charney Report (1979) scenario. Some of the GCM
modelers such as the early NASA-GISS (Hansen 1988) model have even
.gone further than they Clausius—Clapeyron equation would specify for water
vapor increasing with temperature. Hansen’s early GISS model assumed that
a doubling of CO2 would cause the upper tropospheric RH not just to stay
constant but to actually increase. His assumed upper tropospheric increase of
water vapor (q) for a doubling of CO2 led to a water vapor increase (Aq) in
the upper troposphere of as much as an extremely unlikely 50 percent.
These large vapor increases caused Hansen to require that his model have a V
tropical (30oN-30oS) upper tropospheric warming for a doubling of CO2 of as
much as 7oC (Figure 10). A 7oC warming at the upper level emission level is
_ equivalent to a 23 W/m2 enhancement of OLR for a doubling of CO2 forcing
of only 3.7 W/m2. No wonder Hansen got such high values of global warming
for a doubling of CO2. This logically followed from his extremely high and
unrealistic water vapor assumptions.
FAMOUS NATIONAL ACADEMY OF
SCIENCE (1979) STUDY
(The Charney Report)
s Doubling CO2 will lead to global
AT change of 1 .5—-4,5***C (~3¤C)
- 0 Due to positive water vapor feedback
AT -+ A moisture -—+ reduced OLR
Figure 7. The very influential NAS report of 1979 which deduced that any
warming of the globe would occur with near constant relative humidity (RH).
Global warming consequently is thought to cause an increase in atmospheric
water vapor (q) and a decrease in OLR. This assumption appears valid in the
lower troposphere but not for the upper troposphere. Although temperature
increase may cause precipitable water to increase in the troposphere, it does
4 not mean that upper tropospheric water vapor will necessarily increase.
2009 DRAFT 21
\!\! UNCORRECTED OCR SCAN OF DOC062509-004.pdf - VERIFY AGAINST ORIGINAL BEFORE USE !!
NCEE Comments on Draft TED for Endangerment Analysis for GHG Emissions
under CAA
_Q_LAUiSlUS-Q_.LAPEYRON (CC) A
RELATIONSHIP A
A A Le. -<:¤nstanl RH, Increase q
T {Iftemperalure rlaes)
F
. --·· V Q
¤< Micbtvell 0
9 "" "* ¤· .,.. ,
4 ‘“ ""' ·-
Z> A A Obs.
-
EA .
AT F
Figure 8. Clausius-Clapeyron (CC) relationship showing the required
‘ increase of water vapor as temperature increases at constant RH — red line.
The observations of upper tropospheric water vapor — green dashed line — do
not follow this theoretical relationship. This is likely a result of a warmer
climate causing more deep convection and more return flow subsidence (as
shown in Figure 2).
A changes ima clcuumgoricoz
» wl tbl · U V ·
iN` C 7 . 200 hugh +6%
Li W ES`? M
5, -2, . .
$2 E
fi nw » Q uw
3 Ii
IBDD 1
D 1·¤· PG N dll SU GD N Gl} W!-E ¢ 2 4 G
Gnmgem spemacmnmvy {Y6} Change in refavve rwn1I¢Ryi‘P6,l
Figure 9. James Hansen’s early GISS model showing his assumed
increases in specific humidity (q) and RH for a doubling of CO2. Such water A
vapor assumptions are completely unrealistic, especially for conditions in the
upper troposphere where water vapor typically increases less.
22 March 16,
\!\! UNCORRECTED OCR SCAN OF DOC062509-004.pdf - VERIFY AGAINST ORIGINAL BEFORE USE !!
l
Draft TSD Is Seriously Dated and Updates Made Are Inadequate
GMES, 2:zC02~ax.CO2
. ...........\.. _ -.l.“... ...A.. - `
` 5G 1.2
25 1»·1= "<é "~=%.¤€¤, -2 »H¤·‘.~t-si , 2wz¤1:»;- 5
E al) ‘5` T ¤¤ jg
5 ,/" d`e‘ `T;
A {5 lil
I ¤¤ -·~’”‘ ;. ji `. 2 if ’ - w’2"’ gl
. C . S s QZ ( 2- ' ea ·‘. M
‘ ‘ e __ to new
sail mu san sou mu ms sos me ms sm.
. Figure 10. North-South verticaI—cross section showing Hansen's early
GCM’s model change in temperature (oC) that would accompany a doubling -
_ of atmospheric CO2. There is no way a doubling of CO2 and an extra 3.7
W/m2 blockage of OLR to space could lead to such extreme upper
tropospheric temperature rises. These large temperature increases occurred
because of Hansen's unrealistic upper level water vapor assumptions.
In order to obtain the global balance of incoming and outgoing radiation
for his assumed high values of upper tropospheric water vapor it was
necessary for Hansen to unrealistically raise his modeI’s upper tropospheric
temperatures to obtain the amounts of OLR (or oT4) to space that would
accomplish net radiation balance. It is amazing that Hansen's high water .
vapor increase and massively high upper tropospheric temperature rise
assumptions for a doubling of CO2 were not immediately challenged. —
Itwas these large amounts of warming resulting from his modeI's gross
V over-estimate of water vapor which Hansen presented to a US Senate
Committee hearing at the request of then Senator AI Gore during the hot
summer of 1988. The media and much of the general public accepted it all. .
` The environmentalists salivated. Hansen had secured his place in the sun.
History will reverse such adulation when his warming predictions are
inevitable proven to be wrong.
· Not only have Hansen's extreme and unrealistically high values of upper
tropospheric moisture and temperature changes (for a doubling of CO2) not
been challenged, they were instead closely emulated by most of the other .
prominent early GCM groups of NOAA—GFDL (Figure 11), NCAR (Figure 12)
and the British Met Service (Figure 13). They all followed suit and
incorporated unrealistically high amounts of upper tropospheric water vapor
and, as a result, obtained unrealistically high values of global upper and _
surface temperature just as Hansen had. The fact that most of the (assumed
independent) GCMs produced similar warming results were used as
verification of each modeI’s results. But this was untrue. All the modelers
were wrong in the same direction and in the same way.
2009 DRAFT V 23
\!\! UNCORRECTED OCR SCAN OF DOC062509-004.pdf - VERIFY AGAINST ORIGINAL BEFORE USE !!
NCEE Comments on Draft TED for Endangerment Analysis for GHG Emissions
under CAA
Although the more recent GCM runs of Hansen’s GISS model and the
Z more recent, GFDL, NCAR and UKMET models have been improved, they are
T still fundamentally flawed. I expect the current set of GCM modelers will say
I am referring to older model runs that are now obsolete. This argument
does not hold however. If the more recent year models are superior to the
older ones, then we would be seeing a revision downward of their warming
estimates. But their newer models giveimuch the same magnitude of
warming as their older ones. · _r
as __. . ._ V - All A _ ; ‘_ ;,é;· J .~;‘v _. . .. . V ,
_ _ .... _ _4;;....,., ....... ........
‘'‘' i l. .i._._ , ;...,_..,.. ..., y.,.. . ... 1::2§2 ‘'‘‘’ :2:28 ‘
.`V`¤» V _·"H;Y •`u •» ••>¤•» ••>q¤ 1 ¤_n•¤• ¤ H ¤j6`aj•i •· ni¤\•••• n¤ i u·n:i: N
·g H m :‘:£ :::::;;;;· M ~ 1— a · 1 ... .. ,· .... §Z I Z‘ t! :::; . A
sv rI|IQ_i*(_ ¢ _ > . V V E
Z V _- A . . ‘ _` ‘ · ,1,.. .. .`·. g. _ H
6% . ' _ ` V ```VVV V V , V,·12...-l-;;¤;··x-.·;.·.;r.~;.·..VV . · ·_€i‘. VVV· I V Y V V i q
- E NU ;Q;€,2,;;,·_;.};;,;;,2,,.;,_;;Q·,;,.,,;,: .-.i i V “Vvii?$%@E$?§E?£???E??i?5?E?3??§¢fE§·»i;;;;*;i;€;$¤:@§§f‘.»}E‘}€€i;§¢§“Ei?»j%—2; .{Y;¤.} ; . F *5
" M ;§i§IEii$i?§?i?2¥¥i§ I sril 2* , ’ I y 4 I
‘§3 ’i‘· *"sV¥iV?¥£§.‘i*.§¥Y*·.£2;eQ;~i. ·...l ’ i l·.V . l.... 1 ¤· A i
gw i;»€E`·*·=iZlZ‘T` *¤`·r‘ »>Z£?‘€i==¤>.`??l?;‘=*i¥¥~ i ._ _ __ i°°”"jEEYEEEXL?$3;*}E??;‘Y.Zé$’*f=5*??*V
W won mel mg 0, 30, i 60* mis .
Figure 11. Sameas Figure 10 but for the NOAA—GFDL GCM.
‘*;___'_, ""\, R *1f ___ _
=5 . o1_ _ _· __ _ 2. was A .
% V V V s, —_~_V__FH'a- f§,€{:. ·. @
i``‘ °
0
. wm 2·¤*s·l $0zN* acm; 2o*u WS airs $0*5 70*5 $0*5
l-¤¤l¤¤¤• Jun-Jul-Aug
YE VV " — 1--V ` __ VV V
*9 V - *"`—~.......;i`°w · V *2* AE
~.."‘.` "
I; 1¤ A . ___z _,. B "“ ·-·“ii·*·~... 265 E
·— . ........ _ . V ,..... _ .·.~i., '·‘ ·
SE ;·l E
5 ``i"l “’“' ` `F`` ""°
wu ww scm sow www ws ws ws ws ws
Akfiil? n.¤1im¤i¤ Dau-Jun-Feb
Figure 12. Same as Figure 10 but for the NCAR’s GCM.
24 March 16,
\!\! UNCORRECTED OCR SCAN OF DOC062509-004.pdf - VERIFY AGAINST ORIGINAL BEFORE USE !!
Draft TSD Is Seriously Dated and Updates Made Are Inadequate
Jun-Jul-Aug -
* ` . ,,_, ~
§ mo —···’·a· Mm ;;
A EGG A 'IF 3. JG 3, ·§I V S 1 hn l
— e,.,” . ...,._ etue _4t._ ...e. .,,.t. -..L.Tl 1.-1-
WN all b' u' J) LY NS
Dec-Jan-Feb
uua
E mu _ Elm
. _ all `E ri I ’·* H 1};;*;
`mll- .r..-;.;wo-.-..’L. ..,,,». :0,-...M .... - ...... 23,...... `_...t.. . ,3. . . __.. Kyi
£»'}\*“.·l·2£·¢¢ ,$·.rr»vbr
Figure 13. Same as Figure 10 but for the UKMET GCM.
3. IMPOSSIBILITY OF SKILLFUL GCM CLIMATE PREDICTION
Skillful initial-value numerical weather forecasts currently cannot be made for
more than about two weeks into the future. This is because any imperfect
representations of the highly non-linear parameters of the atmosphere—ocean, ·
system tend to quickly degrade (the so-called butterfly effect) into unrealistic flow
states upon integration of longer than a week or two. Skillful short-range
prediction is possible because there tends to be conservation in the initial value
momentum-pressure fields which can be skillfully extrapolated or_advected for a
week or two into the future. But after 1-2 weeks, one must deal with the far more
complex variation of the moisture and energy fields. Model results soon decay
into chaos. I
If skillful GCM forecasts were possible for a longer period of a season to a
few years, we would be eager to track their skill. Currently, GCMs do not make
official seasonalor annual forecasts. They dare not issue these forecasts
because they know they are not skillful and would quickly lose their credibility if
they gave real time forecasts that could actually be verified. How can we trust _
GCM climate forecasts 50 and 100 years into the future (that cannot be verified
V in our lifetime) when these same models are not able to demonstrate shorter
range forecast skill?
[End of quotation from Gray paper] .
What all of this argues is that there is considerable doubt as to the validity of
the IPCC GCM models because they do not correspond with observational data in a
very important aspect. Since these models are the principal underpinning for the
IPCC conclusions and therefore the Draft TSD it is vital that these doubts and
2009 DRAFT 25
\!\! UNCORRECTED OCR SCAN OF DOC062509-004.pdf - VERIFY AGAINST ORIGINAL BEFORE USE !!
NCEE Comments on Draft TED for Endangerment Analysis for GHG Emissions
under CAA
uncertainties be carefully explained in the TSD so that readers understand these
issues which directly effect the proposed finding of endangerment.
1.8 Scafetta and West: GHG Contribution to Global Warming May Be Much `
Smaller than Alleged by IPCC
As noted below in Section 2.4, solar variability (including sunspots) has attracted the
` attention of scientists for many centuries. Until the last couple decades, many scientists appear
to have recognized the importance of the changes in the sun as a substantial contributor to
changes in the climate. ("Changing Sun, Changing Climate," API.
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/solar.htm)
With the advent of satellite-based instrumentation beginning in the late 1970s which
measured on the sun’s energy output (Total Solar Irradiance, or TSI in watts/square-meter),
researchers were now able tract with substantial accuracy and precision the energy reaching the
top of the earth’s atmosphere.
V The IPCC (2007) report examined all of the satellite data and found that the amplitude of the
sun’s TSI varied by only about 0.1% based with no apparent secular trend using an analysis that
combined the data from several satellites. The analysis was complicated by a critical gap in the
high-quality data that occurred from mid—1989 to 1991.75. The IPCC report based its conclusion
of no secular trend in the data by adjusting the data based on a particular TSI proxy model that
was believed to provide the best overall fit while bridging the so-called ACRIM—gap by using
‘ lower—quality data from other satellites. This way of constructing the TSI data has been
challenged. If the alternative TSI reconstruction is used, it is suggested that the Sun could
account for as much as 69 % of the increase in the Earths average temperature (Scafetta & West
(2008). A
As recently as March 2009, a new paper published in the peer-reviewed journal Geophysical
Research Letters concluded that the analysis that the IPCC (2007) based its conclusions on is
flawed (Scafetta & Wilson, GRL, 3 March 2009). This suggests that a secular increase in the
sun’s TSI may actually be responsible for a substantial part of the global temperature increase V _
attributed to GHGs. This matter deserves additional review by other researchers and solar
specialists.6
6 A detailed slide set pdf with extensive references and the 2/26/2009 climate science seminar video by
Dr. Nicola Scafetta is available at: http://www.ega.gov/economics/ A
26 March 16,
\!\! UNCORRECTED OCR SCAN OF DOC062509-004.pdf - VERIFY AGAINST ORIGINAL BEFORE USE !!
Draft TSD Is Seriously Dated and Updates Made Are Inadequate
The possibility that IPCC (2007) has erred in its attribution of most of the relatively recent
gobal warming to GHG increased with the publication of the Scafetta and Wilson (2009). This
paper concludes that reconstruction of the solar TSI used by the IPCC appears to have been
seriously flawed. If this peer-reviewed analysis is correct, then the sun "could account for as
much as 69% percent of the increase in the Earth's average temperature, depending on the TSI
reconstruction used." (see Scafetta & West, 2008) _
Until this new paper was published, one might have dismissed the above view by arguing it
appears to be based on a erroneous reconstruction of the TSI. 1 However, now the burden of
proof seems to have switched to those scientists that continue to support the IPCC (2007) .
conclusions on solar variability.
[These comments provide as balanced a presentation of these uncertainties as possible despite
the extreme acrimony and conflicting views between both proponents of the GHG hypothesis
and the skeptics of it. To the extent possible the highest quality scientific infomation will be
used, although this has been difficult in the case of the skeptics. Because the views of the
proponents have very recently been documented in the United Nations IPCC AR4 Report (2007)
report, there will largely only be brief references to this material, which is readily available. This
cannot be done for the skeptics’ case, however, because with one possible exception there is no
one source of analysis that is generally accepted to fully represent the views of this very diverse
group. As a result it will be necessary to spend much more space outlining the viewpoint of the
skeptics; this is not because of a desire to emphasize their views over that of the IPCC, but rather
to adequately represent their diversity of views. The closest thing to an overall summary is
probably Singer (2008), but it is hard to accept this comparatively short report as the last word on
the subject and it will not be extensively in this paper. On the other hand, an extensive review
article on the topic of cosmic rays and climate can be found in Kirkby (2007), which appears to
meet very high scientific standards, and will be particularly relied on for these topics. Given the
nature of the subject and the disorganization of the literature on the skeptics’ side, however, it
has been necessary to‘use some material available only on the internet and even written in a less
than academic format. One of the most useful of these is Gregory (2008), who provides a very
comprehensive overview of climate change science from at least this skeptic’s viewpoint. It
does not, however, provide formal footnotes or references, although there is extensive URL
references provided that allows the reader to locate the sources mentioned. To conserve space it
2009 DRAFT 27
\!\! UNCORRECTED OCR SCAN OF DOC062509-004.pdf - VERIFY AGAINST ORIGINAL BEFORE USE !!
NCEE Comments on Draft TED for Endangerment Analysis for GHG Emissions
under CAA
appears better, however, to cite Gregory where the sources are evident rather than to repeat his
analysis of particular topics. An effort has been made, however, to only reference material
containing the real names of the authors found on Websites whose Webmasters are referenced or
cited. This excludes, for example, allWebsites and material whose authors and Webmasters are
. not clearly identified since the authors and the Webmasters of such Websites obviously have so
little confidence in their views that they are not willing to clearly identify themselves.
Obviously, some of the issues discussed are much more credible than others. In general, those
referencing Kirkby appear to be highly credible. Issues raised by Websites may provide very
interesting ideas but may also be less credible.
28 I March 16,
\!\! UNCORRECTED OCR SCAN OF DOC062509-004.pdf - VERIFY AGAINST ORIGINAL BEFORE USE !!
[ Some Major Inconsistencies in the Science of Global Warming that Need to Be Explained
2. Some Major inconsistencies in the Science of Global Warming
thatiNeed to be Explained i
In addition to the more recent inconsistencies discussed in Section l above, there are a
number of others of somewhat longer standing that at least need to be discussed in the draft TSD
in our view. They are so serious, however, that we believe that there is a need to change the
conclusions of the draft TSD. For well-documented lists of these inconsistencies see Gregory,
2008 and Singer, 2008. Gregory’s list has approximately 30 items, few if any of which are
addressed in the draft TSD. Although these lists themselves have not been peer-reviewed many
of the references have been. All these inconsistencies are included in these comments by
reference. This includes the important missing heating of the upper troposphere in the tropics.
V These lists and the references they cite, unless carefully and successfully answered in the draft
TSD, largely eliminate the GHG hypothesis as a serious contender for explaining a significant
V part of the global warming that has occurred. This leaves the most fundamental issue as to what
does cause global temperature fluctuations. It would be very convenient to simply offer a few
minor corrections in the draft TSD; unfortunately, the problems are much more deeper since it
does not seriously consider other possible causes of global temperature fluctuations besides GHG
concentrations. Failure to consider these other makes the draft TSD one—sided and unscientific
· in its discussion since it basically pre—supposes the answer and the answer does not explain the
A observed fluctuations in global temperatures. Until the causes are clearly understood most any
effort (except stratospheric geoengineering) is likely doomed to failure. It is only by taking a
new and fundamental look at this question that a meaningful understanding of the endangerment
can be reached. Although the hour may be late, it is only by doing so that an accurate
endangerment TSD can be prepared. ·
2.1 What ls Science?
The first question is what science is. Science as used in these comments is the process of
generating hypotheses and experimentally determining their validity by comparison with real
world data—in other words, the application of the scientific method. We do not believe that
science is writing a description of the world or the opinions of world authorities on a particular
subject. Science, we believe, is not a statement of belief by scientific organizations. The .
question in our view is not what someone believes but how what he or she believes corresponds
2009 DRAFT I 29
\!\! UNCORRECTED OCR SCAN OF DOC062509-004.pdf - VERIFY AGAINST ORIGINAL BEFORE USE !!
NCEE Comments on Draft TED for Endangerment Analysis for GHG Emissions
under CAA
to real world data. It is important to note that science evolves over time as new discoveries are
made and new hypotheses are formulated and discarded. There is no such thing as permanent or
settled science. Only continuing research can insure that important relationships are taken into
A account. Richard Feynman (1965) expressed this as follows:
In general, we look for a new law by the following process. First, we guess it. Then we
compute the consequences of the guess to see what would be implied if this law that we
guessed is right. Then we compare the result of the computation to nature, with experiment
or experience; compare it directly with observation to see if it works. lf it disagrees with
experiment it is wrong. lt’s that simple statement that is the key to science. It does not make
any difference how beautiful your guess is. It does not make any difference how smart you
are, who made the guess, or what his name is-——if it disagrees with experiment (observation)
it is wrong."
Fundamental to the science of global warming and of climate change is what determines the
evident changes in global temperatures over time. Until this is firmly understood any attempt to
determine the effects of particular changes in the climate environment such as increases in
ambient GHG levels on temperatures or human health and welfare is extremely risky since it
runs the risk of being incorrect, with the result that any alleged endangerment may prove to be
incorrect along with any actions that may be taken under the Clean Air Act as well.
2.2 What Determines Changes in Global Temperatures?
Global temperatures have long fluctuated both in the short and long term. Until we clearly .
understand these fluctuations it is not possible to make any meaningful as to the cause of either
. global warming or other climate changes. Numerous hypotheses have been offered, but they all
cannot be correct since they differ greatly. One clue may be that there appears to be considerable
cyclicality in temperatures over time; here’s a brief synopsis of some of what is known in terms
of the length of the cycles involved: I
Over 150 million year periods: There appears to have been a distinct approximately 150
million year cycle in Earth’s temperatures. One explanation that has been offered is the change
l in level of galactic cosmic rays resulting from the Solar System’s movementsrabove and below
30 · March 16,
\!\! UNCORRECTED OCR SCAN OF DOC062509-004.pdf - VERIFY AGAINST ORIGINAL BEFORE USE !!
Some Major Inconsistencies in the Science of Global Warming that Need to Be Explained
the galactic plain resulting in higher cosmic ray levels when it is not in the plain (see Figure 2- p
10).
Over 100,000 year periods: For the last 3 million years or so the Earth has gone through a
succession of ice ages interspersed with relatively brief interglacial periods such as the one we
are now in (called the Holocene). In the early part of this period they averaged about 40,000
years each but more recently they have averaged about 100,000 years in length. Global
temperatures are believed to have been 5 to 10°C less during ice ages than during interglacial
I periods. Various hypotheses have been proposed to explain this but the predominant view
appears to be that it is due to changes in the Ea1“th’s orbit which change the intensity of the sun’s I
radiation reaching the Earth (the so-called Malenkovitch cycles). One problem with this
explanation is that it does not explain the shift from 40,000 years to 100,000 year cycles. What
appears evident, however, is that Earth’s climate is unstable on the downside during the
interglacial periods and unstable on the upside during ice ages. There appears to be something
which has prevented the Earth from getting even colder than it has during ice ages or warming
more than it has during interglacial periods. It is far from clear what these somethings are, but
this asymmetry appears to have existed for at least 3 million years.
Over 1500 year (or so) periods: The Earth has had repeated cooler and warmer periods during the
current interglacial (Holocene) period as shown One view of global temperatures during the
U Holocene7 is shown in Figure 2-1.
7 David Archibald, "Solar Cycle 24: Implications for the United States," International Conference on
Climate Change, New Yorlg, March, 2008, p. 6; available at ‘
http://ncwatch.typepad.com/daIton_minimum_returns/files/Solar_Arch__NY_lV|ar2_08.pdf
A 2009 DRAFT 31
\!\! UNCORRECTED OCR SCAN OF DOC062509-004.pdf - VERIFY AGAINST ORIGINAL BEFORE USE !!
( NCEE Comments on Draft TED for Endangerment Analysis for GHG Emissions
under CAA
. » - , * a y — I ;. { · i,—- Hotymcerwe 1 Q { A ‘n,’:» ‘.Ma¤_i¤va¤.r_ _’s.
! xg ni·asaV ‘‘‘.— M ; , aaa‘ " ·.‘. i ta’’ F3|iE¤$tB»_-£>]$ii.f¤..u`lT1;r t s.a. .-—sta‘ i . »t»‘‘*; CWD
I r n - n- i · 2 » > , . vanas. ig ‘-ii ,’va ;.·H¤met1,j» laa_1.a‘ A gg. Cs_·’ A ‘nv, -i G1?
VT, ;- `”a_ { _.si C“ts· `_ii’ I. T »·i • i,.a` ,—_ s~’iC ; _i_i 0 F1; V‘‘i jzf,-Qlplillalgi Pl.'Q[l}ii*.?T' s—_’ Ca i‘A; ‘»»V
F as i` ntati it ania t s 1 Aa » ti tiit `C > §" 1YE a tia n A A a ns
“ i·”aa ``.. 1
» . » Q L -. ~ ~ - ntas - V, ‘ e _ Vaasn 1 are- A.- n··. 1 sage . 1 .
a._· A y ( pp {3 s aV__ . , M ». _ V·»· n,;G A pl- .» v.s·C·_ ;g;_4;_ _; ·,V C_; {I: .,r L; 4a_s _ _ 4.
itfa;· t T? »»‘- i iasn ia·`·v- .·a` 2 ‘ ns»A» T 2 ‘2PT » ‘*:i 5 -9.ese¤.—:i?i9"·*?9l?li$f¥r‘?l.T .ec‘ ;# »4,a ’
l£§r**1?$i—? I Q V· a r j a ¥].jk?i »`·’¢ 6 »·»t X Y =i— r naaa A V.‘;a4‘a l
F ;F .- ¤ - .-·v fx: _V.;,‘ ., t- in »»’‘ ·1 ‘·· 2 ,.3j 2 z I _-·4
ig? »it; *r< ; ?Z 9*.; 5 san;·, I vsiai t `“.v €?F$fP$.l??’iiéi-'QQP-?'€$*‘%”*ll’i€’2‘?iil@@0}*5 `‘·C ·s’a.a ,
:¢ a t» aaaa I s as ¥ A- a *nt s:`i s Iii ia—aa »; i as ui ¥¤i·?¥ i i » as 5=¥1 ;a?) ·x ? asta
_,‘, »’I V—_ ‘= a 1 »\»sA <'4»
»?lw¥.l.;@C?. , M5-*€»?F$»*(·§·?i‘F€i?r !?€f.f?$§$3fd.J¢?£_.,¤rl- ; 96% @¤T¤*.i$¢i*¥5¤:W!¥?5€ ‘,V e — ?#995JfT-[ I ij ’,·a
Figure 2-1: One View 0f Temperature Variation during the Holocene
Source: Gregory (2008)
This graph comes from a skeptic (a more careful, more neutral, graph will be presented for a
portion of this period later) and may or may not accurately represent temperatures during this
approximately 10,000 year period. The important thing is not its accuracy but rather the many
temperature variations of roughly one OC on either side of l5°C throughout this long period. `
The last previous very warm period is known as the Medieval Warm Period and extended
from about 800 to 1200 AD. The last very cold period was known as the Little Ice Age and
extended from roughly 1450 to the early 1800s. This was followed by the current warm period,
particularly in the last Quarter of the 20th Century. The total variation appears to have been about I
+/- 2°C. The cause for these variations may be variations in solar radiation but is not well
established. It is clearly not related to levels of human-caused carbon dioxide since humans had
little to do with such emissions during most of this period. It is known that sunspots were either ,
absent or very few during the depths of the Little Ice Age (the so-called Dalton and the more
serious Maunder minimums), however, which suggests that the solar variations may be related.
Over about 60 year periods: In the last 120 years or more there has been a clear variation in
global temperatures with roughly alternating warming and cooling periods each lasting about 30
, years for a cycle length of about 60 years total. At least in the last 120 or so years, there is a
l 32 March 16,
\!\! UNCORRECTED OCR SCAN OF DOC062509-004.pdf - VERIFY AGAINST ORIGINAL BEFORE USE !!
Some Major Inconsistencies in the Science of Global Warming that Need to Be Explained
fairly clear pattern of trends either up or down lasting about 30 years (see Figure 2-3). In a 30
{ year time-frame the trends, once started, appear to be form remarkably uniform trends. The »
reasons for this cycle are not widely agreed on, but any attempt to explain global temperatures
needs to explain these observations if it is to be credible. One strong possibility is oscillations in
sea surface temperatures since changes in the direction of global temperatures seem to have a _
remarkable coincidence with at least some of these oscillations. Perhaps the most important of l
these cycles is the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), although others such as the Atlantic
Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) have been identified in other major oceanic areas. The PDO is
a long-lived El Nino/La Nina-like pattern that is observed in the sea-surface temperatures (SST)
of the Northern and Central Pacific Ocean. Positive (/negative) phases of the PDO are typified by
‘ warmer (/cooler) than normal temperatures in the North—eastern and a Tropical Pacific Ocean
and cooler (/warmer) than normal temperatures in the region to the south-west of the Aleutian
' Islands (see Figure 2-2). It is important to note that while the El Nino/La Nina oscillation varies
on a time scale of 4 — 5 years, the PDO variations are governed by a time scale that is much
longer. The immediate point here is that both the PDO and global temperatures have recently l
turned negative in recent years. Similarly, both turned positive in the 1970s. The reasons for
- this are speculative at best, but the correlation appears to be overwhelming for the —period for
which we have much data. One possibility is variations in solar output, but much more
I complicated hypotheses havebeen proposed (Wilson, 2008 in a peer-reviewed journal). It is
worth noting, however, that human concerns about climate change appear to have followed these
PDO variations quite closely with concerns about global cooling and a possible new ice age near
the end of the last PDO cooling period in the 1970s and concern about global warming in the
1990s and 2000s. _
2009 DRAFT 33
\!\! UNCORRECTED OCR SCAN OF DOC062509-004.pdf - VERIFY AGAINST ORIGINAL BEFORE USE !!
NCEE Comments on Draft TED for Endan erment Anal sis for GHG Emissions under CAA
g Y
. s "is (G -.
0-8 » ,-¤
·— #’‘· . , ·f·»» ` ‘·-
. ’’i“ I f?$l€?i*.:`=- ` ..=‘ 1 1i‘i· ” ‘’‘‘ ’ vi,‘i
=’i · si. "'·‘ ””·` 2 0.4 ‘‘E·· l
.·$A. l r V a
¤ ]¤i-_ 1 - ; ...lQsi*'i£i`€£¤e» il rziigih
U 2 °A—s- - ~»;_ .
§‘.}+5;=:;;‘:q~igS;-.—·<¤is ,·;· ,.·.* éiam ‘ .§§2¤’1—.:-ka5.¥el$¤..‘g:»¢¢’:=.a!¤E·=.r¥§f`-z ..·»
if r ·*-‘ i·—‘ » y~;:~=i¤ .—.r<
=‘¢ . V·-A—. ‘
.» .0 0
“`‘‘ 1 '
1 ·»i ;., .:i. *
.`.‘ 1
‘ ‘‘» . §Y `~ ``\‘'”’ 4 ..0 2 »»Q¢§1<.i°‘iI*‘E_ fi?-’; 4v_·r `§Q,'."_T$**?P
·‘ xfj -’*. ·· ‘:r._i¥’·e-`Z§:<·¥—Gigs;2h;§.;,.%¢,;;.;&r;y_;;Z*’
.—.i rr ·.i· R agri? · *‘>?··· ‘ ·-‘V U
‘ . :‘‘`
-0 6
Figure 2-2: Pacific Ocean Water Temperatures during a positive and negative
PDOs .
Source: Wilson (2008), p. 23
0.8
2
~—¤ 0.6 A
. >` I ggg- /
·- poo posmvs
"° 0 4 - 4
E s 1
O poo New-wave p l
C 0 2 . 1 1 A
poo use-Anve me posmvs A . A J l
E- 0 . I ¤......t 4 l
i P' ‘ 7*;:
'· O 2 hu . Ax
‘ I A
*5 ‘ · ’* "=· Jr
.¤
2 _
-0.6 p .
1880 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000
Year
Figure 2-3: Sixty-year Cycle in Global Temperatures Showing Clear Trends
Over 3-5 year periods: There also appear to be a much shorter-term cycle and influences on
global temperatures due to El Nino/LaNina oscillations and volcanic eruptions and perhaps other
factors. These cycles are clearly evident in both the satellite (see Figure 2-7) and the ground
34 March 16,
\!\! UNCORRECTED OCR SCAN OF DOC062509-004.pdf - VERIFY AGAINST ORIGINAL BEFORE USE !!
Some Major Inconsistencies in the Science of Global Warming that Need to Be Explained
data. There may be some argument as to their cause, but the evident similarity to the ENSO
cycle is hard to ignore (see again Figure 2-7).
p The climate is believed to be chaotic in nature and substantial year-to—year variations can be
l expected and have been observed. The surprising thing is actually how well ordered all these
cycles actually seem to have been in terms of the available global temperature data. i
Against this very complicated set of cycles and other factors that appear to characterize
global temperatures, those concerned about global warming in the 1990s and 2000s have put _
forth the hypothesis that the global warming since the 1970s has been due to increases in the
global levels of carbon dioxide and other GHGs, and that these levels are a result of human-
_ caused emissions of this compound. There is considerable evidence that increased levels of
carbon dioxide may lead to higher global temperatures all things being equal. But are these
increases the predominant reason'? To explore this topic it is vital to see how well the increases ‘
in CO2 relate to increases in temperature. This is what we will do in the next subsection.
2.2 Evidence for a Predominant Influence of Carbon Dioxide
A useful task is to explain these variations since that may provide clues as to what is
influencing our current and future climate, and therefore what might be effective in reducing
these fluctuations if that should be desired. Figure 2-4 shows global temperatures and CO2 levels T
for the period 1880 to 2003. Hypotheses concerning the causation of temperature changes
should be rejected if they do not explain at least recent satellite temperature history which
undoubtedly represents the best available data, and should be replaced by alternative hypotheses
that provide at least the possibility of offering such an explanation.
2009 DRAFT , 35
\!\! UNCORRECTED OCR SCAN OF DOC062509-004.pdf - VERIFY AGAINST ORIGINAL BEFORE USE !!
NCEE Comments on Draft TED for Endangerment Analysis for GHG Emissions
under CAA
I`: V _ ,. _ . _ . 2 , . . . .. ,
R- ll ° —·-·*··-—··i»'4i,1·n¤·1¤u·•:1| Mann *m··“*·"*·“··‘*·"·*"*·*·····‘··*‘r*=·*·i*·;***····*·—· , _,_ _ gg:
u V . .
EQ 0-9 j--··- ·—···—··5-'1’·e•¤rM¤·¤m1i ·—· · _ V Ii, -36*0
as yi----- -- ··——-· Crm! L¤~.·¤-Ir —····-—·····—·~··~··· if agu-
e ., . » ._.....-o....i..... ...............-...................-..... . » 3;;
5 D2 ____________ _____ ____ . " i _ ...1. ·_ . _ am _
i -·
§ mj ;_‘f'_f__';'f " A, · umn! illil .'|•i:.·i,¤l;'l‘ . gm
Ei G 4 i I _. n. ` i · S I 2·B¤)¤
` " T " T · “““ _: ‘ T 4 ““"“”`—"`“`”"`“““"`"""‘“* » arn-
5 _0,_46 . ___ V i 2.6%
— I ‘ · ·2.5¤·
-Q»_,Q I ’ »»........·........l..¤-............-_.......—............,.........¤o..._.....»..¤-.,.......¤,..o»...i....y
ol . . . . r . . V . . _ _ , , 1 ggmi
‘$2%53'£".§'.“aT2”?i§¥¢`¥-?§"€&!".i`;';$E$»‘E
Fig. 4. Gl¤:·haz11. tmmgpcrmiuc. {ilcft mule.,) hmm gmcumd mtxuimxs vx. (Till-_, mmc¤1mrim:inn in ppzm in wtrvrm-
' s]jx1v:m¤.{¤·ight si.c.s11c§) ‘l`:r·mu H?JB¤l'3—?2¤3G1.'l·. Aviixilsahluz amt: wm.·w.·C}ZES£·Ei.Ql‘·li¢*ré·?i.¤•.,_;;
\!\! UNCORRECTED OCR SCAN OF DOC062509-004.pdf - VERIFY AGAINST ORIGINAL BEFORE USE !!
Some Major Inconsistencies in the Science of Global Warming that Need to Be Explained
0.2 ` — 5--- evee »·»‘s·5·-Yfaur Mmm -——~—————·-—·-·~··~——·¤—·—··~·~ V ·5 ~
l0.ll5· ·-—·-· CD.- Levels · ~ -~ · ,_ . A -- ~ _-M.
is 2 W __,,.. zi
E gm _ . .., » - . _. `»c_ .. .... A .3
Q . ___, .»··· V
__ __ V, I ..;.. ..... . . U,. - A - . . . . ... . .. ..... .- ,, V
i 0 , *3lU*
0.,35 .- _ ___,, ,, _A__ .. . . 4. ._
‘C?]·F"·l_"$ ~¤l¤§•¤*¤"lW"i9?¤¤*¤Hl 1;—·¤¤¤Q
3*-3-3'~3'.§.E.§§'é.‘£2é."a*i§.§§R
.l?*’:ig. 1.. Global rtc4rrig[:•c;»n1.mr·z. (lefrt rule) fmm pound stations wa. (Dill; cumcmxlratirnn in ppm in
anmegphcm- {right scale-) fmxn `l9·¥l¤Z`l—-1*Q7l,l. i¤•.v»wilahlc mx G’l.'ii$..l‘·$l,¤i£*‘ir¤»..,;i;r¤lu·. Acc-mend T2Jl1¤l3..
Figure 2-5: Global Temperature Anomaly and CO2 Levels, 1940-708 '
The problems become particularly evident when one examines the downtrend period from ,
roughly 1940 through the early 1970s, shown in Figure 2-4, and that for the 2000s, shown in
Figure 2-5. For both of these periods, there does not appear to be any relationship between CO2
levels and global temperatures. Without fully understanding these relationships, or the lack
thereof, it is difficult to understand the possible causes of these climate changes in Figure 2-5:
Global Temperature Anomaly and CO2, 1940-70
8 Climate Change Reexamlned
JOEL M. KAUFFNIAN
Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 21, No. 4, pp. 723-749, 2007
2009 DRAFT A 37
\!\! UNCORRECTED OCR SCAN OF DOC062509-004.pdf - VERIFY AGAINST ORIGINAL BEFORE USE !!
NCEE Comments on Draft TED for Endangerment Analysis for GHG Emissions
under CAA
NISU and Hadley Nlonthly Terms vs Mauna Loa 002
.....UAI-II\f¢ZiU-•-I—|adey.—..h/aunaL0aU)2 - - Linear(UN—|MSU) - - Linear(I-Iadey)
OB jlglllll
U} `U
A : HF H‘!·~····
EO4 2 *1,. mia R, J' Lrg! .2.
G · JI r ~__ E
5;- O'3 jr {Y F rt I L I A380 2
S . ~ A * “‘ *2 i F
2 0.2 ,-4.,. IW s V ‘ E
E I I 4 * me
3 0.1 r —— g
or 3
‘ C _ I 370 O
I ‘ or {
-0.2 E rea
2002200220(X5200320042004200520052J0620CB200720072008
Negative correlation since 2002 A
RZ- 0.4 with Hadley, - 0.21 with MSU I
Figure 2-6: Global Temperature Anomalies and CO2, 2002-8
Source? _ ‘
38 March 16,
\!\! UNCORRECTED OCR SCAN OF DOC062509-004.pdf - VERIFY AGAINST ORIGINAL BEFORE USE !!
Some Major Inconsistencies in the Science of Global Warming that Need to Be Explained
It is very clear that the strongest correlation is between the ocean warming index (PDO + AMO)
and temperature; the next strongest is with TSI, and the weakest is with CO2. In fact, CO2 has no I
explanatory power over the last decade according to this analysis. `
It appears that over the last 130 years ambient CO2 levels are believed to have risen whether
or not global temperatures have risen with the exception of the early 1940s when they either
plateaued or fell slightly. If as hypothesized global temperatures are primarily a function of CO2
levels it is very difficult to understand why temperatures fell from 1940 to 1975 and after 1998 at
the same time that CO2 levels increased. The CO2 hypothesis does allow for the possibility of
large volcanic eruptions, which cool the planet, but this does not appear to explain these two
downturns in global temperatures. One possibility is that there may be other important factors at
work determining global temperatures besides CO2 levels. [example, global temperatures have
been rising for other reasons the fact that CO2 levels have also been rising part of the time does
not offer an explanation of anything except that the two levels happen to have been rising for
other reasons.] _
Another problem with assuming that the major determinant of global warming is CO2 levels
is illustrated by the following chart: -
HerH Source: http://icecap.us/images/upleads/igccchart.jpg; part of article by Marlo Lewis on
Planet . Gore A at
http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=IVITYvl1IVIjlRiZjJhIVImUxYWE2I\/|mQ0NDZhOGI\/I0l\/I
2Q3ZWUzI\/lmE; as reproduced on icecap.us August 14, 2008
Here the major IPCC projections (shown in browns and reds) of global temperatures with no
G change in GHG emissions are superimposed on two of the major indices of global temperatures.
Also included (in the yellow line) is the IPCC’s view of what would happen if their
recommended reductions in GHG_emissions were actually fully implemented. It is fairly evident I
that the IPCC projections are quite divergent from the actual experience in recent years. Yet if
the GHG only hypothesis is correct, there would be likely to be a greater correspondence. e
2009 DRAFT · 39
\!\! UNCORRECTED OCR SCAN OF DOC062509-004.pdf - VERIFY AGAINST ORIGINAL BEFORE USE !!
I NCEE Comments on Draft TED for Endangerment Analysis for GHG Emissions
under CAA
2.3 . Pacific Decadal OscillationIAtIantic Multidecadal Oscillation and ENSO as
¤ Explanations for Global Temperature Changes
I Perhaps the closest simple "explanation" for the observed changes in global temperatures is
provided by the PDO and/or AMO together with ENSO In fact, major changes in the PDO from
positive to negative and back appear to coincide almost exactly with observed changes in global
temperature trends over 20-30 year timeframes, as shown in Figure 2-2. Since this chart was
prepared the temperature trend has been negative and the PDO has also gone negative. `
9 Don Easterbrook (2008) reaches the following conclusions: .
The IPCC prediction of global temperatures, l° F warmer by 2011 and 2° F by 2038 (Fig.
1), stand little chance of being correct. NASA’s imagery showing that the Pacific Decadal
Oscillation (PDO) has shifted to its cool phase is right on schedule as predicted by past
climate and PDO changes (Easterbrook, 2001, 2006, 2007). The PDO typically lasts 25-30
years and assures North America of cool, wetter climates during its cool phases and warmer,
drier climates during its warm phases. The establishment of the cool PDO, together with
similar cooling ofthe North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO), virtually assures several decades of
global cooling and the end of the past 30-year warm phase. It also means that the IPCC l
predictions of catastrophic global warming this century were highly inaccurate.
The switch of PDO cool mode toiwarm mode in 1977 initiated several decades of global
warming. The PDO has now switched from its warm mode (where it had been since 1977)
into its cool mode. As shown on the graph above, each time this had happened in the past
century, global temperature has followed. The upper map shows cool ocean temperatures in
blue (note the North American west coast). The lower diagram shows how the PDO has
switched back and forth from warm to cool modes in the past century, each time causing
` global temperature to follow. Comparisons of historic global climate warming and cooling _
over the past century with PDO and NAO oscillations, glacial fluctuations, and sun spot
activity show strong correlations and provide a solid data base for future climate change
projections.
9 Watts blog
40 March 16,
\!\! UNCORRECTED OCR SCAN OF DOC062509-004.pdf - VERIFY AGAINST ORIGINAL BEFORE USE !!
Some Major Inconsistencies in the Science 0f Global Warming that Need to Be Explained U
The Pacific Ocean has a warm temperature mode and a cool temperature mode, and in the
past century, has switched back forth between these two modes every 25-30 years (known as
the Pacific Decadal Oscillation or PDO). In 1977 the Pacific abruptly shifted from its cool
mode (where it had been since about 1945) into its warm mode,_and this initiated global
warming from 1977 to 1998. The correlation between the PDO and global climate is well
established. The announcement by NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory that the Pacific
Decadal Oscillation (PDO) had shifted to its cool phase is right on schedule as predicted by
past climate and PDO changes (Easterbrook, 2001, 2006, 2007). The PDO typically lasts 25-
30 years and assures North America of cool, wetter climates during its cool phases and
- warmer, drier climates during its warm phases. The establishment of the cool PDO, together
with similar cooling of the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO), virtually assures· several
decades of global cooling and the end of the past 30-year warm phase.
Comparisons of historic global climate warming and cooling over the past century with
PDO and NAO oscillations, glacial fluctuations, and sun spot activity show strong
_ correlations and provide a solid data base for future climate change projections. As shown by
the historic pattern of GDOs and PDOs over the past century and by corresponding global
warming and cooling, the pattern is part of ongoing warm/cool cycles that last 25-30 years.
The global cooling phase from 1880 to 1910, characterized by advance of glaciers
worldwide, was followed by a shift to the warm—phase PDO for 30 years, global warming
and rapid glacier recession. The cool—phase PDO returned in ~1945 accompanied by global
cooling and glacial advance for 30 years. Shift to the warm—phase PDO in 1977 initiated
global warming and recession of glaciers that persisted until 1998. Recent establishment of
the PDO cool phase appeared right on target and assuming that its effect will be similar to `
past history, global climates can be expected to cool over the next 25-30 years. The global A
warming of this century is exactly in phase with the normal climatic pattern of cyclic
warming and cooling and we have now switched from a warm phase to a cool phase right at
the predicted time. . ..
Just how much cooler the global climate will be during this cool cycle is uncertain.
Recent solartchanges suggest that it could be fairly severe, perhaps more like the 1880 to
1915 cool cycle than the more moderate 1945-1977 cool cycle. A more drastic cooling,
2009 DRAFT 41
\!\! UNCORRECTED OCR SCAN OF DOC062509-004.pdf - VERIFY AGAINST ORIGINAL BEFORE USE !!
NCEE Comments on Draft TED for Endangerment Analysis for GHG Emissions
under CAA
similar to that during the Dalton and Maunder minimums, could plunge the Earth into
another Little Ice Age, but only time will tell if that is likely.
One student of the subject (Ian Wilson, 2008) was so struck by the apparently strong relationship
between the PDO and global temperatures that he has hypothesized a complicated explanation of
global temperature changes and PDO changes involving length of year, planetary motions, and
other factors. Whether or not his hypothesis is correct, the relationship between the PDO and
global temperatures is so striking that it surely deserves much further research. Unfortunately,
the IPCC reports do not consider or attempt to model PDO changes so this interesting possibility
has not been explored by them. The Draft TSD needs to do so, however.
An interesting and perhaps important observation is that most of the smaller variations in
the satellite temperature data appear to be explained by the ENSO. In fact, the PDO can be
characterized as the envelope or larger, longer term PDO. This is illustrated in the following
graph showing some of the widely acknowledged factors influencing temperatures at various
times since 1978: A ‘
’ii` iit` ` `I 'Sgt.;..;.3.;..;.;.{,§».L;.;...;jA;.;;;..;»;.;.iL.aQ·§;}.;;;.;»s»o»Q§.»&`é··.·rAiii`I " I flfr `
llpchtlpr¤srni.c¤m.'msu!m0¤lhly__llm0__soriosIrss_m¤t1ll»Iy__r11w_¤mm_ch:»nn•3I__lll_ancn\a5¤s_Iand_and_0:onh_v03__’l.|x|
y . * .r ir » t`c»
i' "‘?'°'TS. ¤· ==¤··=¤¤¤ A . . . it I I a Eff'?
C ammo ·E•N¤¤¤ A I I A , I v . ` ; if V L
_ I i agi y I . *'l,·' .. · tl . . . ·t. ,
. »»*'z`r · ill " ·, » .l ri. A r ‘ as
A ·5 . i lg a j - I P . { .... A ‘-°""‘°
r [ . ..... . I 5 ..._ . 4 I . i”.._'._ iii. I
=»i»
..
Figure 2-7: Common Identiiications Made of Causes for Global Temperature
Fluctuations
42 I March 16,
\!\! UNCORRECTED OCR SCAN OF DOC062509-004.pdf - VERIFY AGAINST ORIGINAL BEFORE USE !!
I
i
‘ Some Major Inconsistencies in the Science of Global Warming that Need to Be Explained
This graph is also very interesting in another respect. This is that if the data is examined without
trying to draw a straight trend line from the beginning of the satellite data in 1978 until 1997
there is no indication that the data varies as a result of changes in GHGs. Rather the satellite data
looks more like this: -
':`·i
~*‘¤ s ‘—~<* 5 V- =‘. T
mm. ¤>omu· Muuwnnx num irsnmmunrawnninziuaianneuein
l‘J\’$vTlP.E¤'l\| €¤YN|¥\I4.-!*lY‘i¢¤lYiI)'___Ul'0¢,__¤¢·'\¤liT5i_q|'HD\'\`lhlY_l'1|4•.l___§|¥‘vE?i1_,__4}!‘l|||‘1[i¤l__lIL__•'I»f\¤·l\'i¤|I&§__l¤H!I_¤|7d_0¢¤·§N_,\'U3_J.D¢I
»
TF = ·7 · as‘n ee_» r¤`is ; { * * `»i,, ij ci·,. _; n‘e;Vi· V 'stii
7 ·•s { }> ,, 7V _7
· V 7 r 1 t V ‘ F ¤ . ha
7V LVV-1 VV eaia V i T 1. 1 V . = 1 L -V »V T »‘nn A J · y V. V —iri‘r.‘‘ :i— .L‘i ar T »··, .1; ,ia‘‘,» .
; 1 7 · 7 is: iiiil
T nn_ia 77 ~ 7 .7 7T 77 T r r *i-t = . 7 4 ar i 7 . T 1 V‘ { i T
``at “‘»‘ ` ·:»—i' — e‘·‘ T te‘r T T
M fa . · I " ' r -T Vi : 211 i T1 · 5 T Wie .- · ·V 4-s b ? J; `¤2’.r· "
ea·»li V1 fi r /—e`l’ reii —»e‘ ls ·»·ei—e· f `V·i
»..i ,e`e i`\; ii ia_,, `tal-V -V:~e <
'_l‘ = l
7 I? ¤: ii T iii? T ` Eiiii éi ` I .iE ‘Tl ` T T T i ` V fi
.3* . ‘.· ~ ·i isi; .:¤· L c‘‘‘e ’
, V» in V7 Vw Z 1 ##5.7rri .7 e—p.-e V 77 i . V r ~ 7 7 »s.t .7 4 =
7 ,·V’ V ` i J V rj »*»i ai 7 [ V·»t TV s‘·V· = T: Q *’w ri i’s» V i ¥ T TTVTT 17 TZ
E T . » = i ` “?"‘“?"**"°°"°"°°°l°‘°°"i°*"°‘°‘? l T 1
.. i: .7 7. ,rs. 7. 7 . .7 ai s 77 Q ·. Ts 7 7 l . V . A 77 -T . 7.7 ,77
T
Figure 2-8: MSU Data with Addition of Center Lines
Source: Arrat (2008).
Drawing a straight trend line in many ways limits the options examined. Much better is to utilize
more of the data by trying to tit a more robust pattern to it. Ambient CO2 levels were increasing
throughout this 1978-97 period yet global temperatures remained in a narrow band with little
apparent increase. Further, the sharp spike in temperatures in 1998 appears highly unlikely to
have been caused by changes in GHG levels since they vary only very slowly rather than
exhibiting the sharp spike seen here. The reason for the 1998 spike and its possible after effects
in the 1999-2006 period are unknown but would seem very important to learn about before T T
assuming that it is related to changes in GHGs.l0 Similarly, the period 1999 to 2006 shows
another narrow but higher band of temperatures with no increase during the period. One
10 Amo Arrak has suggested the possibility that the 1998 spike was due to gamma ray burst 971214, but
he emphasizes that this is only a possibility. °
2009 DRAFT G 43
\!\! UNCORRECTED OCR SCAN OF DOC062509-004.pdf - VERIFY AGAINST ORIGINAL BEFORE USE !!
NCEE Comments on Draft TED for Endangerment Analysis for GHG Emissions
under CAA
possibility is that the elevated temperatures during this period were an after—effect of the sudden
surge in 1998. Finally, the period 2007-9 shows a strong downward trend in temperatures which -
is surely not relatedto steadily increasing GHG emissions and atmospheric levels. Thus it is
very hard to see any effect during the period 1978 to 2009 that can reasonably ascribed to
changing CO2 or GHG levels. This is in marked contrast with ground level measurements such `
as the HADCRUT series which shows a marked increase in temperatures through 1998 (but not
thereafter). One possible explanation for this apparent inconsistency between the HADCRUT
and MSU data is that ground level measurements may inevitably be compromised by the urban .
heat island effects which presumably increased rapidly during the period due to rapid
urbanization in many parts of the world.
2.4 Solar Variability
Prior to the advent of the IPCC and interest in the effects of increasing CO2, the predominant
view appears to have been that variations in global temperatures over periods less than 100,000
years were primarily due to solar variability since the Sun is Earth’s major source of heat and I
light. [reference] A number of researchers have studied this over the years, and they have found
some apparent relationships between sunspot cycles and global temperatures. Some
(prominently Svensmark) have even developed a hypothesis to explain this apparent relationship.
This hypothesis is roughly as follows: ‘
Solar variability has been studied for at least 400 years. The general conclusion prior to 1990
was that the Sun is the major driver but there was little agreement as to the exact mechanism.
But starting in 1990, the IPCC instead atttributed warming to GHGs/humans. In 1997, however, .
Svensmark suggested a mechanism for indirect solar variability effects. Now many or even most
GW skeptics cite solar variability as the major cause and basis for their skepticism. In recent
years there has been a furious debate/war on this issue. There has been some new research in
recent years, however, some of which will be summarized in the following sections. - -
Predominant Views Prior to 1990
•¥• "Earth’s temperature often seems to correlate directly with solar activity: when this
activity is high the Earth is warm"
44 I March 16,
\!\! UNCORRECTED OCR SCAN OF DOC062509-004.pdf - VERIFY AGAINST ORIGINAL BEFORE USE !!
Some Major Inconsistencies in the Science of Global Warming that Need to Be Explained
•I• "During the famous ‘Little Ice Age’ during the 17th Century, the climate was notably
cooler .... This correlated with the Maunder Minimum on the sun, an interval of few
sunspots and aurorae" I
•$• "In the llth and 12th centuries, a "Medieval Maximum" in solar activity corresponded to
the "Medieval Optimum" in climate"
•Z• "The 20th century has been marked by generally increasing levels of solar activity"——-Hoyt
and Schatten, 1997
Indirect Solar Variability May Be l\/Iajor/Better Explanation than GHGS
Although Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) may not vary much, that does not rule out indirect effects
of solar variability as the major cause of global climate changes. The impact of changes in solar
eruptions, wind, and magnetic Held may explain some or all known global climate changes
during the Holocene together with volcanic eruptions. TSI evem varies with sunspot cycles.
Other researchers agree that solar variability may be related to temperature variations prior to
mid-20th Century. Svensmark (1998) has hypothesized that Sun’s magnetic field varies with
sunspots and determines the number of cosmic rays available to stimulate low level clouds on
Earth. _
i ii i . ii r ii
i``i .`»;° I I
· ·`‘— ‘ ’ OI3j‘_Wind
i , A/IOd.l·]. HI'ltj);] ' r
. Appezrem Link _ ,
I C _._ `
C ..i.Ve r-Z r.‘.-.r ..-`. i ...t g
»
—° ‘ ~ 2 iii ll`' <
-. i » ‘· - ?* . w e M ; » » c e W , ,__ , gg;
_ Figure 2-8 : One Interpretation of Svensmark Hypothesisll
ll http://wvvw.sciencebits.com/files/pictures/climate/crcFig2.jpg
2009 DRAFT _ 45
\!\! UNCORRECTED OCR SCAN OF DOC062509-004.pdf - VERIFY AGAINST ORIGINAL BEFORE USE !!
NCEE Comments on Draft TED for Endangerment Analysis for GHG Emissions
under CAA
2.4.1 CERN Study
In 2007 Jasper Kirkby of the CERN published a review article which reached the following
major conclusions: _
. •I• "Over the last few years... diverse reconstructions of past climate change have revealed
clear associations with cosmic ray variations recorded in cosmogenic isotope archives,
providing persuasive evidence for solar or cosmic ray forcing of the cIimate."
•t• “The high correlation of the temperature variations in the A14C record suggests
that solar/cosmic ray forcing was a major driver of climate" [over the last 2000 A
years]. I , ‘ -
•t• "Two different classes of microphysical mechanisms have been proposed to connect
cosmic rays with clouds:"
•t• Production of cloud condensation nuclei
- •I• Global electrical circuit in the atmosphere and, in turn, on ice nucleation and
other cloud microphysical processes? V
•t• "ConsiderabIe progress on understanding ion—aerosol—cIoud processes has been made
in recent years, and the results are suggestive of a physicaIIy—pIausibIe link between
cosmic rays, clouds and climate."
46 March 16,
\!\! UNCORRECTED OCR SCAN OF DOC062509-004.pdf - VERIFY AGAINST ORIGINAL BEFORE USE !!
i Some Major Inconsistencies in the Science of Global Warming that Need to Be Explained
. His conclusions were based on a broad review of the evidence for GCR impact on climate
using a number of different time periods and lines of evidence. The important points would
appear to be the following:
•$• Galactic cosmic rays (GCRs) are strongly related to global temperatures V
•2• Solar activity modulates GCRs reaching earth, with the modulation related to sunspot
cycles 9
3.5 ·~-r-»~~··»—· --·»- ··r· r ~·-» ······ —·v— r——¢~·~r···»¤···¤r~·~ ~r -—~—~ ·——~—»r———»~·-~-—·~r·~··r--`~·~ —»———¤~··¤-—·-·~~»·~·-·—~r~~.~·-r—· —·-r»·+~—¤-·~-r~·——»—-···~—-»—~~r··—r—-···—·»r
Ta) , Th r,_ Y ~l\»·l;rrr•»arnsk : ° I
i ll`! G _j A `>
if 340 F }' U } ·‘ " il _ ,_ V E? ¤\•1l·rny ·*
Ré " Q _,"ty` ` ri" y;,.?Lg‘ { {L `
"’ . {Y { *4 ,—.v¤e"L»' "* .F°` Jr? . 1 . .
E 2-5 ·- sf if ’°v-t . 5 "l ' hi , ,!' His, r' MOLOWTY A
2 \ V Ejgr I .· fl
`” :1 * w ` ,
_ 8 2.0 i- F · nf _· ~
1 ‘5 iw -3
. E
.. 200 r- —-
g . ali, g y W _ l _ ,
100 — V
g` ` cyqlg Cy'¤I»B V l Cy‘(;[B YKDIIB
"’ 0 1. .... Zi",...r-1.-.....:·TY.... ..... -,o...E¥?l.-c. ......... 2. -....,l..r.?`i,- .... . -2....-.5i-.o-._.-2.. .. 2.,ti’?Ll
1 960 1 970 1 980 ’l 990 2000
`1’liI£:1l'
Figure 2-9: Solar Modulation of Galactic Cosmic Rays, 1957-2001 .
Source: Kirkby (20O8)12
12 Mirny is in Antarctica. (a) based on balloon measurements of the cosmic ray intensity at shower
maximum (15-20 km altitude) measured by the Lebedev Physical Institute. Based on CERN 2001-007,
41-62 (2001) and Babarykin etal (1964).
2009 DRAFT 47
\!\! UNCORRECTED OCR SCAN OF DOC062509-004.pdf - VERIFY AGAINST ORIGINAL BEFORE USE !!
NCEE Comments on Draft TED for Endangerment Analysis for GHG Emissions
under CAA
1.5 _ aa.) GCJF4 flux Ai»C ` __
G
gg, 2 I:1) Tamptarlatura
¢¤ _ W GCR (mv.), ,4 ,-"~.._
g .» s ·*·¤»¢’ x' x »’ at
i O •.`\1I _. . . . lm , I , , Q" _
.¢ , .
E X K `~ Y ` ’ `*~ ... .» ’
E3 { L`. JJ y_
cu -2 —~ I ·—· r · r
Q. K J ___ ,u
E X 2* V
·2 . , , li l
500 400 300 200 _ 1 O0 0
° Age- =[l'*»·'1y BP)
Figure 2-10: Galactic Cosmic Raysand Climate: Past 500 myr
Source; Kirkby (2008) L
1 000 1 200 ’ 1 400 1 600 ·1 800 2DOO
{T""""`F‘"""`¤"'“""'!"i'"""'"I""`"""`{"""‘“¥"“"`“"“"l”"""i'1""_"‘T""`—T`—"_`"`i"% '*·
aj Northern hz-zuvunsphearc temperature __j
A cgi OA ;-*_ 5$W~;gL3'g§_;€g?_ MM-J:..E5;!!.‘§L:.!sEE.P,..4·?.t$»:£»&».~»·~» ( `9_`7
Zé" énStru:"nc=nia| was fz: L —··· ee S
Q G ,,» ..`. , ,.:1 .: . l<,·. ., :9 "T §
‘: 4l`i` ’T ., ·»e~ ~·:~··¥iJT;LI.L1..;j_ ’t’T — ( l ( 2
§ % E §
vO'd ffff "%2%A' >`·:i%}‘·3’4,%¤ * ~·%`iiir_f? we Q" $5
1: '¤l 3 in _ ~. . ‘2!i & ‘ ( @(,4;:* `. `· ` _ _,.r’" ` k '· V F __? " ` ,
E ;.l2?;l;.: ;’i*§.J§?a§l;S. my : i»l- ‘ "P 8 E
_0_B i 7. €Z;§r@¢;~r1§&11"aG t.;·<:>mz.Mc¢m¢e; {Miss} ' Q
v.··;:·rld·.·»:lc!¤ b¤rmh·§:s!¤wé "’%;w,;))¤»*$` ‘¤—£;¤*"J ( @5
A R1) Galacllrz cosnnic rayls 1{BBG {G rmamamdu
§ -1D i···— +'>T__"llN_j·*#ij {;·!·sv e_;·;§;3.ia;;-p igrme xjafiggz) \` W `QO tg`
V l-c ’ ei 'imj . Wn ` yr;-,
g O ·<___·_-;__,$~· _q&_ ___7__: ____ ___ ______‘__ _____ _ .._
if is 1 M 3*5.. s o ( f 2
S ¤' ,, g HE _; . l .-.:
lg .20 3; iw —, _ ` ' E , + g g
·M , · `lr ‘ . 0 _ _. _ ‘ ‘‘‘`‘ .
5 3Q ifiliwe {S<>uu·x F¤‘c>~r:;»} J"/sv é g ‘§
(5 E, {H1 s¤::z1.ha·§ .5) ·-— W 20 3
40 ; * :
Figure 2-11: Galactic Cosmic Rays & Temperatures: Last 1100 yrs
Source: Kirkby (2008) .
48 March 16,
\!\! UNCORRECTED OCR SCAN OF DOC062509-004.pdf - VERIFY AGAINST ORIGINAL BEFORE USE !!
Some Major Inconsistencies in the Science 0f Global Warming that Need to Be Explained
"““1"“_r“"f“*1““‘]“*F"_T*’1“““l "l`4`1“”l"l"“T` ‘° ] “V"_1_‘1““
‘ 320
- , . -. CO2 we
ln` ,' ""-`X X,-"._/‘_ ·*"·. f 290 (ppm)
a- I ` I; \‘I ‘l!\‘Il = :
-10 "' ‘·“" lm-..,· -8.0 ‘
s . G9 1 *·
0 1 _|('¤ i ` ~ 5180
GCR! ’ » · (%¤)
I I I l _ _' J p I 'Y.5
(%¤) ” V
1¤ 1 M 1 `°°’
· -7.0 p
2O . ~ :
500 1000 1 500 1 2000
Year (AD)
Figure 2-12: Temperature Reconstruction for the Central Alps over Last Two
Millennia, Obtained from 0-18 Composition of Speleothem from Spannagel ‘
Cave, Austria
Source: Kirkby (2008) based on I\/Iangini et al. (2005).
2.5 Urban Heat Island Effects and Other Problems of Surface Temperature
Measurements 4
There appears that there is another major influence on global temperatures——but significantly
only for surface temperature measurements. This is the effect of rapidly expanding urbanization
worldwide and a number of other factors that appear to be corrupting surface measurements.
Because most surface measurements are made in urban areas there is a high risk that the urban
heat island effect will influence the measurements made. This UHI effect is well known and
well documented. Strong support for this effect can be found in the extreme divergence between
surface and satellite temperature measurements. This is shown in Figure 2-13 below:
_ 2009 DRAFT 49
\!\! UNCORRECTED OCR SCAN OF DOC062509-004.pdf - VERIFY AGAINST ORIGINAL BEFORE USE !!
NCEE Comments on Draft TED for Endangerment Analysis for GHG Emissions
under CAA
- ’’‘’ *n‘·‘‘·’ ‘=‘i’’·e‘ t ‘ ‘·‘‘‘ ‘‘‘‘ ‘ `’‘’·n `’·’‘`*‘’ ·L“'
Data sources: http://vortex.nsst<>.uah.adu/dala/msuIl2lUuahncd<:.ll
httpdlhadobamet0lHce.c0nvh¤dcmt3ldIagnosllcs/glohallnh+shlmonlt1Iy
»V,,L,E ».,,>;r a `—.; . .... a .>,‘ » sj vt-. ,:.;. _.:i; t»,»·; »
. 1 ’ g ‘a=—Cn 2 . . . Q 1 ’ i 1 4 ; i ‘
2 ——r»wc¤¤r¤m·¤¤¤¤s - 1 r - ’ ‘ ; - ·j . T E 2 » ; .
a ``t ‘ - 9, i» i_ _ j a—,ni -s—A · V -4
€i “_*as ‘ [ ef T ` ’*a» ” ‘iC " , #.9 ·? ‘eai
V · V . . . . ‘ V , xw ‘* . r
¥z?<££19r2a . — » : V ._ #s · · · H . +;=.· ~ * s<.·_aa@ ,.· r gz}
.V`ii Jajtm _ C‘.= r j
_ ,_it,l;§“tjjvii§_ gjgiiig ij. _Y · gi ‘¤=A [4~. ; ,; 4 ,~A u _e·- jr; a·_·_ js-—¤ ri§§*§
_ !»l»i. ,li°¢‘·iii ,,_. ii i ,. ., , , , . * 1 · *` it 2 E `*·· Q` " ‘ i‘‘ ·
* ai1"’ t“ i¤" rf . >t xi v " t i`· 2 V L Q ’ * 2 .- · ‘
#*5*4* f 1 l ‘i j in . t . l tit ‘ i 2 i » & i 2
it — ‘ r a A ·.a s a 3 · I r = 1 ; 2 . r
<€*;&·§§=¢r»£ <`» . · it t { $$9- j <· t - .=.E “ - ` ‘ i · * 5 2 ¥ . ,
M gift? " 5 .**» ’·fi~$¢· »: ~. r »’ I ‘`=’* ‘.»· ew
~;°i · ~ ` ‘ —·nC r E ‘‘·“i ; ave. i.;~
5:: ,r.· ‘ . - V .2**9 g . ig .‘»» , •-;·— t; 4‘.*
’ita 1. `.i» - * »Ciee,· w T. a’s. . i,,,‘ JI: ·D·~ Y . y, 1 .- Gsae 2 _
, | . I : - `‘°, i " _ ,_.. , 1 ,a’’' ,,4· I
— ‘ . j ; 1 — . ‘ 3 3 3 , E ; i . . ; . . _ , J . » ¤° é
Figure 2-13: Satellite (UAH MSU LT) and land-based (HADCRUT3)
· Temperature Anomolies Compared · _
Note that the difference between the satellite and the ground data steadily increased
during the 1978-97 period, at the same time that worldwide urbanization also increased.
It is possible, of course, that the two approaches are measuring different things, so the
comparison may be suspect for this reason, but the draft TSD needs to explain why there
was no increase in lower troposphere temperatures during this long period. Without any,
the case for GHG-caused temperature increases during this critical period is greatly _
weakened.
ln addition to the problems of urbanization and the UHI, surface measurements also
suffer from a number of other problems including major station dropout, missing data,
bad siting, instruments with known warm biases being introduced without adjustment,
difnculties in obtaining data from oceans and other areas with ·few monitors, and
sometimes even black—box and man-made adjustments designed to maximize [reported]
warming." Given these many problems it would appear to be much better to trust the
satellite rather than the surface measurements even when carried out by neutral groups
50 March 16,
\!\! UNCORRECTED OCR SCAN OF DOC062509-004.pdf - VERIFY AGAINST ORIGINAL BEFORE USE !!
Some Major Inconsistencies in the Science of Global Warming that Need to Be Explained
with the best ot` intentions. There are two satellite databases which appear to be in close
agreement, unlike the surface measurement databases.
2009 DRAFT V 51
\!\! UNCORRECTED OCR SCAN OF DOC062509-004.pdf - VERIFY AGAINST ORIGINAL BEFORE USE !!
1 NCEE Comments on Draft TED for Endangerment Analysis for GHG Emissions
under CAA
One of the most obvious places to look to try to understand these variations during `
the Holocene including the two recent periods is to look at variations in the Sun, the
source of Earth’s heat and light. There are two possible types of solar variation. The first
and most visible is direct variation, usually measured by Total Solar Irradiance (TS1). .
This is the variation of the sun’s total radiation output. The second type of solar variance
is often referred to as indirect since it involves the impact of solar variation on other
aspects of Earth’s climate system, which in turn affect global temperatures, among other
things. The discussion here will start with direct effects and then proceed to indirect.
Direct Solar Variability
Most measurements show only small variations, usually about 0.1 percent, but it is not known
how it may have varied before accurate measurements have become available. One important
aspect of these variations is that they vary with the sunspot cycle, with the highest TSI roughly
coinciding with the maximum number of sunspots. V
Perhaps the best known aspect of solar variations and the place to start is sunspot cycles, shown
in Fig. 2-13 over the last 400 years. The first thing to note is the amazing correspondence
between the average number of sunspots and the global temperatures depicted in Fig. 2-?.
4001 Years of Sun1sp ot Observations
. M, ximum img
h EE · it .
. 1 ‘ E 1 ¢ . * * . 3
» 1 i tl F5 · 1 r 50502
if ’ , I ; E A I = y id
s. . Maunder y i . » . 1 · 1 9
1% .; ··_. 1 · z'
ii ‘l_ 1- `#§ _; i t .1 , » ·p- · -e *1 ` ll ·. + _ " Ei] 3
V U A g _ 1 J, . _ _ .
·s.;r » - r l ` i 1 lll! 1 1 m
__,. Q », , ,,, _,; , ,.. .... 1 _ _ .... .. .... .,1-. .... .... ; ....
1600 1650 1700 1750 1300 1850 1900 1950 2000
52 . A March 16,
\!\! UNCORRECTED OCR SCAN OF DOC062509-004.pdf - VERIFY AGAINST ORIGINAL BEFORE USE !!
Some Major Inconsistencies in the Science of Global Warming that Need to Be Explained
Figure 2-14: Relation of Sunspots (or Lack Thereof) to Little Ice-Age Periods i
Phil Chapman has made the following observation concerning the new sunspot cycle 24:13
The new cycle, No.24, was supposed to start soon after that, with a gradual build-up in
sunspot numbers.
It didn't happen. The first sunspot appeared in January this year and lasted only two days. A
tiny spot appeared last Monday but vanished within 24 hours. Another little spot appeared
this Monday. Pray that there will be many more, and soon.
The reason this matters is that there is a close correlation between variations in the sunspot
cycle and Earth's climate. The previous time a cycle was delayed like this was in the Dalton
Minimum, an especially cold period that lasted several decades from 1790.
Northern winters became ferocious: in particular, the rout of Napoleon's Grand Army during
the retreat from Moscow in 1812 was at least partly due to the lack of sunspots.
That the rapid temperature decline in 2007 coincided with the failure of cycle No.24 to begin
on schedule is not proof of a causal connection but it is cause for concem.
13 Phil Chapman, "Sorry to Ruin the Fun, but an Ice Age Cometh," The Australian, April 23, 2008.
2009 DRAFT 53
\!\! UNCORRECTED OCR SCAN OF DOC062509-004.pdf - VERIFY AGAINST ORIGINAL BEFORE USE !!
NCEE Comments on Draft TED for Endangcrmcnt Analysis for GHG Emissions under CAA
Data zmucn: h1{p1h1·wwi.n:—dc.n¤¤a gcrrrpaféwd:11afpaI1=:1‘c¤mu!·1_fc•rcangfx¤I:11_v¤mb1&·Ly»‘!11anX1i¤]__w1ad1¤z·»c¤.lad
I"E 1 .· 1 1 .1 .1 1 1 ·1 .1 1 z. 1. 1 A :1 1. 1 1 1 1. 1 1 1 . 1 1 1 . 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
i .. i 1 4 » 1 1 -1 »1 A s B • I — \- 1 1 1 - 1 1 1 · 1 1 1 ~ 1 I 1 1 1 1 · I O
{@51111;.1@11»|111:.»•»;1»¤(u.}.11:.¤.»1{»1»{1¤»>¤1pu[111}...:11.11;...41¤1§1-111:1-11{1¤»j1•>.}¤»14•u|¤.1g>1¤1:1»»|»».|11..j1¤1{·1»|1»1}¤11»;1».|1 111:...1 1. .1
1 1. 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 » 1 1 1 e 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ' 1 ¥ 1
1 . 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 A 1 11 1 1 1 1. 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 a 1 1 1 1 , 1 , :
|&’·§ ...·....1....1...u..:.1.1.,.1..4..;1...1...1....1..;:..11...1.1.11..1...1..1....1..1.1..11.,.1...1.1.1.-.9»..1....1...,=...11..1...;.14.. V1 1. 1 1.. 1. .1
· 1 1 1 1 ·· 1 1 1 1 1 1- 1 · 1 ~ 1 1 1 1 v1 1 1 1 · 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 D 1 1 1 1
. * * 1 1 1 .1 1 » a 1 1 n • g 1 »· r A 1 1 . 1 y 1 . • 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I
[5:55 .».·g-.1.........».»...·........»»..·..».1..."¤..1.......1.,....11.»..1...»·1H".1·.:...m1.11U.¤1....¤...»»..1·.1".-».··...1» .1 .1 ..¤·.·...».» ...,...1
» » 1 1 a • 1 1 1 1 1 r 1 ·1 1 11 1 1 1 •· 1 1 - 1 1 1 1 I 1 Z ‘·s 1 1 P 1 1
fm. .,»¤.—»1.»;¤¤1;.111.»»,.1»y.11,1..1..11;u¤,1.¤.;.¤¤.U·1,1¤.·.— 1 11 1 1 .11»,11.q.1¤,¤.1»;,¤¤ ·. 1; 1 11 1 1 11. ..,1 4.. p 1 .1, .,1...,11:;.11111..,¤».11,u.,..¤
. • 1 1 1 ·1 4 1 { ·1 1 i 1 1 i 5 N O 1 P v 1 6 -1 I ‘ I -1` I . l ( 4 1 1 1 i i
{ 1 · 1 1 1 11 1 1 -1 1 1 r x , 1 » 1· : i 1 r : 1 1 1 1 eg 1· 1 ; 1 1 1 1 1 I
.. J. .§...{,.._.....é.....;:..-}.,.1:,..%..,]......,, . 4 .. JI....{.-..k.-.‘,. J '.·.|..·,s. Y.-1-{...,|.·.j··.·{···.|¤· -1 _.{ 1] •` Q | [» ~{ 1 {M }1»
. . 1 1 4 . 1 a 1. 1 1 I -+ \ 1- » 1 1 - 1 1 1 .1 1 . ¤ I 1 1 ·· 1 1 • 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 ~1 -1 1 i r 1 1 1 1· 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1- 1 • 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 v -1 1
. ,..·... 1. ...1...»1..»1.11....1.....;.1.. .4...11...1;..4....1....¤....1....1... 1 .1...1......1....1....1..4;..¤...1...»·....1...1..11....1.n...•..1.1....¤...1...1.....
· * 1 -6 ·1 1 1 ·• · . 1- * — I ·- 1 1 U I F 1 1 I · 1 · 1 ·· 1 1 · · I 1 1 4 1
..-..,....,..... ... ..... .....1....; ......, .... ..,...,...,.. ..... ..,.........,... ..... ,................,...... .... -.......;....,..-.......,....,. ...... ,...
' 1 1 1 1 — ·~~ V 1 1 1: 1 1 1 n 11 1 1 1 n 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 r 1 1 1 s r 1 1 1 1- 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 ¤· 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
· · 1 1 · ·· 1 1 · 1 1 1· i 1 1 i 1 I 1 1 ~ 1 1 1 - 1 1 1 - * 1 1 1 1 I • 1 6
·¤¢1 1 1. E1~··r·1j:1wm§_gF»§F·,¤r+ » g;1&·»-em w§··S;§S;·
QQ _ _ 1$_ _ IQ \_ I‘—. I-. · Is f-1. ··. ·1. - Q (I') ’ _ V 1 U1 Ch @1 1 1 1 1
lglll‘€ — . O 2ll‘ l‘l‘2l l3IlC€ SlIlC€
F' 2 15· S l I d' ' 161114
54 4 March 16,
\!\! UNCORRECTED OCR SCAN OF DOC062509-004.pdf - VERIFY AGAINST ORIGINAL BEFORE USE !!
Some Major Inconsistencies in the Science of Global Warming that Need to Be Explained
1366-6
-; pnod/5} an:12
i‘·' E
[J li p·l¤ll\ . JR
1366.4 ( rlulrlv /\
“ *` l N
_ 1366.2 lh"|b|.I’,f`¤,\ K {JJ]
l l
1366
. I A
i` HI km lj ll
1365,12 X I) '\ I} ll
1365 6 n lla" )/ Mk", / S Nh
O L""`."'A"} \\`·._\J_.r \L‘r
" kit
L|00dF0rTrce;$_tJrg
1365.21975 1938 1985 1999 1995 2888 2885 2918
Figure 2-15: Solar Irradiance since 1979*5 ·
A
14 From http://www.]unkscience.com/Greenhouse/irradiancegif
15 http://www.woodf0rtrees.org/plot/pmod/mean:12
From PMOD; SORCE solar irradiance instrument does not show the additional decline
.—
2009 DRAFT 55
\!\! UNCORRECTED OCR SCAN OF DOC062509-004.pdf - VERIFY AGAINST ORIGINAL BEFORE USE !!
NCEE Comments on Draft TED for Endangerment Analysis for GHG Emissions
under CAA
[2.4.2 Brief History of Research on Causes of Global Climate Changesm
[2.4.4 Copeland and Watts
In 2008 Copeland and Watts "published" a paper on Watts’ blog. The two-part paper
presented “Evidence of a Significant Solar Imprint in Annual Globally Averaged Temperature
Trends." By using the first differences of smoothed HadCRUTv3 data with Hodrick-Prescott
filtering and a lambda = 7, they produced the graph shown in Figure 5-‘?. This graph is quite ‘
remarkable in that the peaks in the annual rate of change appear to correspond very closely to
solar cycle peaks and as indicated by the indicated solar cycle number. ·
Fig 2-?: Sunspot Cycles Derived Entirely from Global Temperature Data
- one . . . l . . . . . . . .
Ulm 11 Q 13 ..5 17 W 21 y 23Jl _
o.os 2 U, i fi _. if `
~o.¤z , ~ ‘ ’\ _' V _ is zu ' \l V ..
i - ht/ig ( =i· fri`, I » [
E om;. ly , V it .V ly l l \
l E *0 D;] 0 *2 i T4 Q V C bl 1 V
l l lr i i.
—D.D3 V V
-0.04 I I _ 4
` -¤.¤s r i
JDJJ6 A I BD LBSD 1.9U*D 192G* 19-40 1960 1 BU ZEIUCI
First dlfEea-oznces dn smuuthcd uawcnurva, H¤d‘Hck—P·r»esc¤tt mlserlng with lasnbdaw?. Peaks In the annual!
atgggrifhange cunwzspnnd ruughly to solar cycle peaks as Indllizabed by the acconmanymg snlar cyde
Source: Copeland and Watts (2008), Part ll. —
This or similar analyses have been done by a number of researchers with similar or less revealing
results. There is a possibility, of course, that the cycles shown here are picking up some other
non-solar cycle in the climate system of unknown origin. There are several reasons, however, to
believe that this is highly unlikely. The first of these is the extremely close correspondence
16 John’s paper and book A
56 March 16,
\!\! UNCORRECTED OCR SCAN OF DOC062509-004.pdf - VERIFY AGAINST ORIGINAL BEFORE USE !!
Some Major Inconsistencies in the Science of Global Warming that Need to Be Explained
between the cycles shown in the analysis and known sunspot cycles. The second is that the
analysis appears to pick up the effects of the different characteristics of the two 11-year Schwabe
sunspot cycles that make up each 22-year Hale cycle.
This conclusion is based on the fact that odd numbered cycles shown in Figure 5-? are
consistently and noticeably stronger than the even numbered ones. This appears to be consistent
with a known feature of the Hale sunspot cycle in which this 22 year cycle is composed of
alternating 11 year phases. These are referred to as parallel andiantiparallel phases, with
transitions occurring near solar peaks. Mavromichalaki, et. al. (1997), and Orgutsov, et al.
(2003) contend that during solar cycles with positive polarity, the Galactic Cosmic Ray (GCR)
flux is doubled. This implicates GCR flux in modulating global temperature trends. The
_ difference in peak amplitudes appears to support the kind of influence on terrestrial climate
postulated by Svensmark (1998). The evidence of bidecadal oscillations appears to be
inconsistent with the conclusions of the IPCC concerning role of GHGs since they believe that
solar variations play little role in global climate. ·
The analysis also appears to show a longer periodicity on the order of 60 to 70 years, i
1 corresponding closely to three bidecadal oscillations. lf so, we have just come out of the peak of
the longer cycle, and can expect global average temperature trends to moderate or even fall, with ‘
_ increased likelihood of a cooling phase similar to that experienced during the mid-20th century
` or even during the "Little Ice Age." This could even lead to a new ice age in the worst case if
GHG levels are not a significant factor. It may be important to note that the current downtrend
line has broken upward pattern of lows in period from about 1945, just as happened in about
1940. .
Copeland and Watts (2008) reached the following conclusions:
•t• "The periodicity revealed in the data, along with the strong correlation of solar cycles to
HadCRUT surface data, suggests that the rapid increase in globally averaged
temperatures in the second half of 20th century was not unusual, but part of a ~66 year
climate cycle that has a long history of influencing terrestrial climate."
•t• "While the longer cycle itself may be strongly influenced by long term oceanic
‘ oscillations, it is ultimately related to bidecadal oscillations that have an origin in impact
of solar activity on terrestrial climate." ] ·
2009 DRAFT 57
\!\! UNCORRECTED OCR SCAN OF DOC062509-004.pdf - VERIFY AGAINST ORIGINAL BEFORE USE !!
NCEE Comments on Draft TED for Endangerment Analysis for GHG Emissions
under CAA
2.4.5 Summary of Evidence for CO2 and Sun/Cosmic Ray Warming Hypotheses
Besides the most apparent comparisons between global temperatures and CO2 levels, the CO2
only and sun/cosmic ray hypotheses imply a number of predictions involving observable
evidence. An interesting comparison of the predictions of the CO2 and the sun/cosmic ray
hypotheses with available data: _
TTTTMTMM ”T""Mm”"i r>r€ii€H5IC" 'W”””`W”"—T""'T H§Q§Y{2§§`
V Prediction - CO; Sun/Cosmic Offering W
~ Issue Hypothesis Ray Actual Data C Best .
. p j Hypothesis y p p Explanation "
iAntarctic and Temperatures in 1 Temperaturesi Temperatures move in g Sun/Cosmic
e Arctic the Arctic and I will initially { opposite directions _ Q Ray I
Temperatures Antarctic will p move in C
- rise opposite I .
symmetrically g directions _ _ g p . p _
‘ Troposphere Fastest warming The I Surface warming similar or Sun/Cosmic i
Temperature will be in the j troposphere 0 greater than tropospheric I Ray i
troposphere over S warming will warming ` ‘
A N the tropics » be uniform y
Timing of CO2 CO2 increases Temperature V CO2 concentrations C Sun/Cosmic .
A and Temperature then temperature increases increase about 800·years I Ray
, Changes at End increases then CO2 after temperature increases
» i of Ice Age increases g V .
_ Temperature NA NA _ Cosmic ray flux and Sun Sun/Cosmic `
I correlate with activity correlates with C Ray ‘
i the driver over temperature, CO2 does not _
last 400 years I 1 1 t
n I Temperatures Very hot due to Very cold 0 Very cold ice age Sun/Cosmic a
during CO2 levels > IOXI due to high Ray D
j Ordovician present I cosmic ray : p
period iflux p Q I _ 4 I p p pa
, Other Planets· No change I Other planets {Warming has been detected Sun/Cosmic 3
Climate p C will warm Ion several other planets Ray
§HJF6`é'T”G'Fé§(;yj@§jT”—”*`"”“T~”"”"—T_—""”*`"”`””'"”""“T"‘”T
Gregory (2008) provides a much more detailed description of each of these issues and his basis
for reaching the conclusions that he has. In contrast, the IPCC reports conclude that since the
CSI variation is small therefore solar variability makes at most a very minor contribution to
global temperature changes and can be safely ignored in most of their actual models and
conclusions. This does not address the possibility, however, as hypothesized by Svensen, that
58 ° i March 16,
\!\! UNCORRECTED OCR SCAN OF DOC062509-004.pdf - VERIFY AGAINST ORIGINAL BEFORE USE !!
SomeMaj0r Inconsistencies in the Science of Global Warming that Need to Be Explained
there may be indirect pathways by which solar variability can have substantial effects on the
Earth.
To the extent that Gregory has accurately captured the comparison, the sun/cosmic ray
hypothesis appears to offer a much better explanation of all these comparisons. Gregory (2008)
also compares the temperature increases predicted by the IPCC computer models during the 20th
Century with the actual temperature increases and says that the predicted was 1.6 to 3.74oC
while the observed was about 0.6oC. He comments that “a model that fails to history match is
useless for predicting the future."
?? 2.4.6 Landscheidt (2003) Paper
Landscheidt (2003) predicts a low comparable to the Maunder Minimum, the last major cold
period of the Little Ice Age, in 2030 (one Hale cycle from now) based on solar dynamics. He
says that the cycle "minima around 2030 and 2201 will go along with periods of cold climate
comparable to the nadir of the Little Ice Age. As to the minimum around 2030, there are
additional indications that global cooling is to be expected instead of global warming. The
Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) will show negative values up to at least 2016 (Landscheidt,
2001), and La Ninas will be more frequent and stronger than El Ninos through 2018
(Landscheidt, 2000)." It is interesting to note that this is the case during periods of negative c
PDOs, so Landscheidt’s predictions are parallel to those implied by the PDO hypothesis. I
2.4.7 Other Recent Research ‘
_ [Move to Section 1 and substitute JD’s new section]
In an article in Physics Today, Scafetta and West (2008) estimate that the Sun could account
for as much as 69% of the increase in Earth's average temperature, depending on the TSI
reconstruction used. Furthermore, if the Sun does cool off, as some solar forecasts predict will
happen over the next few decades, that cooling could stabilize Earth's climate and avoid the
catastrophic consequences predicted in the IPCC report." -
I 2.4.8 Are Sunspot Cycles Telling Us Anything?
2.4.9.1 Sunspot Cycle 23 ls Now Over 12 Years Old
Sunspot cycle 23 reached its 12th birthday in May, 2008. Cycle 22 was only 9.5 years long.
There have only been three small and short-lived Cycle 24 spots to date. It is widely believed
2009 DRAFT 59
\!\! UNCORRECTED OCR SCAN OF DOC062509-004.pdf - VERIFY AGAINST ORIGINAL BEFORE USE !!
NCEE Comments on Draft TED for Endangerment Analysis for GHG Emissions
under CAA
that the longer cycle 23 lasts and the later and weaker Cycle 24 is, the colder global temperatures
will be.
_ 2.4.10 Penn and Livingston .
In 2006, two astrophysicists, Penn and Livingston of the National Solar Observatory‘??
published a paper reporting on their measurements of the computed magnetic field from the
Zeeman splitting of the Fe 1 1564.8 nm line, shown for umbral spectra observed from 1998
through 2005. While there is a large variation between different sunspots, nonparametric tests
confirm that the data show a highly significant trend. Mean values for each calendar year are
shown as data points in Figure VV, and the error bars show the standard error of the mean. The
best-fit linear function (fit to the original 906 data points) reveals a decrease in the average
magnetic field strength of 52 G/yr. Magnetic field and intensity changes observed over time in I
the sunspot umbrae from different spots behave in the same way as the magnetic field and
intensity changes observed spatially across single sunspots. If these trends continue the authors
say that sunspots may vanish by 2015. Given the strong association between sunspots and global
temperatures, this suggests the possibility that we may be entering a period of global cooling.
This possibility needs to be discussed in the Draft TSD.
;w;ioi;:· 1 ’ n
vi
E! _ _ I 5 »
Z£»BlZJE¤ r • ‘“
J _:T~4Q‘-ww ` . l
E" GDB i"*·~~—»._.__,__ ——
HJ ` ¤ ; wl" · —..__,_
J:] _ >—~“*‘···--_,__ "
r_.r:» “ ·=—....______M
cm :2‘»¤1· ¤1`2•~·f;¤ ‘ r g "“g3—--...___, tr., ·~·
V _ -"""*¤-·,.,`_W_%-,~ U
UD A
ZECIUU ETiC!·¤Zl L-`Ei{3·¤I]1·£$ EDGE
Ti‘m·¤=;; [°*r"ie»e.¤ rj V
A Figure 2-?: Decay in Sun’s Magnetic Field since 1999
60 March 16,
\!\! UNCORRECTED OCR SCAN OF DOC062509-004.pdf - VERIFY AGAINST ORIGINAL BEFORE USE !!
Some Major Inc0nsistencies_ in the Science of Global Warming that Need to Be Explained
Source: Penn and Livingston (2006)
2.5 Solar Variability May Determine Major Climate Oscillations
[Currently available research shows that the closest association between global
temperatures and other variables is with the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) rather than with
CO2. [refs] In fact, the correlation is about 0.83 and every major change in the PDO appears to
be mirrored in the global temperatures in the period since 1880. ] ` S
» Solar variations=>PDO=>other oscillations=>temps?? _
One possibility is that solar variability and changes in the PDO are not independent and that [
one influences the other or both respond to a third influence not yet identified. Ian Wilson is one
of the leading advocates of this view. I
Global temperatures appear to be influenced by the PDO, which may in turn determine the
other oceanic oscillations
•t• PDO may be primarily determined by indirect solar variations I
•t• So indirect solar variations may determine climatic oscillations
•I• And climatic oscillations may not be independent events
2.6 Conclusions with Regard to the Best Explanation for Global Temperature
Fluctuations `
The reason for this extensive review of some of the availablescience is to use it to derive
some implications for economic analysis of climate change control Several general conclusions
stand out as a result of this analysis:
Despite the complexity of the climate system the following conclusions appear to be well ‘
supported by the available data: V
A. What appears to be by far the best single explanation for global temperature fluctuations
is variations in the PDO/ENSO. ENSO appears to operate in a 3-5 year cycle.
PDO/AMO appear to operate in about a 60 year cycle.
B. There appears to be a strong association between solar sunspots/irradiance and global
temperature fluctuations. It is unclear exactly how this operates, but it may be through
indirect solar variability such as the effect on cloud formation.
2009 DRAFT 61
\!\! UNCORRECTED OCR SCAN OF DOC062509-004.pdf - VERIFY AGAINST ORIGINAL BEFORE USE !!
NCEE Comments on Draft TED for Endangerment Analysis for GHG Emissions
under CAA
C. Changes in GHG concentrations appear to have so little effect that it is difficult to find
any effect in the satellite temperature record, which started in 1978. U
D. The surface measurements (HADCRUT) are more ambiguous than the satellite
measurements in that the increasing temperatures shown since the mid-1970s could either
be due to the rapid growth of urbanization and the heat island effect or by the increase in
GHG levels. However, since no such increase is shown in the satellite record it appears
more likely that urbanization and the UHI effect are the most likely cause. If so, the
increases may have little to do with GHGs` and everything to do with the rapid
urbanization during the period. Given the discrepancy between surface temperature
records in the 1940-75 and 1998-2008 and the increases in GHG levels during these
periods it appears even more unlikely that GHGsihave much effect on measured surface
temperatures either. These points need to be very carefully and fully discussed in the
draft TSD.
E. Hence it is not reasonable to conclude that there is any endangerment from changes in
GHG levels based on the satellite record, since almost all the fluctuations appear to be
due to natural causes and not human-caused pollution as defined by the Clean Air Act.
I The surface record is more equivocal but needs to be carefully discussed and fully
nuanced. .
F. There is a strong possibility that there are some other natural causes of global temperature
fluctuations that we do not yet fully understand and which may account for the 1998
temperature peak which appears on both the satellite and surface temperature records.
This possibility needs to be fully explained and discussed in the Draft TSD.
Resolving the remaining uncertainties would appear to be of great importance before
significant expenditures are made on the assumption that the GHG only hypothesis is correct.
` The important factors affecting global temperatures may include any of the three
hypothesized in this section or all of them or others not discussed here. We do not currently
have sufficient evidence to determine which, if any, are of importance and how important
each might be. The currently favored GHG only hypothesis does not explain a number of
aspects of the available data so is appears unlikely to be the sole explanation. There is an
urgent need to update and improve on the IPCC reports by taking an independent perspective
62 ' March 16,
\!\! UNCORRECTED OCR SCAN OF DOC062509-004.pdf - VERIFY AGAINST ORIGINAL BEFORE USE !!
Some Major Inconsistencies in the Science of Global Warming that Need to Be Explained
and including new information not included in their reports concerning all the factors
summarized above.
2009 DRAFT 63
\!\! UNCORRECTED OCR SCAN OF DOC062509-004.pdf - VERIFY AGAINST ORIGINAL BEFORE USE !!
NCEE Comments on Draft TED for Endangerment Analysis for GHG Emissions
under CAA
3. Contrast between Continuing Improvements in US Health and
Welfare and their Alleged Endangerment Described in the draft TSD
One of the most glaring problems of all with the EPA’s Endangerment TSD is the nearly
complete disregard of observed trends in a wide array of measures which by and large show that `
despite decades of increasing anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions the U.S. population does
not seem to have been adversely affected by any vulnerabilities, risks, and impacts that may have
arisen (to the extent that any at all have actually occurred as the result of any human-induced -
climate changes).
For instance, despite the overall rise in U.S. and global average temperatures for the past 30 .
years, U.S. crop yields have increased (Figure 3-l), the population’s sensitivity to extreme heat
has decreased (Figure 3-2), and our general air quality has improved (Figure 3-3). Further, there
has been no long-term increase in weather-related property damage once changes in inflation,
population size, and population wealth are accounted for (an essential step in any temporal
comparison). All of these trends are in the opposite sense from those described in the EPA’s l
Endangerment TSD.
‘ i E: 56 · 160
" ss ‘ ‘ ‘ .
g V Tenwperature I 3 + ` H9 I,
EE 54 ~ .. { » <
3, . E ry · · a. _ ,2,, ~
lg ‘ sgi `l"iy;.\{·‘a» lr¤·*··l I 1 _ mo zi
ge pt pgs g-4 .
ESE1 ( ’ ao'?
Q Corn Yle-idk * gt,
5; as prgmpimmn -_ so EW
is t r .. d i l J e li " lll ( # 2 s d A *3 §
§ as " . c 3 zu ··
E _ . Wheat Yield _ y
E QI] -¤·—·•—{-1-1-1-1-w-•-;-1-r-v-—;—w¤—r¤—g—#v+•—g-r•—•~—rr1—v#—p¤¤—v-r—y—+w—v-+-;—v+w—»—pw~ ·— U
ieee was was 1225 1935 is-as 1955 wss we V was S was anus
Year
Figure 3-1: Yields of Major Cash Crops such as Corn and Wheat
Data sources: NCDC, USDA
64 l March 16,
\!\! UNCORRECTED OCR SCAN OF DOC062509-004.pdf - VERIFY AGAINST ORIGINAL BEFORE USE !!
Some Major Inconsistencies in the Science of Global Warming that Need to Be Explained
Average Annual Heat-Related Mortality
U, 50
% 40 it `F
3
G
5 20
Q e
g 10 F
‘ tb co "b
z{b‘;\ NCS?) ,’\éb
A9 Q?} QU . i
eg
Figure 3-2. Average Annual Heat-Related Mortality Per Standardized Million
People in the U.S.
(Source: Davis et al., 2003). A
Ozone Air Quality; 1980 -—·· 2007
(Based OH Annual 4th Nmdmtlm 8·~l··l0ui‘ Awrage)
biaimal 'Rend based on 289 Sites
nu i i ‘ i A A
'=` A " ‘ ‘ ‘ . 1 ” t »-»
`_LJ~i‘¢»-¥£;__; W `*lQ*Y· f>'|j,'_; "` V Q..`~L.._,' :
g at F p
iiiiiiriiiliiiliiiiizaaaaaaa
umceoeueucneuucuuceuuuuuucca
ascaaanaaaseeeaaeeoauueooucn
012s·4¤»?·ne=¤1as·i=s0va—eoi2s4¤te? A
@80 to 20D? 7 21% decrease in National Average
Figure 3-3. Trends in ozone air quality
2009 DRAFT 65
\!\! UNCORRECTED OCR SCAN OF DOC062509-004.pdf - VERIFY AGAINST ORIGINAL BEFORE USE !!
NCEE Comments on Draft TED for Endangerment Analysis for GHG Emissions
under CAA
Source: "http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/ozone.ht1nl
Perhaps, most significant of all, the average lifespan of Americans has increased (Figure 2-5).
BU 1
75 · 1
E T0 .
E B5 l
B*
§ E0
E. 55
'LLI
ig 5u_
45 l
*1U_ ', asti
1890 1900 19,10 1920 1930 1940 19501950 19}*0 19801990 2000 2010
Year
Fi ure 3-5: Life Ex ectanc at Birth in the U.S.
g _ P Y
Sourcef http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/hus07.pdf#027
What better measures of human health and welfare are there? ln fact, there is no better way
1 to obtain a good picture of how human health and welfare may trend in the future under
increases in greenhouse gas emissions than to assess how we have fared in the past during a
period of increasing greenhouse gas emissions. True, hurricanes will strike again in the future
and cause a great deal of damage and suffering. But that will largely occur because our climate is
one which includes hurricanes. The same is true for tornadoes, droughts, floods, heat-waves, cold i
1 outbreaks, strong thunderstorms, heavy rains, hail, lightning, snowstorms, blizzards, freezing
rain, etc. Those are all aspects of our climate.
Climate change may alter the strength, path, or frequency of -these events—lessening some
and increasing others. But to the large part, our nation’s climate in the future will be made up of
‘ the same characteristics as it is today.
66 March 16,
\!\! UNCORRECTED OCR SCAN OF DOC062509-004.pdf - VERIFY AGAINST ORIGINAL BEFORE USE !!
Some Major Inconsistencies in the Science of Global Warming that Need to Be Explained
Obviously, there is substantial variation in the viewpoints of proponents and skeptics on what
value to use for this crucial factor. One additional viewpoint is offered by Miskolczi (2007),
who suggests a value of about ~0.24°C,l7 which is less than even the skeptics shown in the figure
have proposed.
The remainder of Section 3 will outline a number of inconsistencies between the expectations of
the GHG hypothesis and available data which if correct suggest that CSF is either very small or
even zero. A
3.1 An inconsistency: Enhanced Greenhouse Effect May Be Overestimated by
IPCC .
` A major cause for concern with regard to the Enhanced Greenhouse Effect espoused by the IPCC
is that a crucial implied assumption may not be valid based on real world data. The IPCC
models imply that global relative humidity is a constant as a result of various assumptions about
evaporation and participation. This appears not to be the case, however, as shown in the
following graph. Stockwell (2008) provides a discussion of the pros and cons for EGE and
concludes that it is doubtful. Ref: http://landshape.org/enm/greenhouse—thermodynamics-and- »
gcms/
Gregory and XXX say that the IPCC models all assume that global relative humidity is a
constant.18 I note that this assumption would appear to imply their result since increases in
temperature increase the amount of water vapor that the atmosphere can hold. This in turn
17 l\/liskolczi offers a very similar value (~O.25oC) in an earlier paper (Miskolczi et al., 1990) with some
explanation as to its derivation. This paper attributes the 0.25oC "to the exact solution of the semi-
transparent radiation transfer problem in gravitationally bounded atmosphere. The instrument of the
above ascertainments is (Miskolczi et al., 1990). The simulations, he says, were made on the Earth’s
Radiation Budget Experiment (ERBE 2004) Monthly Scanner Data Product of NASA Langley Research
Center, and the TIROS Initial Guess Retrieval (TIGR) Global Radiosonde Archive (1983).
18 Yes, I agree. I don’t mean to suggest someone types in relative humidity = constant into the
computer code. I said in my write—up "Relative humidity = constant (or various parameters to achieve
the same effect.) ls this O.K? ‘
They model evaporation and precipitation to achieve an almost constant relative humidity. This is based on short
term observations of temperature changes. During these observations CO2 concentrations are approximately
constant, so these observations only hold tmc over periods when CO2 does not change much. lt is invalid to
extrapolate these observations to long term periods with increasing CO2. Comment by Ken Gregory — june 2l,
2008 @ 4:04 am ’
2009 DRAFT ‘ 67
\!\! UNCORRECTED OCR SCAN OF DOC062509-004.pdf - VERIFY AGAINST ORIGINAL BEFORE USE !!
NCEE Comments on Draft TED for Endangerment Analysis for GHG Emissions
under CAA
results in an increased GHG warming effect, and so on and on, just as the IPCC concluded.
Gregory puts it this way:
There is no physics in support of this assumption, and no way to calculate its value from first
principles. This assumption means that if temperatures increase for any reason, the amount of water
vapour in the atmosphere increases. But water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas, so the
· GHE becomes stronger and temperatures increase more. The current theory does not determine this -
it is only an assumption. If this assumption is only slightly wrong, it completely changes the expected
response of increasing CO2 because water vapour is such a dominant greenhouse gas.
So if this arbitrary assumption does not hold, then there is no positive feedback effect. If _
accurate, the chart appears to support the anti-GW case: _ ·
One recent alternative to the IPCC’s approach is a new theory proposed by Miskolczi (2007).
Whether is correct or not is not yet known, but it does offer the advantage that it may explain
several observed atmospheric observations better than the models relied on by the IPCC. Last
V week someone named Ken Gregory posted an understandable interpretation of it
(http://wvvw.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/The_Saturated_Greenhouse_Effect.htm)
which argues that the IPCC approach violates energy conservation laws. He argues that the
. new theory shows that the application of these laws requires that the atmosphere maintain a
"saturated" greenhouse effect controlled by water vapor content (ie, any "excess" of GHGs gets
"rained out"). As a result any increase in other GHGs (like CO2) results in a decrease in water
vapor, the main GHG. Gregory calculates that the CSF would be, and spells real trouble for the
warmist viewpoint. Gregoryconcludes that "a/most all of the global warmingof the last century
must have been due to changes of the Sun or albedo." The following chart shows that global
relative humidity has indeed been falling for 60 years, particularly at the higher (blue) altitudes
I which he believes are the most relevant. ’
[In 2007 Miskolczi published a new theory which argues that the IPCC approach violates
_ energy conservation laws. Global relative humidity is controlled by the laws of physics, not
68 ‘ March 16,
\!\! UNCORRECTED OCR SCAN OF DOC062509-004.pdf - VERIFY AGAINST ORIGINAL BEFORE USE !!
Some M3' · · ·
ence of Global Warm'
I 1ng that Need to Be Explained
|PCC’s arbltrar · A
Y assumptnon that it is a co · ·
nstant, which as NOT th
e case over last 60
I y68l’S.
V K
Global Relative Humidity 300 - 700 mb
· · .»}2 vrs=s··:t=»·(_ at,. t r,__S_ _, _(4 E
3 4.·. gg:. ¤· ~ —· tt , T .
53
» ’ ~ 0 i · 0- ‘·*‘
‘ *‘ ~ `
51 i , ;
-~ r ar a t l: t w ..»— · # *1 · » ; =>» ·» ·. —= tv N · it Q * ,;.9 xg; ze?
Q § · - ‘ * €
· `··~ ;_ e‘· " 1 - `:‘ T <$M ‘ t% e `” * · ;? 7 1 -’ ii ” " 0 ”
Z., 49
·•-·* l“A` ·· U - '
E
··- -.~ . ‘· ; r·;,» » V-
E aawa » M
0 f ` %F§‘—€% »‘; ;_,g \;-.L;,. ‘ ;§ £'4 . r ·£»
E ,,45 T
.,°i Y
•l2IJ t xl ‘ “
, QL .» .· qu »»·<.» {itil: _·:45`.· if -»E§_{,% i§@£»?'?‘~¤`{"·i#·3i¤¢t?L*?;_?§*%¢v¢»,»a»~¤,..
3 43
A ·-· —· ·· ·#i
E 41 A
~ wma gr a * Mae. t . `E a t .? *` ;·;;_.;,,.'.v if ~ eq ?“ .
U: ; ’?"‘ ·_ gx @2% *·~ ; »t;.;.;~ t? V,,,» ,‘»` " **53:,
·&§ ·—“» · !: t ri;. ~• .,g t, 1 * 1 , 7* -* * ,_ 2 ~ ,,— " ;_ , v,,_,¤»r§£§g·>· 1,, · _; R
· , ·· ·- ·,
39 i *’* =*·—·Ri$$:¤S, ctx.? :,.-9; Lk tg \- - .·‘ . i UE, jj 4 i v'; _;- ’ 1 . ~ ', V ` t’;g"·l§1t~ ">Yg;~·4:§ ,.-.4
tt- W e · · el». .
’ er ‘°Ym’”“" ’ ‘ 0 W"`
B'? $ $0, Y if ' ‘ § " x fg *·’ g‘¢g?J—
‘ "
.. *1;; ’§;3¤' r"?;;ga.#v; x _ _ _; "E ‘°'i" ~‘*“ ¢' #l¥‘l»¤%"l ' §§_ i§z, ¤ 'Z `· l i . ?'“(M $`§`
.· j ` ~»; ;*§_ ·· { t · ,. _ , wm. ‘ ,_ mr ·` ~¢¤ Jig; Q§y 435; ; gt§ lr WE
.©ra¢‘xa$¢tz~r§?E%? » · ~a*sv»;r· t . $ V · ¤?e,a~—».V ~~ ·~» -~ :¢‘%»t t.
·e · = · »
" ‘ "
OO {N .. aa at é
"T LO LO LO (D (N (O C) W OO {xi ` ·
O`? O) O) O-;. Ot, (O l"'* l"‘·—· OO 0;) (D D W
· I
300 mb —-400 mb ·———-·-50g ...
V mb 600 mb — mg
S0urce· Gm · · 0 I
· 20Yy (2008), cntmg NOAA at
· - .
b1n/T1mesemes/t1mese1·1es1. l Ov/c I
......_.....;..._;...tL ‘ · “· ·
l Box 81 of 4AR Ch
il
The radiative effec · ‘
t of .
' l absorption by water vapour is roughly proportional t h ·
C9“€€¤YFHtlon, so it is the fractional change in water A O t Q logarithm Of its
_ va O ‘
that governs its strength as a feedback mech ` ill, Concentratlom not the absolute Chang€’
. A anism. a culati ‘
V8.pOLIT l”€mEiII'lS at all 8ppI'OXlm&I€ly COI'lSt3I"It fI'é1CtlOl”i f ` Ons Wlth GCMS Suggest that Water
relative humidit R O its Saturated Value (CIOSE to un h
y H)) under global-scale warming (see Sect' 8 C a"9€d
uniform warming, the largest fractional change in water lon -6d3'])- Under Such a response, for
_ V3 OUI' an . .
the feedback, 0 9€St Contribution to
COl'T`ll'l'°I€l'lt
From http·//land r _Jun€ 2g' 2008 @ Mm
. shape.org/enm/ ree -
9 nhouse-thermodynamics-and-water-vapor/
` ‘ 2009 DRAFT , —
69
\!\! UNCORRECTED OCR SCAN OF DOC062509-004.pdf - VERIFY AGAINST ORIGINAL BEFORE USE !!
NCEE Comments on Draft TED for Endangerment Analysis for GHG Emissions
under CAA
Precipitation provides greenhouse equilibrium mechanism for climate in accordance with
physical laws. Further, the increase in ambient CO2 results in decrease in water vapor, the
main GHG. The Result is that CSF would be ~O.24°C, which is less than even the skeptics
claim.
Implications of New Theory
"The long wave upward radiation from the surface is limited to 1.5 times the short wave
downward radiation from the Sun.
This limits the temperature to very close to the current temperature.
Therefore, almost all ofthe global warmingof the last century must have been due to changes of
` the Sun or albedo." —Ken Gregory, June, 2008
3.2 A Second inconsistency: Do Changes in CO2 Cause Changes in I
Temperature?
The IPCC (2007) argues that it is changes in ambient CO2 levels that have and will largely
determine temperature changes. A number of skeptics dispute this. One of their arguments is
that changes in temperature have preceded changes in CO2 by hundreds of years rather than the
other way around over the last quarter million years (see Gregory, 2008, citing Caillon et al.,
2003; and Singer, 2008, citing Fischer, 1999). They argue that this is incompatible with changes
. in CO2 levels having any effect on temperature. According to Gregory (2008), "Logic demands
that cause must precede effect. Increases in air temperature drive increases in atmospheric CO2 l
concentration, and not vice versa." So at least these skeptics would presumably argue CSF = 0
` since in their view changes in ambient CO2 do not increase temperatures.
3.3 A Third inconsistency: IPCC Climate Models Inconsistent with Observed
Temperatures
Figure 2-? shows how climate models and reality diverge._The red, purple, and orange lines
are model forecasts of global temperatures under different emission scenarios. The yellow line
shows how much warming we are supposedly "committed to" even if CO2 concentrations don’t
change according to the IPCC. The blue and green lines are actual temperatures as measured
by ground-based (HadCrut) and satellite (UAH LT) monitoring systems.
70 March 16, .
\!\! UNCORRECTED OCR SCAN OF DOC062509-004.pdf - VERIFY AGAINST ORIGINAL BEFORE USE !!
Some Major Inconsistcncies in the Science of Global Warming that Need to Be Explained
What’s really rather remarkable, is that since 2000, the rates at which CO2 emissions and
concentrations are increasing have accelerated. According to Canadell et al. (2008), fossil fuel
and cement emissions increased by 3.3 percent per year during 2000-2006, compared to 1.3 _
percent per year in the 1990s. Similarly, atmospheric CO2 concentrations increased by 1.93
parts per million per year during 2000-2006, compared to 1.58 ppm in the 1990s. And yet,
despite accelerating emission rates and concentrations, there's been no net warming in the 21st
century, and more accurately, a decline.
— 2009 DRAFT 71
\!\! UNCORRECTED OCR SCAN OF DOC062509-004.pdf - VERIFY AGAINST ORIGINAL BEFORE USE !!
\!\! UNCORRECTED OCR SCAN OF DOC062509-004.pdf - VERIFY AGAINST ORIGINAL BEFORE USE !!
Conclusions
4. Detailed Comments
4.1 · Executive Summary
Page ES—7, lines 25-30: The cited temperature changes are misleading at best. There is a
profound difference between surface and satellite measurements which is not discussed. .
Satellite data shows no significant change between 1978 and 2008 and thus does not support
the view that there was an increased rate of warming in the last 30 years. Infact, It says that
there has been no appreciable change. As discussed in Section 2.5 above there are strong
reasons to believe that the satellite data is more accurate so any statement along these lines
needs to carefully explain the differences between the measu-rement approaches and explain
why one is superior to the other. It ls also misleading to quote changes since 1900 since it is
highly unlikely that GHG changes were appreciable before 1940.
4.2 Part ll ‘
A
UAH MONTHLY MEANS OF LOWER TROPOSPHERE LT5.2
Global Temperature Anomaly 1970-2008
` 2 l . , · * 1 I · l l
1,9 ..__._ .._. ..,.. ._,.... .._. .._.. -1 ._... .,... .... ,.__..... .._.. - ........ l ..._ .._. ...... -. ......_. -..--..--1 ......
-.-. .- ...,. .... ...,... -. .... _- ...... l--.- -..- ........, ..... ...1 ..... -.- ......, . .... Q. - - --.-’ ..... . ....... 1.--.. .... --- -.-. ..-.1-..-- --
ii .... 1 . .. . .. ..... . . .- -1 ..... .. I ....... - .... I . - .... - .... ·
0. ...- ..... -1- _... - I -..._... ._._ .._. ..... 1 ...-...- l ...... ...... ..... I---l .... 2as=9?.ls*¤*l¤ l
‘j1_l‘j¤Il ll1 lll Ill I lll I
05 -..-... -.----j.--- !..---..-.--:.- -.-i ....- -i-.- ...... ..--.. .-.... ..1-..-- I. ..-. -I.--. - .. -.-1.. ..-I.- -.- -...-. .... --. -.-. . .-.-. -T.--.. M---.--- ..-.--..l-.--. ----i -A. ..---
1 I 1 1 l l 1 I ‘ l I l l _ l ll ’ 7 40
9 OA .- ,---- -_-_-_-{-__.--.l- -,-_ -.--I--...1,..--T.----. ..-.,- --,.,-..-I.- ..-. -l---- . .--... ---.-..-?-. ...-... --..., -1.---- --.--- .-- .,.., -- - ‘--.--.‘--.,--, ..-... ...i --...L -.._- .,...- -. ---.. :-.- -..,.-
B I l 1 1 1 - l 1 1 c 1 » 1 1 l
E 0-3 _--,,-T., --_.. gm .-E,.-.--. _- ,.._.- I .... -ii.--_ -,-. g.----- _-.. ..---+.%..-*5--.- - . .-- -.--{--.--i .,...-- £-- ..--.- - ..... --I.- .-....- .--,- l.-.--.;.-----.},-.- -.- . - ...-- .- --.- - - la- .... --.,
gh __,___ _____--ui---. ___,_ .,,_,,._. - , -,__ -_--,_,-{-,_,-1.-.-.-__,-_,..{ ,,. }__.i ,-_,- -...----.,§,.._---.§,,,,-..-E.-.. -%,,.,-.--{-,..-,-i--_-I .--.--.--i. . . W-,}. .... -.--.- -... - ., -..,‘ -- -..--- -
1- ,,1 . ._ ..-. . . _ - ..... .... --1 .... . ..,... - -,.- .-- - . -. - ...... i-- -.-- --- -1--- ---
l I I I 1 I
0 ..,-.- ---.-. - . i-.-.. - .. ..-.--.l..-.-....1.--...... -.§.-.... . ` --..-.... -..-;lr,....'.. . vt .w...‘ -.-Y".- .-.... . ........ ..-..¥.-... Y- -..... V ...-lm"`. 7...
_1,_, .__..___ .- _._. - .._... l--_ -- - _... - -:-. - ,-- - .-1 _._. - . -..-1---
` `"ll l` ilfl 4 ”l”i2i iw T lili `lllli 1 '"llil TIT `H §”HlT1§&·€`
.0.3 -·—-W-- -—~—<» -~ ·——»—!——— —·——»-—-·- 1 ~—»~—'—~ -~»l·'»-·»·~ ME--r—— [ ---r-— —»—»— »-—— l- ·--·· ~·—~— ~ ~~»» »——- ————| -- j—~— --—~—
-. -.--1 ..... ...-. . .... -- ...... --.- - ........ ---.-1---}.- ...-.. ...... - ........ .-- --- .... -.-.
`°i"lIll1llll'll*ll1llI1 Il
-0-50 12 24 36 48 80 72 84 96 108 120 132 144 156 168 180 192 204 216 228 240 252 264 276 288 300 312 324 336 348 360
1979 ********** 2008
•Z• IPCC left out a major variable that actually is a major factor
•I• CO2 is not as significant a factor In determining global temperatures as the IPCC
hypothesized
•t• Regional ocean oscillations are random events that IPCC also did not analyze but play a
significant role In climate change _
2009 DRAFT 73
\!\! UNCORRECTED OCR SCAN OF DOC062509-004.pdf - VERIFY AGAINST ORIGINAL BEFORE USE !!
NCEE Comments on Draft TED for Endangerment Analysis for GHG Emissions
under CAA
An effort will be made in Section 5 to determine which of these explanations appear likely. .
Section 6.1.2 will summarize the conclusions. `
4.2.2 New Paper Predicts 10 Year GW "Postponement" i
The authors of a new paper (Keenlyside, 2008) in Nature, who were also authors of the 2007
IPCC report, which they helped author, did not take account of effects of major known regional
climate oscillations in the Atlantic Ocean. Since these are/may now be tuming towards a
"cooler" mode, they believe that a GW "postponement" appears likely. These oscillations may
_ be related to solar cycles, but were not analyzed by the IPCC. Not discussed in Nature was a
similar and probably more significant change in a similar multi-decadal oscillation in the Pacific I
(PDO) which has just moved into a cooling mode according to NASA. So the hypothesized
"postponement” could be much longer than the authorsindicate.]
4.3 Part lll
4.4 Part IV
74 I _ March 16,
\!\! UNCORRECTED OCR SCAN OF DOC062509-004.pdf - VERIFY AGAINST ORIGINAL BEFORE USE !!
l Conclusions
5. Conclusions
[to bc written]
2009 DRAFT 75 l
\!\! UNCORRECTED OCR SCAN OF DOC062509-004.pdf - VERIFY AGAINST ORIGINAL BEFORE USE !!
NCEE Comments on Draft TED for Endangerment Analysis for GHG Emissions
under CAA
76 · March 16,
\!\! UNCORRECTED OCR SCAN OF DOC062509-004.pdf - VERIFY AGAINST ORIGINAL BEFORE USE !!
References
References
Arrak, Arno, 2009, "Sattelite Data Show that there Was No Global Warming Before 1997," available from l
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/ThereWasNoGlobalWarmingBefore1997.pdf
Baker, Marcia B., and Gerard H. Roe, "The Shape of Things to Come: Why is Climate Change So Predictable‘?"
February 28, 2008 draft, available at
http://earthweb.ess.washington.edu/roe/Publications/BakerRoe Predictable draft08.pdf
Beck, Ernst-Georg, 2007, "180 Years of Atmospheric CO2 Gas Analysis by Chemical Methods," Energy and
Environment, 18(2): 259-82; available at http://wwwbiomind.de/nogreenhouse/daten/EE%2018-2 Beck.pdf
Carlin, Alan, 2007, "Global Climate.Change Control: Is There a Better Strategy than Reducing Greenhouse Gas
Emissions? University of Pennsylvania Law Review, l55(6): 1401-97, June. `
Carlin, Alan, 2008, "Why a Different Approach Is Required if Global Climate Change Is to Be Controlled
Efficiently or Even at All," Environmental Law and Policy Review, 32(3): 685-757, Spring. ·
Caillon, Nicolas, Jeffrey P. Severinghaus, Jean Jouzel, Jean-Marc Bamola, Jiancheng Kang, and Volodya Y.
, Lipenkov, "Timing of Atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic Temperature Changes Across Termination III, Science 299:
1728-31, March 14. .
Canadell et al. 2007, "Contributions to Accelerating Atmospheric CO2 Growth from Economic Activity,
Carbon Intensity, and Efficiency of Natural Sinks," Proceedings ofthe National Academy of Sciences, 104
(47) 18866-18870.5.
Copeland, Basil and Anthony Watts, 2008, "Evidence of a Significant Solar Imprint in Annual Globally Averaged
Temperature Trends——Part 2," March 30, available from
htm://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/03/30/evidence-of—a-significant-solar—imprint-in—annual—globally-
averaged-temperature-trends-part—2
d’Aleo, Joseph, 2008, “US Temperatures and Climate Factors since 1895," available at
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/US Temperatures and Climate Factors since 1895.pdf ,
Davis, R.E., et al., 2003b. Changing heat-related mortality in the United States. Environmental Health Perspectives, _
lll, 1712-1718. .
Easterbrook, Don J., 2008, "Global Cooling Is Here: Evidence for Predicting Global Cooling for the Next Three
Decades," available at http://www.gl0balresearch.ca/index.php?c0ntext=va&aid=10783
Easterbrook, Don J., 2008a, "Solar Influence on Recurring Global, Decadal, Climate Cycles Recorded by Glacial
Fluctuations, Ice Cores, Sea Surface Temperatures, and Historic Measurements Over the Past Millennium," paper .
presented at the meetings of the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco as reproduced in
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/12/29/don-easterbrooks-agu—paper-on—potential—global—cooling/
Feynman, Richard, 1965, The Character of Natural Law, MIT Press, p. 156.
1 y Fischer, H., etal. 1999. Carbon dioxide in the Vostok ice core. Science 283: 1712-17l4.\
Gray, William M., 2009, "Climate Change: Driven by the Ocean not Human Activity," March,
http://tropical.atmos.colostate.edu/Includes/Documents/Publications/gray2009.pdf
Gregory, Ken, 2008, "The Saturated Greenhouse Effect," available at
http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/The_Saturated_Greenhouse_Effect.htm
2009 DRAFT 77
\!\! UNCORRECTED OCR SCAN OF DOC062509-004.pdf - VERIFY AGAINST ORIGINAL BEFORE USE !!
NCEE Comments on Draft TED for Endangerment Analysis for GHG Emissions
under CAA
Gregory, Ken, 2009, Climate Change Science, available at
http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/FOS%20Essay/Climate Change Sciencehtml
Hoyt, Douglas V., and Kenneth H. Schatten, 1997, The Role ofthe Sun in Climate Change, Oxford University Press.
J oughin, I., et al., 2008. "Seasonal Speedup Along The Western Flank of the Greenland Ice Sheet," Science, 320,
781-783.
Kirkby, Jasper, 2007, Cosmic Rays and Climate, Surveys in Geophysics, 28: 333-75, available as CERN-PH-
EP/2008-005 dated March 26, 2008 at http://arxiv.org/PS cache/arxiv/pdf/0804/0804.1938vl pdf
Keenlyside, N. S., M. Latif, J. Jungclaus, L. Komblueh and E. Roeckner, 2008, "Advancing Decadal-scale Climate
Prediction in the North Atlantic sector," Nature 453: 84-88, May 1.
Knutson, T.R., et al., 2008. "Simu1ated Reduction in Atlantic Hurricane Frequency under Twenty-first-century
Warming Conditions," Nature Geosciences, doi:l0.103 8/ngeo202
~ Landscheidt, Theodore, 2000
Landscheidt, Theodore, 2001, "Trends in Pacific Decadal Oscillation subjected to solar f`orcing,"
Landscheidt, Theodore, 2003, "New Little Ice Age Instead of Warming," Energy and Environment, 14: 327;
g available at http://bourabai.narod.ru/1andscheidt/new-e.htm.
Lansner, Frank, 2008, "Flat Ice Core CO2-graph During 1000 Years," available at _
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/FlaticecoreCO2.pdf
Lassen, K, http://www.tmgnow.com/repository/solar/lassen1.html l
Mackey, Richard, 2007, "Rhodes Fairbridge and the Idea that the Solar system Regulates the Earth’s Climate,"
Journal Of Coastal Research, Special Issue 50, available at
http.://www.griffith.edu.au/conference/ics2007/pdf/ICS176.pdf
Mavromichalaki H, Belehaki A, Rafios X, et al., 1997, Hale-cycle effects in cosmic-ray intensity during the last four ‘
cycles Astrophys Space Sci. 246 (1): 7-14.
Miskolczi, F M Bonzagni, and R. Guzzi, 1990, "High-resolution atmospheric radiance transmittance code
(HARTCODE)." in Meteorology and Environmental Sciences: Proc. ofthe Course on Physical Climatology and
Meteorology for Environmental Application. World Scientific Publishing Co. Inc., Singapore.
Miskolczi, F erenc M., 2007: Greenhouse Effect in Semi-transparent Planetary Atmospheres, Idojaras - Quarterly
o Journal ofthe Hungarian Meteorological Service, Vol. 111. No. 1, pp. 1-40; available as V
http://www.met.hu/idojaras/IDOJARAS_vol1 11_No1_01.pdf ‘ . ,
Monckton, Christopher, 2008, "C1imate Sensitivity Reconsidered," Forum on Physics and Society, July, available at
http://www.aps.0rg/units/fps/newsletters/200807/moncktonchn
, Ogurtsov, et al., 2003, On the Connection Between the Solar Cycle Length and Terrestrial Climate, Geophysical ‘
Research Abstracts, Vol. 5, 03762. .
Paltridge, Garth, Albert Arking, and Michael Pook, 2009, "Trends in Middle- and Upper-level Tropospheric
Humidity from NCEP Reanalysis Data" Theoretical and Applied Climatology, February 26, 1434-87 (online).
Penn, M.J., and W. Livingston, 2006, "Temporal Changes in Sunspot Umbral Magnetic Fields and Temperatures,"
The Astrophysical Journal, 649: L45-8, September 30, available from
http://wattsupwiththatfiles.wordpress.com/2007/10/penn apjl-649-145-48 2006.pdf
Roe, Gerald S. and Marcia B. Baker, 2007, "Why Is Climate So Unpredictable‘l” Science, 318: 629.
78 _ March 16,
\!\! UNCORRECTED OCR SCAN OF DOC062509-004.pdf - VERIFY AGAINST ORIGINAL BEFORE USE !!
I References
Ruddiman, William F., 2005, Plows, Plagues and Petroleum, Princeton University Press.
Scafetta, Nicola, and Bruce West, 2008, "Is climate sensitive to solar variability?" March. pp.50—51.
» Scafetta, Nicola, and Richard C. Wilson, 2009, "ACRIM-gap and TSI trend issue resolved using a surface magnetic
flux TSI proxy model," Geophysical Research Letters, 36, L0570l, March 3, 1-5.
Shaviv, N, and J. Veizer, 2003, "A Celestial driver of Phanerozoic Climate? " GSA Today 13, No. 7, 4; available at
http://www.gsai ournals.org/gsaonline/?reguest=get-abstract&doi=1 0. 1 130%2F 1052-
5173%282003%29013%3C0004:CDOPC%3E2.0.CO%3B2
Shaviv, Nir, 2005, Cosmic Rays and Climate, _ PhysicaPlus, Issue No. 5, May 1; available at
http://physicap1us.org.il/zope/home/en/1 10538991 1/1 1 1351 1992_en
Singer, S. Fred, ed., 2008, Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate, Heartland Institute, available at
http://wwwsepp.org/publications/NIPCC-Feb 20.pdf
Solanki, Sami K., Ilya G. Usoskin, Bernd Kromer, Manfred Schiissler, Jtirg Beer, Unusual activity of the Sun
during recent decades compared to the previous 1 1,000 years, Nature, 28 October 2004,· press release available at
http://www. mg g. de/engl ish/illustrationsDocumentation/documentation/QressR el eases/2 004/gressRelease2 004 I 028/g ·
enPDF.pa’f 4
Spencer, Roy W, 2008, "Global Warming as a Natural Response to Cloud Changes Associated with the Pacific
Decadal Oscillation (PDO)," October 20 (updated December 29), available at
http://www.drroyspencer.comlresearch-articles/global-wanningas-a-natural-response/
Svensmark, Henrik, 1998, "Influence of Cosmic Rays on Earth’s Climate
Svensmark, Henrik, and Nigel Calder, 2007, The Chilling Stars: A New Theory Of Climate Change, Icon Books.
United Nations, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007, Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), Cambridge .
University Press; available at hgp://www.ipcc.ch
Van Andel, Noor, 2008, "The New Climate Theory of Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi," May, available in edited form from
http://www.landshape.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=introduction
Van de Wal, R. S. W., et al., 2008. Large and Rapid Melt—Induced Velocity Changes in the Ablation Zone ofthe
Greenland Ice Sheet. Science, 321, 111-113.
Vecchi, G. A. et al., 2008. "Whither Hurricane Activity?" Science, 322, 687-689. V
Wilson, Ian, "Which Came First? . The Chicken or the Egg?’ 2008; available at
http1//www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/articles/IanwilsonForum2008pdf or
http://www.lavoisier.com.au/articleslgreenhouse-science/solar-cycles/IanwilsonForum2008pdf
Wilson, I.R G, B. D. Carter, and I. A. Waite, 2008a, "Does a Spin-Orbit Coupling Between the Sun and the Jovian
Planets Govern the Solar Cycle?" Publications ofthe Astronomical Society of Australia, 25: 85-93.
Zagoni, Miklos, 2008, "Developments in Greenhouse Theory," available at
http://hps.elte.hu/zagoni/Proofs of the Miskolczi theoryhtm
2009 DRAFT 79
\!\! UNCORRECTED OCR SCAN OF DOC062509-004.pdf - VERIFY AGAINST ORIGINAL BEFORE USE !!
NCEE Comments on Draft TED for Endangerment Analysis for GHG Emissions
under CAA
80 March 16,
\!\! UNCORRECTED OCR SCAN OF DOC062509-004.pdf - VERIFY AGAINST ORIGINAL BEFORE USE !!
References
‘ About the Comments
· This report has been prepared by the National Center for Environmental Economics (NCEE) in
the EPA Office of` Policy, Economics, and Innovation, which is a part of the Office of` the
Administrator. It was authored by Alan Carlin and John Davidson of NCEE and in part builds on
three previous reports (Carlin, 2007), Carlin (2007a), and Carlin (2008).
2009 DRAFT 81
\!\! UNCORRECTED OCR SCAN OF DOC062509-004.pdf - VERIFY AGAINST ORIGINAL BEFORE USE !!
NCEE Comments 0n Draft TED for Endangerment Analysis for GHG Emissions under CAA
4 This page intentionally left blank
82 March 16,
\!\! UNCORRECTED OCR SCAN OF DOC062509-004.pdf - VERIFY AGAINST ORIGINAL BEFORE USE !!
Endnotes
End notes 0
2009 DRAFT V ` 83
\!\! UNCORRECTED OCR SCAN OF DOC062509-004.pdf - VERIFY AGAINST ORIGINAL BEFORE USE !!