Climate Alarmists Are A Threat To Our National Security

Transcription

1 Climate Alarmists Are A Threat To Our National Security Harold H. Doiron, Ph.D., Chairman The Right Climate Stuff Research Team TheRightClimateStuff.com America First Energy Conference The Heartland Institute Houston, Texas November 9,

2 National Security Depends on Energy Security President Trump s America First Energy Plan and other presentations in this conference make the case that: Ø Our national security depends on our energy security Ø US energy dominance thru exploiting our vast energy reserves and technology is a key to global stability and security Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) Climate Alarm unsupported by physical data is a threat to our national security by: Ø Preventing rational political decisions regarding development of US energy resources Ø Causing our military to plan for unrealistic climate change 2

3 Un-Validated Climate Models Predict Future Global Warming Problems TROPICAL MID-TROPOSPHERE TEMPS Source: J. R. Christy testimony to US House of Representatives, Dec 2013

4 Fallacy of Alarming Global Warming Predictions Alarming global warming predictions are not consistent with requirements of The Scientific Method Ø Predictions are based on un-validated climate simulation models Ø The Scientific Method requires that hypotheses and theories be confirmed by physical data, not by models that do not agree with physical data Public policy and military planning should be based only on models validated by physical data Validated models project much less future warming than overly complex climate simulation models Ø Preferred by the UN IPCC Ø Used for the US National Climate Assessment 4

5 Extent of Global Warming From GHG Depends on Two Key Factors: ØMetric for sensitivity of Earth Surface Temperature to atmospheric Greenhouse Gas (GHG) and aerosol concentrations o Example Metrics: ECS, TCR, TCS for Global Mean Surface Temp increase from doubling atmospheric CO2 concentration o GHG = CO 2, Methane (CH4), N 2 O, Halocarbons o CO 2 is the primary GHG, all other GHG and aerosols contribute about 50% of the warming effect of CO 2 o Naturally occurring water vapor is a much more important GHG affecting Earth Surface Temperature ØRepresentative Concentration Pathway (RCP) o Future trajectory vs. time of GHG and aerosol concentrations 5in our atmosphere derived from GHG emissions scenarios

6 Need for Officially US Sanctioned Climate Data The UN IPCC Reports and US National Climate Assessment documents are political, not scientific documents Ø Too many conclusions and projections are made on basis of unvalidated climate simulation models Simple Models derived from Conservation of Energy considerations and validated with physical data are available to determine earth surface temperature sensitivity to atmospheric GHG Ø Such models consistently project much less GHG warming than complex and unvalidated climate simulation models The USA needs to establish official high-confidence models and RCP projections with reasonable dispersions for forecasting climate change 6

7 m p, 2 O C RCP6.0 Emissions Scenario CO2 ATMOSPHERIC CONCENTRATION, PPM RCP6.0 emissions scenario - Derived from burning all EIA world-wide reserves of coal, oil and natural gas - Radiative forcing of all GHG and aerosols in 2100: = 1.5(585ppm CO2 radiative forcing) Law Dome Data Mauna Loa Data CO2 Estimated YEAR 7

8 How Does Atm. CO2 Warm the Earth? Source: Trenberth, Fasullo and Kiehl (2009) 8

9 Earth Surface Energy Balance e(w, C, G)sT 4 = (1 a)s Q Negligible Contributors - Incoming radiation from stars other than our Sun - Heat rising from Earth s molten core - Heat generation processes on the Earth s surface - Forest fires, decaying organic matter, burning fuels 9

10 Our Validated Model Forecasts Much Less Warming By 2100 Than National Climate Assessment T(yr) = TCS(1+b)LOG[CO2(yr)/CO2(1850)]/LOG[2] <1.0C Note: Out of family spurious data points not bounded by TCS(1+beta) = 1.8K blue curve are known to be associated with strong, naturally occurring El Nino events such as in late 1870 s,1998, and These events are noted to occur near peaks of the 64 year temperature cycle.

11 Assessment of GHG Warming Extent Our method for determining TCS from available physical data is known as an Observational Method. Ø A growing number of recent peer-reviewed publications using Observational Methods to determine TCS and ECS, obtain values very similar to our independent assessment results. o Examples: Ring et. al. (2012), Otto et. al. (2013), Lewis and Curry (2014), Lewis (2016) and others o Our NASA training and policies compel us to ignore any TCS, TCR or ECS estimates made by un-validated climate simulation models Ø Mainstream Climate Science position, as published by the IPCC, has high GHG sensitivity uncertainty because their results are based on un-validated climate model simulations: 1.5C < ECS < 4.5C 1 1

12 Assessment of GHG Warming Extent Observational Methods, consistent with The Scientific Method, for determining ECS find that. Ø ECS is near or below the IPCC lower estimate of 1.5C Observational Methods are the only methods suitable for determining GHG climate sensitivity. Unjustifiably high ECS values coupled with RCP scenarios that are un-constrained by actual world-wide reserves of fossil fuels, lead to alarming global warming predictions! Scientifically Unjustified Climate Alarm is a threat to our National Security 12

13 US Gov t Over-Reacting to Climate Concern Potential Problems don t require premature critical decisions with potentially severe adverse consequences EPA in the Obama Administration decided it must act to prevent a climate disaster ØBased its highly uncertain climate forecast on un-validated model predictions in United Nation s IPCC reports ØDeveloped complex, highly uncertain and scientifically indefensible Social Cost of Carbon (SCC) metric to justify benefits of CO2 emissions regulations Based on recommendations of and many others, President Trump has by EO outlawed use of SCC for justifying GHG emission regulations 13

14 Military Preparation for Climate Change This Century Recent HBR article indicates US Navy is preparing for alarming climate change ØReinhardt and Toffle HBR June - July 2017 issue Planning for modest climate change is prudent Preparing for alarming climate change, projected by un-validated models is wasteful and dangerous ØUnnecessary spending for unreasonable preparedness level ØDistraction from more important issues ØPoor decisions related to climate change issues 14

15 Military Preparation for Climate Change What are our armed forces using to forecast climate change for this Century and plan for it? ØThe National Climate Assessment (NCA)? ØUN IPCC Reports? ØPeer-reviewed publications from academia based on unvalidated models? We need an independent, objective scientific review of military climate change planning ØTo ensure military planning is based on science consistent with The Scientific Method 15

16 Military Preparation for Climate Change We can and should use readily available forecasting models and RCP emission scenarios consistent with The Scientific Method for: ØImplementing the America First Energy Plan ØPublic Policy Decisions regarding fossil fuel usage ØMilitary planning and spending 16

17 Conclusions AGW forecasts need highly reliable models assessing a reasonable range of GHG emissions scenarios for the future Ø Our simple, rigorously derived, algebraic bounding model provides conservative projections for AGW with actual slowly rising GHG Ø Low climate sensitivity and reasonable emissions scenarios greatly lower the AGW threat We propose Transient Climate Sensitivity (TCS) and our RCP6.0 emissions scenario as the appropriate metrics to guide regulatory & military decisions Ø TCS = 1.2 deg K ; TCS(1 + b) = 1.8K (Effects of all GHG) Ø TCS(1+b)=1.8K uncertainty<< TCS uncertainty<< ECS uncertainty Ø model can accurately forecast AGW with TCS(1+b)=1.8K 17

18 BACK-UP CHARTS 18

19 A Simple Model For Temperature Changes - Use calculus to form a differential of the Earth Surface Power Balance Equation to evaluate effects of changes in variables [( "# "$ "$ + "# "# )dc + ( "% "% "$ d{e(w, C, G)sT 4 } = d{(1 a)s Q} "$ "' + "# "' )dg ]st4 +4e(W,C,G)sT 3 dt= (1-a)dS Sda dq s = 5.67(10) -8 W/m 2 /K 4 est 4 = W/m 2 For T = 288K and e = 238.5/(sT 4 ) = 0.611, 4esT 3 = 1/0.302 dt = [0.302]{- [changes in e(w, C, G)] st 4 + (1-a)dS Sda dq } [changes in e(w, C, G)]sT 4 are called Radiative Forcing from GHG including water vapor (W) feedback effects 19

20 Ljungqvist Temp Reconstruction Northern Hemisphere Temperature Variation Ljungqvist (2010) 20

21 Recent Global Mean Surface Temp Variation Super El Nino Weather Events 21

22 Simple Climate Model Fit To Temp Data dt(year) = TCS(1+b)LOG[C(year)/284.7]/LOG[2] {(1-a)dS Sda dq } dt(year) = HadCRUT4 Temp(Year) - (1850 value) = Models + (TCS)(1+b){Log[CO2(year)/284.7]/Log[2]} (All GHG) (year 1850)/155 (Solar, ds) + A L Sin[2p(Year-1850)/ 1000 yr.] (da, dq) + A S Sin[2p(Year-1990)/64 yr.] (da, dq) TCS(1+b) is a constant determined from function fit to temp time history data; Nominal value of b = 0.5 used to determine TCS 22

23 Extracting Less Conservative TCS Value 0.9C 0.7C T(yr) yr cycle 0.7C Note: Out of family spurious data points not bounded by TCS(1+beta) = 1.8K blue curve are known to be associated with strong, naturally occurring El Nino events such as in late 1870 s,1998, and These events are noted to occur near peaks of the 64 year temperature cycle.

24 Extracting Most Conservative TCS Value 0.9C Max Add l GHG warming by 2100 < 1C 24

25 Extracting Less Conservative TCS Value <0.6C 25

26 Our ECS Compared to Recent Research (2014) ) Lewis and Curry (