But, as a chemical engineer, as most of you are, I have the tools to assess much of what was done; not only to get some understanding for myself, but to determine what they did, and did they do it right, if there is a right and a wrong. I think that coming from my background in oil refineries, there is definitely a right and there is definitely a wrong. If we do it wrong, things blow up and people die. That's one big difference between chemical engineers and climate scientists. They have the luxury of sitting in their offices and conferences and they can be as wrong as they want. It doesn't really make that much difference.
What I want to talk about is experimental design, also data validation and what has been going on the last few years. Where we are at the moment in the saga, if you want to call it that, of global warming, climate change, climate disruption, or whatever the word is these days.
I have three main points tonight, hopefully 20 minutes apiece. The first thing I want to talk about is, are the warmists wrong? By warmists I mean those who have published papers, or have voiced the opinion that global warming is not only real, it is happening, it is unprecedented and the results will be catastrophic. Therefore, we must do very drastic things today in order to prevent these catastrophic events from occurring.
The second point will be, is catastrophic cooling coming, which will be exactly 180°. These guys are over here, and the coolists are over here. [motioning one direction, then the opposite direction]
And finally, implications. Those being, we hear a lot about implications from the warming side; what are the implications of the cooling if it is indeed on the way? Then I want to tie that in to what chemical engineers and other engineers can expect. It may be something for you to consider as you look into the future of what you want to be doing.
Next, is a very famous chart [Figure 4] done by a Californian named Jim Goodridge. Mr. Goodridge is a former state climatologist here in California. He's retired now. He did his research and published his data in about 1996. He shows the warming trend in California by County. The curve at the top is for counties with a population of 1 million or more as of the 1990 census. We see a distinct rising trend from about 1910 to 1994. The line at the bottom shows the same thing, the average for temperatures in California, but this is for Counties with a very small population, 100,000 or less as of the 1990 census.
Goodridge, J.D. (1996) Comments on “Regional Simulations of Greenhouse Warming including Natural Variability” . Bull, Amer. Meteorological Society 77:1588-1599.
[There was ] virtually no warning whatsoever over that 85 years. The line in the middle is for all the other counties between 100,000 and 1 million population. They have an average rise somewhere between the other two. The significance of this is that, if CO2 is indeed the cause of the warming, because the counties at the top did warm, why did it ignore the small counties? How can you do that? That was one of the first things that intrigued me about the entire issue, as an engineer. And, as Alan said, I have traveled many places around the world - as some of you have, too – and physics works anywhere you go. It does not pick and choose. It is not capricious. I think all of us would agree with that. Yet, CO2 appears to play favorites. I will show more of that here in a few minutes.
This to me raised a very serious alarm. How can this be going on, and is it a true physical effect, or is there something else causing the warming? Or, are we measuring something else and attributing it to CO2?
Next, here's a graph [Figure 5], and I have about three or four of these to show you of individual cities. This is from Abilene, Texas which is right out in the middle of the state, a little bit west of Dallas. It shows absolutely no warming whatsoever for the past 110 years or so. The slope here, and you probably cannot read that, is actually negative. It is -0.19° per century, round it off -0.2. From an earlier slide [Figure 1], remember we were looking at a warming trend of about 0.6° per century, which is what the warmists are saying. I want to know why it ignored Abilene? [note, the following Figures 5 through 11 are from the same source -- RES]
Abilene is not alone, it has a lot of company here. Shreveport [Louisiana] [Figure 6] is not too far away and roughly the same latitude. This trend also happens to be as close to zero as I could find. That's 0.0001 with a negative sign in front of it. Again, over 100 years with no warning whatsoever.
All that heat must leave as radiation; is that true? Well, the answer is No. Because, as engineers you know about this, the energy balance states "In equals Out plus Accumulation."
Where can we accumulate energy here on the earth? Well, primarily we have accumulated heat in the oceans. Because, the land doesn't warm that much. But, the oceans are a pretty good reservoir. So that's part of the problem, we must try to calculate how much the oceans are warming or cooling. But, that's what this first variable is: TSI. This is for total solar irradiance, the amount of heat and light coming off the sun. They looked at that and said, well it doesn't change very much especially over the period in question. It varies at the most by 0.1%. So, we don't think that's the cause of the warming. What they basically said was if you build a model with just that variable it does not match the curve I showed earlier [Figure 1]. So, let's add another variable, and they put in aerosols. These are volcanic aerosols, mostly sulfur compounds that are placed high in the atmosphere primarily due to very large volcanoes. These act to increase the Earth's albedo. The albedo is reflectivity so that not all of the sun's energy actually makes it down to the surface of the earth. Roughly the earth has an albedo of about 0.3, which is a wild guess as nobody has measured it. Albedo changes from time to time. This is one of the things they do to adjust the model to call cool things off. Well, this did not help with the warming side but it did help a little with the cooling in the middle [Figure 1].
Finally, sunspot cycles. This is incredibly controversial. It was considered voodoo science for many years. There is a Danish scientist named Henrik Svensmark who came up with this idea. He said look, we have correlations going back hundreds of years such that every time the sunspots get very weak or disappear the earth gets cold, sometimes brutally cold. And every time the sunspots are strong, the opposite occurs and we have a warming. But there was no causal mechanism and no one could figure it out. It's a long way to the sun, 93,000,000 miles. What is a sunspot going to do from such a distance away? Well, he had a theory and that theory had to do with the magnetic field of the sun. Now we have the proper instruments in space and we can measure the sun's magnetic field. And it does in fact vary substantially, depending on the strength of the sunspot cycle. We will get more to that in a minute. But that's not in the models either. In fact that is heresy to even suggest that those should be in the model. When we have included only a few variables but we know there are others, this is what we know as omitted variable bias. Because, the error term we have in the model must be included in one of the variables and in the case of the climate models, it's in the CO2. Now, I have the word fraud here with a question mark. I'm not accusing anyone of fraud, but if you were to be developing a model and you deliberately with knowledge, did this, left the variable out, and by doing so you cause harm to somebody, that could be fraud. We are not to that stage yet and we probably never will be. That would imply a willful omission on the part of the climate modelers.
So what does this mean in terms of mismatch and other things they project will happen? First we see there is zero warming in the past decade which is about since 1999, really, and we can think about that for a minute. If we have a graph and I'm just going draw across here with a level line with a zero or no rising trend, but you know some of the sites have a urban heat island so they're actually rising too. The population increasing, we are using more fuel, China certainly is, India certainly is. They impact what's happening to the earth. How do you get the overall trend that is level? Surely some of the sites must have a decreasing trend to counter those that are warming. There must be a cooling going on somewhere, it is hidden. They don't want to talk about that but I'm going to talk about it tonight.
Update: March 27, 2014, I updated the link to the NCDC data in part II. This pertains to Figures 13, 14, and 15. -- Roger