Fun with Marching False-Alarmists

Subtitle:  Still No Warming Despite Marching Protesters

Yesterday, April 22, 2017, was not only Earth Day but was the date a few thousand people "marched on" Washington, D.C. to protest what they believe is unfair treatment of scientists.

Apparently, there is some concern that government funding of certain areas of science is about to be reduced or eliminated.   

I'm a big fan of science when it is conducted properly, but not a fan at all when false-alarmism is the result.   Regular readers of SLB will know that AGW, or anthropomorphic global warming, and CAGW, or catastrophic AGW, is entirely bunk.  I have written many thousands of words on the subject.  

How do we know what is proper science, and what is false-alarmism?   That one is quite easy, it is clear by the evidence when compared to the predictions.    I can toss a dense ball exactly 32.2 feet up into the air, near the sea shore, and that ball will hit the sand exactly one second after pausing at the peak of the upward travel.   The theory of gravity predicts that exact outcome, and the measured data shows that to be true.  Every time.  

False-alarmism is what CAGW scientists are doing, with false statements such as the real data shows real warming.    Below is a graph of surface temperatures in California, in the 20th century, segregated by size of population in the county where the measurements were taken.   These were taken and published by James Goodridge, retired California State Climatologist. 

A proper scientist would know that the hypothesis is that man-made CO2 causes global warming over decades and centuries.  What is improper is for scientists to lump together all the data, cities and rural, and call that proof that global warming is real. 

As the Goodridge graph shows, there was no warming for almost the entire century in small counties that had less than 100,000 people in the 1990 US Census (the lower line on the graph).   Since proper science is not arbitrary nor is it capricious, it is not possible for CO2 in the atmosphere to selectively warm the cities and ignore the low-population rural areas.  

Goodridge's findings are borne out in many other states, where large cities (New York City, Boston) show steady and substantial warming, while small towns and rural areas show no warming at all, or a cooling occurred.    What is even more instructive is the proximity of a large, warming city to a small, cooling town or village.   

These are just a sample of the kinds of issues that President Trump and his advisors know to be true, and the basis for reduction or elimination of funding of junk science.  

I watched the various news and media reports on the scientists' march on Washington and other cities yesterday, and with great amusement.   It is actually quite sad to see the tactics now that the false-alarmism is exposed, and the methods are known that produce a trend of warming where none exists. 

The proper scientific term is proper attribution of causation.  Cities are known to warm by many factors, at least ten such factors are written about on SLB.   It is quite instructive to note that the false-alarmists refuse to construct a temperature trend that uses only valid data from rural areas.  

There is no warming.  There is also no cause for alarm.   There is, though, great need to review federal and state funding of science research and stop the waste of taxpayer dollars on junk science. 

Roger E. Sowell, Esq.

Marina del Rey, California
copyright (c) 2017 by Roger Sowell - all rights reserved

Topics and general links:

Nuclear Power Plants.......here
Climate Change................here  and here
Fresh Water......................here
Engineering......................here  and here
Free Speech.................... here

Renewable Energy...........here 

Climate Science - Dr. Curry Says a Ruling Theory is Premature

Subtitle: The Evidence Shows No Climate Change from Human-caused CO2

At the recent Congressional hearing, see link,  and this link,  Dr. Judith Curry emphasized the fact that "the climate community has prematurely elevated a scientific hypothesis on human-caused climate change to a ruling theory through claims of a consensus."  Also, that claimed consensus results in stifling dissent from those not in the consensus and harm as uncertainties are not given proper consideration. 

A few observations on this.  First, Dr. Curry's blog ClimateEtc has quite a number of articles that explore the topic.   Next, a few points of my own on why many engineers (such as myself) understand that global warming is merely false-alarmism. 

This post uses the time-honored principle for ascertaining the truth, in four steps: first, posing an issue, second, stating the rule or rules that govern that issue, third, applying the rules to the facts of the issue, and fourth, drawing a logical conclusion based on the facts and application of the rule. 

Dr. Curry's conclusion is set out above: "the climate community has prematurely elevated a scientific hypothesis on human-caused climate change to a ruling theory through claims of a consensus."

First:  The Issue

The issue, then, is Do human activities that release carbon dioxide (CO2) into the atmosphere cause climate change?   This is the scientific hypothesis, which must be verified or disproven by the collection, then analysis, of appropriate data.  

Second:  The Governing Rule

The basic and essential rule in science is to pose a falsifiable hypothesis, then verify that hypothesis by obtaining and comparing appropriate, valid data to what the hypothesis predicts must be true.  If the data agrees with the predictions from the hypothesis, one continues with the hypothesis while even more data is collected.  Over enough time, and with enough data that confirms the hypothesis, the hypothesis may be upgraded to a proven theory.   A proven theory has no valid data that contradicts the hypothesis.  

An example of a proven theory is gravity, which holds that just above the Earth's surface, an object is accelerated (falls) toward the Earth at a rate of 32.2 feet per second-squared.   However, it is known that some objects fall faster than do others, for example, a feather falls slower than a small stone.   Such differences were studied and correctly attributed to the effect of air resistance, with a feather's fall slowed noticeably by air resistance.   The theory was then modified to state that "in a vacuum, objects at or near the Earth's surface are accelerated toward the Earth at a rate of 32.2 feet per second-squared."  There is no evidence to the contrary for that statement of gravity.  

However, where the data disproves the hypothesis, or the data is mixed so that some data agrees while other data disagrees, the hypothesis cannot be upgraded to a proven theory.  Instead, the hypothesis must be discarded, or revised if possible to encompass the data.  As above with gravity, the presence of air was determined to require a slight modification of the basic statement.  In some areas, no revision or modification is possible to explain the data, or to have agreement with the data, so the hypothesis must be discarded.  

Third: Applying the Rule to the Issue

In applying the rules to the facts of the issue, we examine the issue very carefully.  "Do human activities that release carbon dioxide (CO2) into the atmosphere cause climate change?"   Stated as a scientific hypothesis gives: "Human activities that release CO2 into the atmosphere causes climate change."   In its simplest form, this equates to "X causes Y."

Parsing this into "Human activities that release CO2 into the atmosphere," it can be seen that non-human activities must also exist that release CO2.   These are the natural emissions of CO2, among which are ocean warming as waters flow from the polar regions to the tropics, decay of vegetation, forest fires from natural causes (lightning strikes), animal respiration (breathing out CO2), and volcanic eruptions where magma hits limestone such that CO2 is released.   This is very important, because this requires that actual causation, if any exists at all, must be correctly attributed to the CO2 source.  

There are equally a number of human activities that release CO2 into the atmosphere.  Among these are the burning of fossil fuels in power plants, industrial furnaces, and combustion engines.  It is well-known how much of each fuel is burned each year, including methane as a component of natural gas, petroleum products, and coal.   Other human activities also release CO2, including fermentation of sugars to produce alcohols, calcining of limestone to produce cement, carbon anode conversion to CO2 in aluminum production, smelting of various metal ores, and others.  Extracting raw natural gas from the ground and processing the raw gas into pipeline-quality natural gas also produces CO2 that is released into the atmosphere.  

An additional complication arises because some compounds that are sent into the atmosphere decay at a later time into CO2.  Methane is one such compound.  Therefore, natural and man-made methane releases must be considered.  

The remainder of the statement parsed above is simply ". . . causes climate change."

The preliminary step in evaluating the hypothesis is to determine if there is any climate change, or not.  Much effort has been devoted to measuring aspects of the climate over time, especially average near-surface air temperatures.   Considerable doubt exists as to the accuracy of such temperature measurements, especially as measurements were made with little care.   Modern scientists have adjusted temperature records, not just once, but time after time.  That alone calls the accuracy into question.    Climate scientists, at least a few of them, have concluded that climate change has already occurred.  As Dr. Curry stated, climate scientists claim to have a consensus on this matter.   It is certainly not a 100 percent consensus, however the claim of 97 percent consensus is widely stated.  Even that number is unproven, and inaccurate depending on the statistics one employs. 

The next step is to determine if there is any demonstrable link between atmospheric CO2 and climate change.  Scientists have constructed time-series graphs of both CO2 in the atmosphere and global average air temperature anomaly, which show some apparent correlation.   The anomaly is the slight difference between a baseline temperature and measured temperature.  

Using that correlation between air temperature anomaly and CO2 in the atmosphere, scientists concluded that human-produced CO2 is responsible for the warming.   The scientists dismissed the natural emissions of CO2 and methane that decays into CO2, instead blaming the rise in temperature on man-made CO2.   Note that this violates one of the essential basics of good science: correct attribution of causation when multiple causal factors exist.  This is discussed in more detail below. 

Scientists then developed very complex computer models to predict various outcomes if CO2 from human activities continues to increase.   These predictions are listed on various publications and websites, with many of them listed below.   The success or failure of the various predictions can be ascertained by measurements, and the validity of the basic hypothesis determined.   It is well to recall that any contrary data must result in rejection of the hypothesis, or sufficient modification as was done with the gravity hypothesis to account for air resistance.

Predictions

1 Atmosphere hot spot in tropics
2 Less snow 
3 Arctic ice disappearing
4 More hurricanes, more powerful hurricanes (and tropical cyclones)
5 More tornadoes, more powerful tornadoes
6 More drought, worse droughts
7 More floods, worse floods
8 Warmer average temperatures, especially winter nights
9 Agriculture harvests worse as hot summers and droughts occur
10 Sea level rises, islands underwater, cities at seashore flooded
11 Glaciers receding and disappearing
12 Tropical diseases found farther from equator
13 Ocean surface hotter
14 Antarctic Ice breaking up, floating away     UPDATE 4-15-2017: Several more predictions exist; some are added below. -- 

15.   Ocean "acidification" - a misleading scare tactic, oceans are alkaline 
16    Prolonged heat waves, more heat waves
17    Polar bears' numbers falling, extinction looming
18    Many other species extinction looming or will occur
19    Coral reefs bleaching and dying off
---- end update ----   

Each of these initial 14 predictions is discussed next. 

1.  Atmosphere hot spot in tropics --  This is a measurable phenomenon that should happen if the climate change due to CO2 is correct.  The short version is that no hot spot has been detected despite many years of hard effort by many scientists.  Dr. John Christy has an excellent discussion on this in his Congressional testimony.  

2.  Less snow -- This is also a measurable phenomenon predicted by the climate models.  As Dr. Christy has shown, there is no reduction in snow.  In many places there is more snow.  

3 Arctic ice disappearing -- the measurements of Arctic ice are limited, going back to 1979 when satellites began observations.  Before that, very little data exists.  The climate scientists love to point to this as proof of man-made climate change, as there is some data that shows less Arctic ice now than in 1980.  However, there are multiple problems with their causal determination.  First, for many years there was almost no change in ice extent; then for a few years a rapid decline occurred; but in recent years the decline stopped and has been stable or ice has slightly increased.   There is strong evidence to suggest that pattern is consistent with dark particles of coal soot and jet airplane exhaust deposits on the ice that accelerates melting.   There is also evidence that underwater volcanic activity heats the ocean currents that enter the Arctic region.  A line of volcanoes and vents along the mid-Atlantic ridge heats the water. 

There is also substantial evidence from boulders carried by icebergs that fell to the ocean floor as the icebergs melted that Arctic ice has retreated and advanced many times in the past.  The boulders have been identified in the Atlantic offshore of North America.  Such ice retreats before 1960 could not have been caused by the increase in human-related CO2 that started in approximately 1960.  

4 More hurricanes, more powerful hurricanes (and tropical cyclones)  -- the data shows the opposite, there are fewer hurricanes and tropical cyclones.  Worldwide ACE (accumulated cyclone energy) has been collected for many years.  ACE is at or below 1970 levels. 

5 More tornadoes, more powerful tornadoes  -- the data for tornadoes also shows fewer, not more, and fewer of the largest F-5 rated ones. 

6 More drought, worse droughts -- the data shows no more and no worsening of droughts when compared to the modern record of the past 150 years (more or less); and recent droughts are no match at all for those recorded in geological evidence.  

7 More floods, worse floods  -- as with drought, the data shows no more and no worsening of floods when compared to the modern record of the past 150 years (more or less); and recent floods are no match at all for those recorded in geological evidence.  

8 Warmer average temperatures, especially winter nights  -- the data shows that some places do have warmer winter nights, however these are in more densely populated areas where warming from increased building proximity is known to create local warming.   There are at least ten known factors that cause local temperatures to increase, but none of those ten are increased atmospheric CO2.  (1.  Increased population density in cities (more buildings in a small area); 2.  Increased energy use per capita (each building uses more energy, and people use more); 3.  Increased local humidity due to activities such as lawn watering, industry cooling towers; 4.  Prolonged drought (the opposite, regular rain, reduces temperatures in arid regions); 5.  Reduced artificial aerosols via pollution laws being enforced; 6.  Change in character of the measurement site, from rural to more urban with pavement and other artificial heating; 7.  Wind shadows from dense buildings prevent cooling winds from reaching thermometer; 8.  El Niño short-term heating effect in many areas (e.g. the US South and Southeast); 9.  Reduced sunspot activity and number that allows more cloud-forming cosmic rays to reach Earth; and 10.  Fewer large volcanoes erupting with natural aerosols flung high into the atmosphere)

The consensus scientists point to the average temperature increasing, which is after their multiple adjustments.   However, and this is critical, there are many hundreds of locations that show zero warming or a cooling trend over a century or more.  James Goodridge published the data for California in the 20th century that shows exactly that: areas with low population had zero warming or had a cooling, but densely populated areas showed a warming.  The average of all locations showed a modest warming.   Small towns across the US also show no warming.  

9 Agriculture harvests worse as hot summers and droughts occur -- harvests are the same or better than in the past.   Some harvests are worse due to local cold conditions. 

10 Sea level rises, islands underwater, cities at seashore flooded -- the data shows some evidence of shoreline cities flooding, but the causal factor is accelerated land subsidence due to human activities such as pumping groundwater.  The rate of sea level rise itself has not increased for decades.

11 Glaciers receding and disappearing  -- the data shows glacial retreat began approximately 150 years ago, long before increases in CO2 occurred.   There is nothing to suggest that human-produced CO2 is a factor in glacier retreat. 

12 Tropical diseases found farther from equator -- there is no evidence to support that claim.  Some diseases are brought to foreign shores by people, however. 

13 Ocean surface hotter -- some areas of the ocean appear to be warmer, however, that is consistent with fewer hurricanes and tropical cyclones.   It is known that hurricanes and tropical cyclones act as cooling mechanisms for the ocean surface.  Satellites can detect the path of hurricanes just by observing the ocean surface temperatures. 

14 Antarctic Ice breaking up, floating away -- there is some evidence of large chunks of Antarctic ice breaking off the ice shelves and entering the ocean currents.  However, the area where the ice chunks originate is known to be above an active volcanic zone on the Antarctic peninsula.  Other areas of Antarctic ice are growing and overall ice extent is at record high levels since satellite records began in 1979. 

Fourth: Logical Conclusion

As above, any contrary data refutes the hypothesis.  With the fourteen items discussed above, almost all represent contrary data and therefore refute the hypothesis.   The few that did occur are due to non-CO2 factors.  Where multiple possible causal factors exist, good scientific method requires every competing causal factor to be eliminated, leaving the one standing.  In this case, the evidence is overwhelming that human-created CO2 is NOT causing climate change.  

UPDATE 5-15-2017: It is certain that it is premature to elevate a disproven hypothesis on man-made global warming to a ruling theory.  -- end update. 

Roger E. Sowell, Esq.

Marina del Rey, California
copyright (c) 2017 by Roger Sowell - all rights reserved

Topics and general links:

Nuclear Power Plants.......here
Climate Change................here  and here
Fresh Water......................here
Engineering......................here  and here
Free Speech.................... here

Renewable Energy...........here 

Science in the Courts - A Communication Problem

Subtitle: Also a Matter of What is Truth

Update 1: Third and final part of the article is published below. -- end update

A most interesting blog article appeared a few weeks ago at WUWT (see link), written by Dr. Tim Ball and titled "The Recent Senate Climate Hearing Failed Because It Continues To Miss The Point."  

The article was interesting for a few reasons, among them are 1) it is flat wrong on the position that courts will not hear scientific matter, and 2) it raises the issue of failure in communications between elected officials and the learned specialists (in this case, scientists).  

Both of these issues interest me, and with my background as both an attorney-at-law and a chemical engineer, these points deserve some discussion.   This SLB article is the start of that discussion, it may be added to from time to time.  The issues are deep, complex, and at times fairly fuzzy - that is, no sharp lines exist to define what is right or wrong, what is legal and not.   Each issue is discussed at some length, and a better strategy is offered for improving communication of complex issues. 

The climate realist world is fairly small (climate skeptic is another term for climate realist), and I don't pretend to know all the participants; I am certain they don't all know me.   But, for various reasons, I have managed to participate a bit, and meet a few, of the participants.  This is not a name-dropping exercise, though.   As to Dr. Tim Ball, I have not met the man but I have heard and seen him speak on climate matters, in summer of 2014 at a gathering of climate realists in the US.  

The two issues mentioned above are discussed next, in turn. 

Courts and Science

Dr. Ball states, “Courts will not listen to or judge scientific disputes.”   And a bit later, “. . . courts won’t consider scientific disputes.”   Some context on his statements is in order.  It appears that Dr. Ball is referring to his ". . . participat(ion) in appeals to the US Supreme Court over actions of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)."  (all quoted matter from the 12/19/2015 WUWT article linked above).  Dr. Ball also references three defamation lawsuits where science was not allowed as an issue, to the best of my knowledge.  

It is not true that courts will not consider scientific disputes; stated more affirmatively: courts will address scientific disputes at some times.  In the US, the court system is divided along several lines, one such line is state courts, and federal courts.  Other divisions also exist, such as criminal versus civil courts, and lower courts versus appellate courts.   In general, the lower courts (both criminal and civil) address matters of fact, and matters of law.  To non-lawyers, those statements seem clear but likely are not fully appreciated as to their meanings.   More on that later.   In the appellate courts, matters of fact are heard on very rare occasions, while matters of law are the primary issue.  

A matter of fact is one in which some item of evidence is presented to a jury (or a judge in a bench trial) for the jury to decide if the fact, as presented, is true or not.  There may be some doubt as to the truth of the matter, which is familiar in the standard of proof that is required to convict an accused person in a criminal matter: he must be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.   It should be noted that scientific disputes occur both in criminal and civil cases.  In criminal cases, typical science disputes may occur over things such as ballistics for bullets, toxicology for cause of death, and others.  In civil cases, science disputes may arise over things such as measurement of air or water pollutants, or the causes of a consumer product that malfunctioned and led to personal injury or death.  

A matter of law is different from a matter of fact; a matter of law is concerned with whether or not an issue is something that a court will decide, and if it can decide, what law is to be applied to it.  Typical examples are to determine if a matter concerns the law of contract, or tort, or property, criminal law, Constitutional law, procedural law, evidence law, consumer rights, elder law, family law, and a host of others.  

The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has legions of attorneys that both defend, and prosecute, lawsuits based on science disputes, such as the toxicity of various chemicals on humans, plants, and animals.  One need only perform an internet search on a term such as "lawsuit and EPA" to find literally millions of sites that meet those two criteria. (a recent search returned 6.7 million hits).    Or, one can visit the EPA's own website http://cfpub.epa.gov/enforcement/cases/ to see literally hundreds of lawsuits  (click on the link to visit that page).   Note, not all the lawsuits involve science, as some involve procedural matters.    

The US EPA is not alone, as state environmental agencies and local agencies also employ armies of attorneys for similar purposes: prosecuting and defending against lawsuits.  As the head of a local Southern California environmental agency said to me in one of our meetings, "We cannot win.  Some parties sue us because we are doing too much, while others sue us because we are not doing enough."  

Courts also have standards for how to handle scientific testimony, or offered evidence of scientific matters.  While there are hundreds of references on this, one that has a good discussion is from the 160-page Roscoe Pound Foundation 1997 report, "www.poundinstitute.org/sites/default/files/docs/1997ForumReport.pdf."   see link.  Federal courts are required to use the Daubert standard, while state courts may use something similar.   Essentially, the evidence that is offered must be "good science" and not "junk science."   How to determine what is "good" and what is "junk" is the purpose of the Daubert standard.  

The Daubert standard has 5 parts:  

(1) whether the theory or technique in question can be and has been tested; 
(2) whether it has been subjected to peer review and publication; 
(3) its known or potential error rate; 
(4) the existence and maintenance of standards controlling its operation; and 
(5) whether it has attracted widespread acceptance within a relevant scientific community.

A court requires each of the Daubert 5 parts to be presented and argued before the judge, and accepted, before the evidence is allowed to be presented to a jury.   

State courts, though, are free to use different standards.   Some use the Frye standard, while others use the Daubert standard.  The Frye standard requires the court to determine whether or not the method by which that evidence was obtained was generally accepted by experts in the particular field in which it belongs. 

A final word about science being heard in the courts: appellate courts, as mentioned above, generally do not decide issues of fact.  They typically decide issues of law.  However, on some occasions, an appellate court uses a standard of review known as de novo, and will consider the issues of fact.   At the US Supreme Court, as Dr. Ball mentioned in his article, issues of fact are very rare.  

The fluid nature of science is also a very great concern in a court, as judges and most attorneys know quite well that scientists frequently and sometimes loudly announce that what was formerly considered "settled science" has been refuted or overturned or substantially changed by new findings.  This is especially true in what is generously referred to as health science, where different foods or liquids are found to be bad for humans in one study, then found to be beneficial in later studies.  Interested readers are encouraged to look into the health effects (or harm) from coffee, wine, chocolates, dairy products, eggs, and sugar, to name but a few.  

In the climate science field, it is also a known fact that climate scientists make bold pronouncements from time to time, then change that completely only a few years later.  One specific example of this is the continued, and often-repeated, adjustments to the average global temperature anomaly, such that the past gets colder with each new version, and the warming trend gets greater and greater.   

One of the most laughable of all climate science claims is that "the science is settled."    I had a little fun with that a few years back on SLB, see link to "Climate Science is Not Settled," with a compilation of "settled science" and my commentary on each.  I hope the reader enjoys those.  

This leads to another complaint Dr. Ball makes, “The basic argument is that it is “your paper” against “their paper” and they (the courts) are not qualified to judge.”    It is quite true that a court case boils down, many times, to one expert's testimony against the testimony of the other side's expert.  However, and here is where Dr. Ball is quite wrong, it is not the judge who makes the decision to not hear the case where there are battling experts.  This is an argument that an attorney makes when counseling his client about the prospects of success or failure in litigation.  The attorney knows that a trial will come down to the jury, or in some cases a judge, hearing two expert witnesses testify where one says that his conclusion, “their paper,” is correct, whereas the other expert says that his conclusion, “your paper,” is correct.   A jury or judge is typically not trained or experienced in the science and cannot make sense out of either expert’s argument.   However, as noted above, trials do occur and expert witnesses do testify before juries and judges

Communication Failure Between Elected Officials and Learned Specialists

Dr. Ball writes, “The same problems confront any discussion in a formal hearing about climate science. Politicians are no better equipped or qualified to determine a science confrontation than the Courts.”  

This is partially true.  As described above, the courts routinely hear matters in which science plays a significant role.   However, it is true that most politicians have a poor understanding of science.   Politicians are generally not scientists nor engineers, as many are attorneys with non-science and non-technical backgrounds.   These elected officials generally rely on staffs of experts, or paid consultants, to provide information and summarize arguments for and against an issue.   However, elected officials also hold hearings, usually public hearings, so that interested parties (sometimes known as "stakeholders") can present their views.  

As shown above, science has conflicting claims in many areas, which are well-known to elected officials.  It is difficult for the elected officials to know which claims to believe, which scientists to believe, and how far to believe them if at all.   

Temperature record of Abilene, Texas from 1886 showing very cold winters 1977-78-79

A short digression for some examples of climate science having poor credibility: Forty years ago, in the late 1970s, the public was bombarded with stories of global cooling.  The winters of 1977, 1978, and 1979 were unusually cold and harsh (where the winter is defined as December of the previous year, and January and February of the year shown by the date; that is, Winter of 1977 includes December of '76 through February of '77).   See adjacent graph for the temperature range, by year, for Abilene, Texas.   Note the three small dips at the lower portion of the graph and just above the 1980 mark on the X axis.  These three dips reflect the very cold winters.  Note also that at no other time in the entire record of more than 100 years, did three winters occur with such severity and in succession.  Those three winters were unique in the entire record.     Note also that this was not limited to Abilene; many other areas across the US were similarly impacted.  Interested readers can read more at this link.   (The article is titled: "Illinois Third Consecutive Severe Winter: 1978-1979,"  and has graphic descriptions with measured data on the severity of the three subject winters.) 

Yet, today, the global cooling stories from 40 years ago are pushed aside, and the new alarm is over global warming.   In addition, the climate alarmism is published every few years by the IPCC, the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change, yet their conclusions change each year.   Also, the global average temperature anomaly, which climate scientists produce from time to time, has frequent changes that almost always produce a warming trend that becomes greater each time the scientists change it.   Next, the climate scientists have a great many computer models of the global average temperature anomaly, but their models not only do not agree with each other, but do not match the measured temperatures either.  The lack of agreement between the models and measurements has been given a popular name, "The Pause," due to the cessation of increase in measured temperatures.   Finally, and perhaps most ominously, almost every prediction made by the climate scientists has failed to occur: Arctic ice disappearing, continued warming (as just mentioned), more hurricanes or tropical cyclones, a hot spot in the atmosphere, accelerated rise in sea levels, disappearance of snow, droughts and floods of unprecedented length and severity, and many more.   None of these predictions came to pass.  

Therefore, if one is an elected official and climate scientists are summoned to a public hearing to convey their scientific findings, what is one to believe?   How can a climate scientist possibly communicate effectively and persuade the elected official that any scientific finding or conclusion is true?   It matters not, or very little, which side the scientist is on, the global warming alarmism side, or the skeptic side that holds that any warming that may be occurring is not only negligible but is due to man-made, artificial adjustments to the temperature record.  The elected official does not know who to believe, because the track record, the credibility, of climate scientists is indeed dismal.  

The Battle Between the Papers

Next, Dr. Ball states, “They (skeptics) must show how “Their paper” (warmists’) was deliberately falsified in terms the public can understand. The recent US Senate hearings failed because the “Deniers” (skeptics) explained the scientific problems with the science of “Their Paper” (the warmists' paper).  The politicians and public didn’t understand the difference. Even if they entertained the idea that “Their Paper” was wrong they were confronted with the question of whether the errors were from incompetence or corruption, something the presenters of “Your Paper” (skeptics)  were not able or willing to answer.”

The battle between competing experts, or in this case, climate scientists who testify at a Senate hearing, very likely does result in utter confusion by those who listen to the experts.  Dr. Ball raises the interesting question of Why are the Warmists wrong?  He suggests that incompetence or corruption may be the culprits, yet the skeptic scientists were not able or willing to make those charges.   Such charges are indeed serious, as incompetence at one's profession, if false, is grounds for a slander or libel suit in defamation.   A charge of corruption, perhaps deliberately falsifying data to obtain an agenda-driven conclusion, is also very serious.  Such a charge, if true, can carry criminal penalties for fraud, and civil penalties for damages.  

Part of the problem is, of course, that the data - the basic, original data - that underlies much of the controversy is either missing, or hidden from view by claims of contractual obligations, confidentiality, or exemptions of some form from Freedom Of Information laws.   It is indeed difficult to make a valid charge of corruption when one cannot know what actual changes were made to the data.  

Yet, there are effective ways to show politicians, and other interested but non-technical observers, not only that the Warmists' papers (and positions) are wrong, but why.  That subject is addressed in the next section. 


Communicating Complex Issues

Effectively communicating a complex issue is a very common, even ubiquitous problem in the legal setting and in many non-legal settings.  How does one effectively communicate a complex issue, and persuade or convince a person or group (perhaps senators at a hearing, a patient with a serious medical problem, or a jury deciding a trial's outcome, or even a room full of conference attendees) that a particular position is correct, and the other side is wrong?   

First, examined below is what attorneys do in trials to win their case when a jury of ordinary people will decide the outcome.  Second, how experts are chosen and directed by the attorneys.  Yes, the word is directed, just as a movie director directs the actors in a film.  Third, what scientists can do to improve their communication and persuasive skills.   The third part is further anayzed by the concepts of Who, How, and What.  

Can Scientists Learn Anything from Trial Attorneys?

If one were to judge from the harsh treatment afforded those intrepid attorneys who venture into blog discussions on climate change, no one is listening to an attorney.  Attorneys are (almost always) vilified, scorned, and ridiculed as know-nothings or worse.   However, recognizing that at least some attorneys are good fellows (and ladies) who are knowledgeable, bright, experienced, and act ethically while still advocating strongly for their client, there are some good lessons to be learned from attorneys on effective communication of complex issues. 

The first lesson from the attorneys is that juries, as intelligent people but untrained in a technical or complex scientific matter, normally make their decisions on factors other than the complex "stuff."  They tend to decide on things like who was more believable, who was nicer, who was more attractive, and who seemed more trustworthy.   As stated by law Professor Joseph Sanders, 

"As for juries, we have indications that they have trouble with complex cases, and with scientific evidence, and we have reason to believe that better-educated juries do better in these areas. We have indications that juries approach expertise with skepticism. We have indications that juries appraise expert testimony not by grappling with technical issues, but by counting extraneous factors like qualifications, the number of arguments (rather than quality), and personal attractiveness. We understand that jurors give more credence to
messages framed in simple language, less to those framed in complex language, and they pay close attention to demeanor. "

Therefore, winning arguments will include the complex issues, no doubt, but those arguments will also be delivered in a manner designed to maximize the impact on the jury.   The language used, the message, will have an easy-to-understand overview.  

To make a point memorable, or even to summarize the case, attorneys sometimes invent a short phrase to repeat to the jury, something memorable, perhaps a rhyming couplet.  An example follows from the famous OJ Simpson murder trial, pertaining to the gloves.  The attorney said, “If it doesn’t fit, you must acquit.”   That is short, and it rhymes.  This refers to the glove that the murderer supposedly wore, and if it did not fit OJ Simpson, the accused, then the jury was to acquit, find him not guilty.    

Another famous trial had a different rhyming couplet that was stated to the jury multiple times:  “If the lion gets away, Kerr-McGee has to pay.”  This was from the case of plutonium radiation poisoning in the Karen Silkwood case.   The attorney was trying to emphasize the legal point of strict liability, for ultra-hazardous materials such as the plutonium at issue in the case.  In strict liability, no matter what happens that allows the harm to occur, the defendant must pay.   Here, “the lion” refers to an ancient case in which a defendant owned a lion that escaped its cage, then attacked and injured the plaintiff.   Plutonium in the Silkwood case was an analogy of the lion.   The attorneys alleged that improper safeguards by Kerr-McGee allowed plutonium to escape and contaminate Ms. Silkwood.    

A critic might say, this creating a simple rhyme is grandstanding.  This has no place in a serious discussion or debate about something as vital to human survival as global warming.   And perhaps the critic is correct.  Or, perhaps what is needed is a memorable phrase that catches the public's attention and draws more scrutiny of the underlying arguments, both for and against the conclusion.   Perhaps the warmists can chant, "We are all going to die, from CO2 in the sky."  Where CO2 is spelled out C-O-2.   Or another version, "Too much Carbon in the Sky, We are all going to die."    The variations are endless, and can be a bit amusing. 

In addition to creating a catch-phrase, the attorney must select a good expert witness and develop the expert's testimony.  

Choosing Experts and Directing Them 

Ideally, an expert witness has characteristics that the jury finds him (or her) believable, and likeable.   Important characteristics are the expert's appearance such as clothing and shoes, speaking voice, mannerisms, demeanor, authoritative (education, degrees, society memberships, publications, honors, experience, whether a teacher or professor, and how often called to testify as an expert).   The ideal expert is especially cool when cross-examined, when challenged, when shown to be wrong.
  
Attorneys choose their experts wisely.  They go over and over the testimony, with special attention to word choices, voice inflection, mannerisms, and how to remain cool under duress.  They will rehearse the use of visual and audio aids, posters, charts, exhibits, physical models, and other ways to clearly make a point.    Some types of sentences are difficult to understand, while others are much easier.   The vocabulary may be unfamiliar to the jury, so some time must be allocated to explaining what the various terms mean.  

The attorney not only presents his own side through having the expert testify as answers to various questions, but he will also negate, or undermine, the other side's evidence.   It is helpful to show where the other side is wrong, or to show that there is uncertainty, even substantial doubt or inaccuracy. 

The climate scientists can do similar things to improve their communication. 

Scientists As Communicators and Persuaders  

It is certainly true that not all scientists who want to communicate in hearings, and persuade the panel, are tall, tanned, athletic, good-looking, have a full head of neatly groomed hair, and a pleasant but resonant voice.   Or, if a female, the feminine equivalent.   Yet, there are things that can be done, and must be done to improve communication.  The scientist as testifying expert can wear nice but not gaudy clothes, new and shined shoes, and have hair trimmed neatly.   It is perhaps not proper, but juries notice things like fingernails, so those too must be trimmed and clean.   

A communication specialist, or an experienced trial attorney, can be engaged to listen to the scientist's presentation and offer improvements.   There is an art to public speaking, to making a presentation that is understandable, even to the choice of graphic design and colors.   (SLB has a few instances where poor visual aids were used in public presentations by various scientists.  One word of advice:  yellow in a graph is not a good idea.)    

The speaking voice almost always can be improved with coaching and practice, to one that is easy on the ears, smooth and not harsh or distracting.   It can be humbling for a speaker to go through such coaching and criticism.    Eliminating annoying habits takes more coaching and time, but a good message effectively delivered can be destroyed by a momentary lapse of good etiquette.   One can learn and practice the conventional parts of speech that make for good listening, such as introductions, transitions, and concluding phrases.  

The scientist likely already has an impressive resumé with academic degrees and a publication list, perhaps even a position as a professor.   There may already be society memberships, and perhaps honors from that or other societies.   Such things impress a jury, or a panel of senators.  

Now, with the Who and How having been somewhat discussed, the What of the presentation is given.  

What, exactly, can a climate scientist discuss to make his or her point effectively and memorably?   How is one to win, when both experts are equally believable, calm, cool, collected, well-dressed and groomed, authoritative, well-spoken, and dignified?   

One way is to undermine the other side by showing that if the other side is right, certain outcomes that should be true are actually not true.    Conversely, the scientist can bolster his side by showing that if he is right, certain outcomes that should be true actually are true.   Examples of warmist claims that have not occurred, as discussed earlier, include Arctic ice disappearing, continued warming, more hurricanes or tropical cyclones, a hot spot in the atmosphere, accelerated rise in sea levels, disappearance of snow, droughts and floods of unprecedented length and severity, and many more.  

The skeptics have evidence that is persuasive, such as a general pause or cooling of the atmosphere while the sunspots are in a very weak cycle, fresh-water lakes having more persistent ice, and perhaps the most persuasive argument of all, the adjacent cities problem.   One of the central pillars of science is that science is consistent, it is not arbitrary.  What works in one location also works in all others.   In my speeches on this, I use the example of gravity is very consistent around the world.  Engineers depend on this to build our machines and infrastructure.  Yet, the world of climate science has the same CO2 concentration above adjacent cities, but one city warms while the other does not.  Or, one city cools while the other does not.   This very fact is essentially proof-positive that CO2 in the atmosphere can not be causing a global warming.  

There is also the very persuasive, but complicated, concept of CO2 and warming as a violation of process control principles.   That one takes a fair amount of explaining, as I have done earlier on SLB.  (see link to "Chemical Engineer Takes On Global Warming," which is in the top two most viewed articles on SLB.)

A persuasive argument can also undermine the other side by showing the methodology is flawed.  In climate science's atmospheric temperature data, there is over-inclusion of temperature data from cities and other UHI influences, making adjustments to data, making up data, splicing data, adding in new records of shorter length, and many more.   There also is the model variable problem, or omitted variables.   Models do not account for clouds as albedo increases, nor for sunspots and cloud relationships, nor for windy versus calm days, nor for many other variables.  

Perhaps the most persuasive argument for the skeptic side, though, is one that was made here recently on SLB.   The problem with the warmists' approach and conclusion is the inclusion in their temperature data of any location that has a human influence, such as data from cities.   The fact is, and quoting from the SLB article from November 2015, "even if all the electricity (and other energy) is from a zero-carbon-dioxide source, the cities would still have UHI and would corrupt the climate scientists' data."    The full quote:

". . .cities will have energy consumption and heat rejection issues no matter what type of system produces that energy.  Considering for the moment electricity use, even if a city were all-electric for heating, cooking, and transportation, and even if that electricity were produced by zero-carbon-dioxide power plants (see below), the UHI would exist.  In essence, a building has no idea what produced the electricity that heats the building, runs the lights and elevators, and heats the hot water.  An electric car, or bus, or delivery truck, or train, also has no idea what produced the electricity that each of those consumes.   Therefore, even if all the electricity is from a zero-carbon-dioxide source, the cities would still have UHI and would corrupt the climate scientists' data.   Such zero-carbon-dioxide sources include, but are not limited to, hydroelectric, wind, solar, nuclear, geothermal, wave, tidal, ocean current, ocean temperature-difference, water pressure recapture, river mouth osmosis, and river current.   There are also carbon-neutral sources: landfill methane, cattle operation methane, Municipal solid waste (MSW), human waste sludge, plant-based ethanol, and other bio-fuels.  


It is entirely wrong for climate scientists to include any data that is corrupted by UHI."   see link

Therefore, and again as argued here on SLB, it is critical to use long-term temperature records for trends only from pristine locations, from very low-population areas.   see link

When one considers, as Dr. Ball did, whether to make a charge of deliberately falsifying the "paper," or evidence of warming, or make a charge of incompetence, or even corruption, it is likely only necessary to show that the wrong data was used to establish a warming trend.   It is wrong to use data from populated areas, as those areas would have warmed, and will continue to warm, even if all the power on the planet was from hydroelectric dams.    In fact, it could be shown, if we had the temperature records, that cities were warmer than farms even 200 or 500 years ago.  

J. Goodridge. 

To close, once again the Goodridge chart is shown, where almost 100 years of temperature trends are classified by population in a county.  Warming was absent in the counties with very low populations, yet a pronounced warming trend exists for counties with large populations.   As shown above, CO2 in the atmosphere cannot possibly be that smart, to recognize that a city is below it and zap the city with its heat-increasing rays.  But, to know when a farming area is below and to holster its heat-zapping gun. 

In conclusion, scientists who want to communicate complex issues to non-scientist audiences could benefit from collaboration with trial attorneys.   While a panel of elected officials, perhaps Senators, is not the same as a panel of jurors, and a Senate hearing is much different in rules and duration from a jury trial, there are similar things that can be done to improve communication.   


Roger E. Sowell, Esq.
Marina del Rey, California
copyright (c) 2016 by Roger Sowell, all rights reserved

US In A Cooling Trend - Winters Much Colder

Subtitle: USCRN Temperatures Are Declining Rapidly 

Abstract

An analysis of atmospheric temperature data from 55 pristine United States locations show a pronounced annual cooling trend of minus 2.68 degrees Celsius per century over the ten-year period 2005-2014.   The Winter cooling trend for the 55 locations is much greater at minus 10.86 degrees Celsius per century.   The region with the most rapid Winter cooling is the MidWest and Northern Plains at minus 23.1 degrees Celsius per century.  All regions have a cooling for Winter months.  All regions but one, the West and Mountains, also have a pronounced annual cooling.  

Data Source

Data for this study were obtained from United States Climate Reference Network, USCRN   see link .   This is part of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the National Climate Data Center. 

Map of USCRN Stations and view of a typical station

From NOAA’s website:  “The U.S. Climate Reference Network (USCRN) is a system of climate observing stations developed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The USCRN's primary goal is to provide long-term temperature, precipitation, and soil moisture and temperature observations that are of high quality and are taken in stable settings.”  At this time, “the network consists of 114 commissioned stations in the contiguous United States, 16 stations in Alaska (with a plan to eventually have a total of 29), and 2 stations in Hawaii.”  As an aside, there are a surprising number of stations located in Alabama, with 20 at this time.   Meanwhile, Mississippi has only two, and Arkansas has only one station.  Tennessee has one station.   One wonders what could possibly justify placing 20 stations in Alabama.   Also, there are 24 stations in New Mexico, and again one wonders what could be the justification.   Utah has 19 stations, while Wisconsin has only one.  

By “stable settings,” NOAA means that the locations are far from human warming influences such as cities, airports, and industries, and are expected to not have their present conditions change over the next several decades.    The stations have automatic sensors, redundancy, and automatic data upload to computer databases.   The intent is to have reliable, unbiased data without gaps and relocation issues.
  
The oldest station began operating in July, 2001 in Asheville, North Carolina.   The next-oldest station began operating in January, 2002 in Kingston, Rhode Island.    By December of 2004, 60 stations were operating.  Of those, 55 stations were selected for this study.  

Discussion

Data from United States Climate Reference Network, USCRN, for the decade beginning January, 2005 and ending December, 2014 were analyzed for overall and regional temperature trends.  Monthly average temperatures were used.  The monthly averages were themselves averaged to obtain annual averages.   Annual linear trends were calculated.  Only 55 locations were used in this analysis, because no additional USCRN stations had records extending to or before January, 2005.  Where duplicate stations exist at the same site, only one station of each pair was chosen.   One state, Colorado, has 5 stations of suitable length but these were considered too many for the state’s size.  Therefore, only two of the stations were included in the data set.

In addition to the annual trends, averages and linear trends were determined for Winter months of December, January, and February.  This required obtaining data for December, 2004 for all 55 locations.   Therefore, the span of the data in this analysis is December, 2004 through and including December, 2014. 

Averages and trends for regions were also determined.   Four regions were defined as 1) MidWest and North, 2) South and Southwest, 3) Atlantic, and 4) West and Mountain.  

The intent of the analysis was to look at the data for a recent decade during which other temperature datasets show no increase in global average temperature.  However, other datasets suffer from inclusion of data from urban areas with known urban heat island effects that produce an artificial warming trend.   In contrast, the USCRN stations are purposely located far from such urban heat influences.   It was expected that one of three possible outcomes would emerge: 1) no trend at all, 2) a warming trend, or 3) a cooling trend.    A result showing no trend would be consistent with datasets mentioned above.  A result showing a warming trend would be consistent with the widely-discussed carbon-dioxide Greenhouse Gas hypothesis that allegedly creates an overall warming, or global warming.  (see e.g. the International Panel on Climate Change reports, IPCC)   A result showing a cooling trend would be consistent with falsifying the carbon-dioxide Greenhouse Gas hypothesis, and confirming the impact of natural cycles on global temperatures.  


Results for annual, and Winter months are shown below (see Table 1).  The annual cooling trend for all 55 stations is minus 2.68 degrees C per century.   The trend for Winter months is minus 10.86 degrees C per Century.  A graphical result is shown in Figure 1, above. 

	Annual Average Trend     Degrees Celsius / Century	Winter Months Trend Degrees Celsius / Century  (Dec-Jan-Feb)
All Stations  55	(2.68)	(10.86)
MW and N 15	(11.24)	(23.10)
SO and SW 12	(2.83)	(11.14)
ATL  10	(0.47)	(0.89)
W and MT  18	3.32	(6.03)

Table 1  Summary of Results 2005-2014

It is not surprising that temperature trends from non-urban data show a cooling, when other datasets that include urban areas show no trend over the same period.  It is logical that a zero trend is the result of some data with a warming trend, and off-setting data with a cooling trend.  These USCRN stations show the cooling trend that many have long suspected.

Among these 55 data points, none have exactly zero trend, although Goodwell, OK, is close at minus 0.04 degrees C per Century.    There are five stations, approximately ten percent of the total, that have a trend of less than 1 degree C per Century, positive or negative. Those five stations are located in South Carolina, North Carolina, Washington state, Oklahoma, and upstate New York.  It is noteworthy that none of the almost-zero trend stations are located in the rapidly-cooling North and MidWest region.  

Regional trends 

N and MW Region Winter Trend

The most eye-catching result is the rapid cooling trend for the North and MidWest region, Winter months, of minus 23.1 degrees C per century (see Table 1, and graph).  The annual trend for the same region is also a rapid cooling of minus 11.24 degrees C per century.     The severity of such cooling would be alarming, if the trend were to continue.  The North and MidWest parts of the US are vital to the economy, especially in agriculture and cattle.   Colder and longer winters would prevent farmers from producing the usual crops and yields.   Furthermore, such cooling would prevent snow from melting each Summer, leading to frozen ground and glaciers.   Year-round snow acts to increase the reflection of solar energy, or increased albedo, which leads to cooler temperatures and yet more snow. 

Stations with the most rapidly-cooling trends include:

Sioux Falls, South Dakota  minus 32 degrees C per century

Medorah, North Dakota      minus 31 degrees C per century

Goodridge, Minnesota        minus 30 degrees C per century

Buffalo, South Dakota        minus 28 degrees C per century

Wolf Point, Montana           minus 24 degrees C per century

Criticisms

Critics might point out that not all the available data was used in the analysis, as if that might make the conclusions invalid.   However, it must be understood that over-inclusion of data leads to erroneous conclusions.    For example, including 5 stations for Colorado, but only 3 for California would skew the results in favor of Colorado.  

Another criticism might be the choice of data to replace missing data points.  In this dataset, there were relatively few missing data points.  However, almost every station had one missing data point, with some stations missing two or three data points.   Care was taken to examine the data graphically to ensure the replacement data fell along a smooth curve.  

Critics might also point out that conclusions based on a 10-year analysis of climate temperature data is almost meaningless since climate changes slowly over several decades and centuries.   The author’s response is that valid conclusions can be drawn from a 10-year analysis, especially if the major conclusion is that a serious problem may develop soon, or may already be occurring.   From this analysis, it certainly would be prudent to observe closely the winters for the next few years, especially in the North and MidWest region.  However, all the regions encompassed in this study show a cooling trend for the Winter months of Dec-Jan-Feb.   Only the Atlantic region has a modest Winter cooling trend, which might be due to having only a few stations in that region for this analysis. 

Also, all regions except the West and Mountains show an annual cooling trend.  It is likely that the recent multi-year drought in the West and Mountains are responsible for the slight warming trend.   

Conclusions

The long-term temperature datasets have several known deficiencies, among those are the inclusion of urban heat islands such as large cities.  Those datasets are also adjusted repeatedly, with each new report with adjusted data claimed to be accurate.   In addition, those datasets suffer from many missing data records that require some means to insert data.  They also suffer from disjointed data due to station moves to different locations.   The USCRN data is intended to provide data with none of those deficiencies, being located far from human influences, using state-of-the-art electronic measurement devices, redundant devices, automated data collection and uploading to computers, and not being moved around every few years.    

Goodridge, California temperatures sorted by population

An earlier analysis by James Goodridge found that essentially zero warming occurred in California counties with low population, over an 85-year period from 1909 to 1994.  Yet, counties with high populations experienced warming of almost 2 degrees Celsius per century.   (Goodridge, J.D. (1996) Comments on “Regional Simulations of Greenhouse Warming including Natural Variability” . Bull, Amer. Meteorological Society 77:1588-1599.)   See chart at right (Urban Heat Island Effect)  for the results.

What this present analysis of the USCRN 55 stations shows is that not only are pristine locations not warming, they are actually cooling. 

Regional trends also show substantial cooling.   

While the time period of this study is necessarily short by climate research standards, it is prudent to pay close attention to the northern tier of states in the US, especially the next few winters.   

Roger E. Sowell, Esq.

Marina del Rey, California

copyright (c) 2015 by Roger Sowell all rights reserved