Response to the US Government’s “National Climate Assessment Report (Draft)”

John L. Casey, President, Space and Science Research Corporation recently published the following assessment of the US Government’s “National Climate Assessment Report (Draft).” John, a personal friend, has hit the nail right on the head with this assessment. It is so important that I have reproduced it here in its entirety. Although it is a bit long, it is very much worth reading.

Response to the US Government’s “National Climate Assessment Report (Draft)”
Prepared by the Space and Science Research Corporation (SSRC) Orlando, Florida
Release Date: Wednesday, January 16, 2013

Upon review of the January 11, 2013 draft of the National Climate Assessment Report (NCAR), the Space and Science Research Corporation has issued the following opinion.

1. General.

a. Background. The draft report, like its predecessors, is primarily based on the well known greenhouse gas theory of manmade climate change. It relies heavily on the same corpus of science that has been developed by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (UN-IPCC), since its formation in 1988.

Future projections for the Earth’s climate and impacts on the United States (US) elucidated in the NCAR are in turn reliant on global climate models (GCM) driven by the greenhouse gas (GHG) theory which, like the UN-IPCC and previous US government climate reports, have produced a number of future climate scenarios and outcomes linked to mankind’s production of GHG, but mostly carbon dioxide (CO2).

b. Summary Opinion. The draft NCAR has a number of significant faults that in total make it an unreliable document for climate policy planning in the government, environmental, industrial, economic, educational, and public sectors.
It is a heavily biased, one sided assessment of the Earth’s climate status, climate causes and effects. Its predicted future climate scenarios for the Earth are either still subject to debate or unlikely to happen because of their dependency on the greenhouse gas theory.

The report’s eleven findings and numerous supposed facts about the current status of the Earth’s climate cannot in all cases be supported by the available information from international and even the US government’s own climate data bases. Most of the findings are either in dispute or have a low probability of ever proving correct. The findings appear to be derived from computer models similar to those used at the UN-IPCC, and thus are adversely influenced by the same flaws and lack of validation.

The report completely ignores highly reliable natural cycle climate models in favor of the unreliable greenhouse gas emission models which after many years of concerted effort and substantial resources committed, have proven to be ineffective in their ability to forecast climate change, that is, long term global temperature variation.

Most of the reports unnecessarily voluminous (over 1100) pages of data, climate status, impacts from global warming, and findings can be fully explained and in most cases better explained by natural cycles. The report clearly discounts at the outset, that climate change, much less global warming is driven by the Sun, and of course has chosen to use the weak GHG theory as its primary basis for climate change cause and effect.

This long standing difference of scientific opinion among those who have studied climate change is unresolved by this report. If anything, this report attempts to reinforce the alleged connection between GHG and climate change despite a growing mountain of evidence that the GHG theory does not work and that current climate changes could not be taking place if the GHG theory were correct.

Further, the report has not recognized fundamental facts about our climate and its drivers and in fact, makes misleading or unsubstantiated statements about the causes and effects of climate change. For example, the report’s contention that weather extremes being seen worldwide are tied to GHG is a great leap in logic where the data to support this allegation is speculative at best. It is far more plausible that these extremes may be related to the ongoing transition from the past global warming era to the new cold climate era where competing global weather patterns are in a state of rapid, thermodynamic flux.

The most profound fault in the draft NCAR is that it has entirely neglected to address the ongoing “solar hibernation” which according to leading climate scientists and solar physicists has a high probability to bring about a potentially dangerous new cold climate era. This hibernation which results in a reduction in the Sun’s radiation that warms the Earth, according to the SSRC, has already brought about the end of global warming and the distinct downward trend now being observed in the Earth’s temperatures.

This glaring omission of the ongoing climate change indicates this report was not compiled based on objective science, current climate status, or a comprehensive understanding of how climate change occurs.

2. Specific Findings. The failings of the NCAR are fundamental in nature. While the past UN and US government reports over the last six years have focused on the role of mankind’s industrial output of GHG, these organizations and their reports, like this draft NCAR, have routinely erred in that they have dismissed or ignored other highly regarded theories of climate change and other major factors that contribute to climate change, most critically, the role the Sun plays in climate variations.

Detailed findings of the review of the draft NCAR are as follows:

a. The Report Relies on a Flawed Theory. This particular report is surprising in that it still maintains that the Earth’s future climate variations will be caused by man’s industrial output when most past results have shown this is not likely and the GHG theory, which was originally disproved after it was made popular in 1896, continues to be unreliable in climate modeling.

A review of past US government and UN-IPCC reports demonstrates that past projections using the GHG linked GCM were virtually all wrong. Global temperature variations forecast by these past reports did not materialize either in the best case or worst case scenarios of mankind’s CO2 production.

Simply put, those reports including this draft report that are dependent on GHG models, have routinely shown these climate models do not work and when used in climate prediction have likewise been unsuccessful.

This demonstrated inability of the GHG theory of climate change to be accurate in climate prediction was reinforced with the release of the similar UN-IPCC climate report (AR4 of 2007). This report depicted future climate variations ( temperatures) based on CO2 produced by mankind. Using numerous CGM, substantial resources and personnel, this culmination of a state-of-the art climate report predicted four scenarios tied to CO2 production and atmospheric concentration. As of January 2013, all these GHG scenarios have been proven wrong, most to a significant degree. The draft NCAR cites that, “… a new set of model simulations has been introduced (2009) that include more Earth system physics and chemistry and have higher resolution.”

However, a review of Figure 1-1 (page 20) and its several reproduced versions throughout the report show that even these supposed better climate models have once again failed to accurately predict global temperature trends. Temperature projections in the draft NCAR report already vary widely from actual temperature trends. If one cannot perform this essential global temperature forecast function accurately, then all other climate predictions and impact assessments derived from it are unusable. Producing a report that is a huge 1100+ pages long does nothing to alter this reality.

Again, the greenhouse gas theory does not work and predictions of future climate change using the theory, as found in this draft report, like past UN-IPCC and other US government climate reports, should not be considered reliable or of value to those dealing with climate change planning and prediction.

b. The Report Contains Claims That Cannot Be Verified or Are in Conflict With Well Known Information. The basic question of the report’s veracity is in serious doubt. Numerous claims and assertions for the state of the Earth’s climate that have been made in the NCAR draft cannot be verified using the US government’s own climate data. In effect, the report, like predecessor UN and US government climate reports, is riddled with climate status assertions where the data to back it up does not exist, is still in dispute, or exists in a limited form. For example, the report claims that,” …the rate of sea level rise over the past 20 years has roughly doubled.” (page 20). No evidence was provided to support this assertion. This doubling of sea level rate of rise is not supported by the facts. According to the SSRC using US government and university data sources, the sea level ‘rate-of rise’ though fluctuating, has been declining steadily since 1998. This point is omitted from the report.

c. Failure to Disclose Current Climate Status and Trends. The draft NCAR fails to address major climate variations that are or have already taken place that essentially negate some of the main findings of the report and its reliance on GCM developed from the GHG theory of manmade climate change. These major recent climate change events that have been minimized or ignored by the NCAR draft point to a disconcerting trend in this and past reports by the US government that hide what is really happening with the Earth’s climate. A brief summary of some of these major climate trends and events omitted from the NCAR include the following:

(1) The End of Global Warming Has Been Covered Up. Despite claims in the draft NCAR to the contrary, global warming, defined as a long term trend of progressive growth in the atmospheric temperature average on Earth, has ended. The SSRC position is that the past global warming was always caused by the Sun and it ended right on schedule according to natural cycle theory! Technically, there is no longer a state of global warming on Earth even though the report uses this non-existent climate threat as its most important consideration throughout the report.
This is a crucial point in the climate debate. Since there is no longer any global warming even though CO2 is still increasing and since global warming was supposedly caused by mankind’s CO2 production, then we are left with the unavoidable conclusion that mankind’s CO2 production was not the primary driver of climate change after all. The draft NCAR simply avoids this “eight hundred pound gorilla in the room.”

The last peak in global temperatures was in 1998, fifteen years ago, according to charted temperatures from multiple US and international sources. It should be noted that there has been no effective growth in the Earth’s average atmospheric temperature for between fourteen and sixteen years. This vital piece of climate data is deemphasized almost to the point of exclusion in the draft report.

Questions remain about whether 2005 or 2010 were warmer in total, but the latest data show 1998 was still the year where the peak temperature was reached. Global temperatures for 2012 do not change this conclusion despite recent reports of record temperatures in the US. Here it should be noted that the US occupies only 1.7% of the Earth’s surface area and a record temperature during a single year for the US cannot be reasonably extrapolated to the entire planet as a climate trend where worldwide temperature variations over many years must be examined.
The report’s attempt to downplay the end of global warming by trying to classify the past roughly fifteen years without global temperature growth as too small a time frame for evaluation is more a wish than science.

(2) Evidence of A Declining Temperature Trend Is Hidden. The draft NCAR has completely hidden the well known downward trend in the Earth’s atmospheric temperatures and oceans that has been in place since 1998. Using the US government’s own data, many researchers who study climate, are well aware that the Earth’s temperature trend is downward. Using international and US government data, a one hundred year, and a thirty year temperature trend analysis (fifth order polynomial curve, HADCRUT data base) both show the average peak of global warming likely took place between 2007 and 2008 with the hottest year occurring earlier in 1998. A cooling trend is clearly visible in this charted data.

The draft report stresses warm years in the data but consistently fails to recognize cold years – it is a biased report favoring warming vs. cooling.

The draft NCAR does not satisfactorily resolve the glaring discrepancy between actual climate status which displays a long term atmospheric cooling trend and its claim that the Earth is still warming.

(3) The Report Has Misleading Claims of Rising Sea Levels for the Future. The ‘rate of annual sea level rise’ which tells us where sea levels are headed in the future, has been on a clear downward trend since 1998 and according to research done at the SSRC, may soon result in an extended period of declining sea levels lasting for years. This trend in rate of sea level rise is not mentioned in the draft report. This is a critical failure.

Also, even though there was an historic decline in global sea levels over an almost two year period (2009-2011), the most since modern satellite readings have been made, this key anomaly in sea level trends was not mentioned in the report per se. Additionally, during several years since 1998 the rate actually became negative, i.e., sea levels shrank. Once more, this is an indicator of a biased report that emphasizes warming data and minimizes or eliminates cooling data and trends. Though sea levels are still rising if only at a lesser rate, the report assumes they will continue indefinitely as long as mankind’s production of GHG continues unabated. Yet the report’s contention that there is strong correlation between GHG emissions and sea level rise has not been independently verified and is strongly disputed within the scientific community. It is predominantly based once again on the flawed GCM that have yet to see validation.

(4) Ocean Temperature Trends Toward Cooling Are Absent. The report is particularly deficient in its treatment of the temperature trends in the oceans. For example, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) has demonstrated it has been in a thirty year trend of colder temperatures in the north Pacific. The Atlantic Multi-Decadal Oscillation (AMO) is now at peak of heating and its cyclical pattern indicates it will soon be on a 30-40 year declining temperature curve. Both of these important ocean temperature curves will be coincident and jointly in cold phase soon creating a dominant cold temperature period affecting the entire Northern Hemisphere for decades. These essential components to estimating ocean temperatures in the northern hemisphere are missing from the report – another fundamental error.

Ocean temperatures play a significant role in climate variation, sea level rise, and especially in their precedence to land and atmospheric temperatures. This revelation that a major element to sea level forecasting has been left out of this important report is by itself sufficient to set aside all estimates of sea level prediction contained in the report. Glacial ice status discussed below, adds to this opinion of this portion of the draft NCAR report’s inadequacies.

(5) The NCAR Draft Hides or Omits Critical Facts on Glacial Ice Status. An independent examination of the global ice mass balance by the SSRC using US government and international sources has shown that the total amount of glacial ice has been growing since 1998 and it is not on a long term path of shrinking as the draft report indicates; far from it. Though glacial ice was likely declining up to 1998, that trend has now reversed. This key trend in glacial ice for whatever reason has been removed from the report’s findings and discussion – another serious mistake in the report which reflects poorly on the report’s credibility. In addition, the Antarctic, where 90% of the world’s glacial ice resides, is likely to continue to add mass in the foreseeable future and remain too cold to melt. Even the last UN-IPCC report from 2007 recognized this fact. A well-known thirty year growth pattern in Antarctic sea ice is also missing from this report.

This situation is also part of a disturbing history of poor scientific integrity and credibility in government manmade global warming predictions. For example, a past UN-IPCC climate report’s claims of the disappearance of all Himalayan mountain glacial ice by 2035 and a NOAA claim of an Arctic without sea ice by the end of 2008 have both been shown to be unfounded.

The range of 1-4 feet in global sea level rise by the year 2100 (page 86) and references to a 6ft or greater rise are similarly not viewed as realistic. Although the question of melting glacial ice is important to sea level rise, it is not well covered in this report. Much information that should be included is not and research reports that conflict with this report’s findings on melting glacial ice predictions are not discussed. This report continues the disappointing history of US government glacial ice status errors, with incomplete and misleading data and suspect melting estimates which gives the reader cause for concern about the veracity of any predicted threat of glacial melting mentioned in this report. Not disclosed in this report is the fact that various US government agency estimates for how much glacial ice exists and where, are widely divergent, especially when compared to international estimates.

This report does not fix the basic problems with glacial ice melting estimates, namely, we don’t have a firm handle on how much of it there is, by what set of dynamics melting occurs at each unique location, and how one can make a reasonable range of estimated melting when using the unreliable greenhouse gas theory to do so. Much more research is required in this area.

(6) Many of the Eleven Findings from the NCAR Draft Cannot Be Verified from an Independent Review of the Science Behind Them. In addition to the lack of evidence supporting the findings, the majority rely on the now highly suspect GHG models for the climate. No other causative factor in climate change is used as the basis for the draft NCAR. The findings often make bold claims for the involvement of human activities for climate change that are not demonstrated by the facts and independently verified except among manmade global warming advocates. Somewhat related to this lack of evidence to support the findings is the intentional confusion in terminology seen throughout the report. For example, the normal definition of ‘climate change’ has been altered beyond its historically accepted definition and is used interchangeably with the concept of and as a replacement for “manmade global warming.” This is not just poor semantics but is an unscientific use of the terms displaying intent to deceive or confuse the reader by associating all climate change with human caused activity. This impossibility, however, seems to be taken for granted in how this report is written, even though there is no demonstrated scientific evidence for their equivalence.

(7) Natural Variation as a Major Variable in Climate Change Is Omitted in the Draft NCAR. The strongest and most successful theories in climate prediction have been those that use natural climate cycles for understanding the causes and effects of climate change. This includes cycles related to solar activity and so-called ‘space weather.’ The extra-planetary influences on the Earth’s climate reside in a substantial data base of research with compelling findings that intimately link solar and solar system variation with climate change with a high degree of predictive accuracy, in some instances over 90%. Yet, this report effectively dismisses this key component of climate change; with a few disjointed comments and a few citations of some supporting research over pages 27 and 28. A thorough review of this cause of climate change is not done in this report. A wealth of research shows solar activity cycles alone are among the most accurate if not the most accurate in climate change prediction, especially when compared to the poor record of the GHG theory in climate forecasting.

Like the UN reports, this draft report, unceremoniously throws out the Sun and natural forces as viable contenders in climate forcing.

This draft report therefore repeats the ongoing mistake of the last such US government climate report and the UN-IPCC in that their reports are derived from mankind’s relatively minor contribution of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Again, the more important influences on climate change are ignored.

(8) An Examination of the Content And the Makeup of the Report Authors and Contributors Shows the Report Findings Were Pre-Determined. The report begins and ends with the unproven assumption that man’s industrial output and related human activities are the primary cause of climate change. Much like the UN-IPCC climate reports which were limited to a study only of manmade greenhouse gas emissions, this report’s general theme, i.e. manmade global warming is the major cause of climate change, was apparently decided before it was started. The report fails to show that a comprehensive and detailed review of all factors in climate change was ever conducted. None of the leading scientists who have long standing opposition to manmade global warming are listed as participants. There is no “minority report.” Given the nature of this ‘stacked deck,’ the report represents what the reader may readily deduce – it was written by and for manmade global warming supporters and other potentially more powerful and more accurate theories of climate change were not seriously considered.

(9) The Next Climate Change to Decades of Extreme Cold Weather Caused by a “Solar Hibernation” Has Been Covered Up. The draft NCAR completely ignores what may well turn out to be the most important climate event of the century – namely, that the Sun has begun to enter a long term state of ‘solar hibernation’ which has been forecast to bring decades of record cold to the planet. This hibernation is in essence, a period when the Sun cuts back on the radiation by which it warms and protects the Earth. This was predicted by the President of the SSRC in 2007 and announced to the White House, the scientific community, and the mainstream media. During 2011, after years of disagreement with this prediction, NASA finally admitted that this important event was taking place starting with a dramatic reduction in solar activity during the current solar cycle #24. Also joining in the confirmation in 2011, were the National Solar Observatory and the US Air Force. Other prominent solar activity researchers had also discovered this coming climate change, but were dismissed by the conventional scientific community, the UN-IPCC, and more recently the US government. Solar climate change theories which have achieved a high correlation to climate change, alert us to the very serious situation we face, now that this historic change in the Sun is confirmed. Research by the SSRC and many others has demonstrated that once the Sun goes into hibernation, on average every 206 years, a cold climate descends upon the planet that can produce decades of record and sometimes dangerous, crop destroying worldwide cold weather. Some scientists have said this next climate change caused by the Sun’s hibernation will bring about another “Little Ice Age.”

This may be the most important climate event since the formation of the United States of America and yet it is completely missing from this draft report.

This omission is undoubtedly by design and brings into question the entire process by which this report was authorized, produced, and approved in draft for public comment. Additionally, the mere existence of the solar hibernation negates all the assertions for climate change based on the GHG theory that do not permit any degree of global cooling much less deep cold climate eras.

Recommendation: The many flaws in this report are so significant that mere revisions to the draft are unlikely to produce a useful document. For the reasons stated above, it is the recommendation of the SSRC, that this report be completely discarded and that a new, truly independent, climate assessment process be started which above all, reflects what is really happening with the climate and why.

John L. Casey, President
Space and Science Research Corporation
P.O. Box 607841
Orlando, FL 32860

One Response to Response to the US Government’s “National Climate Assessment Report (Draft)”

  1. Robert, I assume you are my co-panelist on the Milehicon global warming panel. Please email me so we can coordinate an agenda.