Response to John Holdren's presentation, "Coping With Climate Change: ..." (Donald Rapp)

Response by Donald Rapp to John Holdren's presentation, "Coping With Climate Change: Issues in Science, Policy, and Communication Brief Summary about Donald Rapp: Fifty years of post-doctoral experience. A true generalist. Fifty percent scientist and 50% engineer. Worked on an extremely wide variety of technical problems over the years and has broad knowledge of things technical. Solid grounding in chemistry and physics and did fundamental work in these sciences for many years. In the second half of his career he worked on more applied problems, particularly in space technology and space mission design. He is an expert in requirements, architectures and transportation systems for space missions, with particular emphasis on impact of in situ resource utilization, and water resources.

He has surveyed the wide field of global climate change energy and is familiar with the entire literature of climatology. He is known throughout the NASA community for his abilities to plan, organize and lead studies of broad technical systems.

Education: B.S. Chemical Engineering, Cooper Union, 1955 M.S. Chemical Engineering, Princeton, 1956 Graduate study, California Institute of Technology, 1957 Ph.D. Chemical Physics, University of California (Berkeley) - January, 1960

Slide numbers below refer to slides in John Holdren's presentation.

Slide 3 Five myths about the science (Which science is “the” science? Is there room for more than one science?)

1. The Earth stopped warming in the last decade. (You bet it has).

2. If it is warming, humans aren’t the main cause. (That I agree is a myth) 3. A little warming isn’t harmful anyway. (That is true, but a little warming can possibly lead to a lot more if we continue to emit CO2).

4. If there is any danger, it’s far in the future. (That I agree is a myth) 5. Even if mainstream climate science is right and the need for action therefore is real, doing enough to make a difference is unaffordable. (Not only unaffordable but technically impossible).

1

=============== Slide 4

The data from 1998 to 2014 are faked. In particular, the 2014 point is too high and since then, in 2015, the temperature is lower. The proper data from D. Roy Spencer’s satellite measurement system are shown below:

As you can see, there was no warming from 1997-8 to 2015, only meandering variations.

Furthermore in Holdren’s figure there was no warming from 1940 to 1978, a span of 38 years, all the while CO2 was rising steadily. How could that be? After the fact, the alarmists blamed on aerosols but recent research suggests that does not provide an adequate answer. Furthermore, alarmists are always surprised because their models are inadequate, and they invent explanations after the fact, but can seemingly predict nothing.

2

In Holdren’s figure the rate of warming from 1910 to 1940 was about the same as it was from 1978 to 1998, yet CO2 was far smaller in the early period. The temperature in the 20th century correlates far better with El Nino indices than it does with CO2. Nobody understands how El Ninos play into climate change. ================= Slide 5: This is basically a repeat of slide 4 plotted in a different way. But it is phony as a 3-dollar bill. As we discussed in slide 4, figure the rate of warming from 1910 to 1940 was about the same as it was from 1978 to 1998, yet CO2 was far smaller in the early period. The black line is not drawn right. As drawn it suggests that late 20th century warming started in 1950. That is wrong. There was a statistical hiatus in warming from 1941 to about 1976-7. Late 20th century warming ran from 1977 to 1997-8, a span of only 20 years when strong El Ninos were dominant. There was no warming at all from 1941 to 1976-7. Even though Holdren would like to think T rises proportionally with CO2, the fact is that it does not. =============== Slide 6: In regard to Holdren’s graph on ocean warming: Oceans to 2,000 m depth: Earth area= 5 x 1014 m Oceans cover 70% of earth Volume = 0.7 x 2 x 103 x 5 x 1014 = 7 x 1017 m3 Mass of water = 7 x 1020 kg Heat content change since 1980 = 20 x 1022 J Heat capacity = 4,200 J/kg Temperature change of upper ocean = 20 x 1022 /(7 x 1020 x 4.2 x 103) = 0.07°C Can we really believe that they can measure ocean heat? ============ Slide 7: It is a well known fact that temperature changes in the far North are much greater during warming and cooling phases. When the earth warms, high latitudes warm more than the rest of the earth. When the earth cools, high latitudes cool more than the earth. During the long hiatus in global warming from 1941 to 1976-7, the Arctic actually cooled by more than 1°C. My response to this slide is “so what?” =============== Slide 8: He says “Most places getting wetter, some drier; Earth wetter overall.” According to Holdren, the world as a whole is getting wetter. Isn’t that good news? Isn’t

3

there a global water shortage? But I doubt that Holdren really knows whether the earth will get wetter or drier in the years ahead. ================ Slide 9: The glaciers are indeed retreating. No doubt about it. That goes with warming.

Holdren is correct. =============== Slide 10: Shrinking Arctic sea ice is also part of warming. But sea ice extent is more sensitive to wind patterns than temperature and it was changing winds that did most of the damage. Holdren emphasized year 2012. That was the year of lowest ice extent. Since then, Arctic sea ice has rebounded somewhat from the low of 2012. ================ Slide 11: He is right about sea ice thickness, but again, 2012 was a minimum year and things are a bit better in 2015. ================= Slide 12: His graph of North American snow cover reflects lack of El Nino rather than global warming. During the years 1978 to 1997 when global warming was at its highest, North American snow cover held up just fine while El Ninos dominated.

His portrayal of this as due to warming is a misrepresentation. There are more things in heaven and earth than there are in Holdren’s philosophy. ================= Slide 13: I can’t figure out what his pictures mean or what data were used top generate them. They are meaningless to me and seem faked. ================ Slide 14: The story of Greenland ice is complicated and his slide provides a narrow, biased version. Greenland is losing ice at its borders and gaining ice in the center.

Nevertheless, loss of ice at Greenland is worrisome. Yet, here is January 2015 report: “Greenland's ice sheet appears to be growing faster this winter than in recent years, according to new data from the Danish Meteorological Institute. This increased rate of ice accumulation follows a virtual standstill in the loss of mass from the huge ice sheet last year that was reported by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) of the US. Ice is currently accumulating at a faster rate than the average over the period from 1990 to 2011 and since the end

4

of November it has been growing at its fastest rate in at least four years, according to the DMI data.” ================ Slide 15: As with the Arctic, the state of the Antarctic ice sheet is complicated. The peninsula, which extends up to less extreme latitudes is indeed losing a great deal of mass. But the bulk of Antarctica is losing far less. Antarctic sea ice is at an all time maximum! ================ Slide 16: Global sea level has been rising ever since the end of the last ice age 15,000 years ago. The rate of rise slowed down during the past 1,000 years or so to about 2 mm/yr and this has nothing to do with CO2. More recently, some measurements now suggest that the oceans are rising at about 3 mm/yr, but these measurements (like all ocean measurements) are not certain. Furthermore, depletion of ground water might be contributing to this increase. ================ Slide 17: Sea level rise is not uniform. I agree. ============== Slide 18: Holdren is probably right about oceanic pH, but the picture is more complex than he portrays it. =============== Slides 19, 20 and 21: I don’t think the climate models that generated these “forcings” are worth the paper they are printed on. I simply don’t believe the data. ================== Slides 22 and 23: The data reported in this slide represent imaginative fiction and are totally unbelievable. These proxies only have value to those who publish them. They are just very long “hockey sticks”. The error bars are too small by a factor of ten. ================== Slide 24: As before, the forcings are based on inadequate models. ==================== Slide 25: This slide is baloney. They backfilled and adjusted parameters to get a fit. ===================

5

Slide 26: No argument with this slide. Climate affects many things. But climate has always varied from year to year and decade to decade and we have had to deal with it as it varied. =================== Slide 27: China has always had floods and droughts. A world picture would be more relevant. =================== Slide 28: Rahmstorff is a well-known faker. I can provide many articles that show that recent hurricane activity is actually below the long-term average. Even Kerry now admits this. Hurricane activity has not been increased by warming. =================== Slide 29: This slide, purporting to claim that precipitation has increased across the US seems to contradict the fact that the West has been in a drought for a considerable time. Also, precipitation is controlled more by the state of the Pacific Ocean than by global warming. If these data are correct (and I doubt they are) they reflect the period of strong El Ninos from 1977 to 1998, not the effect of CO2. ==================== Slide 30: Floods have been occurring for time immemorial. Showing one flood in one location tells us almost nothing. ==================== Slide 31: This slide shows a projection of future drought in the West. These projections are worthless. When the next strong El Ninos come along, the projections of drought will be proven wrong. ================= Slide 32: This slide says warming increases drought. Earlier slides said warming increased precipitation. How can warming increase drought and precipitation at the same time? ================ Slide 33: This slide says warming is responsible for drought in the western US. I say it is lack of El Ninos. Every bad thing that happens is blamed on CO2. Every bad thing that happens is described as unprecedented, but these things always occurred in the past.

6

================ Slide 34: Increased wildfires are due to drought and human expansion into wild habitats.

Every bad thing that happens is blamed on CO2. Every bad thing that happens is described as unprecedented, but these things always occurred in the past. =============== Slide 35: The data in this slide include projections to year 2024, and they are not reliable.

Data on heat indices show there was more extreme heat in the US in the 1930s than there is today. ================ Slide 36: I confess that I don’t know much about tee pests so I won’t comment. =============== Slide 37: The implication here is that melting permafrost is destroying buildings galore.

One building disintegrating in one place tells me next to nothing. Show me some data! =============== Slide 38: The implication here is that rising oceans are destroying houses galore. One building disintegrating in one place tells me next to nothing. Show me some data!

Analyses show that most of the increase in building loss at coasts is due to humans building in unsafe sites, not due to a rise in oceans. ================ Slide 39: All of these wild claims of damage are hyperbole. Show me some data! What does “plausible” mean? =============== Slide 40: The great variation of future temperature scenarios from model to model suggests that the models are full of unknowns. =============== Slide 41: The great variation of future temperature scenarios from model to model suggests that the models are full of unknowns. These estimates are science fiction. =============== Slide 42:

7

This is a projection from a model. Yet, even if it were correct, you could get 100% if every summer was 0.001 degree warmer than the 95th percentile. So this plot is done in such a fashion as to make it seem worse than it is. ============== Slide 43: The argument that a hotter average T produces warmer summers, is bassackwards. Actually, it is a warmer climate that produces a higher average. When the climate warms, is it primarily via warmer summers or winters or both? There is evidence that much of the warming is evening warming, much of which is release of heat from city structures and roads. This graph is misleading.

Furthermore, much of the warming occurs at higher northern latitudes where warming is welcome. Warming in the tropics is minimal. =============== Slide 44: This slide is an unbelievable projection. The 2003 heat wave has been analyzed by several scientists and they showed it had NOTHING to do with rising CO2. ============== Slide 45: Why are all the future projections negative? Surely there must be some benefits to global warming? This is just another untrustworthy projection. =============== Slide 46: Now “droughts are expected to worsen” but slides 29 and 30 predicted more precipitation and floods. ================ Slide 47: As we said in discussion of slide 16: “Global sea level has been rising ever since the end of the last ice age 15,000 years ago. The rate of rise slowed down during the past 1,000 years or so to about 2 mm/yr and this has nothing to do with CO2. More recently, some measurements now suggest that the oceans are rising at about 3 mm/yr, but these measurements (like all ocean measurements) are not certain. Furthermore, depletion of ground water might be contributing to this increase.”

So, we can attribute about 2 mm/yr to non-greenhouse effects stemming from the end of the ice age. Furthermore, depletion of ground water is contributing to the recent apparent increase to 3 mm/yr. Hence the rise in sea level due to greenhouse gases is probably about 0.6 mm/yr. Multiply that by 85 years to year 2100, and the sea level rise due to greenhouse gases is 0.05 m. Total sea level rise due to all causes is 0.25 m. The projections are incredible. ================

8

Slides 48 and 49: Ocean acidity is indeed a concern. However the projection to year 2065 is highly uncertain. =============== Slides 50 and 51: At last Holdren admits that we don’t know the crucial factor: “how much average T increases under a doubling of atmospheric CO2 or its equivalent”. And he states the bottom line of the alarmists: “Getting there will require continuing investments”. ================ Slide 52 to 57: No comment. This is all generic. ================ Slide 58: He asserts the widely held myth that a CO2 concentration would raise the global average temperature by 2°C from pre-industrial times. The models that predict this are unreliable. We know that raising CO2 from 280 ppm to 400 ppm has increased T by about 0.7°C. The relationship between T and CO2 is expected to be logarithmic. Hence: T = K ln (CO2) where K is a constant. Putting in 0.7 for T, and 120 for (CO2), we find K = 0.146. Then putting (CO2) = 170 (for CO2= 450 ppm) we find T = 0.75°C for CO2 = 450 ppm.

I think his claims that we can stabilize at 450 ppm by: “developed-country emissions must peak no later than 2015 and decline rapidly thereafter, and developing-country emissions must peak no later than 2025 and decline rapidly thereafter” is unattainable, and furthermore, would require essentially instantaneous stoppages of emissions after 2015 and 2025. There is no way in this world that this can be done technically or economically. In addition the developing nations will not follow this regimen anyway. It is pure dreaming. ============== Slides 59 and 60: These slides are too busy to digest. There are too many entries, and each one would require pages of explanation. ============== Slide 61: I find this laughable. The world will require at least five times as much energy in 2100 as it did in 2000. How the heck are you going to give the people energy without emissions? ==================

9

Slides 62 to 67: These are generic. ================== Slide 68: The US storm of 2010 was a Godsend to alarmists. It involved a conflux of a tropical hurricane with a northern storm. But as time passed and hurricane activity slowed way down it all averaged out. Hurricane activity in the 21st century is no greater than the long term average. =============== Slides 69-72: There have always been local areas with drought, floods, wild fires, etc. Alarmists have short memories. They can’t remember past events. Each new event is portrayed as unprecedented and incredibly new. While it may be true that a particular event in a particular location is indeed unprecedented at that locality, unprecedented events have always been cropping up in various localities. ============== Slide 73: During the past decade we have been barraged by an endless series of peer reviewed publications, government press releases, internet reports, etc. all stating what might happen in the future, what may happen, what could possibly happen, what is projected to happen, etc. Not one of these reports ever says that something good could possibly happen. This shows an evident strong bias to emphasize the worst possibilities, and those possibilities are based on unproven, and seemingly unreliable models. Stating that sea levels could rise by 70 m is ridiculous. =============== Slides 74 to 77: The way science works – ha ha. The way climate science works is this. A few decades ago, climate science was a minor sub-element of meteorology. No academic degrees were granted in climate science. There were few people who called themselves “climatologists”. With the advent of the alarmist movement, most of the weather vanes have aligned themselves with the prevailing wind.

Money for research came flooding in from Washington. The goose that laid the golden egg was climate alarmism. Almost everyone played up the hyperbole of alarmism. Continuation of the EPA was justified. The National Labs acquired new rationales and new funding. Obama portrayed himself as the savior of mankind. No funding was available to skeptics. The scientific journals rejected contrarian papers. Bad science (e.g. the hockey stick) flourished. Papers with sparse noisy data of inadequate duration produced assertive conclusions based on flimsy evidence. Climatology now became fashionable, since it was backed by big bucks. Not only scientists, but economists, social scientists and anyone else who could seek funding from this bonanza. And amid all this hoopla, they deviously steered the discussion on to one silly question: “Do humans affect

10

climate?� That is not the question of importance. The answer is clearly yes. The important questions are (1) how much future warming will we get? and (2) how much can we mitigate it? We don’t know the answer to (1) as Holdren admits, and the answer to (2) is a moderate amount, but we can’t eliminate fossil fuels in this century. ================= Slides 78 to the end: US emissions have indeed peaked. Increased requirements for energy efficiency and loss of manufacturing to China have contributed to this, along with a small increase in renewables. But our efforts to unilaterally cut emissions will drive up the cost of our energy while developing nations, particularly China and India burn coal galore. There might be some satisfaction in demonstrating to the world that US is trying to be responsive, but the world emission picture is out of control.

11