DOCSLIB.ORG

Climate Science

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Climate Science 2 Climate Science Chapter Lead Authors: Craig D. Idso, Ph.D., David Legates, Ph.D., S. Fred Singer, Ph.D. Contributors: Joseph L. Bast, Patrick Frank, Ph.D., Kenneth Haapala, Jay Lehr, Ph.D., Patrick Moore, Ph.D., Willie Soon, Ph.D. Reviewers: Charles Anderson, Ph.D., Dennis T. Avery, Timothy Ball, Ph.D., David Bowen, Ph.D., David Burton, Mark Campbell, Ph.D., David Deming, Ph.D., Rex J. Fleming, Ph.D., Lee C. Gerhard, Ph.D., François Gervais, Ph.D., Laurence Gould, Ph.D., Kesten Green, Ph.D., Hermann Harde, Ph.D., Howard Hayden, Ph.D., Ole Humlum, Ph.D., Richard A. Keen, Ph.D., William Kininmonth, M.Sc., Anthony Lupo, Ph.D., Robert Murphy, Ph.D., Daniel W. Nebert, M.D., Norman J. Page, Ph.D., Fred Palmer, J.D., Garth Paltridge, Ph.D., D.Sc., FAA, Jim Petch, Ph.D., Jan-Erik Solheim, Peter Stilbs, Ph.D., Roger Tattersol, Frank Tipler, Ph.D., Fritz Vahrenholt, Ph.D., Art Viterito, Ph.D., Lance Wallace, Ph.D. Key Findings 2.3.1.4 Floods 2.3.1.5 Storms Introduction 2.3.1.6 Hurricanes 2.3.2 Melting Ice 2.1 A Science Tutorial 2.3.2.1 Antarctic Ice Sheet and Sea Ice 2.1.1 Methodology 2.3.2.2 Arctic Ice Sheet and Sea Ice 2.1.1.1 Scientific Method 2.3.2.3 Non-polar Glaciers 2.1.1.2 Consensus 2.3.3 Sea-level Rise 2.1.1.3 Uncertainty 2.3.3.1 Recent Sea-level Trends 2.1.2 Observations 2.3.3.2 Islands and Coral Atolls 2.1.2.1 Energy Budget 2.3.4 Harm to Plant Life 2.1.2.2 Carbon Cycle 2.1.2.3 Geological Record 2.4 Why Scientists Disagree 2.1.2.4 Greenhouse Gases 2.4.1 Scientific Uncertainties 2.4.2 An Interdisciplinary Topic 2.2 Controversies 2.4.3 Failure of the IPCC 2.2.1 Temperature Records 2.4.4 Tunnel Vision 2.2.2 Climate Models 2.2.3 Climate Sensitivity 2.5 Appeals to Consensus 2.2.4 Solar Activity 2.5.1 Flawed Surveys 2.5.2 Evidence of Lack of Consensus 2.3 Climate Impacts 2.5.3 Petition Project 2.3.1 Extreme Weather Events 2.5.4 Conclusion 2.3.1.1 Heat Waves 2.3.1.2 Wildfires 2.6 Conclusion 2.3.1.3 Droughts Citation: Idso, C.D., Legates, D. and Singer, S.F. 2019. Climate Science. In: Climate Change Reconsidered II: Fossil Fuels. Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change. Arlington Heights, IL: The Heartland Institute. 107 Climate Change Reconsidered II: Fossil Fuels Key Findings used. The warming of the twentieth and early twenty-first centuries has not been shown to be Key findings of this chapter include the following: beyond the bounds of natural variability. General circulation models (GCMs) are unable to Methodology accurately depict complex climate processes. They do not accurately hindcast or forecast the . The Scientific Method is a series of requirements climate effects of anthropogenic greenhouse gas imposed on scientists to ensure the integrity of emissions. their work. The IPCC has not followed established rules that guide scientific research. Estimates of equilibrium climate sensitivity (the amount of warming that would occur following a . Appealing to consensus may have a place in doubling of atmospheric CO2 level) range widely. science, but should never be used as a means of The IPCC’s estimate is higher than many recent shutting down debate. estimates. Uncertainty in science is unavoidable but must be . Solar irradiance, magnetic fields, UV fluxes, acknowledged. Many declaratory and predictive cosmic rays, and other solar activity may have statements about the global climate are not greater influence on climate than climate models warranted by science. and the IPCC currently assume. Observations Climate Impacts . Surface air temperature is governed by energy . There is little evidence that the warming of the flow from the Sun to Earth and from Earth back twentieth and early twenty-first centuries has into space. Whatever diminishes or intensifies caused a general increase in severe weather this energy flow can change air temperature. events. Meteorological science suggests a warmer world would see milder weather patterns. Levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4) in the atmosphere are governed by . The link between warming and drought is weak, processes of the carbon cycle. Exchange rates and by some measures drought decreased over and other climatological processes are poorly the twentieth century. Changes in the understood. hydrosphere of this type are regionally highly variable and show a closer correlation with . The geological record shows temperatures and multidecadal climate rhythmicity than they do CO2 levels in the atmosphere have not been with global temperature. stable, making untenable the IPCC’s assumption that they would be stable in the absence of . The Antarctic ice sheet is likely to be unchanged human emissions. or is gaining ice mass. Antarctic sea ice is gaining in extent, not retreating. Recent trends in . Water vapor is the dominant greenhouse gas the Greenland ice sheet mass and Artic sea ice owing to its abundance in the atmosphere and the are not outside natural variability. wide range of spectra in which it absorbs radiation. CO2 absorbs energy only in a very . Long-running coastal tide gauges show the rate narrow range of the longwave infrared spectrum. of sea-level rise is not accelerating. Local and regional sea levels exhibit typical natural variability. Controversies The effects of elevated CO on plant . Reconstructions of average global surface . 2 characteristics are net positive, including temperature differ depending on the methodology 108 Climate Science increasing rates of photosynthesis and biomass of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the production. Earth’s climate.” . Because scientists disagree, policymakers must exercise special care in choosing where they turn Why Scientists Disagree for advice. Fundamental uncertainties and disagreements prevent science from determining whether human greenhouse gas emissions are having effects on Introduction Earth’s atmosphere that could endanger life on the planet. A central issue in climate science today is whether human emissions of carbon dioxide, methane, and other “greenhouse gases” are having effects on . Climate is an interdisciplinary subject requiring Earth’s atmosphere that could endanger life on the insights from many fields of study. Very few planet. As the size of recent reports by the scholars have mastery of more than one or two of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, these disciplines. 2013, 2014a, 2014b) and the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC, . Many scientists trust the Intergovernmental Panel 2009, 2011, 2013, 2014) suggest, climate science is a on Climate Change (IPCC) to objectively report complex and highly technical subject. Simplistic the latest scientific findings on climate change, claims about the relationship between human activity but it has failed to produce balanced reports and and climate change are misleading. has allowed its findings to be misrepresented to This chapter focuses on physical and biological the public. sciences. It does not address the impacts of climate change (or fossil fuels) on human prosperity, health, . Climate scientists, like all humans, can have or security or conduct a cost-benefit analysis of tunnel vision. Bias, even or especially if climate change or fossil fuels. Those topics are subconscious, can be especially pernicious when addressed in subsequent chapters. Sometimes science data are equivocal and allow multiple presentations also appear in other chapters, including interpretations, as in climatology. “tutorials” on air quality (Chapter 6), energy matters (Chapter 7), and integrated assessment models (Chapter 8), but most of the pure science in this book Appeals to Consensus appears in this chapter. Section 2.1 offers a tutorial describing some of . Surveys and abstract-counting exercises that are the methodological issues and observational data said to show a “scientific consensus” on the involved in efforts to understand the causes and causes and consequences of climate change consequences of climate change. Section 2.2 invariably ask the wrong questions or the wrong describes controversies over four important topics in people. No survey data exist that support claims climate science: temperature records, general of consensus on important scientific questions. circulation models (GCMs), climate sensitivity, and solar influences on climate. Each of these topics is . Some survey data, petitions, and peer-reviewed important for discerning and measuring the human research show deep disagreement among impact on the climate. scientists on issues that must be resolved before Section 2.3 examines observational evidence the man-made global warming hypothesis can be concerning four climate impacts: severe weather accepted. events, melting ice, sea-level rise, and effects on plants. Section 2.4 reviews four reasons why . Some 31,000 scientists have signed a petition scientists disagree: basic scientific uncertainties, the saying “there is no convincing scientific evidence subject’s interdisciplinary nature, the failure of the that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, IPCC to win the confidence of many scientists, and or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in tunnel vision (or bias). Section 2.5 looks at claims the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating that a scientific consensus exists on some or all of 109 Climate Change Reconsidered II: Fossil Fuels these issues. A brief summary and conclusion appear Cambridge, UK and New York, NY: Cambridge University in Section 2.6. Press. Two previous volumes in the Climate Change IPCC. 2014b. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Reconsidered series produced by NIPCC subtitled Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Physical Science (2013) and Biological Impacts Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment (2014) contain exhaustive reviews of the scientific Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Full Transcript of Inaugural AARST Science Policy Forum, New York Hilton, Friday 20 November 1998, 7–9 Pm
    social epistemology, 2000, vol. 14, nos. 2}3, 131–180 A public debate on the science of global warming: is there su¶ cient evidence which proves we should limit greenhouse gas emissions because of climate change? Full transcript of inaugural AARST Science Policy Forum, New York Hilton, Friday 20 November 1998, 7–9 pm. JAMES E. HANSEN (aµ rmative) PATRICK J. MICHAELS (negative) 1. Moderator’s introductory remarks Dr Gordon R. Mitchell : … You know, it’s been said that rhetoric of science is nothing more than a bunch of covert neo-Aristotelians blowing hot air. Tonight, we plan to test that hypothesis when AARST hosts a public debate about global warming. Before the evening’s arguments cool o¶ , it is our hope that some of the heat and the light produced by this debate will start to melt away a few of the doubts that the rhetoric of science enterprise is a rare ed and detached scholarly project, of little relevance to con- temporary science policy discussions … But before I lay out tonight’s debate format and introduce the participants, I want to talk brie y about the origins of this event. At last year’s AARST preconference gathering in Chicago, Michael Hyde and Steve Fuller issued a charge to those gathered in the audience. This charge basically involved a call for relevance, a plea for ‘measurable outcomes ’ and ‘public engagement ’ in rhetoric of science scholarship. This call to action resonated deeply with my own political commitments, because I believe that privileged members of the academy shoulder a double-sided obligation.
    [Show full text]
  • Greenp Eace.Org /Kochindustries
    greenpeace.org/kochindustries Greenpeace is an independent campaigning organization that acts to expose global environmental problems and achieve solutions that are essential to a green and peaceful future. Published March 2010 by Greenpeace USA 702 H Street NW Suite 300 Washington, DC 20001 Tel/ 202.462.1177 Fax/ 202.462.4507 Printed on 100% PCW recycled paper book design by andrew fournier page 2 Table of Contents: Executive Summary pg. 6–8 Case Studies: How does Koch Industries Influence the Climate Debate? pg. 9–13 1. The Koch-funded “ClimateGate” Echo Chamber 2. Polar Bear Junk Science 3. The “Spanish Study” on Green Jobs 4. The “Danish Study” on Wind Power 5. Koch Organizations Instrumental in Dissemination of ACCF/NAM Claims What is Koch Industries? pg. 14–16 Company History and Background Record of Environmental Crimes and Violations The Koch Brothers pg. 17–18 Koch Climate Opposition Funding pg. 19–20 The Koch Web Sources of Data for Koch Foundation Grants The Foundations Claude R. Lambe Foundation Charles G. Koch Foundation David H. Koch Foundation Koch Foundations and Climate Denial pg. 21–28 Lobbying and Political Spending pg. 29–32 Federal Direct Lobbying Koch PAC Family and Individual Political Contributions Key Individuals in the Koch Web pg. 33 Sources pg. 34–43 Endnotes page 3 © illustration by Andrew Fournier/Greenpeace Mercatus Center Fraser Institute Americans for Prosperity Institute for Energy Research Institute for Humane Studies Frontiers of Freedom National Center for Policy Analysis Heritage Foundation American
    [Show full text]
  • A Rational Discussion of Climate Change: the Science, the Evidence, the Response
    A RATIONAL DISCUSSION OF CLIMATE CHANGE: THE SCIENCE, THE EVIDENCE, THE RESPONSE HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION NOVEMBER 17, 2010 Serial No. 111–114 Printed for the use of the Committee on Science and Technology ( Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.science.house.gov U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 62–618PDF WASHINGTON : 2010 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001 COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY HON. BART GORDON, Tennessee, Chair JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois RALPH M. HALL, Texas EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER JR., LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California Wisconsin DAVID WU, Oregon LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas BRIAN BAIRD, Washington DANA ROHRABACHER, California BRAD MILLER, North Carolina ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois MARCIA L. FUDGE, Ohio W. TODD AKIN, Missouri BEN R. LUJA´ N, New Mexico RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas PAUL D. TONKO, New York BOB INGLIS, South Carolina STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas JIM MATHESON, Utah MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia BARON P. HILL, Indiana PETE OLSON, Texas HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona CHARLES A. WILSON, Ohio KATHLEEN DAHLKEMPER, Pennsylvania ALAN GRAYSON, Florida SUZANNE M.
    [Show full text]
  • Transcript of the Same
    COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND ENERGY COMMITTEE "PENNSYLVANIA CO2 AND CLIMATE" ROOM 523 IRVIS OFFICE BUILDING TUESDAY, JUNE 22, 2021 9:03 A.M. BEFORE: HONORABLE DARYL METCALFE, MAJORITY CHAIRMAN HONORABLE GREG VITALI, MINORITY CHAIRMAN HONORABLE MIKE ARMANINI HONORABLE STEPHANIE BOROWICZ HONORABLE DONALD COOK HONORABLE JOSEPH HAMM HONORABLE R. LEE JAMES HONORABLE JOSHUA KAIL HONORABLE TIMOTHY O'NEAL HONORABLE JASON ORTITAY HONORABLE KATHY RAPP HONORABLE TOMMY SANKEY HONORABLE PAUL SCHEMEL HONORABLE PERRY STAMBAUGH HONORABLE ELIZABETH FIEDLER HONORABLE MANUEL GUZMAN HONORABLE JOE HOHENSTEIN HONORABLE MARY ISAACSON HONORABLE RICK KRAJEWSKI HONORABLE DANIELLE FRIEL OTTEN HONORABLE PAM SNYDER Pennsylvania House of Representatives Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 2 1 COMMITTEE STAFF PRESENT: 2 GRIFFIN CARUSO 3 REPUBLICAN RESEARCH ANALYST ALEX SLOAD 4 REPUBLICAN RESEARCH ANALYST PAM NEUGARD 5 REPUBLICAN ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT 6 SARAH IVERSEN 7 DEMOCRATIC EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR BILL JORDAN 8 DEMOCRATIC RESEARCH ANALYST 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 3 1 I N D E X 2 TESTIFIERS 3 * * * 4 GREG WRIGHTSTONE EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT, 5 CO2 COALITION..................................6 6 DR. DAVID LEGATES PROFESSOR OF CLIMATOLOGY 7 UNIVERSITY OF DELAWARE........................15 8 ANDREW MCKEON EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 9 RGGI, INC.....................................30 10 MARK SZYBIST, ESQ. SENIOR ATTORNEY, 11 NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL.............38 12 FRANZ T. LITZ LITZ ENERGY STRATEGIES LLC....................45 13 DR. PATRICK MICHAELS 14 CLIMATOLOGIST, SENIOR FELLOW, CO2 COALITION.................................69 15 MARC MORANO 16 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CLIMATE DEPOT.................................76 17 JOE BASTARDI 18 CHIEF FORECASTER WEATHERBELL ANALYTICS, LLC....................90 19 20 21 SUBMITTED WRITTEN TESTIMONY 22 * * * 23 (See submitted written testimony and handouts online.) 24 25 4 1 P R O C E E D I N G S 2 * * * 3 MAJORITY CHAIRMAN METCALFE: Good 4 morning.
    [Show full text]
  • Do Small-Sample Short-Term Forecasting Tests Yield Valid
    Forecasting global climate change Kesten C. Green University of South Australia and Ehrenberg-Bass Institute, Australia J. Scott Armstrong University of Pennsylvania, U.S.A, and Ehrenberg-Bass Institute, Australia Working Paper - June 2014 This paper was published in Climate Change: The Facts. edited by Alan Moran published by the Institute of Public Affairs, Melbourne, Victoria 3000, Australia Abstract The Golden Rule of Forecasting requires that forecasters be conservative by making proper use of cumulative knowledge and by not going beyond that knowledge. The procedures that have been used to forecast dangerous manmade global warming violate the Golden Rule. Following the scientific method, we investigated competing hypotheses on climate change in an objective way. To do this, we tested the predictive validity of the global warming hypothesis (+0.03C per year with increasing CO2) against a relatively conservative global cooling hypothesis of -0.01C per year, and against the even more conservative simple no-change or persistence hypothesis (0.0C per year). The errors of forecasts from the global warming hypothesis for horizons 11 to 100 years ahead over the period 1851 to 1975 were nearly four times larger than those from the global cooling hypothesis and about eight times larger than those from the persistence hypothesis. Findings from our tests using the latest data and other data covering a period of nearly 2,000 years support the predictive validity of the persistence hypothesis for horizons from one year to centuries ahead. To investigate whether the current alarm over global temperatures is exceptional, we employed the method of structured analogies.
    [Show full text]
  • HKS Magazine
    HARVARD + CONCERNED CITIZEN KENNEDY WHO ARE YOUR PEOPLE? SCHOOL THE ADVOCATE magazine winter 2020 EARLYBIRD PRICING NOW AVAILABLE! 1_HKSmag_wi20_cvr1-4_F2.indd 3 1/14/20 2:48 PM THE SIXTH COURSE FOR ONE EVENING IN NOVEMBER, the Forum was remade into the White House Situation Room. The imagined scenario: a crisis in 2021 as North Korea fires a test missile far into the Pacific Ocean, with experts convinced this advance in the country’s capabilities was funded by a new Chinese digital currency. The assembled group, which included former Cabinet members and presidential advisers such as Lawrence Summers, Meghan O’Sullivan, and Ash Carter, dove deeply into the substance of the matter. Just as valuable, their firsthand knowledge of how personalities, agendas, and imperfect information play vital roles in decision making. PHOTO BY MIKE DESTEFANO winterwinter 20202020 | harvard kennedy school 1 2 HKSmag_wi20_IFC2-11_F2.indd 2 1/14/20 12:13 PM 2 HKSmag_wi20_IFC2-11_F2.indd 1 1/14/20 12:14 PM EXECUTIVE SUMMARY IN THIS ISSUE WHEN I SPEAK TO PEOPLE ON MY TRAVELS, or to people who are visiting Harvard Kennedy School Associate Dean for from across the United States and around the globe, they often ask me what we are doing to Communications and Public Affairs strengthen democracy and democratic institutions at a time when they appear to be under Thoko Moyo threat. In this issue of the magazine, we offer some answers to that important question. Managing Editor Many of our faculty, students, alumni, and staff are committed to making democracy Nora Delaney count. We have efforts underway to increase civic participation, strengthen democratic Editor institutions, train leaders to be more responsive to their citizens, and improve accuracy in the Robert O’Neill media and the public sphere.
    [Show full text]
  • Hard Work, Clear Vision and a Passion for the Institute Defined President David Deming’S Tenure
    Founded in 1882, The Cleveland Institute of Art is an independent college of art and design committed to leadership and vision in all forms of visual arts education. The Institute makes enduring contributions to art and education and connects to the community through gallery exhibitions, lectures, a continuing education pro- Link gram and The Cleveland Institute of Art Cinematheque. SPRING/summer 2010 NEWS FOR ALUMNI AND FRIENDS OF THE CLEVELAND INSTITUTE OF ART HARD WORK, CLEAR VISION AND A PASSION FOR THE INSTITUTE DEFINED PRESIDENT DAVID DEMING’S TENURE OUTGOING PRESIDENT RETIRES JUNE 30 One of David Deming’s favorite STUDENT YEARS: HARD WORK memories from his student days at AND HAPPY MEMORIES The Cleveland Institute of Art was Deming flourished as a student at The the day he got his first C. Cleveland Institute of Art in the 1960s, The year was 1962; the class was studying sculpture under Bill McVey ’28, first-year Life Drawing taught by Frank John Clague ’56 and Jerry Aidlin ’61; Meyers ’50. “It was the first time he working for John Paul Miller ’40 in the graded us and I got a C+. I don’t think CIA gallery for four years, and soaking I’d ever earned less than an A on any art up new ideas in Franny Taft’s art assignment. The other students all looked history classes. very upset and we compared notes at McVey, in particular, became a valued break time. It turned out I had the best mentor. “I had the privilege of working grade. So I immediately thought, ‘OK, I for Bill on a number of projects out at understand what’s going on; he’s raising his studio and one of the things I recog- the bar.’ I was OK with it.
    [Show full text]
  • UNIVERSITY of OKLAHOMA Office of Research Administration
    UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA Office of Research Administration PROPOSALS NOT FUNDED Proposals Not Funded - June, 2000 Amount 00S0010 Karel Schubert, Botany & Microbiology $353,161.00 National Science Foundation Biochemical and Molecular Regulation of IMP Dehydrogenenase from Glycine max 00S0031 Ronald Halterman, Chemistry & Biochemistry $576,835.00 National Science Foundation Synthesis and Reactivity of Substituted Metallocenes 00S0043 Eric Abraham, Physics & Astronomy $459,465.00 National Science Foundation CAREER: Ultracold Atomic Studies Using Laser Fields 00S0110 Morris Foster, Anthropology $1,191,403.00 Charles Butler, African & Afro-American Studies U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health African American Community Review of Genetic Research 00S0174 Anant Kukreti, Civil Eng. & Environmental Sci. $261,717.00 Md Zaman, Civil Eng. & Environmental Sci. Thurman Scott, Rock Mechanics Institute National Science Foundation Micro and Macro Damage Mechanics of High Performance Mechanics: Experiments and Modeling 00S0198 Tomasz Przebinda, Mathematics $30,133.00 U.S. Department of Defense, National Security Agency Nilpotent Orbits and Moment Maps Associated With Real Reductive Dual Pairs. Proposals Not Funded - June, 2000 Amount 00S0210 Tomasz Przebinda, Mathematics $86,361.00 Murad Ozaydin, Mathematics Victor De Brunner, Electrical & Computer Eng. U.S. Department of Defense, National Security Agency Applications of Group Representation Theory to Discrete Signal Processing 00S0212 Andy Magid, Mathematics $43,947.00 U.S. Department of Defense, National Security Agency Deformations of Representations; and Prounipotent Groups in Differential Galois Theory 00S0213 Charles Mankin, Ok. Geological Survey $491,202.00 U.S. Department of Energy Applications of Petroleum Technologies on Non-allotted Native American and Alaskan Native Corporation Lands 00S0237 Roger Harrison Jr, Chemical Eng.
    [Show full text]
  • The Paper That Blew It Up
    This post was published to Andy May Petrophysicist at 3:01:27 PM 11/13/2020 The Paper that Blew it Up By Andy May “If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with Bull…” W. C. Fields In late February 2015, Willie Soon was accused in a front-page New York Times article by Kert Davies (Gillis & Schwartz, 2015) of failing to disclose conflicts of interest in his academic journal articles. It isn’t mentioned in the Gillis and Schwartz article, but the timing suggests that a Science Bulletin article, “Why Models run hot: results from an irreducibly simple climate model” (Monckton, Soon, Legates, & Briggs, 2015) was Davies’ concern. We will abbreviate this paper as MSLB15. Besides Soon, the other authors of the paper are Christopher Monckton (senior author, Lord Monckton, Viscount of Brenchley), David Legates (Professor of Geography and Climatology, University of Delaware), and William Briggs (Mathematician and statistician, former professor of statistics at Cornell Medical School). In the January 2015 article, the authors “declare that they have no conflict of interest.” MSLB15 was instantly popular and devastating to the climate alarmist cause and to the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (IPCC, 2013). The IPCC is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a research organization set up by the United Nations in 1988. MSLB15 was published online January 8, 2015 and downloaded 22,000 times in less than two months, an outstanding number of downloads. The New York Times article appeared less than two months after MSLB15 hit the internet, it was a “fake news hit job.” The paper caused a stir because it explained that the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report or “AR5” reduced its near-term warming projections substantially, but left its long-term, higher, projections alone.
    [Show full text]
  • Avoiding Carbon Myopia: Three Considerations for Policy Makers Concerning Manmade Carbon Dioxide
    Avoiding Carbon Myopia: Three Considerations for Policy Makers Concerning Manmade Carbon Dioxide Willie Soon* and David R. Legates** TOWARDS A GLOBAL CARBON REGULATORY TRADING SCHEME In December 2009, lawmakers and representatives from around the world, along with scientists, numerous journalists, and various celebrities flew to Copenhagen, Denmark. For the most part, their goal was to promote a regulatory scheme aimed at controlling human carbon emissions by declaring the element a tradable commodity and establishing laws and regulations to govern the trade. The proposed regulations were premised on the flawed notion, articulated by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC),1 that increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations will change climate dramatically and thereby cause major ecological and economic damage. While many scientists, including us, have observed some changes in climate, the hypothesized dangerous consequences of rising atmospheric CO2 are too speculative for responsible regulatory policy. In analyzing climate policy, decision makers should be cognizant of three key considerations regarding the impact of projected rises in atmospheric CO2: (1) policy choices likely will have no measurable effect on the occurrence of severe weather; (2) positive effects on ecosystems and biodiversity are likely and should be weighed against the negatives; and (3) carbon trading schemes (such as the one touted in Copenhagen) are unlikely to lead to a reduction in atmospheric CO2. * Dr. Soon is an astrophysicist at the Solar, Stellar and Planetary Sciences Division of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. Dr. Soon has written and lectured extensively on issues related to the sun and other stars and climate.
    [Show full text]
  • Speakers at the 2009 International Conference on Climate Change
    12/10/2015 The Heartland Institute - Confirmed Speakers at the 2009 International Conference on Climate Change speakers last updated: March 5, 2009 The complete program for the 2009 International Conference on Climate Change, including cosponsor information and brief biographies of all speakers, can be downloaded in Adobe's PDF format here. More than 70 of the world’s elite scientists, economists and others specializing in climate issues will confront the subject of global warming at the second annual International Conference on Climate Change March 8­10, 2009 in New York City. They will call attention to new research that contradicts claims that Earth’s moderate warming during the twentieth century primarily was man­made and has reached crisis proportions. Headliners among the 70­plus presenters will be: American astronaut Dr. Jack Schmitt—the last living man to walk on the moon. William Gray, Colorado State University, leading researcher into tropical weather patterns. Richard Lindzen, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, one of the world’s leading experts in dynamic meteorology, especially planetary waves. Stephen McIntyre, primary author of Climate Audit, a blog devoted to the analysis and discussion of climate data. He is a devastating critic of the temperature record of the past 1,000 years, particularly the work of Michael E. Mann, creator of the infamous “hockey stick” graph. That graph­­thoroughly discredited in scientific circles­­supposedly proved that mankind is responsible for a sharp increase in earth temperatures. Arthur Robinson, curator of a global warming petition signed by more than 32,000 American scientists, including more than 10,000 with doctorate degrees, rejecting the alarmist assertion that global warming has put the Earth in crisis and is caused primarily by mankind.
    [Show full text]
  • Random Assignment of MBA Peers And
    Friends with (Wage) Benefits: Random Assignment of MBA Peers and Reallocation to the Financial Industry Isaac Hacamo and Kristoph Kleiner∗ Indiana University, Kelley School of Business April 29th, 2016 Abstract We study one channel that links peer effects to lifetime earnings: workers can more easily trans- fer industries with peer support, resulting in long-term wage benefits even after the interaction de- clines. By incorporating a random assignment of MBA students into small-sized teams matched with employee-employer linked data, we first document that individuals in the same team are more likely to work in the same industry after graduation; yet the results are exclusively driven by the financial sector. We estimate that having a peer in the financial industry increases the chance a low-wage- industry worker can transfer to the financial industry by 5%. The results are strongest when (i) a worker intends to enter the industry after MBA graduation and (ii) during high industry growth. Interestingly, peer effects are inexistent during recession times. At a lower-bound, having a peer in the financial industry increases five-year compensation by $8,192 for all students and $40,964 for intended finance majors. Overall, professional networking plays a valuable role in the allocation of MBA graduates to the financial sector, and more broadly explains how past peer networks affect lifetime earnings. ∗Department of Finance, Indiana University, 1309 East 10th Street, Bloomington, IN 47405. Email: [email protected]. We thank Nandini Gupta for helpful comments. 1 1 Introduction Economists have long been interested the determinants of life time earnings, especially in the char- acteristics of high-wage workers [Abowd et al., 1999].
    [Show full text]