The National Academies Press (NAP) has published a new 299 page book on climate: Climate Stabilization Targets: Emissions, Concentrations, and Impacts over Decades to Millennia (free download page here).
It clearly is an alarmist book, written by the usual “suspects” like Susan Solomon, Raymond Pierrehumbert etc. A lot of money must have been poured in this compilation: the graphics are first class, the layout very professional. I must also confess that the writing style is easy to read, and as a whole reading the report is not a waste of time.
What is regrettable, is that if future evolutions are shown, the most negatives are systematically stretched, and possible positive consequences are practically passed over as non existent.
I just made a quick glance over the book, read the synopsis and summary carefully (43 pages, ) and will give some first impressions here, starting with the end of the report.
1. The references.
The reference – list at the end of the book is extremely large (34 pages, probably over 500 citations) and I doubt that the contributors have read everything. What is the most interesting in this list is:
a. the committee members cite themselves without restrain (Hayhoe, Matthews and Pierrehumbert each have 4 citations)
b. There is not one single reference to a publication by a climate realist. You will not find any of these authors: Akasofu, Carter, Christy, Courtillot, Dyson, Lindzen, Michaels, Pallé, Pielke, Reiter, Scafetta, Singer, Soon, Spencer, Shaviv. It is as if these scientists had never published anything touching climate science!
How can this consensus report wave the banner of objective science! This is exactly the unscientific, politicized behaviour that again and again has been condemned following Climategate. Apparently no lessons have been learnt.
2. The metrics used
To quantify climate change, the report uses two metrics:
– global temperature change
– cumulative anthropogenic carbon emissions
Using the first metric is problematic, as many, many examples have shown that global temperature and temperature changes are difficult to quantify correctly (think of the urban heat island effect, of quality problems with meteorological stations etc.). Roger Pielke Sr. constantly stresses the importance of the OHC (ocean heat content) as a much more reliable metric to quantify global warming. OHC is not even mentioned in the summary.
CO2 emissions seem to be the single cause of warming (“Emissions of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels have ushered in a new epoch where human activities will largely determine the evolution of Earth’s climate”), natural causes are non existent in the summary; in a typical IPCC fashion it is suggested that without human emissions, global climate would remain stable in an idyllic state.
Let me close this first contribution with a telling sentence given in the acknowledgments section. Ten individuals were reviewers of the report but “…they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recommendations nor did they see the final draft of the report…”
Was the review process just an alibi?