A World Meteorological Organization insider’s view of the IPCC report.
Guest essay by Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
Formerly Chief Technical Advisor – WMO/UN
[A note to readers: English is not Dr. Reddy’s primary language. I have made some edits to his original manuscript for clarity, but some readers may find the writing style a bit less fluid than they are used to. – Anthony]
It is argued by the IPCC that models that predict future temperature scenarios are based on physical principles but at the same time accepting the fact that there are several other localized or globalized factors contributing to it. Such factors are rarely accounted for in their models. Thus, there are no clear cut physical principles concerning global warming. It is basically statistical inferences that vary with data and period. The IPCC uses the number of people accepting the predictions to validate it. In science, unless they are verified by ground realities, they are generally termed as “hypothetical”, which has no meaning in science. The IPCC is sensationalizing the impacts based on such hypothetical predictions on several processes, including agriculture.
The IPCC, UN, Media, agencies like World Bank, Oxfam, CGIAR, etc. are using Climate Change as synonymous to Global Warming. This is not so; Global Warming is one component of Climate Change in which natural variations play vital role with extremes forming a part. The World Meteorological Organization of United Nations (WMO/UN) published a manual on “Climate Change” as far back as 1966. It dealt with methods to separate man-induced variations from natural variations. Natural variations are beyond human control, only we have to adapt to them. On the contrary, the impact of global warming must present a trend, increasing or decreasing to ascertain its impacts. The IPCC and UN bodies are talking about individual events that are part of natural variations as associated with increased global temperatures.
These are highlighted by the media with misleading headlines. By attributing the impacts associated with normal climate extremes within the limits of Climate Normals and rhythms present in meteorological parameters to global warming is dangerous.
Now the IPCC itself has agreed that 100% of the raise in global temperature is not associated with the raise in Anthropogenic Greenhouse gases and agreed that around 10% is contributed by urban-heat-island effects – this contributes to rise in night time temperature and lower layers of troposphere temperature. These are localized effects.
Same is the case with changes in land use and land cover, known as Ecological changes. The majority of meteorological stations are in urban areas and thus urban-heat-island effect is going to be added to global warming component and on the contrary meteorological stations are sparsely located in rural areas that generate cold-island-effect due to increased activity of irrigated agriculture and spread of irrigation reservoirs is not going in to global warming component – however, this may create a trend in precipitation at local and regional scales like that seen in AP precipitation.
In all around 50% of raise shown under global warming is influencing the local and regional aspects but not national and global aspects like sea level raise, ice melt, etc. Southern hemisphere with less number of urban areas, with less ecological changes and with more area under ocean waters showed lower temperature raise over the average pattern. In the case of Northern Hemisphere with more urban areas, more ecological changes and with less area under ocean waters showed higher temperature rise over the average pattern.
It is a fact that in the last 17 years there has been no significant change in temperature, including ocean temperatures; ice melt in Arctic and Antarctic zones are within the standard deviation around the mean; no change in precipitation – monsoons, etc. In association with local conditions and natural disasters the sea levels show rises in some places, falls in some places, and no change in the majority of places.
Ice is confined to outside the South Polar Ring and inside the North Polar Ring. That means South Polar ice melt is the true reflection of global warming impact on ice melt. At present it is not showing any melt in the Southern Polar zones. The Southern Polar zones are on the contrary building ice. North Polar zones are losing the ice but this is within the long-term standard deviation around the mean – within the accepted statistical terms. In the North Polar zone, impacts other than climate are also contributing to ice melt.
Alaska shows a large fall in sea level. Along the USA coastlines, a large part showed a 0 to 1.0 feet fall, this may be associated with human activity along the coastal zones, tidal erosion, etc. [San Francisco airport does not show any sea level rise]. Also, error variations are far higher than the estimated rise, which is not statistically significant. In addition, all these localized natural variations play a vital role – even the global temperature showed a 60-year cycle – sine curve. Cyclonic activities including Hurricanes and Typhoons – and precipitation, all present cyclic variations. With the growing population of the planet, and building more structures in the path of cyclonic storms – that includes Hurricanes & Typhoons – and Tornadoes, and thus this makes ordinary storms more damaging.
Food production, food security & nutrition security are not affected by global warming. Floods and droughts are part of rhythms in precipitation, however, their impacts are modified by agriculture technology and ecological changes. Food includes not only agricultural products but also include several others such as Dairy products, Poultry products, Sea & Water products [fish & prawns], Animal products [meat], etc.
These are affected by agriculture technology and pollution components and not by global warming as crops adapt to temperature regimes which is evident from extremes in temperature given under climate normal data. These, along with ecological changes are the major contributors of destruction of biodiversity – on land, in water including oceans. Pollution, more particularly from new agriculture technology, is the major source of health hazards globally and not associated with Global Warming. Global Warming is in fact a brain-child to counter the Environmental Movement against pollution, more particularly agriculture pollution, initiated in late 60s and early 70s.
In the agricultural perspective, these matter: stop wastage of food; plan better utilization of water resources; shift from chemical inputs to organic inputs technology that help reducing pollution and public health aspects; do not forget that the losses due to intense weather systems increase with the population growth. Globally, cold waves are affecting many more vulnerable people than heat waves. Wild fires have nothing to do with global warming. Dry weather helps spread of fire over wet weather, which is nothing to do with global warming.
==============================================================
Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
http://library.wmo.int/opac/index.php?lvl=author_see&id=5178
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Kind of a nice essay. I think it needs a paragraph or two defined as a conclusion, otherwise it just hangs. Of interest is why the WMO pushes a climate change agenda when its technical advisors are presumably providing them with this kind of feedback.
Perhaps the WMO is now anticipating the kind of climate change planet Earth has experienced as frequently as global warming: global cooling.
The world is waking up from a bad dream. Nothing, bad or good, is caused by only one thing. Only in the simplest of minds are problems so easily solved. A refreshing look into reality.
Global warming and climate change are widely intermingled. This is more common in backward countries where performance to counter the menace of climate change is projected as efforts to control global warming. Writer has raised valid points in this post and they need to be more publicized.
Ahhhh… some intelligent honesty. So rare. Especially like the many points all laid out in one plain English essay. Only complaint I could find is the missing of a clear definition of “AP precipitation”? Associated Press? 😉
Thank you, Dr. Jeevananda Reddy!
This is an interesting comment:
If Dr. Reddy is reding this, could he amplify this some more?
In spite of the language style, the opening paragraph shows a clarity of thought and presentation which I seldom see in AGW commentators. I have noted it for future arguments.
Thanks, Dr Reddy.
Can I suggest that when addressing the public scientists should use of terms like “urban heat pollution influencing the data”. “Urban heat island” is a good term for science, but the public just switch off because it sounds like jargon, and jargon sounds like someone is about to pull the wool over your eyes. “light pollution” has been widely accepted and understood by the public as the reason why we cannot see the stars in cities at night, “urban heat pollution” is the reason we cannot read the heat data in cities and expresses what the the public understand. It also has strong visual metaphor images that stick in the mind better than the too heavy scientific term UHI.
WUWT is a US Climate Skepti site so many would have heard of The Day After Tommorrow which was a glossy Hollywood TV Movie with Jason Robards and Steve Guttenberg about a nuclear Attack on the US from the mid 1980s Thatcher Regan cold war era.
In the UK we had a similar nuclear war disaster movie called Threads which aired a year after Day After Tomorrow one of the themes in Threads was the idea by Carl Sagan of a Nuclear winter.So much dust and smoke thrown into the atmosphere it blots out the sun.
Threads is the Debbie does Dallas / Deepthroat of Disaster porn .
Threads is grim shocking and very disturbing however if you can stomach the whole film it is actually very engaging and entertaining.The morning after it was broadcast back in 1984 a BBC news crew went to the city of Sheffield where it was set to get local public reaction and were shocked at how many locals said they enjoyed it.Threads is an epic but tragic love story focusing on ordinary people in a recognizable back then a future war time setting its basically Gone With Wind with Radiation Sickness.Be warned if you click on the link above.
Fortunately as the Cold War ended the political and media elite have cynically switched their attention onto Environmentalism to ensure their prestige.Denzil Washington said to Gene Hackman in .Crimson tide famously said “war is just the continuation of politics by another means”.That Equally applies to the cold war, the war on terror and the war on climate change.
Unfortunately the idea of a Nuclear Winter as with all Environmentalism exaggerate the impact of man and underestimate the vastness and robustness of the planet.
After Desert Storm retreating Iraqi forces set the Kuwati oil wells on fire also the huge Australian bush fires of 2007 proved Nuclear Winter theory does not stand up to scrutiny.The vast amounts of pollution many millions of tonnes of smoke cleared out of the Atmosphere in less than a few days.
As i have i posted on Bishophill if you can disprove the wild over hyped alarmist theories from the past maybe you can disprove the wild over hyped alarmist theories from the present
“even the global temperature showed a 60-year cycle – sine curve”.
I think that this is probably the most ignored aspect of current climate science. It is a well observed phenomena across a wide range of climate data. But it is rarely mentioned or considered as a factor to be accounted for in magnitude, phase or period in most data analysis done on that data. Even to ‘prove’ its absence in a data set.
The Earth is still warming. Its just hiding in the deep oceans.
That means that, while it is not warming at the surface where 7 billion of us live, and 10 million other species live, …
… the Giant Squid, some ancient fishes, and the Sperm Whale will notice in 100 years, that ocean temperatures 1000 metres down, have risen to 1.9C from the 1.7C they were 100 years earlier.
The IPCC agenda isn’t about controlling climate. It is about finding an excuse to control the use of fossil fuels. The distrbution of the wealth of nations is the goal.
jim southlondon says:
December 8, 2013 at 3:57 am
“Unfortunately the idea of a Nuclear Winter as with all Environmentalism exaggerate the impact of man and underestimate the vastness and robustness of the planet.
After Desert Storm retreating Iraqi forces set the Kuwati oil wells on fire also the huge Australian bush fires of 2007 proved Nuclear Winter theory does not stand up to scrutiny.The vast amounts of pollution many millions of tonnes of smoke cleared out of the Atmosphere in less than a few days.”
Just like the CO2AGW psychos today, Carl Sagan used a flimsy unrealistic computer model to come up with his best selling nuclear winter brand.
http://www.textfiles.com/survival/nkwrmelt.txt
Sagan was part of the TTAPS team himself that made a ridiculously wrong, stupid and idiotic simulation of the Earth.
“In 1982, the so-called TTAPS team (Richard P. Turco, Owen Toon, Thomas P. Ackerman, James B. Pollack and Carl Sagan) undertook a computational modeling study ”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_winter
Allegedly a tiny 100 Megatonnes of TNT equivalent would have sufficed to shockfrost the globe.
As a kid I was duely impressed.
So, they’ve been lying to us for many decades now. Never trust a government scientist especially when he makes a TV career.
Julian, Urban Heat Island is readily understandable by all. To call heat “pollution” is to open up another Pandora’s box of eco-regulation.
fhhaynie, the UN certainly wants control of the wealth and energy of the planet, but little will be redistributed in any direction other than upwards, to the bank accounts of the UN.
Robert,
I tend to agree, EU would like to have more of the wealth of oil and coal rich nations. Burning food and trees isn’t the way to help energy poor developing countries. An internation tax will only favor those that are in control. Follow the money.
“Global warming is in fact the brainchild to counter (replace?) The enviromental movement
……….
A massive problem rarely talked about is damage done by non indigionous species, rabbits in Australia, biggest cause of species loss . In South Africa non indiginous plants are causing problems with water supplies, drying up streams etc.
What economic impact do invasive species have on California?
It has been estimated that in California alone, invasive pests cost this state at least $3 billion a year! A recent analysis by the California Invasive Plant Council (Spring 2009) indicates that weeds alone cost California at least $82 million per year. Some estimates suggest that invasive species cost the USA $138 billion per year, and that 42% of endangered US species have reached this status because of invasive species. Globally, 80% of endangered species are threatened primarily by invasive species, only habitat destruction causes greater endangerment of native species.
Julian in Wales says:
December 8, 2013 at 3:21 am
“… “light pollution” has been widely accepted and understood by the public as the reason why we cannot see the stars in cities at night, “urban heat pollution” is the reason we cannot read the heat data in cities and …”
The word “pollution” invites unnecessary misuse, remember the absurd carbon-is-pollution meme? It’s also misleading as lot of the urban heat energy is solar in origin, just the way it’s being absorbed and reflected then stored and released varies with respect to an undeveloped terrestrial surface. So still need to distinguish it from heat released by humans. So now you have two categories.
jim southlondon says:
December 8, 2013 at 3:57 am
You’re thinking of “The Day After”. YouTube has the attack “money shot” which is a mix of real and fanciful footage, see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2H1E02iMHg
“The Day after Tomorrow” is a cheesy disaster film with all sorts of improbable and impossible scenes. Its science advisor was Michael Molitor PhD. My comments about the movie are within http://wermenh.com/2016.html – 2016: The [Next] Year without a Summer, Notes on Abrupt Climate change. Hey, we’ll find out in a few years.
Looks like I need to find a new Michael Molitor link. Suggestions welcome.
Great essay. Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy points out three times that the climate variations are within statistical norms. According to whom? Have the data been reviewed by a statistician? I’d like to know. The misuse of statistics in the climate debate have led to piles of bogus information. Call me a skeptic.
Unfortunately, Dr. Reddy had to go “organic.” Surely it’s past time for us to recognize that the ‘Big O’ belief system has significant similarities to, and union with, the alarmist belief system. Maybe that’s just my perspective as an agriculturalist, but surely having a mature conversation about our food supply is just as important as having a mature converstation about our energy supply.
Still, I appreciated the rest of Dr. Reddy’s perspective and this post. Looking for complete agreement isn’t wise. After all, if you’re with a group of people you agree with 100%, you’re probably in a cult.
Put an Executive Summary on this and send it to all members of Congress (cc IPCC I suppose). Is this paper current?
seth says:
December 8, 2013 at 6:45 am
Great essay. Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy points out three times that the climate variations are within statistical norms. According to whom? Have the data been reviewed by a statistician? I’d like to know. The misuse of statistics in the climate debate have led to piles of bogus information. Call me a skeptic.
That’s funny, I’ve been through it several times, and didn’t see that. Are you a concern troll, by any chance?
Robert of Ottawa says:
December 8, 2013 at 5:46 am
“Julian, Urban Heat Island is readily understandable by all. To call heat “pollution” is to open up another Pandora’s box of eco-regulation.”
Thus speaks a scientist: most of my friends talk about weird weather and know nothing of UHI. This is the problem, we try to speak in language that is precise and unemotional and good for debate. Our opposition do not want debate, they merely want propaganda through the media to push through their messages to the non science majority, they live on peddling their junk through the media and media savvy politicians. Most people, in these days of celeb culture, think entirely in emotional terms. Their language is dumbed down. This goes against the grain for your mind which is trained to be precise and debate ideas to reach conclusions. If you want to reach down into the culture which is not steeped in your non-emotional language and influence their thought patterns you have to communicate in a language which they are willing to accept.
We have won the science debate, but the hacks do not pick up on our message because they also are talking in emotional terms about AGW. To get the hacks you have to start dumbed down and then gradually introduce terms like UHI after you have got their attention.
This may sound cynical, but I do believe in the goodness of people. We sometimes have to reach out and offer a hand up. I hate the dumbed down culture, but I really think ignoring those who are immersed in modern culture is a weakness that undermines our winning arguments.