IPCC Crushes Scientific Objectivity, 91-0.
By Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
Unquestionably, the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was formed to build the scientific case for humanity being the primary cause of global warming. Such a goal is fundamentally unscientific, as it is hostile to alternative hypotheses for the causes of climate change.
The most glaring example of this bias has been the lack of interest on the IPCC’s part in figuring out to what extent climate change is simply the result of natural, internal cycles in the climate system. In Chapter 9 of the latest (4th) IPCC report, entitled “Understanding and Attributing Climate Change”, you would think the issue of external versus internal forcing would be thoroughly addressed. But you would be wrong.
The IPCC is totally obsessed with external forcing, that is, energy imbalances imposed upon the climate system that are NOT the result of the natural, internal workings of the system. For instance, a search through Chapter 9 for the phrase “external forcing” yields a total of 91 uses of that term. A search for the phrase “internal forcing” yields…(wait for it)…zero uses. Can we really believe that the IPCC has ruled out natural sources of global warming when such a glaring blind spot exists?
Admittedly, we really do not understand internal sources of climate change. Weather AND climate involves chaotic processes, most of which we may never understand, let alone predict. While chaos in weather is exhibited on time scales of days to weeks, chaotic changes in the ocean circulation could have time scales as long as hundreds of years, and we know that cloud formation – providing the Earth’s natural sun shade – is strongly influenced by the ocean.
Thus, small changes in ocean circulation can lead to small changes in the Earth’s albedo (how much sunlight is reflected back to space), which in turn can lead to global warming or cooling. The IPCC’s view (which is never explicitly stated) that such changes in the climate system do not occur is little more than faith on their part.
The IPCC’s pundits like to claim that the published evidence for humanity causing warming greatly outweighs any published evidence against it. This appeal to majority opinion on their part is pretty selective, though. They had no trouble discarding hundreds of research papers supporting evidence for the Medieval Warm Period or the Little Ice Age when they so uncritically embraced the infamous “Hockey Stick” reconstructions of past temperature change.
Despite a wide variety of previous temperature proxies gathered from around the world (see figure below) that so clearly showed that centuries with global warming and cooling are the rule, not the exception, the Hockey Stick was mostly based upon some cherry-picked tree rings combined with the assumption that significant warming is a uniquely modern phenomenon.
As such, they rejected the prevailing “scientific consensus” in favor of a minority view that supported their desired outcome. I suspect that they do not even recognize their own hypocrisy.
As I have discussed before, the IPCC’s neglect of natural variability in the climate system ends up leading to circular reasoning on their part. They ignore the effect of natural cloud variations when trying to diagnose feedback, which then leads to overestimates of climate sensitivity. This, in turn, causes them to conclude that increasing carbon dioxide concentrations alone are sufficient to explain global warming, and so no natural forcings of climate change need be found.
But all they have done is reasoned themselves in a circle. By ignoring natural variability, they can end up claiming that natural variability does not exist. Admittedly, their position is internally consistent. But then, so is all circular reasoning.
Our re-submitted paper to the Journal of Geophysical Research entitled “On the Diagnosis of Radiative Feedback in the Presence of Unknown Radiative Forcing” will hopefully lead to a little more diversity being permitted in the global warming debate.
I don’t think the IPCC scientists are as opposed to this as are their self-appointed spokespersons, like Al Gore and numerous environmental writers in the media who get to over-simplify the climate issue without ever being corrected by the IPCC. Natural climate change continues to be the 800 lb gorilla in the room, and I suspect that some within the IPCC are slowly becoming aware of its existence.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Unlike the BBC’s propagandists, Dr Spencer is a highly respected peer reviewed author. He has just submitted yet another paper for review. Yet you presume to pass judgement on his reputation, based on the scientifically illiterate BBC.
If you wish to rely on the agenda driven BBC, that is a foolish decision, but that is your personal decision. There is nothing scientific about the BBC’s scribblers, who simply repeat Al Gore’s easily debunked claims. If parroting the BBC is all you’ve got, you have nothing of value to contribute.
The IPCC report itself isn’t bad, it’s the politics that follow. For example here are some relevant quotes from IPCC fourth assessment report section 8.6.3, half the models show positive feedbacks and half negative, basically they have no clue:
“Modelling assumptions controlling the cloud water phase (liquid, ice or mixed) are known to be critical for the prediction of climate sensitivity. However, the evaluation of these assumptions is just beginning”
“Although the errors in the simulation of the different cloud types may eventually compensate and lead to a prediction of the mean CRF in agreement with observations, they cast doubts on the reliability of the model cloud feedbacks”- We may luck out and be right, let’d keep our fingers crossed!!!!!!
“Boundary-layer clouds have a strong impact on the net radiation budget and cover a large fraction of the global ocean… understanding of the physical processes that control the response of boundary-layer clouds and their radiative properties to a change in climate remains very limited.”
The natural climate variability provided by just a few ocean cycles, the ENSO, the AMO and the southern Atlantic can provide as much as +/- 0.7C natural variability to the climate.
Most of the time, the cycles are not synch’ed up with each other so you don’t reach the extremes that are possible. But they were mostly synch’ed up in the mid-1910s (low phase), early 1940s (high phase), mid-1970s (low phase) and 1998 (high phase).
The IPCC effectively ignores the variability that occured up to mid-1970s and then assigns the rise since then to CO2/GHGs. That gives them an artificial assurance that temperatures are responding to GHGs they way they predicted (even then, the rise is still smaller than predicted).
You can see how ignoring natural variability or internal processes is a large mistake and can lead one to a wrong (not supported by the data) conclusion.
There are many more climate papers looking at this natural variability now (probably provoked by the temperature drop provided by the 2007-08 La Nina which showed that the models were far off-track now).
Thank you Dr Spencer for your clear and understandable research.
Isn’t the IPCC supposed to collect real science and not give opinions? The IPCC are obviously obsessed with the right outcome, you would be too if you stood to try and get trillions on the guilt trip.
Have you seen what ransom they want to give you back your sanity? It’s the biggest Scam WOW!!! ever.
Smokey, when will you learn that I do not care who is the messenger, only about the message?
When will you learn that I do not take anything on the basis of mere authority?
When will you understand that I think for myself – if you even know what it means?
If Spencer were God it wouldn’t make any difference to me!
When will you understand the scientific way of reasoning – that is: the unauthoritative way of reasoning?
I am in total agreement with this post higher up in this thread, whose substance you can check for yourself: Do it!
—
BCC (22:25:37) :
So now we’re playing the terminology cherry pick game.
Page 667 of the chapter in question: “Climate change may be due to internal processes and/or external forcings … A key objective of this chapter is to understand climate changes that result from anthropogenic and natural external forcings, and how they may be distinguished from changes and variability that result from internal climate system processes. ”
If you search for “internal processes” (a more generic term than “internal forcing”), “natural climate processes”, etc., you’ll find that, in fact, the IPCC does not pretend that these processes don’t exist.
Spencer uses the terms “natural, internal workings” to contrast against external forcing. Substitute “processes” for “workings” and you’ll find discussion of that in the IPCC chapter.
The IPCC is “totally obsessed’ with external forcing because they find evidence for it.
I know Spencer has a paper in the works on this topic; let’s see it.
There are 83 mentions of the term, “internal variability.”
GScholar does throw up nearly 800 papers that mention, or have in the title, “Internal forcing,” it seems this term is used in the literature, so it’s interesting the IPCC chooses not to use it. I guess this implies that the forcing is one-way, i.e. there’s natural variability, but the only forcing going on is human.
The evidence didn’t justify the IPCC FAR statement at the time they made it. We knew that cloud and surface albedo errors in the models were far larger than the energy imbalance being attributed to AGW. Work published since then only makes it more clear that the models can only be said to “match” the recent warming in a way that the climate itself does not use. They fail to reproduce the amplitude of the observed response to the solar cycle, reproduce less than one half to one third of the increase in precipitation observed with the recent warming, fail to reproduce the Arctic melting and couldn’t have used the significantly larger attribution to black carbon that has only recently been published. The IPCC authors relied upon model results that they KNEW had far larger errors and uncertainties than the phenomenon at issue and were incorrect in the way that they “matched” the climate. The linear reasoning they used in the summing of forcings that couple to different components of the climate system with different vertical and geographical distributions is not valid in a nonlinear dynamic system. Given the lack of credible evidence for any continuing problem, it is time to wait for the actual science to develop.
thanks interesting article
It is odd that Dr. Spencer would take up what is most likely a question of semantics. For the lay person there is no distinction between internal or external forcings or processes or workings. Most phenomena (excepting volcanic) involved in climate can reasonably be described as external – as they affect the external surfaces and atmosphere of the Earth and not its mantle or core or areas well below Earth’s surface.
Where Dr. Spencer makes a strong case is pointing out that natural variation is markedly absent from IPCC and alarmist lingo. They need to blame mankind for the bogeyman they’ve invented to engineer their social programs. But human beings on planet Earth are no more “external” to the environment than elephants or Leeuwenhoek’s wee beasties.
Inventions in language like “carbon footprint” “climate change” and “GHGs” are the work of publicist programmers who’ve been mistakenly elevated to the role of educators.
RR Kampen (06:11:31) :
“Smokey, when will you learn that I do not care who is the messenger, only about the message?”
But it was you who cited the BBC as your authority.
Despite your reliance on the scientifically illiterate fiction writers at the BBC, Dr Spencer remains a recognized climate authority. You clearly don’t like it because you don’t want to accept what Dr Spencer says. So just carry on with your true belief in what the BBC tells you, if that’s what makes you happy.
RayCookPE1978, you present something very close to what NOAA uses to describe PDO SST changes. They do a subtraction to show one month change in SST, which has predictive value. This makes perfect sense in terms of describing short term oscillation direction. There is no statistical reason why this same method could not be used to show oscillation direction on a 10, 15, or even 20 year period of time. The one month change in SST leads to possible predictions.
In the SST case, which shows a one month cooling, either El Nino is weakening, or we are on the upwelling trailing edge of an Eastern propagating Kelvin wave, which is always cooler than the downwelling leading edge of a Kelvin wave along the surface of the equatorial Pacific Ocean. When Easterly trade winds are calm, as they are now, and Westerlies become more dominant, these Kelvin waves travel West to East and oscillate SST’s between warm and cool. Several consecutive waves occur in a somewhat timed pattern during El Nino.
I would agree that we are dealing with semantics, much like we do over cycles versus oscillations, and what exactly “storing heat” means or even if the term is legit. That series of heat-related posts regarding terminology and semantics by various members of the audience here drove me nuts. It so reminded me of my kids in the back seat saying, “did not”, “did too”, till I wanted to smack ’em upside the head. So for those of you still desiring to argue with Dr. Spencer over single words, I will repeat what my cranky teenage daughter once said to me, “Get to the dang point!”
crosspatch (23:51:41) :
What you say there is very true. No committee or organisation set up to solve a problem has ever done so. It would be employment suicide for them to actually find solutions.
Even better when the problem doesn’t even exist, they will never be able to find the solution. 😉
DaveE.
Re: Smokey (06:47:31) :
RR Kampen (06:11:31) :
“Smokey, when will you learn that I do not care who is the messenger, only about the message?”
But it was you who cited the BBC as your authority.
No, I did not. In fact I cited no authority. Check my post a couple up, it reads:
RR Kampen (05:45:30) :
Gene Nemetz (22:48:59) :
BCC (22:25:37) :
BCC,
I get the impression from people like you that you just want to tear down the reputation of people like Roy Spencer. Or, at the very least create doubts about them.
I think BCC just showed Spencer has tore down his reputation once again. Don’t shoot the messenger.
That ‘BCC’ was no typo (for a change 🙂 ).
“Bulldust (00:18:58) :
RACookPE1978 (23:25:37) :
1+ 1 + 1 = 5
As an engineer I have known for a long time that 1 + 1+ 1 = 5, for extremely large values of 1.
Maybe the IPCC have been dealing with engineers too much >.>”
Maybe the IPCC uses imperial measurements, but their data is metric, or the other way around (And I know what that is like with engineering drawings and machines – Oh how I loved CNC when it arrived). Hang on, this sounds familiar. The ISS had similar issues, inaccurate data in design drawings. Inaccurate data in GCM’s too? Seems to be a trend here.
Richard Hill (22:48:42) :
I don’t see the IPCC making any effort to distance themselves from people like Al Gore. Do you?
If I did I could believe you.
Smokey,
As a point of clarification, RR Kampin is joining an early poster BCC in arm waving about a small part of Dr. Spencers post, otherwise ignoring its main points, most likely because they can’t refute them.
But the post is from BCC not THE BBC
If the UN/ IPCC really is concerned about natural variations then why isn’t the world aware of it? There may be a statement in the report that says they are but publicly they don’t say that.
It is the Inter–GOVERNMENTAL Panel on Climate Change. Politicians don’t do most of what they say. Only what they actually do is what defines who they are.
anna v (04:08:13) :
“anthropogenic” 317
Clearly Mr. Spencer is right. There is heavy handedness in focusing on man and not nature.
anna v (04:13:43) :
So the mention is 1 to 10 between presumed guilty and presumed innocent :).
Nice way to put it anna. 🙂
Roy Spencer is a great scientist when he looks at the atmosphere, but I question his rationale when he looks at the IPCC. He concluded:
“I don’t think the IPCC scientists are as opposed to this as are their self-appointed spokespersons, like Al Gore and numerous environmental writers in the media who get to over-simplify the climate issue without ever being corrected by the IPCC. Natural climate change continues to be the 800 lb gorilla in the room, and I suspect that some within the IPCC are slowly becoming aware of its existence.”
Natural variability has always existed and has not just been ignored by the IPCC, but has been systematically attacked. It is blatantly obvious to anyone with even a modest understanding of climate history that the IPCC has purposely engineered a massive scientific fraud. It is a lie…intentional and huge. This is not a new revelation. As Roy pointed out, the prevailing and well supported view of natural climate variability in previous centuries was irrationally discarded by the IPCC in favor of a ridiculous, unsupported paper describing the ‘hockey stick’. Cooperating scientists may claim that they were unaware, but no one with a college degree could legitimately be that ignorant. They have gone along for political and financial reasons and have sacrificed science and the truth in the process. One can not do that and then claim to be ‘well-intentioned’.
Roy Spencer is too nice of a guy. What physical evidence exists that the IPCC is prepared to look at the issue of climate change as an unbiased organization? None that I see! I guess some individuals are jumping ship as the evidence against the IPCC conclusions becomes so overwhelming that even Joe Six Pack is starting to see through the scam, but the official pronouncements from the IPCC show no signs of conceding to the obvious.
Outside of the IPCC, science is progressing, and Roy Spencer will no doubt earn his place as a leader in atmospheric and climate research through his well reasoned efforts, but his assessment of his fellow man appears to be poorly reasoned and faith-based. The evidence indicates that large bodies of scientists are just as likely to be corrupted as any other group of humans. And that is sad.
Sorry, folks, but the only external “forcings” are the sun and various other radiators (stars, solar radiation reflecting off of other planets, etc). CO2 is not an external forcing, it’s a modification of an existing feedback loop.
I really wish climatologists would take some controls courses. It’d save a lot of gibberish.
But to the point of this comment, I completely agree that the only external forcing, which comes in the form of inbound radiation, is something we have evidence for.
tallbloke (04:35:29) :
Mann is debunked, Briffa is debunked. What’s left?
Apparently a paragraph in the IPCC report, that no one on the alarmists side emphasizes publicly, that says the IPCC is concerned about natural variability is what’s left. And we’re supposed to ignore all the emphasis on mankind (more exactly, Western mankind), and lack of emphasis on the science, and just believe that all is well with the IPCC. 😉
Dr. Spencer is definitely on my short list of those that I like to call “The Loyal Opposition.” Those that are skeptical (but not denialist) and also publish what they preach.
I look forward to his paper that shows how natural mechanisms such as clouds or ocean circulation variability can explain:
1) Measured increases in the downward flux of LW radiation
2) Measure decreases in the top of atmosphere flux of outgoing LW radiation
3) Tropospheric warming coupled with stratospheric cooling (and no, ozone does not explain that)
4) Warmer overnight temps
5) Polar amplification of temperature increase
6) How the huge increases in CO2 and other GHGs since the 1970s is not causing much of the warming and is just a strange coincidence that these levels have not appeared in hundreds of thousands or perhaps millions of years
7) Consensus of climate models has accurately hindcasted only when considering AGW
8) Why the rate of warming in the past 30 years has not been observed in the past 2000 years
etc., etc., etc.
See the problem is that to refute AGW as the primary cause of the modern day warming, one will need to knock down quite a few walls. I hope Dr. Spencer can do this but I am highly doubtful.
RR Kampen (05:45:30) :
I think you haven’t been paying attention. Is it intentional?