September 30, 2013
The Honorable John Kerry
Secretary of State
Washington D.C. 20520
Dear Mr. Secretary:
Your press release dated September 27, 2013 Release of the Fifth Assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change clearly expresses your beliefs about climate science. It included:
This isn’t a run of the mill report to be dumped in a filing cabinet. This isn’t a political document produced by politicians.
It’s science.
Excuse me if I make a few clarifications. In reality, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Summary for Policymakers for their 5th Assessment Report was initially written by climate scientists for politicians. The language of the IPCC’s Summary for Policymakers was then amended by politicians during days of negotiations in Stockholm prior to publication.
Additionally, the vast majority of the scientific research reflected in that document was funded by governments. As a result, the IPCC Summary for Policymakers presents only research efforts that adhere to the agendas of the political entities that financed it.
Simply stated, the IPCC’s Summary for Policymakers was bought and paid for by politicians for political purposes.
You concluded your press release:
We do so because this is science, these are facts, and action is our only option.
I would have to guess that you have confidence on the IPCC’s projections of future climate. Climate models are used for those predictions. Those predictions are based on projections of future emissions of manmade greenhouse gases and of other anthropogenic factors. But, climate models are not facts; they are computer-aided speculation.
Further to climate models, the predictions assume the models properly simulate climate on Earth. I hate to be the bearer of bad news: the climate models used by the IPCC for their 5th Assessment Report simulate Earth’s climate so poorly they are not fit for their intended purposes.
I am an independent climate researcher, Mr. Secretary. I receive no funding other than from book sales and occasional tips from generous souls. I publish my findings at my blog Climate Observations and at the award-winning science blog WattsUpWithThat? I recently presented the modeled and observed warming rates of global land surface air temperatures and of global sea surface temperatures, covering the past three decades. That blog post was Models Fail: Land versus Sea Surface Warming Rates. The cross post at WattsUpWithThat is here. (See that post for the specifics on the datasets, model outputs and the time period used.) I compared the warming rates in a table, but the relationships are much easier to see in the two time-series graphs that follow.
Figure 1 compares the warming rates of the modeled and observed global land surface air temperatures over the past three-plus decades. The models performed well. They only overestimated the observed warming rate of land surface air temperatures by about 25%. The problem: they achieved that similarity in trends with skewed climate dynamics within the models.
The vast majority of the warming of global land surface air temperatures, Mr. Secretary, is in response to the warming of the sea surface temperatures of the global oceans. [See Compo and Sardeshmukh (2009) “Ocean Influences on Recent Continental Warming.”] In order to achieve the close match with the observed warming rate of land surface air temperatures, the modelers had to double the observed rate of warming of the surfaces of the global oceans over the past 31 years, as shown in Figure 2.
That clearly indicates the basic underlying physics within the models are unsound. Therefore, there are no reasons to believe the climate model-based predictions of future climate or any study that attempts to use climate models to attribute global warming and climate change to human influences.
In my earlier post linked above, I presented what appear to be the reasons why the modelers needed to force the oceans to warm at twice the observed rate. I won’t bore you with the details here. But, in summary, the climate models used by the IPCC do not — cannot — properly simulate the naturally occurring, coupled ocean-atmosphere processes that cause the surface of the oceans to warm and cool over multidecadal timeframes. (See Guilyardi et al. (2009) and Ruiz-Barradas, et al. (2013))
Those climate model failings stem from the focus of the climate science community on human-induced global warming and climate change — not on global warming and climate change regardless of the cause.
I have been publishing comparisons of data with climate models outputs for about two years. The climate models used by the IPCC clearly cannot simulate Earth’s surface temperatures, precipitation or sea ice area. Additionally, there are numerous scientific research papers that are very critical of how climate models perform specific functions. Looking at those papers independently, the faults do not appear too bad, but collectively they indicate the models are fatally flawed.
In my book Climate Models Fail, I have collected my past findings about climate models, and illustrated others, and I’ve presented highlights from the research papers critical of climate models. I would be happy to forward a link to a free copy of Climate Models Fail to your offices for your personal use. Please have one of your staff members leave a comment at my blog Climate Observations if that interests you.
In closing, I would like to ask a favor. I will ask that you help to change the focus of climate change research from “understanding the scientific basis of [the] risk of human-induced climate change” to “understanding the scientific basis of the risk of climate change”. (See IPCC organization History webpage)
The Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute (KNMI) is concerned about the IPCC’s focus. See their document titled Submission by The Netherlands on the future of the IPCC. Under the heading of “The IPCC needs to adjust its principles”, KNMI begins:
We believe that limiting the scope of the IPCC to human-induced climate change is undesirable, especially because natural climate change is a crucial part of the total understanding of the climate system, including human-induced climate change.
Now consider that suggested change of focus came from a country with 20% of its land surface below sea level and about 50% of it only a meter above sea level. If any country should be concerned about climate change, it’s the Netherlands, and they have asked for a better understanding of natural climate change. I suggest to you that the United States should also ask for that same change in research scope.
With that change of focus, I personally believe, based on my own research, that climate researchers will find that the global warming and climate change we’ve experienced over the past three decades is primarily a response to naturally occurring coupled ocean-atmosphere processes, not manmade greenhouse gases. I also believe with the change in focus that, to the relief of most persons, future global warming and climate change will not be found to be catastrophic, but that we will have to plan for a long-term, naturally occurring rise in sea level. Sea levels were 4 to 8 meters (13 to 26 feet) higher during the Eemian (the last interglacial period) than they are today. (Refer to the press release for the 2013 paper by Dahl-Jensen, et al. “Eemian Interglacial Reconstructed From a Greenland Folded Ice Core”.) It would be prudent to plan for those same sea levels during this interglacial. Thankfully, with the slow rate of sea level rise, there should be loads of time to make sound economic decisions.
The people of the United States should be receiving honest appraisals of human-induced and naturally occurring global warming and climate change, not politically motivated conjecture.
Thank you very much for your time, Mr. Secretary.
Sincerely,
Bob Tisdale
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I am sorry, but good as Bob’s letter is, it wont do any good. In the bible, there is the story of David and Goliath. David had a sling shot, and a well aimed stone hitting Goliath on the forehead, knocked him out.
We skeptics are David fighting Goliath, without a slingshot. We do not have the firepower to defeat the RS, tbe AMS, the WMO, and all the rest. Until we get a significant academic institution on our side, who is prepared to use their firepower on our behalf, all our efforts, for all their scientific validity, are absolutely useless.
I asked this question on Climate Etc. “Who is going to bell the cat?”.
John Kerry came over here to England earlier in the year, and frankly made himself look a bit of an idiot.
Collin Maessen: You keep stating that I’ve misrepresented what KNMI wrote, when I have not. You presented the same lame argument at my website:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2013/09/30/open-letter-to-the-honorable-john-kerry-u-s-secretary-of-state/#comment-13137
I quoted KNMI, from a document from their website. Note the website address is http://www.knmi.nl:
http://www.knmi.nl/research/ipcc/FUTURE/Submission_by_The_Netherlands_on_the_future_of_the_IPCC_laatste.pdf
I did not quote them out of context. They wrote exactly what I presented. You, on the other hand, have presented no document from the KNMI website. Maybe you should read what they wrote in that document instead of trying to make excuses that do not hold up to scrutiny
Have a nice day.
Alan Robertson said at September 30, 2013 at 8:19 am:
We are dupes to think the truth matters to those people. among other things. As much as I agree with his sentiments, he has forgotten the purpose of these debates. No one should believe their purpose is to change the mind of your opponent (Kerry here), but should understand they are intended to influence the minds of third parties. Influence enough third parties and you change the mind of most politicians.
It isn’t clear who Tisdale intends to influence, but I agree he fails at the first graph. While you may be able to persuade scientists with truth, that mostly fails with politicians. If it takes more than about 90 words in three points to state your refutation, you’ve lost.
So, a refutation might be:
The IPCC assessments and predictions depend on models which have worked poorly and failed to predict the current 17 year pause in warming.
IPCC scientists no longer agree on fundamental model parameters such as the temperature sensitivity to CO2 doubling and the effects of cloud feedbacks.
So far, the measured climate is well within historic norms for temperature, sea level rise, ice melt, and CO2 and no immediate action is currently needed by governments.
Bob, I’m quoting from an email I got from the KNMI, something I clearly stated in my original comment. On your website I clarify further that this response was written by Rob van Dorland, who is part of the KNMI IPCC delegation that wrote the very document you’re citing.
I also said to contact the KNMI if you don’t believe what I’m saying. That way you can verify that what I’m saying is an accurate depicting of their response towards me, and so you can verify that what you’re saying is correct or not.
I’m not the only person who got the same response from the KNMI when asked for a clarification on the passage that you’re citing:
http://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2013/07/15/the-dutch-view-on-the-future-of-the-ipcc-what-it-does-and-what-it-does-not-say/
There’s no need to call what I say a “lame argument” when I’ve told you who gave me that statement so you can verify everything.
Dear Honorable John Kerry:
As long as a single AGWing chicken little politician from any party (who is elected, hired or appointed), feeds at the public trough, I will not vote for a left of center politician.
You should take note of this. I used to be a registered democrat and voted left of center almost exclusively. The ONLY reason why I changed my voting record is because of AGWing nonsense. And its complete demise will be the only reason I switch back.
Sincerely,
Pamela Gray, B.S., M.A., M.S.
Brevity is the soul of wit. But then, a letter to Kerry of any length would be over his head, so it doesn’t matter. Nice effort, Bob, as always. You, too, Vuk.
Talking to Kerry is akin to expecting a perfect climate model forecast.
Collin Maessen:
I read your link in your post at September 30, 2013 at 9:56 am.
It is nonsense.
If you want to know WHY and HOW it is nonsense then please read my post addressed to you in this thread. This link jumps to it
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/30/open-letter-to-the-honorable-john-kerry-u-s-secretary-of-state/#comment-1431875
Richard
John Kerry has a long history of twisting facts to suit a personal agenda.
In the US you make jokes about the Polish. In Britain the Irish are usually the butt of our humour. The Irish makes jokes about Kerry..men. I suspect your Mr Kerry is simply too stupid and too politically indoctrinated to understand any of this.
Bob,
I think Collin is correct in relaying the position of the KNMI, but as Richard pointed out, that position is dead wrong. Collin writes:
“In practice, the IPCC reports (WG1 and 2) on climate change mention natural and anthropogenic factors, simply because of the fact that the human factor only gains credence when compared to natural changes.”
We all know that the IPCC reports do not even begin to address the natural factors at play, and only speak about a few minor natural factors to try and convince the world that they are all negligible. This blatant concealing of the compelling science of natural climate variability is a vital cog in the IPCC argument, namely that ‘it must be man-made because we can’t think of anything else it could be.” (The fallacious ‘Argument from Ignorance’)
The KNMI is not asking the IPCC to stop ignoring the vast majority of natural climate change science. It is asking the IPCC to push the obfuscation even harder, to make the fallacious ‘argument from ignorance’ more compelling!
It is so twisted, that it appears the KNMI has suddenly become more interested in science than in politics, but I am afraid that is not the case.
Good letter Bob. I do hope you sent this to Kerry.
But I do admit that he is a waste of time.
Secretary Kerry:
Many of us who are interested in the world’s long term climate were quite impressed with your personal commitment to to the “science” in the latest IPCC report and thus your willingness to make the necessary sacrifices to greatly reduce carbon dioxide emissions. No doubt it was not easy for you to decide to permanently dock your recently purchased diesel powered yacht, the Isabel, but it was certainly the right thing to do.
– – – – – – – –
Collin Maessen,
Thank you for pointing out that the IPCC is not inherently or explicitly precluded by its original mandate from addressing / assessing the natural climate; that it has been providing, quite within its mandate and necessarily, some naturally variability context for any assessments of potential anthropogenic components of climate. And I think making natural variability wording explicit in the IPCC mandate would probably cause much needed research funds to flow in the direction of studying natural variability. Good thing. So the Dutch (KNMI) idea is beneficial, I thank them.
Speaking of changing the the IPCC mandate, its limitation of explicitly looking at anthropogenic risks of climate without also explicitly and equally assessing the benefits was absurd / irrational. It contained a fatally false premise; namely, fatal to the IPCC’s credibility.
My above views not withstanding, the IPCC is not fit (by its affiliation and structure) for objective integration and/or balanced critical review of climate research. It should be disbanded. A non-governmental inter-university consortium of strictly volunteer participation should quite naturally come into existence within the free marketplace of scientific ideas. . . . I think this is already a grassroots endeavor.
John
Bob
There is control to be gained in regulating CO2. It is not interesting from a political point to cause increase of jobs or to stop world hunger. But just think of magical CO2 and its tax and regulation implications. Now this is the stuff of true political power.
Messrs Courtney and Tisdale should give way to Mr. Maessen. They do not speak double Dutch. He does.
‘ “2. The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of *risk of human-induced climate change*, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy, although they may need to deal objectively with scientific, technical and socio-economic factors relevant to the application of particular policies.’”
So here they only (explicitly) mention the anthropogenic component. We (the Dutch IPCC delegation) believe it is important that the scope of this statement should be widened, namely that natural variability should be explicitly mentioned in the mandate of the IPCC.
In practice, the IPCC reports (WG1 and 2) on climate change mention natural and anthropogenic factors, simply because of the fact that the human factor only gains credence when compared to natural changes.
The proposed change from the Netherlands is that the mandate of the IPCC should be much more in line with what they’ve been doing for years.’
Mr. Maessen does not seem to realise that it is because “for years” the IPCC has concentrated on the “risk of human-induced climate change” and only include natural variability as a secondary factor, usually only where it is necessary to support their thesis, that the change suggested by KNMI is needed.
There’s more glue on the Secretary of State’s wig than science in the IPCC report……
Good and appropriate effort however it is akin to asking a bank robber to stop robbing the bank as he walks out the door. The good news is the IPCC already has been dumped in a filing cabinet
because the public is ahead of the politicians directing the man made global warming scam. polliticians like John Kerry permanently trash their “legacy” by uttering such nonsense.Hiding behind some white coat credibility to justify the scam is cowardly. The USA is better than that.
An excellent letter Mr. Tisdale, unfortunately the Secretary of State is a politician and therefore suffers from the attention span of a fish, let alone has the intellect or integrity to be able to understand and then accept he is wrong, only when his career is in jeopardy and he is frantically looking around in panic for something to save him will he become aware that an adoption of the truth might be a worthwhile exercise, sadly for most of us not in the enthrall of the great IPCC scam, in his case I believe him to be beyond redemption.
Solomon Green:
I fail to understand your post at September 30, 2013 at 11:16 am.
It begins saying
and concludes saying
I see no reason for me to “give way”.
As I have repeatedly explained, the IPCC is tasked by its “Role” to justify political “options” based on the assumption of a “risk of human-induced climate change”. The IPCC only considers “natural variability” in so far as the consideration is used to justify the asserted “risk of human-induced climate change”. The KNMI proposal supports the existing “Role” of the IPCC and argues that the “Role” should be strengthened.
I oppose Lysenkoism and oppose its being strengthened.
Richard
Nice try, but, your letter will probably get as far as one of John Kerry’s minions who will email one of his under minions to send you standard response (rejection) letter ‘f’.
Either that or you will be taken to the nearest mental health secure unit and incarcerated there for an indeterminate amount of time.
Kerry: “It’s science.”
What he means: “I wouldn’t know science from my own arse.”
Philip Lee says:
September 30, 2013 at 9:39 am
…”he has forgotten the purpose of these debates. No one should believe their purpose is to change the mind of your opponent (Kerry here), but should understand they are intended to influence the minds of third parties. Influence enough third parties and you change the mind of most politicians…
So, a refutation might be:”
_____________________________
As you say, a refutation of AR5 may best be aimed at third parties. Many citizens think that it is too late for refutation to matter at all.
The current administration is purposely lying about this and many issues. Some think that this administration is operating under the belief that they have reached the point of political invincibility and that no amount of truth or reason will deter them. Many US citizens disagree and have abandoned faith in the government and the institutions of the media which are charged with exposing tyranny in our midst. Has anyone noticed the nation’s current extraordinary and prolonged demand for ammunition? It might be folly to ignore it.
Considering his collusion with the Syrian chemical weapons false-flag, we can probably opt to leave the “honorable” part off of any further responses to him.
Is it really going to keep on like this? Truth comes out about the non-issue of global warming/climate change/blah blah, and these nitwits will continue prevaricating?