Guest essay by Dr. Tim Ball
Elaine Dewar spent several days with Maurice Strong at the UN and concluded in her book The Cloak of Green that, “Strong was using the U.N. as a platform to sell a global environment crisis and the Global Governance Agenda.” Strong conjectured about a small group of world leaders who decided the rich countries were “the principle risk to the world.” These countries refused to reduce their environmental impact. The leaders decided the only hope for the planet was for collapse of the industrialized nations and it was their responsibility to bring that about. Strong knew what to do. Create a false problem with false science and use bureaucrats to bypass politicians to close industry down and make developed countries pay.
Compare the industrialized nation to an internal combustion engine running on fossil fuel. You can stop the engine in two ways; cut off the fuel supply or plug the exhaust. Cutting off fuel supply is a political minefield. People quickly notice as all prices, especially food, increase. It’s easier to show the exhaust is causing irreparable environmental damage. This is why CO2 became the exclusive focus of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Process and method were orchestrated to single out CO2 and show it was causing runaway global warming.
In the 1980s I warned Environment Canada employee Henry Hengeveld that convincing a politician of an idea is a problem. Henry’s career involved promoting CO2 as a problem. I explained the bigger problem comes if you convince them and the claim is proved wrong. You either admit your error or hide the truth. Environment Canada and member nations of the IPCC chose to hide or obfuscate the truth.
1. IPCC Definition of Climate Change Was First Major Deception
People were deceived when the IPCC was created. Most believe it’s a government commission of inquiry studying all climate change. The actual definition from the United Nations Environment Program (article 1) of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) limits them to only human causes.
“a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over considerable time periods.”
In another deception, they changed the definition used in the first three Reports (1990, 1995, 2001) in the 2007 Report. It’s a footnote in the Summary for Policymakers (SPM).
“Climate change in IPCC usage refers to any change in climate over time, whether due to natural variability or as a result of human activity. This usage differs from that in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, where climate change refers to a change of climate that is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and that is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods.”
It was not used because Reports are cumulative and to include natural variability required starting over completely.
It is impossible to determine the human contribution to climate change if you don’t know or understand natural (non-human) climate change. Professor Murray Salby showed how the human CO2 portion is of no consequence, that variation in natural sources of CO2 explains almost all annual changes. He showed that a 5% variation in these sources is more than the total annual human production.
2. IPCC Infer And Prove Rather than Disprove a Hypothesis
To make the process appear scientific a hypothesis was inferred based on the assumptions that,
• CO2 was a greenhouse gas (GHG) that slowed the escape of heat from the Earth.
• the heat was back-radiated to raise the global temperature.
• if CO2 increased global temperature would rise.
• CO2 would increase because of expanding industrial activity.
• the global temperature rise was inevitable.
To further assure the predetermined outcome the IPCC set out to prove rather than disprove the hypothesis as scientific methodology requires. As Karl Popper said,
It is the rule which says that the other rules of scientific procedure must be designed in such a way that they do not protect any statement in science against falsification.
The consistent and overwhelming pattern of the IPCC reveal misrepresentations of CO2. When an issue was raised by scientists performing their role as skeptics, instead of considering and testing its validity and efficacy the IPCC worked to divert, even creating some false explanations. False answers succeeded because most people didn’t know they were false.
3. CO2 Facts Unknown to Most But Problematic to IPCC.
Some basic facts about CO2 are unknown to most people and illustrate the discrepancies and differences between IPCC claims and what science knows.
• Natural levels of Carbon dioxide (CO2) are less than 0.04% of the total atmosphere and 0.4% of the total GHG. It is not the most important greenhouse gas.
• Water vapour is 95 percent of the GHG by volume. It is the most important greenhouse gas by far.
• Methane (CH4) is the other natural GHG demonized by the IPCC. It is only 0.000175 percent of atmospheric gases and 0.036 percent of GHG.
• Figure 1 from ABC news shows the false information. It’s achieved by considering a dry atmosphere.
Figure 1
• The percentages troubled the IPCC so they amplified the importance of CO2 by estimating the “contribution” per unit (Figure 2). The range of estimates effectively makes the measures meaningless, unless you have a political agenda. Wikipedia acknowledges “It is not possible to state that a certain gas causes an exact percentage of the greenhouse effect.”
Figure 2 (Source Wikipedia)
4. Human CO2 production critical to IPCC objective so they control production of the information.
Here is their explanation.
What is the role of the IPCC in Greenhouse Gas inventories and reporting to the UNFCCC?
A: The IPCC has generated a number of methodology reports on national greenhouse gas inventories with a view to providing internationally acceptable inventory methodologies. The IPCC accepts the responsibility to provide scientific and technical advice on specific questions related to those inventory methods and practices that are contained in these reports, or at the request of the UNFCCC in accordance with established IPCC procedures. The IPCC has set up the Task Force on Inventories (TFI) to run the National Greenhouse Gas Inventory Programme (NGGIP) to produce this methodological advice. Parties to the UNFCCC have agreed to use the IPCC Guidelines in reporting to the convention.
How does the IPCC produce its inventory Guidelines? Utilising IPCC procedures, nominated experts from around the world draft the reports that are then extensively reviewed twice before approval by the IPCC. This process ensures that the widest possible range of views are incorporated into the documents.
They control the entire process from methodology, designation of technical advice, establishment of task forces, guidelines for reporting, nomination of experts to produce the reports, to final report approval. The figure they produce is a gross calculation, but it is estimated humans remove 50% of that amount.
Regardless, if you don’t know natural sources and variabilities of CO2 you cannot know the human portion. It was claimed the portion in the atmosphere from combustion of fossil fuels was known from the ratio of carbon isotopes C13/C12. Roy Spencer showed this was not the case. In addition, they ignore natural burning of fossil fuels including forest fires, long-burning coal seams and peat; as Hans Erren noted, fossil coal is buried wood. Spencer concluded,
If the C13/C12 relationship during NATURAL inter-annual variability is the same as that found for the trends, how can people claim that the trend signal is MANMADE??
The answer is, it was done to prove the hypothesis and further the deception.
5. Pressure For Urgent Political Action
Early IPCC Reports claimed the length of time CO2 remains in the atmosphere as very long. This implied it would continue as a problem even with immediate cessation of CO2 production. However as Segalstad wrote,
Essenhigh (2009) points out that the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) in their first report (Houghton et al., 1990) gives an atmospheric CO2 residence time (lifetime) of 50-200 years [as a “rough estimate”]. This estimate is confusingly given as an adjustment time for a scenario with a given anthropogenic CO2 input, and ignores natural (sea and vegetation) CO2 flux rates. Such estimates are analytically invalid; and they are in conflict with the more correct explanation given elsewhere in the same IPCC report: “This means that on average it takes only a few years before a CO2 molecule in the atmosphere is taken up by plants or dissolved in the ocean”.
6. Procedures to Hide Problems with IPCC Science And Heighten Alarmism.
IPCC procedures and mechanisms were established to deceive. IPCC has three Working Groups (WG). WGI produces the Physical Science Basis Report, which proves CO2 is the cause. WGII produces the Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability Report that is based on the result of WGI. WGIII produces the Mitigation of Climate Change Report. WGI and WGII accept WGI’s claim that warming is inevitable. They state,
Five criteria that should be met by climate scenarios if they are to be useful for impact researchers and policy makers are suggested: Criterion 1: Consistency with global projections. They should be consistent with a broad range of global warming projections based on increased concentrations of greenhouse gases. This range is variously cited as 1.4°C to 5.8°C by 2100, or 1.5°C to 4.5°C for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration (otherwise known as the “equilibrium climate sensitivity”).
They knew few would read or understand the Science Report with its admission of serious limitations. They deliberately delayed its release until after the Summary for Policymakers (SPM). As David Wojick explained,
Glaring omissions are only glaring to experts, so the “policymakers”—including the press and the public—who read the SPM will not realize they are being told only one side of a story. But the scientists who drafted the SPM know the truth, as revealed by the sometimes artful way they conceal it.
…
What is systematically omitted from the SPM are precisely the uncertainties and positive counter evidence that might negate the human interference theory. Instead of assessing these objections, the Summary confidently asserts just those findings that support its case. In short, this is advocacy, not assessment.
An example of this SPM deception occurred with the 1995 Report. The 1990 Report and the drafted 1995 Science Report said there was no evidence of a human effect. Benjamin Santer, as lead author of Chapter 8, changed the 1995 SPM for Chapter 8 drafted by his fellow authors that said,
“While some of the pattern-base discussed here have claimed detection of a significant climate change, no study to date has positively attributed all or part of climate change observed to man-made causes.”
to read,
“The body of statistical evidence in chapter 8, when examined in the context of our physical understanding of the climate system, now points to a discernible human influence on the global climate.”
The phrase “discernible human influence” became the headline as planned.
With AR5 (2013) they compounded the deception by releasing the SPM then releasing a correction. They got the headline they wanted. It is the same game as the difference between the exposure of problems in the WGI Science Report and the SPM. Media did not report the corrections, but the IPCC could now claim they detailed the inadequacy of their work. It’s not their fault that people don’t understand.
7. Climate Sensitivity
Initially it was assumed that constantly increasing atmospheric CO2 created constantly increasing temperature. Then it was determined that the first few parts per million achieved the greenhouse capacity of CO2. Eschenbach graphed the reality
 |
(Figure 3).
Figure 3
It is like black paint on a window. To block sunlight coming through a window the first coat of black paint achieves most of the reduction. Subsequent coats reduce fractionally less light.
There was immediate disagreement about the amount of climate sensitivity from double and triple atmospheric CO2. Milloy produced a graph comparing three different sensitivity estimates (Figure 4).
 |
Figure 4.
The IPCC created a positive feedback to keep temperatures rising. It claims CO2 causes temperature increase that increases evaporation and water vapour amplifies the temperature trend. Lindzen and Choi, discredited this in their 2011 paper which concluded “The results imply that the models are exaggerating climate sensitivity.”
Climate sensitivity has declined since and gradually approaches zero. A recent paper by Spencer claims “…climate system is only about half as sensitive to increasing CO2 as previously believed.”
8. The Ice Cores Were Critical, But Seriously Flawed.
The major assumption of the inferred IPCC hypothesis says a CO2 increase causes a temperature increase. After publication in 1999 of Petit et al., the Antarctic ice core records appeared as evidence in the 2001 Report (Figure 5).
Figure 5. Antarctic core core record
Four years later research showed the reverse – temperature increase preceded CO2 increase contradicting the hypothesis. It was sidelined with the diversionary claim that the lag was between 80 and 800 years and insignificant. It was so troubling that Al Gore created a deceptive imagery in his movie. Only a few experts noticed.
Actually, temperature changes before CO2 change in every record for any period or duration. Figure 6 shows a shorter record (1958-2009) of the relationship. If CO2 change follows temperature change in every record, why are all computer models programmed with the opposite relationship?
Figure 6; Lag time for short record, 1958 to 2009.
IPCC Needed Low Pre-Industrial CO2 Levels
A pre-industrial CO2 level lower than today was critical to the IPCC hypothesis. It was like the need to eliminate the Medieval Warm Period because it showed the world was not warmer today than ever before.
Ice cores are not the only source of pre-industrial CO2 levels. There are thousands of 19th Century direct measures of atmospheric CO2 that began in 1812. Scientists took precise measurements with calibrated instruments as Ernst Beck thoroughly documented.
In a paper submitted to the US Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation Hearing Professor Zbigniew Jaworowski stated,
“The basis of most of the IPCC conclusions on anthropogenic causes and on projections of climatic change is the assumption of low level of CO2 in the pre-industrial atmosphere. This assumption, based on glaciological studies, is false.”[1]
Of equal importance Jaworowski states,
The notion of low pre-industrial CO2 atmospheric level, based on such poor knowledge, became a widely accepted Holy Grail of climate warming models. The modelers ignored the evidence from direct measurements of CO2 in atmospheric air indicating that in 19th century its average concentration was 335 ppmv[11] (Figure 2). In Figure 2 encircled values show a biased selection of data used to demonstrate that in 19th century atmosphere the CO2 level was 292 ppmv[12]. A study of stomatal frequency in fossil leaves from Holocene lake deposits in Denmark, showing that 9400 years ago CO2 atmospheric level was 333 ppmv, and 9600 years ago 348 ppmv, falsify the concept of stabilized and low CO2 air concentration until the advent of industrial revolution [13].
There are other problems with the ice core record. It takes years for air to be trapped in the ice, so what is actually trapped and measured? Meltwater moving through the ice especially when the ice is close to the surface can contaminate the bubble. Bacteria form in the ice, releasing gases even in 500,000-year-old ice at considerable depth. (“Detection, Recovery, Isolation and Characterization of Bacteria in Glacial Ice and Lake Vostok Accretion Ice.” Brent C. Christner, 2002 Dissertation. Ohio State University). Pressure of overlying ice, causes a change below 50m and brittle ice becomes plastic and begins to flow. The layers formed with each year of snowfall gradually disappear with increasing compression. It requires a considerable depth of ice over a long period to obtain a single reading at depth. Jaworowski identified the problems with contamination and losses during drilling and core recovery process.
Jaworowski’s claim that the modellers ignored the 19th century readings is incorrect. They knew about it because T.R.Wigley introduced information about the 19th century readings to the climate science community in 1983. (Wigley, T.M.L., 1983 “The pre-industrial carbon dioxide level.” Climatic Change 5, 315-320). However, he cherry-picked from a wide range, eliminating only high readings and ‘creating’ the pre-industrial level as approximately 270 ppm. I suggest this is what influenced the modellers because Wigley was working with them as Director of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at East Anglia. He preceded Phil Jones as Director and was the key person directing the machinations revealed by the leaked emails from the CRU.
Wigley was not the first to misuse the 19th century data, but he did reintroduce it to the climate community. Guy Stewart Callendar, a British Steam engineer, pushed the thesis that increasing CO2 was causing warming. He did what Wigley did by selecting only those readings that supported the hypothesis.
There are 90,000 samples from the 19th century and the graph shows those carefully selected by G. S. Callendar to achieve his estimate. It is clear he chose only low readings.
Figure 7. (After Jawaorowski Trend Lines added)
You can see changes that occur in the slope and trend by the selected data compared to the entire record.
Ernst-Georg Beck confirmed Jaworowski’s research. An article in Energy and Environment examined the readings in great detail and validated their findings. In his conclusion Beck states
Modern greenhouse hypothesis is based on the work of G.S. Callendar and C.D. Keeling, following S. Arrhenius, as latterly popularized by the IPCC. Review of available literature raise the question if these authors have systematically discarded a large number of valid technical papers and older atmospheric CO2 determinations because they did not fit their hypothesis? Obviously they use only a few carefully selected values from the older literature, invariably choosing results that are consistent with the hypothesis of an induced rise of CO2 in air caused by the burning of fossil fuel.
The pre-industrial level is some 50 ppm higher than the level claimed.
Beck found,
“Since 1812, the CO2 concentration in northern hemispheric air has fluctuated exhibiting three high level maxima around 1825, 1857 and 1942 the latter showing more than 400 ppm.”
The challenge for the IPCC was to create a smooth transition from the ice core CO2 levels to the Mauna Loa levels. Beck shows how this was done but also shows how the 19th century readings had to be cherry-picked to fit with ice core and Mauna Loa data (Figure 8).
Figure 8
Variability is extremely important because the ice core record shows an exceptionally smooth curve achieved by applying a 70-year smoothing average. Selecting and smoothing is also applied to the Mauna Loa data and all current atmospheric readings, which naturally vary up to 600 ppm in the course of a day. Smoothing done on the scale of the ice core record eliminates a great deal of information. Consider the variability of temperature data for the last 70 years. Statistician William Brigg’s says you never, ever, smooth a time-series. Elimination of high readings prior to the smoothing make the losses greater. Beck explains how Charles Keeling established the Mauna Loa readings by using the lowest readings of the afternoon and ignored natural sources. Beck presumes Keeling decided to avoid these low level natural sources by establishing the station at 4000 m up the volcano. As Beck notes
“Mauna Loa does not represent the typical atmospheric CO2on different global locations but is typical only for this volcano at a maritime location in about 4000 m altitude at that latitude. (Beck, 2008, “50 Years of Continuous Measurement of CO2on Mauna Loa” Energy and Environment, Vol. 19, No.7.)
Keeling’s son operates Mauna Loa and as Beck notes, “owns the global monopoly of calibration of all CO2measurements.” He is a co-author of the IPCC reports, that accept Mauna Loa and all other readings as representative of global levels.
As a climatologist I know it is necessary to obtain as many independent verifications of data as possible. Stomata are small openings on leaves, which vary in size directly with the amount of atmospheric CO2. They underscore effects of smoothing and the artificially low readings of the ice cores. A comparison of a stomata record with the ice core record for a 2000-year period (9000 – 7000 BP) illustrates the issue (Figure 9).
Figure 9.
Stomata data show higher readings and variability than the excessively smoothed ice core record. They align quantitatively with the 19th century measurements as Jaworowski and Beck assert. The average level for the ice core record shown is approximately 265 ppm while it is approximately 300 ppm for the stomata record.
The pre-industrial CO2 level was marginally lower than current levels and likely within the error factor. Neither they, nor the present IPCC claims of 400 ppm are high relative to the geologic record. The entire output of computer climate models begins with the assumption that pre-industrial levels were measurably lower. Elimination of this assumption further undermines the claim that the warming in the industrial era period was due to human addition of CO2 to the atmosphere. Combine this with their assumption that CO2 causes temperature increase, when all records show the opposite, it is not surprising IPCC predictions of temperature increase are consistently wrong.
The IPCC deception was premeditated under Maurice Strong’s guidance to prove CO2 was causing global warming as pretext for shutting down industrialized nations. They partially achieved their goal as alternate energies and green job economies attest. All this occurred as contradictory evidence mounts because Nature refused to play. CO2 increases as temperatures decline, which according to IPCC science cannot happen. Politicians must deal with facts and abandon all policies based on claims that CO2 is a problem, especially those already causing damage.
Source: The Global Warming Policy Foundation: CCNet 14/10/13
1. [1] “Climate Change: Incorrect information on pre-industrial CO2” Statement written for the Hearing before the US Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation by Professor Zbigniew Jaworowski March 19, 2004
Related articles
- IPCC ‘s Bogus Evidence for Global Warming (americanthinker.com)
- 2013 On Track to be Seventh Warmest Year Since 1850 (climatecentral.org)
- Another Reason Why IPCC Predictions (Projections) Fail. AR5 Continues to Let The End Justify the Unscrupulous Means (wattsupwiththat.com)
- UN climate panel corrects carbon numbers in influential report (trust.org)
- The IPCC’s muddled definitions of climate change (ipccreport.wordpress.com)
Janice Moore says:
November 23, 2013 at 2:21 pm
No, no I (politely but strongly) disagree with any of those three choices.
Rather, he (or she) IS a “committed” very earnest “believer” in CAGW (who is employed now by NASA/GISS/government laboratories/government universities) specifically BECAUSE of those beliefs and faith in the religion of CAGW. Further, although now trained and indoctrinated thoroughly in the CAGW religion of belief-in-evil-without-evidence/belief-in-propaganda-despite-evidence/belief-in-imminent-catastrophy-if-we-do-not-kill-millions-of-innocents, he/she was indoctrinated in that religion from near-birth and thus is not fully to blame for his/her religion prior to adulthood.
Now an adult, whose life and future and social worth and career potential are financially interwoven INSIDE of and woven BY their CAGW belief system, he/she is now unable to see facts. I hope not permanently, but you will note that no CAGW dogmatist has been able to offer ANY consistent specific level of proof of its failure. They cannot conceive that they could be wrong. It is out of their belief system.
Worse, because their entire life rejects (Christian) faith and religion ferociously, and because (almost all) equally zealously hate/fear/despise/condemn ANY form of capitalism in favor of even greater government control of all life at all times, they have denied themselves any other view of life.
Also, because they are so firmly wrapped inside their religious zealotry of “saving the formerly pristine world from mankind’s evil taint” (by killing people, by harming people, by erasing pollution and man’s impact, and by exaggeration through propaganda man’s admitted sometimes poor results) they (he/her personally) have been willingly warped into seeing their own evil actions in deed and in intent (changing scientific results to fit the narrative of CAGW, ignoring valid results of experiments and biasing experiments to give wanted results, accepting money BECAUSE of the desired government results and the government praise and honors and money and careers and publications and recognition and promotions and higher budgets and longer salaries and promised tenure result BECAUSE of the deliberate reults of that “science”) are good, true, virtuous because the “intent” of their despicable and evil actions is seen as “good, true, and virtuous” ….
SO their CAGW-favorable results and mindsets come from within and without – from personal feedback favoring (almost requiring) CAGW-promotable results and decisions and thoughts, and from without. THEN, at the same time that THEY (he/her) are reaping the pleasant results of much spending and improved budgets and big labs that do receive, they write emails and speeches and press releases claiming that their opposition (skeptical, realistic science) is only enabled by what skeptics do NOT receive: money, recognition, grants, publications, and security.
Is “dumb scientist” innocent?
No. He/she is a willing propagandist, a willing priest of his/her religion promoting that religion despite the deaths and injuries and harm that comes from that religion.
Can he or she ever find the truth? Can he or she ever even find the evidence or the truth in even their scientific research?
Not if he/she continues to look in a pile of dung in search of a tainted paycheck and their promised retirement at the hands of a corrupt government system that will only pay them if they commit to furthering the government’s religion. Look no further than the hundreds of “scientific” papers published since 1998 that have a (editor/reviewer-inserted)/(writer/author/group-think-inserted) “CAGW-caused this”/CAGW is making this worse”/”despite the evidence of this paper, future CO2 emissions will make this problem worse” phrase added.
Admitting the truth within a socialist government desperate for 1.3 trillion in CAGW taxes each year opens the door …. to a cell in the GULAG.
Dumb Scientist:
Thank you for continuing to engage in a good humored way.
In your post of Nov. 23, 2013 at 10:44 am, you claim that “…paleoclimate sensitivity estimates are more informative than model-based estimate”; I assume your reference is to the equilibrium climate sensitivity (TECS), estimated from paleodata. To the contrary, to be supplied with a numerical value for TECS provides one with no information. This conclusion follows from the non-observability of the equilibrum surface air temperature and the fact that “information” is defined in terms of observables.
Does a numerical value for the Hubble parameter provide one with any information?
Dumb Scientist:
Rather than swerve over to debating the Hubble parameter, I’d like to stick to debating TECS as TECS is germane to the issue under discussion in this thread. As I’ve already pointed out, The value of TECS provides one with no information, by the definition of “information.” Do you agree? If not, what is your argument?
I disagree because I don’t see why your argument applies to climate sensitivity but not the Hubble parameter.
Well, any theoretical Climate Sensitivity Value needs to explain the following, regardless of how it is calculated: either “directly” from the assumed approximations of assumed physics constants and assumed physical properties over an assumed earth; or indirectly from assumed GCM approximating an assumed earth under assuemd conditions using assumed approximations of assuemd conditions ….
While CO2 was steady and all-natural sourced, global measured temperatures and temperature proxies
Increased over 20 year, 68 year, and 450 year intervals,
Were steady over 10- 15 year intervals,
decreased over 20 year, 68 year, and 450 year intervals.
While CO2 was increasing in part due to man’s emissions and in-part due to natural sources, global measured temperatures and temperature proxies
Increased over one 23 year period (1975-1998),
Were steady over three 10-17 year intervals,
decreased over several 20 year intervals.
In the entire history of earth, the CAGW propagandists have only that one 23 year period when both CO2 and temperature increased at the same time. For every other other 15 and 25 year intervals, CO2 and temperature were on opposite trends from their faith-based requirements.
Do you think the information in your comment is sufficient to falsify or validate a conjecture about how CO2 affects surface temperatures?
Dumb Scientist.
Thank you for taking the time to respond.
Independent of whatever issues may attach to the Hubble parameter, assignment of a value to TECS provides one with no information. This conclusion follows logically from the definition of “information” as a quantity that is defined on observable state-spaces and on the non-observability of the equilibrium temperature.
By the way, the same conclusion about TECS is reached by an entirely different argument. This argument is based upon the fact that events do not underlie the model by which TECS is defined yet “information” is defined in terms of events.
Thanks for your thoughts. Good luck with your exploration.
???
Of course. The CAGW dogma is that increasing CO2 levels due to mankind’s releases have “forced” an increase in global average temperature. As a requirement of this logic, the CAGW dogma requires that no natural changes in the earth’s temperature have occurred, or, any “natural changes” that may have occurred have been completely and accurately accounted for in the CAGW approximations and assumptions (er, calculations).
Thus, if CO2 is steady, and temperature is steady, the theory may be right – but no net natural changes have occurred.
Thus, if CO2 is steady, and temperature does increase, the theory may be right – but natural changes have occurred.
Thus, if CO2 is steady, and temperature decreases, the theory may be right – but natural changes have occurred.
Over any sufficient period when natural changes are both known and unknown,
If CO2 increases, and temperature is steady, the theory is wrong.
If CO2 increases, and temperature decreases, the theory is wrong.
If CO2 increases, and temperature increases, the theory may be right, or natural changes may have occurred that are NOT accounted for by the approximations in the theory.
Since, in the immediate past, in the near past, and in the far past, global average temperatures HAVE changed at the same rate and at the same frequency as in today’s world, there is no relationship between CO2 levels below 10,000 ppm and 280 ppm.
Other than increased plant growth, more food, more fodder, more fuel, more feed, more farming and more forests.
Morton’s Demons, yeah, that’s the ticket. 8^D
RACookPE1978:
You claim that:
If CO2 increases and temperature is steady, the theory is wrong
If CO2 increases and temperature decreases, the theory is wrong
In science and logic, though, a theory is wrong if and only if the predicted relative frequencies fail to match the observed relative frequencies. For the theories of global warming climatology, there are no relative frequencies!
Ironically, if no natural changes in the Earth’s temperatures have occurred, then negative feedbacks dominate, cancelling out any forcing, causing climate sensitivity to be exactly zero. This is not the position of mainstream science, which has concluded since 1979 that the equilibrium Charney sensitivity is very likely above 1.5C per doubled CO2.
RACookPE1978,
I was going to say pretty much the same thing, but you said it better. The only change I would make is replacing “theory” with “conjecture”. A theory makes repeated, accurate predictions. The CAGW conjecture has never been able to do so [neither has AGW, for that matter].
Dumb Scientist will not benefit from this chart [by über-alarmist Phil Jones]. But others will see that equal temperature steps have occurred over the past century and a half, with no regard to CO2 levels. Any reasonable observer will conclude that if CO2 has any effect, it is too small to be measurable. They will also conclude, correctly, that the climate’s sensitivity to CO2 is much smaller than ‘mainstream’ grant chasers will admit.
dbstealey:
Thanks for taking the time to reply and for your support. A subtlety that is missed by many people is that today’s climate models do not make predictions at all. They make “projections” and though predictions are falsifiable, this is not true of projections.
Hi, R. A. Cook,
Well said! (at 2:52pm today) You very well may be correct. I did, indeed, leave that choice out of my options: Contrived ignorance due to brainwashing.
The bottom line is, though, it is, now that Dumb has utterly demonstrated this fact by his or her own words above, pointless to talk to Dumb (except to prevent Dumb leading others astray), for Dumb has NO interest in seeking the truth. Absolutely none.
Thanks for being so polite about your differing with me.
Take care and enjoy all those fun grandchildren this Thanksgiving! (maybe you guys will play some board games together like you did on that camping trip when it rained — they are super-blessed kids to have you in their lives.)
Janice
P.S. May I offer a small, but significant to me, addition to your fine essay above? The Godless Cult of Climatology rejects the tenets of Judaism, also.
Terry Oldberg,
Of course I support you. But you should realize that trying to educate people on the difference between predictions and projections is worthy of Sisyphus…
Okay, then I’ll ask you the same question. Is the information in RACookPE1978’s comment at 5:47pm sufficient to falsify or validate a conjecture about how CO2 affects surface temperatures?
RACookPE1978 said “of course” which suggests that he thinks his list of the signs on trends in CO2 and global surface temperatures during different timespans is sufficient information to falsify or validate a conjecture about how CO2 affects surface temperatures. Do you agree, dbstealey?
You might be interested in this list of successful climate model predictions and validations, useful mainly for the list of references to peer-reviewed articles:
http://bartonpaullevenson.com/ModelsReliable.html
Actually, maybe that chart was titled “The trend repeats” by “über-alarmist(?)” Joanne Nova? It seems like the bottom of her third trend arrow is at roughly the same temperature as the tops of her first two. If the trend really were repeating, wouldn’t the bottom of her third trend arrow be at roughly the same temperature as the bottoms of her first two?
http://archive.is/2jAGq
As I specifically stated above, the global trend in the earth’s global average temperature proxies show many long-term climbs out of many century-long low points. This slow, long long-term rise repeats today, as we climb out of the Little Ice Age of globally-lower average temperatures, spiked irregularly with sharp- short drops – as in the low drops during the globally-higher averages of the Medieval Warm Period.
Thus, of course, there SHOULD BE a gradual increase between the three identically-fast 68 year rises! Now, I am open to analysis about whether today’s 2000-2105 pause is the “peak” of the Modern Warming Period, or merely one more stair step “up” from the mid-1650’a low point. If it is the “peak”, then we will see (on average) a slow decline into poverty, hunger, freezing, and mass deaths. (Unless we use energy to save lives.) (Then again, millions of excess deaths by freezing, cold, starvation, poor water, bad sewage, no transportation, ill health in squalid poverty and inadequate farming methods ARE the preferred murder weapons of the CAGW crowd, so …) If the 2000-2015 peak is only a 1960-1970 pause in the long-term warming, then we “might” begin warming again about 2020-2025 into a future peak around 2065-2070.
The sun may throw one more “natural” influence into this uncertain mix: Today’s solar cycle is the very lowest in many hundred years, and previous low solar cycles are only loosely coupled with global average temperatures. But they are coupled. So, if the 1650 LIA “long term cause” was NOT all by itself solar dominated, then ADDING a very, very low solar cycle 24 and 25 into an already low point in an undetermined natural cycle will force the net temperature cycle even lower.
Solve THAT problem, solve that problem of WHY we have a 900 year long-cycle, AND a short 68 year cycle, and you have earned my respect. Ignore it, and you have earned nothing, are worth nothing because you chose to remain ignorant.
Ignore it deliberately as you kill people by promoting your religious dogma of CO2 CAGW by fighting and denying people food, clothing, shelter, clean water, better transportation and better lives, and you deserve nothing but my contempt.
dbstealey:
Pushing a rock endlessly up hill by Sisyphus, a figure of Greek mythology, is an apt metaphor for trying to educate the masses about the difference between predictions and projections. If legitimate scientists are jointly unsuccessful in educating them, the masses are going to pay a one-hundred trillion U.S. dollar fee to unprincipled “scientists” over the next century. Indignation over this state of affairs keeps me pushing this metaphorical rock up hill.
Scientists make predictions about systems that aren’t influenced by free will. Scientists predict that doubling atmospheric CO2 will very likely lead to an equilibrium surface warming of at least 1.5C (see my above comments for links to empirical evidence).
But humans have free will. We choose if we double atmospheric CO2 or not. So projections are “if-then” statements.
If we listen to most scientists, then we’ll stop treating the atmosphere as a free sewer as quickly as possible. As we create jobs by jumpstarting a clean energy econonomy, we’ll emit less CO2 and (with some luck) stabilize atmospheric CO2 below 450ppm by 2100, which is less than doubling and “only” adds a radiative forcing of 2.6 W/m^2. This projection is called RCP2.6; it’s the green line here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_Concentration_Pathways
If we listen to WUWT, then we’ll keep ignoring the CO2 problem because of all the reasons given here at WUWT. As we keep burning fossil fuels, we’ll keep emitting more CO2. If we take Dr. Tim Ball and the Sky Dragon Slayers really seriously, we might even be able to quadruple atmospheric CO2pm by 2100, which would add a radiative forcing of 8.5 W/m^2. Here’s an interactive chart of this RCP8.5 projection:
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/interactive/2013/sep/27/climate-change-how-hot-lifetime-interactive?CMP=twt_gu
IPCC AR5 Figure SPM.7 shows the surface warming, Arctic sea ice minimum extent, and ocean surface pH for projections RCP2.6 and RCP8.5:
http://www.climatescience.org.au/sites/default/files/SPM7.jpg
Note that the surface warming and Arctic sea ice minimum extent uncertainties for RCP2.6 and RCP8.5 don’t significantly overlap after ~2050. The ocean surface pH projections diverge around ~2030.
Most scientists (including me) are urging people to choose the RCP2.6 future over the harsher-but-seemingly-WUWT-endorsed RCP8.5 future because climate science has made many successful predictions (see link in my last post at 8:08 pm). Unless the laws of physics have changed and nobody told the APS, AIP, etc…. then the choices we make in the next few years will produce even more falsifiable results over the next few decades.
Considering the stakes involved, I’m impressed that so many people are willing to sign their real names to comments accusing scientists of killing and murdering people. A growing mountain of evidence keeps confirming the mainstream scientific community, including NASA and the National Academy of Sciences. It takes considerable bravery to leave a permanent record effectively endorsing the RCP8.5 future.
Please stop spamming humanity with all this misinformation. It’s staining your legacies and threatening the future of our civilization.
Terry;
A projection can come from any base, however fantastical or even humorous. “If this were true, then that would be true.” It is necessary only that it be logically consistent.
A prediction, by contrast, asserts both a present and future state of affairs, and one “hangs one’s hat” on it. It is entirely serious and subject to test, disproof, falsification.
So explain it thus: a projection is just an exercise in imagination and logic; a prediction is an exercise in observation and numbers and logic.
Dumb says:
“If we listen to most scientists, then we’ll stop treating the atmosphere as a free sewer as quickly as possible.”
Wrong. Wrong, WRONG, WRONG. Carbon dioxide is not “pollution”, and anyone who claims it is is emitting anti-science propaganda.
Despite numerous requests for Dumb to identify explicit examples of global harm from the rise in CO2, if he can, he has been silent. That is because there are no testable, verifiable examples of global harm from CO2, which is entirely harmless, and beneficial to the biosphere. More CO2 is better.
Further, Dumb’s hypocrisy is on display here because he never attacks China for its rapidly escalating CO2 emissions — in contrast to the decline in U.S. CO2 emissions. Dumb’s hypocrisy is flagrant, disgusting, and anti-American.
Dumb continues: “If we take Dr. Tim Ball and the Sky Dragon Slayers really seriously…”
But we don’t take the Slayers seriously. Read the site Policy page. Dumb needs to learn something for a change, instead of spouting nonsense.
Dumb keeps spamming this site with misinformation: “A growing mountain of evidence keeps confirming the mainstream scientific community, including NASA and the National Academy of Sciences.”
That is just more appealing to corrupt authorities, because Dumb lacks credible facts to support his belief system. And Dumb continues to avoid the challenge to keep his comments confined to testable, verifiable scientific evidence. The evidence shows conclusively that CO2 is not a problem. More is better, and anyway the rise in CO2 follows the rise in global temperature — it does not cause the rise in T. This has been demonstrated empirically, but Dumb disregards proven scientific facts.
Dumb is emitting alarmist propaganda. He has no verifiable scientific facts to support his scare stories. None. So he falls back on his appeals to corrupt authorities.
The ONLY legitimate authority in this issue is Planet Earth herself, and our planet is clearly telling us that CO2 is harmless, and beneficial. But Dumb has an ulterior motive; an agenda. Therefore, he lies to promote his false narrative.
Look at the facts, folks. Don’t be bamboozled by Dumb’s pseudo-science.
Just for the record, Brian H posted his comment at 11:44pm yesterday while mine at 10:40pm was awaiting moderation; he wasn’t ignoring me. Also, I’m sorry for my typos: econonomy -> economy, CO2pm -> CO2, etc.
Anthony Watts’s experiment and encounters with the Slayers are points in his credit. But this WUWT article was written by Sky Dragon Slayer Dr. Tim Ball, as was the last WUWT article where many Slayers wasted hours of my time with their standard talking points. If WUWT really doesn’t take the Slayers seriously, step #1 is to stop lending them your soapbox.
Step #2 is distinguishing the WUWT brand from that of the Sky Dragon Slayers who fantasize that climate sensitivity is somehow exactly zero and simultaneously convince themselves that ocean acidification either isn’t happening at an unprecedented rate, or that somehow this isn’t dangerous. So the Slayers argue that each ton of CO2 does exactly zero damage. That’s why they cheer on using the atmosphere as a free sewer, which will lead to the RCP8.5 future.
What about WUWT? Does WUWT think each ton of CO2 does exactly zero damage?
Distinguish the WUWT brand from the Sky Dragon Slayer brand.
[Any response that includes Slayers drops into the bottom of the moderating queue. immediately. Automatically. You bring that subject up, your choice, your wait. Pretending this site agrees with, or even wants to begin making some level of accodomation with it is wrong, and – if you continue to pretend it does – expect further delays. Mod]
[Separately, and in general, many readers have actually presented valid evidence that each tom of CO2 provides, not “zero damage”, but many thousands dollars of good for man.]
Scientists argue that dumping CO2 into the atmosphere 10x faster than before the Great Dying is inadvisable, so each ton of CO2 does damage. That’s why I hope we choose the RCP2.6 future.
Those-who-shall-not-be-named seem to argue that each ton of CO2 does zero damage: somehow it doesn’t warm the Earth or acidify the oceans. That’s why they’ve effectively endorsed the RCP8.5 future where we just keep ignoring the CO2 problem like we have until now.
Now a WUWT moderator takes a position even more extreme than that of those-who-shall-not-be-named. Apparently, each ton of CO2 somehow does less than zero damage. Perhaps recreating another PETM is beneficial to WUWT in ways that don’t apply to dumb scientists?
Regardless, this seems like an endorsement of the RCP10,000,000 future where we don’t just keep ignoring the CO2 problem. Instead, we burn every last drop of oil, coal, gas, and then try as hard as possible to destabilize the methane clathrate deposits in the shallow East Siberian Sea and melt the permafrost, etc.
Does this unsigned WUWT moderator comment reflect the official WUWT view? If so, you’ve certainly distinguished WUWT from those-who-shall-not-be-named…
[does your unsigned fake name using a NASA email address speak for NASA? – mod]