Guest Post by Bob Tisdale
Anthony Watts’s post Meh, same old ‘gloom and doom’ from the IPCC over new climate report at WattsUpWithThat prompted this one. I started to write a comment on that thread that began with, The IPCC is nothing more than a… and I went on from there, trying with some success to limit my word count. But I didn’t post it. I figured it would make for a great topic of discussion all by itself, with everyone adding their own continuation to that preface.
So to start the ball rolling, here’s what I came up with.
The IPCC is nothing more than a report-writing entity:
- that was created by politicians for use by politicians to achieve an political-agenda-driven goal
- that relies on politician-financed climate models that were designed, and continue to operate, with the single-minded intent of showing bad things will happen in the future if we continue to consume fossil fuels.
The IPCC and their reports provide no value to anyone other than the politicians who created that body.
That was a first attempt, pretty much rolled off the keyboard with a few tweaks.
So, if you would, please add your continuation of, The IPCC is nothing more than a…
And if you like, consider adding to another preface, If the politicians were truly interested in helping humanity and the planet…
I’m looking forward to reading what you have to say.
A railway engineer led vehicle for “railroading” through a political agenda.
IPCC is nothing but a political organization with a scientific support arm created through a predetermined and a very biased mandate to study MAN-INDUCED GLOBAL WARMING only . It was created by United Nations with the support of global policy makers in order to provide a justification to redistribute global wealth by raising more money for the United Nations and the individual policymakers through the use of carbon tax or” cap and trade” mechanism and through fixed annual funds allocation to United Nations . Its scientific findings are not suitable for policy decisions by individual nations as their science and their recommendations are unreliable , unproven and clearly unsustainable as the last decade has clearly shown with the many failed predictions and constant science reversals .
The sad thing about the IPCC reports is how governments are obliged to adopt them seeing that such governments approve them, in effect. So governments cannot distance themselves from IPCC reports they endorse.
Clever man, that Maurice Strong! When he set the ball rolling on this ‘nightmare’, he knew very well how to suck everyone in on this catastrophic man-made global warming deception. And suck them in he did. He is the reason why the world is now in this predicament, where this deception is being perpetrated by the UN with the support of western governments, who understand that the IPCC mantra is now just “too big to fail”.
The science is irrelevant. False pronouncements are all that matter in the hope the masses believe it. And damn the consequences for the world.
The IPCC is nothing but a “con job” created for the purpose of creating a world government and reducing indigenous population through hypothermia and starvation.
The IPCC’s very existence is conclusive proof there is no intelligent life on Earth.
The IPCC is nothing more than a logical proof that climate change is caused by the desire for increased tax revenue.
The IPCC will become nothing when the ISIS sappers finish placing their gift under the UN monolith in Manhattan and rid the cooling globe of its most embarrassing mistake.
It is time we had an independent investigation into how the IPCC was hijacked by activists who created false science based on fake IR and radiative physics. That this is true is obvious to any science professional. Thus:
1. Figure 2.5 of IPCC co-founder Houghton’s ‘Physics of Atmospheres’ shows surface IR heating of adjacent atmosphere must be near zero yet Houghton apparently supports the IPCC claim that the atmosphere is heated by ‘black body’ IR emission, despite the fact that this could only happen if we were wading in space suits through solid air!
2. The ‘back radiation’ claim behind this, with the false claim of a single -18 deg C OLR emission zone, creates ~40% extra atmospheric heating than reality, a Perpetual Motion Machine of the 2nd Kind. This is used to pretend an increase in atmospheric humidity as CO2 increases.
3. To offset surface atmospheric temperature increase to pretend (2) is real, the models apply in hind-casting about 35% more low level cloud albedo than reality; this in effect reduces temperature below clouds to get the average temperature right but exponential evaporation kinetics give the imaginary extra humidity. This is blatant cheating, hidden for 30 years whilst the IPCC grew.
4. US atmospheric science teaches incorrect IR physics to justify this bad science: http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node134.html
This module, the source of the ‘back radiation’ myth, teaches that Radiant Emittance is a real energy flux instead of a potential energy flux to absolute zero. The next module falsely claims Emittance (W/m^2) is Emissivity (dimensionless).
What we appear to have is systematic fraud in the atmospheric science community. I draw readers’ attention to the boast in a ClimateGate e-mail by CRU personnel that they were teaching incorrect physics to students.
It’s not just politicians, and that is why it is so entrenched. It is a huge range of businesses, officials, and media interests. So many influencial people will be humiliated when the “consensus” finally collapses, and each of them is strongly incentivised, by power and pride as much as money, to make sure that doesn’t happen before he or she retires to the beach.
The IPCC is nothing more than a governments funded institutionalized activists entity using purposefully mendacious means to inflate, elevate and advance a wide range of inter-connected and reliant left wing, anti-capitalist causes.
If they really wanted to help humanity they would disband and truncate their egregious misappropriation of immense resources that are forever desperately needed for a genuine advancement of both humanity and our blue marble.
scienceinpolitics November 3, 2014 at 10:41 am
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You’re quoting a study from 5 years ago. There have been a 1/2 dozen studies in the last year alone that centre on 1.5 degrees. Here’s just one:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/09/24/significant-new-paper-by-nic-lewis-and-judith-curry-lowers-the-range-of-climate-sensitivity-using-data-from-ipcc-ar5/
You’ll notice that the “long tail” does indeed incorporate the higher range of sensitivities, but 4.5 is extremely unlikely. Its like the confidence range for 1.5 to 4.5 is 95% but the confidence range for 1.5 to 2 is 94% (illustrative only, I didn’t do the math). Anything above 2.0 is so extremely unlikely that any rational person who understands stats and physics isn’t going to consider the higher values as reasonable. Certainly not strong enough evidence to condemn billions to poverty and death.
As to your question about 2 degrees being dangerous or not, I have to go with not. That’s a number that the IPCC throws around constantly without any justification behind it. It is a number that is arbitrary, but has been repeated so many times that it has become folk lore. The earth has been warmer than it is now in the past, and the biosphere thrived. A warmer earth also means a more tranquil climate, as in less tornadoes and hurricanes (and the IPCC AR5 admits this also). Droughts are unchanged over the last century, despite the earth having warmed about a degree since the late 1800’s (Palmer Drought Index, cited in AR5). Crop yields are at their highest levels ever. And keep in mind SB Law. Most of the warming will happen (if it happens at all) in the depths of winter, at night, in the arctic regions. Do you think the polar bears and seals will see a noticeable difference between -48 C and -44 c? As for the tropics, that’s where the LEAST warming will occur, so they will rise by a few tenths of a degree, even less on the hottest day of summer.
So no, I’m not concerned about 2 degrees as a threshold. A warmer earth is an earth bursting with life.
If the politicians were truly interested in helping humanity and the planet…
They would be working hard to make cannabinoid medicine a reality. A possible preventive of death from Ebola (cannabinoids can moderate the cytokine storm). An certainly a cure for some cancers. And maybe all of them.
The IPCC is very conservative by its nature and its need for a broad, least-common-denominator consensus. The data shows that the world is warming much faster than they have predicted. We’re screwed. I’m 60 y.o. now, but I think I’m going to witness the monster storms, a taste of which I’ve already seen in this country (Katrina and Superstorm Sandy). Fortunately, I don’t have any children. Our representatives are in active denial or who seem powerless to stop or slow the runaway climate train we’re on. Inertia seems to be the name of game, despite the conservative IPCC dire warnings, let still while saying the situation is not “hopeless”. I’d have more respect for them if they had said, YOU’RE ALL GONNA DIE A HORRIBLE DEATH!!! and then start handing out the barbiturates, as a humane gesture.
Relax Barbara.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-zLZvFvWqy8Y/U8REucSDlfI/AAAAAAAAASg/-f_VHXdfaQY/s1600/CMIP5-73-models-vs-obs-20N-20S-MT-5-yr-means1.png
That’s a comparison of the IPCC models to actual measured temperatures. The data shows we’re warming [much] SLOWER than predicted.
Its best if we call those squiggly lines “projections” rather than “predictions” for in doing so we avoid reaching false or unproved conclusions through applications of the equivocation fallacy. As Barbara ponders the technology of global warming mitigation it would be helpful for her to know the basics of control theory. An ability to control a system is dependent upon having information about what will happen given that a specified action is taken. This information is called the “mutual information” If the mutual information is nil, the system is uncontrollable. For the climate models that emitted those squiggly lines the mutual information is nil.
The climate models are the product of about 200 billion US$ in research but they don’t help us to control the climate one iota. That we have spent money in huge amounts without acquiring an ability to control the climate has happened because of mismanagement of the research at an astounding level of fraud or incompetency. If Barbara will be voting in today’s general election in the U.S. I urge her to bear this fiasco in mind in casting her votes. Will she vote for Democrats when it is they who mainly have presided over this fiasco or will it be for alternatives to Democrats?
“The IPCC is very conservative by its nature…” Either you haven’t been following their antics or you are in a state of denial.
Barbara:
If you are 60; then you should remember the 1950s when hurricanes regularly visited the East Coast?
Katrina was a minor disaster except for the narrow band of Mississippi where the eye and the storm surge hit directly. New Orleans suffered from multiple dike failures not from a lot of direct storm damage.
Compare Katrina’s visit to the Gulf Coast to Camille’s visit several decades earlier. One government representative described the damage from Camille as that of a 200 mile wide tornado.
I remember as a child visiting a friends house in Atlantic City, walking up the steps to the entrance and then seeing the high water mark about four feet up the living room floor making for an eight to ten foot flooding. The mark was easily visible then since paint doesn’t like to stick to salt deposits.
While you are panicking about relatively minor but poorly prepared for administratively storms like sandy, keep in mind that instead of more frequent and more powerful storms we are experiencing what is perhaps the greatest lull not only of hurricanes/typhoons but also fewer powerful storms during Atlantic recorded history.
While you’re worrying, read up on historical hurricanes;
1944 Great Atlantic hurricane
Great Hurricane of 1821
memorable hurricanes since pre-colonial times
There are quite a few pre-CAGW storms that dealt devastation and death. Read up on a few of these then remember that just returning to historic hurricane numbers and levels will cause far more damage than extant our most recent decades. Perhaps you should dread ever returning to a period where storms similar to the “the July 15, 1733 storm” that wrecked 19 out of 21 New Spain Armada ships in the Florida Keys.
@Barbara A. Smith November 3, 2014 at 1:14 pm
The IPCC is very conservative by its nature and its need for a broad, least-common-denominator consensus. The data shows that the world is warming much faster than they have predicted. We’re screwed.
+++++++++++
That you feel “screwed” means that the politics of the IPCC is working. It is absolutely untrue that the world is warming faster than they have predicted. All of their models of prediction, all of them, are warmer that the actual global temperature record.
You can EASILY be calmed by looking at their predictions and the actual temperature record.
Barbara A. Smith November 3, 2014 at 1:14 pm
The IPCC is very conservative by its nature and its need for a broad, least-common-denominator consensus.
++++++++++++
I read your post twice now. Either you’re actually being facetious, or you are completely misinformed. I am really not sure, because you did come clean and tell us.
The IPCC is not at all conservative. They are a very extreme liberal group of politicians who liberally choose what reports to exclude. The reports which have shown there is no evidence of man made global warming have been excluded. That you do not know the actual temperature records, but choose to suggest people dumb down their fear with drugs, is very sad. It’s frightening to me that people can so easily be controlled by politics to not bother seeking truth. And that you vote, is terribly unfortunate for the rest of us.
Some good comments. The IPCC is not just a bunch of corrupt paper shufflers. It is a blot on history as bad as any disease. The IPCC is neo-lysenkoism.
http://dwightmurphey-collectedwritings.info/A67-GlbWrmg.htm
The anti-cannabis for Medicine people are a definite case of lysenkoism.
The IPCC is there to prove that the ship wreck on Gilligan’s island was caused by global warming…
The IPCC is the visible manifestation of a very well conceived plan of Marxists who realized that ,Marxism as a science had been falsified and the inevitable revolution was unlikely with out active programs to cause mpoverishment, disalusionment, and radicalization.
The IPCC is nothing but a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma. Oops, sorry, that was about something else.
I just noticed the debate over CO2 and a spherical object. This has been thoroughly discussed here.
As a gedanken experiment, think about an IR photon emitted twenty miles up in the atmosphere. That photon can be emitted in any direction. On the surface, that photon would have a 50/50 chance of either hitting the Earth, or heading for space.
But twenty miles up the photon would have a greater than 50/50 probability of heading away from Earth. This is one explanation of the cooling effect of CO2. Much more at the link.
So 50.25:49.75, not that relevant to the cooling effect, especially when CO2 increases ~0.5%/yr.
Enough already.
+1 Personal emails would be more apropos.
Let’s see.
75 “scientists” selected from 13,500 who were a survey of 5 questions = 97% of all climate scientists agree that Man is causing catastrophic Global Warming ….
but 75/13500 = 0.005555
Not 31,000 who wrote in hand-signed petition papers opposing the premise of CAGW’s destructive assumptions, exaggerations, and propaganda.
A comment was made on Nov. 6 at 7:56 pm under my name but was not made by me. According to the moderator this comment was made by juan. On the face of it, juan is guity of fraud with intent to deceive. Perhaps juan would care to explain.
[Reply: That was one of several comments using your name that came from the computer with”juan’s” URL and email address. All but one example was deleted.
~ mod.]
He was not even smart enough to spoof the email address OR IP? No wonder he thinks any criticism is an ad hominem.
Small correction. Not every one understands, SIP is either playing ignorant, or is.
@Juan – Sorry, ignorance is not a defense either. An ad hominem is NOT a question. You are free to ignore the question, but it is not even a loaded question.
Learn about terms before using them.
SIP says some mighty strange things in this thread:
“Global warming hasn’t stopped.”
And:
“I think everyone here agrees arctic sea ice is receding… antarctic sea ice gain is 1/3 of arctic ice lost.”
And:
“AGW is easy to prove”
And:
“I disagree that climate sensitivity is insusceptible to measurement.”
To start at the beginning, I’ve repeatedly requested a measurement quantifying the specific percentage of global warming caused by human activity. All I have ever really asked for is an empirical measurement, and since any physical process can be measured, I would like to see the evidence. SiP says:
I literally just gave it to you. …If youre talking about AGW then I did provide such measurements
Then humor me. Please. Re-post that ‘measurement’, because I must have missed it. Don’t just link to someone else, post the actual number, please.
Also, keep in mind that as I and others have pointed out many times, scientific evidence does not consist of pal reviewed papers, or pronouncements from the UN/IPCC, or the output from computer climate models. ‘Evidence’ is raw data [or adjusted data where every step of the way is recorded and validated], and/or verifiable recorded observations.
So please, post a measurement showing the fraction of total global warming attributable to human emissions. Because I must have missed it.
TIA.
[Snip. ~mod]
@Gordon Oehler Ford November 7, 2014 at 4:18 pm
You are requesting a measurement that cannot be made. So why do you continue to ask for ti? It’s really dumb to ask for something that doesn’t exist. Makes you look ……kinda dumb
++++++++++
Gordon: You should read what you wrote, and then after thinking about what you said, in the context of the discussion, you should apologize for your mistaken assumption about dbstealey.
If you do not understand why you should apologize, then think of this, who’s calling the kettle black?
I will assume you meant what you said, and save you the time of being confused. I do this to help you.
Your assertion is correct, that the measurement cannot be made. That’s because there is no evidence — and dbstealey is helping scienceinpolitics realize that there is no evidence of his position! This point seems to have escaped you. I’ve had people point out my errors in where I posted full of haste and was a bit arrogant. I then apologized. Come clean.
[Snip. ~mod.]
@Gordon Oehler Ford November 7, 2014 at 4:49 pm
No Mario, I am not confused. Dbstealey consistently adds nothing to any discussion in this forum. He’s behaving like a rabid attack dog, relentlessly attacking any person that posts an opinion he finds “unacceptable”.
You are mistaken in thinking I need to apologize. Dbstealey needs to learn that the carrot works better than the stick.
+++++++
I don’t have a dog in this fight. But let me help you out here.
But first: I can see that I was correct assuming you said what you meant, and my following explanation in my first post sticks. To conclude, dbstealey is not the one who looks dumb here.
Second, to enforce my first point, no one could have understood what you really meant to imply because your statement made zero sense, as I explained to you. Your statement shows you did not understand why dbstealey is doing what he was doing. And you reinforced his point – that there is NO EVIDENCE to support scienceinpolitics case!
Finally, I recommend you state what you mean instead of adding nothing cogent to the discussion and making yourself appear not to understand what’s going on. You could have just stated what you did and let your feelings substitute for adding to the science of the discussion.
I trust this response was constructive.
Gordon Ford,
Why are you attacking me right off the bat? We have never met before. It takes two to tango, you know. IMHO ‘juan’ started it, several times in this thread and others. I would like to discuss this issue rationally. Please don’t come across like ‘juan’ and sometimes ‘SiP’ do; they are trolling. They throw out lots of comments, but they never stick to one point until it is resolved; when it gets too hot in the kitchen they move the goal posts, misdirect, and deflect. Please don’t be like them, be like everyone else here. Other commenters are happy to discuss real science. That’s why most of us are here, not for ‘science in politics’.
I will be hapy to answer all of your questions. Just ask. The only question I have for you [and for anyone who can answer it] concerns just one specific number. You can see what it is by reading this thread. It is the only question I care about, but the two commenters I mentioned always avoid it.
Let’s not get off on the wrong foot, Gordon. ‘SiP’ and ‘juan’ are hostile only because they don’t like their feet being held to the fire with that one question, asking for a measurement. Maybe they’re right, but they are handling themselves badly. Polite discussion requires answering a question to the best of your ability, or if you don’t know, then just admitting you don’t have an answer. What’s so hard about that? But those two have never answered that one simple question. They always deflect.
Also, I’m sorry you feel I don’t add anything to this forum. Have you read the whole thread? No one else thinks that, except ‘juan’, and he totally self-destructed by deceptively using Terry Oldberg’s name. That’s not just sockpuppetry, that is fraud.
So I’ll ask you the same question: have you got a measurement quantifying AGW? Just a simple number, that’s all. A percentage. It is certainly a measurement that can be made — IF the human contribution to global warming exceeds the background noise level. Because any physical process can be measured. Why would you think a physical process like AGW cannot be measured?