Guest opinion: Dr. Tim Ball
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) claim with 95 percent certainty that they completed a 5000-piece puzzle using only eleven pieces. The pieces are shown in the Radiative Forcing diagram (Figure 1) from AR5. By their assessment, they have high confidence in only five of these pieces. Those ratings are questionable and self-serving. For example, they list CO2 as very high when their prediction of its function is undermined by the lack of temperature increase for the last 20 years.
Figure 1
One of the strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPP) against me emerged from an article with the central theme that the IPCC set climate research back 30 years. This was inevitable given the definition of climate change in Article 1 of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The definition, as they planned, predetermined the results.
“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.”
By the time of the IPCC Assessment Report 4 (AR4) in 2007, they inserted a broader definition.
“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.”
It appeared as a footnote in the Summary for Policymakers (SPM) of AR4. Apparently the purpose is to let them say if challenged, that they changed the definition. The problem is they didn’t and couldn’t because the Reports are cumulative. This action requires starting over.
The definition directed world attention and research focus to CO2 and temperature exactly as those controlling the political agenda of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) planned. The trouble is this enhanced already existing biases and inadequacies. The main element overlooked, ignored, or misapplied is water. It is not surprising considering the lack of proxy data and modern instrumental measures of water in all its forms.
One serious misdirection involved the use of tree rings as a proxy for temperature in the infamous ‘hockey stick’ graph in the 2001 IPCC Report. The sad part is tree rings offer a valuable proxy source that crosses the boundary between the secular (instrumental) record with the historic record of approximately 6000 years. Gradually people are producing long-term precipitation records from tree rings. A 2014 paper, “A 3,500-year tree ring record of annual precipitation on the northeastern Tibetan Plateau” is identified as
“the production and climatic interpretation of a tree-ring width chronology that is currently the longest, absolutely dated series produced for the northeastern Tibetan Plateau and one of the longest in the world.”
It concludes,
Precipitation in this region during the last 50 years has been historically high—likely higher than for any equivalent length period in at least 3,500 years, even when considering the chronology and interpretational uncertainty. Notable dry periods occurred in the 4th century BCE and in the second half of the 15th century CE.
Cross referencing these with other proxy records such as paleosols can provide a valuable history from which to determine changing climate mechanisms. Figure 2 shows the location of sand dunes in the Carberry desert or Brandon Sand Hills of southwest Manitoba.
Figure 2
Figures 3a, b, and c show three distinct paleosols exposed in a cross section of one dune.
Figure 3 a
The paleosols are visible at the top of the dune.
Note the microclimate with trees on the north slope where evaporation is less than on the south slope, leaving sufficient moisture for trees. (Author’s photos).
3 b: This is the deepest most well-developed soil profile.
3 c: The current top soil and two distinct lower paleosols related to wetter periods.
The authors conclude,
Most notable paleosol development occurred around 2300 to 2000, 1400 to 1000, and 600 to 500 cal yr BP with eolian activity occurring before and after each of these periods. Episodes of eolian activity may correspond to periods of regional drought, whereas paleosols mark periods of increased moisture availability and stabilization by vegetation.
These records indicate how much more climate information precipitation data yields and are essential to understanding climate change.
Glaciation is another area where the temperature has overridden the role of precipitation in the life cycle. A glacier forms when some snow survives the summer melt for several years. It is assumed that a temperature decline is required. However, it is possible that the snow amount increases allowing some to survive the summer. Once the snow survives, the albedo changes increasing the chance for survival without a temperature change. As the snow layers accumulate and the ice becomes plastic, the ice begins to flow. Balance develops between the accumulation and the ablation zone (Figure 4).
Figure 4
The glacier advances all the time internally as long as the ice is plastic (ductile). The snout of the glacier on the right side of the diagram advances or retreats: sometimes because of temperatures, but also if the snowfall in the Zone of Accumulation increases or decreases.
One of the interesting features of the end of the Pleistocene ice sheet was the rate at which melt occurred. Ablation was rapid as the change in sea level chart indicates (Figure 5). Meltwater Phase 1A occurred between 14,700 and 13,500 years ago. There is no doubt that the overall cause of melting was a temperature increase, but the rapid sea level rise is more likely due to a significant increase in rainfall. If you put a block of ice in the sink, it melts slowly. Run water over it and the melt rate increases significantly. Also, rotten ice on the surface has a lower albedo than snow or pure ice.
There are other issues like the amount of CO2 absorbed in the atmosphere by water droplets and raindrops. We don’t know how much because actual measures of the amount of water in the atmosphere and how it varies over time are not available.
Figure 5
Is it possible that variation in the amount of water in the atmosphere and the CO2 it absorbs is equal to the amount humans add?
In a recent article, I examined the issue of aerosols and their role in atmospheric physics. All aerosols eventually fall out of the sky as a function of their size and weight. Gravity is the largest force removing aerosols from the atmosphere. However, two major mechanisms involve water. Aerosols are a nucleus around which water vapor condenses, and rain washes them out. Take a look at a surface after raindrops evaporate and see the residue. All these factors involve water that changes the transmissivity of the atmosphere. How much do they affect global climate mechanisms during wetter periods?
The IPCC deliberately limited the variables. They claim the 5000 – piece puzzle is effectively finished when science hasn’t identified the four corner pieces or most of the edge pieces. The number and complexity of those omitted are vast, and most of them exceed the IPCC claims for the role of human produced CO2. Despite this, they draw almost definitive conclusions that are the justification for devastating climate and energy policies. Their actions are beyond pseudoscience. The definition of which is,
“A collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.”
The key word is “mistakenly”. There is nothing mistaken in the deliberate, premeditated actions of the IPCC. Besides, if they were mistaken, then they are grossly incompetent.
From figure 1, I find it remarkable that the climate theory forced upon us by United Nations climate panel leave no room for natural variation.
The only natural change since the last ice age is a minuscule change in solar irradiance. All the other changes are so called anthropogenic. It seems like mankind pulled the earth out of the last ice age. That´s great isn´t it, unwittingly brilliant by mankind.
Unless the little ice age didn´t exist off course – which seem to be the position of IPCC.
“The NASA Earth Observatory notes three particularly cold intervals: one beginning about 1650, another about 1770, and the last in 1850, each separated by intervals of slight warming. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Third Assessment Report considered the timing and areas affected by the LIA suggested largely independent regional climate changes, rather than a globally synchronous increased glaciation. At most there was modest cooling of the Northern Hemisphere during the period.
Several causes have been proposed: cyclical lows in solar radiation, heightened volcanic activity, changes in the ocean circulation, an inherent variability in global climate, or decreases in the human population.”
– Wikipedia
Thanks to Dr Tim.Ball, yet again, for bring us another solid analysis of the situation. Dr. Ball is a real scientist amongst the sea of pseudo-scientists bought and sold for CAGW Alarmism. I loved his analogy to the solution of a 5,000 piece problem with 11 corner pieces. It is spot on!
You are absolutely right, Tim, water is exactly what these pseudoscientists are missing. I made that same point in a comment I attached to Walter Dnes article in WUWT of April 30th. Specifically, water vapor constitutes 95 percent by volume of all greenhouse gases in the atmosphere but Arrhenius greenhouse theory completely ignores it. Below is an adaptation of my comments to cover this scientific error as well as their use of pseudoscience to create warming where none exists. Let’s begin with the existence of the hiatus in the eighties and nineties, something you probably never heard of. It is present in satellite data which is how I discovered it in 2008. But it has been covered up by an imaginary “late twentieth century warming” in all ground-based temperature curves. It is clear from satellite data hat there simply was no warming from 1979 to 1997. These dates go from the beginning of the satellite era to the beginning of the giant super El Nino of 1998 You can see what the real curve looks like in Figure 15 of my book “What Warming?” Since no one was listening to me about this I decided to put a warning about it into the preface of my book when it came out in 2010. I used that same figure again in an article I posted on October 29th last year in WUWT. That article criticized Karl et al.’s attempt to declare the twenty-first century hiatus non-existent. Amazingly, a Bob Tisdale wrote a comment accusing me of having fabricated the data in Figure 15! He is the same man who thinks that El Ninos are warming up the world. His act is of course pure libel which he has to publicly retract and apologize for. Fortunately, I was able to get NASA’s own description of what temperature was doing the eighties and nineties, issued in 1997. This is what NASA had to say then:
“Unlike the surface-based temperatures, global temperature measurements of the Earth’s lower atmosphere obtained from satellites reveal no definitive warming trend over the past two decades. The slight trend that is in the data actually appears to be downward. The largest fluctuations in the satellite temperature data are not from any man-made activity, but from natural phenomena such as large volcanic eruptions from Mt. Pinatubo, and from El Niño. So the programs which model global warming in a computer say the temperature of the Earth’s lower atmosphere should be going up markedly, but actual measurements of the temperature of the lower atmosphere reveal no such pronounced activity.”
Note the fact that NASA specifically rejects the validity of computer-predicted temperature rise for this period. I can see now how, despite NASA’s warming, those computer predictions became the seed for changing that section into a new “late twentieth century warming.” With that, they effectively erased the first hiatus we had. (But not completely, it is still visible in satellite data). The second hiatus is the twenty-second century hiatus we are experiencing now. This is the one that Karl et al. were supposed to have buried. Two hiatuses gone by these two moves: is there any meaning or pattern to this? The answer is yes, when we follow through on it. What happens when a hiatus arrives is that from that point on there is no increase of global temperature while atmospheric carbon dioxide just keeps increasing. Why is this a big deal? you may ask. It is a big deal because according to the Arrhenius greenhouse theory, any increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide must be accompanied by an increase of global temperature. This is the greenhouse effect at work. But what we have experienced instead for the last 18 years or so is a steady increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide with no corresponding increase of global temperature. If true, this means that Arrhenius greenhouse theory is simply not working – it predicts warming and we don’t get any. Therefore, that vaunted greenhouse effect the IPCC and 200 plus world governments are supposed to be fighting is simply not there! How can this be when the science is settled and our fate is sealed by the global greenhouse effect? The answer: there is no global greenhouse effect. With that, the theory of global warming by the greenhouse effect dies. And all multi-billion mitigation efforts must be defunded because there is nothing to mitigate. Also, by the way, did you know that carbon dioxide is no more than three percent of global greenhouse gas total? The largest amount of global greenhouse gas is water vapor, which makes up 95 percent of total global greenhouse gas by volume as we saw. And yet the Arrhenius greenhouse theory leaves water vapor completely out. Small wonder that its predictions of warming are false. But there is another greenhouse theory that does include both carbon dioxide and water vapor as its subjects. It is the Miskolczi greenhouse theory or MGT [1]. It predicts the existence of today’s hiatus accurately and should be used in place of the Arrhenius greenhouse theory that makes false predictions about a non-existent greenhouse effect.
To understand why MGT and not Arrhenius is correct read
[1]Arno Arrak (2014): The Miskolczi Greenhouse Theory. http://energiaakademia.lapunk.hu/tarhely/energiaakademia/dokumentumok/201406/miskolczi_greenhouse.pdf