Climate Science Does Not Support IPCC Conclusions

Since 2008, the Chicago-based, libertarian-leaning Heartland Institute has organized nine ICCCs (International Conferences on Climate Change). Norman Rogers (American Thinker, Aug 9, 2014) has given a general overview of ICCC-9 (at Las Vegas), which attracted an audience of well over 600 and featured speakers from 12 nations.  Here I present a more detailed and personalized account of the two main science issues that appear to be of general concern. The first has to do with future temperatures and the second has to do with future sea level rise (SLR).

When it comes to global average surface temperature (GAST), the concern seems to be to remain below 2 deg. It should be recognized that this limit is entirely arbitrary. There is no established scientific basis for assigning special significance to it; it just happens to be the “Goldilocks” number. Here is what I mean: If one were to choose 0.5 deg, people will say “we’ve already seen that and nothing has happened.”  However, if we were to choose 5 deg, people will say, “we’ll never see that much warming -- hence of no significance.” That is why 2 deg may have become the alarmists’ choice.

The real question relates to Climate Sensitivity (CS) -- defined as the temperature rise associated with a doubling of CO2 (The definition varies slightly between different authors.)

IPCC initially claimed a very large CS. But after the first Assessment report of 1990, CS dropped from 4.5 to about 2.5 deg. From then on, IPCC only considered the last part of the 20th century and no longer claimed the earlier warming (1910-40) to be manmade [see Slide-1].



S-1: (a) GAST (Global Ave Surface Temp)  (b) Note that max US temp occurred in 1930s  Source: GISS

In my view, CS may actually be close to zero. This means CO2 has very little influence on climate change -- probably because of negative feedback. There is still debate, however, about what kind of negative feedback to expect. Should it come from water vapor or from clouds?  

1.  IPCC’s ever-changing, non-existing evidence for AGW

First, I want to critique IPCC reports #1 (1990) to #5 (2013). As a so-called ‘expert reviewer’ I have enjoyed a unique observation platform for successive IPCC drafts. It is rather amusing that the Summaries talk about increasing certainty for AGW (anthropogenic global warming) -- while at the same time modeled temperatures increasingly diverge from those actually observed [S-2].

First, we note that each report “Summary” is produced by a political consensus, not like the underlying scientific report.  [Doubting readers can visit the web site]  As Rogers points out, the U.N. mandate is: “understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change…”  There is no mandate to consider any other causations, such as natural ones related to solar change and ocean circulation cycles -- just presumptive human causes, such as fossil fuels. The IPCC sees a human climate-fingerprint everywhere because that is what they are looking for.

Specifically, IPCC-AR1 indicates a climate sensitivity of 4.5 deg, by considering both reported temperature increases (1910-1940 and 1975-1997) to be anthropogenic [S 1]. After severe criticism of this 'evidence', IPCC dropped the climate sensitivity to 2.5 deg by considering only the most recent decades of reported global warming as anthropogenic. The earlier warming (1910-1940) is now considered to be caused by natural forcing.  

Having given up on anthropogenic forcing for 1910-40, IPCC then considered different types of evidence to support AGW for the interval 1975-2000. In their 1996 report, AR2, Ben Santer “manufactured” the so called Hotspot (HS), a calculated maximum warming of the upper troposphere [S-3], and claimed it as a fingerprint of AGW. This is incorrect on two counts; the HS is not a fingerprint of AGW at all -- and it does not even exist. It was manufactured from the (balloon-radiosonde) temperature record, where a segment shows a short-term increase while there has been no long-term increase [S-4] as clearly seen from the actual data.

A close examination of the proxy data used in the Hockeystick shows that the warming was not unusual at all and probably less than existed 1000 years ago -- and that major warming comes only by adding the (reported) temperature curve from instruments [S-5]. Note also that Mann suppresses his post-1979 proxy data, which probably showed no such warming.

Because of many valid criticisms, the Hockeystick argument has now been dropped by IPCC and is no longer used to claim AGW. Instead both AR4 [2007] and AR5 [2013], in their chapters on ‘Attribution,’ rely on very peculiar circular argument for supporting AGW.

They simply modified the calculated curve and then claimed that the resultant gap proves anthropogenic warming.

http://americanthinker.com/2014/08/climate_science_does_not_support_ipcc_conclusions.html

What I find scariest is the vitriol directed against anyone that questions the methodology or the science itself. That's not how science works... almost every advance is built on proving an existing hypothesis incorrect. That review has always been encouraged and accepted as scientific method.

PkrBum wrote:

What I find scariest is the vitriol directed against anyone that questions the methodology or the science itself. That's not how science works... almost every advance is built on proving an existing hypothesis incorrect. That review has always been encouraged and accepted as scientific method.

Agreed. That's most likely due to the fact they made it a political issue.

As I recall the last couple of years any scientist that comes out against this is black balled, fired and hung to dry in the media.

http://www.nipccreport.org/about/about.html

How do you explain the rise in sea levels?  Are we denying that as well?

I remember watching something like Monty Python where dudes acted normally while their island sank and they drowned. They denied it up until the end. It was probably a spoof on Atlantis.

What level is the ocean suppose to be? We're lucky to be living in a warming trend.

Eric wrote:

How do you explain the rise in sea levels?  Are we denying that as well?

I remember watching something like Monty Python where dudes acted normally while their island sank and they drowned.  They denied it up until the end.  It was probably a spoof on Atlantis.

Just believe that it's impossible to declare an absolute fact in this area when the information is based on a 'snapshot' in the worlds history. As pointed out ...the biggest problem in this being discussed is that it's too political and the science on either side gets lost in the rhetoric...

Global climate changes have been far more intense (12 to 20 times as intense in some cases) than the global warming of the past century, and they took place in as little as 20–100 years. Global warming of the past century (0.8° C) is virtually insignificant when compared to the magnitude of at least 10 global climate changes in the past 15,000 years. None of these sudden global climate changes could possibly have been caused by human CO2 input to the atmosphere because they all took place long before anthropogenic CO2 emissions began. The cause of the ten earlier ‘natural’ climate changes was most likely the same as the cause of global warming from 1977 to 1998.

The switch of PDO cool mode to warm mode in 1977 initiated several decades of global warming. The PDO has now switched from its warm mode (where it had been since 1977) into its cool mode

http://www.globalresearch.ca/global-cooling-is-here/10783

Very very good info on this subject. Finally they are allowing some real science to shine through the google glass.

Most of the world's glaciers are retreating. Take Glacier National park for instance. In 1850, had 150 glaciers at least 25 acres. Now it is down to 25 and they're retreating as well.

SOMETHING is happening for so much ice to melt across the globe, and I suspect it is warmer temps! No rocket science here folks.

Who knows why? I wouldn't put my money on Dan Quayle, though. I'm not convinced that man's activities is the only cause. It could just be a normal oscillation that has happened many times before.

I ain't buying any low-lying waterfront property though. I think it might be a poor investment decision, whatever the cause of sea level rise.

The glaciers have been retreating for 10,000 years... ever since there was a mile high glacier sitting on our midwest. Try to imagine that scale for a minute. I'll take the warming trend we're currently in any day.

PkrBum wrote:

The glaciers have been retreating for 10,000 years... ever since there was a mile high glacier sitting on our midwest. Try to imagine that scale for a minute. I'll take the warming trend we're currently in any day.

In the 70's...not that long ago in the history of the earth....we were warned of Global Freezing and/or another ice age...

There will be another ice age... it's unlikely agw could even delay it by thousands or even hundreds of years. Which is just a blink of the eye in the scheme of things. One thing is certain... humans will fare much better if all of the ice melted than if we had another glacial maximum.

mediawatcher wrote:

PkrBum wrote:

The glaciers have been retreating for 10,000 years... ever since there was a mile high glacier sitting on our midwest. Try to imagine that scale for a minute. I'll take the warming trend we're currently in any day.

    In the 70's...not that long ago in the history of the earth....we were warned of Global Freezing and/or another ice age...

Yeah, MW, that was the buzzword in college in the early 1970's.   That was before the Global Warming bandwagon started rolling.  

And cooling may still happen.  Ice cores show that abrupt warming and cooling has occurred frequently.  If the alarmists are correct about fresh water from Arctic ice melting causes the Gulf Stream to slow or quit altogether, plunging Europe's temps down.  Effects will be felt globally as well.  It's unlikely, but it has happened.  Here is a WeatherUnderground web page on this phenomenon.  http://www.wunderground.com/resources/climate/abruptclimate.asp

Some interesting things are predicted to happen if the Gulf Stream is significantly slowed.  The article quotes the Department of Defense:

Quote :

*  Annual average temperatures would drop up to 5° F in North America, and up to 6° F in northern Europe. This is not sufficient to trigger an ice age, which requires about a 10° F drop in temperature world-wide, but could bring about conditions like experienced in 1816--the famed "year without a summer". In that year, volcanic ash from the mighty Tambora volcanic eruption in Indonesia blocked the sun's rays, significantly cooling the globe. Snow fell in New England in June, and killing frosts in July and August caused widespread crop failures and famine in New England and northern Europe.

*  Annual average temperatures would warm up to 4° F in many areas of the Southern Hemisphere.

*  Multi-year droughts in regions unaccustomed to drought would affect critical agricultural and water resource regions world-wide, greatly straining food and water supplies.

*  Winter storms and winds would strengthen over North America and Europe.

PkrBum, you bring up a valid point.  What if the glaciers were retreating in the 1800's?  I'm not smart enough to say if they were or not, but does it matter?  All I am saying is that it appears the earth is warming.  One thing is for sure, glaciers melt when the temperature increases above a certain point... and they're melting.  Maybe that point was reached 10,000 years ago at the end of our last mini ice age.

PkrBum wrote:

There will be another ice age... it's unlikely agw could even delay it by thousands or even hundreds of years. Which is just a blink of the eye in the scheme of things. One thing is certain... humans will fare much better if all of the ice melted than if we had another glacial maximum.

Sorry about not acknowledging your comments about warming vs. cooling. I would prefer warming as well.

Humans have a greater chance of surviving. But some folks blame the increased ferocity of storms and persistent droughts on warming. IF that is true, yeah, some areas would become uninhabitable, but others would be just fine.

What in hell are the people in California going to do if their taps run dry?

Californians should start storing water... like they used to. Droughts are nothing new to that region. Desalination would be wise to start up too.

PkrBum wrote:

Californians should start storing water... like they used to. Droughts are nothing new to that region. Desalination would be wise to start up too.

Desalination is kinda expensive, but great for those folks that drink the water.

But it isn't just salt that is removed from the water. The rejected slurry is full of metals and stuff that becomes toxic in higher concentrations and it is usually dumped back into the sea, where it affects the ecosystem.

It's hard to believe that those metals don't have value. If some of the slurry needed to be dumped... so be it. I'm sure that there are many abandoned mines or sink holes. Most of the remnants of human civilization will be the scattering of waste... we find rich sources and send them to the wind wastefully. It's probably wiser to save them.

Eric wrote:

PkrBum wrote:

Californians should start storing water... like they used to. Droughts are nothing new to that region. Desalination would be wise to start up too.

Desalination is kinda expensive, but great for those folks that drink the water.  

But it isn't just salt that is removed from the water.  The rejected slurry is full of metals and stuff that becomes toxic in higher concentrations and it is usually dumped back into the sea, where it affects the ecosystem.

Wasn't there an article that you posted that showed how they took that by product and made another product out of it?




BTW..... ICE AGE!!!!

I couldn't help myself lol

Chrissy* wrote:

Eric wrote:

PkrBum wrote:

Californians should start storing water... like they used to. Droughts are nothing new to that region. Desalination would be wise to start up too.

Desalination is kinda expensive, but great for those folks that drink the water.  

But it isn't just salt that is removed from the water.  The rejected slurry is full of metals and stuff that becomes toxic in higher concentrations and it is usually dumped back into the sea, where it affects the ecosystem.

Wasn't there an article that you posted that showed how they took that by product and made another product out of it?




BTW..... ICE AGE!!!!

I couldn't help myself lol

Nope, not me. Must have been another good-looking brilliant guy, lol.