The fifth and latest IPCC assessment report, published in 2013, showed that climate models failed to predict the absence of warming from 1998 and 2012, and that climate scientists have no clear idea of why they failed. (NB. I have added the bolding in the following extracts.)
“… the rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998–2012; 0.05 [–0.05 to 0.15] °C per decade) … is smaller than the rate calculated since 1951 (1951–2012; 0.12 [0.08 to 0.14] °C per decade).” [WG I SPM, page 5, section B.1, bullet point 3, and in full Synthesis Report on page SYR-6]
“… an analysis of the full suite of CMIP5 historical simulations (…) reveals that 111 out of 114 realisations show a GMST trend over 1998–2012 that is higher than the entire HadCRUT4 trend ensemble ….” [WGI contribution, chapter 9, text box 9.2, page 769, and in full Synthesis Report on page SYR-8]
“There may also be a contribution from forcing inadequacies and, in some models, an overestimate of the response to increasing greenhouse gas and other anthropogenic forcing (dominated by the effects of aerosols).” [WG I SPM, section D.1, page 15, bullet point 2, and full Synthesis Report on page SYR-8]
“This difference between simulated [i.e. model output] and observed trends could be caused by some combination of (a) internal climate variability, (b) missing or incorrect radiative forcing and (c) model response error“. [WGI contribution, chapter 9, text box 9.2, page 769]
IN MY SIMPLER WORDS …
1 – According to statistical practices the trend in temperature from 1998 to 2012 (the 15 years prior to the report being drafted) falls somewhere between slight warming and slight cooling. In other words there is no certainty that any warming occurred.
2 – Despite claims of the accuracy of climate models most of the model runs (97%) wrongly predicted warming from 1998 to 2012.
3 – The IPCC is admitting that “some models” – we are not told how many, so maybe it’s almost all – exaggerate the influence of CO2 and other greenhouse gases.
4 – The models could be wrong for a number of very basic and general reasons; the IPCC really doesn’t know why the models failed.
There is an old scientific tenet that says “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof”.
I commenced an independent, comprehensive investigation of CAGW (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming) some 25 years ago because of the direct potential impact this would have on my farming enterprise.
Farmers work directly with nature and climate as they pursue their farming and grazing activities and if the world was going to warm, possibly catastrophically, it would at the very least mean a substantial change in my enterprise mix and management approach, and at worst, might mean I could no longer continue to farm.
I therefore had a strong vested interest in attempting to understand the science (and politics) behind the claims that were being made so that I could take appropriate action as future climatic events developed and demanded.
It goes without saying that I needed to seek out the actual truth with an open mind as it would be clearly counter- productive to delude myself with preconceived or incorrect ideas and assumptions.
It is a long story but what I found, quite early on in my investigation, is that the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), despite having spent many billions of dollars on attempting to find compelling evidence to substantiate their hypothesis, have been totally unable to do so.
At first I could not believe this, I must be wrong, so I carefully and critically re-read the IPCC Reports and much other relevant information. The result was the same, NO valid empirical evidence 1 has ever been cited. I was and am astounded.
A very careful study has shown that ‘Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming’ has proven to be no more than a politically generated fairy tale, yet the media, most Governments, many scientific organisations, Universities and others continue to ignore any and all evidence that challenges the IPCC claims and blindly accept what they say.
Twenty-two years ago a bunch of green activists calling themselves “The Earth Summit” met in Rio and invented a way to tour the world at tax-payers’ expense – never-ending conferences on environmental alarms.
Like any good bureaucratic committee, they soon established sub-committees on sustainability, pollution, development, energy, forestry, water, biodiversity, endangered species, poverty, health, population and Agenda 21 (this item alone had 40 chapters each with its own sub-committee). Environmental conferences became the greatest multi-national growth industry in the world financed mainly by tax-payers via participating public servants, climate academics, employees of nationalised industries and tax-sheltered green “charities” such as Greenpeace and WWF.
They really hit the Mother Lode with their creation of the “United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change” which, in good bureaucratic tradition, duplicated the work of the “Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change” (IPCC). These then created their own brand-names called “Global Warming”, and its proxies “Climate Change” and “Extreme Weather”.
BACK in the 1980s anthropogenic global warming was resurrected. Its emphasis was that man-made CO2 would dangerously heat up the world and had to be controlled.
And there was lots of money available if this could be proved. So a multi-billion dollar industry was born.
The first thing was to speed up the rate of warming. This was done by ignoring a large number of temperature measuring stations from cold areas like Siberia, places with altitude such as Bolivia and only one above the Arctic Circle. So far so good.
Two distractions were the Medieval Warm Period, and the Little Ice Age. Michael Mann removed those with his hockey stick graph. It has since been shown that feeding random numbers into his program always resulted in a hockey stick. It rapidly went from the 1995 IPCC report’s cover and Al Gore’s presentations into obscurity.
There was also a problem with the record high temperatures from the 1930s–1940s. To lower them, the major measuring agencies started to adjust the original temperatures. This can be legitimate if weather stations have been moved or their surroundings compromised. A photographic record of every station in the US shows that 80% are no longer correctly positioned mostly due to urbanisation (green fields are now asphalt parking lots). Logically the old readings should have been regarded as valid and current readings would need to be lowered. They’ve done the opposite.
They started reducing the temperatures pre-1960 (give or take) and increasing them since then. NOAA for example was adjusting temperatures this way by 0.01 Fahrenheit per month, but then went to doing it twice a month. But hey, when you’re on a good thing, do it more often! The Australian, NZ and GB BOMs, and the US’s NOAA and NASA have all been doing this. They have also stopped providing historical data to other weather forecasters.
Parts of NOAA were so concerned with their official figures they established 100 green field stations across the US. After 10 years they show a steady drop, whereas the “official” adjusted figures just keep rising. Satellite measurements, which are difficult to fudge, are also showing a stable or dropping temperature pattern.
So what does this all mean? Our temperature records have been modified to meaningless; the computer models are useless (87 of 89 major models can’t get within two standard deviations of actuals); the actuals haven’t risen for 17 years; our governments do not class CO2 as a pollutant (look it up); environmentalists should embrace the benefits of more CO2; windmills and commercial solar should be junked.
Let’s get back to using coal and gas, which are more reliable, cheaper and are less dangerous (actually beneficial) to our environment.
We have experimented with square wheels and they have been a failure; we need to get back to ones that make the world go round.
John Ibbotson, Gulmarrad NSW
First published in The Daily Examiner 5 Sep 2014
In 2007 John wrote and published one of the first Australian books sceptical of AGW: Planning Ahead For Future Generations, by Highlighting Climate Change Myths. www.lighthouses.com.au
John is still actively involved in slaying global warming myths and fighting for a better deal for Murray Darling irrigators.
Ray Evans was one of the first Australians to recognise the poor science and dangerous goals of the global warmists. Way back in 2006, Ray wrote a well-reasoned booklet entitled “Nine Facts about Climate Change”. It still stands as a clear summary of the debate.
Once again, the high priests of the UN/IPCC have forecast world starvation unless we mend our wicked ways.
According to them, unless we curb our use of oil, gas, coal and meat, the carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere will soar, the globe will heat up, and food production will plummet.
This is just a rerun of their previous failed forecasts based on academic theories and computer models.
They should have asked practical nurserymen, farmers and meteorologists.
Nurserymen would tell them that if you pump carbon dioxide into a greenhouse the plants grow faster, bigger, more drought-tolerant and more heat-tolerant. Therefore more carbon dioxide will produce more food.
More, as well as:
Flood Plains are for Floods
Dr Patrick Michaels’ lecture tour on Climate Change.
The Carbon Sense Coalition today accused the UN Warsaw climate conference and some world media of callous exploitation of human suffering in the recent typhoon in order to promote their international carbon tax levelling plans.
The Chairman of Carbon Sense, Mr Viv Forbes, said that the leaders of the global warming scare campaign who are blaming the use of carbon fuels for Typhoon Haiyan should read their own IPCC scientific report which makes no such claim.
Damaging typhoons have been a fact of life in the Western Pacific for all of recorded history. In 1274, Japan was saved from invasion by Kublai Khan when a typhoon destroyed a huge Mongol invasion fleet. A second bigger fleet in 1281 was destroyed by another typhoon which was named Kamikaze or “divine wind” by the grateful Japanese. Typhoons were also frequent and severe during the Little Ice Age around 1670. (more…)