AR5 Continues to Let The End Justify the Unscrupulous Means

Someone said economists try to predict the tide by measuring one wave. The IPCC essentially try to predict (project) the global temperature by measuring one variable. The IPCC compound their problems by projecting the temperature variable with the influence of the economic variable.

Use of circular arguments is standard operating procedures for the IPCC. For example, they assume a CO2 increase causes a temperature increase. They then create a model with that assumption and when the model output shows a temperature increase with a CO2 increase they claim it proves their assumption.

They double down on this by combining an economic model that projects a CO2 increase with their climate model projection. To make it look more accurate and reasonable they create scenarios based on their estimates of future developments. It creates what they want, namely that CO2 will increase and temperature will increase catastrophically unless we shut down fossil fuel based economies very quickly.

All their projections failed, even the lowest as, according to them, atmospheric CO2 continued to rise and global temperatures declined. As usual, instead of admitting their work and assumptions were wrong, they scramble to blur, obfuscate and counterattack.

It is a common mistake among many to think science is exclusive – it shouldn’t be. The scientific method is very much inclusive, it is INTENDED to empower the people. Luther Haave, Richard Courtney and myself produced the below description of the method, which to date has not been questioned to my knowledge.  The full version is at globalwarmingskeptics.info.

Excerpt:

Some scientists have become advocates of the hypothesis of an enhanced greenhouse effect. Kary Mullis, won the Nobel Prize for Chemistry in 1993, and he writes in his book, Dancing Naked in the Mind Field, of such advocates:

“Scientists who speak out strongly about future ecological disaster and promote the notion that humans are responsible for any changes going on are highly suspect. Turn off the TV. Read your elementary science textbooks. You need to know what they are up to. It’s every man for himself as usual, and you are on your own.”

This paper attempts to aid non-scientists to assess scientific opinions on climate change and to discern the advocates whom Mullis condemns. The assessment requires no scientific knowledge except a basic understanding of the scientific method as explained by Karl Popper.

Popper argued that all science is based on hypotheses that must be tested to destruction. Sound evidence which does not fit with the hypothesis must logically cause it to be rejected. However, the other side of the same coin is that no hypothesis can ever be said to be proven. Over time, the body of evidence consistent with a successful hypothesis builds up to the extent that it becomes regarded as a theory, for example the theory of General Relativity, or Tectonic Plate theory.

Thomas Kuhn provided a different view of how scientists work. He introduced the concept of “normal science‟ to cover the situation where scientists work on various topics within a central paradigm. In contrast to Popper, the Kuhnian view is that “wrong” results (i.e. those which are in conflict with the prevailing paradigm) are considered to be due to errors on the part of the researcher rather than findings which damage the consensus view.

However, as conflicting evidence increases, a crisis point is reached where a new consensus view is arrived at and this generates a so-called paradigm shift. Simply, Kuhn says scientists are human and have human prejudices. Advocates of the man-made global warming hypothesis promote Kuhn’s view and repeatedly cite “consensus” as evidence. Simply, they proclaim that the number of “experts” who hold an opinion is “evidence” that the opinion is correct.

But opinions are formed by many things – including personal prejudices – so “consensus” is no help to persons who wish to discern the expert opinions that most closely match physical reality. Popper’s philosophy of science is more useful for those who want to decide between competing scientific opinions.

The Hockey Schtick blog highlights a new paper published in Geophysical Research Letters. It finds the natural North Atlantic Oscillation [NAO] controls temperatures of the Northern Hemisphere 15 to 20 years in advance, a lagged effect due to the large thermal inertia of the oceans. The authors find the NAO index can be used to predict Northern Hemisphere mean temperature multidecadal variability and the natural oceanic Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) 15–20 years in advance. A simple linear model based upon this theory predicted the ‘pause’ of global warming since about 2000 that IPCC models failed to predict, and projects Northern Hemisphere temperatures will “fall slightly” over the 15 years from 2012-2027. 

The NAO, in turn, has been linked to solar activity.

The terrible toll from Japan’s tsunami came from the wave, not radiation

I have watched a TV programme called ‘Fear Factor.’ In the series there are contestants who have to confront their worst fears to see who bales out and who can fight the fear and get through.

People who are afraid of heights are made to Bungee-jump off a high bridge, and people who are scared of spiders or insects are made to get in a bath full of spiders.

In virtually all cases the contestants later say that the fearful experience was not actually as bad as they feared. So the fear of the fear was greater than the fear itself ‘when the chips were down.’

This is often the case in life, that the fear of some factor turns out to be worse than the experience itself. The human mind builds a very scary image in the imagination. The imagination then feeds the fear.

If the picture in the imagination is not very specific or clear it is worse, because the fear factor feeds on the unknown.

This is what has happened in the public mind concerning nuclear power over the last half century. Concepts concerning nuclear reactions and nuclear radiation are in themselves complicated and mysterious.

Over the last couple of decades physics advances in fields such as quantum mechanics, which is linked to nuclear processes has compounded matters for the public. The image of strong and mysterious forces and effects is now well entrenched. There are Hollywood movies and TV programmes about space travellers or alien invaders who use time travel and quantum forces, and then battle to evade the dangerous intergalactic nuclear zones.

A consequence of all this is that internationally the public is now really ‘spooked’ when it comes to the topic of nuclear power. A real ‘fear factor’ looms over the mere word ‘nuclear.’ Newspapers love this, and really push imagery like; ‘nuclear leak’ or ‘radiation exposure.’

To a nuclear physicist like me, I look upon such public reaction half with amusement and half with dismay. The amusement comes from the fact that so many people can be scared so easily by so little. It is like shouting: “Ghost in the bedroom,” and everyone runs and hides in the hills.

The dismay reaction is that there is a body of anti-nuclear activists who do not want the public to know the truth, and the anti-nukes enjoy stoking the fear factor and maintaining public ignorance.

Let us now ponder the Fukushima nuclear incident which has been in the news again lately.

Firstly let us get something clear. There was no Fukushima nuclear disaster. Total number of people killed by nuclear radiation at Fukushima was zero. Total injured by radiation was zero. Total private property damaged by radiation….zero. There was no nuclear disaster. What there was, was a major media feeding frenzy fuelled by the rather remote possibility that there may have been a major radiation leak.

At the time, there was media frenzy that “reactors at Fukushima may suffer a core meltdown.” Dire warnings were issued. Well the reactors did suffer a core meltdown. What happened? Nothing.

Ranchers are still digging out thousands of their cattle that became buried in a record-setting snowstorm in South Dakota late last week and over the weekend.

One would think the death of 75,000 cows by upwards of five feet of snow might get some national attention, but as one blogger observed, it has taken some time for the news of the precipitation massacre to reach outside of local media.

“I searched the national news for more information. Nothing. Not a single report on any of major news sources that I found. Not CNN, not the NY Times, not MSNBC,” Dawn Wink wrote Tuesday. “I thought, ‘Well, it is early and the state remains without power and encased in snow, perhaps tomorrow.’ So I checked again the next day. Nothing. It has now been four days and no national news coverage.”

Wink dubbed it “The Blizzard that Never Was.”

National syndicated photo services also yield only a few results documenting the storm. The Weather Channel, taking photo submissions from locals, seems to have the most dramatic pictures of the scene.

At least four deaths were attributed to the weather, including a South Dakota man who collapsed while cleaning snow off his roof.

Gary Cammack, who ranches on the prairie near Union Center about 40 miles northeast of the Black Hills, said he lost about 70 cows and some calves, about 15 percent of his herd. A calf would normally sell for $1,000, while a mature cow would bring $1,500 or more, he said.

“It’s bad. It’s really bad. I’m the eternal optimist and this is really bad,” Cammack said. “The livestock loss is just catastrophic. … It’s pretty unbelievable.”

There is an ongoing scientific debate over whether or not carbon dioxide causes atmospheric warming or atmospheric cooling. The reason that this debate continues is because no scientific study has yet been devised to directly measure the affect of carbon dioxide on the temperature of the atmosphere.

I keep on seeing the phrase from alarmists, warmists, and luke-warmists, of this initiating assumption that, in order to conserve energy, you set the power input equal to the power output.  In other words:

Power In = Power Out

Haven’t these people heard of entropy?  The fact that for essentially NOTHING in the universe, power in = power out, is learned in high-school or even well before that.  

So who are the people that claim that power in = power out, in direct and the most basic violation of thermodynamics?  Can you actually really be a physicist while claiming that power in = power out, in 100{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} efficiency?  Nothing is 100{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} efficient, because of our friend entropy – no matter how efficiently you try to get work out of a system, you can never get as much power out as you put in – there are always losses.

So there’s that, and of course, why else is power in NOT EQUAL TO power out?  Power in is not equal to power out because the energy which constitutes those powers does not come from the same surface area.  For Earth, ‘power out’ does not equal ‘power in’ because the power gets put in on only half the planet, while the ‘power out’ comes from the whole planet.

There’s twice as much surface area from which power can come out than to which power comes in, and so, if the power out equalled the power in, there would be twice as much energy coming out as comes in.  Equating flux will in general always lead to a basic violation of conservation of energy.  Equating flux, in general, is not the correct way to conserve energy.

I mean this is all very basic stuff, which I’ve written on extensively already.  The Earth is not flat, Sunshine is not cold, conserving flux is not the same thing as conserving energy, etc.

And that latter seems to be the source of all the climate confusion, among all participants of the debate.  Only me and other people at PSI (Principia Scientific International, i.e. “the Slayers”) seem to be stating the factual, traditional-science case that power is not the same thing as energy, that flux can’t be averaged, that real-time differential heat-flow equations are the only true solution for heat flow and temperature, etc.

The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) published it’s Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) this week and already it is in crisis with accusations of malfeasance and pleas from climatologists for immunity from prosecution.

A critical backlash against AR5’s “junk science” is now in full swing and policymakers in Britain and Australia are already in full retreat from the travesty. The ongoing collapse in the UN’s climate cabal’s credibility puts a fresh light on why climatogists got in early with their formal request for immunity from prosecution at the Rio de Janeiro UN climate summit of 2012.

Today, prominent statistician Steve McIntye, one of the analysts often credited with exposing past IPCC ‘errors’ points to why this fiasco may rise to the level of criminality. McIntyre shows how UN officials systematically hid adverse data contained in the final draft review but omitted from the subsequent report now issued to the public. The world hasn’t seen this kind of orchestrated institutionalized deceit since the world banking crisis of 2008.

The astonishing plea by the world’s climatologists for immunity from prosecution was first reported last year when it surfaced embarrassingly during the Rio summit. At the time  John Bolton, a former U.S. Ambassador to the UN, was quick to question the motives, “The creeping expansion of claims for privileges and immunities protection for UN activities is symptomatic of a larger problem.”

This week, in ‘IPCC: Fixing the Facts’ McIntyre identifies the evidence that proves how UN authors cynically removed from their final report facts that contradicted the propaganda set out in the Summary for Policymakers (SPM) issued only last Friday. Such stark evidence reveals that climatologists failed to predict the flatlining of temperatures in recent decades.

McIntyre observes:

“Figure 1.4 of the Second Order Draft clearly showed the discrepancy between models and observations, though IPCC’s covering text reported otherwise. I discussed this in a post leading up to the IPCC Report, citing Ross McKitrick’s article in National Post and Reiner Grundmann’s post at Klimazweiberl. Needless to say, this diagram did not survive. Instead, IPCC replaced the damning (but accurate) diagram with a new diagram in which the inconsistency has been disappeared.”

Aslak Grinsted has just posted a document, which is said to be “a nice figure which compares the 21st Century sea level projections”. I would say it is another one of all those exaggerations that the IPCC supporters seem to feel that have to produce to save the story.

Firstly, Grinsted claims the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) satellite altimetry data gives the true reading of what has been going on in the last 20 years with global sea level. Therefore he – without any hesitation– proclaims that this value constitutes “an absolute lower limit” of the sea level by 2100.

This is certainly NOT true. The satellite altimetry data have been severely modified by quite subjective so-called “corrections”. Therefore, it cannot be used as a measure of actual sea level changes (e.g. 1, 2).

Secondly, the so-called “ice sheet experts” are said to give values equivalent to a sea level rise from 28 to 145 cm. This is a remarkable exaggeration, which violates physical laws and knowledge accumulated over a very long period of time (e.g. 1).

The only scientifically defendable value of the present rate of sea level changes is somewhere in the sector between ±0.0 to 1,7 mm/year sea level rise (see 1, 2). A value that is far below all the model predictions, as illustrated in the below figure.

Figure 1. Grinsted’s original diagram corrected to show actually observed sea level variations (red box) and its extension of the various model out-puts (yellow line).

Consequently, Grinsted presents a strongly exaggerated and incorrect picture.

The Environmental Movement is an anti-science pseudo religion which believes that humans are destroying “The Planet”, In order to promote this view they have set up organisations for their activists, such as Greenpeace, where every member and official had to propagate the official doctrine, imposed from above.

At the time, employment of scientists had fallen, Generous salaries, promotion and foreign travel was offered to those who would support this programme, combined with a campaign of elimination of critics by influence on Journal Editors, the Universities, Official Scientific Bodies and the international media.

The IPCC has now issued five major Reports. These have been amazingly successful in persuading governments all over the world that they can prevent what is alleged to control “global warming” by reducing emissions of carbon dioxide and other minor ‘greenhouse gases.’

The IPCC ran into a problem that does not affect an organisation such as Greenpeace, Scientists are usually trained to think for themselves, and some of those who have been recruited to support the “climate change” programme find if difficult not to insert their reservations into the opinions that are proscribed for them.

CFC Destruction of Ozone was the Real Cause

Introduction

Here is an excerpt¹ from a paper written by a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) meteorologist; “Climate models used for estimating effects of increases in greenhouse gases show substantial increases in water vapor as the globe warms and this increased moisture would further increase the warming.” However, this meteorologist along with the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) crowd got it backwards about water vapor and CO₂ — they cool the earth like all other gases in our atmosphere!

Although moisture in the atmosphere does increase with warming, this is because the higher temperature causes more water to evaporate. With every pound of water evaporated 1,000 Btu is absorbed and that causes cooling. Further, increased water in the atmosphere causes further cooling (not warming) by reflecting more of the radiant energy from the Sun that is hitting the water vapor molecules back to outer space.

Al Gore presented the climate change fraud as well in his “Inconvenient Truth”, actually a “Convenient Lie” presentation of the Vostok Ice Core data, see below.

Gore’s “Inconvenient Truth” Documentary — Cause and Effect Reversed

In this documentary, Al Gore fudged the Vostok Ice core temperature and CO₂ line graphs so it would show a CO₂ spike coming first in time, but the real graph showed just the opposite. See the data in a shorter time frame (240,000 Years Before Present rather than 420,000 Years Before Present as presented by Gore). This makes it easier to see which came first, Figure 1. 

Figure 1. Vostok, Antarctica Ice Core Data².

It is clearly seen that a global warming spike (blue line) always comes first. The spike warms the oceans, which slowly reduces the solubility of CO₂ in water that results in the liberation of CO₂ from the oceans around 800 years later (see Figure 2). Gore gave no explanation what would cause a CO₂ spike to occur in the first place, but then again he is a politician with an agenda to make him wealthy. See the most recent time of warming between the 500 year medieval warming period and the start of an increase in CO₂ in the atmosphere. One can see that CO₂ started increasing during a cooling period showing it was not controlled by the warming that started some 80 years later and it is about 800 years from the end of the medieval warming period. This is historically what happens. Dr. Michael Mann of Penn State, eliminated the Medieval Warming period, his hockey stick graph, – clearly a fabricated graph by “cherry picking” temperature data.

+ Euro Municipalities Now Ignoring Foolish Predictions Of Warm Winters

Last Thursday evening and yesterday winter made its debut in Southern Germany and Austria  – and how! Read more here.

German RTL television last night here (starting at 4:30) called it the “most severe start of winter in 200 years!“, saying many meteorologists were caught by surprise. Up to half a meter of snow fell at some locations.

Gone are the mild winters of the sort Europe seen in the 1990s and early 2000s. Indeed for central Europe the last 5 consecutive winters have all been colder than normal – a record!

These days are blockbuster times for German road salt manufacturers. In Europe municipalities have learned their lesson: ignore foolish predictions of warm winters, order huge quantities of salt, and do it early!

Municipalities and road commissioners were once led astray by climatologists’ predictions of increasingly warmer winters and led to thinking that these had become a thing of the past due to global warming (recall famous words of David Viner and Mojib Latif). One major daily even proclaimed that spring would arrive in January!

As a consequence of these false global warming predictions, municipalities unwisely kept much smaller stocks of road salt for expected shorter and milder winters. Road commissioners saw little reason to keep thousands of tons of road salt in stock.

Then beginning in 2009 came one harsh winter after another. Road maintenance crews and commissioners were caught red-faced. Suddenly municipalities were running out of salt by January and were even longer able to keep the most vital traffic arteries cleared. Traffic chaos ensued and motorists were left to fend for themselves. Municipalities were stunned and left scratching their heads. Weather-wise the exact opposite of what climatologists had predicted had taken place. They learned the hard way. Now they are no longer heeding the foolish forecasts of warm winters.

This week all hell is breaking loose in the crazy world of climate science blogging! Dr. Roy Spencer is Rattled, Willis Eschenbach is wilting and Anthony Watts has no clue. But as this latest spat among ‘climate experts’ hots up it takes an outsider from the ‘hard’ sciences to call it right. Climate research is being done by incompetents, says award-winning astrophysicist, Nir Shaviv (pictured).

Let’s take a snapshot of what Dr. Shaviv refers to. Leading skeptic climatologist, Dr Roy Spencer (University of Alabama, Huntsville) is currently trouncing Willis ‘Citizen Scientist’ Eschenbach‘s pet theory that localized emergent phenomena (eg thunderstorms) regulate temperature and that ‘forcing’ has little to do with it. Spencer counters that feedbacks only make sense over entire atmospheric circulation systems.

In his tirade, Dr Spencer appears to be calling Willis’s ideas either unoriginal or a plagiarism of Ramanathan and Collins (1991). Also, Spencer appears to be saying that ‘citizen scientists’ should first study for a PhD and only when fully accredited as an expert should they speak up (aka ‘Argument to Authority’). What a palava!

Fundamentally, the IPCC has never had any solid evidence of measurable man-made global warming caused by man’s emissions of carbon dioxide.  The newest report just issued does not change this.  Yet, the Summary Report issued to the press and politicians claims that catastrophic man-made global warming is now known to be more certain than ever. 

This claim is made on the basis of General Circulation Model (GCMs) computer models interpreted with an embarrassing flight of fancy.In the light of that claim, let us examine the predictions of such GCMs used in the prior reports, when we were informed that the science was already settled and well-known.  The draft report that was sent out to actual scientists for review had the following graph in it. 

The various shaded areas show the range of certainty of the average global temperature according to the body of computer models.

The FAR was the first report of 1990, the SAR was the second report of 1995, the TAR was the third report of 2001, and the AR4 is the fourth report of 2007.  Over this period the U.S. government alone spent about $150 billion funding climate change related phenomena.  Each IPCC report claimed a higher level of confidence in catastrophic man-made global warming. 

So we should expect to be able to look at the range of expected temperatures from each report for 2015 and see that the range of each successive report falls within the range of the previous report, but is narrower.  This is both because the claim is that the science is better known and because the prediction time is becoming shorter.Because the colored ranges overlap, it is easiest to quickly see how the certainty of the predictions of the settled science actually changed from report to report by looking at the brackets on the right side of the graph which are color-coded.  These represent the range of the prediction for 2015 for each report.

So what actually has happened is that the settled science did claim a smaller temperature range in the second report than in the first report, but its prediction range did not lie entirely within the range claimed in the first report.  No, it admitted that the temperature increase might be smaller.  In the third report the 2015 temperature range was much wider than in the second report.  The 2015 temperature might be much higher than that predicted in the second report, or a bit lower. 

This represented a large increase in the scientific uncertainty being claimed.  The fourth report claimed that knowledge had improved and the range shrank compared to that of the third report, but apparently the knowledge was not as good as that of the second report whose range was narrower.  While the range of the fourth report prediction does lie entirely within that of the third report prediction and that of the first report, it excludes the lower part of the range of the second report on the settled science.Unfortunately for the IPCC, the fourth report prediction of the temperature did not allow for such low temperatures as have been measured in the meantime. 

The black and red dots of recent years are well below the predicted range of the fourth report and even below the range by a bit from any of the reports.  The only conclusion a rational person can make is that the settled science incorporated into the many computer models was wrong. 

In the last post was an explanation of the difference between energy and energy flux.  Energy is generally a simple static scalar quantity, while flux refers to an instantaneous expenditure of energy.

Physics, i.e. the real world and real-world reactions, occur in real-time.  Reality doesn’t wait around for an average of something to build up and then decide to act – reality acts as time flows by, each infinitesimal moment to the next.  Reality reacts to instantaneous flux, not the average flux because there is no “average” that reality waits around for to react to.

The standard procedure for “conserving energy” and then creating an energy budget and subsequent greenhouse effect is by numerically equating the terrestrial flux output with the solar flux input. This numerical procedure is done with the  justification that “on average, the input and output must equal if the system is in equilibrium”.  But this is done numerically on paper, not physically in reality, because the physics of reality reacts instantaneously to forces, and doesn’t wait around for averages.

Equating Energy

So what’s the basic thing that we’re actually trying to conserve in regards to solar input and terrestrial output?  The real physical quantity we want to conserve is energy, not flux.  Energy is a fundamental unit of physics, while flux always depends upon the particular, real-time, local situation.  So if we assume that, on average, the input and output energies are equal, which they should be, then we can consider such energies for any particular second.  Considering any particular second is convenient since this allows us to directly convert the energy into flux later on.

In any given second, the Earth absorbs 1.22 x 1017 Joules of light energy from the Sun.  This is calculated with the Stefan-Boltzmann equation for the Sun, factored for the distance to the Earth and the Earth’s cross-sectional area, and its albedo.

In any given second, this energy, 1.22 x 1017 Joules, falls on one-side of the planet – the day-side hemisphere. So, now that we know the total energy falling on the Earth in one second, and we now also know where the energy falls in one second, we can convert the energy value into the units of the Stefan-Boltzmann equation, which are Joules per second per square meter. Therefore if we take the total energy and divide it by the surface area of a hemisphere of the Earth, you get an (linear) average of 480 Joules per second per square meter, or 480 W/m2. Using the Stefan-Boltzmann equation which equates flux to temperature, this is a temperature of +30 degrees C, which is very nice and warm and will melt ice into water on the day-side, etc. It is a reasonable number.

However, we must again recall that reality reacts to forces instantaneously, and not to averages of those forces after-the-fact.  The light energy falling on the day-side hemisphere in one second is not evenly (linearly) distributed because the Earth is round, not flat. That means that there is a locality-dependence on the true, real-time value of the flux density.  That is, when the Sun is overhead it is strongest, and when it is near sunrise or sunset it is weakest, and in between it smoothly ranges.  When the Sun is directly overhead, and even barely so, the flux density of the energy falling isn’t strong enough to just melt ice into water, but it is also strong enough to evaporate water into vapour.  This is what basically creates everything we recognize as the climate, is water vapour rising into the atmosphere from the strength of the Sun, and this occurs in real-time.  The greenhouse effect models do not show this, and they actually even contradict it, because they incorrectly average the power of the Sun to where it doesn’t physically exist, and thereby make the solar power far too cold (on paper) to be able to create that water cycle and climate.

This diagram is a representation of real-time reality and the physics that drives the climate on the Earth:

Back to Equating Flux

With an energy input of 1.22 x 1017 Joules over a hemisphere in one second from the Sun, and an energy output from the Earth of 1.22 x 1017 Joules from the entire globe, i.e. both hemisphere’s, it is not physically correct to equate these energy values in terms of flux. These values are true and totally correct in terms of energy.  They can not be made to be equal in terms of flux.

For example, if we say that the Earth is in numerical flux equilibrium with the Sun, and mistake this for conserving energy, then that would mean that the Earth must emit the same flux of energy as it receives the Sun.  Therefore the Earth must emit 480 W/m2 on average since that is what it receives from the Sun on an instantaneous basis.

Well, the Earth does not emit this flux of energy.  That is way too high of value.  If you converted that value into total energy emitted per second over the entire globe, it would be more energy than actually comes in.  The known and measured value for the flux output from the Earth is 240 W/m2.