With all the dissent following the announcement by the USA President Mr Trump to withdraw from the Paris Climate Change Agreement, it’s timely to make some salient points to the non-biased followers of the climate change issue.
Pronouncements by the world’s leading authority the IPCC – Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change, may not be as accurate or as diligently honest as they profess to be.
There can be no doubt that the Earth is currently on a warming trend, but it’s far from being scientifically accepted across the board that it will continue unabated, or that human activity is to blame, or even that greenhouse gases including CO2 are the prime threat to human life as we know it.
Limiting the Scope of Temperature Predictions
Meteorology today is by no means a perfected science. That is not a critical reflection because the subject is so profoundly complex. But even with all the technology and information available today, meteorologists cannot always get it right. There is a reason why you will not see weather forecasts usually no further than (say) a week ahead in the newspapers or broadcasts. There are just too many vagaries in the planet’s weather processes. Determination of near-future weather relies to some degree on what meteorological events can be observed today in real time, and outside of that it comes down to skilled deduction – read educated guesswork.
So … if they can’t consistently get it right for a month or even two weeks ahead, then how are we to believe the IPCC when they give us such forbidding global temperature projections for (say) two or 12 or even 83 years from now?
Certainly they can put up what blinkered ardent followers and others who can’t think outside the box might consider a good case, but leaving aside the question of mankind’s activities for a moment there’s also the planet’s natural climate trends to consider – something the IPCC doesn’t seem to give a lot of thought to.
They do at least recognise it in AR5 which was their last report stating, “Climate change may be due to natural internal processes or external forcings such as modulations of the solar cycles, volcanic eruptions, and persistent anthropogenic changes in the composition of the atmosphere or in land use.” They also say there is “High Confidence” in the (existence of) uncertainties of interlinked human and natural systems. But then they go on to emphasis just the human aspects.
See: IPCC Summary for Policy Makers 2014
Dr Judith Curry is an eminent American climatologist and author who challenges the IPCC about their failings to address the “Uncertainty Monster” when projecting future climate trends. During an interview on 6th February 2017 she talks about how the IPCC processes have robbed (non IPCC aligned ) scientists opportunities to explore natural climate change. Among other points of interest she noted the failure of their climate models to address the pre-1950 natural climate variation saying, “If science can’t explain climate shifts pre 1950, how can we trust today’s climate models?”
Read more: WUWT – Dr. Judith Curry on climate science’s fatal flaw – the failure to explore and understand uncertainty.
Pros & Cons of Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations
It’s highly likely one of the IPCC’s (and many of their advocates) officially unstated aims is to frighten us, the people of the world into agitating our respective governments to take action to reduce greenhouse emissions. That may sound like a true sceptic’s view but there’s plenty of evidence to suggest that “cause noblesse” i.e. delivering untruths for what they believe to be for the greater good, continues to happen. A classic case was Senator Al Gore with his, “An Inconvenient Truth” in his 2006 documentary.
Yet even if it isn’t, the wording in the Assessment Reports are getting more and more alarmist. Among many other claims they say CO2 levels are rising at a rapid rate.
Currently the content of CO2 in the atmosphere is 406 ppm – parts per million. According to the IPCC an excess of greenhouse gases created by mankind including CO2 has tripped a natural climate warming trend into a higher gear, thus making the planet approx 1ºC warmer since about 1850. If the IPCC is correct then CO2 levels are projected to reach around 500 ppm by 2050 which would probably make the Earth an extra 1ºC to 2ºC warmer – albeit in particular places and especially at the poles.
One global warming supporter is Nicola Jones who is a freelance journalist with a background in Chemistry and Oceanography. In a refreshing argument for the global warmers, Jones explains why the content of future carbon in the atmosphere should be kept below 400 ppm in an article published 26th January 2017. At face value and assuming what she says is factually correct then she makes some very good points, particularly in relation to ancient levels of CO2 and it’s relationship to temperatures at the time, that have been overlooked or ignored by climate deniers.
Read more: How the World Passed a Carbon Threshold and Why It Matters
On the other hand there’s Malcolm Roberts, a Senator elected in 2016 to represent the State of Queensland in Australia. The Senator was annoyed that because of poorly researched climate policies, people have lost jobs, paid higher taxes, wasted opportunities, lost businesses and fritted away scarce resources, and that billions of dollars had been wasted on mothballed white elephants such as useless desalination plants. In September 2016 the Senator challenged the Australian leading scientific organisation, the CSIRO to present its case on climate change.
Australia’s CSIRO is highly respected and it supports the global warming theory. The Senator’s findings with the assistance of two well known climate sceptics were that, “the CSIRO had no empirical evidence proving carbon dioxide from human activity affects climate, and that their presentation contradicted the empirical climate evidence”. Basically what they are saying is that the CSIRO is simply “rubber stamping” everything it’s being told about climate change without checking for themselves, and relying on theory and logic rather than proven facts.
Read more: Senator Malcolm Roberts – On Climate, CSIRO Lacks Empirical Proof
Cherry Picking Temperature Records
The earliest temperature measuring instruments didn’t appear until the 16th century but it wasn’t until 1714 that the first reliable thermometer using the Fahrenheit scale appeared. Not until 1860 was it thought there were enough observation sites around the world to begin measuring global temperatures.
Unfortunately the IPCC only uses instrumental records back to 1850. This gives them a mere 167 years of meteorological data out of a climate scale of tens of thousands of years to prove their theory of AGW – Anthropogenic Global Warming.
|By over-emphasising the trivially short instrument record, and greatly under-emphasising the varied changes that exist in geological records … the IPCC signals its failure to comprehend that climate change is as much a geological phenomenon as it is a meteorological one.
Prof. Robert M Carter – Climate: The Counter Consensus, 2010
Geological Proxy Data Ignored
Scientists have been able to study the ancient history of the Earth’s climate using geological data aka proxy data e.g. tree rings, ice-cores, lake and ocean sediment, tree and fossil pollens.
Written human records are also used. Paleoclimatologists are skilled scientists who work on the climate of past ages using proxy data such as historical records, journals and diaries, newspaper reports, ship’s logs, farm yields and so on.
Read more: IEDRO – Paleo Proxy Data: What Is It?
Proxy data however is not entirely accurate. They leave large “error bars” or “percentages of uncertainty” which basically comes down to skilled but highly educated guesses. At worst, such proxy data at least provides a starting point towards what the climate was at a given time e.g. warm or cold, warming or cooling, the rate of the warming or cooling and so on.
Weather and climate are both driven by the same processes and there is no real point in time where one can separate them. Both are driven basically by the movement of heat between the land, oceans and atmosphere and it happens in time frames that can run from seconds to millions of years. As well, there are many other physical, chemical and biological processes also happening which affect the planet to a more or lesser degree.
So at what point can we measure climate as opposed to weather?
Misuse of Climate Measurements
People generally accept the word “normal” to mean what is usual. Therefore the term Climate Normal would ordinarily be considered to mean what might be expected or is usual. But in meteorology it means an average measurement of weather conditions that have actually occurred over a particular period.
In 1935 the WMO – World Meteorological Organization’s conference in Warsaw agreed on a “Standard Normal” aka Climate Normal system by which climate could be measured over time. The basic idea was to have a benchmark against which past, recent, current or future meteorological conditions could be measured, and to provide a historic context to them e.g. to an recent extreme weather event.
Climate Normals are produced at local, national and global levels and they represent a 30-year average of meteorological data. This period was decided because statisticians believe 30 numbers gives them a reliable mean or average, but it’s not compulsory. Each Climate Normal is assigned one data point which might be used (say) for plotting temperatures on a graph. Each data point is calculated as an arithmetic average for the 30-year period being analysed. The first Climate Normal was set for 1901-30, followed by 1931-60 then 1961-90. The WMO will not analyse the currently running Climate Normal until the end of 2020. Records prior to 1900 are not generally considered to be reliable.
Read more: WMO – The Role of Climatological Normals in a Changing Climate.
In 2011 the WMO introduced a second tier of Climate Normals ostensibly to account for the “rapid pace of climate change” which provides for measurements of current temperatures. The new tier retains the 30-year period but is updated every 10 years instead of 30 years e.g. 1961-90, 1971-2000 and 1981-2010 (which is the current baseline period) used by the WMO.
Read more: WMO – New Two-Tier approach on “climate normals”.
Changing the Message
Some scientists have calculated 30-year and 20-year climate normals by going back to 1850 which gives them even more data points. However there are those who believe the early temperature records should not be used. Among other concerns there is no real guarantee that temperature readings were always observed under similar conditions, or that some temperature extremes may have been recorded pre-1910 using non-standard equipment and that they could be location specific, or that other warmer or cooler data may not even have been entered into the database.
To confuse the issue even further there are other systems of measuring temperature being used. “Period Averages” allows analysis of a minimum period of 10 years and 20 year graphs are fairly common. “Normals” are used for any period as long as it’s three consecutive 10-year periods. Another is the “Hinge Fit” used by the NOAA -National Centers for Environmental Information. On top of everything, the use of the terms “climate normal” and “normal” are often misused by people who don’t fully understand them.
Using the Tier 2 Climate Normal and other systems can no doubt be justified, but they can have unfortunate side effects. They can cause confusion for non-scientists and lend themselves to bias or flat out deception. The following highlights one common type of deception used by the IPCC.
Note that the difference between the size of the anomalies between the first and second graph is due to the selection of different Climate Normal to use as a baseline. It’s a common enough practice by those with lesser integrity.
Of course there are other ways to misrepresent Climate Normal (anomaly) type data on graphs. For instance once might select a different baseline period that has a hotter or cooler mean average temperature thus making the anomalies higher (warmer) or lower (cooler) on a graph.
Jo Nova is an Australian Bachelor of Science, author and blogger on the science, funding and politics of climate change. For three years she was an Associate Lecturer on Science Communication at the Australian National University. In a light-hearted manner she discusses some of the methods that are actually used to misrepresent climate change.
Read more: Jo Nova – How to make climate graphs look scary — a reply to XKCD
In recent years there has been much brouhaha in the USA about a perceived global warming pause and even a possible cooling trend. It’s not surprising then that some presenters have probably been cherry-picking the data and building anomaly graphs to prove their case.
What it all boils down to is that deception abounds and non-scientists should be careful of any presenter today who shows a temperature graph purporting to prove excessive warming or cooling.
As we’ve seen, climate changes occur naturally in time intervals of thousands of years. And despite claims by climate warming advocates that the late 20th century warming spike is unprecedented, non-aligned IPCC scientists have shown by using geological proxy data, temperatures similar to those recorded at the end of the 20th century have occurred since the emergence of mankind or at least very near to it.
One example is the CET – Central England Temperature. This is considered to be a reliable source of regional data for Central England. Many believe it is also a reliable proxy dataset for analysing past climate in Europe and also the North Atlantic. The CET shows at least two warming spikes over just a few years since around 1820. Both were of shorter duration to the one which occurred at the end of the 1900s. Yet the people in that region have flourished apparently without the calamitous climatic events which the IPCC is predicting about to happen to us.
Read more: Met Office Hadley Centre – CET (HadCET) Dataset
Bill Whittle is an American conservative blogger who, among other things discusses climate change issues. In this short video he discusses several of the issues mentioned here about how we are being deceived by only getting part of the story, whether the sciences is real, plus some other issues not known about by this writer:
Watch video: Bill Nye – The Science Lie
Do We Change Our Economic Policies?
Using the WMO Climate Normal system provides only three full climate data points on which to plot a hypothetical graph of global temperatures. The Tier 2 climate normal system provides up to 11 data points based on 10 yearly intervals but as mentioned these tend to be misused. Yet no matter what system is used for representing alleged dangerous global warming, there is still only 167 years of recorded temperature data available, some of which is not considered reliable.
That’s not much on which to base changing a countries entire economic policies. And yet we have one State in Australia soon to be followed by another, that is currently implementing a policy to replace it’s baseline energy system to renewable energies and decommissioning it’s coal fired power-plants. It’s already experienced huge blackouts when storms damaged the renewable systems infrastructure and they had no backup system, other than to ask another State for help.
“Oh but it’s okay” they say, “we’ve fixed the problems and it won’t happen again” they say.
Yeah right ….
Ultimately, basing policies on just 160 years or so of climate records at the least must be considered a bit short sighted. In fact it’s more about idealism than practicality. It certainly cannot help anyone make accurate judgements whether the climate is going to continue trending up or down instead of just assume it will happen. And it’s pointless to keep throwing so much money at something with no real scientific resolution after almost 30 years, and which might eventually be a non-problem anyway.
Are We Prepared for a Catastrophic Event?
On the face of it the outlook for the World populations is bleak, but not necessarily from climate change. The real issue is about the actions now being taken by collective countries to solve what may turn out to be a non-event, and who are being led by an ideal driven organisation that bases its opinions on theory and logic rather than practical science and procedures. So much money is being wasted to try and prevent something that may very well happen anyway – or not, with or without additional greenhouse gases.
But unfortunately something even worse could happen. The climate warming trend could potentially reverse course into an even more disastrous cooling trend – don’t laugh just yet.
At the moment the Earth is in an Interglacial Period i.e. between alternating ice ages. Based on previous Milankovitch cycles the onset of thousands of years decline into another Ice Age is overdue. One of the triggers is when summer temperatures in the northern hemisphere fail to rise above freezing for years, snowfall doesn’t melt and compresses then turns into ice sheets over time.
Some scientists are even suggesting the current AGW greenhouse effect is preventing that onset. As silly as that may seem now, consider that the last real Ice Age finished about 12,000 years ago when mankind was in it’s infancy, and that Interglacial periods have historically lasted about 10,000 years. Is it as far fetched as the Earth being round or that mankind would walk on the moon?
Right now there’s probably no one looking into how the massive loss of grain growing farms in the Northern Hemisphere can be substituted to prevent famine … just in case the world needs because of some catastrophic disaster (let’s say a meteor strike or super volcano?)
In any case farms are being bought out now anyway due to continuing urban sprawl so hopefully somebody is starting to look into it. Or maybe we should have more scientists looking into ways of reducing famine in places like Somalia instead of meeting obligations of funding research in global warming.
Billions of dollars is spent annually to the false god of the AGW hypothesis. If the people of the Earth are to make any headway into the issue of climate change, either warming or cooling then thought might be given to the following:
1. The IPCC should be disbanded or reconstituted into a purely scientific organisation because:
- It’s staff is entirely bureaucratic. As such it’s political by nature and subject to political manoeuvring. It’s member countries have too much input into the final Assessment Reports.
- There’s every indication that it has been corrupted as a result of “cause noblesse” i.e. not being truthful for what it believes is to the greater good.
- It’s scope of research was limited to just the instrumental meteorological records right from the start. No real regard is given to natural climate processes.
- It does not consult geological proxy data in order to determine any historic context against what’s happening now, or whether alarming the world as it has, is justified.
- It assumed right from the start that mankind was responsible for global warming without using proper scientific proof procedures.
- It’s primary focus continues to be related just to mankind’s activities in relation to it’s effect on climate.
2. Ideally, a purely scientific organisation needs to be raised to monitor and try to determine the possible future of the Earth’s climate and if possible:
- should remain under the charter of the UN and World Meteorological Office;
- be autonomous to the extent that it should not be influenced by the desires of individual countries i.e. no member countries;
- issue a scientific paper every 10 years as to the state of research in climate activities over the previous decade based on 30-year Climate Normals;
- any and all scientific theories and papers to undergo proper scientific testing and approbation prior to public release; and
- research better ways of investigating earlier warning and response system for climatic disasters.
In the meantime, let’s take the pressure of the world’s scientists to do what they know best without political meddling, hindrance, misinformation or manipulation. Let’s be really sure that when they do say something, that we can actually trust it – unlike now with so much disparagement going on between the two sides of the issue i.e. alarmists and sceptics.
1. Climate: The Counter Consensus, Prof. Robert M. Carter 2010