IPCC Studies And Reports Have Nothing to Do with Climate Change

by Dr. Tim Ball on February 7, 2011

in Astronomical,Atmosphere,Data,Government,Politics,Solar

Most people have no idea what the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) actually studies. They believe their reports are complete reports of climate change. This misconception is mostly because the IPCC arranged it and does little to correct it. In fact, they only look at that portion of climate change caused by humans. Here’s how they limit their study:

“The definition of climate change the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), in its Article 1, defines climate change as: ‘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 comparable time periods’. The UNFCCC thus makes a distinction between climate change attributable to human activities altering the atmospheric composition, and climate variability attributable to natural causes.” Source

The problem is you cannot determine the human portion of climate change if you don’t know how much it changes naturally – and we don’t. The IPCC assumes humans cause most of the changes that are occurring and set out to prove that is true.

Everything they’ve done is contrary to normal scientific practices, yet it is presented to the public as solid science. The IPCC has done nothing to publicly or formally disavow claims that the science is settled. It is not settled because it never began, or worse, was deliberately diverted.

Explosion of knowledge over the last 200 years forced traditional disciplines to split into increasingly small areas. Academia became more detached from the real world and moved from the broad divisions of natural sciences and humanities in the 19th century through the addition of social sciences in the early 20th century into narrowly defined departments. Within these specialized areas the focus narrowed even more until information was vast, but understanding became further removed from reality. The dictum in academia and society became that to generalize is the mark of foolishness, to specialize the mark of genius.

By the 1970s problems developed as the new approach no longer worked – it didn’t fit society. Academia responded with the growth of inter-disciplinary departments for everything from child development studies to environmental studies. Systems analysis evolved to help interrelate segments of complexities.

Systems diagram of weather complexities Figure 1
Systems diagram of weather complexities
Source: After Briggs, Smithson and Ball.

Climatology is a generalist discipline in this age of specialization. Climate is the average of the weather by region or over time and weather is the product of a multitude of factors and one of the most complex systems in nature. The weather you experience standing outside includes everything from cosmic radiation in deep space to geothermal heat entering the ocean and almost everything in between.

(Figure 1 is a systems diagram of a fraction of the complexity.)

IPCC claims that human addition to CO2, which is one small part of the “Atmospheric composition,” is 90 percent responsible for all climate change since 1950. It is totally implausible.

Standard scientific methodology proposes hypotheses based on assumptions. IPCC proposed that human produced CO2 is causing global warming, known as Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW). Basic assumptions are that CO2 is a greenhouse gas that delays heat escaping to space; an increase in CO2 causes a temperature increase; and CO2 will increase because of human activities. Normally scientists perform as skeptics by testing the hypothesis. They were quickly marginalized and as Richard Lindzen said the consensus was reached before research even began.

Beyond that, the scientific method requires you try to prove a theory wrong. Karl Popper explains, “One can sum up all this by saying that the criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability.” The IPCC consistently work to prove the theory, but as Popper notes, “It is easy to obtain confirmations, or verifications, for nearly every theory – if we look for confirmations.” The IPCC and supporters of their charade spend their time finding confirmations. They even falsified evidence such as the story about melting Himalayan glaciers.

Two major changes have occurred since 1988 when the IPCC was formed. First, a few (but increasing number of) scientists have performed their role of falsifying the hypothesis with considerable success. Second, the IPCC work fails the real measure of science: the ability to predict. Every prediction or projection, as they evasively call them, has been wrong.

CO2 provides all the evidence needed to show what is wrong with IPCC science. Normal science challenges the assumptions, but the IPCC worked to prove it was causing global warming (and, latterly, climate change). CO2 is listed as a greenhouse gas, but it is less than 4 percent of the total, and the human portion is a fraction of that. One bizarre claim is that the annual increase in atmospheric CO2 is from human sources. This assumes, falsely, that the amount from natural sources is constant.

IPCC carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions statement IPCC carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions statement

The table shows estimates of CO2 emissions and uptakes in the atmosphere. Notice the “Anthropogenic emissions (2010)” figure of 9.5 Gigatons of carbon per annum (GT C p.a.). This is calculated by the IPCC from data provided by individual nations. It’s questionable data because there is no way of knowing amounts of wood and other fuels burnt. It’s also a gross figure that is not offset by vegetation grown by humans. Regardless, notice the amount is less than the error of the estimate of two of the natural emissions, “Oceans” and “Ground” and close to a third, “humans and animals”.

The most damaging evidence against CO2 is the assumption that an atmospheric increase causes a temperature increase. The assumption is wrong. In every record of any length for any period of history temperature increase precedes CO2 increase.

Failure of the major assumption requires a complete reassessment of the hypothesis. IPCC computer models still assume a CO2 increase will cause a temperature increase so it is not surprising their projections are incorrect. They compound the problem by leaving out many major natural creators of weather and therefore causes of climate change including astronomical, solar, and atmospheric changes. The latter includes failure to deal with water in all its forms, especially clouds.

The IPCC approach is the antithesis of science. They have predetermined a cause and set about proving it by narrowly defining climate change, limited selection of variables, manipulation of data, and working to prove rather than falsify the hypothesis. It is unquestionably the biggest scam in history because it has been deliberate.