Warning: include(wp-includes/class-wp-term-connect.php) [function.include]: failed to open stream: No such file or directory in /home/content/69/7401869/html/wp-config.php on line 92

Warning: include() [function.include]: Failed opening 'wp-includes/class-wp-term-connect.php' for inclusion (include_path='.:/usr/local/php5/lib/php') in /home/content/69/7401869/html/wp-config.php on line 92
IPCC Inclusion of Sun in Their Studies is Pure Politics

IPCC Inclusion of Sun in Their Studies is Pure Politics

by Dr. Tim Ball on November 1, 2012

in Data,Government,Political,Politics,Statistics,Theory

“It occurred to me…” Who created the God particle?

Computer models of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are the only place where CO2 increase causes temperature increase. All records of any duration or time period, temperature increases first. Even if you accept the IPCC claim the amount is within the error of any calculations. It didn’t matter because the political objective was to ‘prove’ human CO2 was causing global warming.
They pursued two paths. One, to create links between CO2 increase, temperature increase, and human activity. The other, to eliminate the major counter explanation of warming, the Sun.
Most think the IPCC studies climate in total. They don’t! The target was narrowed through the definition of climate change that came from the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

“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 considerable time periods.”

The problem is we don’t know or understand natural climate variability or mechanisms, so it’s impossible to identify a human portion.

Apparently in response to criticisms of this limitation in the 2007 Report they changed the definition used in the first three Reports. It only appeared as a footnote in the Summary for Policymakers (SPM).

“Climate change in IPCC usage refers to any change in climate over time, whether due to natural variability or as a result of human activity. This usage differs from that in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, where climate change refers to a change of climate that is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and that is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods.”

It couldn’t alter the 2007 Report because Reports are cumulative and exclude most variables and mechanisms. Starting over would draw unwanted attention to what they were doing.

The forcing factor tables show they didn’t change. Here is the Table for the 2001 Report:

Figure 1. From 2001.

Notes on Figure 1.
1.Water Vapor (WV), the most important greenhouse gas, is not listed because they assume the amount humans produce is inconsequential.
2.LOSU on the right is Level of Scientific Understanding. Claims of “high” are scientifically unjustified. Of nine items only two are high.
3.Total human forcing is averaged at 1.6 W/m2 (range 0.6 to 2.4), which is minuscule and within the range of error of most included and excluded variables.

Notes on Figure 2.
1.No new variables despite new definitions’.
2.LOSU column is gone.
3.Range of estimates of RF (Radiative Forcing) Column is gone.
4.WV still missing; yet they claim warming due to human CO2 increases evaporation that increases WV in the atmosphere to further increase temperature (positive feedback).
5.All numbers are gone but readings appear unchanged.
6.Total net human effect appears unchanged, which suggests the claimed increase of human CO2 between 2001 and 2007 was not included.

Figure 2. From 2007 Report

Why does “Anthropogenic” in 2001 become “Human activities” in 2007? Why does “Natural” become “Natural Processes”? Why plural when there is only one? Why only “Solar Irradiance” when the Sun affects climate in two other major ways? Why not include all natural causes?
Answer, because they had to show the Sun wasn’t causing global warming. They claimed that from 1750 to 2005 CO2 increased because of human activity and caused temperature increase.

There is very high confidence that the net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming.

They claimed from 1750 to 1950 CO2 explained less than 50 percent of temperature increase with irradiation accounting for the remainder. Then, based solely on computers programmed to guarantee the outcome, they conclude with over 90 percent certainty that increased human CO2 explains the warming of the last 50+ years (1950 to 2007).

Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations. It is likely that there has been significant anthropogenic warming over the past 50 years averaged over each continent (except Antarctica).

They then further ensure counterarguments are eliminated.

During the past 50 years, the sum of solar and volcanic forcings would likely have produced cooling. Observed patterns of warming and their changes are simulated only by models that include anthropogenic forcings.

There are many problems, but a couple suffice to show pre-selection and manipulation. Solar activity increased to 2000 and volcanic forcing, presumably from volcanic dust levels, are essentially unknown. If important, why wasn’t volcanic forcing in the “Natural” portion of the diagrams? Their claim that only models with anthropogenic forcing simulate observed patterns of warming is pre-determined by the variables and data they chose, and how model programming. If you leave out almost all natural forcing and the one you include is serious limited and misrepresented then you control the results.
Their results by their criteria are complete failures. They claim most temperature increase is due to CO2 levels increased by humans. They claim the level of addition and increase continues so temperature cannot decrease, but it has!!!!


Quotes from prominent scientists summarize what’s happened.

The great tragedy of science—the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact.

T.H Huxley

It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.

Richard Feynman