The entire IPCC evaluation process is flawed to the point of fraudulence. The Summary for Policymakers was finalised and published before the WG1 (Science) section. The editors of the latter were under implicit pressure and in some cases ,I believe explicit instructions to make the latter fit the former instead of the other way around as should have been the case.Where this was not done the conclusions of WG1 were simply ignored by the editors of the Summary. The most egregious case goes to the heart of and in fact destroys the entire AGW paradigm. The key part of the science is in section WG1 8.6 which deals with forcings, feedbacks and climate sensitivity. The conclusions are in section 8.6.4 which deals with the reliability of the projections.It concludes:
"Moreover it is not yet clear which tests are critical for constraining the future projections,consequently a set of model metrics that might be used to narrow the range of plausible climate change feedbacks and climate sensitivity has yet to be developed"
What could be clearer. The IPCC says that we dont even know what metrics to put into the models to test their reliability.- ie we don't know what future temperatures will be and we can't calculate the climate sensitivity to CO2.This also begs a further question of what mere assumptions went into the "plausible" models to be tested anyway.
Nobody ever seems to read or quote the WG1 report- certainly not the compiler of the Summary. In spite of the WG1 8.6.4. conclusion the Summary says:
"The understanding of anthropogenic warming and cooling influences on climate has improved sincethe TAR, leading to very high confidence that the global average net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming, with a radiative forcing of +1.6 [+0.6 to +2.4] W m–2 "
This statement is fraudulent on its face when compared to 8.6.4.
Those of us interested in objective science should try to see that the 8.6.4 conclusion gets as much exposure as possible. It deserves to be on the front page of the NY Times, The Guardian quoted by the BBC and read into the Congressional record in the USA.
Friday, February 12, 2010
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Pachauri E-Mail exchange
Pachauri E-Mail Exchange
The following exchange took place in April and May 2008. At that time Pachauri seemed quite objective and rational.
I never heard any more back from him re his research into the points I raised. I assume he found no actions were warranted.
Dr Pachauri
It is a month since my first e-mail and I thought I might draw your attention to a few more articles of interest.It is clear that temperatures correlate much better with the Pacific Decadal Oscillation ( Controlled by solar activity) than with CO2 levels. Google - PDO cooling -and look at Easterbrooks graphs and comments.. Also google - Jason satellite cooling - for a discussion of the current situation.
Google -- ball UN structures - for an anlysis of how the IPCC came to distort the science for political ends. You are obviously in a better position to judge Ball's position than I am ,but what he says looks very plausible to me.
In the meantime Solar Cycle 24 continues to fail to appear making the cooling predictions more and more likely.
I do hope you will soon feel that you can speak out publicly on these matters in the near future to perhaps forestall damaging actioThank you for your careful consideration of my original e - mail.A useful discussion of the IPCC forcing and feedback factors can be found by googling - pielke monckton guest -
Best Regards Norman Page
----- Original Message -----
From: R K Pachauri
To: Norman Page
Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2008 7:01 AM
Subject: Re: IPCC - Global Warming
Dear Dr. Page, I have gone through your email of 21/04/2008 in considerable detail and I have also done some background research on the issues that you have raised. At this stage I would like to acknowledge your message, and will see what actions are warranted as a follow up. With kind regards, Yours sincerely, R K Pachauri ***************************************************************R K Pachauri, Ph.DDirector-General, TERIHabitat Place, Lodhi RoadNew Delhi 110 003Tel: +91 11 24682121 or 2122Fax: +91 11 24682144 or 2145www.teriin.org***************************************************************
"Norman Page"
21/04/2008 02:45 AM
To
cc
Subject
IPCC - Global Warming
Dear Dr. Pachauri We are seeing the damage done to world food production and food prices by the ill considered rush by Western governments to use biofuels. These same governments,basing their policies on the IPCC climate projections, are rushing towards a similarly ill conceived policy of cappng carbon emissions. I implore you to consider the following points as a matter of urgency. 1. Sea surface temperatures have been dropping since 2003 contrary to IPCC projections. 2. Data from Britain's Hadley centre Climate Research Unit show that for the first quarter of 2008 SSTs were cooler on average than for any yearly average post 1996. 3 Since 1996 CO2 levels have risen 6%. - there is therefore little connection between anthropogenic CO2 and temperature. 4. In any event Spencer (2008) ( google -Spencer Heartland conference - then scroll down to his presentation on the last day) has shown conclusively that the IPCC temperature - CO2 sensitivities are grossly overstated because they used positive instead of negative feedback factors for some of their parameters. 5.All the above shows that there is little threat from warming over the next century. However the situation is worse than just over-estimating CO2 forcing. 6. Solar studies suggest the real possibility of a Dalton type minumum in solar activity developing until about 2040. ( See Charvatova 2000 Ann. Geophysicae). If this in fact occurs, global food production will be reduced because of short growing seasons and early and late frosts. 7. Furthermore if SSTs continue to fall the oceans will cool and absorb more CO2 and CO2 levels will fall. 8. A useful portion - 15 - 20% ? of the increased crop yields during the 20th century was due simply to the increase in CO2 which is the essential plant food not a pollutant. 9. Therefore, if the cooling scenario develops, in order to mitigate hunger , Governments should be encouraging CO2 emissions not trying to reduce them. I believe as a public service and to preserve your scientific and personal integrity you should publically announce that in the light of the actual global temperature trends you are calling for an immediate re-evaluation of the IPCC climate projections to be completed within 6 months by independent and IPCC scientists and that all carbon cap schemes should be put on hold until the results of that evaluation are announced. Another three - five years of data will probably be enough to stablish whether a long term cooling trend will occur. Meanwhile each month that goes by without Solar Cycle 24 starting up makes such a cooling event more likely. I will be happy to discus this all with you and provide you with the pertinent literature or web references. with Best Regards Dr Norman Page Houston USA phone 713 467 8709 normanpage@comcast.net
Best Regards Dr Norman Page.
The following exchange took place in April and May 2008. At that time Pachauri seemed quite objective and rational.
I never heard any more back from him re his research into the points I raised. I assume he found no actions were warranted.
Dr Pachauri
It is a month since my first e-mail and I thought I might draw your attention to a few more articles of interest.It is clear that temperatures correlate much better with the Pacific Decadal Oscillation ( Controlled by solar activity) than with CO2 levels. Google - PDO cooling -and look at Easterbrooks graphs and comments.. Also google - Jason satellite cooling - for a discussion of the current situation.
Google -- ball UN structures - for an anlysis of how the IPCC came to distort the science for political ends. You are obviously in a better position to judge Ball's position than I am ,but what he says looks very plausible to me.
In the meantime Solar Cycle 24 continues to fail to appear making the cooling predictions more and more likely.
I do hope you will soon feel that you can speak out publicly on these matters in the near future to perhaps forestall damaging actioThank you for your careful consideration of my original e - mail.A useful discussion of the IPCC forcing and feedback factors can be found by googling - pielke monckton guest -
Best Regards Norman Page
----- Original Message -----
From: R K Pachauri
To: Norman Page
Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2008 7:01 AM
Subject: Re: IPCC - Global Warming
Dear Dr. Page, I have gone through your email of 21/04/2008 in considerable detail and I have also done some background research on the issues that you have raised. At this stage I would like to acknowledge your message, and will see what actions are warranted as a follow up. With kind regards, Yours sincerely, R K Pachauri ***************************************************************R K Pachauri, Ph.DDirector-General, TERIHabitat Place, Lodhi RoadNew Delhi 110 003Tel: +91 11 24682121 or 2122Fax: +91 11 24682144 or 2145www.teriin.org***************************************************************
"Norman Page"
21/04/2008 02:45 AM
To
cc
Subject
IPCC - Global Warming
Dear Dr. Pachauri We are seeing the damage done to world food production and food prices by the ill considered rush by Western governments to use biofuels. These same governments,basing their policies on the IPCC climate projections, are rushing towards a similarly ill conceived policy of cappng carbon emissions. I implore you to consider the following points as a matter of urgency. 1. Sea surface temperatures have been dropping since 2003 contrary to IPCC projections. 2. Data from Britain's Hadley centre Climate Research Unit show that for the first quarter of 2008 SSTs were cooler on average than for any yearly average post 1996. 3 Since 1996 CO2 levels have risen 6%. - there is therefore little connection between anthropogenic CO2 and temperature. 4. In any event Spencer (2008) ( google -Spencer Heartland conference - then scroll down to his presentation on the last day) has shown conclusively that the IPCC temperature - CO2 sensitivities are grossly overstated because they used positive instead of negative feedback factors for some of their parameters. 5.All the above shows that there is little threat from warming over the next century. However the situation is worse than just over-estimating CO2 forcing. 6. Solar studies suggest the real possibility of a Dalton type minumum in solar activity developing until about 2040. ( See Charvatova 2000 Ann. Geophysicae). If this in fact occurs, global food production will be reduced because of short growing seasons and early and late frosts. 7. Furthermore if SSTs continue to fall the oceans will cool and absorb more CO2 and CO2 levels will fall. 8. A useful portion - 15 - 20% ? of the increased crop yields during the 20th century was due simply to the increase in CO2 which is the essential plant food not a pollutant. 9. Therefore, if the cooling scenario develops, in order to mitigate hunger , Governments should be encouraging CO2 emissions not trying to reduce them. I believe as a public service and to preserve your scientific and personal integrity you should publically announce that in the light of the actual global temperature trends you are calling for an immediate re-evaluation of the IPCC climate projections to be completed within 6 months by independent and IPCC scientists and that all carbon cap schemes should be put on hold until the results of that evaluation are announced. Another three - five years of data will probably be enough to stablish whether a long term cooling trend will occur. Meanwhile each month that goes by without Solar Cycle 24 starting up makes such a cooling event more likely. I will be happy to discus this all with you and provide you with the pertinent literature or web references. with Best Regards Dr Norman Page Houston USA phone 713 467 8709 normanpage@comcast.net
Best Regards Dr Norman Page.
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
OBAMA'S ROADMAP TO THE CORPORATE SOCIALIST STATE
The Boxer - Kerry and Waxman - Markey bills represent the greatest threat that America's constitutional democracy has ever faced.
The almost non -existent Anthropogenic (CO2 caused) Global Warming has been used as a pretext to try to grab control of all economic activity in the country because congress will decide the price of all energy via the distribution of carbon credits to whomever contributes most to their campaign funds. Energy production will be diverted to so called "green " sources which are hopelessly uneconomic unless heavily subsidised.
If these bills pass, all private real estate will essentially cease to exist because Obama's climate police will decide the appraisal value of all real estate and thus control the sales price of everyone's home. Any alterations or improvements will have to be approved by government inspectors.
A vast bureaucracy will be created to run this virtual totalitarian police state run for the benefit of the congress and whichever corporations or special interests pay them the most.
Since my first post in January 2009 , solar activity has continued to be virtually non-existent making it more and more likely that the earth is entering a 20 - 30 year cool spell during which crop production would be seriously reduced at a time of increasing population. Obama's policies of CO2 reduction would exacerbate this problem and worsen the worldwide food shortages which might well occur if the cooling actually develops.
The main stream media are aiding and abetting this coup-in some cases , e.g. NBC, because they are controlled by a company - General Electric which has spent millions on lobbying in order to benefit from the bill or because of the political (Socialist - world government ) agenda of its leaders e.g . BBC.
It is essential that the grass roots of working middle America become informed about this looming threat and come together to speak out and stop this takeover by a kleptocratic and self appointed elite who plan to be the rulers of this Corporate Socialist state .
Monday, January 26, 2009
Obama's Looming Climate Policy Disaster.
During the campaign Obama made much of advocating policies based on scientific fact. In regard to the Iraq war Bush clearly fixed the facts to suit the policies by allowing the "facts " to be presented to him by a NeoCon cabal with a set agenda.Unfortunately, with his selection of the top office holders in the EPA and Energy departments the new President has created a cabal of true believers in anthropogenic global warming thus ensuring that his actions in this area will be similarly divorced from reality.
The dangers of AGW warming are as real as Bush's MWD. Consider the following.
1. Measuring global temperature is more an art than a science. There are four main sources of temperature data each with their own particular problems and uncertainties in data collection.
2. Because of the inherent variability in Northern Hemisphere climate and the questionable quality of much of the land based data , most objective observers would likely agree that Britain's Hadley Center Global Sea Surface Temperature data give the most reasonable view of what is really happening. Anyone reading this can google - Hadley Cru - and check the actual data for themselves.
3. The data shows that while temperatures rose about 1 degree during the 20th century Global SSTs have been falling since 2003.
4. The warmest year was 1998 - everyone knows that this was an unusually warm El Nino year.
5. 2008 was cooler than 1997. Eleven years with no net warming and CO2 rising 6%. This is in contradiction to the IPCC and GCM projections.
6. Spencer has convincingly shown that the CO2 forcing and feedback parameters used in the IPCC Model projections of climate sensitivity are simply wrong and seriously overestimate the warming effects of rising CO2.
7. The Sun is entering a quiet phase - possibly a Dalton minimum - and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation is now in a negative phase. Both of these facts suggest a possible 20 - 30 year cooling spell during which cooler temperatures could produce shorter growing seasons and a serious drop in food crop production.
8. CO2 is not a pollutant but the essential plant food. If the cool spell actually occurs we will need more atmospheric CO2 not less. 25% of the increase in food production during the 20th century was due to the increase in CO2.
9. Our knowledge of the climate system is very limited. It is empirically clear that the sun is the main climate driver but the realtionship is complex and we are only just beginning to amass the data needed to understand what is going on. Anyone who thinks we know enough to predict temperatures 100 years or even 50 years ahead doesn't understand the problem.
In conclusion - to burden and distort the economy with CO2 emission limitation schemes based on a flawed warming paradigm when the world has been cooling for 5 years and might well continue to cool for another 20 is plainly insane. Obama has built himself a bubble into which reality is unlikely to intrude.
The dangers of AGW warming are as real as Bush's MWD. Consider the following.
1. Measuring global temperature is more an art than a science. There are four main sources of temperature data each with their own particular problems and uncertainties in data collection.
2. Because of the inherent variability in Northern Hemisphere climate and the questionable quality of much of the land based data , most objective observers would likely agree that Britain's Hadley Center Global Sea Surface Temperature data give the most reasonable view of what is really happening. Anyone reading this can google - Hadley Cru - and check the actual data for themselves.
3. The data shows that while temperatures rose about 1 degree during the 20th century Global SSTs have been falling since 2003.
4. The warmest year was 1998 - everyone knows that this was an unusually warm El Nino year.
5. 2008 was cooler than 1997. Eleven years with no net warming and CO2 rising 6%. This is in contradiction to the IPCC and GCM projections.
6. Spencer has convincingly shown that the CO2 forcing and feedback parameters used in the IPCC Model projections of climate sensitivity are simply wrong and seriously overestimate the warming effects of rising CO2.
7. The Sun is entering a quiet phase - possibly a Dalton minimum - and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation is now in a negative phase. Both of these facts suggest a possible 20 - 30 year cooling spell during which cooler temperatures could produce shorter growing seasons and a serious drop in food crop production.
8. CO2 is not a pollutant but the essential plant food. If the cool spell actually occurs we will need more atmospheric CO2 not less. 25% of the increase in food production during the 20th century was due to the increase in CO2.
9. Our knowledge of the climate system is very limited. It is empirically clear that the sun is the main climate driver but the realtionship is complex and we are only just beginning to amass the data needed to understand what is going on. Anyone who thinks we know enough to predict temperatures 100 years or even 50 years ahead doesn't understand the problem.
In conclusion - to burden and distort the economy with CO2 emission limitation schemes based on a flawed warming paradigm when the world has been cooling for 5 years and might well continue to cool for another 20 is plainly insane. Obama has built himself a bubble into which reality is unlikely to intrude.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)