1. The IPCC wants to claim that the global average temperature has unexpectedly and abruptly increased during the 20th century after a gradual cooling from the year 1000, and that this unexpected increase of the temperature is mostly man-made-the greenhouse effect of CO2.
2. For their purpose, the IPCC ignored the fact that the Earth went through a cold period called "the Little Ice Age" from 1400 to 1800.
3. The Earth has been recovering from the Little Ice Age from 1800 to the present. A recovery from a cold period is warming. It is mostly this warming that is causing the present climate change and it is not man-made. If they admit the existence of the Little Ice Age, they cannot claim that the global average temperature unexpectedly increased from 1900.
Updated below by Bob Ellis-Dakota Voice
Article continues below this advert:
3a. In addition to the steady recovery from the Little Ice Age, there are superposed oscillatory changes. The prominent one is called the multi-decadal oscillation.
3b. In fact, most of the temperature change from 1800 to 2008 can be explained by the combination of the recovery from the Little Ice Age and the multi-decadal oscillation. If the recovery from the Little Ice Age continues, the predicted temperature rise will be less than 1°C (2°F) by 2100, not 3~6°C.
4. Because the warming began as early as 1800, not after 1946 (when CO2 in the atmosphere began to increase rapidly), the Little Ice Age was a sort of unwanted and inconvenient fact for the IPCC. (In their voluminous IPCC report, the Little Ice Age was mentioned casually only once, referring to it as "the so-called Little Ice Age.")
5. There are a large number of observations that the Earth has been recovering from the Little Ice Age from 1800 on, not from 1946 when CO2 is the atmosphere began to increase rapidly. For example:
* Receding of glaciers in many part of the world
* Receding of sea ice in the Arctic Ocean
* Change in freezing/melting dates of northern rivers and lakes
6. There is no firm observational confirmation that CO2 is really responsible for the warming during the last century. It is simply and assumption or hypothesis that the IPCC has presented as a fact.
7. The IPCC claims that supercomputer studies confirm the hypothesis.
8. Supercomputers cannot confirm their hypothesis, since they can simply "tune" their computer programs so as to fit the observations.
9. Although the IPCC predicted that by the year 2100 the temperature will increase 3~6°C, the temperature has stopped increasing after 2000 and shows even a decreasing sign.
10. Thus, their prediction failed even during the first decade of the present century, in spite of the fact that CO2 is still increasing.
11. This means that their CO2 hypothesis and computer programs are shown to be incorrect, proving that the program was tuned.
12. Why? Because they ignored natural causes of climate change, such as the recovery from the Little Ice Age and the multi-decadal oscillation.
13. The stopping of the warming is caused by the fact that the multi-decadal oscillation, another natural cause, has overtaken the recovery from the Little Ice Age.
14. In fact, the same thing happened in 1940, and the temperature actually decreased from 1940 to 1975, in spite of the fact that CO2 began to increase rapidly in 1946.
15. It was said at that time that a new ice age was coming even by some of those who now advocate the CO2 hypothesis.
16. If the IPCC could include the physical processes involved in the recovery from the Little Ice Age and the multi-decadal oscillation, they could have predicted the stopping of the temperature increase.
17. However, they could not program processes for the recovery from the Little Ice Age and the multi-decadal oscillation, because the causes of the Little Ice Age, or the recovery from it, or the multi-decadal oscillation are not known yet. There are many unknown natural changes, including the Big Ice Ages.
18. Thus, the present state of climate change study is still insufficient to make accurate predictions of future temperature changes. Climate change studies should go back to basic science, avoiding interference from special interest groups, including the mass media.
19. Unfortunately, I must conclude that the IPCC manipulated science for its own purpose and brought the premature science of climate change to the international political stage, causing considerable confusion and advancing the completely unnecessary "cap and trade" argument.
20. What is happening now at many climate change conferences is simply an airing of the struggle between the poor countries trying to seize money from the rich countries, using the term "climate change" as an excuse.
21. We should stop convening useless international conferences by bureaucrats and pay much more attention to environmental destructions under global capitalism. There is no reason to alarm the general public with predictions of catastrophic disasters caused by the CO2 effect; and the mass media should stop reporting premature science results.
22. Basically, what is really needed are effective energy saving efforts by all countries.
Footnote: The hockey stick figure, which played the important role in the IPCC report of 2001, has not officially been withdrawn yet, although it has since been found to be erroneous.
Syun Akasofu
International Arctic Research Center
University of Alaska Fairbanks
Fairbanks, AK
H/T JunkScience Via CCNet:
Updated by Bob Ellis-Dakota Voice
Arctic Scientist: IPCC Ignores Natural Causes of Global Warming
Yesterday I discussed a recent article from the science journal PLoS ONE on their findings about the number of scientists who fabricate and falsify research.
Any rational person realizes that, despite their education and professional experience, scientists are like any other human being and face the same temptations as anyone else. Just as we all face the temptation to lie and twist facts to our advantage, scientists are no exception.
The findings from the PLoS ONE article indicate that a significant number of scientists have fabricated research information (1.97% admit to doing it themselves) and more than a third admit to utilizing questionable research practices.
As I said yesterday, nowhere is fact-twisting and deception seen more prevalently than in the evolution debate and the anthropogenic global warming debate. In both of these areas, a grain of objective factual information is buried in the thick padding of assumptions and conjecture before being presented to the unsuspecting public as “established fact.”
Today geophysicist Syun Akasofu of the International Arctic Research Center in Fairbanks, Alaska published an article at Climate Realists which highlights the selective fact-twisting of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and their push to promote the theory of anthropogenic global warming.
2. For their purpose, the IPCC ignored the fact that the Earth went through a cold period called “the Little Ice Age” from 1400 to 1800.
3. The Earth has been recovering from the Little Ice Age from 1800 to the present. A recovery from a cold period is warming. It is mostly this warming that is causing the present climate change and it is not man-made. If they admit the existence of the Little Ice Age, they cannot claim that the global average temperature unexpectedly increased from 1900.
He also points out the inconvenient truth that recent warming began to occur long before there were SUVs and coal power plants, most likely as a part of the warming trend after the Little Ice Age.
Temperatures are also not cooperating with the apostles of global warming religion:
9. Although the IPCC predicted that by the year 2100 the temperature will increase 3~6°C, the temperature has stopped increasing after 2000 and shows even a decreasing sign.
Isn’t that terrible when facts ruin a good theory?
There is a host of contradictory evidence which points to natural, cyclic causes behind any planetary warming. These range from the climate data going back thousands of years, to the correlations with solar activity, to warming occurring on Mars and Jupiter and other planets in the solar system.
This outrageous trend of deception from the scientific community is flushing what remaining credibility they have down the toilet. Sadly, they are so devoted to promoting illusions to support their ideological biases, most of them are oblivious to the fact that more and more people are recognizing that their global warming emperor has no clothes.
Tweet Article
Post to Facebook
Print Article
The natural climate fluctuations he points to are not in dispute.
They do not disprove the theory that GHG is going to produce climate change.
His claims of "recovering from the little ice age" is an empty slogan. He has not specified what the mechanism is that is driving the recovery.
The scientific work that predicted the impact of GHG's on the climate was done in then late 1970's, even before a warming trend was observed. It was driven by spectroscopy and physical theory. The Greenhouse effect is the most accurately known climate forcing factor.
The IPCC was not in existence then. There was no involvement in politics driving this scientific work, and the predictions that flowed from it. There is no evidence that anything other than scientific motives were driving it.
The uncertainty in the predictions of models are recognized by all. The techniques used to analyse the risks of action versus inaction reflect this uncertainty.