"The United Nations' global warming panel is writing up a report from its most recent meeting. Are we doomed? Hardly. From the looks of leaked drafts, it appears the U.N. has at last discovered reality....
We don't doubt that the final version of the IPCC's fifth report due next year will indeed make the usual attempt to frighten everyone. But for now those who trade in global warming alarmism are having to smooth out a troublesome bump in the report's draft.
Skeptic Alec Rawls, who signed on as a reviewer, leaked a passage from the draft that indicates the IPCC is actually admitting that a factor outside man's activities is playing a significant role in our climate.
"That sentence is an astounding bit of honesty," says Rawls, "a killing admission that completely undercuts the main premise and the main conclusion of the full report, revealing the fundamental dishonesty of the whole."
The contradictory passage Rawls is referring to goes like this:
"The forcing from changes in total solar irradiance alone does not seem to account for these observations, implying the existence of an amplifying mechanism such as the hypothesized GCR-cloud link. We focus here on observed relationships between GCR [galactic cosmic rays] and aerosol and cloud properties."
In other words, galactic cosmic rays (GCR) are related to cloud and aerosol formation, which affects temperatures. This activity has been demonstrated in an experiment by scientists at Aarhus University in Denmark.
The Rawls leak is getting a fair amount of attention, particularly from alarmists, who contend it means nothing, and the IPCC, which in essence says, "Hey, it's just a draft and that passage might not appear in the final report anyway."
Which is typical for the IPCC, given its habit of removing findings and passages from final reports that cast doubt on its speculation that man is to blame for warming the planet.
While the IPCC works overtime to spin the Rawls leak, another headache has emerged for the group.
Figure 1.4 from the draft shows that the models used to predict warming have projected temperatures higher than the observed temperatures we've seen.
The chart also shows that observed temperatures,
- rather than climbing ever upward,
- are where they were 15 years ago.
Yet again, the IPCC shows it's not interested in scientific inquiry but rather politics that serve one group while countering another.
Like so much of the U.N., it has nothing useful to offer." via Tom Nelson
==========================================
Below temperature graph from IPCC AR5 2013 draft:
Below analysis of above IPCC graph showing prediction errors.
============================================
12/19/12, "An animated analysis of the IPCC AR5 graph shows ‘IPCC analysis methodology and computer models are seriously flawed’," Watts Up With That Guest Post by Ira Glickstein, PhD
"The animated graphic is based on Figure 1-4 from the recently leaked IPCC AR5 draft document. This one chart is all we need to prove, without a doubt, that IPCC analysis methodology and computer models are seriously flawed. They have way over-estimated the extent of Global Warming since the IPCC first started issuing Assessment Reports in 1990, and continuing through the fourth report issued in 2007.
When actual observations over a period of up to 22 years substantially contradict predictions based on a given climate theory, that theory must be greatly modified or completely discarded.
IPCC SHOT FOUR “ARROWS” – ALL HIT WAY TOO HIGH FOR 2012
The animation shows arrows representing the central estimates of how much the IPCC officially predicted the Earth surface temperature “anomaly” would increase from 1990 to 2012.
The estimates are from the First Assessment Report (FAR-1990), the Second (SAR-1996), the Third (TAR-2001), and the Fourth (AR4-2007). Each arrow is aimed at the center of its corresponding colored “whisker” at the right edge of the base figure.
The circle at the tail of each arrow indicates the Global temperature in the year the given assessment report was issued.
The first head on each arrow represents the central IPCC prediction for 2012.
They all mispredict warming from 1990 to 2012 by a factor of two to three. The dashed line and second arrow head represents the central IPCC predictions for 2015.
Actual Global Warming, from 1990 to 2012 (indicated by black bars in the base graphic) varies from year to year. However, net warming between 1990 and 2012 is in the range of 0.12 to 0.16˚C (indicated by the black arrow in the animation). The central predictions from the four reports (indicated by the colored arrows in the animation) range from 0.3˚C to 0.5˚C, which is about two to five times greater than actual measured net warming.
The colored bands in the base IPCC graphic indicate the 90% range of uncertainty above and below the central predictions calculated by the IPCC when they issued the assessment reports. 90% certainty means there is only one chance in ten the actual observations will fall outside the colored bands.
The IPCC has issued four reports, so, given 90% certainty for each report, there should be only one chance in 10,000 (ten times ten times ten times ten) that they got it wrong four times in a row. But they did! Please note that the colored bands, wide as they are, do not go low enough to contain the actual observations for Global Temperature reported by the IPCC for 2012.
Thus, the IPCC predictions for 2012 are high by multiples of what they thought they were predicting! Although the analysts and modelers claimed their predictions were 90% certain, it is now clear they were far from that mark with each and every prediction....
IF THEORY DIFFERS FROM OBSERVATIONS, THE THEORY IS WRONG
As Feynman famously pointed out, when actual observations over a period of time contradict predictions based on a given theory, that theory is wrong!
Global temperature observations over the more than two decades since the First IPCC Assessment Report demonstrate that the IPCC climate theory, and models based on that theory, are wrong.
Therefore, they must be greatly modified or completely discarded.
Looking at the scattershot “arrows” in the graphic, the IPCC has not learned much about their misguided theories and flawed models or improved them over the past two decades, so I cannot hold out much hope for the final version of their Assessment Report #5 (AR5).
Keep in mind that the final AR5 is scheduled to be issued in 2013. It is uncertain if Figure 1-4, the most honest IPCC effort of which I am aware, will survive through the final cut. We shall see."
=======================================
Ed. note: Based on non-existent global warming terror billions of taxpayer dollars have been transferred never to be paid back. The "new normal" is no one cares.
=================================
P.S. Please excuse unpleasant white background inserted behind much of this post. This was done illegally by my long time hacker who has a big problem with freedom of speech and apparently no problem with going to jail.
.
No comments:
Post a Comment