Posts Tagged ‘IPCC’

Lima Climate conference agreement contains no commitments by anybody

December 16, 2014

The UN Conference of the Parties, Twentieth session, held in Lima Peru from 1st to 13th December 2014 is now over. The conference agreement is well worth reading as an  example of how an exercise with 9,000 delegates from 196 participating countries, could spend some $ 50 million over 2 weeks to accomplish – by their own expectations – absolutely nothing. The only decision of any significance to be taken by the parties is to meet again.

COP20 Lima Agreement (pdf)

But all 9,000 had a great time.

(In my judgement, the lack of accomplishment was a great success).

The agreement contains 22 clauses:

  • one clause “confirms”
  • three clauses “decide”
  • three clauses “agree”

All the remaining clauses are merely wishes and hopes with no commitments or obligations. Just waffle.

  • one clause “underscores”
  • one clause “urges”
  • one clause “acknowledges”
  • one clause “invites”
  • one clause “encourages”
  • one clause “welcomes”
  • two clauses “note”
  • three clauses “request”
  • four clauses “reiterate”

Looking just at the clauses which “confirm”, “decide” or “agree”:

The only “confirmation” comes first in the agreement and it is to meet again for COP 21 and adopt another agreement! Just a self-serving clause perpetuating the meetings.

The three “decides” also commit to nothing very much. The first “decides that any protocol which is legally binding shall be balanced. (This is a wonderful loophole. Any country which believes the protocol to be unbalanced can then ignore it). The next “decide” is that the working group will make a draft text. (The purpose of this is to make sure that all those working on this text can get paid). The third rather long “decide” only says that a technical examination will continue. Wow! But note that it establishes a framework – and thereby the funding – for “a series of in-session technical expert meetings”. Meetings galore – and the delegates shall have a great time.

There are also three “agree” clauses. The first says that all parties agree that each party will do better in the future. The second merely says that all developing countries and small island states may make special pleadings. The third says that each party may provide quantifiable information on how they intend to contribute. Not a commitment or obligation in sight.

It really is time that these meetings ceased and the IPCC was disbanded.

The clauses (my bold)

Confirms:

  1. Confirms that the Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action shall complete the work referred to in decision 1/CP.17, paragraph 2, as early as possible in order for the Conference of the Parties at its twenty-first session to adopt a protocol, another legal instrument or an agreed outcome with legal force under the Convention applicable to all Parties;

Decides:

  1. Decides that the protocol, another legal instrument or agreed outcome with egal force under the Convention applicable to all Parties shall address in a balanced manner, inter alia, mitigation, adaptation, finance, technology development and transfer, and capacity-building, and transparency of action and support;
  2. Decides that the Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action will intensify its work, with a view to making available a negotiating text for a protocol, another legal instrument or an agreed outcome with legal force under the Convention applicable to all Parties before May 2015;
  3. Decides to continue the technical examination of opportunities with high mitigation potential, including those with adaptation, health and sustainable development co-benefits, in the period 2015–2020, by requesting the secretariat to:
    (a) Organize a series of in-session technical expert meetings which:
    (i) Facilitate Parties in the identification of policy options, practices and technologies and in planning for their implementation in accordance with nationally defined development priorities;
    (ii) Build on and utilize the related activities of, and further enhance collaboration and synergies among, the Technology Executive Committee, the Climate Technology Centre and Network, the Durban Forum on capacity-building, the Executive Board of the clean development mechanism and the operating entities of the Financial Mechanism;
    (iii) Build on previous technical expert meetings in order to hone and focus on actionable policy options;
    (iv) Provide meaningful and regular opportunities for the effective engagement of experts from Parties, relevant international organizations, civil society, indigenous peoples, women, youth, academic institutions, the private sector, and subnational authorities nominated by their respective countries;
    (v) Support the accelerated implementation of policy options and enhanced mitigation action, including through international cooperation;
    (vi) Facilitate the enhanced engagement of all Parties through the announcement of topics to be addressed, agendas and related materials at least two months in advance of technical expert meetings;
    (b) Update, following the technical expert meetings referred to in paragraph 19(a) above, the technical paper on the mitigation benefits of actions, and on initiatives and options to enhance mitigation ambition, compiling information provided in submissions from Parties and observer organizations and the discussions held at the technical expert meetings and drawing on other relevant information on the implementation of policy options at all levels, including through multilateral cooperation;
    (c) Disseminate the information referred to in paragraph 19(b) above, including
    by publishing a summary for policymakers;

Agrees:

  1. Agrees that each Party’s intended nationally determined contribution towards achieving the objective of the Convention as set out in its Article 2 will represent a progression beyond the current undertaking of that Party;
  2. Also agrees that the least developed countries and small island developing States
    may communicate information on strategies, plans and actions for low greenhouse gas emission development reflecting their special circumstances in the context of intended nationally determined contributions;
  3. Agrees that the information to be provided by Parties communicating their intended nationally determined contributions, in order to facilitate clarity, transparency and understanding, may include, as appropriate, inter alia, quantifiable information on the reference point (including, as appropriate, a base year), time frames and/or periods for implementation, scope and coverage, planning processes, assumptions and methodological approaches including those for estimating and accounting for anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions and, as appropriate, removals, and how the Party considers that its intended nationally determined contribution is fair and ambitious, in light of its national circumstances, and how it contributes towards achieving the objective of the Convention as set out in its Article 2;

What a waste for a pointless exercise where the key action item (carbon dioxide) has no significant impact on the parameter ostensibly to be controlled. No targets, no tools but a great deal of arrogance.

Signs of global cooling accumulate while IPCC denies evidence and relies on models

November 2, 2014

Rational argument cannot penetrate faith.

Ask for evidence and you get model results. Ask for proof that the models are valid and you get hindcasts based on adjusted data. Ask for evidence of man-made emissions causing global warming and the answer is that it must be so for there is no other explanation. There isn’t if you don’t want to see it.

The IPCC believes that model results – even where the models are wrong – provide “conclusive” evidence of not just man-made global warming but that it is due to the emissions of carbon dioxide. It is politics not science. And the politics from India and China have ensured that the IPCC accepts fossil fuels till 2100!!!

For there is – in fact – no actual evidence in the form of data or measurements. There are only model results. There are only model forecasts where the track record shows that every IPCC forecast has been wrong. Fossil fuels – especially gas – will be around and will continue for many hundreds of years unless cheap fusion comes earlier.

Instead of real data showing support for the models, the evidence is accumulating that not only are the models wrong, but also that there are more indications that a global cooling is underway rather than global warming. Real measurements and real data show:

  1. that global temperatures have been stagnant for 18 years while carbon dioxide emissions have increased by 70% and carbon dioxide concentration has increased just under 15%,
  2. that therefore carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere has had no significant effect on global temperature,
  3. that the emissions and absorption of carbon dioxide from “natural” causes has an uncertainty of around 10%
  4. that man made carbon dioxide emissions make up less than 5% of all carbon dioxide emissions and their contribution to carbon dioxide concentration is of the order of 40% (assuming that there is no lag between accumulation of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and absorption mechanisms from the atmosphere),
  5. that global temperatures actually show a small downward trend over the last 10 years,
  6. that global temperatures of the past have been corrupted by being adjusted or otherwise homogenised with the intent (conscious or unconscious) to cool the past,
  7. that man-made carbon dioxide emissions have been overestimated and in reality are much lower as a proportion of natural emission sources,
  8. that natural carbon dioxide absorption processes are larger than assumed,
  9. that Antarctic ice cover is at the highest levels ever recorded,
  10. that Arctic ice cover has returned to be within 1 SD of the long term 1980-2010 average,
  11. that the rate of sea-level rise is still at the same rate as the long-term recovery from the last glacial,
  12. that snow cover in the northern hemisphere is increasing
  13. that ice cover on the Great Lakes is increasing,
  14. that there is more forest cover now than when the alarmism began, and
  15. that polar bear numbers are healthy and increasing,

Add to this that a VEI5+ volcano eruption has not occurred since 1991 and is long overdue. It will most likely show up along the Pacific Ring of Fire or in Indonesia. Consider also that the Bárðarbunga  volcano in Iceland has been producing sulphur dioxide at a rate which in 9 weeks has pumped twice as much SO2 into the atmosphere than all of Europe does in a year. Bárðarbunga  volcano is far from VEI5+ levels and the eruption could continue for months. The SO2 emissions are not all reaching the stratosphere but will surely lead to increased cloud formation around sulphur aerosols and cloud levels will probably be high through at least next year. It becomes increasingly clear that further cooling effects are already in the “natural” pipeline of events. Some new glacier formation has been observed in the Scottish highlands. Some Alpine and Himalayan glaciers have started to increase and while others still decrease, the observation of increase where there has been none before is highly significant. The Great lakes have seen unprecedentedly high ice cover levels. Snow cover in the northern hemisphere is high and is lasting longer into spring than for some time.

But the models and the presuppositions and the misconceptions of the religious high priests cannot be easily denied by the faithful and have an inertia of their own. The IPCC  remains delusional and in denial about reality. It continues to play its global warming fiddle but it is badly out of tune and its alarmist cacophony is being overtaken by real events.

It may not be a glacial age that is starting but another Little Ice Age looks like it is on its way.

International Panel of Clucking Chickens and their CCC’s

September 6, 2014
International Panel of Clucking Chickens

International Panel of Clucking Chickens

The image of the IPCC as a bunch of clucking Chicken Littles is actually much more apt than the one of a bunch of headless chickens! Ban Ki-Moon and Rajendra Pachauri then take on the roles of Chief Clucking Chickens the CCC’s of the IPCC.

From an editorial at The Pittsburgh Tribune

As its credibility dwindles due to its slanted “science” and politically motivated advocacy of anti-growth diktats, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is preparing a report so dire that it hardly seems to concern the same Earth on which the rest of humanity lives.

A draft of that IPCC report, due out in final form in early November, says greenhouse gas emissions are outrunning political reduction measures and predicts decades of “severe, pervasive and irreversible impacts,” according to The New York Times. The world’s loudest climate-clucking Chicken Littles foresee grain harvests diminishing, Greenland’s ice sheet melting, sea levels rising and extreme weather increasing. And there’s less time than ever to head off disaster by submitting to IPCC orthodoxy.

But even the loudest clucking can’t drown out contrary facts. U.S. temperatures haven’t risen in a decade. Global temperatures have been flat for 17 years. Prior warming was within natural variability. The IPCC’s main greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide, isn’t a pollutant. And humanity’s climate impact is negligible, so top-down “solutions” are pointless and economically harmful, as shown by Australia repealing its carbon tax in favor of voluntary clean-energy incentives.

Still, there’s value in this draft report. It shows how much at odds with reality the IPCC is — and how far climate science is from being “settled.”

h/t WUWT

IPCC is still living in its world of “IF” and is stuck in denial

March 31, 2014

Institutionalised alarmism is difficult to stop. It has a momentum of its own.

There has been no global warming for almost 20 years.

The link between carbon dioxide as a significant cause of the non existent global warming is broken.

Yet, the IPCC has come out with part 2 of its wildly alarmist report.

Everything is based on IF.

Lead authors have resigned because the report is too alarmist.

The wolf is dead and they are still crying “Wolf”.

IF global warming continues we COULD be in trouble sometime after 2050.

BUT Global Warming has stalled and the IPCC is in denial

I just have to keep my head when others are losing theirs and dealing in lies-

If you can keep your head when all about you   
    Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,   
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
    But make allowance for their doubting too;   
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
    Or being lied about, don’t deal in lies,
Or being hated, don’t give way to hating,
    And yet don’t look too good, nor talk too wise:
(Rudyard Kipling – IF)

Global cooling alarmism of the 1970’s

December 23, 2013

What remains constant is Alarmism.

If it is not global warming it is global cooling or the ozone hole or population or food shortages or water shortages or energy shortages. It does not matter what is to cause the catastrophe. What is important to some people is to assert that a catastrophe – any catastrophe – will happen if we don’t do as they say.

Which is of course why anybody with any kind of a catastrophe scenario (including the IPCC) must be treated with the utmost suspicion and subjected to the most rigorous, inquisitorial scepticism possible.

Popular Technology carried an excellent round-up of the Global Cooling Alamism of the 1970’s. And it is often the same Alarmists who are now bleating about Global Warming.

Just a couple of examples:

While a silent majority of the scientific community may have been more skeptical, you ironically find one of the most outspoken supporters of modern day Al Gore style global warming alarmism was promoting global cooling in the 1970s, the late Dr. Steven Schneider;

and

From the BBC’s 1974 documentary, “The Weather Machine”;
The ice age is due now anytime – Professor George Kukla, Columbia University, 1974

In a few years we will be back to Ice Age Alarmism. Perhaps easily duped politicians will introduce incentives to consume more energy and hold back the advance of the ice-sheets!

Global warming – Comments by limerick (1)

December 20, 2013

A mediocre, plump academic named Mann,

Devised a lucrative and cunning plan;

By means of a very Nature trick,

He fabricated a hockey stick;

But global cooling made him an also-ran.

-

The sun came up, the sun went down,

Global warming could not be found,

Where could it be – the missing heat?

Why in the oceans  – Oh so deep,

But the travesty made Trenberth frown

-

Ice-ages come and ice-ages go,

And when they come the seas lie low;

“Calamity” cried Hansen in his doom-sayer guise,

“By over 20 feet the seas shall rise”,

But then came the blizzards, ice and snow.

-

In the hallowed temples of the IPCC,

Carboniferous fuels the devil be,

But for 17 years have temperatures stalled

While coal combustion has not paused,

And the world now sees their idiocy.

Good news today: “Green groups walk out of UN climate talks”

November 21, 2013

The UN Climate conferences must count as the most useless, misguided and profligate international cooperation ever.Therefore one hopes that this report in the Guardian is true. The best thing that could happen would be if everybody walked out of these orgies of decadence and the world could forget the last two decades of waste.

I doubt it will happen, since these UN jamborees provide a wonderful and regular forum for the do-gooders and the catastrophe mongers to gather and wallow in their delusions. Mostly financed by taxes. The IPCC is at best a disgrace to both science and to international cooperation. I suspect the green groups think they will get valuable publicity with their walk-out stunt but will all return tomorrow.

They are on to too good a thing and I doubt that they will walk out never to return. But I can always hope:

The Guardian: 

Environment and development groups together with young people, trade unions and social movements walked out of the UN climate talks on Thursday in protest at what they say is the slow speed and lack of ambition of the negotiations in Warsaw. 

Wearing T-shirts reading “Volverermos” (We will return), around 800 people from organisations including Greenpeace, WWF, Oxfam, 350.org, Friends of the Earth, the Confederation and ActionAid, handed back their registration badges to the UN and left Poland’s national stadium, where the talks are being held. 

“Movements representing people from every corner of the Earth have decided that the best use of our time is to voluntarily withdraw from the Warsaw climate talks. This will be the first time ever that there has been a mass withdrawal from a COP,” said a WWF spokesman. 

“Warsaw, which should have been an important step in the just transition to a sustainable future, is on track to deliver virtually nothing. We feel that governments have given up on the process,” he said.

Broken link between carbon dioxide and global warming could be causing a paradigm shift in climate change theory

November 1, 2013

Dr. David Stockwell writing in Quadrant suggests that a paradigm shift in global warming theory may be underway.

Remember Thomas Kuhn and his paradigm shift?  According to his Structure of Scientific Revolutions, theories change only when anomalous observations stress the ”dominant paradigm” to the point that it becomes untenable. Until then, failure of a result to conform to the prevailing paradigm is not seen as refuting the dominant theory, but explained away as a mistake of the researchers, errors in the data, within the range of uncertainty, and so on. Only at the point of crisis does science become open to a new paradigm.  So, does Kuhn inform the current climate debate, help identify important information or an alternative paradigm?

The link between carbon dioxide concentrations and global warming effects is not based on any direct evidence. It is based on the absorption spectrum of the gas and then on assumptions about the “forcing” caused by the trace amounts of the gas in the atmosphere on other parameters such as clouds. This assumed impact is “confirmed” by correlations between global temperature (or temperature proxies) and carbon dioxide concentration and the assumption that anthropogenic effects (fossil fuel combustion)  dominate the undoubted increase of carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere.  It is said that there is no better correlation but that is not true. Ocean cycles have been shown to have a much stronger correlation. But this assumed link is now looking decidedly shaky as long-ignored parameters (solar effects and the oceans) are also taken into account. Carbon dioxide concentrations have been increasing steadily but global temperatures have remained still for the last 17 – 18 years. In fact over the last 10 years global temperatures have shown a slight decline. Climate models have used the assumed carbon dioxide effect as input. But the predictions they have made about antarctic ice extent, sea level, hurricanes and stormy weather and hot spots in the troposphere have all proved wrong. Real global temperatures are increasingly diverging from these model results. The increase of information is increasing the uncertainty which is very odd.

Climate models can be seen as encapsulating the dominant theory, even though they are composed of many different theories regarding land, the ocean and atmosphere.  Despite their differences they are also similar in many ways, sharing terminology such as the ‘radiative kernel’.  Lets agree, for the purpose of argument, that the dominant AGW paradigm is of global temperature’s high sensitivity to  CO2 doubling, resulting in an increase of around 3°C, which appears to be about the central estimate of the climate models.

Does the 15-year ‘pause’ in global temperatures stress this theory? Certainly to some, the stress has already reached a ‘crisis’; while to others the divergence can be explained away by natural variation, uncertainty, and errors in the data. 

Do failed models and their predictions of increasing extreme events, like hurricanes, droughts and floods, stress the climate models?  Possibly not.  From a physical perspective, these phenomena lie at the boundaries of the theory.  Hurricanes, droughts and floods are ‘higher order’ statistics — extremes not climate averages. Surface temperature is only a part of the greater global climate system. Because anomalous behavior at the margins can be discarded without sacrificing the main theory, their power to confirm or reject the dominant paradigm is somewhat limited. 

Ocean heat content, however, is in a unique position.  The world’s oceans store over 90% of the heat in the climate system.  Arguably, therefore, increases in ocean heat determine overall global warming.  Ocean heat represents the physical bulk of the global heat store, and so should carry the most weight in our assessment of the status of AGW. Observations of ocean heat uptake represent the crucial experiment  — observations capable of decisively dismantling a theory despite its widespread acceptance in the scientific community.  The ARGO project to monitor ocean heat with thousands of drifting buoys is the crucial experiment of the AGW stable. 

A number of climate bloggers have remarked on the very low rate of ocean heat uptake (here, and here, and here), much lower than predicted by the models (herehere, and here).  The last link is about Nic Lewis, a coauthor on Otto et al. 2013, who feels that recent findings of low climate sensitivity, many based on ocean heat content, have led a number of prominent IPCC authors to abandon the higher estimates of climate sensitivity. That may not be a ‘catastrophe’ for the dominant AGW paradigm, but it is certainly a lurch by insiders towards the lower ends of risk and urgency. 

The IPCC panel preparing the AR5 report may not have been devastated when they changed the likely range of climate sensitivity, which had stood at 4.5–2°C since 1990. The lower extimate has now been dropped from 2°C to 1.5°C. What has not been appreciated is that increasing the range of uncertainty is impossible in a period of Kuhnian ‘normal science’, where new information always decreases uncertainty. 

The ‘blow-out’ in the range of likely climate sensitivity can only mean one thing: We are no longer in a period of ‘normal’ science, but entering a period of ‘paradigm shift’. ….

…..

Dr. Stockwell concludes:

Climate skeptics don’t want to say we told you so but, well, we told you so. Even though we do not yet have an accepted theory of solar influence, there are 25 unique models in the AR5-sponsored CIMP5 archive, most with a climate sensitivity untenable on observations from the last decade. 

Take out Occam’s razor and cull them – deep and hard.

Dr David Stockwell, Adjunct Researcher, Central Queensland University

The “Backfire Effect” and why Global Warmists ignore facts which contradict their opinions

October 21, 2013

This is about a study on how facts – especially corrective facts – are ignored when some opinion or perception is deeply held. The study is about political perceptions and it strikes me that it is very relevant to the IPCC and the alarmists for whom the Global Warming hypothesis (that man-made carbon dioxide emissions are the primary cause of Global warming) is a deeply held political belief.

Brendan Nyhan and Jason Reifler, When Corrections Fail: The persistence of political misperceptions

Abstract: We conducted four experiments in which subjects read mock news articles that included either a misleading claim from a politician, or a misleading claim and a correction. Results indicate that corrections frequently fail to reduce misperceptions among the targeted ideological group. We also document several instances of a “backfire effect” in which corrections actually increase misperceptions among the group in question.

The behaviour of the IPCC and the Global Warming coterie in ignoring or explaining away real observations in favour of their computer models has always smacked of religious fanaticism rather than scientific objectivity. They have shown a preference for coming up with ever more fanciful explanations about why their predictions are not panning out rather than accept that the basis of their predictions may be mistaken. The heat lurking in the deep oceans or Chinese pollution blocking out the sun or “old ice” declining invisibly while “new ice” increases have all been suggested as explanations for

  1. the recent lack of warming,
  2. the broken link between global temperature and carbon dioxide concentration, and
  3. increasing global ice extent.

It would seem that the global warming brigade are an “ideological sub-group” suffering from the “backfire effect”.

In this paper, we report the results of two rounds of experiments investigating the extent to which corrective information embedded in realistic news reports succeeds in reducing prominent misperceptions about contemporary politics. In each of the four experiments, which were conducted in fall 2005 and spring 2006, ideological subgroups failed to update their beliefs when presented with corrective information that runs counter to their predispositions. Indeed, in several cases, we find that corrections actually strengthened misperceptions among the most strongly committed subjects.

…. Political beliefs about controversial factual questions in politics are often closely linked with one’s ideological preferences or partisan beliefs. As such, we expect that the reactions we observe to corrective information will be influenced by those preferences. ……… Specifically, people tend to display bias in evaluating political arguments and evidence, favoring those that reinforce their existing views and disparaging those that contradict their views.

However, individuals who receive unwelcome information may not simply resist challenges to their views. Instead, they may come to support their original opinion even more strongly – what we call a “backfire effect.”

……

The backfire effects that we found seem to provide further support for the growing literature showing that citizens engage in “motivated reasoning.” While our experiments focused on assessing the effectiveness of corrections, the results show that direct factual contradictions can actually strengthen ideologically grounded factual beliefs – an empirical finding with important theoretical implications.

It is a little depressing that  just using facts (science) may not be of much use in getting people to correct their misperceptions when these take the form of religious belief.

Many citizens seem unwilling to revise their beliefs in the face of corrective information, and attempts to correct those mistaken beliefs may only make matters worse.

It is the sobering – and depressing – reality that facts (read science) are always subservient to even completely irrational religious beliefs.

The IPCC 95% trick: Increase the uncertainty to increase the certainty

October 17, 2013

Increasing the uncertainty in a statement to make the statement more certain to be applicable is an old trick of rhetoric. Every politician knows how to use that in a speech. It is a schoolboy’s natural defense when being hauled up for some wrongdoing. It is especially useful when caught in a lie. It is the technique beloved of defense lawyers in TV dramas. Salesmen are experts at this. It is standard practice in scientific publications when experimental data does not fit the original hypothesis.

Modify the original statement (the lie) to be less certain in the lie, so as to be more certain that the statement could be true. Widen the original hypothesis to encompass the actual data. Increase the spread of the deviating model results to be able to include the real data within the error envelope.

  • “I didn’t say he did it. I said somebody like him could have done it”
  • “Did you start the fight?” >>> “He hit me back first”.
  • “The data do not match your hypothesis” >>> “The data are not inconsistent with the improved hypothesis”
  • “Your market share has reduced” >>> “On the contrary, our market share of those we sell to has increased!” (Note -this is an old one used by salesmen to con “green” managers with reports of a 100% market share!!)

And it is a trick that is not foreign to the IPCC  – “we have a 95% certainty that the less reliable (= improved) models are correct”. Or in the case of the Cook consensus “97% of everybody believes that climate does change”.

A more rigorous treatment of the IPCC trick is carried out by Climate Audit and Roy Spencer among others but this is my simplified explanation for schoolboys and Modern Environ-mentalists.

The IPCC Trick

The IPCC Trick

The real comparison between climate models and global temperatures is below:

Climate Models and Reality

Climate Models and Reality

With the error in climate models increased to infinity, the IPCC could even reach 100% certainty. As it is the IPCC is 95% certain that it is warming – or not!


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 551 other followers