George Rebane
I recently looked at the most revealing graphic on global warming that I have seen. The link to it was sent to me by a regular RR reader who was equally amazed by what he saw. It was assembled by Nir Shaviv of sciencebits.com and is reproduced below.
The figure illustrates the uncertainty bounds for global temperatures predicted by climate theory over the years since 1979. These were obtained from computer models which implement the relationships (equations) prescribed by the then best available climate theories assessed by the IPCC, and as most recently vouched for in their just released AR5 report. Do you by chance notice anything odd in that figure?
I recently looked at the most revealing graphic on global warming that I have seen. The link to it was sent to me by a regular RR reader who was equally amazed by what he saw. It was assembled by Nir Shaviv of sciencebits.com and is reproduced below.
The figure illustrates the uncertainty bounds for global temperatures predicted by climate theory over the years since 1979. These were obtained from computer models which implement the relationships (equations) prescribed by the then best available climate theories assessed by the IPCC, and as most recently vouched for in their just released AR5 report. Do you by chance notice anything odd in that figure?
As Shaviv correctly points out, the resulting output measurables from any theory claiming to be scientific will converge as the theory becomes more mature in the sense that it is exercised and experimented with over the years by various competent investigators. But such error bounds will only become smaller if the theory proves to be correct in how it describes the realworld.
However, if the theory is in error, then under equivalent scrutiny the error bounds on its outputs will expand as it is poked, examined, and put to the test. Natural contentions will then arise among the science community. And when the results of the experiments or simulations are combined, the uncertainty region grows with the passing of the years. It is this which invites – nay, demands - the generation and positing of new and improved theories to explain the observable (recall Occam and all that).
When a theory, especially one with political consequences, is exercised, tweaked, and patched for over thirty years, and the reported output error bounds stay essentially constant, then something beyond fishy is going on. Shaviv offers that such a graph points to something more than incompetence in the teams of investigators, or even that they are “captives of a wrong conception”. I will draw a much stronger conclusion from the data in that graph and the history of the IPCC enterprise. I believe that the suspiciously constant temperature error bounds reported from billions of dollars of 'research' spent over thirty years are prima facie evidence of conspiracy and scientific fraud.
For added comedic farce, we observe the slightly compressed error bound from the 2008 AR4 report, a bound that then had to be relaxed as further ‘work’ was done in the interval to AR5. Apparently some time before 2008 certain people on the IPCC team came to the same conclusions expressed here, and subsequently started playing with the error bounds to demonstrate some needed contraction. As Shaviv points out, the farce comes in the following paragraph of gobbledygook in AR5.
The equilibrium climate sensitivity quantifies the response of the climate system to constant radiative forcing on multi-century time scales. It is defined as the change in global mean surface temperature at equilibrium that is caused by a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Equilibrium climate sensitivity is likely in the range 1.5°C to 4.5°C (high confidence), extremely unlikely less than 1°C (high confidence), and very unlikely greater than 6°C (medium confidence) 16. The lower temperature limit of the assessed likely range is thus less than the 2°C in the AR4, but the upper limit is the same. This assessment reflects improved understanding, the extended temperature record in the atmosphere and ocean, and new estimates of radiative forcing. (emphasis mine)
Only a bureaucracy off the rails would claim that an increase in error bounds would reflect “improved understanding” instead of truthfully admitting the opposite. Yet this is the kind of slop the IPCC has been feeding its eager and ignorant audiences for years.
As a coda, I recount (as does Shaviv) that the IPCC still cannot bring itself to admit that the sun has a major effect on climate. And even more damning is their silence on the imperative confession that science does not yet know or understand earth’s carbon cycle – what are its sources, sinks, and the transfer functions of the transport processes that mediate between them. And this is the prime ‘greenhouse gas’ that is the centerpiece of their anthropogenic global warming argument. The concentrations of the CO2 in the atmosphere do not correlate with earth’s temperature (most certainly inadequate to support causality) either in the paleo-historical record or the measurements from the recent past.
Given the overwhelming international push to put in place destructive public policies to combat atmospheric levels of CO2, AGW is without a doubt the biggest fraud yet perpetrated on the largest number of people in human history. (more here)
However, if the theory is in error, then under equivalent scrutiny the error bounds on its outputs will expand as it is poked, examined, and put to the test. Natural contentions will then arise among the science community. And when the results of the experiments or simulations are combined, the uncertainty region grows with the passing of the years. It is this which invites – nay, demands - the generation and positing of new and improved theories to explain the observable (recall Occam and all that).
When a theory, especially one with political consequences, is exercised, tweaked, and patched for over thirty years, and the reported output error bounds stay essentially constant, then something beyond fishy is going on. Shaviv offers that such a graph points to something more than incompetence in the teams of investigators, or even that they are “captives of a wrong conception”. I will draw a much stronger conclusion from the data in that graph and the history of the IPCC enterprise. I believe that the suspiciously constant temperature error bounds reported from billions of dollars of 'research' spent over thirty years are prima facie evidence of conspiracy and scientific fraud.
For added comedic farce, we observe the slightly compressed error bound from the 2008 AR4 report, a bound that then had to be relaxed as further ‘work’ was done in the interval to AR5. Apparently some time before 2008 certain people on the IPCC team came to the same conclusions expressed here, and subsequently started playing with the error bounds to demonstrate some needed contraction. As Shaviv points out, the farce comes in the following paragraph of gobbledygook in AR5.
The equilibrium climate sensitivity quantifies the response of the climate system to constant radiative forcing on multi-century time scales. It is defined as the change in global mean surface temperature at equilibrium that is caused by a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Equilibrium climate sensitivity is likely in the range 1.5°C to 4.5°C (high confidence), extremely unlikely less than 1°C (high confidence), and very unlikely greater than 6°C (medium confidence) 16. The lower temperature limit of the assessed likely range is thus less than the 2°C in the AR4, but the upper limit is the same. This assessment reflects improved understanding, the extended temperature record in the atmosphere and ocean, and new estimates of radiative forcing. (emphasis mine)
Only a bureaucracy off the rails would claim that an increase in error bounds would reflect “improved understanding” instead of truthfully admitting the opposite. Yet this is the kind of slop the IPCC has been feeding its eager and ignorant audiences for years.
As a coda, I recount (as does Shaviv) that the IPCC still cannot bring itself to admit that the sun has a major effect on climate. And even more damning is their silence on the imperative confession that science does not yet know or understand earth’s carbon cycle – what are its sources, sinks, and the transfer functions of the transport processes that mediate between them. And this is the prime ‘greenhouse gas’ that is the centerpiece of their anthropogenic global warming argument. The concentrations of the CO2 in the atmosphere do not correlate with earth’s temperature (most certainly inadequate to support causality) either in the paleo-historical record or the measurements from the recent past.
Given the overwhelming international push to put in place destructive public policies to combat atmospheric levels of CO2, AGW is without a doubt the biggest fraud yet perpetrated on the largest number of people in human history. (more here)
For a more detailed analysis of the failure to add better science please check out Steve McIntyre's analysis at Climate Audit HERE and HERE.
It is clear that the IPCC is hiding from the fact their models cannot deal with the solar impact on the global temperatures. If they did the CO2 impact would shrink to insignificant. But, that does not fit the IPCC model for global wealth redistribution.
Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental protection, says the German economist and IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer. The next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world’s resources will be negotiated.– Ottmar Edenhofer, co-chair of IPCC Working Group III.
Posted by: Russ Steele | 12 October 2013 at 07:28 AM
RussS 728am - The intent of this post on IPCC's AR5 was NOT to add another entry in the long litany of AGW's bad science as presented in their latest report; no one much pays attention to that any more. My intent was to conclude from evidence and state unambiguously that global warming science has been corrupt and hasn't been worth a crap for the last thirty years. I don't see anyone else using what Shaviv compiled to make that indictment, most certainly McIntyre did not come out and say that. That is why I believe this is the smoking gun that should lay IPCC's dire warnings to rest were science the tool used for assessing such warnings. Alas, that is not the case.
Posted by: George Rebane | 12 October 2013 at 09:35 AM
OK!
Posted by: Russ Steele | 12 October 2013 at 10:11 AM
As Shaviv correctly points out, the resulting output measurables from any theory claiming to be scientific will converge as the theory becomes more mature in the sense that it is exercised and experimented with over the years by various competent investigators. But such error bounds will only become smaller if the theory proves to be correct in how it describes the realworld.
I'm not sure that refinements of their climate models don't include additional variables in the models. Each addition brings it own uncertainty which might explain the lack of convergence. I admit to being in way over my head here though.
Personally I thought the quote that Russ posted was the best explanation of the matter possible in two sentences.
"Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental protection, says the German economist and IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer. The next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world’s resources will be negotiated.– Ottmar Edenhofer, co-chair of IPCC Working Group III."
Money is all this has ever been about. Politicians wanted to monetize fear and this was the best thing since sliced bread. Wars eventually end....this nonsense could go on forever.
Posted by: fish | 12 October 2013 at 11:50 AM
fish 1150am - Edenhofer's comment is a restatement of longheld positions by the community of AGW skeptics - it is again welcome, but nothing new.
Your comment about "additional variables" as model "refinements" does not excuse their added contribution to reliability and error. No theory (as expressed by a model) is vindicated by adding complexity which does not contribute to reliability - Occam rejects it. Those familiar with complex systems modeling know that adding variables and commensurate feedback and feed forward loops is done primarily to better fit the data record. However such embellishments are no guarantee that the predictive power of the model is thereby enhanced.
For the tech savvy reader. In freshman science courses the student is asked to demonstrate this fact of life for himself by fitting a low order polynomial (model) to the first, say, half of a noisy dataset generated by some known process. An error metric is computed (e.g. RSS) and the student then fits the same data window with a higher order polynomial, and lo, its RSS error is smaller. This nonsense can go on to any length desired - finally, selecting the order to be equal to the number of data points will cause the polynomial model to go through ('osculate') every point in the data window. But alas, continuing such a polynomial - i.e. computing the model - past its data window demonstrates the catastrophe that results. This principle is also encountered and replicated with more sophisticated models that even include the latest (best theory) transfer functions of known realworld processes embedded in the overall model.
Posted by: George Rebane | 12 October 2013 at 12:22 PM
"IPCC computer models" equates to " garbage in,,, garbage out".
"The next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world’s resources will be negotiated."
Just what in Hell is that supposed to mean? The resources of the U.S.
belongs to us. ( the legal citizens of these 50 states) And are not for the divvying up by some "ambassador". The "not" Agenda 21 again?
Posted by: Walt | 12 October 2013 at 01:15 PM
Walt, from the beginning, the IPCC was tasked with seeing how bad the anthropomorphic global warming problem was, and to negotiate treaties to transfer wealth from the 1st world (the ones who have used most of the fuel to date) to the 3rd world who would be the victims having born the brunt of the damage.
Why else would an Indian railway engineer turned economist be the chair of the IPCC?
To back down from the conclusions drawn before the studies began would mean kissing off the wealth transfers the group was formed to facilitate.
Posted by: Gregory | 12 October 2013 at 04:11 PM
So it's about the money then?
Hmmm....good to know!
Posted by: fish | 12 October 2013 at 05:06 PM
Dave Burton writes at Watts Up With That, it is politics all the way down.
Anthony,
The IPCC replied promptly to my inquiry ... and they surprised me, twice:
1. They say that the just released “final” draft of the AR5 WG1 Report isn’t really final after all, but the Summary for Policy Makers is final; and
2. They say the “underlying chapters” may be revised for consistency with the SPM.
Does that seem backwards, to you? The SPM is the political statement. The “underlying chapters” are (supposedly) the science. So they’re saying that they may still need to revise the science to make it consistent with the political statement. . . .
Full report is here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/12/tail-wagging-the-dog-ipcc-to-rework-ar5-to-be-consistent-with-the-spm/
It appears the science is being changed to support the policy statement, which is pure politics. The stated politics is wealth distribution, taking from the 1st World and giving it to the 3rd World. I guess the 2nd World is just screwed, except for the increase in crop production from additional CO2 in the atmosphere.
Posted by: Russ Steele | 12 October 2013 at 06:45 PM
fish 506pm - while Gregory is spot on, your "Hmmm...good to know" serves it's own purpose. See how we all educate one another ;-)
Posted by: George Rebane | 12 October 2013 at 06:46 PM
When you brainiacs start using all these big words for whats going on, I resort to simpler small words like lie, steal and cheat. Occasionally I will add a syllable or two and use big words such a hoodwink or horn-diddled or the common term "bamboozled".
Lets take a look at current events. 750,000 herd of cattle perished in South Dakota this week. Seems they done froze to death in October. Yep, October with a capital O. 250,000 sheep done became icicles in Ireland. And hundreds of thousands of llamas went belly up in the bitter cold of the Chilean Andres. Or were they hardy alpacas? They all look alike to me. Maybe a million of them furry llamas and/or alpacas that have lived for centuries in that climate in that elevation might thaw out someday. Boy, what a stink that will be.
How many innocent creatures will have to die a horrible frozen death before our animals lubbers around the globe stand up and take notice?? This is a crisis.
Yes, you idiots. We will all be like fried Twinkies at the Iowa State Fair. Burnt to a crisp cause of Global Warming. But that will be long after our next Ice Age.
http://iceagenow.info/
Posted by: Bill Tozer | 12 October 2013 at 09:26 PM
Somebody forgot to tell me the issue is settled, done deal. The LA Times has announced it will refuse to publish letters from climate change deniers. Deniers meaning that humans may not be causing man caused global warming. No debate necessary.
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-climate-change-letters-20131008,0,871615.story
Posted by: Bill Tozer | 18 October 2013 at 11:30 PM
This is what the lamestreams always do. They chose what gets printed and anything they disagree with does not. Thank goodness the only people reading the LA Times are the homeless on the streets who use it as toilet paper.
Posted by: Todd Juvinall | 19 October 2013 at 09:19 AM