IPCC Analysis Mathematically Flawed

You know folks; this article gives me and every other commentator a problem. I always found the IPCC position seriously suspect. This work shows that the work is not just suspect but surely manipulated by chaps lacking talent but determined to generate a result to conform to their thesis. I am not going to call it fraud but Enron has nothing on this nonsense.

The climate got warmer up to ten or so years ago. It may or may not be associated to more solar output. It has been cooling off slightly since. I surmise that the heat accumulation does not dissipate as quickly as we have assumed. I think it is first collected in the oceans and then slowly transferred into the atmosphere for transport into the north for eventual final disposition. It is a slow and imperceptible process. Recall that the North Pole has a conveyor that moves heat from the tropics in the form of the Gulf Stream and the atmosphere is inclined the same way.

Let me add another core assumption to this mix. The atmosphere is almost static over heat retention in the tropics. It is already maxed out and cannot pick up the slack generated by solar variation. Any surplus heat must be absorbed by water or reflected into space. The water or increased humidity must then be transported out of the tropics. This takes time. This is why heat is still washing into the Arctic from the previous decade and it still has not cooled down very much.

In fact, it is likely that the incoming solar energy is still much higher than the historic average although the recent abrupt drop if sustained at all could now change all this. Don’t you wish any of this was settled?
This article has shown the IPCC model to be rubbish.

As my readers know, I have been a strong advocate of the removal of CO2 from our waste streams. In fact my mandate for this Blog was to promote ways and means and we have gone a long way down that road successfully. The global warming linkage conjecture was controversial and is coming a cropper. It was never relevant to the core problem of managing our environment.

Disproof of Global Warming Hype Published

R. F. Gay / F. William Engdahl

A mathematical proof that there is no “climate crisis” has been published in debate on global warming in Physics and Society, a scientific publication of the 46,000-strong American Physical Society.

Christopher Monckton, who once advised Margaret Thatcher, demonstrates via 30 equations that computer models used by the UN’s climate panel (IPCC) were pre-programmed with overstated values for the three variables whose product is “climate sensitivity” (temperature increase in response to greenhouse-gas increase), resulting in a 500-2000% overstatement of CO2’s effect on temperature in the IPCC’s latest climate assessment report, published in 2007.

The article, entitled Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered demonstrates that later this century a doubling of the concentration of CO2 compared with pre-industrial levels will increase global mean surface temperature not by the 6 °F predicted by the IPCC but, harmlessly, by little more than 1 °F. Lord Monckton concludes –

“… Perhaps real-world climate sensitivity is very much below the IPCC’s estimates. Perhaps, therefore, there is no ‘climate crisis’ at all. … The correct policy approach to a non-problem is to have the courage to do nothing.”

Larry Gould, Professor of Physics at the University of Hartford and Chair (2004) of the New England Section of the American Physical Society (APS), has been studying climate-change science for four years.

He said:

“I was impressed by an hour-long academic lecture which criticized claims about ‘global warming’ and explained the implications of the physics of radiative transfer for climate change. I was pleased that the audience responded to the informative presentation with a prolonged, standing ovation. That is what happened when, at the invitation of the President of our University, Christopher Monckton lectured here in Hartford this spring. I am delighted that Physics and Society, an APS journal, has published his detailed paper refining and reporting his important and revealing results.

“To me the value of this paper lies in its dispassionate but ruthlessly clear exposition – or, rather, exposé – of the IPCC’s method of evaluating climate sensitivity. The detailed arguments in this paper, and, indeed, in a large number of other scientific papers, point up extensive errors, including numerous projection errors of climate models, as well as misleading statements by the IPCC. Consequently, there are no rational grounds for believing either the IPCC or any other claims of dangerous anthropogenic ‘global warming’.”

Lord Monckton’s paper reveals that –

► The IPCC’s 2007 climate summary overstated CO2’s impact on temperature by 500-2000%;
► CO2 enrichment will add little more than 1 °F (0.6 °C) to global mean surface temperature by 2100;
► Not one of the three key variables whose product is climate sensitivity can be measured directly;
► The IPCC’s values for these key variables are taken from only four published papers, not 2,500;
► The IPCC’s values for each of the three variables, and hence for climate sensitivity, are overstated;
► “Global warming” halted ten years ago, and surface temperature has been falling for seven years;
► Not one of the computer models relied upon by the IPCC predicted so long and rapid a cooling;
► The IPCC inserted a table into the scientists’ draft, overstating the effect of ice-melt by 1000%;
► It was proved 50 years ago that predicting climate more than two weeks ahead is impossible;
► Mars, Jupiter, Neptune’s largest moon, and Pluto warmed at the same time as Earth warmed;
► In the past 70 years the Sun was more active than at almost any other time in the past 11,400 years.