Climate Change: Science Manipulated
Syun Akasofu | 07.06.2009 11:59 | Climate Chaos
* 1. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (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.
* 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
* 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.
* 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
Syun Akasofu
Additions
Climate myths: We are simply recovering from the Little Ice Age
07.06.2009 13:46
Some climate sceptics argue that the warming we are now experiencing is simply due to the planet recovering from the Little Ice Age, a period of regionally cold conditions between roughly AD 1350 and 1850. But the key question is why it was colder during the Little Ice Age. And why didn't the climate remain that way, or even get colder still?
The Earth does not have some natural temperature to which it always returns. If it cools, then it must be receiving less heat from the Sun or radiating more into space, or both. If it warms, it must be receiving more heat or retaining more heat.
The term "Little Ice Age" is somewhat questionable, because there was no single, well-defined period of prolonged cold around the entire planet. After 1600, there are records of average winter temperatures in Europe and North America that were as much as 2°C lower than present (although the third coldest winter in England since 1659 was in 1963).
Comparisons of temperature indicators such as tree-ring records from around the northern hemisphere suggest there were several widespread cold intervals between 1580 and 1850.
Yet while there is some evidence of cold intervals in parts of the southern hemisphere during this time, they do not appear to coincide with those in the northern hemisphere. Such findings suggest the Little Ice Age may have been more of a regional phenomenon than a global one.
Heat transport
Solar radiation was probably lower at times during this period, especially during a dip in solar activity called the Maunder minimum around 1700, but models and temperature reconstructions suggest this would have reduced average global temperatures by 0.4ºC at most.
The larger falls in temperature in Europe and North American may have been due to changes in atmospheric circulation over the North Atlantic, or in the Gulf Stream, or both, reducing heat transport from the tropics (see Climate change sceptics lose vital argument).
The warming after the so-called Little Ice Age may reflect both an increase in solar activity and a redistribution of heat around the planet. In particular, the increase in global temperature in the first half of the 20th century may have been largely due to an increase in solar activity. The continued warming in recent decades, however, cannot be explained by increases in solar radiation alone (see Climate myths: Global warming is down to the Sun, not humans -
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11650).
The Earth does not have some natural temperature to which it always returns. If it cools, then it must be receiving less heat from the Sun or radiating more into space, or both. If it warms, it must be receiving more heat or retaining more heat.
The term "Little Ice Age" is somewhat questionable, because there was no single, well-defined period of prolonged cold around the entire planet. After 1600, there are records of average winter temperatures in Europe and North America that were as much as 2°C lower than present (although the third coldest winter in England since 1659 was in 1963).
Comparisons of temperature indicators such as tree-ring records from around the northern hemisphere suggest there were several widespread cold intervals between 1580 and 1850.
Yet while there is some evidence of cold intervals in parts of the southern hemisphere during this time, they do not appear to coincide with those in the northern hemisphere. Such findings suggest the Little Ice Age may have been more of a regional phenomenon than a global one.
Heat transport
Solar radiation was probably lower at times during this period, especially during a dip in solar activity called the Maunder minimum around 1700, but models and temperature reconstructions suggest this would have reduced average global temperatures by 0.4ºC at most.
The larger falls in temperature in Europe and North American may have been due to changes in atmospheric circulation over the North Atlantic, or in the Gulf Stream, or both, reducing heat transport from the tropics (see Climate change sceptics lose vital argument).
The warming after the so-called Little Ice Age may reflect both an increase in solar activity and a redistribution of heat around the planet. In particular, the increase in global temperature in the first half of the 20th century may have been largely due to an increase in solar activity. The continued warming in recent decades, however, cannot be explained by increases in solar radiation alone (see Climate myths: Global warming is down to the Sun, not humans -
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11650).
Michael Le Page
Homepage:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11645
Comments
Hide the following 6 comments
So what explanation
07.06.2009 13:29
ItisI
Mixing two issues
07.06.2009 19:28
Its about time that we separated the two. CO2 is a known greenhouse gas (undisputed fact).
The additional CO2 from fossil fuel will contribute to the greenhouse effect in some way, as does solar variations, soot etc.
The issue should centre around fossil fuel consumption and all of the problems that our current use is:
the politics
the economy
the input required for agriculture
I could go on....
Fact: Fossil fuel is a finite resource
Fact: We are so dependent on it for even our most basic needs that its demise will lead to starvation and death.
Bob
Regurgitated climate denier stuff
07.06.2009 21:06
The usualdenier claim is that it stopped in 1998. The best response to that is at
Bring out the next gladiator please.
Me
dubious facts
07.06.2009 23:35
When you actually look in the "real world" at proper graphs you can see this is clearly not what is happening.
The other thing that concerns me is that statistic of 300,000 people die on climate change. I've yet to find any evidence to support this claim.
Max
not impressed
08.06.2009 14:35
annon
Climate change
08.06.2009 17:28
The effect of carbon dioxide is hardly controversial in scientific circles. Svante Arrhenius may not have got the precise value of the relationship correct, but the fact that there is a relationship has not been controversial since then.
The charts presented by Al Gore in "An Inconvenient Truth" have not been successfully challenged.
I'll short-circuit Max's probable next move by pasting a bit from
"There has been a flurry of coverage in the last few days of a High Court decision in the U.K that, the deniers would have us believe, condemns Al Gore's film, An Inconvenient Truth, as "exaggerated" and "alarmist."
"Read fairly, however, the judgment endorses the film for its general accuracy, exonerates school officials for their decision to show it in U.K. classrooms and approves of its continued distribution with a slightly amended "Guidance Note.""
"Justice Michael Burton acknowledges in the early stages of his decision that Al Gore is "a talented politician and communicator," who uses science " to make a political statement and to support a political programme." But of the film, Justice Burton says, "It is substantially founded upon scientific research and fact.""
"Justice Burton says, “I have no doubt that Dr. Stott, the Defendant’s expert, is right when he says that: ‘Al Gore’s presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change in the film was broadly accurate.”"
"Then he quotes Martin Chamberlain, the lawyer for the defendant (The Secretary of State for Education and Skills), who says, “The position is that the central scientific theme of Al Gore’s Film is now accepted by the overwhelming majority of the world’s scientific community." Justice Burton then adds that "For the purposes of this hearing, Mr. (Paul) Downes (lawyer for the plaintiff) was prepared to accept that the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report represented the present scientific consensus.""
"So, everyone agrees that the science is solid and that Al Gore, while quotable and agenda-driven (he wants us to do something about climate change) sticks pretty close to the facts."
It is also worth reading
Me