Docstoc

unipccar5summaryforpolicymakersssrcopinion

Document Sample
unipccar5summaryforpolicymakersssrcopinion Powered By Docstoc
					                  Space and Science Research Corporation
                             P.O. Box 607841 * Orlando, FL 32860
                           407-985-3509 * www.spaceandscience.net



                         Assessment of the
            Working Group 1, IPCC Fifth Assessment Report,
            Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis
                      Summary for Policymakers
Date: September 30, 2013.

1. General Assessment.

The UN-IPCC AR5, The Physical Science Basis, Summary for Policymakers, (“Summary”),
published on September 27, 2013, like many of its predecessors, continues to make a wide
range of assertions and conclusions about the influence of mankind’s effects on the Earth’s
climate without the solid science needed to validate them.

Further, in its efforts to demonstrate that mankind’s CO2 emissions have had a material effect
on the Earth’s climate variations, the UN-IPCC in this Summary report has flagrantly and
intentionally: (1) failed to explain its twenty three year long track record of proven inability to
accurately predict climate change, (2) not publicly and fully disclosed inherent flaws in its
methodology, (3) kept silent on other climate theories and models that are far superior to those
used by the UN-IPCC, (4) ignored or covered-up critical facts pertaining to the true status of the
Earth’s climate, (5) dismissed or hid what the most likely future of the Earth’s climate will be,
i.e. decades of record cold weather, (6) failed to alert the world community and help it prepare
for the imminent danger of the coming cold climate period. In taking these last two actions, the
UN and its UN-IPCC has put a large portion of the world’s citizens at risk from the ill-effects
arising from this next climate change.

This Summary and future portions of AR5 based on the science contained in this Summary,
should be discarded. Given the host of significant errors, flaws in judgment, and simply bad
science found in the Summary, it should not be considered as a worthwhile scientific document
for any policymaker interested in understanding the full range of causes and effects of climate
change and what the next climate era will be like. The Summary also provides sufficient
evidence to conclude that there may have been serious scientific misconduct and breach of
professional ethics by the UN-IPCC and the Summary’s authors.

                                                1
2. Selected Specific Concerns. Some of the main points of the SSRC review of the just released
Summary are as follows:

 a. Global warming, the primary threat of mankind’s alleged influence on the climate has
    ended. Yet, the UN-IPCC has completely ignored this major, historic, climate event.

All global temperature indices from the primary US government and UN sources of global
temperature data and trends show that there has been no effective growth in the Earth’s
temperatures for sixteen years. Additionally, two global climate parameters; atmospheric and
oceanic temperatures, have been in steep decline for seven and ten years, respectively. Yet,
they are discussed little to not at all in the Summary. The Summary’s attempt to account for
these astounding revelations in direct contravention of the UN’s primary alleged cause of
climate change (i.e. mankind’s CO2 emissions), are shockingly inadequate. It should be noted
that under the physical science and predictions stated to be 95% accurate in prior UN-IPCC
climate reports, this extended lack of global warming much less actual global cooling is an
impossibility given the unaltered growth in global CO2 during the same period!

 To now brush aside this climatic ‘800 lb gorilla in the room’ as a random case of “decadal and
interannual variability” represents transparently bad science and gross misconduct on the part
of the UN-IPCC. This example of manifest deception, goes to the heart of this organization’s
long established inability to produce trustworthy science, devoid of bias.

 b. The UN-IPCC, in an example of unqualified, scientific incompetence and misconduct has
covered-up the beginning of a new potentially dangerous cold climate period.

The era of relatively continuous growth in global temperatures since the 1830’s, has ended with
the start of a new global cooling era that likely began during the 2003-2007, time frame. This
significant new development in the Earth’s climate history, unbelievably, goes unmentioned in
the Summary. The UN-IPCC Summary covers up this critical and all important measurement of
the status of the Earth’s climate. According to many climate researchers, internationally
recognized climate prediction experts and science organizations, this new cold climate may
cause substantial global crop losses, social upheaval and extended suffering to the world’s
citizens. The Summary fails to mention even the prospect for this new climate change much less
the actual the advent of this new climate. The Summary makes no attempt to alert the world’s
people of the need to prepare for the possibility of a new difficult cold period and in so doing
commits one of the most serious violations of professional scientific conduct in the history of
the United Nations, if not the world. This is another major breach of ethical scientific behavior
on the part of the UN-IPCC, demonstrating a lack of even minimal levels of scientific reliability
and ethical conduct required by any professional science entity!



                                               2
Even if the predicted cold era does not arrive exactly when and to the degree expected, the
wealth of evidence is overwhelming based on proven, very high reliability climate models,
(found outside the UN), that the new cold era has already begun. This is backed up by at least
ten years of declining global temperatures and other solid indicators of ongoing global cooling.
Out of a sense of reasonable precaution and humanitarian concerns alone, this situation
mandates that the UN-IPCC ‘come clean’ about this phenomena and explain how it will closely
monitor these developments. Yet, incredulously, the Summary completely hides this possibly
calamitous next change in the Earth’s climate from governments and the world’s citizens.

                                *****************************

The magnitude of these glaring failures described in a. and b. above cannot be overstated.
They are sufficient to classify the AR5 Summary for Policymakers and following AR5 reports
as being highly unreliable and without scientific merit at the outset. Further, the egregious
nature of these failings in the Summary may constitute a gross breach of scientific ethics
warranting sanctions against the UN-IPCC and the authors of the Summary.

As a minimum, there should be an immediate halt to all UN-IPCC climate report
development. This SSRC Assessment further implies that use of this UN-IPCC Summary by any
authoritative or deliberative body, educator, or government official, for policy development
or planning or instructional purposes may be considered fraudulent by an independent
investigative body and therefore actionable. Business and financial entities that also use the
Summary and its ‘science’ may also be liable for the use of what the SSRC has only partially
described in this Assessment as among the ‘worst available science,” on the subject of
climate change.

                            *****************************

  c. The AR5 Summary fails to account for the fact that this Summary and all previous UN-
IPCC reports and associated global climate models (GCM) have failed by a wide margin to
accurately predict climate change and are de facto unreliable.

The implication of this conclusion by the SSRC is fundamental to the overall credibility of the
UN-IPCC and any of its climate reports. Since the UN-IPCC has been unable to demonstrate that
its GCM can provide a reasonable level of accuracy in climate prediction, then those models’
output and the source science, i.e., the greenhouse gas theory used in those models, must be
classified as without scientific merit. The continued assertion of the role of mankind in climate
variation via this latest Summary does not make these unreliable climate models and
predictions any more valid. The UN-IPCC is an officially chartered science organization of a
recognized international governing body operating under internationally agreed-to standards
for professional conduct. Therefore, the UN-IPCC is obligated to describe the extent and cause
                                                3
for its now more than twenty year plus track record of gross inability to accurately predict
climate change. This should be done in an open and full disclosure manner as opposed to the
deceptive ‘smoke and mirrors’ and avoidance manner used in the Summary.

   d. The Summary adds to past UN-IPCC scientific deception by making use of false
extrapolation of past temperature trends to justify unrealistic future climate scenarios.

This blatant and unmistakable scientific misconduct reinforces the lack of credibility in this
Summary’s conclusions and also displays an unacceptable level of flawed scientific method
used to provide support to the still unproven assertion of man’s role as the dominant force in
climate change. In essence, the UN in this Summary has decided to ignore recent reversals in
global temperature trends and the now well established end of global warming. By going back
further in time and extrapolating their long term trends in global temperatures, sea ice, sea
levels and other climate measurements in straight line manner, and ignoring recent reversals in
climate trends, the Summary gives a false outlook for continued global warming between now
and 2100.

This trick of chartsmanship is an obvious deceptive approach to predicting future climate events
and attempts to give the reader the belief that any past temperature growth trends have been
and will continue to be unchanged from a previous time frame when rapid growth was a real
trend, if only briefly. Such unending growth trends into the distant future can then be explained
by whatever convenient cause one wishes to ascribe to them. Use of this mechanical method of
global temperature extrapolation is employed by the authors of the Summary because they fail
to understand what drives climate change in the first place. Using this method, the UN has
apparently adopted the posture of ‘burying its head in the sand’ when it comes to
acknowledging the Earth’s current global cooling climate status.

Additionally, the Summary takes advantage of relatively short time frames for most of its past
trends and longer terms for its future predictions which permits selected use of industrial-age-
only growth trends in temperature and CO2 to support its contention of mankind’s primary role
in climate change, while allowing lots of ‘cover’ for potentially erroneous long range
predictions. A more thorough scientific approach would normally demand use of much longer
time frames in both directions of say 200, 300, or 400 years to demonstrate a larger and more
accurate picture of climate variation and its contributing factors. This is especially the case
when considering natural cycle climate variation. This intentional method of elimination of the
longer time sets of natural climate cycles thereby permits the UN-IPCC via this Summary to
remove from consideration, the stronger, more relevant, and much more accurate natural
cycles for climate prediction. It amounts to the UN deceptively making sure policymakers only
get to see the ‘trees’ and not the ‘forest.’


                                               4
   e. The Summary for Policymakers ignores the more important role of the Sun and solar
activity forcing in climate variation.

Like previous UN reports, the AR5 Summary reinforces the UN’s past deception on climate
understanding by once more refusing to consider the overwhelming role the Sun has in
dominating climate change on Earth. This is one of the most recognized corruptions of the
entire UN’s climate change research since the UN-IPCC began in 1988. In order to elevate the
minor role of mankind’s miniscule contribution to climate change, the UN at the outset had to
cover-up and diminish the incredibly powerful solar forcing factors in climate change. This
report continues this sad legacy.

To the point, the SSRC has shown through extensive solar cycle analysis backed up by a series of
highly accurate major climate change predictions, that the current climate reversal underway
that is taking the Earth’s climate from the past global warming to the new global cooling era is
being driven by a 206 year repeating solar cycle. This is a time frame far outside of the normal
ranges considered by the UN-IPCC. The UN-IPCC, effectively has its ‘blinders on’ and so by not
understanding how these long cycles are the dominant drivers of climate change, cannot
therefore appreciate the full set of climate influencing factors. They are apparently content to
use the smaller industrial age time frames and industrial gas emission history, the products of
which may fit any real or perceived non-science goals of the UN-IPCC but have been shown to
be of little relevance on major climate changes. The UN-IPCC thus demonstrates once more in
this Summary, that they are either fundamentally ignorant of the most powerful forces behind
climate change or they have intentionally chosen to ignore them.

  f. The Summary makes a host of claims and predictions about the Earth’s climate and its
future that are either in dispute, contradicted by other research, highly unlikely, or cannot be
sufficiently validated with available science.

Though citing some positive, selected, science research to back up most of its claims, the UN
Summary once more plays loose with the facts in a scientific ‘shell game’ of data and research.
For example, the report surprisingly attempts to resurrect the myth of an imminent threat of
Antarctica melting implying the threat of global sea level rise is still with us. This assertion in the
Summary flies in the face of the widely known truth and most recent data about the Antarctic.
Namely, it is still on a thirty-plus year, long term trend of ever colder temperatures and is still
setting all-time records for sea ice extent. This Summary’s conclusion of Antarctic melting is
even in conflict with its last report AR4 from 2007, wherein the UN predicted “…the Antarctic
ice sheet will remain too cold for widespread surface melting and is expected to gain in mass
due to increased snowfall.”




                                                  5
The Summary’s predictions for Arctic sea ice decline and Greenland ice shelf melting also fail to
consider well known natural cycles and the periodic variation for these areas. Similarly, the
Summary and the UN once again fail to consider the now validated reversals of major ocean
temperature trends for the Arctic and Greenland and the entire North Atlantic that afford these
areas potentially decades of sea ice and ice shelf growth in the immediate future.

On the issue of sea level measurement, the report also fails to address the transparent and
unresolved wide discrepancy that exists between satellite and ocean based tidal gauge
measurements, which depending on which standard is used, substantially changes the current
sea level status and future sea level growth predictions. The Summary’s allegation that the sea
level measurements between tidal gauges and satellite are “consistent’ is still hotly contested.
Moreover, the sea level predictions in this Summary cannot be relied upon since they are based
on the UN’s global temperature predictions from their GCM which have consistently been
shown to be substantially unreliable.

                                 ***********************

The SSRC evaluated the nineteen highlighted claims or climate predictions found within the
Summary and classified them according to the following criteria:

     (1) Misleading, Incomplete or Inaccurate, noted as “M.”

     (2) Patently False or Highly Unlikely, noted as “F.”

     (3) Accurate or likely Accurate, noted as “A.”

Of the nineteen major claims about the causes and effects of climate change or predictions of
our next important climate events, the SSRC assessed them as follows:

        (a) “M” Category Claims: Five
        (b) “F” Category Claims: Fourteen
        (c) “A” Category Claims: None

This remarkably poor performance represents a profound indictment of the Summary and
warrants it being categorized as a completely unusable reference for climate science and totally
unacceptable as a suitable document for policymakers.

                                 **************************




                                                 6
g. Geoengineering.

The mere mention in the Summary of “proposed” geoengineering approaches to “counter
climate change,” is deeply disconcerting. The UN-IPCC has shown through over twenty years of
research, that it is essentially ineffective, unreliable, and potentially untrustworthy. Any
attempts, therefore, by the UN or any other government program using UN-IPCC science to
mitigate global climate change direction, should be immediately terminated.

The SSRC believes using UN-IPCC methods and GHG science as basis for deciding how and when
to conduct climate manipulation may result in significant harmful consequences to humans and
the environment on a global scale. Such efforts may also result in an unacceptably large waste
of resources even for small climate modifications on a regional basis.

Regardless, any organization like the UN-IPCC with a historically proven lack of understanding
as to how the climate operates now, has operated in the past, and will operate in the future,
should be the last organization anyone should seek out for advise on climate alternation much
less be allowed to actually conduct such.




                                               7

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:336
posted:10/1/2013
language:
pages:7