February 17, 2014
The impetus to create this page was the assertion that Maurice Strong wrote the terms of reference for the IPCC Climate Assessments to cover only man-made causes of climate change. Terms of Reference are the de-facto “thou shalt only speak of these things” in this realm of study. While Mr. Strong is currently living in China-unresponsive to all attempts for contact- and while his signature is found on no official documents for that reference that I can find on the internet, I can say this… “U.N., we have a problem.”
IPCC WG1 Full Report – 1st Assessment +400 pages: Selected Screenshots and explanations for inclusion.
Click the Images for a Larger Version
The Initial Charge to the IPCC:
This is the first indication of how the IPCC views Climate Change. Although we do not yet see an expressly biased position, we see where the focus of causation could be found.
The Activities of Working Group 1:
Working Group 1. The IPCC was divided into three working groups, each group was to build on the work of the previous group ONLY. This is not a wholly improper scientific technique, as it helps define the scope of the work. However, here we see the scope defined in the early 90s (actually much earlier) as being only that which might arise as a result of man’s activities. Working Group 1 built on those. Does this mean that WG2 and WG3 can only consider the work of WG1 on the result of human activities? Yes.
Nothing dishonest here… their models said one thing, that with the increasing CO2 we would see warming SURFACE TEMPERATURES. We know that CO2 is skyrocketing, and that the IPCC recently (2013) said there has been no global warming since the first report – but that the warming was occurring deep in the oceans. Honest mistake 🙂
Mister Twister calling the Past
“Paleo-climate data is potentially useful but it’s not. It has too many variables but may yet be useful.” Is this a serious segment of a scientific report? Essentially, the historical CO2/Temperature data-match is one of their proofs for the current CO2 story, but where that correlation is now broken and we appear to be on the precipice of another temperature drop (keep reading) the historical context is clearly not a factor… right?
Discussing THEIR POTENTIAL ERRORS (A sign of good science; 1 point awarded to Slytherin)
This is what we have come to learn more and more, including a few days ago in our morning news via NASA, Johns Hopkins and the Hebrew University of Jerusalem …maybe not such a drastic forcing effect after all?
So much for good science.
As the highlighted portion suggests, it is obvious to the IPCC that our emissions are the primary factor. This cuts against their recognition of cooling mechanisms from the previous screen-shot, and indeed the words directly above the highlighted portion itself. According to 23andme, They are NOT certain; they list their uncertainties but then claim that certain things are obvious. As it turns out, we now know our emission levels since then, the effect on atmospheric concentrations, and their LACK of an ability to warm the SURFACE TEMPERATURES as they so obviously predicted.
The can’t decide how uncertain they are…
…but they can definitely say that they considered their current ocean-warming explanation way back then. Another point for the IPCC.
They should choose a different word.
Significant. adjective – to the extent where it materially alters the outcome of a given scenario. I’ll use it in a sentence: No conclusion is worth reading if it has ‘significant’ errors.
We’re starting to get serious.
So what exactly is Working Group 1 supposed to cover? They characterize these as “scenario” evaluations, and the scenarios are restricted to greenhouse gas emissions. Imagine the Reverse: It would be unwise to leave out all scenarios involving greenhouse gases, right? …just as absurdly, the “STEERING GROUP” veered WG1 away from anything natural, such that the scope of climate change would be so-defined.
Plain and simple, from the start, CLIMATE CHANGE did not include naturally-forced variability.
Kind-of a cheap shot.
“Oh look how cold we would be!” You mean if we took away a huge part of our atmosphere we’d be colder? You don’t say. In the box– I’m pretty sure there are a gargantuan amount of radiators from the earth that are not the direct result of greenhouse gases… oh crap, I forgot, that’s not allowed to be part of this analysis. My bad.
Look how close they were…
Greenhouse gases are #2, the Sun is #1 – they knew it all along.
Don’t Lose Perspective
One of the primary messages of our C(lie)mate video series is that the health affects of pollution, including those to the flora and fauna of earth, is a paramount concern, but one that cannot be used to cloud the meteorological analysis of our planet, and especially not in perspective with the changes in the rest of the solar system. Fact is, pollution is not a good thing for a large number of reasons. Even where no emissions are present, this author strongly opposes things like deforestation- for more reasons than I care to mention here. Got a little bit of hippy in me, so what?
Remember that paleo-data which may or may not be useful? They say THIS part is useful-
Let’s go ahead and take their word for it…
On the left side you see the image given in the original IPCC report with the latest data on the left and going into the past as the chart goes to the right; on the right side you see a bit more data-directly from the best available ice core data, and current day is at the right with the past shown to the left. Keeping this mirror-effect in mind, you should recognize the same source of the two charts. Look at the IPCC’s version, where it claims to show the current levels of CO2 as of 1990… compare to the right side, where even that is outdated as we’ve broken the 400ppm mark in the atmosphere in the last 24 months. The IPCC chart is a lie; it does not show the most current data they had available, as 1990 levels of CO2 were well above the high 200s, and had already stopped being so-perfectly correlated to global surface temperatures once the industrial revolution began.
“Searching for a handle on the moment?” Feel like you have seen a lot but don’t know where to go from here? Curious about the implications, the natural variability, and what’s coming? Click Here.
The scientists at the IPCC aren’t necessarily doing anything wrong – although it is quite clear that at least some members of the steering committee and the scope-definition parameters for the initial project had just one agenda in mind. The scientists, for the most part, are performing a scientific process under the scope of those who are ‘above them.’ Consider that the evidence has been pushing us towards a more detailed look at solar forcing and the cooling mechanisms of certain emissions, then see the NEW definition of Climate Change in the latest IPCC Assessment (5th):
Well now… that’s quite the shift now isn’t it? Great revelations in understanding do not happen overnight… and apparently only to small extents even over a couple decades. Baby steps…
The pattern is clear; the warming has stopped. The sun was strongest during the periods identified for global warming, and while scientists have identified the pacific ocean cycle as the current cause for a lack of surface warming, it matches the solar weakening we’ve now seen for years (better described in the C(lie)mate series). Despite the shift in evidence and discourse, the IPCC’s conclusions mysteriously get “more certain.”
You brought all your skills, you brought all your data, you brought all your friends…
to be continued…
(this page has no content protections; it may be copied and reposted by anyone)