Imaginary Projectors of Climate Change

More exposure of deceit by the Imaginary Projectors of Climate Change

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/McLean_IPCC_bias.pdf

PART 1

More than two-thirds of all authors of chapter 9 of the IPCC’s 2007 climate-science assessment are part of a clique whose members have co-authored papers with each other and, we can surmise, very possibly at times acted as peer-reviewers for each other’s work. Of the 44 contributing authors, more than half have coauthored papers with the lead authors or coordinating lead authors of chapter 9.

The IPCC appointed as review editor for chapter 9 a person who was not only a coordinating lead author for the corresponding chapter of the previous assessment report but had also authored 13 of the papers cited in chapter 9 and had co-authored papers with 10 authors of chapter 9 including both coordinating lead authors and three of the seven lead authors.

It is no surprise, therefore, that the majority of scientists who are skeptical of a human influence on climate significant enough to be damaging were unrepresented in the authorship of chapter 9. Most of the IPCC authors were climate modelers unwilling to admit that their models are neither accurate nor complete. Still less do they recognize or admit that modeling a chaotic object whose initial state and evolutionary processes are not known to a sufficient precision has a validation skill not significantly different from zero.

In short, it cannot be done and has long been proven impossible. The modelers say that the “consensus” among their models is significant: but it is an artifact of ex-post-facto tuning to replicate historical temperatures, of repeated intercomparison studies, and of the authors’ shared belief in the unrealistically high estimate of climate sensitivity upon which all of the models rely.

It cannot be repeated too often that the supposed anthropogenic effect on global temperature is not an output from the models but an input to them. For this reason, they are wholly unable to shed any light whatsoever on the extent – if any – to which humankind may be altering the climate. The output of climate models, singly or as a group, is not evidence of anything. At best, it might be indicative, but it can never be conclusive.

Governments have naively and unwisely accepted the claims of a human influence on global temperatures made by a close-knit clique of a few dozen scientists, many of them climate modellers, as if such claims were representative of the opinion of the wider scientific community. On the evidence presented here, the IPCC’s selection of its chapter authors appears so prejudiced towards a predetermined outcome that it renders its scientific assessment of the climate suspect and its conclusions inappropriate for policy making.

The IPCC’s arguably apparent exclusion of scientists who had sufficient knowledge, impartiality, and integrity to prevent the numerous fundamental errors of science in chapter 9 has led to a statistically valueless attribution of the 1976-1998 “global warming” to humankind, when, on the evidence, it was merely the continuation of a natural warming trend that had set in some 300 years previously as solar activity recovered at the end of the Maunder Minimum.
That warming trend may now have ceased. During the 70 years from the 1930s to the 1990s, the Sun was more active, and for longer, than during almost any similar period over the past 11,400 years (Solanki et al., 2005).
However, the current 11-year solar cycle has got off to a slow start unprecedented since satellite observations began 30 years ago. Most days, no sunspots are visible on the solar surface, and the magnetic convection currents below the surface are inferred to have slowed considerably, presaging a global cooling that may begin in about a decade and continue for most of this century.
The IPCC tends to ignore such considerations. Its 2007 report chose an absurdly low estimate of the effect of solar variation on changes in global surface temperature, flying in the face of generations of data demonstrating a link between sunspots and terrestrial temperature. ... Though correlation does not necessarily imply causation, there are good reasons for supposing that the Sun has a larger influence on the temperature of the solar system than the IPCC is willing to admit. “Global warming” has been observed or inferred not only on Earth but also on Mars, on Jupiter, on Neptune’s largest moon, and even on distant Pluto. Inferentially, the large, yellow object that gives the Solar system its name may have something to do with this simultaneous “global warming” on so many planets. Certainly, it would be rash to attribute extraterrestrial warming to anthropogenic enrichment of Earth’s atmosphere with carbon dioxide.

PART 2

...The standard IPCC procedure is to appoint Coordinating Lead Authors whose authority spans the entire chapter, with a number of Lead Authors who focus on specific sections.
...the IPCC’s official position on appointments:
... The composition of the group...shall reflect the need to aim for a range of views, expertise and geographical representation....
... may enlist other experts as Contributing Authors to assist with the work.” ...
... Input from a wide range of contributors is a key element in the success of IPCC assessments, ...
...the selection of the authors of chapter 9 and of the activities related to that chapter appears to have flouted many of the IPCC's stated policies.

Of the two co-coordinating lead authors, Gabriele Hegerl was from Duke University, USA, as were two contributing authors; and Francis Zwiers was from Environment Canada, as were two contributing authors.
... The Hadley Centre...supply nine authors ... also 9 of the 62 reviewers of this chapter." ...two of the Hadley Centre’s contributing authors – Jones and Thorne – were among the reviewers of the chapter that they had themselves written.
... 37 of the UK's 79 reviewers ...were employed by the Hadley Centre for Forecasting. ... In the IPCC’s previous quinquennial science assessment in 2001, chapter 12 (the “attribution” chapter) had 5 of its 36 authors from the Hadley Centre - again the greatest number from a single organization.
... the 53 authors of chapter 9 came from just 31 organizations. Putting it another way, 30 authors of that chapter – more than half – had at least one colleague from the same establishment.
...of almost 200 nations affiliated to the IPCC only 12, or just 6%, were represented among the authors of chapter 9.
...Of the 53 authors, 44, or 83%, were from English-speaking countries.
...The United States, with 20 authors, and the UK, with 16, accounted between them for two-thirds of all the authors of chapter 9.
... of the 534 papers cited in chapter 9, some 213, or 40 per cent, had appeared under the name of at least one chapter author.
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/McLean_IPCC_bias.pdf

PART 3

Of the published papers cited in chapter 9, 94 had been authored by two or more of that chapter’s authors. One cited paper had six chapter authors; five cited papers had five chapter authors each. Four chapter authors contributed to 10 cited papers, two of which were written entirely by authors of chapter 9. Three chapter authors contributed to 26 papers each, including 6 papers written entirely by chapter authors. Fifty of the cited papers listed 2 chapter authors each, and 10 of these papers were written entirely by chapter authors.
...
The relationships between most of the authors of chapter 9 demonstrate a disturbingly tight network of scientists with common research interests and opinions. The contrast between this close-knit group and the IPCC's stated claim to represent a global diversity of views is remarkable and does not augur well for the impartiality or integrity of chapter 9’s conclusions.
...
Under the IPCC’s procedures, the coordinating lead authors and lead authors are free to select contributing authors beyond those nominated by governments. Appointing other members of this clique as contributing authors would ensure that a particular viewpoint prevailed. On the evidence presented here, this incestuous arrangement was very much in place among the authors of chapter 9, ensuring that neither the papers nor the opinions of the growing band of serious climatologists who doubt that humankind has an actually or potentially harmful influence on the Earth’s climate are adequately represented in chapter 9.
...
Though a certain political faction has attempted to present the notion that there is a scientific “consensus” about the human influence on “global warming”, there is no such consensus among scientists in climate and related fields. Since the previous IPCC climate report in 2001, a substantial number of papers frankly skeptical of the magnitude of the human influence on climate imagined by the IPCC have been published. Similar scepticism was shown in numerous reviewers' comments for the second draft of chapter 9. The review editors appear to have ignored this skepticism. Chapter 9 makes scant mention of the differences of scientific opinion that exist. The IPCC’s procedural document contains an explicit requirement that significant differences should be described in an annex to the report. Yet, notwithstanding the absence of any scientific consensus on the magnitude of the human effect on the climate among suitably-qualified scientists, the only annex to chapter 9 deals with statistical methods
...
... The Hadley Centre and University of East Anglia, suppliers of 10 of the 53 authors of chapter 9, are likewise deeply involved with climate modeling, as are Allen of the University of Oxford and (probably) his three Oxford colleagues who also contributed to chapter 9. The US NCAR, supplier of 3 authors, also specializes in modeling. It is very likely that many other chapter 9 authors and the institutes to which they are affiliated are in the same position. It would be unrealistic to expect that those who work with climate models would question the capability and accuracy of such models in the best of circumstances. The very heavy bias towards modelers among the authorship of chapter 9 must have largely prevented any serious questions about the competence of climate models (however sophisticated) to truly represent the future evolution of a complex, non-linear, chaotic object such as the climate. Indeed, it has been known since Lorenz (1963) that the initial state of the climate can never be known to a sufficient precision to allow reliable projections of its future evolution beyond a few days or weeks.
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/McLean_IPCC_bias.pdf

PART 4

David Karoly, one of the review editors, is an author of 13 of the papers cited in chapter 9. Seven of these papers list at least one author of chapter 9. One of the cited papers co-authored by Karoly was co-authored by 5 chapter authors. Ten chapter authors, including both coordinating lead authors and three of the seven lead authors (Gillet, Stott and Penner) were co-authors with Karoly on papers cited in chapter 9. The extent of this co-authoring makes Karoly the 38th member of the network of previous co-authorship. For the IPCC’s 2001 science assessment, Karoly had been a coordinating lead author of the “attribution” chapter. His lead authors then were Hegerl, Zwiers, Marengo and Allen, The first two of these were to become coordinating lead authors of chapter 9 in the 2007 report. Marengo was probably the lead author noted in the 2007 report as Marengo-Orsini. Allen is also a contributing author of chapter 9.

The IPCC document has this to say about the role of review editors: “4.2.4 ... Review Editors should normally consist of a member of the Working Group/Task Force Bureau, and an independent expert based on the lists provided by governments and participating organizations. Review Editors should not be involved in the preparation or review of material for which they are an editor. In selecting Review Editors, the Bureaux should select from developed and developing countries and from countries with economies in transition, and should aim for a balanced representation of scientific, technical, and socio-economic views.”
The close pre-existing connections between Karoly and many of the authors of chapter 9 raise doubts about the impartiality of the review process.
Even if Karoly had acted entirely objectively and independently, in the circumstances he has not been seen to act objectively and independently.
The IPCC document continues – “5. … Review Editors will assist the Working Group/Task Force Bureaux in identifying reviewers for the expert review process, ensure that all substantive expert and government review comments are afforded appropriate consideration, advise lead authors on how to handle contentious/controversial issues and ensure genuine controversies are reflected adequately in the text of the Report.
“Although responsibility for the final text remains with the Lead Authors, Review Editors will need to ensure that where significant differences of opinion on scientific issues remain, such differences are described in an annex to the Report. Review Editors must submit a written report to the Working Group Sessions or the Panel and where appropriate, will be requested to attend Sessions of the Working Group and of the IPCC to communicate their findings from the review process.”

The review editors appear to have ignored this skepticism. Chapter 9 makes scant mention of the differences of scientific opinion that exist. The IPCC’s procedural document contains an explicit requirement that significant differences should be described in an annex to the report. Yet, notwithstanding the absence of any scientific consensus on the magnitude of the human effect on the climate among suitably-qualified scientists, the only annex to chapter 9 deals with statistical methods.
According to the IPCC regulations, the review editors were required to present a written report to the IPCC Working Group Session (see quote above). Documents made available due to FOI requests by David Holland indicate that Karoly's report, in particular, consisted of a one-sentence letter with all the hallmarks of a standard form
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/McLean_IPCC_bias.pdf

PART 5

Chapter 9 does comment on the accuracy and completeness of climate models –
“Incomplete global data sets and remaining model uncertainties still restrict understanding of changes in extremes and attribution of changes to causes.” [p. 666]
“Detection of anthropogenic influence is not yet possible for all climate variables for a variety of reasons. Some variables respond less strongly to external forcing, or are less reliably modelled or observed.” [p. 669]
“Detection and attribution analyses show robust evidence for an anthropogenic influence on climate. However, some forcings are still omitted by many models and uncertainties remain in the treatment of those forcings that are included by the majority of models.” [p. 692]
However, these admitted deficiencies did not deter the authors of chapter 9 from presenting the output of climate models as if it was evidence of man-made warming. Modeling is not evidence of anything, particularly when it is a chaotic object that is being modeled.
...
First, chapter 9 asserts that historical annual mean temperatures are consistent with the climate models. However, the models have repeatedly been tuned ex post facto so as to reproduce phenomena (such as the cooling between 1940 and 1975) which they had not previously reproduced, so it is no surprise that – with the benefit of hindsight – the modelers have been able to force their models to replicate the observed climate. That process, however, cannot be relied upon to produce reliable projections for the future.
Secondly, the projections that are the output of the models are Delphic in their lack of specificity. When 58 simulations performed by 14 climate models deliver results often varying by more than 0.5 degrees Celsius (1 F: see, for instance, chapter 9, figure 9.5, p. 684), it is unsurprising that average global temperature falls within the range of outputs of the multitude of model simulations.
Thirdly, chapter 9 sets great store by “intercomparison studies” between the outputs of different climate models, implying that a “consensus” among climate models somehow constitutes scientific truth. William Briggs,10 a statistician, has shown that a consensus is to be expected between models because they share similar mathematics, because knowledge is exchanged within the modeling fraternity, because models are deliberately tuned to match historical temperatures (Akasofu, 2008), and because any model that did not come close to reality would be discarded. The conditions precedent to “consensus” among models are thus in place even before the models start processing the data.
Fourthly the authors of chapter 9 turn the scientific method on its head, stating or implying at many points that correlation implies causation. This is a well-known informal fallacy of logic, a variant of post hoc ergo propter hoc. It is generally true that lack of correlation necessarily entails lack of causation, but it is false that correlation necessarily entails causation. For instance the fact that atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration and global temperatures have both risen in the past half century does not necessarily imply either that the greater concentration of carbon dioxide caused the increase in temperature or that the increase in temperature caused the concentration of carbon dioxide to increase. Whenever two datasets appear to be correlated, causation of one by the other cannot be inferred until all possible causes extraneous to both have been considered and eliminated.
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/McLean_IPCC_bias.pdf

PART 6

Not one of the models predicted the stasis in global mean surface temperature since 1998, or the fall since late 2001. Some of the IPCC’s supporters have said that the current drop in temperatures is merely a temporary fluctuation consistent with natural variability of the climate, and that “global warming” will eventually resume, perhaps in 2015 (Keenlyside et al., 2008, vol. 453, 84-88). However, the IPCC and the fabricators of its models have always insisted that the role of natural variability in the climate is minuscule. If so, then they and their models are unable to explain the current fall in global temperature.

...the models are not capable of distinguishing between natural and anthropogenic temperature changes, because the climate sensitivity to anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide is an input to the models, not an output from them (Akasofu, 2008). The models are told at the outset to assume high climate sensitivity: without this assumption, it would not be possible to ascribe any temperature increase to humankind at all.

... since it is the inputs to the models that determine the extent of the imagined human influence on climate, analyzing the outputs to determine the extent to which they demonstrate anthropogenic influences is meaningless and futile. All it indicates is that the models all make similar assumptions, whose validity Bayesian probabilities are entirely unable to verify. Besides, it is not appropriate to apply any form of probability theory (especially Bayesian probabilities) to the behavior of a chaotic object whose initial state and evolutionary processes are not known to a sufficient degree of precision.

... chapter 3 of the IPCC’s 2007 climate assessment makes it explicit that the 2003 heat wave in Europe arose from a well-understood natural meteorological phenomenon – a stationary high-pressure cell spreading warm air from North Africa across Western Europe. The IPCC has rightly made it repeatedly plain that the attribution of individual extreme-weather events to anthropogenic “global warming” is not possible. Nor is it appropriate to base conclusions about individual extreme-weather events on an exaggerated interpretation of a single academic study.

Professor Richard Lindzen, who attended the sessions that led to the IPCC’s 2001 climate assessment, subsequently reported in testimony to the US Senate that officials of the IPCC at those sessions had circulated frequently among the groups of chapter authors, trying to persuade them that basing the entire case for climate alarm on computer modeling was an acceptable technique. ... As I have previously noted, intercomparison studies tend to embed errors systematically throughout all the models.

... warming can be, and often is, caused by internal events, such as El Nino ocean oscillations like that which caused the global temperature peak in 1998. El Nino conditions have dominated the oceans and hence the climate since the mid-1970s, when the Pacific Decadal Oscillation moved into its warm phase. ...that the prejudice to be expected given the asymmetries and biases in the selection of chapter authors and reviewers is indeed present throughout the text. Chapter 9 is not science but politics elaborately dressed up as though it were science.

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/McLean_IPCC_bias.pdf

I don't like the term climate change... too vague. Of course the climate changes... stick with your prediction, Global Warming... I think they change the terminology to save their asses if global warming turns out to be bogus.

I'm not saying I don't think human influenced global warming is a thing... I just don't like the term "climate change".

celticwar17 said:

I don't like the term climate change... too vague. Of course the climate changes... stick with your prediction, Global Warming... I think they change the terminology to save their asses if global warming turns out to be bogus.

I'm not saying I don't think human influenced global warming is a thing... I just don't like the term "climate change".

Click to expand...

Both terms have been around for decades. Climate change is more accurate because temperature isn't the only thing affected.