George Rebane
I recently looked at the most revealing graphic on global warming that I have seen. The link to it was sent to me by a regular RR reader who was equally amazed by what he saw. It was assembled by Nir Shaviv of sciencebits.com and is reproduced below.
The figure illustrates the uncertainty bounds for global temperatures predicted by climate theory over the years since 1979. These were obtained from computer models which implement the relationships (equations) prescribed by the then best available climate theories assessed by the IPCC, and as most recently vouched for in their just released AR5 report. Do you by chance notice anything odd in that figure?
As Shaviv correctly points out, the resulting output measurables from any theory claiming to be scientific will converge as the theory becomes more mature in the sense that it is exercised and experimented with over the years by various competent investigators. But such error bounds will only become smaller if the theory proves to be correct in how it describes the realworld.
However, if the theory is in error, then under equivalent scrutiny the error bounds on its outputs will expand as it is poked, examined, and put to the test. Natural contentions will then arise among the science community. And when the results of the experiments or simulations are combined, the uncertainty region grows with the passing of the years. It is this which invites – nay, demands – the generation and positing of new and improved theories to explain the observable (recall Occam and all that).
When a theory, especially one with political consequences, is exercised, tweaked, and patched for over thirty years, and the reported output error bounds stay essentially constant, then something beyond fishy is going on. Shaviv offers that such a graph points to something more than incompetence in the teams of investigators, or even that they are “captives of a wrong conception”. I will draw a much stronger conclusion from the data in that graph and the history of the IPCC enterprise. I believe that the suspiciously constant temperature error bounds reported from billions of dollars of ‘research’ spent over thirty years are prima facie evidence of conspiracy and scientific fraud.
For added comedic farce, we observe the slightly compressed error bound from the 2008 AR4 report, a bound that then had to be relaxed as further ‘work’ was done in the interval to AR5. Apparently some time before 2008 certain people on the IPCC team came to the same conclusions expressed here, and subsequently started playing with the error bounds to demonstrate some needed contraction. As Shaviv points out, the farce comes in the following paragraph of gobbledygook in AR5.
The equilibrium climate sensitivity quantifies the response of the climate system to constant radiative forcing on multi-century time scales. It is defined as the change in global mean surface temperature at equilibrium that is caused by a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Equilibrium climate sensitivity is likely in the range 1.5°C to 4.5°C (high confidence), extremely unlikely less than 1°C (high confidence), and very unlikely greater than 6°C (medium confidence) 16. The lower temperature limit of the assessed likely range is thus less than the 2°C in the AR4, but the upper limit is the same. This assessment reflects improved understanding, the extended temperature record in the atmosphere and ocean, and new estimates of radiative forcing. (emphasis mine)
Only a bureaucracy off the rails would claim that an increase in error bounds would reflect “improved understanding” instead of truthfully admitting the opposite. Yet this is the kind of slop the IPCC has been feeding its eager and ignorant audiences for years.
As a coda, I recount (as does Shaviv) that the IPCC still cannot bring itself to admit that the sun has a major effect on climate. And even more damning is their silence on the imperative confession that science does not yet know or understand earth’s carbon cycle – what are its sources, sinks, and the transfer functions of the transport processes that mediate between them. And this is the prime ‘greenhouse gas’ that is the centerpiece of their anthropogenic global warming argument. The concentrations of the CO2 in the atmosphere do not correlate with earth’s temperature (most certainly inadequate to support causality) either in the paleo-historical record or the measurements from the recent past.
Given the overwhelming international push to put in place destructive public policies to combat atmospheric levels of CO2, AGW is without a doubt the biggest fraud yet perpetrated on the largest number of people in human history. (more here)
rebanesruminations.com 
Leave a comment