119 Theses Against the IPCC

Dr Vincent Gray

Dr Vincent Gray

UN-IPCC Expert Reviewer Dr Vincent Gray published an article in 2013 that included his comments on the draft publications associated with the IPCC’s 5th Assessment Report.

Dr Gray wrote

My comments on the final draft of the 4th WGI Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) were subsequently published as a result of an application in the USA of the Freedom of Information Act.

They can be found at http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/comments.html

It seems that my comments on the latest IPCC WGI AR5 Report may not be revealed, since the Report was launched in Switzerland who may not have a Freedom of information Act.

I therefore thought that I might as well publish my comments myself.

The 119 comments by Dr Gray are representative of Dr Gray’s diligence and his insight into fundamental issues; issues studiously avoided in the IPCC Assessment Reports.

This table has been changed from the original to omit two columns to improve readability. Obvious typographical errors in comments have be corrected.

Working Group I Contribution to the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report

SOD Formal Expert Review Expert Reviewer: Vincent Gray

No Chapter From Page From Line Comments
1 SPM 2 2 This paragraph is confused. You seem to have made a lot of “observations” which show what we all know already, that the climate is “changing”, but “evidence” that you can explain it seems to be dependent on “simulations”, and “projections” neither of which constitute “evidence” unless they are capable of successful future prediction
2 SPM 2 8 “Evidence” of past change in climate is all very convincing, but you have no evidence at all of future change of climate.
3 SPM 2 20 These are all speculations about the future. There is no evidence that any of them are successful
4 SPM 2 30 The periods you quote are ridiculously short and many of the observations are dubious. It is absurd to conclude that they are unusual on a geological scale
5 SPM 2 36 It is impossible to measure the average temperature of the earth’s surface, which would require random placement of thermometers over the entire earth’s surface, let alone the “climate system” which means the entire atmosphere, so you cannot tell whether either is “warming”. The claim that the whole lot is warming “unequivocally” is therefore without scientific or observational foundation and is thus more the nature of a political slogan or a religious belief than a scientifically established conclusion. Also you do not state over what period this “warming” is supposed to be happening. Then, according to the unreliable “Mean Global Surface Temperature Anomaly” there has been no warming for the past ten years. How “unequivocal” is that?
6 SPM 3 4 Your claim that you have measured “globally averaged” near surface temperature is untrue. In order to do so it would be necessary to distribute thermometers randomly over the entire surface of the earth, including oceans deserts and forests. The “global surface temperature anomaly” which you quote is very far from such a scientifically based system as it consists of multiple averages based on unrepresentative samples from non standardized conditions which have very large uncertainties and biases which greatly exceed the supposed :warming:, and are never estimated.
7 SPM 3 21 Even US weather stations are rarely capable of measuring temperature to better than one degree and it is simply ridiculous to quote figures that are subject to huge uncertainties to one or even two decimals of a degree. Weather forecasters just never use decimals and most of their claims are considered approximate. The figures you quote are so small they do not establish a claim for a significant warming. Also, the amounts are so small that their consequences are undetectable.
8 SPM 3 27 These are merely the opinions of biased “experts”. They are not based on scientific studies.
9 SPM 3 46 At last some common sense. Measurement of “extreme events is so crude and the past record so unreliable that it is currently impossible to judge whether they are worse or better
10 SPM 3 50 In footnote, the “probability” figures are no more than guesswork supplied by biased “experts” They have no basis in scientifically established statistical studies
11 SPM 4 1 These are merely the opinions of biased “experts”. They are not based on scientific studies.
12 SPM 4 29 Results marred by too much biased opinion on highly inaccurate, highly variable figures only available over a very recent period
13 SPM 5 1 Cherry picking. You choose the Arctic but not the Antarctic where ice mass is increasing. No actual temperature measurements are ever made so changes may be due to changes in the temperature of ocean currents or in the amount of precipitation. Arctic ice has fluctuated in the past when we did not have the sophisticated measurement systems. There is evidence that Arctic ice size fluctuates
14 SPM 5 8 Much biased estimates on limited data where surface temperatures are rarely measured and sometimes affected by oceans or precipitation changes. The increase in Arctic ice and the extent of some glaciers seems neglected and historical perspective ignored. All this has certainly happened before.
15 SPM 5 44 Tide gauge measurements with modern measurement equipment with GPS levelling show no evidence of sea level change over the past ten years in places like Australia, New Zealand or the Pacific islands. Judgements based on older less reliable measurements affected by hurricanes and tsunamis and by changes in both the land and in the local harbours give spurious indications of change. Satellite measurements have levelled out and are influenced by ocean
16 SPM 6 3 There is a complete mismatch between measurements of atmospheric carbon dioxide, which take place almost exclusively over the ocean, and emissions, which take place almost exclusively over land surfaces, This means that there is no scientifically observed relationship between them. The figures in this section are therefore subject to unknown inaccuracy
17 SPM 6 30 It is wrong to assume that the pH of the ocean is uniform. There are parts which currently emit carbon dioxide and are presumably saturated, without evident harm to the local flora and fauna. Increased dissolved carbon dioxide would merely increase these areas, encouraging creatures that benefit, and adaptation by evolution for others
18 SPM 6 41 Genuine globally averaged temperatures cannot be measured. These comcluisions are based on highly inaccurate methods for which inaccuracies and biases are far greater than the increases claimed. The period covered is very small on a geological scale and the estimates by the biased experts are worthless
19 SPM 7 1 More unreliable estimates from biased experts plus more absence of a geological perspective
20 SPM 7 24 Sheer speculation based on an absurd misinterpretation of the earth’s energy supply, distorted to pretend that it is entirely controlled by radiation exchanges, The earth’s energy is received by the sun only by day. The absorbed heat is used by all organisms, partly removed by convection and evaporation and the remainder radiated to the exhaust (space)_ from the earth, and the heated atmosphere. There is no evidence that the so-called :greenhouse gases” play any part in this and models based on your theory cannot currently improve on conventional weather forecasters
21 SPM 7 34 The absence of information over land surfaces makes all these figures dubious. But there is no evidence that they affect the climate.
22 SPM 8 1 The “Energy Budget” Is a joke.. The energy of the earth or at any place on it is never :”balanced” and the figures given in the diagram are all complex averages from skewed variability distributions of poorly characterised averages., Your current version even ventures to give (unbelievable) uncertainties which immediately cast doubt on any supposed “surplus”. Your models are thus calculating a supposed increase above a moving target. The model does not show what happens when the energy is received by day only in variable amounts on varying surfaces, and it omits the energy which is used to make life possible on earth.or what really happens to it before the residue is radiated outwards
23 SPM 8 5 All these figures are from your unbelievable climate models, which ignore or downplay all the chief influences on the climate established by over 200 years of meteorological science. It is not enough just to have “confidence” The whole system has to be shown to be more effective than what is available now from the weather forecasters. Simulation of the past and forecasts for the far future are not enough. .
24 SPM 8 50 Your “climate system” is incomplete. It should include the sun and the earth itself and it must include the fact that energy reception takes place only by day. It must also include the fate of the energy received, which includes its utilisation by living organisms, its transfer by conduction, latent heat, and departure of the residue to space by radiation from heated atmosphere at every level as well as from the earth itself. The WHOLE system is a heat engine with the sun as an energy source and space as the exhaust. Whether trace gases play a part in this system has not been established as it is swallowed up by the “chaos” of fluid behaviour which you claim to have eliminated,
25 SPM 9 1 In AR1 was a Chapter entitled “Validation of climate models” In the First Draft of AR2 was a similar Chapter. I commented at the time that since no attempt at genuine validation was being attempted, the Title was inappropriate. To my surprise, you agreed with me, and in the next Draft you not only altered the title to “Evaluation of climate models” but you also changed the word “validation” to “evaluation” no less than fifty times throughout the Chapter, Since then, the word “validation” has been forbidden. Not only that, you also banned the use of the word “prediction: and replaced it by the word :”projection”: All this is an admission that none of your models are capable of “climate prediction. All you get are “projections” where you have to believe the initial assumptions before you take any notice of them. “Validation” would require an extensive series of tests to discover the predictive capabilities of the models in all circumstances for which they are to be used, to a satisfactory level of accuracy. Not only has this never been done, there has, up to now, been no discussion on how it may be done. Because of this it is possible to assert that the models should not be used for
26 SPM 10 6 “Detection and Attribution’: is the name you have given to the process of guesswork by your paid experts which replaces a proper scientific study based on genuine experiments.You think you can get away with using “correlation: which we all know can never prove causation, merely by changing the name
27 SPM 10 28 Largely devoted to guesswork based on belief in your absurd model
28 SPM 12 11 “Near term projections” are very dangerous but you do your best to make them as wide as possible with doubtful likelihood Figures 1.4,1.5 1.11 and TS12 show that short tern projections are poor for temperature at sea level and Figure 1.7 shows that projections for methane are worthless.
29 SPM 14 44 The long term projections are even wider and even more uncertain, but I suppose you are relying on the press and the activists who always choose the extreme values for their propaganda
30 SPM 20 1 The uncertainties are unbelievable when they are “available” so they are even greater when they are “not available”.
31 SPM 21 1 Both graphs conceal variability. The top one ignores figures over land and the bottom is grossly unrepresentative.
32 9 3 19 In AR1 was a Chapter entitled “Validation of climate models” In the First Draft of AR2 was a similar Chapter. I commented at the time that since no attempt at genuine validation was being attempted, the Title was inappropriate. To my surprise, you agreed with me, and in the next Draft you not only altered the title to “Evaluation of climate models” but you also changed the word “validation” to “evaluation” no less than fifty times throughout the Chapter, Since then, the word “validation” has been forbidden. Not only that, you also banned the use of the word “prediction: and replaced it by the word “projection”. All this is an admission that none of your models are capable of “climate prediction”; all you get are “projections” where you have to believe the initial assumptions before you take any notice of them. “Validation” would require an extensive series of tests to discover the predictive capabilities of the models in all circumstances for which they are to be used, to a satisfactory level of accuracy. Not only has this never been done, there has, up to now, been no discussion on how it may be done. Because of this it is possible to assert that the models should not be used for
33 11 2 22 “Predictability” depends on successful prediction over the complete range intended to be covered, to a satisfactory level pf accuracy. No attempt to carry out this procedure is to be found anywhere in this Chapter, so there is no reason to suppose that any of its conclusions are worth consideration.as opinions on predictability.
34 10 6 39 “Detection” and “Attribution” are mechanisms of organised guesswork They provide only speculation, not evidence of cause and effect, however much “confidence”: is expressed in them.
35 10 89 5 “Observed global annual mean temperature” What nonsnse! Nobody has ever measured such a quantity. It would require simultaneous measurements of thermometers situated randomly over the entire earth’s surface. Including the oceans. You are surely referring to the so-called “Annual Global Surface Temperature Anomaly” which is not a temperature at all. but a complex multi-average of a large number of unrepresentative non-standard weather station maximum an minimum temperature measurements. This concoction bears only a very slight resemblance to any genuine global mean surface temperature
36 12 3 12 All you have got are “projections” NOT “predictions” Since none of the models has been properly validated by showing whether it is capable of successful prediction, you have no right to make any predictions, stating what WILL happen. All you can say is that it MIGHT happen
37 12 3 21 All you have got are “projections” NOT “predictions” Since none of the models has been properly validated by showing whether it is capable of successful prediction, you have no right to make any predictions, stating what WILL happen. All you can say is that it MIGHT happen
38 12 3 3 All these figures are based on personal opinions of the value of untested models. We await with bated breath your future report on whether any of them are successful
39 12 9 3 You are confessing that you cannot predict future climate. All you can do is give us the collective assessments of people who have a conflict of interest by supplying levels of :”confidence”: in their opinions that justify their continuing salaty and status.
40 12 20 37 Computer models do not carry out ‘experiments” they make speculations.
41 14 3 4 The usual stuff about “evaluation” “simulation” and “assessment”: but no mention of whether any of it is actually successful in predicting what is going ti happen.
42 14 3 17 More unreliable estimates from biased experts
43 TS 4 14 “Globally averaged near surface temperature” What nonsnse! Nobody has ever measured such a quantity. It would require simultaneous measurements of thermometers situated randomly over the entire earth’s surface, including the oceans. You are surely referring to the so-called “Annual Global Surface Temperature Anomaly” which is not a temperature at all. but a complex multi-average of a large number of unrepresentative non-standard weather station maximum an minimum temperature measurements. This concoction bears only a very slight resemblence to any genuine global mean suface temperature
44 Atlas 1 1 A significant number of these graphs show a definite probability that there will be little or no change in any property by 2100, so you are covered whatever happens. .
45 0 6 6 I refer to the Second Annex, TableAII.1.3 where you have not had the courage to include decadal temperature figures for 2010.
46 0 25 1 In Annex iii , Glossary, there is no definition of “Sea Level”
47 13 1 1 The Chapter should be about Sea Level,and it should describe the observations and their reliability. Instead the whole subject has been distorted in order to build a case that Sea Level Change complies with the absurd IPCC climate models.tt attempts to claim that change must be assocaited with increased melting of ice, but fails to note that there has been no increase in the supposed global temperature, as measured by the so-called mean global surface temperature anomaly for over ten years,. There have never been any surface temperature measurements on ice or glaciers and the most likely explanations of any melting are either changes in ocean currents (with the Arctic) or changes in precipitation.
48 13 1 1 For land surfaces the “Sea Level” is Relative, that is to say it is the difference between the level of the sea and the position of the equipment attached to the land..Both the sea and the land change from time to time and from one measurement to another.The level of the sea may change because of storm protection measures, dredging of the harbour, or measures to increase local water level to enable larger ships to enter. The land position can change in many ways. The extent of the land may increase by reclamation from the sea, or decrease by erosion. It may subside from removal of minerals or ground water or from weight of buildings. The equipment and its ground attachment tend to be damaged by storms and replaced in a different place. Many records are fragmented for this reason. Most of these changes cause an upwards bias, so it is wrong, as is claimed in this Chapter, to claim that they are necessarily related to changes on the climate. or to supposed increases in the level of the ocean caused by melting ice. It also means that the comprehensive amalgamation of sea level “changes” carried out in this Chapter is not a reliable guide to future sea level.
49 13 3 15 Sea level measurements are not conducted in a representative random fashion all over the earth, so you cannot have a :”global mean”. There seems no point in any sort of average, either. Each set of measurements has to be considered separately
50 13 3 15 We do not know the average temperature of the earth’s surface today so it is unbelievable that you can claim that it was 2-3 degrees warmer a million years ago. Your claim that only three measurements can give a “global average” is absurd.
51 13 1 1 Accuracy figures are omitted for most of your figures. Previous IPCC Reports gave very high inaccuracy levels for sea level measurements
52 1 5 19 You seem here to be denying that there has been appreciable change in the average temperature of the earth for :”many centuries” How many is that? What about the “Little Ice Age” or the :Roman Warm Period?.
53 1 7 48 Your Glossary no longer assumes that there is a necessary human component to “Climate Change” There is multiple evidence for Changes in the Climate, but no evidence that greenhouse gas emissions are responsible.
54 1 9 6 The records shown are not “observations” and they are not “temperatures”. They are also not “globally averaged”. They are a set of multiple averages, subtracted from an overall average, compiled from a varying non-standardised set of maximum an minimum temperature measurements at varying weather stations and ship measurements. They were previously treated as “Mean Global Temperature anomaly” The uncertainties attached to each figure are very great, Individual temperature measurements are rarely accurate to better than one degree, so a claimed “trend” over 100 years of less than one degree has a very low level of statistical significance.
55 1 10 14 Measurements of the gases are almost all restricted to over the sea. Emissions are almost all over the land, so it is impossible to find a relationship between them without a comprehensive programme of land based measurements
56 1 10 28 The overall trend for methane is a decline in the rate of increase. You choose to ignore this with a few recent measurements. However, with your temperature record you choose to ignore recent behaviour, because it has been static for ten years, and emphacize only the previous “trend”.
57 1 14 6 The 90% figures are sheer guesswork, unrelated to any genuine study on uncertainties
58 1 16 40 These levels are sheer guesswork unrelated to any scientific study of uncertainty
59 1 30 7 These are not “observed”: temperatures. They are a set of multiple averages, subtracted from an overall average, compiled from a varying non-standardised set of maximum an minimum temperature measurements at varying weather stations and ship measurements. They were previously treated as “Mean Temperature anomaly” The uncertainties attached to each figure are very great Individual temperature measurements are rarely accurate to better than one degree, so a claimed “trend” over 100 years of less than one degree has a very low level of statistical significance.
60 1 39 1 This diagram shows that the Temperature anomaly has bee stable for ten years and that none of the previous IPCC Reports predicted it successfully
61 1 42 1 Shows that methane projections have been wrong in every IPCC Report
62 1 46 1 See my comments on Chapter13. Tide gauge measurements are too variable to be averaged sensibly. They are not global and there is evidence that currently they are not increasing
63 1 55 1 Does not dare to put in the temperature figure for the decade 2000 to 2012 because the temperature stabilized
64 2 3 52 “Globally averaged near surface temperature” What nonense!

Nobody has ever measured such a quantity. It would require simultaneous measurements of thermometers situated randomly over the entire earth’s surface, including the oceans. You are surely referring to the so-called “Annual Global Surface Temperature Anomaly” which is not a temperature at all. but a complex multi-average of a large number of unrepresentative non-standard weather station maximum an minimum temperature measurements. This concoction bears only a very slight resemblance to any genuine global mean surface temperature

65 2 4 2 These are merely the opinions of biased “experts”. They are not based on scientific studies involving comparisons with actual future behaviour
66 2 20 24 Statistical methods usually assume that all samples have been obtained under identical circumstances. For time series of climate observations this condition may apply to the measurements of trace gases, but it certainly does not apply to the “Annual mean temperature anomaly” or to the average sea level, This means that plausible “trends” of temperature or sea level and most of the other climate features presented in this Chapter cannot be obtained by any of the standard statistical methods. This particularly applies to long term series. Some short term series may be used where conditions of measurement are known to have been similar. For these reasons I regard most of the “trends” shown in this Chapter, and particularly the temperature time series in this Chapter and the sea level series in Chapter 13 as unreliable.
67 2 21 42 This “Energy Budget” is implausible as it ignores all the components of the climate which have been established by meteorology.The Climate is a heat engine where the energy comes from the sun’s radiation. and after its utilization, the residue is radiated to space, which is the exhaust. All energy exchange takes place by conduction, convection and latent heat transfer. Forecasting is inhibited because of the prime importance of fluid flow, which is subject to “chaos” The IPCC model replaces all this with internal energy exchange entirely by radiation, and it also assumes that the earth does not rotate, that the sun shines with constant intensity, both day and night and that the “chaos”resulting from the unpredictable behaviour of the atmosphere and the oceans is conveniently eliminated
68 2 39 20 It is impossible to measure the average temperature of the earth. let alone any part of the “climate system”, so there is no reliable evidence that it is warming. However the currently available temperature series all agree that there has been no warming for the past ten years, so the “warming is certainly NOT “equivocal” and this entire paragraph is nonsense.
69 2 112 5 All of these measurements were made almost exclusively over the sea, and under restrictive circumstances. There are almost no measurements over land surfaces so the figures are far from being globally averaged.
70 2 142 1 Most of the graphs treat the time series as if it were based on constants. In reality all them have large uncertainties, which, if added, would destroy the statistical validity of many of the claimed trends
71 3 3 1 These are all merely the opinions of so-called “experts” who have a conflict of interest and therefore should not be taken seriously. It is a shame that there are no results that can be considered to be confirmed by scientific study of future behaviour
72 3 5 14 After all that work you make the astounding discovery that the oceans are changing!!!
73 3 1 63 Most of the graphs treat the time series as if were based on constants. In reality all of them have large uncertainties,
74 4 74 4 which, if added, would destroy the statistical validity of many of the claimed trends It is doubtful that the in situ measurements from 1870 measured the same quantities as the satellites in 2919
75 6 3 41 Atmospheric concentrations are measured almost entirely over the oceans, whereas emissions are almost always measured over land. Maybe the two are related, but you cannot be sure until there is a comprehensive programme of atmospheric concentration measurements over land surfaces. It is no excuse to reject transient or directuinal measurements by claiming they are “noise”
76 6 4 6 No mention of the fact that there has
been an overall downward trend in the rate of increase since 1984
77 6 26 18 I would be interested to know how you measured the rate of increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide from 1750 to 1751.
78 6 19 5 In a very long Chapter there is hardly any information about emissions of carbon dioxide. There is not even a graph of the actual figures, either globally or regionally or any discussion of their distribution, methods of measurement, or accuracy.
79 1 39 1 Figure 1.4 shows that the IPCC Scenarios are very poor in predicting future temperature. Future projections based on them are therefore unreliable
80 1 40 1 Figure 1.5 shows that the IPCC Scenarios are very poor in predicting future temperature. Future projections based on them are therefore unreliable/
81 1 41 1 Figure 1.6 shows that the IPCC Scenarios are moderately good in predicting future atmospheric carbon dioxide. Model projections based on them therefore have a moderate level of plausibility
82 1 42 1 Figure 1.7 shows that IPCC Scenarios are completely unable to forecast future levels of atmospheric methane. Model projections based on them are therefore completely unreliable.
83 1 43 1 Figure 1.8 shows that the IPCC Scenarios are poor in predicting future N2O levels. Future projections based on them are therefore unreliable.
84 1 47 1 Figure 1.11 shows that the IPCC Scenarios are poor in predicting future Sea levels. Future projections based on them are therefore unreliable.
85 10 3 3 Both these paragraphs are untrue. There have been no comparisons between the projections of climate models and future climate parameters. Indeed, the comparisons of scenarios with future behaviour, which are given in Figures 1.4, 1.5. 1.6, 1.7 and show that predictability is poor for temperature, N2O and Sea Level, and completely wrong for methane. Presumably, this paragraph is referring to consistency with past climate behaviour, which is no guide to the future and does not justify confidence in any of the model projections. This is particularly true for temperature, for the rather unreliable “Global Mean Surface Temperature Anomaly” has hardly changed for the last ten years, which shows that for this period, the world is not currently warming, whatever the claimed increases in anthropogenic factors. This whole Chapter appears to believe that a proper VALIDATION of model outcomes. which involves a comprehensive comparison with future climate behaviour, can be replaced by a system of DETECTION and ATTRIBUTION based entirely on the biased opinions of those who have been paid to produce them, and which is subject to a conflict of interest. These
86 10 3 24 “Since the mid 20th Century” is hardly a large period in human or climate history, and you ignore the fact that the “warming” has ceased in the last 10 years and there is no evidence that any warming is caused by human activity
87 10 3 39 Anecdotal evidence is not reliable. Measurements of temperature show that there is no current warning, There is also no evidence that any warming is “anthropogenic” even if it has a subjectively assessed “fingerprint”
88 10 3 54 Merely biased opinions, not science
89 10 4 8 There is no evidence that these changes are caused by humans
90 10 5 16 You have no genuine measurement of the average temperature of the earth’s surface or its possible increase. The “Mean Global Surface Temperature Anomaly” is based on multiple varying samples and is unreliable. It is also prone to a variety of upward biases related to :anthropogenic: changes in population and development. It has also been almost constant for the past ten years. It is not currently “warming”
91 10 5 13 These “simulations:: conveniently omit the two main reasons for the increase in the “Mean Global Surface Temperature Anomaly” which are the changes in ocean oscillations (particularly EMSO) and the biases in weather station temperature measurements from urban development and land use changes. And you actually admit that the temperature is not currently changing, anyway!
92 10 6 3 Your models ignore scientific study of the climate which has found that internal heat exchange is from conduction, convection and latent heat exchange, not, exclusively radiation. Instead of judging the model results by their ability to predict future climate successfully you rely entirely on the considered opinions of paid investigators, who apply supposed :statistical figures to their opinions which are no more than guesswork.
93 10 6 36 Humans influence the climate every time they put up a building or change the landscape. There is, however, no evidence that any change in the climate is influenced by emissions of so-called ‘Greenhouse Gases’
94 10 6 47 Based entirely on the personal opinions of your paid investigators
95 10 10 49 These sophisticated methods of studying time series all depend on the assumption that all individual items have been obtained under identical circumstances, This assumption is hardly ever true for climate observations, particularly for long lapses of time. This means that all of the studies are probably unreliable.
96 10 13 19 The Figure does not show “global mean temperature” which currently cannot be determined, but “Mean Global Surface Temperature Anomaly” which is subject to much uncertainty and upward biases, so these conclusions are dubious.
97 10 15 6 These are not “observed” or “global mean” temperatures but a series of multiple averages of a varying number of means of maximum and minimum temperature from a variety of weather stations and ship measurements .
98 10 16 25 These are not:”observed” or “global mean” temperatures but a series of multiple averages of a varying number of means of maximum and minimum temperature from a variety of weather stations and ship measurements .
99 10 18 40 These are not “observed” or “global mean” temperatures but a series of multiple averages of a varying number of means of maximum and minimum temperature from a variety of weather stations and ship measurements
100 10 63 55 According to the “Mean Global Surface Temperature Anomaly: the globe has not been warming at all for the past ten years, so this is nonsense
101 10 89 47 A “Global Mean Anomaly: is not the same as a “Global Mean”
102 10 102 1 As I pointed out in my comments to AR4 these graphs are spurious because they do not take into account the main reasons for the supposed increases which are the ocean oscillations (natural, notably ENSO) and urbanisation and land use change (anthropogenic).
103 10 130 1 As I pointed out in my comments to AR4 these graphs are spurious because they do not take into account the main reasons for the supposed increases which are the ocean oscillations (natural, notably ENSO) and urbanisation and land use change (anthropogenic).
104 TS 3 13 You do not seem to realise that using only “:simulations” as a technique to judge “projections: is not enough. They will only be considered believable if they can successfully forecast future climate. This is something that none of them have succeeded in doing
105 TS 4 7 It would be amazing if they found the climate was not changing
106 TS 4 30 “These are not “observed” or “global mean” temperatures but a series of multiple averages of a varying number of means of maximum and minimum temperature from a variety of weather statons and ship measurements with huge inaccuracies
107 TS 4 35 These assessments are just the personal opinions of your paid investigators who have a conflict of interest in providing opinions acceptable to the authorities
108 TS 10 19 This section is confused and incorrect. The “Sea Level” is Relative, the difference between the level of the sea and the position of the equipment attached to the land.Both the sea and the land change from time to time and from one measurement a nd another.The level of the sea may change because of storm protection measures, dredging of the harbour, or measures to increase local water level to enable larger ships to enter. The land position can change in many ways. The extent of the land may increase by reclamation from the sea, or decrease by erosion. It may subside from removal of minerals or ground water or from weight of buildings. The equipment and its ground attachment tend to be damaged by storms and replaced in a different place. Many records are fragmented for this reason. Most of these changes cause an upwards bias, so it is wrong, as is claimed in this Chapter, to claim that they are necessarily related to changes on the climate. or to supposed increases in the level of the ocean caused by melting ice. It also means that the comprehensive amalgamation of sea level “changes” carried out in this Chapter are not a reliable guide to future sea
109 TS 77 1 As usual you omit the two most important contributors to the supposed temperature ris. The are the ocean oscillations , notable ENSO, and the effect of urban and land use changes which you have underestimated
110 TS 79 1 Shows that the models have predicted carbon dioxide but they are very poor at predicting temperature or sea level. You have omitted methane because the model predictions are disastrous. Why should we believe they can reliably predict future figures?
111 TS 89 1 This Figure shows that all the models are hopelessly exaggerated
112 12 18 18 You are still stuck on a 1% per annum increase in CO2 when it is only 0.5% a year. No wonder all your projections are exaggerated
113 2 154 1 You claim that the energy is “balanced” and the parameters are all constants. This implies it is in equilibrium, but it is not, because your “Climate System” is not isolated from input or output of energy, so there is no reason why the energy should be “balanced”
114 2 154 1 This model is fundamentally incorrect. A preliminary critique can be found at http://nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/the%20greenhousexxx.pdf.

Your “Climate System” is only one part of a complete climate system..The complete climate is a heat engine. The input energy is the radiation from the sun, which is absorbed by each part of the earth, only by day. Some of the absorbed energy is converted ito chemical energy, which carries out reactions to maintain all the living organisms with a decrease of entropy. This importani part of the sun’s energy is not included in your model. What remains is dispersed by conduction, convection, and latent heat exchange. Air and ocean movements play an an important part in these processes. Their scientific study is inhibited by the “chaos” associated with problems of fluid flow. Your model implausibly claims to have eliminated :chaos: altogether as well as almost eliminating all of the essential mechanisms for energy transfer. Finally this energy is radiated to space from every surface of the earth and every level of the atmosphere; which represents the exhaust of the system. The energy received

115 2 154 1 This version of the model admits that there is a “range” of possible figures for the various parameters. This alone implies that there could never be a :balance” as the difference between input and output is now variable. In this situation any calculated effects of increases in greenhouse gases is on top of a moving target, which may be positive or negative. In actuality many of the parameters are averages from skewed distributions and some are based on supposed knowledge of the average temperature of the earth which is itself affected by large inaccuracies. So this model breaks down even if all the other implausible assumptions are accepted. The entire report is futile.
116 Atlas 0 1 It is time I gave an opinion on the entire Report. I have commented on every one of them. With AR1 my comments were collected by the Ministry of Energy and submitted as a consolidated list from New Zealand. With AR2 mu comments were submitted by the Coal Research Association which was listed as a NGO. For AR3 and AR4 I submitted them as an independent consultant. I published critiques on every one of the Reports in peer reviewed Journals and many reports on the Internet. For AR3 it was a book, “The Greenhouse Delusion; A Critique of ‘Climate Change 2001′” My actual comments and what happened to them were never published. but I had several acceptances despite my growing opposition to the entire enterprise. For AR4 I submitted nearly 2000 comments, 16% of the total, all of which have been published as the result of a request from the Official Information Act.
117 Atlas 0 1 In most of the Reports I recommended a change in the title. The Phrase “Climate Change” gives the impression that the Reports are to be entirely devoted to confirming the FCCC definition, which considers Climate Change to be caused by human changes in trace gases, whereas natural changes were merely “variable”. You always modified this, but merely in a footnote. Now in your Glossary you have defined Climate Change as any change of climate, but the general public will still think from your title that you are biased in favour of the FCCA definition. Several times before I have suggested “Climate Science” as a preferable Title and I will try it once more
118 Atlas 0 1 You seem to have given up your attempts to impose targets and your future projections of temperature change seem to be confined to two Figures in the Technical Summary, TS13 and TFE8, which both give projections with maximum of over 4 degrees and minimum of 1.5 degrees rise by 2100. These Figures seem to be behind recent claims in the press and by the World Bank that you are forecasting the possibility of a rise of 4 degrees by 2100. This seems unlikely since Figures 1.4 and 1.5 of the same Technical Summary show that projections are making a poor job of recent temperature changes and show that high scenarios and projections are the least likely
119 Atlas 0 1 You have failed once more to show that the climate is influenced in any way by changes in emissions of trace gases. I have already shown that your model is defective. You have never subjected it to the necessary discipline of validation which requires successful prediction of a range of future climate properties. Mere simulation of past climate does not constitute evidence. Evaluation, Detection and Attribution is an excessively complex system of organised guesswork where the series of likelihoods and confidences are made by people who are paid to produce them and have a conflict of interest..
Advertisements
This entry was posted in Carbon Tax, Digital Universe, Environment, It's only a Model, Science, Securing Liberty and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s