Posted 1 September 2012
In the 300th edition of his NZ Climate Truch newsletter, IPCC expert review Dr Vincent Gray, of Wellington, explains the origins of, and reasons for, his rebuttal of those who claim to be able to predict the future behaviour of Earth's climate decades into the future.
by Dr Vincent
THE IPCC CONFESSION
First, let me celebrate reaching NZ Climate
Truth Newsletter No 300.
Since I became interested in the "Greenhouse
Effect", when I was in China in 1990, I have published 128 Greenhouse
Bulletins and 300 NZ Climate Truth Bulletins. These have covered every
aspect of this subject. They are a history of what has happened, a review
of the published information, including all the IPCC publications, and a
record of my own steady disillusion with its claims. They have been circulated
by email to many people all over the world and many have been the
basis for published works, some of which are "peer reviewed" and
others which have appeared in parts of the web. I have amalgamated all of
the Greenhouse Bulletins into complete volumes.
I have never attempted to have a website or a blog as
I have preferred to spend my time studying and commenting.
All of this material is available free on demand. It
would be useful to anybody interested in the history of what has happened.
The "Greenhouse Effect" was a complete
transformation of traditional meteorology. We had become used to recognising
that the factors that influenced our weather (or "the climate") were
placed before us daily by the weather forecast. They were air pressure,
temperature, wind speed and direction, cyclones and anticyclones, rain, snow,
drought and floods. Suddenly it all changed. Now everything is caused by human
emissions of carbon dioxide and other minor atmospheric gases attributed to
evil human activity, such as our profligate consumption of fossil fuels.
How could this have happened? How is it, that almost
all the governments of the world are more interested in reducing
"greenhouse gas emissions" then in improving the prosperity of their
countries? Why are they insisting that our use of energy should be concentrated
on the most uneconomic procedures?
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (the
IPCC) is the international body which has provided the
initiative behind all this. I have been an expert reviewer for all of its
scientific reports since they began and I can even claim to have
influenced most of them, but I have failed to receive
satisfactory answers for most of the questions I asked.
The explanation is to be found in the
published confession of the IPCC itself:
"Frequently Asked Questions: No 1.2, on
page 104 of the 4th IPCC Report, has this to say"
" A common confusion between weather and
climate arises when scientists are asked how they can predict climate 50 years
from now when they cannot predict the weather a few weeks from now. The chaotic
nature of weather makes it unpredictable beyond a few days. Projecting changes
in climate (I.e. long term average weather) due to changes in atmospheric
composition or other factors is a very different and much more manageable
It is true that we cannot forecast the weather more
than a few weeks from now,
The reason is that there is no satisfactory
scientific theory for the behaviour of fluids.
Since the days of Galileo and Newton (modified by
Einstein) we are used to our ability to predict the future behaviour of
solid objects. We can publish tables of the movements of the planets, of
the phases of the moon, and of the times of the tides. We can send a
rocket to the moon, reliably.
Yet, we have no means of telling what exactly will
happen to the water when we turn on a tap, or where spilt milk will go.
One deduction from Newton's theory is the
behaviour of "Newtonian" fluids where resistance to flow under
stress is based on viscosity, when this is generalized to situations
encountered in the climate you get non-linear equations which have to
solved semi-empirically. When the flow gets turbulent this gets even
This behaviour is referred to as "chaos".
Edward Lorenz, who made a profession of the
subject of chaos, argued that the movement of the wing of a butterfly
could influence future climate unpredictably. He concluded that long-term
weather forecasting was inherently impossible. However, he would not provide an
estimate of how long is "long term".
One consequence of "chaos" is that you
cannot get a proper average from a chaotic set of measurements, so you cannot
measure the "climate", defined by the IPCC as "average
In the "Frequently asked Question No 1.2"
the IPCC freely admit that chaotic behaviour inhibits forecasting. Then,
they give a whole lot of excuses why their system of "management" has
effectively eliminated the problems of "chaos" altogether.
You only have to look at their diagrams and pictures
of a peaceful static earth, devoid of all the problems that face it each day,
to realise that their idea of "management" is the total
elimination of all the causes of "chaos". They replace conventional
meteorology, where they are intrinsic, with a different system of energy
exchange in the climate exclusively dependent on radiation. They are
prepared to include modest amounts of "other factors" as they call
them, but are careful not to import with them the chaotic behaviour which is an
They present all of the "parameters"
that influence their ideal world in the form of constants, possessing no
variability whatsoever. They claim that their chosen values for radiant energy
are "balanced”, but have difficulty proving it. The "Global
Temperature Anomaly" is claimed accurate to two places of decimals. Carbon
dioxide is only measured where it can be claimed it is
""well-mixed". Any measurements that do not conform are
"noise". Measurements over land hardly exist because they are
The various satellite measurements (which are
often spectra) all give constant results. Various efforts I have made to find
out their variability have not been answered. Instead of actual experimental
observations they amalgamate everything into "data" which can be used
to "prove" that the "globe" is "warming".
When "scientists are asked how they can predict
climate 50 years from now"
the answer should be that it is impossible. The IPCC do not claim that they can do it. They say "Projecting changes in climate (i.e. long term average weather) due to
changes in atmospheric composition or other factors is a very different and
much more manageable". They never "predict" changes in
the climate, they "project" them by
The "management" is done by "evaluation" carried out
by the paid employees of the climate change gravy train, those with a conflict
The models do not work and they are not even able to do as well as
those used by the weather forecasters. No right-minded meteorologist ever
bothers to measure carbon dioxide.
75 Silverstream Road