In sum, a strategy must recognise what is possible. In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”
So states the IPCC’s Working Group I: The Scientific Basis, Third Assessment Report (TAR), Chapter 14 (final para., 22.214.171.124), p774.
It is also about the only unequivocally true statement made by the IPCC in the Third Millennium.
At least in 2001 they were honest enough to admit we can not now and likely never will be able to predict the future state of a coupled non-linear chaotic system (they mean the climate).
Since then of course we have been bombarded with all manner of PlayStation® climatological “predictions”, each of them more absurd than the ones preceding.
Integral to these “predictions” are guesstimations of the likely effect of doubling the atmospheric trace gas CO2 from pre-industrial era levels.
The IPCC uses a forcing-response concept in an effort to evaluate possible warming from enhanced greenhouse effect
This creates something of an immediate problem for an organization whose remit is to examine and obviate “dangerous climate interference”.
Because the bête noire of the environmental movement is atmospheric carbon dioxide (since little human activity can proceed without its production) but doubling or even quadrupling CO2 is known to exert but a small effect.
Enter the marvelous magical multipliers. That of course is our term for them, the IPCC calls them “positive feedbacks” (oddly, virtually all feedbacks are presumed strongly positive).
By means of these marvelous magical multipliers, the IPCC has determined that some Watts are more equal than others, that climate models contain more impressive force multipliers than can be unleashed by the Pentagon, that a trivial increase in an essential trace gas poses an unacceptable threat to humanity and life on Earth and that everyone else’s Olympic athletes likely cheat (I may have made that last one up).
To address most of these issues (except the Olympic thing) JunkScience.com has been peering under the hood and kicking the tires on the climate change bandwagon.
Our opening salvo in what may well become a war of words can be found here. That’s 20-odd pages of examination of “climate sensitivity”, some math and a dash of Greek. It is the long form of finding that climate models are hypersensitive.
For those who insist on having the bottom line up front, in its most succinct form, it’s “The IPCC is full of crap.”
We hope, however, that you will take the time to discover why we say that is the case.
Take the time to read and understand “Where did they get a crazy idea like that?” and you too will be armed with the math and formulae to review claims of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming and call “Bullshit!”
Bonus file: for those who like to play with numbers in spreadsheets here’s the Earth temperature calculations, with explanatory comments. It’s been exported to MS Excel format so as not to upset WordPress, which apparently does not allow OpenOffice.ods files but you can open it in Calc without having to get the MS file viewer utility.