Archive for 5 april, 2009

Fatal Errors in IPCC’S Global Climate Models

5 april, 2009

Here are some more interesting facts about the IPCC:s manipulation of data. And the fatal flaws and errors in their compute models which they use to ”prove” that mankind is behind the rising temperature and CO2.

I have written extensively about IPCC:s manipulation of data and the giant errors of these climate models. And about long term temperature and CO2 data.

By Physicist and engineer Dr. Jeffrey A. Glassman, a former Division Chief Scientist for Hughes Aircraft Company, is an expert modeler of microwave and millimeter wave propagation in the atmosphere solar radiation, thermal energy in avionics

And comments by Vincent Gray and the authors response to those.

Se among others my posts:

The UN Climate Change Numbers Hoax eller IPCC:s lögn!

The Unscientific way of IPCC:s forecasts eller IPPC:s lögn del 2!

Assessment of the reliability of climate predictions based on comparisons with historical time series

IPCC Review Editors – ”No Working Papers”, ”No Correspondence” are kept!

IPCC Review Editors comments reveald!

Has the IPCC inflated the feedback factor?

IPCC and its bias!

Peer Review – What it actually means

The 800 year lag of carbon compared to temperature

Atmospheric CO2 and Climate on Millennial Time Scales During the Last Glacial Period

Peer Review – What it actually means 2

Rise of sea levels is ‘the greatest lie ever told’

Rise of sea levels is ‘the greatest lie ever told’- 2


A Litmus Test for Global Warming and the Climate Models


The Globe is Cooling and the temperatures keep going down

GISS Climate Model already wrong after 5 years

The Big Difference Between GISS and UAH Temperature Data

More on the Blunder with NASA: s GISS Temperature data and the mess they have 

The world has never seen such freezing heat OR the Blunder with NASA: s GISS Temperature data

Minus 60 C or not?

Documenting the global warming fraud – ”Getting Rid” of the Medieval Warming Period

The fight to get the temperature data that Global Warming Hysterics don’t want you to see

NOAA Cherry Picking on Trend Analyses

Rewriting Temperature History – Time and Time Again!

The Hockey Stick scam that heightened global warming hysteria

The editor of the International Journal of Climatology has finally said that they do not require authors to provide supporting data)


All Oceans are steadily cooling

8 years of global cooling and 4 years of rapid global cooling

The Big dropout of weather stations since 1989 – A 66% reduction in 11 years

Annual North American temperature is FALLING at a rate of 0.78C/decade   Temperature data – What it really means.


20, 000 year of Temperature, CO2 and sea level change data 

An Eighteen-Hundred-Year Climate Record from China

422 700 år av temperaturdata från Antarktis

Temperaturen för 130 000 år sedan,

Climate Change … Global Warming … Global Cooling

50 Years of CO2 monitoring: Can you see the increase???

Global Warming No Longer Happening – Record cold in Canada

If ALL human activities CEASED in Alaska TODAY the effect on global temperature in 2100 would be 0,001 C

New Zealand COOLER in 2008 than 141 years ago

Earth on the Brink of an Ice Age

The Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age in San Francisco Bay

Article here:








by Jeffrey A. Glassman, PhD

Some critics of the science of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) urge that its reliance on a consensus of scientists is false, while others simply point out that regardless, science is never decided by consensus. Some critics rely on fresh analyses of radiosonde and satellite data to conclude that water vapor feedback is negative, contrary to its representation in Global Climate Models (GCMs). Some argue that the AGW model must be false because the climate has cooled over the last decade while atmospheric CO2 continued its rise. Researchers discovered an error in the reduction of data, the widely publicized Hockey Stick Effect, that led to a false conclusion that the Little Ice Age was not global. Some argue that polar ice is not disappearing, that polar bears are thriving, and that sea level is not rising any significant amount.

To the public, these arguments cast a pall over AGW claims. But in a last analysis, they merely weigh indirectly against published positions, weigh against the art of data reduction, or rely on short-term data trends in a long-term forecast. Such charges cannot prevail against the weight of the United Nations International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and its network of associated specialists in the field, principally climatologists, should they ever choose to respond categorically. Moreover, these proponents can support their positions with hundreds running into thousands of published, peer-reviewed papers, plus the official IPCC publications, to weigh against tissue-paper-thin arguments, many published online with at best informal and on-going peer review.

On the other hand, what can carry the day are the errors and omissions included in the AGW model with respect to real and demonstrable processes that affect Earth’s climate. Here is a list of eight major modeling faults for which IPCC should be held to account.

1. IPCC errs to add manmade effects to natural effects. In choosing radiative forcing to model climate, IPCC computes a manmade climate change, implicitly adding manmade effects to the natural background. Because IPCC models are admittedly nonlinear (Third Assessment Report, ¶1.3.2), the response of the models to the sum of manmade and background forces is not equal to the sum of the background response and the response to manmade forces.

A computer run, for example, that assumes the natural forces are in equilibrium, and then calculates the effects of a slug of manmade CO2 that dissolves over the years is not valid. The run needs to be made with the natural outgassing process and anthropogenic emissions entering the atmosphere simultaneously to be circulated and absorbed through the process of the solubility of CO2 in water.

2. IPCC errs to discard on-going natural processes at initialization. IPCC initializes its GCMs to year 1750 in an assumed state of equilibrium. At this time, Earth is warming and CO2, while lagging the warming, is increasing, both at near maximum rates. This initialization causes the models to attribute natural increases in temperature and CO2 to man. The error occurs not because the models fail to reproduce the on-going natural effects. It occurs because subsequent measurements of temperature and CO2 concentration, to which IPCC fits its modeled AGW response, necessarily include both natural and manmade effects.

Earth is currently about 2ºC to 4ºC below the historic peak in temperature seen in the Vostok record covering the four previous warm epochs. IPCC models turn off the natural warming, then calculate a rise attributed to man over the next century of 3.5ºC.

3. IPCC errs to model the surface layer of the ocean in equilibrium. IPCC models the surface layer of the ocean in equilibrium. It is not. It is thermally active, absorbing heat from the Sun and exchanging heat as well as water with the atmosphere. It is mixed with vertical and horizontal currents, stirred by winds and waves, roiling with entrained air, active in marine life, and undulating in depth.

This assumption of equilibrium in the surface layer leads IPCC to model CO2 as accumulating in the atmosphere in contradiction to Henry’s Law of solubility. This causes its model of ACO2 uptake by the ocean to slow to the rate of sequestration in deep water, with time constants ranging into many millennia. A consequence of Henry’s Law instead is that the surface ocean is a reservoir of molecular CO2 for atmospheric and ocean processes, and causes it to be in disequilibrium.

Assuming the surface layer to be in equilibrium leads IPCC to conclude that the measured increase in CO2 is from man’s emissions, without increases due to background effects or warming of the ocean. It also supports IPCC’s conclusion that atmospheric CO2 is well-mixed, contradicting its own observations of CO2 gradients in latitude and longitude. This false assumption allows IPCC to use the MLO record to represent global CO2, and falsely calibrate CO2 measurements from other sources to make them all agree.

4. IPCC errs to erase the global pattern of atmospheric CO2 concentration from its model. IPCC admits that East-West CO2 gradients are observable, and that North-South gradients are an order of magnitude greater. IPCC ignores that MLO lies in the high concentration plume from massive CO2 outgassing in the Eastern Equatorial Pacific. At the same time, IPCC ignores that ice core data are collected in low CO2 concentrations caused by the polar sinks where the ocean uptakes CO2. These features show that CO2 spirals around the globe, starting at the equator and heading toward the poles, and diminishing in concentration as the surface layer cools. The concentration of CO2 should be maximal at MLO, and minimal at the poles, but IPCC makes them contiguous or overlapping through arbitrary calibrations.

5. IPCC errs to model climate without the full dynamic exchange of OC2 between the atmosphere and the ocean. IPCC ignores the planetary flows of CO2 through the atmosphere and across and through the surface layer of the ocean, and then into and out of the Thermohaline Circulation. CO2 is absorbed near 0ºC at the poles, and returned about one millennium later to the atmosphere at the prevailing tropical temperature. IPCC does not model this temperature-dependent exchange of about 90 gigatons of carbon per year, even though it swamps the anthropogenic emission of about 6 gigatons per year.

The outgassing is a positive feedback that confounds the IPCC model for the carbon cycle.

6. IPCC errs to model different absorption rates for natural and manmade CO2 without justification. IPCC considers the ocean to absorb ACO2 at a few gigatons per year, half its emission rate. It reports natural CO2 outgassed from the ocean as being exchanged with the atmosphere at about 90 gigatons per year, 100% of the emission rate. IPCC offers no explanation for the accumulation of ACO2 but not natural CO2.

Thus IPCC models Earth’s carbon cycle differently according to its source, without its dynamic patterns in the atmosphere and the ocean, without its ready dissolution and accumulation in the surface ocean, and without the feedback of its dynamic outgassing from the ocean.

As a result, IPCC’s conclusions are wrong that CO2 is long-lived, that it is well-mixed, that it accumulates in the atmosphere, and that it is a forcing, meaning that it is not a feedback.

7. IPCC errs to model climate without its first order behavior. IPCC does not model Earth’s climate as it exists, alternating between two stable states, cold as in an ice age and warm much like the present, switched with some regularity by unexplained forces.

In the cold state, the atmosphere is dry, minimizing any greenhouse effect. Extensive ice and snow minimize the absorption of solar radiation, locking the surface at a temperature determined primarily by Earth’s internal heat.

In the warm state, the atmosphere is a humid, partially reflective blanket and Earth’s surface is on average dark and absorbent due primarily to the ocean. The Sun provides the dominant source of heat, with its insolation regulated by the negative feedback of cloud albedo, which varies with cloud cover and surface temperature.

As Earth’s atmosphere is a by-product of the ocean, Earth’s climate is regulated by albedo. These are hydrological processes, dynamic feedbacks not modeled by IPCC but producing the first order climate effects and the natural background which mask any effects due to man. IPCC global climate models do not model the hydrological cycle faithfully. They do reproduce neither dynamic specific humidity nor dynamic cloud cover. They are unable to predict climate reliably, nor to separate natural effects meaningfully from any conjectures about at most second order effects attributed to man.

8. IPCC errs to model climate as regulated by greenhouse gases instead of by albedo. IPCC rejects the published cosmic ray model for cloud cover, preferring to model cloud cover as constant. It does so in spite of the strong correlation of cloud cover to cosmic ray intensity, and the correlation of cosmic ray intensity to global surface temperature. Consequently, IPCC does not model the dominant regulator of Earth’s climate, the negative feedback of cloud albedo, powerful because it shutters the Sun.

By omitting dynamic cloud albedo, IPCC overestimates the greenhouse effect by about an order of magnitude (computation pending publication), and fails to understand that Earth’s climate today is regulated by cloud albedo and not the greenhouse effect, much less by CO2.

© 2009 JAGlassman. All rights reserved. Rev. 4/2/09.

Posted on March 31, 2009 7:50 AM | Permalink

Comments (1)

Vincent Gray wrote:

Dear Fred

Glassman is largely correct, He makes the following points

1. IPCC errs to add manmade effects to natural effects.

Absolutely right. But they even discount manmade effects like urbanization.

2. IPCC errs to discard on-going natural processes at initialization

This arises from the fallacy of ”equilibrium” which ignores ocean oscillations and solar changes.

3. IPCC errs to model the surface layer of the ocean in equilibrium.

This leads to the fallacy that any change must be due to human emissions and never natural

4. IPCC errs to erase the global pattern of atmospheric CO2 concentration from its model.

They do this by suppressing information about CO2 variability

5. IPCC errs to model climate without the full dynamic exchange of OC2 between the atmosphere and the ocean.

Just one of the many deficiencies of models.

6. IPCC errs to model different absorption rates for natural and manmade CO2 without justification.

Yet another deficiency of models.

7. IPCC errs to model climate without its first order behavior.

Glassman believes there are two ”stable states” of the earth and that it oscillates between them. I think this is oversimplified.

[RSJ: This two-stable-state hypothesis is supported by both à posteriori and à priori reasoning. The former is from the Vostok record of glacial epochs, especially the 450,000 year reduction, and what little is known about the major ice ages. The latter may have persisted for ten and perhaps tens of millions of years, supporting stability at the cold end of the spectrum. The warm epochs are the interglacial maxima, which while geologically brief, even instantaneous bearing in mind that the sampling interval is 1.3 millennia, seem to indicate a ceiling. The present epoch is within a few degrees of that ceiling interpreted from the previous four maxima.

[The à priori reasoning is my argument about cloud albedo in the warm state, and surface albedo in the cold.

[I do agree that stability in the warm state is a stretch. The Vostok record suggests that something in the climate switches at the interglacial maxima, causing temperature to plummet. The term oscillation was only meant to refer to a variability between the states, and not some kind of simple harmonic motion.

[Still, I only assert that the hypothesis is a first order effect. We could build a pretty good, first order heat model based on oscillations between two stable states and some hypothetical switching mechanism.]

8. IPCC errs to model climate as regulated by greenhouse gases instead of by albedo.

I do not accept Glassman’s alternative model

[RSJ: The power of the cloud albedo feedback is obvious in that it gates insolation. Cloud albedo is a macroparameter that is not directly and practically measurable with anything less than a large array of synchronous satellites. Therefore, it must be synthesized, and at that it is only known to one significant figure: 0.3 ± 0.03 or 0.04. That value multiplies the solar average incident radiation of 342 Wm-2, so the uncertainty in albedo measurement is equivalent to 10 to 14 Wm-2, four to five times what IPCC attributes to man through year 2000. Consequently huge changes in radiation forcing, changes that swamp man’s supposed contribution, can be due to albedo variations too small to be measured.

[Now we know that cloud cover is dependent on specific humidity, and that albedo is proportional to cloud cover. IPCC admits that specific humidity increases as the surface temperature increases. It uses this fact to speculate that the water vapor greenhouse effect, including that condensed in clouds, is a positive feedback. And this amplification is essential in the IPCC model for CO2 to cause catastrophic warming. It does so not directly by the greenhouse effect of CO2, but by the secondary release of water vapor. Cloud cover is almost certainly a positive feedback based on IPCC modeling, and that makes cloud albedo a negative feedback.

[Coupled with the physics of what the albedo does, cloud albedo is a powerful negative feedback. Elementary calculations show that the climate sensitivity of the greenhouse effect given by IPCC is reduced by 90% when the albedo loop is closed and the albedo sensitivity to temperature is a maximum in the unmeasurable range. IPCC does not close this loop.

[Cloud cover and surface temperature, like albedo, are macroparameters and not directly measurable. Everything is in place à priori for cloud albedo to regulate the climate in the warm state, and for the effect to be too small to be measured in the current state of the art. Until measurement techniques are vastly improved, surface temperature regulation by cloud albedo must remain a hypothesis awaiting validation.]

Posted by Vincent Gray | April 4, 2009 2:57 PM

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”” rel=”tag”>miljö</a> 



%d bloggare gillar detta: