Part One History

Climate Change as currently talked about in the government, the press and the blogs has a long history and there is a great divide between those that religiously accept the premise that man is changing the climate for the worse (the anthropogenic climate change theory), this group is known as the believers and those that agree that the climate is changing but not as a result of man and this group is known as the flat earthers. The divide between the two beliefs is wide as can be seen by the monikers given them. This debate, which is not settled, is complicated by the huge amount of government money that has been poured in to the issue to solve the problem that they have created.

Since climate moves in cycles from many decades to centuries a look at global climate only since WW II is not sufficient to determine cause and effect. Then we have politicians who, by definition, like power and they always use causes to enhance their positions and climate change is no exception. The following is a brief history of the key players in the, now, worldwide battle which is waged by politicians who pay scientists to publish work to support what the politicians want. Prior to WW II science was independent of government after WW II that was not the case which calls into question the motivations of hired guns!

Scientists have been studying global climate since thermometers and barometers were invented and the International Meteorological Organization (IMO) was founded in 1873 as a result. During WW II forecasting weather, for obvious reason, became a major interest for governments and after the war was over the IMO was placed under the newly formed United Nations (UN) and changed into the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) with an expanded role.

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) was formed On July 29, 1958, and began operations on October 1, 1958 by absorbing the 46-year-old National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA) intact; its 8,000 employees, an annual budget of US$100 million, three major research laboratories (Langley Aeronautical Laboratory, Ames Aeronautical Laboratory, and Lewis Flight Propulsion Laboratory) and two small test facilities. In general NASA is responsible for the operations and control of manned and unmanned space fight and research in our solar system. In 1959 the Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) was established and of particular importance is the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) formed in 1961 and located at Columbia University in New York City, where much of the Center’s theoretical research is conducted. Operated in close association with Columbia and other area universities, the institute provides support research in geophysics, astrophysics, astronomy and meteorology. GISS in important as it publishes global temperatures month in various formats and the one used here is the Land Ocean Temperature Index (LOTI).

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) was formed on October 3, 1970, out of existing agencies that were among the oldest in the federal government. Some of these were the United States Coast and Geodetic Survey, formed in 1807; the Environmental Science Services Administration (ESSA) formed in 1965 from the Weather Bureau formed in 1870; and the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, formed in 1871. The purpose for NOAA was for better protection of life and property from natural hazards, for a better understanding of the total environment and for exploration and development leading to the intelligent use of our marine resources. NOAA’s ESRL Carbon Cycle Greenhouse Gases (CCGG) group makes ongoing discrete measurements from land and sea surface sites and aircraft, and continuous measurements from baseline observatories and tall towers. These measurements document the spatial and temporal distributions of carbon-cycle gases and provide essential constraints to our understanding of the global carbon cycle. Of particular importance is the Earth Systems Research Laboratory (ESRL) section formed in October 1, 2005. ESRL is important as it publishes the CO₂ level of the planet monthly from its Mauna Loa facility.

Two years later in 1972 another UN agency the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) was formed to assist developing countries do so with sound polices. United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, having met at Stockholm from 5 to 16 June 1972, made a statement part of which is, “… having considered the need for a common outlook and for common principles to inspire and guide the peoples of the world in the preservation and enhancement of the human environment …” and then they established a set of principles and an international forum, which would have a major impact on the world later.

In 1979 the National Academy of Science (NAS) formed an ad hoc committee to study the climate concern issue which was established because of a just published alarming report by the European Scientific Committee on Problems of the Environment (SCOPE) which had been formed in 1969 which showed CO₂ levels reaching level up to 500 to 600 ppm by 2020. The NAS issued a report, now called the Charney Report, that took James Hansen’s high estimate of 4.0 C and added .5 degrees C to it and then took Syukuro Manabe’s low estimate of 2.0 C and subtracted .5 from it and then average the two which then gives us 1.5 C Low 3.0 C expected and 4.5 C high which is what the IPCC is still using today as shown in the IP{CC Fifth assessment report (AR5) finalized in 2014 thirty five years later, this is despite a downward trend in sensitivity estimates ever since then discussed later. Hansen (NASA) and Manabe (NOAA) were the only two that had climate models that were reviewed in the Charney Report.

The principle architect of the anthropogenic climate change theory was James Edward Hansen and according to Wikipedia he is “… an American adjunct professor in the Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences at Columbia University. Hansen is best known for his research in the field of climatology, his testimony on climate change to congressional committees in 1988 that helped raise broad awareness of global warming, and his advocacy of action to avoid dangerous climate change.” From 1981 to 2013, he was the head of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City, a part of the Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland. Hansen, while at NASA in a leadership role, was the driver for the US governments push for control of energy and therefore we must look at his work since it is, if not the primary driver certainly one of the main drivers of world policy on climate today. Hansen retired from NASA in April of 2013 and is now active in the environmental movement.

From the NASA website, “In particular Hansen gave a presentation to the US congress in 1988 where he showed them what he thought would happen to Global Climate if we did not stop putting CO₂ into the earth’s atmosphere. In the original 1988 paper, three different scenarios were used A, B, and C. They consisted of hypothesised future concentrations of the main greenhouse gases – CO₂, CH₄, CFCs etc. together with a few scattered volcanic eruptions. The details varied for each scenario, but the net effect of all the changes was that Scenario A assumed exponential growth in forcings, Scenario B was roughly a linear increase in forcings, and Scenario C was similar to B, but had close to constant forcings from 2000 onwards. Scenario B and C had an ‘El Chichon’ sized volcanic eruption in 1995. Essentially, a high and low estimate was chosen to bracket the expected value. Hansen specifically stated that he thought the middle scenario (B) the “most plausible”.

From NASA we find the following Chart of Hansen’s Various Scenario’s these three scenarios are the base for the IPCC climate models. Altithermal time means the period 6,000 to 10,000 years before the present (end of the last Ice Age) where the temperatures were .5 degrees higher than the NASA base of 14.0 degrees Celsius (explained later). Eemian times means 120,000 years before the present where the temperature was estimated to be 1.0 degrees higher than the NASA base. I have no idea why these times were picked as they have no significance to the present and are based on proxy data which means the uncertainty of the values is high.

The next Chart shows the key value of 3.0 degrees Celsius as the CO₂ Sensitivity value for a doubling of CO₂ which was developed in part by NAS in 1979 with the help of Hansen to produce Scenario B. The equation shown in the next Chart is CO₂ used to determine the increase in the planets temperature at any given level of CO₂. It’s a log function and so matter what value is used 1, 2 or 3 the climate effect tappers off at some point. The vertical black line at 400 ppm is where we are now; and since it crosses the red plot at 26.0 degrees Celsius that is how much of the planets temperature is because of CO₂. We will discuss this in more detail later as there is a problem with this value.

Hansen’s work then lead to the formation of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 1988. The IPCC was set up by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) to prepare, based on available scientific information, assessments on all aspects of climate change and its impacts, with a view of formulating realistic response strategies. This last group came about as the environmental movement became concerned of the rapid industrial development and the resulting in increases of CO₂ from burning fossil fuels since CO₂ is known to have an effect on climate by aiding in trapping Infar red radiation and adding to the temperature of the planet.

The IPCC doesn’t do research so the information they use comes predominantly from four sources the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Goddard Institute for Space Studies (NASA-GISS) and the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration Carbon Cycle Greenhouse Gas Group (NOAA-CCGG) in the U.S. and the Met Office Hadley Centre (UKMO) and the Climate Research Unit University of East Anglia (CRU) in the United Kingdom (UK). Others are involved as well such as the European Space Agency (ESA) but these four agencies at the direction of political elements within their governments are the primary drivers of this concept. In the balance of this paper we will use NASA and NOAA.

The first major program to began the task of changing how the entire world would adapt to the “required” reductions in CO₂ was made public at the UN Conference on Environment and Development (Earth-Summit), held in Rio-de-Janeiro on June 13, 1992, where 178 governments voted to adopt the program called UN Agenda 21. The final text was the result of drafting, consultation, and negotiation, beginning in 1989 and culminating at the two-week conference. Agenda 21 is a 300-page document divided into 40 chapters that have been grouped into 4 sections that was published in book form the following year:

Section I: Social and Economic Dimensions is directed toward combating poverty, especially in developing countries, changing consumption patterns, promoting health, achieving a more sustainable population, and sustainable settlement in decision making.

Section II: Conservation and Management of Resources for Development Includes atmospheric protection, combating deforestation, protecting fragile environments, conservation of biological diversity (biodiversity), control of pollution and the management of biotechnology, and radioactive wastes.

Section III: Strengthening the Role of Major Groups includes the roles of children and youth, women, NGOs, local authorities, business and industry, and workers; and strengthening the role of indigenous peoples, their communities, and farmers.

Section IV: Means of Implementation: implementation includes science, technology transfer, education, international institutions and financial mechanisms.

The goal of UN Agenda 21 is to create a world economic system that equalizes world incomes and standards of living and at the same time reduces CO₂ levels back to the levels that existed prior to the industrial age of ~300 ppm. We are now at 400 ppm and growing at a geometrically increasing rate now a bit over 2 ppm per year and at that rate we will reach 500 ppm in 2050 at which point the UN Climate models and there spokespersons Al Gore and James Hansen say we will have an ecological and economic disaster that is irreversible.

The study of climate change centers on four items. The First is archeological records of climate as developed prior to this current debate. The Second is accurate measurements of current and past atmospheric CO₂. The Third is accurate measurements of current and past global temperatures. The Fourth is a means of looking at these items to determine relationship, if any.

The first is generally available and not an issue. The second is also generally available for the past and the current values, since 1958 are published by NOAA each month as a part per million by volume (ppmv) . The third is also available from NASA but there are concerns over the methodology used by NASA to determine the global temperature; for now we’ll use what NASA publishes in the Land Ocean Temperature Index (LOTI) as the value. The fourth is complicated and the purpose here is to properly blend the variable so they can be compared.

Since NASA publishes temperatures as an anomaly an explanation is required. NASA publishes a Global temperature each month as an anomaly which is determined as follows. First a base temperature is determined and according to NASA it is 14.0 degrees Celsius which is the average temperature from 1951 to 1980. Next the current temperature is determined by software then the base is subtracted from it and the value is multiplied by 100. For example if the current temperature is 14.5 degrees C subtracting 14.0 we get .50 multiplying that by 100 gives us an anomaly of 50. If the current temperature is 13.5 we subtract 14.0 and get -.5 and multiplying that we get an anomaly of -50. If an actual temperature is required we reverse the process.

This completes the basic history of the current situation although most that read this already know the details its always good to review the facts before diving into the conflict. The next post will be on Carbon Dioxide and Water which are the two molecules that allow us to live on this planet.

Five days ago on February 14th the Obama administration through NASA released a new set of temperature data that purported to show that 2014 was the hottest year on record. Since that date in previous posts here I have show how that was done by changing history, which Obama is good at!  As it becomes know what NASA did in the coming weeks a new attack on the credibility of the Flat Earthers’ will be started which will go as far as censorship once Net Neutrality is imposed later this year. I will continue to post on this subject as long as I can before I am shut down!

In my professional opinion this data manipulation that was done for the February temperature release cannot be achieved in the process that NASA uses to produce the LOTI unless it was specifically programmed in; therefore it is not real and it is political.

There is no valid reason for doing this data manipulation and the only reason is that the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP21) will be held in France at the Le Bourget site from 30 November to 11 December 2015 and the conference objective is to achieve a legally binding and universal agreement on climate, from all the nations of the world. To achieve this they have determined that they need to show that the planet is overheating and since it is not (by satellite data) they need to show it in another form, hence the data manipulation at NASA-GISS

I cannot stress this enough there can be no other reason for what was just done by NASA. We are going to be shown false data from NASA-GISS for the next 10 months leading up to this conference such that they hope there will be support for the treaty that they want which will be a massive tax on America and Europe so that development can be forced on other areas. This will be in line with the already approved UN Agenda 21 which is already being implemented in the United States.

As new monthly data is published I will show what NASA at the request of Obama is doing.I hope others see what is being done and will also go on the offensive there perversion of science needs to be stopped and I would hope that some of the remaining honest scientists at NASA come forward even though it may cost them their jobs it will at least not cost them their soul!

Sunday, February 15, 2015, I posted a paper here were I accused NASA-GISS of data manipulation with the only possible purpose for doing this was to misleading the public about what they call Climate Change caused by Mankind. Since their theory is not sound and its based on speculation more than true science the results of their Global Climate Models (GCM’s) do not match measured global temperatures. Normally when this happens the scientific community has corrected their theories and eventually found the truth. In this case the politicians seeking power and taxes have prevented the truth from coming out as they have now taken over the scientific community for their own purposes which are not good. The NASA LOTI that was just published for January 2015 is a prime example of what has been done to a previously honest system. I place the blame for this solely at the feet of the former VP of the United States Al Gore.

This Chart was first shown here on February 15^th with an explanation of how it was created from two sets of NASA-GISS data one for December 2014 (green plot) and the other for January 2015 (red Plot). Then earlier this morning I posted both sets of NASA data so it can be seen that I have made up nothing, I’m not NASA. To this chart I have added a black oval a blue arrow and a red arrow here. I must also say that since I have worked mostly in technical fields my entire carrier and I have taken many college level math and statistical courses, that I have a decent feel for data, cause and effect and forecasting

NASA uses a complex computer program that takes all the available world temperatures and through a formula they have developed they create the LOTI table each month representing a history of the world’s temperature back to January 1880. Now I realize that history today is not fixed but I did think that science was above revisionist history, but apparently not. The Chart above shows three things that cannot occur randomly and must be programmed in, therefore they were done intentionally and for a political purpose.

The first thing that stands out is that the two plots are not the same. The second thing is that temperatures from 1970 to the present have been shifted up red arrow and the next thing is that temperatures from 1910 back to 1880 have been shifted down blue arrow. Lastly there is a period from 1950 to 1970 where there was no change black oval. The black oval contains the base period for NASA so it can’t change by definition and it doesn’t change. That period was fixed a long time ago at 14.0 degrees Celsius and that value cannot be allowed to change.

Now enter the politics and the push for a climate change treaty where we have been told over the past 20 plus years that the use of fossil fuels is driving up CO2 and that is the reason we have climate change, formally global warming. In my next post later this week I’ll show how that was developed and why it was wrong. To support the climate treaty they need to show that the global temperature is, in fact, going up. The problem is that the increases in temperatures stopped almost ten years ago, although because of variations it wasn’t as obvious as it is now. BTW the satellite data does not support this increase.

The politicians needed to show that 2014 was very hot to support the adaption of the treaty planed for the end of 2015; and also that 2015 will be even hotter than 2014. NASA was therefore directed to show that temperatures were going up in support of this planned treaty. Can I prove this, no not directly but the published data shows that this is being done and the scientists at NASA would not do this unless they were directed to do this. So they pushed down temperatures from 1880 to 1910 blue arrow and then pushed up all the temperatures from 1970 to the present red arrow; giving us the red plot.

In my professional opinion this “change” cannot be done in the process that NASA uses to produce the LOTI unless it was programmed in; therefore it is not real and it is political. Further I assert that this false data will be continued for the rest of this year so that “they” can claim that “they” need this climate treaty or we are all doomed. According to “them” and this January 2015 release 2014 was the hottest year on record. The follow on for the next 10 months will be that 2015 will be even hotter than 2014.

There is no valid reason for doing this data manipulation and the only reason is that the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP21) will be held in France at the Le Bourget site from 30 November to 11 December 2015 and the conference objective is to achieve a legally binding and universal agreement on climate, from all the nations of the world. To achieve this they have determined that they need to show that the planet is overheating and since it is not (by satellite data) they need to show it in another form, hence the data manipulation at NASA-GISS

I cannot stress this enough there can be no other reason for what was just done. We are going to be shown false data from NASA-GISS for the next 10 months until this conference such that they hope there will be support for the treaty that they want which will be a massive tax on America and Europe so that controlled development can be forced on other areas of the planet. This will be in line with the already approved UN Agenda 21 which is already being implemented in the United States.

The real goal here has nothing to do with CO2 or climate those are only the tools to force a change from representative government to one controlled by the powerful elites (business leaders and politicians); such as now exists in the EU where the government body of the EU is not elected by the people yet their ruling are binding on the people. The result of this conference and treaty, if adopted will either give the sovereign power of the countries to the UN or to some other body. What will come of that is unknown but we do know from past history that concentrated power is never good.

Sir Karl Raimund Popper (28 July 1902 – 17 September 1994) was an Austrian and British philosopher and a professor at the London School of Economics. He is considered one of the most influential philosophers of science of the 20th century, and he also wrote extensively on social and political philosophy. The following quotes of his apply to this subject.

If we are uncritical we shall always find what we want: we shall look for, and find, confirmations, and we shall look away from, and not see, whatever might be dangerous to our pet theories.

Whenever a theory appears to you as the only possible one, take this as a sign that you have neither understood the theory nor the problem which it was intended to solve.

… (S)cience is one of the very few human activities — perhaps the only one — in which errors are systematically criticized and fairly often, in time, corrected

I made some strong accusations Sunday and just so there is no  question about the source of my information that I used, here is the NASA-GISS LOTI for January 2015 exactly as available when it was issued. According to NASA they do not archive the older reports as the newer ones are ALL WAYS the most accurate one.

I have been publishing this report every month for the past year but this will be the last one as NASA has now corrupted the LOTI data so badly that any future issues of the table will be worthless. Yesterday after reviewing the January LOTI I found that the entire data series has been changed (See the previous post for the details) such that the past has been made significantly colder and the present significantly warming that what has been shown up though last month. Since the work shown here is based on the old information it is no longer relevant and there is no point to showing it. What follows now is the report from December 2014 with the inclusion of the new charts from the January data following it. The sections in italics with the underline are the explanations.

The analysis and plots shown here are based on the following: first NASA-GISS temperature anomalies (converted to degrees Celsius so non-scientists will understand the plots) as shown in their table LOTI, second James E. Hansen’s Scenario B data, which is the very core of the IPCC Global Climate models (GCM’s) and which was based on a CO2 sensitivity value of 3.0^O Celsius, lastly, a plot based on an alternative climate model designated ‘PCM’ and based on a sensitively value of .65^O Celsius.

The next three paragraphs have been added to this monthly temperature plot to clear up confusion regarding the methods used in this work. That confusion is my fault for not properly explaining what is shown here.

An explanation of the alternative model designated PCM is in order since many have interpreted this PCM model as a statistical least squares projection of some kind and nothing could be further from the truth. A decade ago when I started this work the first thing I did was look at geological temperature changes since it is well know that the climate is not a constant; I learned that in my undergrad climatology course in 1964. One quickly finds that there is a clear movement in global temperatures with a 1,000 some year cycle going back at least 3,000 to 4,000 years. There are also 60 to 70 year cycles in the Pacific and the Atlantic oceans that are well documented. We also know that there are greenhouse gases such as Carbon Dioxide and the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) estimated that Carbon Dioxide had a doubling rate of 3.0^O Celsius plus or minus 1.5^O Celsius in 1979

The IPCC still uses the NAS 3.0^O Celsius as the sensitivity value of Carbon Dioxide and a number in that range is required to make the IPCC GCM’s work. The problem with using this value is it leaves no room for other factors and hence the need of the infamous Hockey Stick plots of the IPCC from Mann, Bradley & Hughes in 1999. The PCM model is based on a much lower value for Carbon Dioxide consistent with current research which places the value between 0.65^O and 1.5^O Celsius per doubling of Carbon Dioxide. If the long and short movement in temperatures and a lower value for Carbon Dioxide are properly analyzed and combined a plot that matched historical and current NASA temperature estimates very well can be constructed. This is not curve fitting.

The PCM model is such a construct and it is not based on statistical analyses of raw data. It is based on creating curves that match observations (which is real science) and those observations appear to be related to the movement of water in the world’s oceans. The movements of ocean currents is well documented in the literature all that was done here was properly combine the separate variables into one curve which had not been previously done. Since this combined curve is an excellent predictor of global temperatures unlike the IPCC GCM’s it appears to reflect reality a bit better than the convoluted IPCC GCM’s which after the past 19 years of no statistical warming have been shown to be in error.

Now, continuing from the first paragraph, to smooth out monthly variations a 12 month running average is used in all the plots. This information will be shown in four tables and updated each month as the new data comes in about the middle of the month. Since no model or simulation that cannot reasonably predict that which it was design to do is worth anything the information presented here definitively proves that NASA, NOAA and the IPCC just don’t have a clue.

This chart is from the December data.

The next Chart was created from the January 2015 data and you can see that there is a major change since current temperatures have been moved up to more closely follow that of the IPCCC GCM’s. The anomalies are still not as much as the models indicate but they are a lot closer. I suspect that over the next 10 months they will get a lot closer so that The COP21 conference will have justification for the climate treaty that they want to initiate.

The balance of this paper is from the December 2014 paper.

The first plot, UL is a plot of the NASA temperature anomaly converted to degrees Celsius and shown in red with a black trend line added. There has been a very clear reversal in the upward movement of global temperatures since about 2001 and neither the UN IPCC nor anyone else has an explanation for this 13 years later. Since CO₂ has continued to increase at what could be argued an increasing rate this raises serious doubts about the logic programmed into all the IPCC global climate models.

The next plot UR, also in red, shows the IPCC estimates of what the Global temperature should be, based on Hansen’s Scenario B, with the NASA actual temperatures’ subtracted from them. Therefore this plot represents a deviation from what the Climate “believers” KNOW what the temperature should be; with a positive value indicating the IPCC values are higher than actual and a negative value indicating the IPCC values are lower than actual, as measured by NASA. A black trend line is added and we can clearly see that the deviation from expected is increasing at an increasing rate. This makes sense since the IPCC models project increased temperatures based primarily on the increasing level of CO₂ in the earth’s atmosphere. Unfortunately, for them, the actual temperatures from NASA are trending down (even as they try to hide the down ward movement with data manipulation) since other factors are in play, therefore each year the gap between them widens. Since we have 13 years of observations’ showing this pattern it becomes hard to justify a continuing belief in the IPCC climate models, there is obviously something very wrong here.

The next plot LL shown in blue is based on the equations in the PCM climate model described in previous papers and posts here and since it is generated by “equations” a trend line is not needed. As can be seen the PCM, LL, and the NASA, UL, trend plots are very similar the reason being that in the PCM model there is a 68.2 year cycle that moves the trend line up and then down a total of .30^O Celsius (currently negative .0070^O Celsius per year); and we are now in the downward portion of that trend which will continue until around 2035. This short cycle is clearly observed in the raw NASA data in the LOTI table going back to 1868. Then there is a long trend, 1052.6 years with an up and down of 1.36^O Celsius (currently plus .0029^O Celsius per year) also observed in the NASA data. Lastly there is CO2 adding about .005^O Celsius per year so they basically wash out which matches the current holding pattern we are experiencing. However within a few years the increasing downward trend of the short cycle will overpower the other two and we will see drop of about .002^O Celsius per year and that will be increasing until till around 2025 or so. After about 2035 the short cycle will have bottomed and turn up and all three will be on the upswing again. These are all round numbers shown here as representative values.

The last plot LR in blue uses the same logic as used in the UR plot, here we use the PCM estimates of what the Global temperature should be with the NASA actual temperatures’ subtracted from them. A positive value indicates the PCM values are higher than actual and a negative value indicates the PCM values are lower than expected. A black trend line was added and it clearly shows that the PCM model is tracking the NASA actual values very closely. In, fact since 1970 the PCM model has rarely been off by more than +/- .1 degrees Celsius and has an average trend of almost zero error, while the IPCC models are erratic and are now approaching an error rate of +.5^O above expected.

In summary, the IPCC models were designed before a true picture of the world’s climate was understood. During the 1980’s and 1990’s CO₂ levels were going up and the world temperature was also going up so there appeared to be correlation and causation. The mistake that was made was looking at only a ~20 year period when the real variations in climate move in much longer cycles. Those other cycles can be observed in the NASA data but they were ignored for some reason. By ignoring those trends and focusing only on CO₂ the models will be unable to correctly plot global temperatures until they are fixed.

Lastly the next Chart shows what a plot of the PCM model would look like from the year 1000 to the year 2200. The plot matches reasonably well with history and fits the current NASA-GISS table LOTI date very closely. Again this plot is a combination of three factors a long cycle probably in ocean currents, a short cycle probably related more to atmospheric effect from the ocean and a factor for CO2 using a much smaller sensitivity value than the IPCC. I understand that this model is not based on physics but it is also not curve fitting. It’s based on observed reoccurring patterns in the climate. These patterns can be modeled and when they are you get a plot that works better than the IPCC’s GCM. If the conditions that create these patterns do not change and CO2 continues to increase to 800 ppm or even 1000 ppm than this model will work into the foreseeable future. Two hundred years from now global temperatures will peak at around 15.5 to 15.7 degrees C and then will be on the downside of the long cycle for the next 500 years. The overall effect of CO2 reaching levels of 1000 ppm or higher will be between 1.0 and 1.5 degrees C which is about the same as that of the long cycle.

Carbon Dioxide is not capable of doing what Hansen and Gore claim!

The change in data has clearly shifted the temperatures, in red, away from the PCM model plot, in Blue, so there is no long any justification for this model.

The purpose of this post is to make people aware of the errors inherent in the IPCC models so that they can be corrected.

Sir Karl Raimund Popper (28 July 1902 – 17 September 1994) was an Austrian and British philosopher and a professor at the London School of Economics. He is considered one of the most influential philosophers of science of the 20th century, and he also wrote extensively on social and political philosophy. The following quotes of his apply to this subject.

If we are uncritical we shall always find what we want: we shall look for, and find, confirmations, and we shall look away from, and not see, whatever might be dangerous to our pet theories.

Whenever a theory appears to you as the only possible one, take this as a sign that you have neither understood the theory nor the problem which it was intended to solve.

… (S)cience is one of the very few human activities — perhaps the only one — in which errors are systematically criticized and fairly often, in time, corrected