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.

New Zealand Climate Truth


by Dr Vincent Gray





 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 issue.**"*

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 worse.

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 weather".

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 integral part.

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 "noisy".

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 "managing" them.

The "management" is done by "evaluation" carried out by the paid employees of the climate change gravy train, those with a conflict of interest.

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.

Vincent Gray

75 Silverstream Road

Crofton Downs

Wellington 6035

Phone/Fax 04 9735939

Next Post Previous Post