Further to the Terms Of Reference I submit responses on some of the questions posed by the committee re IPCC AR5 as follows and am very willing to speak on them. I apologize I was unable to submit earlier due to pressure of work and attending to extreme weather affecting the UK but crave the indulgence of the Committee to consider these points – which are largely different from others you may receive. Thank you.
1. To what extent does AR5 reflect the range of views among climate scientists?
1.1 The IPCC and AR5 give a very one-sided view but it must be understood that ‘views’ as such and the range of views is of little import; what matters is OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE in the real world and real atmosphere for or against all and any theory on offer.
2. Can any of the areas of the science now be considered settled as a result of AR5’s publication, if so which? What areas need further effort to reduce the levels of uncertainty?
2.1 The failure of ALL the alarmist predictions of the IPCC since 2000 and their admitted inability to explain the very important changes in world circulation (and related world cooling under honest data**) since 2007 mean it is now objectively settled by observational evidence that the CO2/ ‘Greenhouse’ /Man-made Global Warming/ Climate Change proposition has failed ignominiously and must be discarded. See slides 38 to 41 of http://www.weatheraction.com/docs/WANews13No43.pdf (Piers Corbyn’s Presentation to The Grain & Feed Trades Association International conference Geneva May 2013).
2.2 ** See slide 42 in above presentation: Recent world temperatures have been artificially upped by about 0.5 degC by data ‘selection’ (fraud in normal terms) meaning recent ‘warming’ is non-existent compared to warming in the 40’s
2.3 The main area of further study needed to predict extreme and dangerous weather events (the founding purpose of IPCC rather than milli-degree temperature changes which have no discernable impact on real weather and climate systems) is solar-magnetic particle weather effects.
3. Does the AR5 address the reliability of climate models? And Has AR5 sufficiently explained the reasons behind the widely reported hiatus in the global surface temperature record?
3.1. NO. It is a fact (point above) that ALL the CO2 driven climate models have failed. The AR5 waffles on this and crucially cannot explain the wild Jet Stream behavior and general drift equator-wards of the Jet stream which has been increasing since 2007. The Jet Stream, and this is essentially uncontested, is the main arbiter of extreme weather events and scenarios and of Climate Change. All previous different climate regimes (eg Mini-Ice-Ages / Little Ice Ages) are described and explained by different Jet Stream regimes.
3.2 In their report at the Royal Society in October 2013 the IPCC reporters stated their extra CO2 models produce none of the wild jet stream changes which characterize recent years. I pointed out that the Jet Stream changes observed and successfully predicted by WeatherAction and many extreme weather events similarly successfully predicted are entirely consistent with and consequent on our WeatherAction Solar-Lunar-Action Technique (SLAT) of Long-Range forecasting and Climate prediction which I developed from a solar-magnetic particle understanding with Lunar modulation. See Slides 14-16 of GAFTA.
3.3 All the predicted (by SLAT) Solar activity, Climate and Jet Stream shifts over recent years have taken place or are taking place (Slide 52 in GAFTA). None of these weather or climate developments were expected by CO2 ‘theory’ which generally expected opposite developments to that which occurred.
3.4 These proven skilled forecasts have nothing whatsoever to do with the CO2 theory which has zero skill, can explain nothing, predict nothing, is delusional and has no value.
3.5 The 60 year, 22yr, 28month, 155day and many other cycles of weather phenomena are explained by and used in the SLAT - Sides 10, 22, 23 in GAFTA – whereas the CO2 theory can explain none of them..
3.6 The WeatherAction Solar-Lunar Action Technique predictions (for Earth facing solar extreme events and weather events UK+Eire, Europe and USA and certain other weather events such as Hurricane and Cyclone formation and extreme events in Australia / New Zealand) surpasses or can improve on standard meteorology for extreme weather events on all time scales from 12 months to 1 day ahead as is shown by eg storm predictions for UK, Eire and Europe since October 2013. See http://www.weatheraction.com/docs/WANews14No03.pdf (including WeatherAction offer to help the UK Govt better prepare for Extreme weather situations).
4. Do the AR5 Physical Science Basis report’s conclusions strengthen or weaken the economic case for action to prevent dangerous climate change?
4.1 The AR5 conclusions, such as they are, are rambling and delusional and I invite Select Committee members to choose whatever ‘conclusion’ they find most compelling and ask if there is any evidence for it and what it actually means in practical terms.
4.2 The Report essentially assumes CO2 rises and then attempts to conclude what failed models might imply temperatures will turn to, despite the real world doing the opposite.
4.3 The IPCC hasn’t a clue on the role of solar activity - confusing light etc radiation with crucial charged particle and magnetic effects.
4.4 Probably the most absurd aspect of the IPCC ‘Theory’ is revealed as follows:-
(i) IF the (delusional) CO2 warming theory is accepted (hypothetically for a moment) it should be noted that
(ii) The CO2 flux in and out of the biosphere (sea+land) due to man’s total activity is LESS THAN 4% of the total flux.
(iii) Therefore for Man’s activity to be the key climate driver ALL the other fluxes must be constant (or have total variation a lot less than 4%).
(iv) This is an insane assumption and requires for example that the CO2 (‘equivalent’) product of termites which is TEN TIMES that of Man stays pretty rigidly constant, as must tree decay, absorption /emission of CO2 over sea, cow emissions and so on. Alternatively all these fluxes must knowingly conspire to add up to a constant (within les than 4%) to enable Man’s activity to rule. There is no evidence of such a natural conspiracy. It is logically strained poppycock.
4.5 Why the CO2 theory does not work is a minor matter compared with the observed fact that it fails and hardly worthy of consideration anymore than why the flat-Earth theory or the Phlogiston theory of chemistry failed; nevertheless there are some points on this in the GAFTA Geneva Presentation slides 55 -59.
5. Is the IPCC process an effective mechanism for assessing scientific knowledge? Or has it focused on providing a justification for political commitment?
5.1 It is a political process with political intent and science (ie evidence-based science, and there is no other science) has no role in the IPCC other than as a quasi-religious justification for opinions and a raft of economy-ruining measures in favor of interest groups, Big Oil and Energy companies on the ‘Carbon ticket’. On this see Alex Jones video interview with Piers Corbyn: http://youtu.be/NoI5wMNWOjs
6. Is the rate at which the UK Government intends to cut CO2 emissions appropriate in light of the findings of the IPCC AR5 Physical Science Basis report?
6.1 The UK Government should not be cutting CO2 emissions but rather doing its best to increase them in order to enhance plant growth and improve the productivity of world agriculture.
6.2 It should be noted that the basis of life on Earth is CO2 circulation – the key to plant growth and if CO2 levels drop below a certain value plant growth and all life ceases.
6.3 In Geological terms CO2 levels are very low (having been ten times higher in periods before at times when world temperatures were sometimes the same as or colder than now) and will in all probability get lower after the next full ice age as more CO2 becomes locked in ice, cold seas, limestone etc. See GAFTA presentation slide 60.
January 2014