Archive for the ‘IPCC’ Category

Too much hot air


We’ve been hearing this for years, but here it is again. It seems hard to get climate science to follow best practice and discard models that perform poorly against observational data, or at least the worst ones. Time’s up now as it’s getting too embarrassing, with the climate clearly failing to comply with ultra-warmist predictions. But over-optimistic belief that the models are nearly on course is still rife.
– – –
U.N. report authors say researchers should avoid suspect models – from Science.org.

One study suggests Arctic rainfall will become dominant in the 2060s, decades earlier than expected. Another claims air pollution from forest fires in the western United States could triple by 2100. A third says a mass ocean extinction could arrive in just a few centuries.

All three studies, published in the past year, rely on projections of the future produced by some of the world’s next-generation climate models.

But even the modelmakers acknowledge that many of these models have a glaring problem: predicting a future that gets too hot too fast.

(more…)

I’m delighted Ned Nikolov and Karl Zeller have chosen the Talkshop as the venue for the publication of this new open peer review paper on climate sensitivity. Scientific advance at the cutting edge has always been the most important aim of this blog, and I think this paper truly is an advance in our understanding of the climate system and the factors which support and modulate surface temperature on Earth and other rocky planets. 

The paper is mathematically rigorous, but is also accessible to everyone, thanks to Ned and Karl’s exemplary effort to fully explain their concepts and definitions in terms which can be understood by any interested reader who has some familiarity with the climate debate. Building on the bedrock of their 2014 and 2017 papers, this new work extends the applicability and validates the postulates of those previous papers by examining the causes of variability in planetary surface temperature and incorporating the previous findings in quantifying and deriving equations to model them. They find that Earth is sensitive to changes in cloud cover, which affects the amount of solar shortwave radiation reaching the surface, but not very sensitive to changes in Total Solar Irradiance arriving at the top of the atmosphere. They also find that the sensitivity to changes in CO2 levels has been heavily overestimated by current climate models. They show that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration from 280 ppm to 560 ppm will cause an undetectable global warming of 0.004K.

A PDF of the paper can be downloaded here:  ECS_Universal_Equations.

______________________________________________________________________

Exact Formulas for Estimating the Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity of Rocky Planets & Moons to Total Solar Irradiance, Absorbed Shortwave Radiation, Planetary Albedo and Surface Atmospheric Pressure.
Ned Nikolov, Ph.D. and Karl Zeller, Ph.D.
April, 2022

1. Introduction

The term “Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity” (ECS) has become a synonym for the steady-state response of global surface temperature to a modeled long-wave radiative forcing caused by a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration with respect to an assumed pre-industrial level of 280 ppm. According to climate models based on the Greenhouse theory, an increase of atmospheric CO2 from 280 ppm to 560 ppm would produce a net radiative forcing (i.e. an atmospheric radiant-heat trapping) of 3.74 W m-2 (Gregory et al. 2004) resulting in a global surface warming between 2.5 K and 4.0 K with a central estimate of 3.0 K according to IPCC AR6 (see p. 11 in Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Summary for Policymakers). This implies an average unit ECS of 3.0/3.74 = 0.8 K / (W m-2) with a range of 0.67 ≤ ECS ≤ 1.07 K / (W m-2). Contemporary climate science and IPCC Assessment Reports do not discuss global temperature sensitivities to changes in cloud albedo, absorbed solar radiation or total surface atmospheric pressure. Consequently, no equations have been derived/proposed thus far to calculate these sensitivities. The reason for such an omission is the implicit assumption made by IPCC based on the 19th-Century Greenhouse theory (Arrhenius 1896) that the observed warming during most of the 20th Century and especially over the past 40 years was chiefly caused by an increase of industrial CO2 emissions, which are believed to trap outgoing long-wave radiation in the Earth’s troposphere and reduce the rate of surface infrared cooling to Space.

However, a plethora of studies published during the past 15 years have shown through both satellite and surface observations that the absorption of solar radiation by the Earth-atmosphere system has increased significantly since 1982 due to a decreased cloud cover/albedo, a phenomenon often referred to as “global brightening” (e.g. Goode & Pallé 2007; Wild 2009; Herman et al. 2013; Stanhill et al. 2014; Hofer et al. 2017; Pfeifroth et al. 2018; Pokrovsky 2019;  Delgado-Bonal et al. 2020; Dübal & Vahrenholt 2021;  Yuan et al. 2021). This implies a global warming driven by a rising surface solar radiation rather than CO2.

(more…)

IPCC World’s Last Chance (Again)

Posted: April 10, 2022 by oldbrew in climate, Critique, IPCC
Tags:

.
.
The climate last chance saloon never closes.

Science Matters

Getty Images

James Macpherson reports on the latest deadline in his Australian Spectator article The IPCC say the world is ending! (Again?) .H/T John Ray.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

In the latest ‘now or never!’ since the ‘last now or never!’ the United Nations has warned the world that it is once again ‘now or never!’ to avoid disastrous Climate Change.

Forget Prince Charles’ warning back in July 2009 that we had just 96 months to save the planet.

Ignore former British PM Gordon Brown’s prediction, just three months later, that we had fewer than 50 days to avoid disaster.

And never mind French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius who, standing beside then American Secretary of State John Kerry, told the world on May 13, 2014, that ‘we have 500 days to avoid climate chaos’.

The irony of that particular Chicken Little routine was that Fabius was scheduled…

View original post 855 more words

Summertime [image credit: BBC]


What evidence is there that such powers do exist? An air of unreality is palpable here, with talk of extreme dangers and use of decimal point temperature statements while brushing aside all uncertainties. Endless alarmism creates fatigue, not the fear they crave.
– – –
UN scientists have unveiled a plan that they believe can limit the root causes of dangerous climate change, says BBC News.

A key UN body says in a report that there must be “rapid, deep and immediate” cuts in carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions.

Global emissions of CO2 would need to peak within three years to stave off the worst impacts.

Even then, the world would also need technology to suck CO2 from the skies by mid-century.

(more…)

CO2 is not pollution


H/T New York Post.

Everyone knows that won’t happen. Too expensive, and no adequate methods available anyway even if it was a good idea, which it isn’t. Nobody consults the growers and planters of the world, it seems. Little or no role is allocated to natural climate variation, but that’s only one of many issues.
– – –
Sucking carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere is the world’s only chance to avoid climate change disaster, according to a report due to be released Monday.

The paper by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is expected to say that dangerous climate change will be avoided only if vast quantities of carbon dioxide are removed from the air, the Times of London reported.

“Carbon dioxide removal is necessary to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions globally and nationally,” a draft version of the summary report said, according to The Times. If “negative emission” technologies fulfill their potential, it continues, they could even enable a reversal of global warming.

However, carbon-capturing technology is nowhere near where it needs to be. Today, 19 operational plants capture only 10,000 tons of carbon dioxide a year, compared to the 36 billion tons the world produces annually, according to the report.

The paper also says that an urgent and wholesale shift away from fossil fuels is needed for there to be any chance of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels.

Scientists believe topping that threshold will lead to significant and irreversible harm to Earth’s climate.

But the report, commissioned and endorsed by 195 governments, acknowledges that the only “negative emissions” strategy currently used on a mass scale is tree planting.

Scientists are working on other techniques, including air capture or giant fans extracting carbon dioxide from the air and storing it underground or converting it into jet fuel.

Full article here.
– – –
BBC: Scientists race to finish key IPCC report — says the same thing.

Photosynthesis: nature requires carbon dioxide


How delusional can these self-appointed weather managers get? Their ‘carbon pollution’ is a trace gas (a mere 0.04% of the atmosphere) essential to the natural world. But in their minds it’s a disaster waiting to happen, if not already happening, and so the endless hype and demands for ever more massive expenditure go on.
– – –
Nearly 200 nations gather Monday to grapple with a question that will outlive Covid-19 and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine (says Phys.org): how does a world addicted to fossil fuels prevent carbon pollution from making Earth unliveable?

A partial answer is set for April 4 after closed-door, virtual negotiations approve a nearly 3,000-page report detailing options for drawing down greenhouse gases and extracting them from the air.

“The impacts are costly and mounting, but we still have some time to close the window and get ahead of the worst of them if we act now,” said Alden Meyer, a senior analyst at climate and energy think-tank E3G.

“This report will supply the answers as to what we need if we’re serious about getting there.”

(more…)

Credit: BBC


Using far-fetched worst-case scenarios, the IPCC has become a cheerleader for emissions reductions. Propaganda has overtaken real science in a big way.
– – –
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is an important organization with a primary purpose to assess the scientific literature on climate in order to inform policy, says Roger Pielke Jr. @ Climate Change Dispatch.

The IPCC spans the physical sciences, impacts, adaptation and vulnerability, and economics.

I have often stated that the IPCC is so important that if it did not exist we’d need to invent it because the challenge of climate change presents significant risks.

(more…)


Here’s a brief taste of what’s on offer from the alarm-loving media today as they wallow in the latest dire prophecies.
– – –
Climate change: IPCC report warns of ‘irreversible’ impacts of global warming, cries BBC News.

Many of the impacts of global warming are now simply “irreversible” according to the UN’s latest assessment.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says that humans and nature are being pushed beyond their abilities to adapt.

(more…)

Credit: nationalreview.com


And night follows day. They were never going to turn the anti-human climate propaganda volume down. This latest report ‘is expected to be even more worrying’. Are we quaking in our supposedly doom-filled boots yet?
– – –
A new UN science report is set to send what may be the starkest warning yet about the impacts of climate change on people and the planet, says the Evening Standard.

The assessment is the second in a series of three reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in the latest review of climate science, which take place every six or seven years for governments.

It is being published on Monday, a little over 100 days after the Cop26 summit agreed to increase action to try and limit global warming to 1.5C (2.7F) to avoid the worst impacts of climate change.

(more…)

Credit: NASA

H/T Tallbloke
– – –
By Dr. Rudolph Kalveks — As the media, politicians and climate activists continue to circulate hysterical hot air from the Cop26 conference, the topic of climate change or anthropogenic global warming (AGW) has become an emotional one, increasingly detached from the thoughtful and meticulous process of theory development, calculation and observation that is supposed to characterise scientific endeavour.

It may come as a surprise to some that “The Science”, as expounded in the IPCC Summaries for Policymakers that inform conference participants, is not uncritically accepted by all scientists in the field, and that widely different views are held by a substantial cadre of experienced and eminent researchers.

Moreover, a multitude of peer-reviewed papers contradict many aspects of the IPCC’s alarmist narrative.

Furthermore, a coherent theory about the impact of changes in greenhouse gases (GHGs) is starting to emerge, one that is built up from the underlying physics, rather than extracted from fanciful computer simulations.

My aim here is to highlight some of the relevant papers and to inform any motivated layman who wishes to explore outside the dogmatic strictures of the mainstream narrative.

Let us start with an irrefutable example of the inability of climate models (general circulation models, GCMs) to provide meaningful projections.

Continued here.

Only alarmists could be impressed by an alarmist echo chamber, and even that didn’t work on the street protesters. As CCD puts it: ‘what kind of conference is it that invites only people with one viewpoint?’
– – –
King coal is dead, long live king coal! That might be a fitting epitaph for COP26, which mercifully ended last Friday, says Climate Change Dispatch.

It culminated with an agreement, which had not so much been watered down as to have virtually evaporated. Fossil fuels, it seems, are here for the foreseeable.

What went wrong? That’s a question the ‘deeply frustrated’ COP26 president Alok Sharma might well be asking himself.

He appeared to be close to tears at the denouement of the negotiations, pushed to emotional extremis by the last-minute wrangling over a single word: should we commit ourselves to phase out our use of coal, or phase- down our use of coal.

(more…)

Did the poorer countries reject the use of petroleum or modes of travel like vehicles, railways, planes, metal-hulled ships, etc.? Obviously not, because they valued the benefits as much as anyone else did. But the IPCC-backing countries have put their own heads, and a lot of public money, on the block by demonizing carbon dioxide and claiming the climate can somehow be ‘fixed’ by outputting less of it (‘net zero’). Natural climate variability is never even discussed.
– – –
Vulnerable countries at COP26 say rich nations are pushing back against their attempts to secure compensation for the damage caused by climate change.

Poorer countries see it as critical that money for loss and damage be part of negotiations this week, says BBC News.

Negotiators agreed in Paris in 2015 to address the issue, but there is no agreement on who should pay for it.

Rich nations are said to be resisting any commitments as they do not want to accept liability and risk being sued.

(more…)

Credit: klimatetochskogen.nu

The bottom line (of this article) is that ‘To actually reach net-zero will require reducing emissions close to zero.’ Does anyone seriously expect that will happen? ‘Research indicates that net-zero strategies that rely on temporary removals to balance permanent emissions will fail.’ Extrapolating from some existing pledges to plant millions of trees, it’s possible this could require ‘one-third of the world’s farmland’. Worse still for the carbon offsetters, some of their prized forest assets have been known to go up in wildfire smoke. And so on. All the so-called climate ambition looks ever more absurdly unrealistic on examination, without even looking at the plausibility of the supposed need for it.
– – –
Net-zero emissions pledges to protect the climate are coming fast and furious from companies, cities and countries says TechXplore.

But declaring a net-zero target doesn’t mean they plan to stop their greenhouse gas emissions entirely—far from it.

Most of these pledges rely heavily on planting trees or protecting forests or farmland to absorb some of their emissions.

That raises two questions: Can nature handle the expectations? And, more importantly, should it even be expected to?

(more…)

Fine summer weather [image credit: BBC]

How many millions of years might that be then? Two, apparently: CO2 level ‘is greater than at any time in at least the past 2 million years’. What about earlier times? The caption to the first photo in the article reads: ‘The near future may be similar to the mid-Pliocene warm period a few million years ago.’ So natural variation is confined to history, and/or dependent on volcanoes? The article asserts: ‘the last warm period between ice ages peaked about 125,000 years ago—in contrast to today, warmth at that time was driven not by CO₂, but by changes in Earth’s orbit and spin axis.’ Now orbital factors have also switched themselves off? And so it goes on: our climate models say…
– – –
Many numbers are swirling around the climate negotiations at the UN climate summit in Glasgow, COP26, says Phys.org.

These include global warming targets of 1.5℃ and 2.0℃, recent warming of 1.1℃, remaining CO₂ budget of 400 billion tons, or current atmospheric CO₂ of 415 parts per million.

It’s often hard to grasp the significance of these numbers. But the study of ancient climates can give us an appreciation of their scale compared to what has occurred naturally in the past.

Our knowledge of ancient climate change also allows scientists to calibrate their models and therefore improve predictions of what the future may hold.

(more…)

.

Inconvenient climate data again. Time to turn away from overblown alarmist hysteria.

PA Pundits - International

By David Wojick, Ph.D. ~

Teaming with the Irish Climate Science Forum, CLINTEL has produced a 17 page catalog of “misrepresentations” in the 40 page IPCC AR6 Summary for Policy Makers, better known as the SPM. Now they have sent this error list to the IPCC Chair and other world leaders. You can read it here: https://clintel.org/clintel-letter-to-world-leaders-serious-misrepresentations-in-latest-ipcc-report/.

The analysis begins with a summary cover letter to Dr. Lee, Chair of the IPCC, titled: “Critique of the AR6 WG1 Summary for Policymakers (SPM)”. It is signed by Guus Berkhout, President of CLINTEL and Jim OBrien, Chair of the ICSF.

The principal conclusion of the detailed critique is stated in the letter, as follows:

“We regrettably conclude that the SPM is erroneously pointing to a climate crisisthat does not exist in reality. The SPM is inappropriately being used to justify drastic social, economic and human changes through…

View original post 622 more words

The IPCC’s Deliberate CO2 Deception

Posted: August 22, 2021 by oldbrew in alarmism, Critique, IPCC
Tags: ,

.

Alarmist CO2 hokum on the rise.

PA Pundits - International

By David Wojick, Ph.D. ~

Many of my disagreements with the IPCC AR6 science Summary for Policy Makers (SPM) are just that, disagreements. I think their reasoning is faulty but at least I understand it. See my last article — The UN IPCC science panel opts for extreme nuttiness.

One SPM section, however, is so wrong that it must be a deliberate deception. The purpose seems to be to make the atmospheric CO2 increase look like a simple accumulation of our emissions. I call this the pollution model of CO2 and it is extremely misleading. The truth is well known so this must be a deceptive act on the IPCC’s part.

Here is the opening summary paragraph. The first sentence is a ridiculous 51 tortured words long, the second (and last) sentence states the hoax very clearly.

While natural land and ocean carbon sinks are projected…

View original post 652 more words

.

Attempts to get rid of fossil fuels will only serve to highlight how inadequate and costly the proposed substitutes are.

PA Pundits - International

By Ronald Stein ~

The AR6Climate Change 2021Report just released by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), an intergovernmental body of the United Nations, has called out a “code red for humanitythat “must sound a death knell for…fossil fuels, before they destroy our planet.”

The report from the IPCC has failed to acknowledge that the introduction of oil just over 100 years ago has been overwhelmingly beneficial for the prosperity of the world’s population growth to 8 billion from about 1 billion that is shown clearly in their own United Nations graph. The IPCC goal to banish fossil fuels will place most of the world’s population at risk, like the medieval times.

The members of the IPCC seem oblivious to the facts of how life was without the fossil fuels industry just 120 years ago when we had NO medications and medical equipment, NO…

View original post 957 more words

.

Finding the Sun the main player in climate would be the default position in any normal world, but now it gets billed as the challenger.

NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

image

The sun and not human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) may be the main cause of warmer temperatures in recent decades, according to a new study with findings that sharply contradict the conclusions of the United Nations (UN) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

The peer-reviewed paper, produced by a team of almost two dozen scientists from around the world, concluded that previous studies did not adequately consider the role of solar energy in explaining increased temperatures.

The new study was released just as the UN released its sixth “Assessment Report,” known as AR6, that once again argued in favor of the view that man-kind’s emissions of CO2 were to blame for global warming. The report said human responsibility was “unequivocal.”

But the new study casts serious doubt on the hypothesis.

View original post 642 more words

.

So say the totally predictable climate cultists in the political summary version of the IPCC’s not yet published report, version whatever.

NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

image

Humanity’s damaging impact on the climate is a “statement of fact”, say UN scientists in a landmark study.

The report says that ongoing emissions of warming gases could also see a key temperature limit broken in just over a decade.

The authors also show that a rise in sea levels approaching 2m by the end of this century “cannot be ruled out”.

But there is new hope that deep cuts in emissions of greenhouse gases could stabilise rising temperatures.

This sober assessment from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) features in a 42-page document known as the Summary for Policymakers.

It leads a series of reports that will be published over coming months and is the first major review of the science of climate change since 2013. Its release comes less than three months before a key climate summit in Glasgow known as COP26.

“Today’s…

View original post 419 more words

An IPCC scientist on twitter alerted me to this animation created by Chris Rentsch which analyses the data from the AIRS satellite measuring outgoing longwave radiation.

Here’s a still from the end of the video sequence.

As we can see, by 2019, there is a decrease in OLR at the wavelengths absorbed by CO2 (13-15um) as its atmospheric fraction increases. But we can also see that there is a much bigger increase in OLR at the wavelengths within the ‘atmospheric window’ (10-13um) where it isn’t absorbed by any atmospheric gases.

(more…)