Archives par mot-clé : IPCC

Paris Won’t Cut Emissions–Bob Watson

by P. Homewood, November 10, 2019 in NotaLotofPeople KnowThat

It’s apparently taken ex IPCC Chair Bob Watson four years to work out that the Paris Agreement did nothing to reduce emissions.

It’s a pity he did not read this blog, because I was saying the same thing when it was signed!

Steve Milloy reports:


The truth behind the Paris Agreement climate pledges

Almost 75% of 184 Paris Agreement pledges were judged insufficient to slow climate change; Only 28 European Union nations and 7 others will reduce emissions by at least 40% by 2030


  • Only 28 European Union nations & 7 others will reduce emissions by at least 40 percent by 2030
  • China & India, top emitters, will reduce emissions intensity, but their emissions will increase
  • U.S., second top emitter, has reversed key national policies to combat climate change
  • Almost 70 percent of the pledges rely on funding from wealthy nations for their implementation

Almost three-quarters of the 184 climate pledges made under the Paris Agreement aimed at curbing greenhouse gas emissions are inadequate to slow climate change, and some of the world’s largest emitters will continue to increase emissions, according to a panel of world-class climate scientists. It is these increasing greenhouse emissions that are driving climate change.

The Truth Behind the Climate Pledges, a new report published by the Universal Ecological Fund, examines in great detail the 184 voluntary pledges under the Paris Agreement, the first collective global effort to address climate change.

New climate models – even more wrong

by P. Matthews, Nov. 5, 2019 in ClimateScepticsim

The IPCC AR5 Report included this diagram, showing that climate models exaggerate recent warming:

If you want to find it, it’s figure 11.25, also repeated in the Technical Summary as figure TS-14. The issue is also discussed in box TS3:

“However, an analysis of the full suite of CMIP5 historical simulations (augmented for the period 2006–2012 by RCP4.5 simulations) reveals that 111 out of 114 realizations show a GMST trend over 1998–2012 that is higher than the entire HadCRUT4 trend ensemble (Box TS.3, Figure 1a; CMIP5 ensemble mean trend is 0.21°C per decade). This difference between simulated and observed trends could be caused by some combination of (a) internal climate variability, (b) missing or incorrect RF, and (c) model response error.”

Well, now there is a new generation of climate models, imaginatively known as CMIP6. By a remarkable coincidence, two new papers have just appeared, from independent teams, giving very similar results and published on the same day in the same journal. One is UKESM1: Description and evaluation of the UK Earth System Model, with a long list of authors, mostly from the Met Office, also announced as a “New flagship climate model” on the Met Office website.  The other is Structure and Performance of GFDL’s CM4.0 Climate Model, by a team from GFDL and Princeton. Both papers are open-access.

Now you might think that the new models would be better than the old ones. This is mathematical modelling 101: if a model doesn’t fit well with the data, you improve the model to make it fit better. But such elementary logic doesn’t apply in the field of climate science.

Human CO2 Emissions Have Little Effect On Atmospheric CO2

by Ed Berry, October 21, 2019 in PrincipiaScientificInternational

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) agrees human CO2 is only 5 percent and natural CO2 is 95 percent of the CO2 inflow into the atmosphere. The ratio of human to natural CO2 in the atmosphere must equal the ratio of the inflows.

Yet IPCC claims human CO2 has caused all the rise in atmospheric CO2 above 280 ppm, which is now 130 ppm or 32 percent of today’s atmospheric CO2.

To cause the human 5 percent to become 32 percent in the atmosphere, the IPCC model treats human and natural CO2 differently, which is impossible because the molecules are identical. IPCC’s Bern model artificially traps human CO2 in the atmosphere while it lets natural CO2 flow freely out of the atmosphere.

By contrast, a simple Physics Model treats all CO2 molecules the same, as it should, and shows how CO2 flows through the atmosphere and produces a balance level where outflow equals inflow. Thereafter, if inflow is constant, level remains constant.

The Physics Model has only one hypothesis, that outflow is proportional to level. The Physics Model exactly replicates the 14C data from 1970 to 2014 with only two physical parameters: balance level and e-time. The 14C data trace how CO2 flows out of the atmosphere.

The Physics Model shows the 14CO2 e-time is a constant 16.5 years. Other data show e-time for 12CO2 is about 4 to 5 years. IPCC claims human CO2 reduces ocean buffer capacity. But that would increase e-time. The constant e-time proves IPCC’s claim is false.

IPCC argues that the human-caused reduction of 14C and 13C in the atmosphere prove human CO2 causes all the increase in atmospheric CO2. However, numbers show these isotope data support the Physics Model and reject the IPCC model.

The Physics Model shows how inflows of human and natural CO2 into the atmosphere set balance levels proportional to their inflows. Each balance level remains constant if its inflow remains constant. Continued constant CO2 emissions do not add more CO2 to the atmosphere. No CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere.

Present human CO2 inflow produces a balance level of about 18 ppm. Present natural CO2 inflow produces a balance level of about 392 ppm. Human CO2 is insignificant to the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. Increased natural CO2 inflow has increased the level of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Keywords: carbon dioxide, CO2, climate change, anthropogenic

Le GIEC en est virtuellement certain…

by Prof. Dr. Jean N., 11 octobre 2019 in ScienceClimatEnergie

Le dernier rapport spécial du GIEC vient de sortir. Ce rapport, appelé SROCC (“Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate“), a été approuvé à la 51e session du GIEC tenue les 20 et 23 septembre 2019. Il a déjà fait beaucoup parler de lui dans les médias. Le résumé du rapport à l’intention des décideurs (SPM) a été présenté lors d’une conférence de presse le 25 septembre 2019. Pour ceux qui comprennent l’anglais, qui ont une formation scientifique et surtout qui ont le temps de lire 1170 pages, le fichier PDF de ce rapport est disponible sur le site du GIEC. Le présent article analyse le chapitre 4 de ce rapport, celui qui traite de la montée des océans. Rassurez-vous, nous n’allons pas critiquer la montée du niveau des océans qui est un phénomène bien réel. Nous allons plutôt montrer que les auteurs ont étrangement omis certaines explications qui relativisent la portée de leurs conclusions, notamment concernant la cause de la hausse du niveau marin.

1. Structure du chapitre 4

Ce chapitre 4 consiste en 168 pages et a pour titre “Élévation du niveau de la mer et conséquences pour les îles, les côtes et les communautés de faible altitude“. Les deux auteurs coordonnateurs de ce chapitre sont Michael Oppenheimer (USA) et Bruce Glavovic (Nouvelle Zélande). Les auteurs principaux sont au nombre de 13 et les auteurs contributeurs sont au nombre de 31. Au final, 46 scientifiques ont donc contribué à écrire ce chapitre. Rien que pour ce chapitre les auteurs citent un peu plus de 1500 références, essentiellement des articles scientifiques.

Qu’apprend-t-on dans le chapitre 4?

Pour faire simple, nous y apprenons : (1) Que le niveau moyen des océans monte toujours et que la vitesse s’accélère; (2) Que cette montée du niveau marin est essentiellement causée par l’homme; (3) Que l’on peut calculer ce qui va se passer dans le futur grâce aux modèles numériques; (4) Que l’on peut éventuellement se protéger de la hausse du niveau marin par toute une série de mesures.

Nous allons maintenant nous focaliser sur les points n°1 (montée du niveau) et n°2 (les causes).

2. La montée du niveau moyen des océans selon le SROCC

Renowned German Geologist Shocks Audience: “Climate Change Totally Exaggerated”…”Warming Least Of Our Problems” By P Gosselin on 12. Oct

par P. Gosselin, October 12, 2019 in NoTricksZone

It’s unusual to see rationality over climate change in the German media, but sometimes it manages to get through.

In April this year I missed an important podcast interview with one of the world’s most prominent Sahara Desert researchers, geologist Dr. Stefan Kröpelin, by the Düsseldorf-based German daily, Rheinische Post.

Image: University of Cologne

The two RP hosts conducting the interview seemed to expect Dr. Kröpelin would tell the audience how dire the consequences of man-made global warming are on the Sahara Desert and planet overall.

They didn’t get what they bargained for.

Warming does not lead to desertification

Instead, in the interview, Dr. Kröpelin rejected in very clear terms man’s major climatic impact and that global warming is only negative.

Kröpelin told listeners that history is very clear: When the globe is cold, the deserts expand. And when the globe is warm, deserts become greener and far more fruitful.

Kröpelin is a leading expert

Kröpelin has been studying the Sahara for over 40 years, spending weeks and months each year on site gathering data a reconstructing past climates. Naturedescribed Kröpelin as “one of the most devoted Sahara explorers of our time.”

At about 9 minutes into the interview, he explains how the Sahara was massive in size during the last glacial period, and that about ten thousand years ago it greened up once temperatures shot up early in the Holocene.

When asked (10:15) if he worries that things in the Sahara “will get much worse” due to climate change, Kröpelin tells the host and audience: “First, that is a statement I 100% reject”, adding that localized desertification has more to do with the population growth at the edges of the desert and that the people who live there are cutting down trees and extracting water from the ground.

Rising precipitation, shrinking desert

Serious Errors In IPCC Ocean Report Revealed

by B. Peiser, October 11, 2019 in GWPF

London, 11 October: The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) has called on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to correct serious errors in its recent Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate.

In a letter to the IPCC, Dr Benny Peiser, the GWPF’s director, has highlighted a number of errors and misinterpretations in the IPCC’s report which are based, to a significant degree, on a flawed study which was recently retracted.

In his letter, Dr Peiser points out that the IPCC’s overall conclusion on ocean heat uptake

“is based to a significant degree on a paper by Cheng et al. (2019) which itself relies on a flawed estimate by Resplandy et al. (2018). An authors’ correction of this paper and its ocean heat uptake estimate was under review for nearly a year, but in the end Nature requested that the paper be retracted (Retraction Note, 2019).”

“While the [IPCC’s] conclusion that the rate of ocean heat uptake has increased in recent years may probably be right, the evidence you cite for there being ‘high confidence’ and ‘high agreement’ is rather doubtful due to your inclusion of flawed evidence of the retracted paper by Resplandy et al. (2018).”

What is more, there is also doubt about the IPCC’s conclusion that ocean heat uptake has been accelerating in recent years. According to its own report the overall ocean heat uptake between 0-2000 m was nearly 10% higher over 1993-2017 than over the second half of that period, 2005-2017, suggesting that OHU may have been declining slightly rather than accelerating over the last 25 years.

In light of these flaws, the GWPF is calling on the IPCC to correct the evident errors and reduce its confidence rating accordingly.

Letter to the IPCC (pdf)

It’s Time To Move Beyond The Toy Models that Guide Climate Policy

by Roger Pielke, October 7, 2019 in Forbes

Underlying discussion and debate of climate policies are computer models that bring together idealized representations of policies, economics and climate to estimate the impacts of future climate change and the benefits of mitigation. Such models, typically called integrated assessment models, are incredibly technical and complex. At the same time, they are also simplistic toys. Here I argue that while these models are valuable for exploring concepts and ideas, they have come to serve as a huge distraction when it comes to the development of actual policies that have a chance to accelerate rates of decarbonization in the real world.

Before proceeding, it is important to note that climate change poses real risks to our collective future, and aggressive mitigation and adaptation policies make good sense. However, the pace of progress, particularly on mitigation, has been frustratingly slow.

One way that integrated assessment models warp our discussion of climate policies is through the pervasive use of what are called “baseline scenarios.” These scenarios seek to represent where the world may be headed into the future in the absence of climate policies. Here is how the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) defines such scenarios, and their role in evaluating futures with climate policy (called “mitigation scenarios”):

Methodological debates are of course common in policy research. But in no area of policy that I have encountered over the past 30 years as a policy researcher have I come across a subject matter both as important as climate change and completely captured by one school of thought.

Scenario planning has an important role to play in the tool box of policy analysts. However, in the case of climate change, scenarios generated by integrated assessment models have overwhelmingly become the main tool of analysis in climate policy, to the exclusion of other valuable approaches. The result of this methodological myopia is that much of our collective intellectual attention has been spent on trying to figure out how to address climate change in models, and not in the real world.

WMO Secretary-General Warns Against Climate ‘Doomsters and Extremists’

by  Anthony Watts, Sep. 6, 2019 in WUWT

London, 6 September: The General-Secretary of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) says that the alarmist narrative on climate change has gone off the rails and criticised the news media for provoking unjustified anxiety.

Speaking to Finland’s financial newspaper Talouselämä (“The Journal”) on 6 September 2019, Petteri Taalas called for cooler heads to prevail, saying that he does not accept arguments of climate alarmists that the end of the world is at hand.

Dr Taalas also spoke of the dangers of green extremism:

“While climate sceptisism has become less of an issue, now we are being challenged from the other side. Climate experts have been attacked by these people and they claim that we should be much more radical. They are doomsters and extremists; they make threats.”

And he called for the media both to challenge experts and allow a broader range of opinions to be heard.

Climate Scientists Admit Their Models Are Wrong

by Bud Bromley, August 30, 2019 in PrincipiaScientificInternational

Climate scientists who support human-caused global warming, for example Ben Santer and Michael Mann, authored a peer reviewed paper which acknowledges that their climate models are wrong, although their admission is buried in weasel words and technical jargon:

In the scientific method it is not the obligation or responsibility of skeptics or “deniers” to falsify or disprove hypotheses and theories proposed by climate scientists.  It is the obligation and responsibility of climate scientists to present evidence and to defend their hypothesis.  Alarmist climate scientists have failed to do so despite the expense of billions of dollars of taxpayer money.


How the Media Help to Destroy Rational Climate Debate

by Dr Roy Spencer, August 25, 2019 in GlobalWarming

An old mantra of the news business is, “if it bleeds, it leads”. If someone was murdered, it is news. That virtually no one gets murdered is not news. That, by itself, should tell you that the mainstream media cannot be relied upon as an unbiased source of climate change information.

There are lots of self-proclaimed climate experts now. They don’t need a degree in physics or atmospheric science. For credentials, they only need to care and tell others they care. They believe the Earth is being murdered by humans and want the media to spread the word.

Most people do not have the time or educational background to understand the global warming debate, and so defer to the consensus of experts on the subject. The trouble is that no one ever says exactly what the experts agree upon.

When you dig into the details, what the experts agree upon in their official pronouncements is rather unremarkable. The Earth has warmed a little since the 1950s, a date chosen because before that humans had not produced enough CO2 to really matter. Not enough warming for most people to actually feel, but enough for thermometers to pick up the signal buried in the noise of natural weather swings of many tens of degrees and spurious warming from urbanization effects. The UN consensus is that most of that warming is probably due to increasing atmospheric CO2 from fossil fuel use (but we really don’t know for sure).

For now, I tend to agree with this consensus.

And still I am widely considered a climate denier.

Why? Because I am not willing to exaggerate and make claims that cannot be supported by data.

The widely reported Greenland surface melt event around 1 August 2019 (green oval) was then followed by a recovery to normal in the following weeks (purple oval), which was not reported by the media.

More fake five-alarm crises from the IPCC

by Paul Driessen, August 25, 2019

UN and other scientists recently sent out news releases claiming July 2019 was the “hottest month ever recorded on Earth” – nearly about 1.2 degrees C (2.2 degrees F) “above pre-industrial levels.” That era happens to coincide with the world’s emergence from the 500-year Little Ice Age. And “ever recorded” simply means measured; it does not include multiple earlier eras when Earth was much warmer than now.

Indeed, it is simply baseless to suppose that another few tenths of a degree (to 1.5 C above post-Little Ice Age levels) would somehow bring catastrophe to people, wildlife, agriculture and planet. It is equally ridiculous to assume all recent warming has been human-caused, with none of it natural or cyclical.

Moreover, as University of Alabama-Huntsville climate scientist Dr. Roy Spencer has noted, this past July was most likely not the warmest. The claim, he notes, is based on “a limited and error-prone array of thermometers which were never intended to measure global temperature trends.”

Michael Mann Refuses to Produce Data, Loses Case

by P. Homewood, August 26, 2019 in NotaLotofPeopleKnowThat

Some years ago, Dr. Tim Ball wrote that climate scientist Michael Mann “belongs in the state pen, not Penn State.” At issue was Mann’s famous “hockey stick” graph that purported to show a sudden and unprecedented 20th century warming trend. The hockey stick featured prominently in the IPCC’s Third Assessment Report (2001), but has since been shown to be wrong. The question, in my view, is whether it was an innocent mistake or deliberate fraud on Mann’s part. (Mann, I believe, continues to assert the accuracy of his debunked graph.) Mann sued Ball for libel in 2011. Principia Scientific now reports that the court in British Columbia has dismissed Mann’s lawsuit with prejudice, and assessed costs against him.

What happened was that Dr. Ball asserted a truth defense. He argued that the hockey stick was a deliberate fraud, something that could be proved if one had access to the data and calculations, in particular the R2 regression analysis, underlying it. Mann refused to produce these documents. He was ordered to produce them by the court and given a deadline. He still refused to produce them, so the court dismissed his case.


Looking behind the scenes of the well-orchestrated climate hysteria

by Sanjeev Sabhlok, August 22, 2019 in TheTimesofIndia

We know there is simply no basis for climate alarm. All “scientific” predictions have failed, life has survived happily with much higher CO2 in the past, the medieval warming period a thousand years ago was much warmer than today, the small temperature variations of the 20th century are easily explained by natural causes, and the IPCC reports confirm that there is no increase in extreme weather events and no economic harm from CO2.

And yet the hysteria is increasing by the day. The “remedies” being suggested are becoming more extreme: it is no longer just about making energy so expensive that the poor can’t afford it, it is now about removing meat from their diet as well.

What the Climate Change Models Actually Say

by R. Murphy, July 20, 2019 in FoundationEconomicEducation

An Earth scientist’s recent article making the rounds on social media highlights a terrifying conversation he had with “a very senior member” of the IPCC, which is the UN’s body devoted to studying climate science. The upshot of their conversation was that millions of people will die from climate change, a conclusion that leads the author to lament that humans have created a consumption-driven civilization that is “hell-bent on destroying itself.”

As with most such alarmist rhetoric, there is little to document these sweeping claims—even if we restrict ourselves to “official” sources of information, including the IPCC reports themselves. The historical record does not justify panic, but instead should lead us to expect continued progress for humanity, so long as the normal operation of voluntary market interactions continues without significant political interference to sabotage it.

Here is the opening hook from James Dyke’s article, in which he grabs the reader with an apocalyptic conversation:

La croissance du CO2 dans l’atmosphère est-elle exclusivement anthropique? (3/3)

by J.C. Maurin, 19 juillet 2019 in ScienceClimatEnergie

Effet Bombe et Modèles du GIEC

Les prévisions du climat sont générées par des modèles informatiques. Leurs concepteurs pensent pouvoir décrire l’état moyen de l’atmosphère en 2100, en prenant comme principale donnée d’entrée, le taux futur de CO2 qui constituerait donc le ‘bouton de commande’ du climat.

Il y a deux étages de modélisation : on commence par prévoir le taux de CO2 en 2100 avec des modèles sélectionnés par le GIEC (ces modèles « IRF » du GIEC sont l’objet de l’article).
Cette prévision constitue ensuite l’entrée du second étage, à savoir les modèles types « échanges radiatifs » ou « effet de serre » qui ne sont pas traités ici (mais on peut consulter ceci).
Le présent article ( qui est la suite de deux autres ici et ici) compare la réponse impulsionnelle théorique de ces modèles « IRF » avec la réponse impulsionnelle observée du 14CO2(effet Bombe).