Archives par mot-clé : IPCC

Does the IPCC say we have until 2030 to avoid catastrophic global warming?

by Patrick T. Brown, January 12, 2019 in WUWT


In late 2018 the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released a report on the impacts associated with global warming of 1.5°C (2.7°F) above preindustrial levels (as of 2019 we are at about 1.0°C above pre-industrial levels) as well as the technical feasibility of limiting global warming to such a level. The media coverage of the report immediately produced a meme that continues to persist. The meme is some kind of variation of the following:

The IPCC concluded that we have until 2030 (or 12 years) to avoid catastrophic global warming

However, these headlines are essentially purveying a myth. I think it is necessary to push back against this meme for two main reasons:

1) It is false.

2) I believe that spreading this messaging will ultimately undermine the credibility of the IPCC and climate science more generally.

Taking these two points in turn:

1) The IPCC did not conclude that society has until 2030 to avoid catastrophic global warming.

The credibility gap between predicted and observed global warming

by Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, January 10, 2019 in WUWT


The prolonged el Niño of 2016-2017, not followed by a la Niña, has put paid to the great Pause of 18 years 9 months in global warming that gave us all such entertainment while it lasted. However, as this annual review of global temperature change will show, the credibility gap between predicted and observed warming remains wide, even after some increasingly desperate and more or less openly prejudiced ever-upward revisions of recent temperatures and ever-downward depressions in the temperatures of the early 20th century in most datasets with the effect of increasing the apparent rate of global warming. For the Pause continues to exert its influence by keeping down the long-run rate of global warming.

Going Nowhere Fast on Climate, Year After Year

by Paul Bledsoe, December 2018 in TheNewYorkTimes


Three decades after a top climate scientist warned Congress of the dangers of global warming, greenhouse gas emissions keep rising and so do global temperatures.

Thirty years ago, a NASA scientist, James Hansen, told lawmakers at a Senate hearing that “global warming is now large enough that we can ascribe with a high degree of confidence a cause-and-effect relationship with the greenhouse effect.” He added that there “is only 1 percent chance of accidental warming of this magnitude.”

By that, he meant that humans were responsible.

His testimony made headlines around the United States and the world. But in the time since, greenhouse gas emissions, the global temperature average and cost of climate-related heat, wildfires, droughts, flooding and hurricanes have continued to rise.

Recently Dropping Global Temperatures Demonstrate IPCC Claims are Impossible

by Tim Ball, December 29, 2018 in WUWT


When you put the claims of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in perspective, you get a very different picture that defies logic. I decided to do this because of their recent hysterical claims in Special Report 15 (SR-15) designed to frighten and bully the world into completely unnecessary and enormously expensive environmental and energy policies. Charles Steele summarized their claims and proposed policies in his article, “Climate Doom Ahead? Think Twice,”

IPCC’s Special Report Slammed By Eminent Climate Scientist

by P. Homewood, December 20, 2018 via GWPF


The significance of this new GWPF report by Prof Ray Bates of the Meteorology and Climate Centre at University College Dublin cannot really be overstated:

GWPF Briefing 36

This is the press release:

London, 20 December: One of Europe’s most eminent climate scientists has documented the main scientific reasons why the recent UN climate summit failed to welcome the IPCC’s report on global warming of 1.5°C.
In a paper published today by the Global Warming Policy Foundation Professor Ray Bates of University College Dublin explains the main reasons for the significant controversy about the latest IPCC report within the international community.
The IPCC’s Special Report on a Global Warming of 1.5°C (SR1.5) was released by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in advance of the recent COP24 meeting in Katowice, Poland, but was not adopted by the meeting due to objections by a number of governments.

Did Katowice Actually Achieve Anything?

by P. Homewood, December 18, 2018 in NotaLotofPeopleKnowThat


Negotiators in Poland have finally secured agreement on a range of measures that will make the Paris climate pact operational in 2020.

Last-minute rows over carbon markets threatened to derail the two-week summit – and delayed it by a day.

Delegates believe the new rules will ensure that countries keep their promises to cut carbon.

The Katowice agreement aims to deliver the Paris goals of limiting global temperature rises to well below 2C.

“Putting together the Paris agreement work programme is a big responsibility,” said the chairman of the talks, known as COP24, Michal Kurtyka.

“It has been a long road. We did our best to leave no-one behind.”

A Fabricated ‘Uptick’? Marcott’s 2013 Hockey Stick Graph Debunked By Marcott’s Own 2011 Ph.D Thesis

by K. Richard, December 13, 2018 in NoTricksZone


Almost immediately after it was introduced to the public, the lead author of Marcott et al. (2013) squelched the narrative that said the hockey-stick-shaped reconstruction he and his colleagues produced is a robust representation of modern global-scale temperature changes.

In an interview with Marcott published by RealClimate.org, it was acknowledged that the “uptick” does not represent a global-scale reconstruction, as it is based on only a few proxy records and lacks statistical significance. 

Despite this admitted lack of supporting evidence for the 20th century’s “uptick”, the Marcott et al. (2013) “hockey stick”-shaped graph has nonetheless been unskeptically cited by other authors nearly 700 times.

China’s Climate U-Turn

by P. Homewood, December 12, 2018 in NotaLotofPeopleKnowThat


A must read GWPF analysis of developments in China’s energy policy since the Paris Agreement:

China-U-Turn

Patricia Adams is an economist and the executive director of Probe International, a Toronto based NGO that has been involved in the Chinese environmental movement since its beginnings in the mid-1980s.

Her paper can be read here:

China-U-Turn

She is confirming much of what I have said in recent years. The only thing I would take issue with his her description of there being a U-Turn. In my view, China never had the slightest intention of being serious about cutting emissions.

Evolutions récentes du CO2 atmosphérique (4/4)

by J.C. Maurin, 2 décembre 2018 in ScienceClimatEnergie


Au XVIsiècle, dans une ultime tentative pour sauver le système de Ptolémée, on se résigna enfin à admettre la rotation des planètes autour du Soleil mais on conserva le dogme de la position centrale de la Terre par rapport au Soleil. Le dernier pas vers l’héliocentrisme dut finalement être franchi, à regret. Au XXIesiècle, Le GIEC adapte discrètement son Almageste : on lit dans la version de novembre 2018 du Résumé à l’intention des décideurs dès la première page, 1er encadré de l’introduction → “L’augmentation mondiale de la concentration en dioxyde de carbone est essentiellement due à l’utilisation des combustibles fossiles et aux changements d’affectation des terres”. Fin de cette première page → « La source principale de l’augmentation de la concentration du dioxyde de carbone dans l’atmosphère depuis l’époque préindustrielle provient de l’utilisation des combustibles fossiles ». La certitude absolue, naguère affichée, d’une origine 100% anthropique dans la hausse du CO2atmosphérique disparaît donc. Un modèle mixte est désormais implicitement admis. A cinq siècles de distance, le dernier pas reste toujours difficile à franchir. Le présent article aide à trouver le chemin de Damas.

 

Figure 1. Rappels des observations (1/4) et corrélations (2/4)

Is RCP8.5 an impossible scenario?

by Judith Curry, November 24, 2018 in ClimateEtc.


In considering ‘worst case’ climate change impacts, we first need to assess the realistic worst case for global carbon emissions.

The recently published U.S. National Climate Assessment shows that we are currently on track for RCP8.5.

In particular, there is a fairly large number of papers arguing that assumptions about coal are incorrect: (list of papers courtesy of LK).

  1. The first major study questioning the actual extent of coal reserves:  “The Peak in U.S. Coal Production“ by Gregson Vaux, 27 May 2004
  2. More evidence that reserves are overstated:  “Coal Of The Future (Supply Prospects for Thermal Coal by 2030-2050)“ by Energy Edge Limited, Prepared for the Institute for Energy of the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre, February 2007
  3. More evidence that reserves are overstated:  “Coal:  Resources and Future Production“ by Energy Watch Group, March 2007  (47 pages,)
  4. The major study showing that coal reserves are overstated:  “Coal:  Research and Development to Support National Energy Policy“ by the National Academies, June 2007
  5. Why do climate change scenarios return to coal?” by Justin Ritchie and Hadi Dowlatabadi in Energy, 1 December 2017.

L’astuce de la NOAA pour « réchauffer » la planète

by Les Blogs, 17 novembre 2018


D’abord cette info surprenante. Une étude récente sur le réchauffement des océans a dû être modifiée après publication dans Nature. L’étude, très alarmiste, avait pourtant été révisée puis validée par un comité de lecture et publiée dans la plus prestigieuse revue scientifique au monde. Or la méthodologie et les conclusions  de cette recherche étaient erronées.

La faille a été découverte par Nic Lewis, un chercheur climato-critique très populaire en Grande-Bretagne. Il affirme, et les faits lui donnent raison: « Je suis légèrement surpris que ni les pairs examinateurs ni le rédacteur en chef n’aient repéré ce qui me semblait être une alarme rouge à la page 1. »

Evolutions récentes du CO2 atmosphérique (3/4)

by J.C. Maurin, 12 novembre 2018 in ScienceClimatEnergie


L’IPCC (GIEC en français) fut créé en 1988 par l’UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme) et le WMO (World Meteorological Organization). Dans les principes régissant les travaux du GIEC (1) on lit : Le GIEC a pour mission d’évaluer … les risques liés au changement climatique d’origine humaine.  Le GIEC respecte son propre principe fondateur : il attribue l’intégralité de la hausse du taux de CO2 depuis 1958 à une cause anthropique. Nous examinerons ici le modèle anthropique du GIEC et nous le confronterons aux mesures contemporaines, puis à un modèle mixte. Cet article fait suite aux deux précédents publiés sur le site SCE au cours des mois de septembre (1/4) et octobre 2018 (2/4).

C.   Modèle anthropique GIEC

C.1   Les contraintes des modèles (Fig. 1)

Le paragraphe A (article 1/4) a montré qu’en 1980 le taux de CO2 atmosphérique était de 338 ppm et le  δ13C de -7.6 ‰. En  2010 le taux de CO2  atmosphérique était de 388 ppm et le δ13C de -8.3 ‰. Il existe une modulation annuelle de ce taux, très marquée dans l’hémisphère Nord.

 

Interview exclusive: Henri Masson, Université d’Anvers, déclare les modèles du GIEC « aberration statistique »

by Henri Masson, 10 mars 2012, in Contrepoints


Des modèles, cela fait 40 ans que j’en fais », précise d’emblée Henri Masson. Ingénieur chimiste de formation (Université Libre de Bruxelles), docteur en sciences appliquées, professeur émérite à l’Université d’Anvers, expert globe-trotter (notamment pour la Banque Mondiale et l’ONU), l’homme est, de surcroît, doté d’un sérieux sens de la vulgarisation. Lorsque Contrepoints lui propose d’analyser les modèles prédictifs du GIEC, le Belge est catégorique : « Si mes étudiants me présentaient de tels modèles, je n’hésiterais pas à les recaler ! »

Contrepoints : Quelle confiance peut-on accorder aux modèles du GIEC, qui prévoient, parmi d’autres choses, un réchauffement planétaire dû aux émissions humaines de CO2 ?