IPCC WGII report relies on exaggerated climate model results

WGII climate risks overstated and invalid

Guest essay by Larry Hamlin

The UN IPCC AR5 WGII final climate report has been released. This UN WGII report attempts to evaluate various global risks associated with future climate change. The evaluation process utilized in the WGII report relies upon global temperature projections obtained from low and high CO2 emissions climate model scenarios that were developed and addressed in the UN IPCC AR5 WGI report which was released last year.

In the UN WGI AR5 report the climate models were shown to exaggerate and overstate projected increases in global temperatures based on CO2 levels assumed present in the atmosphere compared to actual observed global temperatures. This is extremely important given that the WGII report uses these exaggerated climate model higher global temperature projection scenarios to assess climate risks associated with increasing global CO2 levels.

clip_image002

Figure 11.25a from the UN AR5 WGI climate report showing how climate models exaggerate and overstate global temperature projections resulting from increasing atmospheric CO2 levels compared to observed global temperatures .

The UN AR5 WGII report utilizes these climate model exaggerated temperatures to define global risks associated with increasing CO2 levels resulting in greatly overstating future climate risks that are very likely invalid.

Thus the WGII report analysis overstates risks for given levels of  atmospheric CO2 levels since as the report notes “Risks are reduced substantially under assumed scenarios with the lowest temperature projections compared to the highest temperature projections”.
The WGII report fails to mention or address that the AR5 WGI report showed that the CO2 driven temperature sensitivity of the earth based on actual global temperature observations is at the very lowest end of the low emissions climate model scenarios. This result reflects the consequence of the 15+ year long and growing global temperature pause which is never discussed in the UN WGII report.

This overriding AR5 WGI lower temperature CO2 atmospheric sensitivity result is simply concealed and ignored in the AR5 WGII final report which blithely goes on to make assessment after assessment of the impacts of increasing CO2 levels based on climate model temperature projections which have been shown to grossly exaggerate and overstate the global temperature increase impacts of atmospheric CO2 levels.
The climate model scenarios developed by the UN have other significant limitations beyond not being able to produce temperature projections that agree with measured global temperatures. These include that climate model temperature projections have no probabilities attached to their computed outcomes and that the resulting temperature projection outcomes are considered to be simply “plausible and illustrative”. Thus comparisons of climate model temperature outcomes to actually observed global temperatures is paramount to assessing whether these projections have validity.

The failure of the UN WGII report to utilize the results of the UN WGI report which showed that climate models grossly exaggerate and overstate global temperatures and then use these same flawed climate models to establish global temperature related risks associated with atmospheric CO2 levels means that the WGII claimed climate risk findings being both overstated and invalid.

About these ads
This entry was posted in IPCC, IPCC AR5 Report, Modeling. Bookmark the permalink.

41 Responses to IPCC WGII report relies on exaggerated climate model results

  1. Kenny says:

    The climate model scenarios developed by the UN have other significant limitations beyond not being able to produce temperature projections that agree with measured global temperatures.

    Why do they keep on going?

  2. Krudd Gillard of the Commondebt of Australia says:

    But they are using billion dollar computers to do the modelling.

  3. Peter Miller says:

    So exactly what is the real evidence for global warming/climate change (man made)/ climate disruption etc?

    1. T he Arctic ice is retreating – well yes, but that reversed sharply last year and the previous trend could have easily been all or partly caused by: i) atmospheric soot, ii) changing salinity levels, and iii) hydrothermal activity deep down on the ocean floor. And, of course, there is that pesky little problem that the Antarctic ice cap’s extent just keeps on growing.

    2. The glaciers are melting – well yes, some are, but this is a process which began ~150 years ago, long before man had any impact on climate. More recently, soot may be an important part of glacial melt and of course, some are no longer retreating.

    3. The sea levels are rising – well yes, maybe, but this is also a process which began ~150 years ago, long before man had any impact on climate. Another problem is this rate of sea level rise has been decelerating in recent years.

    4. The polar bears are suffering/dying out etc. Well yes, maybe in very localised communities, but the vast majority are thriving and even becoming a pest.

    5. There are more extreme weather events – well yes, perhaps in an alarmist’s imagination, but all reliable statistics suggest the opposite is true.

    6. Crop failure and famine is imminent – well yes, but once again only in an alarmist’s imagination – crop yields continue to increase and increased CO2 has been seen to green the planet, as it is a natural fertiliser.

    7. Global temperatures have risen 0.7-0.8 degrees C – well yes, if you mean the last 150 years and it has risen in three clearly defined 30 year periods (followed by cooling periods), the most recent ending in 1976/78. The recent 17 year ‘pause’ in the rise of global temperatures puts a hole in the bows of SS Global Warming.

    8. The climate models clearly indicate Thermageddon is almost upon us – well yes, except the models have been shown almost ad infinitum to be hopelessly inaccurate and grossly exaggerate the effects of rising CO2 levels.

    There there is the little matter that the geological record shows no evidence of CAGW. In fact in nature, a change in CO2 levels always follows a change of temperature, and not vice versa.

    And also, why is the subject of natural climate cycles a heresy among alarmists?

    So once again, where is the evidence of global warming, climate change etc?

    And that is why most scientists and engineers believe CAGW is a complete crock.

  4. oppti says:

    You can see the development in temperature as a result of action-and enjoy.
    Artic ice cover can bee periodic with 60 Years periodicity, named as North Atlantic Ocean and which has its principal expression in the sea surface temperature (SST) field.
    The satellites has not been around for more than 40 Years.

  5. Bloke down the pub says:

    It’s models all the way down.

  6. Glenn Dixon says:

    @Peter Miller
    >And that is why most scientists and engineers believe CAGW is a complete crock.

    Reference? I would agree that most engineers believe this since they have to actually make things work and can tell bad science when they see it, but scientists? To me they seem cloistered in an academic never-never land where Truth is whatever will get the next grant.

  7. barrybrill says:

    The WG2 report is based on the unadjusted results of CMIP5 simulations. At the Stockholm meeting last September, WG1 decided not to accept CMIP5 outputs and replaced them with “assessed” projections of future temperatures which are about 40 percent lower.

    At that point, the well-advanced WG2 process should have been halted and recommenced on the basis of the new projections. But that didn’t happen and WG2 simply soldiered on to report on impacts of the now- discredited model outputs.

    How can WG2 results now be used in Integrated Assessment Models (IAMs) which demand that the data from the two reports be compatible?

  8. Robin says:

    The WG2 models of physical reality are merely an excuse for the social science communities to be the primary drivers of global change. As this post lays out, there are numerous statements tied to IPCC that state exactly that. http://www.invisibleserfscollar.com/identifying-education-globally-as-the-crucial-lever-for-nonconsensual-behavior-and-societal-change/

    Like the previous post this one is based on tracking what is meant by Adaptation and climate-resilient pathways in Chapter 20 of the Report. Global Change in the IPCC process is the excuse for transformation in the personal, political, and everyday social environments and Chapter 20 says so. The O’Brien/Sygna paper in turn has even more links, including to the GEC-Global Environmental Change Design Project. I am not speculating here. I have been downloading and reading all these intentions and declarations for a week now.

    Frighteningly graphic.

  9. H.R. says:

    The alarm will come to a screeching halt when we run out of OPM (Other People’s Money) to pay for alarming reports.

    We could have set up the IPEIAR (Intergovernmental Panel on Everything Is All Right) and got the same result without all of the annoying alarmism. The IPEIAR could have cruised along quietly, meeting in exotic locations and dining on the finest available, and each year write a massive report that ends with an SPM saying, “Everything is all right. Carry on.” But then we’d have to shut that down eventually when we run out of OPM to pay for reassuring reports.

    For politicians, the IPCC is far more useful, so that’s the Panel we got. The money? Heck! It’s only other people’s money…

  10. Doug Allen says:

    Glenn,
    Most climate scientists? Maybe. The estimates of climate sensitivity reported by Revkin over a year ago- see http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/04/a-closer-look-at-moderating-views-of-climate-sensitivity/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0
    and everyone else, suggest that despite all the alarmist statements by the IPCC and National Academy of Sciences, the climate scientists’ estimates are converging at the very low end of the IPCC 1.5 to 4.5 sensitivity range. The alarmist statements are based on high sensitivity, but the scientists themselves are observing and predicting low sensitivity. Disconnect!?

  11. wws says:

    I know that the IPCC says that Data are just anecdotes, but here in East Texas we had the lowest high temp ever, 51 degrees, when the previous record “low high” had been 53.

    So we’re not only having one of the coldest March’s ever, but on our way to having one of the coldest Aprils. But like I said, that’s just an anecdote, the models didn’t predict it, so it can’t be real.

  12. Bruce Cobb says:

    I’ve built a model of the stock market using a combination of UFO, Bigfoot, and Loch Ness monster sightings, which seems to work quite well. Ok, it works some of the time, but I’ve tweaked it so it’s working better, and I have great confidence in it – 97.1% confidence, to be precise. Well, OK, it does have some problems sometimes, but only when it’s cloudy. Well, OK, sometimes when its cloudy too, but I now have 98% confidence in it, so that’s OK.
    Further study is required, of course.

  13. Rud Istvan says:

    The AR5 WG2 results with respect to agriculture summarize studies which are themselves deeply flawed. Posted an example here in 2011. For example,they confound drought with extreme heat. When there is heat but water, there is no problem even during anthesis. For wheat,mthen confoundmthemineitable slowing of yields as Borlaugs rust resistant semi dwarf stains are finally adopted literally everywhere.
    Then they extrapolate faulty results using faulty climate models. Worse, for agriculture the GCMs have to be regionally downscaled, making them even worse. Then they find ‘proof’ in corn and wheat price spikes caused respectively by ethanol biofuel and US draught (maize) and Russian drought ( wheat), both conditions since ameliorated.
    Would get a D or an F as a term paper.

  14. Jimbo says:

    Larry Hamlin,
    Glad to see you converted your previous comment into an essay. The latest IPCC report is nothing short of guess work based on cherry picking to create alarm. It is utter garbage BS and the lack of agreement meant they could pick what they wanted to spin.

    IPCC Summary for Policy Makers – AR5
    Equilibrium climate sensitivity is likely in the range 1.5°C to 4.5°C (high confidence), extremely unlikely less than 1°C (high confidence), and very unlikely greater than 6°C (medium confidence)16. The lower temperature limit of the assessed likely range is thus less than the 2°C in the AR4, but the upper limit is the same.

    No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies.
    https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/docs/WGIAR5_SPM_brochure_en.pdf

    In September 2009 Pachauri foresaw the results of the 2013/14 IPCC reports BEFORE all the literature was assessed! Nostradamus is spinning in his grave.

    Ethics are ‘missing dimension’ in climate debate, says IPCC head
    Dr. Rajendra K. Pachauri – 23 September 2009
    When the IPCC’s fifth assessment comes out in 2013 or 2014, there will be a major revival of interest in action that has to be taken,” said Dr. Pachauri, speaking of the periodic assessments rendered by the group of more than 400 scientists around the world that he leads. “People are going to say, ‘My God, we are going to have to take action much faster than we had planned.'”
    http://news.bahai.org/story/729

    Ethics! He was the scientific advisor to Glorioil at the time. It was a residual oil extraction services company based in the USA now renamed GloriEnergy. He has since cut his ties.

  15. Jimbo says:

    In 2009 Pachauri knew that in 2013 there would be “No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies.”

  16. Jimbo says:

    A “best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity” will NEVER be given as long as the surface temp standstill continues. Never! To do so would be either to match reality in future and end the IPCC once and for all or not match reality in future and still end the IPCC once and for all through model falsification.

  17. Peter Yates says:

    @Peter Miller, etc.
    “In fact in nature, a change in CO2 levels always follows a change of temperature..”

    The gap between a change of temperature and a change in CO2 levels is said to be about an average of 800 years. … About 800 years ago the Earth was in the last stages of the Medieval Warm Period (about AD 950 to 1250) — as shown in this graph :-
    http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c0133edf988be970b-pi
    There appears to be a correlation between the increasing temperatures in about AD 950, and the increasing CO2 levels that started about the year 1750.. (264 years ago), .. at least in the Arctic areas.
    If there is any truth in this correlation, CO2 levels should begin to *decrease in the next decades – until about the year 2050 .. (1250 plus 800 years).
    This all seems to be too neat and tidy! .. Where did I go wrong?

  18. agfosterjr says:

    When a summary misrepresents the summarized there must be a conspiracy. –AGF

  19. Predictions of the future are not science.
    .
    Computer models are not real data.
    .
    The 34 years of global average temperature data from weather satellites, from 1979 through 2013, are far from enough data to determine a long term temperature trend.
    .
    There are no other accurate sources of accurate global average temperature data — surface measurements are not global, and are not accurate — they are in an ever-changing environment.
    .
    Predictions of a coming catastrophe are a political tool, used for centuries by devious politicians, and religious leaders, to persuade people to do as they say.
    .
    The predictions do not have to come true for ‘leaders’ to gain power — they just have to be believed by a lot of people.
    .
    The coming climate change catastrophe is just the latest in a long series of predicted disasters that will never happen — a false crisis used by clever ‘politicians’ to get what they want.

  20. A correction on the good Peter Miller post:
    Glaciers have been melting, and sea level has been rising, for over 14,000 years since the last ice age ended, not 150 years as you wrote in your post.
    .
    In addition, the sea level rise in the past century does not support claims of unusual warming, suggesting that measurements of the average temperature (rising) have not been accurate.

  21. Eliza says:

    This is why NO oNe should be using this GISS data for anything
    http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/04/07/killing-3-birds-with-one-stone/
    It never ceases to amaze me that Monckton, Zeke, Lucia etc keep quoting this data to compare with models etc. Its absolute trash and should not be used for any analysis, Same goes for Hadcrut 3 probably….

  22. Eliza says:

    BTw Roy Spencer AMSU satellite came in at 0.17C for March 2014

  23. Eliza says:

    And finally… You really have to wonder about the trend lines used by RSS etc. The trend from 1998 is down
    http://images.remss.com/msu/msu_time_series.html

  24. Slartibartfast says:

    If the model is wrong, running it on a billion-dollar computer will just get you to the wrong answer more quickly.

  25. Erik Jacobs says:

    Bruce Cobb says: “I’ve built a model of the stock market using a combination of UFO, Bigfoot, and Loch Ness monster sightings, which seems to work quite well. Ok, it works some of the time, but I’ve tweaked it so it’s working better, and I have great confidence in it – 97.1% confidence, to be precise.

    Anthony, you should add a LIKE button.

    REPLY: We’ve tried the like/dislike button in the past, and many people find it distracting – Anthony

  26. jauntycyclist says:

    another failed prediction

    Mount Kilimanjaro Glaciers nowhere near extinction

    America’s renowned climatologist, professor Lonnie Thompson in 2002 projected that the snow on the summit of Africa’s highest mountain would completely disappear between 2015 and 2020, thanks to global warming.

    But 12 years down the lane now, local ecologists who have been monitoring the trend say the ice, in fact, remains steady and it is nowhere near extinction.

    http://www.eturbonews.com/44420/mount-kilimanjaro-glaciers-nowhere-near-extinction

    no where is the term inter glacial warming period mentioned to contextualise the warming.

  27. Peter Miller says:

    Richard Greene – you are absolutely correct, however the glaciers did advance from around 1250AD to 1750AD. This was one of several mini-cooling cycles in the current 10,000 year old, interglacial, Holocene Era.

    This is just part of a typical climate cycle, whose existence and effects alarmists jump through hoops in trying to ignore or denigrate.

    I would also like to take the opportunity to correct something I said earlier; I obviously meant non-government scientists, as opposed to just scientists. For government scientists, there are obvious employment consequences for not singing from the officially approved hymn sheets.

    The only thing faster than the speed of light is the arrival of the Climate Inquisition when a government climate scientist strays from these officially approved hymn sheets.

  28. Alec aka Daffy Duck says:

    News of the day:

    “Leaked IPCC climate plan to worsen global warming – ecologists”

    A British environmental organisation that has reviewed the draft of a forthcoming UN IPCC report on mitigating climate change has questioned many of the document’s recommendations as deeply flawed.

    Dr Rachel Smolker, co-director of Biofuelwatch, said that the report’s embrace of “largely untested” and “very risky” technologies like bioenergy with carbon capture and sequestration (BECCS), will “exacerbate” climate change, agricultural problems, water scarcity, soil erosion and energy challenges, “rather than improving them.”….
    http://www.theguardian.com/env…orsen-geoengineering

  29. Ken Gregory says:

    In the UN WGI AR5 report the climate models were shown to exaggerate and overstate projected increases in global temperatures based on CO2 levels assumed present in the atmosphere compared to actual observed global temperatures.

    WGII relies on the RCP8.5 scenario which is described as a high-emission scenario. If fact, it is an unrealistic extreme scenario with CO2 an CH4 concentrations increasing at rates much faster than historical rates.

    The graph below shows the CO2 concentration in air to the year 2050 for each RCP scenario. The light blue curve is the historical CO2 concentrations. The actual CO2 concentration increased at 0.54%/year from 2005 to 2013. The RCP8.5 CO2 concentrations increase at 1.00%/year by 2050, and at 1.16%/year by 2070, which is more than double the historical growth rate.
    http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/FOS%20Essay/IPCC_RCP_CO2.jpg

    The CH4 (methane) concentrations are shown below. The actual CH4 concentration increased at 0.2%/year from 2005 to 2010. CH4 concentrations increases at 1.34%/year by 2050 in the RCP8.5 scenario, which is nearly 7 times the recent historical rate.
    http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/FOS%20Essay/IPCC_RCP_CH4.jpg
    See: http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=709

  30. I echo the writers statement that the IPCC’s lack of putting any probabilities and calling them scenarios leaves us with the idea they have no real commitment to these projections. Of course we know they can’t because any numerically sensible number would be close to zero. The models method of numerical calculation leaves error bars in the tens of degrees either way and there is no way of estimating the probability of any of the contributions since most of the formula have never been tested in real life, have no assurance the sign is even right in any elements contribution. Since the models are fits to historical data the only way to assign any assurance to the models is to look at their conformance to current data. Backtesting models that have been built with everyone knowing the historical record and jiggering the models till they match historical data proves nothing (ZERO NADA) about their ability to predict the first minute after the models were fit to the data. Therefore the only data that counts is the data of the last 15 years. Either that is too short for the models to work which leaves skepticism about the models working in 30 or 45 years … Why would they? How would they adjust from where they are now to get to conformance in 30 or 45 years? There is no discussion of this which is amazing considering the only thing that can be discussed is their performance on the only data that matters, i.e. the last 15-20 years. There is no point in discussing the future if they don’t predict the last 20 years. There is no point in discussing how good a fit they did on the data in the past. All that matters is how they did on the last data. Well, terribly we all know. So they don’t want to talk about that but for me the problem is that that is the only thing that matters. If we think the models work then we could talk about effects and the future but without any evidence they actually work it is beyond my understanding how any scientists can put their name on something this stupid and irrelevant.

  31. neillusion says:

    The history of computers goes back quite a way now. Big things were said of them right from the beginning. Even bigger things are said of them now. They really are the most incredible tool ever developed. Notwithstanding this, the hype and imagination and spin have gone far beyond and been used to support claims for funding – link computers with the political agenda around CO2 and the sky is the limit. And the sky really has been the limit – the mundane weather forcasts have improved but do not come close to what was expected or envisioned. Complex and chaotic.
    Now to go one step further, climate change. Some would say more than one step further and I am sure are right, climate change is one huge leap further for computers/forcasting. There are several sciences involved, subatomic physics, physics, chemistry, astronomy, environmental, to name just a few. The different inputs to a computer, the variables, data, is just not accurate enough, coordinated enough, understood enough, interelated enough and the program(s) fall far short of the complex and chaotic dynamics required (if even possible) to be able to forcast the climate change. Any reasoning mind surely must note the limits on the humble weather forcasts and realise very comprehensively that forcasting climate is just not possible by humans – they will never get it together enough to predict anything.

  32. neillusion says:

    The important variables for the system are unpredictable. The sun, sunspots, CME’s pointed at earth, volcanoes/eruptions in the oceans and on land, forest fires, supernova, to name a few. No one can predict these huge factors and put them in any computer program model that then predicts climate change.

  33. goldminor says:

    It would be interesting to see that chart with only the low co2 emission scenarios. Are all of the low end scenarios in a close grouping on the graph, or are they spread out?

  34. i says:

    I certainly don’t understand something, so I hope the good people here at WUWT can help. The IPCC seems to admit, in the latest report, that fully 111 of their 114 computer models don’t stack up (their projections are not matched by reality), So are the risk analyses and armageddon scenarios they are peddling to journalists, and scaring children with, based on the 3 worthwhile models or the 111 stinky ones?

    “However, an analysis of the full suite of CMIP5 historical simulations (augmented for the period 2006–2012 by RCP4.5 simulations, Section 9.3.2) reveals that 111 out of
    114 realizations show a GMST trend over 1998–2012 that is higher than the entire HadCRUT4 trend ensemble (Box 9.2 Figure 1a;CMIP5 ensemble mean trend is 0.21ºC per decade). This difference between simulated and observed trends could be caused by some
    combination of (a) internal climate variability, (b) missing or incorrect radiative forcing and (c) model response error. These potential sources of the difference…are not mutually exclusive.”

    http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_Chapter09_FINAL.pdf

  35. goldminor says:

    Richard Greene says:
    April 7, 2014 at 7:14 am
    ———————————-
    +1

  36. I don’t go so far as to say we will never buy I have realIzed since I looked into this that what you say is absolutely true. Our knowledge of this science is infinitesimal. I don’t think you can call it a science yet. They have a bunch of ideas but so far these ideas are simply speculation. None of the elements of the models are proven science to my knowledge. They make outlandish claims that the models are physics. They are not close to physics. In physics we test each assumption in experiments till we get 99.999% assurance of the theories correctness. I am not sure how to run tests on these things. How do you know what snowfall will do to anything? How do you know if temperature goes up humidity goes up? Some of these things make sense in a sort of Plato mind game sort of way but that means nothing. Nothing in science is proved till you show it in the lab or have repeatable scenarios. We don’t have the ability to do those things but they should be trying. In some cases they are I admit. But so far I have seen very few if any things that people can say represents “theories” that can be called science. It’s therefore impossible to call this climate science. The iPcc admits that almost everything that affects the environment has low knowledge or high uncertainty about its effects yet they claim to know things they cannot possibly know and certainly haven’t proven to any degree anyone who calls themselves a scientist could possibly think was legitimate.

  37. neillusion says:

    The other day I watched the Salby clip that’s on Youtube. He comprehensively proves, to me, as has been said many times by others, ever since Gores hockey stick stage stunt, and probably many times before that in various circles, that increase temperature begets increase CO2. Though this is settled in my mind, it is not considered proven to many AGWists, and not considered at all by the majority AGWists. This is fundamental to the first step any model might take.
    The more I think on what is needed to make a model, on what data seems to be out there and the accuracy of any and all of it, the more I realise that computer models are eons away from any ability to describe the climate. That is just about the science, then there’s the politics…

    In a way I’m glad the AGWist are having their way now. I believe that the truth will out. It seems to be gaining a foothold. When this model and climate fiasco and fraud is exposed, the effects will impact science and politics in a profound way. It will be THE distinguished embarassment of the new era and held up for all to beware as science and technology, along with politics, continues to change the world.

  38. John Boles says:

    I do not understand why the models have sharp ups and downs in them, it seems they should just be a straight line of whatever slope.

  39. I just don’t understand how these people can say they are scientists and not know the ocean haa 300 times the heat capacity of the earths land surface. How can we say we know anything when we only started measuring ocean temps to a few thousand feet depth in the last 13 years with any consistency? They must understand that this huge elephant could move a tiny fraction of a degree and suck or release an amount of heat to dwarf all co2 effects for centuries. They didn’t know and still don’t know what is happening in the deep ocean that might affect temperatures for centuries easily dwarfing anything from co2 by order and orders of magnitude. Oh there is a cycle every 60 years or so? Who could have guessed? Instead they looked at dust in the air to explain the variations. Game over done match they said. Natural variability figured out. NOT!!

    We argue over the island heat effect from cities and if the earths temp is off by this or that depending on how you throw out different stations from the thousand and thousands of accurate hi tech sources we have now … Yet they base models on 30 incomplete boreholes looking at o2 isotope concentrations and tree ring proxies to tell us they know the surface temperature of the entire earth for thousand and millions of years with a few measurements from a very small isolated part of the earths surface. This is so stupid. The sun which is the main contributor of all energy to the earth is considered irrelevant because one way we measure its energy output looks like a small effect but when presented with statistical evidence that clearly solar radiation must have a larger impact than that they ignore it like they did the oceans. Its so presumptuous of them to think because they don’t understand it that it can’t exist. The only thing they seem to understand is the law of co2 which they deem a dominating force that controls our destiny and when presented with data that shows co2 can be ignored for 17 years they prefer to ignore the ignored like a child. They go on as if nothing is happening. I’ve heard them say as an excuse: but temperatures are high. Maybe they are but for their theory to be correct they have to be getting higher and higher not staying high. The theory of global warming is not global heat wave from 1979-1988 and then it’s over and we suffer through the horrible .2C higher temps that are “killing us”. No, their models tell us temps need to go up another factor of 10 from the rise of the 20 year period 1979-1998 but in 80 years not 200 years. So, in 4 times the time they need temps to go up 10 times what they did In their magical 20 year period of 1979-1998. The problem is its going up at most by half the rate of 1979-1988 and it stopped for 20 years entirely now which means in 80 years its likely to go up at most .5C not 3C. Big difference. Almost 1/10th what they predicted. That’s a serious error not worthy of being ignored. I can’t believe there is a single real scientist in the whole lot of them.

  40. Peter Yates says:

    @John Boles
    “I do not understand why the models have sharp ups and downs in them, it seems they should just be a straight line of whatever slope.”

    A straight line would not give enough information. For example, you would not be able to tell if the overall trend during the last years on the graph had become more level, or if it had started to trend slightly downwards. .. Also, you would have no idea how much the trend was affected by significant eruptions or a strong El Niño. .. Often the graph and chart makers will smooth the “sharp ups and downs” by including a ‘running average’. An example is here :-
    http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_March_2014_v5.png

  41. sinewave says:

    Why does the IPCC come out with a new report every three days that says the same thing as their last report? Who funds them?

Comments are closed.