How IPCC’s 1990 Predictions Expensively Failed

By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

It is now almost a third of a century since 1990, when IPCC made its first predictions about the weather. Since IPCC (2021) continues to predict the same 3 C° midrange long-term warming (equilibrium doubled-CO2 sensitivity, or ECS, broadly equivalent to 20th-century anthropogenic warming from all sources) as in 1990, it is high time someone examined IPCC’s medium-term predictions to shed light on the plausibility of its long-term predictions.

IPCC’s key medium-term prediction in 1990 was as follows –

“Based on current model results, we predict:

  • “under the IPCC Business-as-Usual (Scenario A) emissions of greenhouse gases, a rate of increase of global mean temperature during the next century of about 0.3 C° per decade (with an uncertainty range of 0.2 C° to 0.5 C° per decade). This is greater than that seen over the past 10,000 years. This will result in a likely increase in global mean temperature of about 1 C° above the present value by 2025 and 3 C° before the end of the next century. The rise will not be steady because of the influence of other factors.”

IPCC also predicted as follows –

This second business-as-usual prediction was that there would be 1.8 C° warming from preindustrial times to 2030. Deducting the 0.45 C° warming up to 1990, the prediction amounted to 1.35 C° or about 0.34 C°/decade. Thus, IPCC predicted 0.3-0.34 C°/decade medium-term warming. However, only 0.14 C°/decade has occurred since 1990 –

But is the business-as-usual scenario the one on which the predictive skill of the models on which IPCC relied should be judged? Here is how IPCC (1990) described that scenario:

“In the Business-as-Usual Scenario (Scenario A) the energy supply is coal-intensive and, on the demand side, only modest efficiency increases are achieved. Carbon monoxide controls are modest, deforestation continues until the tropical forests are depleted and agricultural emissions of methane and nitrous oxide are uncontrolled. For chlorofluorocarbons, the Montreal Protocol is implemented, albeit with only partial participation. Note that the aggregation of national projections by IPCC Working Group III gives higher emissions (10-20%) of carbon dioxide and methane by 2025.”

The economy indeed continues to be coal-based:

The reason for the continuing and widespread use of coal-fired power is that India and China are exempt from the Paris and related agreements, and are greatly expanding their coal-fired power consumption –

For the sake of the present analysis, we shall largely ignore all anthropogenic greenhouse-gas emissions except those from CO2. The reason, demonstrated by NOAA’s Annual Greenhouse-Gas Index, is that there has been practically no change in anthropogenic forcing by non-CO2 greenhouse gases. In particular, methane continues to be a non-event:

IPCC’s business-as-usual scenario was founded on the assumption that on business as usual CO2 emissions would increase by 10-20% by 2025. The truth, however, is that it is only 2022 and yet global CO2 emissions are not 20% above their 1990 level but 60% above it –

It has indeed been business as usual since 1990, notwithstanding all the rhetoric and all the conferences and all the climate Communists gluing themselves to the road in protest at the continued survival of the hated free West. For some reason, they do not protest against China’s continuing imperialist occupation of Tibet, or against its recent announcement that it proposes to build 43 new coal-fired power stations shortly –

The business-as-usual scenario, therefore, is the scenario on which the predictions in IPCC (1990) should be judged. On that basis, IPCC’s predictions have indeed proven to be childishly absurd exaggerations. The 0.14 C°/decade real-world warming rate since 1990 is less than half IPCC’s 0.3 C°/decade first midrange medium-term prediction and little more than 40% of its 0.34 C°/decade second midrange prediction.

The true decadal warming rate over the past one-third of a century has been so low that it is well below the 0.2 C°/decade lower bound of IPCC’s medium-term prediction. It follows that – to date, at any rate – global warming is not any kind of “crisis” or “emergency”.

It is not just that IPCC’s models have been proven wrong, and yet that IPCC continues to adhere to a long-term warming prediction that is plainly excessive in the light of events. There are well-established reasons why the models are known to run hot. For instance, as Dr Pat Frank has pointed out, climatologists know insufficient statistics to make proper allowance for propagation of known data uncertainties in the models, which, therefore, generate outputs that are proven to be no better than guesswork, as well as plain wrong.

This matters. For global climate policy is based not on the unexciting observed reality, which is that in the real world global warming is slow, small, harmless and net-beneficial, but on IPCC’s and the models’ wildly exaggerated predictions, which have not been cut back to bring them into some sort of conformity with mere reality.

It is worth reproducing Willis Eschenbach’s excellent graph, based on a paper in The Lancet, a medical journal that, like so many, has become a cheerleader for climate panic, showing that on average one is ten times more likely to die of cold weather than of warm weather –

Recently, returning to the West Country from a meeting in London to discuss the daftness of current global warming policy, I found myself opposite an engineering student from Bristol University. When I told him that the models had predicted well over twice as much warming as had been observed over the past third of a century, he was astonished. “But,” he said, “we’ve been told it’s far worse than climate scientists had thought.” Well, it isn’t.

4.9 66 votes
Article Rating
239 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
BryanA
November 5, 2022 10:38 pm

Most likely the failed removal of the CO2 load from burning coal is that, even though nations like Australia, Germany (Europe), UK, and even USA (under Biden) boast about elimination of Coal as a power source, all they have really accomplished is to OUTSOURCE their CO2 production from Coal. China has picked up the slack to the point that globally speaking total CO2 released from burning coal to produce electricity hasn’t really changed. It is just more centralized.

Last edited 2 months ago by BryanA
Mike Lowe
Reply to  BryanA
November 6, 2022 1:37 am

My comment is – “welcome even more Carbon Dioxide”!

186no
Reply to  Mike Lowe
November 6, 2022 1:17 am

Yes, the life giving essential non negotiable component which, with sunlight and water, gives all “Life On Earth”.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  186no
November 6, 2022 2:09 am

on the Yale 360 web site

As Carbon Dioxide Grows More Abundant, Trees Are Growing Bigger, Study Finds
https://e360.yale.edu/digest/carbon-dioxide-climate-change-bigger-trees

Trees are feasting on decades of carbon dioxide emissions and growing bigger as a result, according to a new study of U.S. forests.

Scientists tracked wood volume in 10 different tree groups from 1997 to 2017, finding that all except aspen-birch grew larger. Over that same period, carbon dioxide levels went from 363 parts per million to 405 parts per million, owing largely to the burning of fossil fuels. More abundant CO2 accelerates photosynthesis, causing plants to grow faster, a phenomenon known as “carbon fertilization.”

Radical Rodent
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
November 6, 2022 3:37 am

“…. owing largely to the burning of fossil fuels. ” The evidence for that being? The evidence is that humans are contributing no more than 3% to the increase in CO2; so, what is causing the other 97%, and why is it not as dangerous as the human-produced CO2?

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Radical Rodent
November 6, 2022 3:57 am

Right on- I didn’t mean to imply I believed it- just reporting what an elite institution is pushing.

That is- I do believe trees are growing faster- just that whatever the cause, I like it. I don’t care what the cause is. I’ve been a forester for 50 years- worked outside in all kinds of weather- it’s much nicer when warmer. And I like seeing fast growing trees- that makes them a better long term investment.

Last edited 2 months ago by Joseph Zorzin
Stephen Lindsay-Yule
Reply to  Radical Rodent
November 6, 2022 5:13 am

The year increase is 18 percent of total emissions (net emissions equals natural emissions – naturally sequestered emissions).
So human-produced amount is 0.5 percent of total emissions.
3% of net emissions.

With total emissions at 0.0421% of total atmosphere.

Dangerous is an alarming word that doesn’t apply to trace amounts of atmospheric gas.

Only in models do they have trace gases as dangerous if increased.

This year reflected solar energy was higher 100w-m² than absorbed solar 87.7w-m².

So however much a trace gas has increased, its energy has no effect on reflection/absorption of solar energy.

Reply to  Stephen Lindsay-Yule
November 7, 2022 7:51 am

Complete baloney. All net CO2 level increases are manmade. Nature is a net CO2 absorber.
Please get your act together and stop posting malarkey.

MarkW
Reply to  Radical Rodent
November 6, 2022 7:54 am

Not true. The fossil fuels we have burned are more than enough to account for all the extra CO2 in the atmosphere.

ResourceGuy
Reply to  MarkW
November 6, 2022 12:52 pm

Let’s see the tagging system.

MarkW
Reply to  ResourceGuy
November 6, 2022 3:58 pm

Don’t need a tagging system. If you add up the amount of CO2 created just by burning the fossil fuels that we know have been burned, it’s more than enough to increase CO2 levels from 280ppm to 420ppm. The idea that only a tiny fraction of that increase was caused by man is simply not supported by the math.

MarkW
Reply to  MarkW
November 6, 2022 3:59 pm

Looks like somebody can’t deal with having their favorite theory refuted by simple math.

Big Al
Reply to  Radical Rodent
November 6, 2022 10:59 am

97% is the human breath problem that needs to be eliminated. The only answer to saving the world. Klaus knows.

Chaswarnertoo
Reply to  Big Al
November 6, 2022 12:29 pm

All greentards should stop exhaling CO2, right now!

bdgwx
Reply to  Radical Rodent
November 6, 2022 1:31 pm

Radical Rodent: “The evidence for that being? The evidence is that humans are contributing no more than 3% to the increase in CO2″

Humans emitted 330 ppm worth of CO2 into the atmosphere.

David HC
Reply to  bdgwx
November 6, 2022 4:10 pm

Humans emitted 330 ppm worth of CO2 into the atmosphere.

Totally unsupported glib statement easy to claim. Now give us some actual facts.

bdgwx
Reply to  David HC
November 6, 2022 7:10 pm

David HC said: “Now give us some actual facts.”

Friedlingstein et al. 2022

Reply to  bdgwx
November 7, 2022 3:04 am

This is interesting – told you so – 14 years ago.

Temperature drives atmospheric CO2 much more than CO2 drives temperature.

The integral of dCO2/dT is CO2 change, and CO2 changes lag temperature changes at all measured time scales (MacRae 2008).

dCO2/dt vs UAH LT Temperature (MacRae, January 2008)
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1979/mean:12/derivative/plot/uah6/from:1979/scale:0.18/offset:0.17

dCO2/dt vs Hadcrut SST3 Global Sea Surface Temperature Anomaly (MacRae, 26Aug2022)
SST is warming according to this data.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1979/mean:12/derivative/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1979/scale:0.6/offset:0.1

dCO2/dt vs Hadcrut SST3 Global Sea Surface Temperature Anomaly, Detrended (MacRae, 26Aug2022)
Detrended to show the close correlation.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1979/mean:12/derivative/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1979/scale:0.6/offset:0.1/detrend:0.25

CO2, GLOBAL WARMING, CLIMATE AND ENERGY June 15, 2019
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/06/15/co2-global-warming-climate-and-energy-2/
“Global warming alarmism, which falsely assumes that increasing atmospheric CO2 causes catastrophic global warming, is disproved – essentially, it assumes that the future is causing the past.”

Reply to  Allan MacRae
November 7, 2022 8:01 am

More baloney
The only way temperature drives CO2 is through ocean warming and cooling.

The +1 degree C. ocean warming claimed since 1850 couldh ave added a net +10ppm to +20ppm CO2 to the atmosphere, from the oceans, assuming half the increase was absorbed by biomass. This is a small amount compared with the estimated +135ppm increase (415 today vs. 280ppm in 1850) since 1850.

What this means is that oceans absorbed about 10 to 20ppm less than they would have absorbed had they not become +1 degree C, warmer.

CAGW can not be disproved. It was never proven to exist in the first place. CAGW is only a prediction, that allegedly requires a few centuries to fully develop. Perhaps in 100 years, we could claim CAGW was a false prediction.

bdgwx
Reply to  Allan MacRae
November 7, 2022 8:05 am

Let me repeat…humans pumped more CO2 into the atmosphere than what it started with. The law of conservation of mass is the only thing you have to accept to know that humans are responsible for all of the increase. However, I neither have the time nor the motivation right now to defend the law of conservation of mass.

Gene
Reply to  bdgwx
November 8, 2022 7:31 am

“Let me repeat…humans pumped more CO2 into the atmosphere than what it started with”
Oh? Haven’t CO2 levels fallen from (at least) 7,000ppm? Wasn’t there a major glaciation around the Carboniferous period… when CO2 was about 4,000ppm? I read that life was close to ending when levels fell to 180ppm… So aren’t humans merely replenishing a little of the CO2 that was here BEFORE we were?

bdgwx
Reply to  Gene
November 8, 2022 12:16 pm

Gene said: “Oh?”

Yes.

Gene said: “Haven’t CO2 levels fallen from (at least) 7,000ppm?”

Yes.

Gene said: “Wasn’t there a major glaciation around the Carboniferous period… when CO2 was about 4,000ppm?”

Yes.

Gene said: “So aren’t humans merely replenishing a little of the CO2 that was here BEFORE we were?”

Yes.

Farmerphil
Reply to  Radical Rodent
November 6, 2022 4:34 pm

volcanic activity above and below the oceans.

Reply to  Farmerphil
November 7, 2022 8:02 am

Volcanic activity accounts for perhaps 1% to 2% of annula CO2 emissions, with no evidence that it is increasing over time.

Reply to  Radical Rodent
November 7, 2022 7:49 am

Humans caused 100% of the CO2 increase since 1850 (which amounts to about +32.5%, not 3%).
I do not tolerate science denial from Climate Realists or from Climate Howlers. Most climate malarkey is from Climate Howlers, but this 3% manmade CO2 nonsense comes from Climate Realists. The people who spout the 3% nonsense are science deniers, who hurt our effort to refute CAGW scaremongering, I will point that out every time, no matter how many “down votes” that earns for my comment.

Orson
Reply to  Richard Greene
November 7, 2022 9:31 am

“Humans caused 100% of the CO2 increase since 1850” — OK. But since the earth was warming well before 1850 — and since the past 600 years are the coldest such period in the last 8,000 years — who caused it since it could not have been the humans?

Reply to  Orson
November 7, 2022 11:20 am

The estimated warming since the cold 1690s is at least +2 degrees C., and probably more. About +0.7 degrees C. warming was since 1975. Some portion of that +0.7% warming was caused by CO2. Not zero, and likely not 100%. Your guess as to the correct percentage — no one knows,

The planet had 4.5 billion years of natural heating and cooling. Those years does not tell us anything about manmade CO2 becaus there was no manmade CO2 until the 1800s, andnot much before 1940.

What does tell us about CO2 is lab spectroscopy experiments. measurement of increasingdownwelling infrared radiation and the greenhouse gas pattern of warming (mainly higher TMIN, mainly in the six coldest months of the year and mainly in colder nations).

The opposite of the greenhouse warming pattern would be solar warming (mainly TMAX, mainly in the six warmest months of the year, and mainly in the tropics). We don’t have that.

toorightmate
Reply to  Mike Lowe
November 6, 2022 4:49 am

The CO2 horseshit has to stop.

Reply to  toorightmate
November 7, 2022 8:03 am

That would be methane.

Saighdear
Reply to  BryanA
November 6, 2022 1:57 am

they have really accomplished is to OUTSOURCE their CO2 production from Coal’ to China yes, and almost in the same breath these countries will also vilify China for everything else, Trouble is, it’s the folks on the ground: the COnsumers of retail and business goods who suffer. Retail rubbish or good quality has a “GREEN MILES” COST of footprint, the business goods are peoduced more cheaply and of variable quality as per retail stuff: so whatto do when faulty and “Return to Sender” is of no practical use? but the Gov. and Business NGO continue to travel abroad on their Jollies in the name of promoting International Trade… for whom? https://www.ardmediathek.de/video/dokus-im-ersten/dokumentarfilm-im-ersten-die-recyclingluege/das-erste/Y3JpZDovL2Rhc2Vyc3RlLmRlL3JlcG9ydGFnZSBfIGRva3VtZW50YXRpb24gaW0gZXJzdGVuL2YwMTFjNmY0LTc1MGUtNDc5Mi1iZDgyLWRkZDM4YTNhMWU4Yw tells another story.
SIMPLY PUT: do we spend a fortune on travel to get cheap products, OR spend less on travel/carriage and pay more for locally produced goods where one can interact with the producer ? … but no one like this bait.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  BryanA
November 6, 2022 2:06 am

Outsourcing- right! Here, Massachusetts brags about being the most energy efficient and and with the lowest carbon footprint of any American state- which was accomplished by shutting down most of its industries, other than hospitals and universities and high tech. Very few blue collar jobs left in this state, but now it can brag how great it is!

Rich Davis
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
November 6, 2022 7:04 am

JZ, you need a new deal but you’re gonna get more’a healin the earth I’m afraid.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Rich Davis
November 6, 2022 9:09 am

MA is a one party state. Yes, we sometimes elect a RINO govenor but they’re more liberal than your typical liberal in other states, not counting CA and NY of course. The biggest employer by far in this state is the state! Virtually all of those jobs are filled based on nepotism, cronyism and affirmative action.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
November 6, 2022 9:50 am

I know Joe. I was bonn in Boston and escaped from the frying pan into the fire of Connecticut. As usual nobody I vote for on Tuesday will win.

RickWill
November 5, 2022 11:09 pm

One day soon there will be this blinding flash of understanding that China needs to oxidise a HUMUNGOUS amount of coal to make all the stuff demanded for the developed countries’ transition.

The recent international mining conference in Sydney came out in strong support of NetZero. They have made estimates that the mining industry will need to increase by a factor of FOUR from present level to meet the growing demand for the stuff that underpins the transition in the promised time frame.

Of course it does not stop there because it has to be done over ever 20 years or so. It is the essence of stupidity but not enough people have yet grasped the fundamental flaw – IT TAKES MORE ENERGY TO MAKE THE TRANSITION THAN THE NEW ENERGY SYSTEM CAN PRODUCE IN ITS OPERATING LIVE.

It is not NetZero; rather it is locking in ever increasing coal consumption until China can no longer get their hands on more. Of course it also relies on China being willing to play the game; holding the debt of the countries buying the stuff apart from Australia, Brazil and Indonesia that supply a good portion of the raw materials.
.

Andyhce
Reply to  RickWill
November 6, 2022 12:31 am

Some time back, less than a year I think, someone introduced a bill in the California legislature which required that all purchases of wind and solar components must come from manufactures that met all of CA’s environmental protection laws, met CA’s green house gas emission restrictions, was a totally sustainable operation, did not employ any child labour nor any forced labour, and possibly a few more of the left’s buzzwords. I suspect this person did this, knowing what would happen, in order to highlight the hypocrisy.
It was quickly voted out of existence.

Reply to  RickWill
November 6, 2022 2:11 am

One day soon there will be this blinding flash of understanding that China needs to oxidise a HUMUNGOUS amount of coal to make all the stuff demanded for the developed countries’ transition.

And don’t forget the need to burn Diesel to make all of that Copper wire.
Why the world NEEDS synfuels and high-temperature heat

Rich Davis
Reply to  RickWill
November 6, 2022 9:55 am

Soon? You mean soon like in geological timeframes, next ice age maybe? I don’t see it.

RickWill
Reply to  Rich Davis
November 6, 2022 2:03 pm

China is already showing resistance to holding US denominated debt in exchange for all the stuff needed to transition. They will make it more painful for US to transition because US will have to trade tangible resources – maybe coal, instead of debt.

In October, the CNY exceeded the Euro as the second highest global trade invoicing currency. Still a long way short of USD but growing fast.

So the trends are already there. Living standards in the USA will decline if China stops taking more US debt.

Rich Davis
Reply to  RickWill
November 6, 2022 2:52 pm

Except that we’ve been hearing this for a decade or more and at 7.2 yuan to the dollar, the USD is near its ten-year high. That is not a sign that China is trying to divest dollars.

Ktm
November 5, 2022 11:11 pm

We are told that the basic physics of global warming have been understood since the late 1800s.

There are authoritative reports back from the 1960s that made predictions that never panned out.

The 1990 IPCC FAR seems like a very reasonable report to use for a review like this, considering that it was the best guess of the world’s experts based on basic physics know for a century already.

Leo Smith
Reply to  Ktm
November 6, 2022 1:56 am

The problem is, quite simply, that the basic physics is understood, but that is less than 1% of the whole story. What isn’t understood s the massive role negative feedbacks play in the climate, and the mechanisms by which they operate.

Imagine telling a green that you can, by burning natural gas, make things cooler.

And then pointing to a gas powered refrigerator ….

Duker
Reply to  Leo Smith
November 6, 2022 12:24 pm

Yes. the natural carbon cycle creates and absorbs such massive amounts that the human caused share is just the margin of error of the natural system.

Not only is the physics side have so many variables and so little real data but even the ‘accountancy’ side is just fancy guesses dressed up as fact

Reply to  Duker
November 7, 2022 8:07 am

The net human contribution to the increasing CO2 level is about +2.5ppm per year. That is an accurate measurement, not a fancy guess. It is an easy measurement because nature is a net CO2 absorber, so 100% of the measured CO2 increase has to be manmade.

ron long
Reply to  Ktm
November 6, 2022 2:03 am

It’s not the basic physics that is the problem in the issue of predictions, it is how they are mixed into computer models.

Reply to  ron long
November 6, 2022 3:13 am

It’s not the basic physics that is the problem in the issue of predictions, it is how they are mixed into computer models.

Ron,
That is the conclusion we came to. The model’s are flawed in their basic assumption.
The Application of the Dynamic Atmosphere Energy Transport Climate Model (DAET) to Earth’s semi-opaque troposphere

Reply to  ron long
November 7, 2022 11:24 am

Wrong predictions are NOT science

George Daddis
Reply to  Ktm
November 6, 2022 7:36 am

Yup Svante gave us the simple explanation of the basic physics; in a closed system, with all other variables constant.
However our atmosphere is not closed and the variables are many, interdependent and some possibly unknown today.
Right off the bat the IPCC acknowledged that the system was not suitable for modeling – but then they went ahead and modeled it.

Doonman
Reply to  George Daddis
November 6, 2022 9:15 am

Edward Lorenz showed that chaotic systems could not be modeled 60 years ago. It’s called the “Butterfly Effect” and it has never been disproven.

Duker
Reply to  Doonman
November 6, 2022 12:28 pm

So they ‘simplify it’, but their models runs still produce semi random results which are then ‘just averaged’ as humans dont understand a graph of results that its self is chaotic

Reply to  Ktm
November 7, 2022 11:23 am

There are no big arguments about the basic climate science physics.
The big arguments are over the unproven water vapor positive feedback that allegedly triples (2x to 4x) the effect of CO2 alone, the radical RCP 8.5 CO2 growth rate scenario, and the claim that humans can predict the future climate, after failing for the past 50+ years.

November 6, 2022 12:55 am

Indeed the IPCC predicted the warming on the ground and NOT in the troposphere which measures UAH. However, the estimated trendslope of 0,3 K/ dec. was too high, the C&W dataset gives only 0.2 K/dec. from 1990 to 2021.

Reply to  frankclimate
November 6, 2022 1:52 am

the C&W dataset gives only 0.2 K/dec. from 1990 to 2021.”
Exactly the Scenario B prediction!

Reply to  Nick Stokes
November 6, 2022 3:02 am

But scenario A is what has come to pass.

Doonman
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
November 6, 2022 9:20 am

Oh darn it. My guess is that pitching all those 100 watt lightbulbs into the landfill was offset by increased home heating requirements. 10 bulbs lighting up a house was an extra 1000 watts of heating in a house as well.

bdgwx
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
November 6, 2022 1:27 pm

CMoB said: “But scenario A is what has come to pass.”

You think CO2 was 440 ppm in 2020?

You think CH4 was 2500 ppb in 2020?

You think CFC11 was 325 ppt in 2020?

Reply to  bdgwx
November 6, 2022 2:14 pm

Scenario A is indeed what has come to pass. IPCC had predicted that on business as usual CO2 emissions would increase globally by 10-20% by 2025. It is only 2022, and CO2 emissions have increased by 60% since 1990.

IPCC’s error was in assuming that emissions rising (even at the top end) by only a third of what has actually transpired would push business-as-usual CO2 concentration up to about 480 ppmv by now, and that that would cause 0.3-0.34 C warming per decade. But CO2 concentration is only 420 ppmv, even though the emissions since 1990 are triple the high-end prediction made by IPCC on its business-as-usual scenario that year.

bdgwx
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
November 6, 2022 3:05 pm

Stop deflecting and diverting. That 1.8 C prediction was for a scenario with CO2 at 440 ppm, CH4 at 2500 ppb, and CFC11 at 325 ppt in 2020.

You think CO2 was 440 ppm in 2020?

You think CH4 was 2500 ppb in 2020?

You think CFC11 was 325 ppt in 2020?

Reply to  bdgwx
November 6, 2022 7:52 pm

On scenario A, IPCC predicted 10-20% more annual CO2 emissions in 2025 than in 1990. Yet by 2022 emissions were already 60% above 1990. Yet despite new annual emissions four times IPCC’s prediction, observed warming was below half its prediction. Oops!

bdgwx
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
November 7, 2022 8:01 am

CMoB said: “On scenario A, IPCC predicted 10-20% more annual CO2 emissions in 2025 than in 1990.”

Nope. Not even close. That 10-20% figure you cite is the difference between the policy scenario and the science scenario. It is not the amount emissions increased since 1990. You should have been able to work out that something was off with your interpretation by the simple fact that the scenario shows well over 80% growth in emissions.

Reply to  bdgwx
November 7, 2022 5:20 pm

“That 10-20% figure you cite is the difference between the policy scenario and the science scenario.”

Exactly so. It is not an increase since 1990, which Lord M tries to read into it. There is a clearer wording in the SPM p xxiii (after Table 2), which makes it absolutely clear that the 10-20% refers to the difference between the two scenarios:

comment image

Last edited 2 months ago by Nick Stokes
bdgwx
Reply to  Nick Stokes
November 7, 2022 7:34 pm

WG1 Annex 1 (A.1) makes it even more clear. The boldening of policy scenarios and science scenarios below is how it appears in the IPCC document.

https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/ipcc_far_wg_I_annex.pdf

Modelling studies have been undertaken by a number of research groups to investigate the climate consequences of several man-made emission scenarios The first category of emission scenarios is that generated by IPCC Working Group III, which represents a broad range of possible controls to limit the emissions of greenhouse gases, these we refer to as policy scenarios. The second category of scenarios is generated by Working Group I to illustrate the way in which the atmosphere and climate would respond to changes in emissions, these we refer to as science scenarios. Many of the results have already been displayed in the appropriate sections of this report, they are brought together here to allow the complete emissions-climate pathway to be seen The exploration of the climate consequences of both categories of emissions scenarios involved the sequence of modelling studies illustrated in Figure A 1.

Last edited 2 months ago by bdgwx
aussiecol
November 6, 2022 1:44 am

There are three kinds of lies: Lies, Damned Lies, and IPCC predictions.

186no
Reply to  aussiecol
November 6, 2022 1:20 am

Four – IPCC political summary of its own scientific data which the latter very often does not support the former as I understand it…

toorightmate
Reply to  186no
November 6, 2022 4:53 am

Everyone seems to sweep it under the carpet, but this old scientist still finds it disgusting that raw data is being “homogenized” with no basis at all.
Raw data should NEVER be altered. Footnotes maybe, but NOT altered.

Mason
Reply to  186no
November 6, 2022 11:11 am

I read each of the reports up to 5. The executive summary states as fact things that the report says is 50% probability. Report 5 was unbelievable in language and assumptions. Models are pure fantasy.

Leo Smith
November 6, 2022 1:52 am

“we’ve been told it’s far worse than climate scientists had thought.” Well, it isn’t.

Cue Abanazar: OH YES IT IS!

It’s so bad that all non climate scientists are on the point of abandoning the climate change meme altogether, the public at large are openly calling it nonsense, and green protesters face being kicked to death in the streets.

It doesn’t get much worse than that, for a climate cyan-tits

Abanazar.png
Rich Davis
Reply to  Leo Smith
November 6, 2022 10:18 am

Are we living in different multiverse instances? In my universe, your UK “conservatives” just tossed a prime minister for the sacrilege of contemplating fracking, then issued an Anathema against the Heresy.

In Australia voters turned out their right-of-Stalin government in favor of a left-of-Satan one that wants to eliminate fossil fuels.

Although on this side of the pond Republicans might exceed the margin of fraud this week and take back Congress, Dementia Joe already has his Inflation Enhancement Act and $trillions in other left-wing pork already on the books. None of that will be rescinded by a Congress without a two-thirds majority able to override a Presidential veto.

So yeah, it’s worse than you think.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Rich Davis
November 6, 2022 3:24 pm

All money bills originate in the House of Representatives as per our Constitution. It seems to me that all of the Federal spending approved to date will not be enough to get even a partial GND. The greens and crony capitalists will be screaming for additional funding just to stay in place. If the Republicans can take the House beginning next year and can hold firm the green machine will run out of money.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Dave Fair
November 6, 2022 4:44 pm

Please don’t raise unrealistic expectations of that, Dave. They have trillions in spending authority that doesn’t need further approval. That alone is going to be harmful enough.

Sure to continue spending at the same rate with new authority they need a continuing resolution or a budget deal. But Dementia Joe would like nothing better than to have Republicans shut down government by refusing to pass a spending bill. That has been a winning issue for Dems for decades.

That always ends up with Republicans folding after alienating dozens of groups whose checks get delayed. Always a losing strategy for Republicans.

The only glass half full is that no worse measures can make it through Congress after January.

But watch out starting next week. The masks will drop and all manner of demonology is likely to be on the prowl for the next month and a half during the lame duck session. I’d be shocked if that doesn’t include an attempt to pack the Supreme Court.

Reply to  Dave Fair
November 7, 2022 8:16 am

There can be federal mandates that require no federal government spending. Such as the EPA’s corporate average fuel economy of 49mpg for 2026 model automobiles.

JohnC
November 6, 2022 1:12 am

According to the U.K. prime minister we should be moving quicker to renewables:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-63527460
A watershed moment? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-63517078 perhaps more Watergate than watershed?

Is this a little patronising, particularly towards Kenya?: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-63507781

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-63516055 anxiety good?

strativarius
November 6, 2022 1:25 am

BBC etc blackout starts today – It’s the only way to stay sane

November 6, 2022 1:50 am

” However, only 0.14 C°/decade has occurred since 1990″

Of course, Lord M quotes not the surface warming, but warming in the lower troposphere, and chooses the one outlier measure of that. The surface warming was closer to 0.2 C°/decade. And of course, that is what IPCC was actually predicting. There was no UAH index published then.

“But is the business-as-usual scenario the one on which the predictive skill of the models on which IPCC relied should be judged? Here is how IPCC (1990) described that scenario”

Carefully not quoting what the other scenarios said. Here is scenario B:

“In Scenario B the energy supply mix shifts towards lower carbon fuels, notably natural gas Large efficiency increases are achieved. Carbon monoxide controls are stringent, deforestation is reversed and the Montreal Protocol implemented with full participation” 

Yes, that all happened, except maybe deforestation. And what then?

“Under the other IPCC emission scenarios which assume progressively increasing levels of controls rates of increase in global mean temperature of about 0 2°C per decade (Scenario B), just above 0 1°C per decade (Scenario C) and about 0 1 °C per decade (Scenario D)”

0 2°C per decade? Spot on!

Reply to  Nick Stokes
November 6, 2022 3:08 am

The energy mix has not shifted globally away from coal, oil and gas. Scenario A was based on CO2 emissions rising by 10-20%, Since 1990 they have risen by 60%. Even scenario A wasn’t even close.

Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
November 6, 2022 5:19 am

OK, here are the actual concentrations of GHG gases, from the FAR scenarios, with current values shown (from the NOAA Global Monitor). CO₂ is between A and B, CH₄ is below even C, N₂O is below A, but close, and CFC-11 is way below even D.

comment image

bdgwx
Reply to  Nick Stokes
November 6, 2022 6:04 am

Scenario C is probably the closest to the one that actually played out.

Mark BLR plotted this scenario against the observations. I have taken the liberty of reposting it here.

comment image

Thank you Mark BLR for doing that. I know that was a lot of work.

Last edited 2 months ago by bdgwx
bdgwx
Reply to  bdgwx
November 6, 2022 1:11 pm

bdgwx said: “Scenario C is probably the closest to the one that actually played out.”

I should point out that I would be open to arguments suggesting scenario B was better and maybe even slightly above B though at 2020 the differences between B, C, and D are still pretty small.

Reply to  bdgwx
November 6, 2022 2:16 pm

bdgwx is, as usual, wrong. He has missed the main point. Scenario A is indeed what has come to pass. IPCC had predicted that on business as usual CO2 emissions would increase globally by 10-20% by 2025. It is only 2022, and CO2 emissions have increased by 60% since 1990.

IPCC’s error was in assuming that emissions rising (even at the top end) by only a third of what has actually transpired would push business-as-usual CO2 concentration up to about 480 ppmv by now, and that that would cause 0.3-0.34 C warming per decade. But CO2 concentration is only 420 ppmv, even though the emissions since 1990 are triple the high-end prediction made by IPCC on its business-as-usual scenario that year.

bdgwx
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
November 6, 2022 3:03 pm

CMoB said: “PCC’s error was in assuming that emissions rising (even at the top end) by only a third of what has actually transpired would push business-as-usual CO2 concentration up to about 480 ppmv by now”

Prove it. Post the graph or text as it appears in the FAR backing up your claim.

Reply to  bdgwx
November 7, 2022 4:43 am

The text is in the head posting. Read it.

bdgwx
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
November 7, 2022 7:56 am

I did read it. I also read how the scenarios were developed. That’s how I know you are misrepresenting the text you posted.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
November 6, 2022 2:15 pm

Mr Stokes is, as usual, wrong. Scenario A is indeed what has come to pass. IPCC had predicted that on business as usual CO2 emissions would increase globally by 10-20% by 2025. It is only 2022, and CO2 emissions have increased by 60% since 1990.

IPCC’s error was in assuming that emissions rising (even at the top end) by only a third of what has actually transpired would push business-as-usual CO2 concentration up to about 480 ppmv by now, and that that would cause 0.3-0.34 C warming per decade. But CO2 concentration is only 420 ppmv, even though the emissions since 1990 are triple the high-end prediction made by IPCC on its business-as-usual scenario that year.

Mark BLR
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
November 7, 2022 6:27 am

IPCC had predicted that on business as usual CO2 emissions would increase globally by 10-20% by 2025.

The Working Group Three report for the FAR in 1990 had an entire chapter (number 2) on “Emissions Scenarios”.

Although they confusingly renamed the scenarii from the “A (BaU), B, C and D” used in the WG-I report, and used a “Year 0” of 1985 instead of 1990, the above claim appears to be incorrect.

Under WG-III’s “2030 High Emissions Scenario” — i.e. “Scenario A (BaU)” — the IPCC “predicted” CO2 emissions almost doubling in the 40 years from 1985 to 2025 (11.5 / 6 ~= +92%).

Where, exactly, are you getting your “10-20%” numbers from ???

FAR_WG-III_Chapter-2_ES-Table-2.2_1.png
Reply to  Mark BLR
November 7, 2022 8:06 am

Read the head posting. IPCC is cited verbatim.

bdgwx
Reply to  Mark BLR
November 7, 2022 8:18 am

Mark BLR said: “Where, exactly, are you getting your “10-20%” numbers from ???”

It comes from the SPM pg. xiv.

(It should be noted that an aggregation of national forecasts of emissions of carbon dioxide and methane to the year 2025 undertaken by Working Group III resulted in global emissions 10-20% higher than in the BaU scenanio)

What they are saying is that the policy scenario from WGIII is 10-20% higher than the science scenario from WGI that is used for the temperature predictions.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
November 7, 2022 4:46 am

Mr Stokes can produce all the graphs he likes: but IPCC said, in terms, in the summary for policymakers, that the aggregate national emissions predicted for 2025 would be 10-20% above those of 1990. One cannot ignore what IPCC actually said.was the basis of its prediction. The graphs are illustrative only.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
November 7, 2022 8:22 am

If I am ever asked to make a prediction, I hope that I get three guesses. If someone asks where the Dow Industrial Average will be next year, I’ll guess “higher, or lower, or about the same”. Then, one year later, I will claim to be an expert stock market average predictor.

bdgwx
Reply to  Richard Greene
November 7, 2022 9:25 am

I want you to make a prediction for me. How much will water warm if I add energy to it?

I haven’t decided how much water and energy, but I’m thinking of 4 possibilities. Scenario A is 1 kg and 16000 j. Scenario B is 1 kg and 12000 j. Scenario C is 1 kg and 8000 j. And finally scenario D is 1 kg and 4000 j.

Reply to  bdgwx
November 7, 2022 11:26 am

I predict that you will get your head examined,
and they will find nothing.

bdgwx
Reply to  Richard Greene
November 7, 2022 2:18 pm

That may be true, but do you see my point?

Javier
Reply to  Nick Stokes
November 6, 2022 4:20 am

IPCC failed miserably on the two most important aspects of anthropogenic-induced climate change predictions:

  • The amount of emissions that remains in the atmosphere.
  • The effect of emissions on temperature change

Emissions were much higher than projected, yet atmospheric levels and warming rate were much lower.

That was an epic fail, and their failure to recognize it demonstrates they are a bunch of liars. There is no way to go around this.

Reply to  Javier
November 6, 2022 5:27 am

IPCC failed miserably on the two most important aspects of anthropogenic-induced climate change predictions”
These are not predictions. They are scenarios, used for the model calculations. The IPCC does not claim to know how much people will decide to emit. You have to decide afterwards what scenario was actually followed.

The gas concentrations are the key item for the GCM calculations.

Javier
Reply to  Nick Stokes
November 6, 2022 6:02 am

The IPCC does not claim to know how much people will decide to emit.

The problem is that the IPCC does not know the effect those emissions will have on atmospheric levels and on temperature change. And it does not recognize it. Without that, no prediction can be correct except by chance.

Reply to  Javier
November 6, 2022 11:04 am

Quantitatively, the scenarios are expressed as gas concentrations, not tonnage emissions. They don’t claim to know the tonnage emissions of CH₄ or N₂O at all. In 1990 data on tonnage emissions of CO₂ was sketchy; I don’t know if they made use of it, but Hansen certainly didn’t. So uncertainty about the relation between emissions and concentration doesn’t matter; concentration is the sole basis for the scenario.

Javier
Reply to  Nick Stokes
November 6, 2022 11:26 am

So uncertainty about the relation between emissions and concentration doesn’t matter

Just because you say so. The supposed climate crisis is about our emissions, and what we are supposed to do is drastically curb our emissions. The IPCC tells us that X future emissions will result in Y degrees of warming.

The entire crisis building is built around the effect of our emissions. And they got it wrong and don’t say a word about it.

Reply to  Javier
November 6, 2022 12:05 pm

Just because you say so.”
No, it is because gas concentrations are the input data to the GCMs,

Scenarios are everywhere in science. If you drop a ball from 10 m…if you put some Zn in conc HCl… Science can tell you what will happen in these scenarios. It can’t tell you if you’ll do those things. If you want to test the scientific predictions, you have to check that the scenario actually happened. Was it really 10m? Was it really Zn? etc

Reply to  Nick Stokes
November 6, 2022 2:21 pm

Mr Stokes continues deliberately to confuse the issue. IPCC in 1990 predicted that on business as usual there would be 10-20% more annual CO2 emissions globally than in 1990. But, though it is only 2022, the annual emissions are 60% above their 1990 levels. And yet CO2 concentration is well below what had been predicted on business as usual. That was IPCC’s central mistake. It was a serious mistake. After correcting it, there is no reason to imagine that there will be a “climate emergency”.

Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
November 6, 2022 3:12 pm

Mr Stokes continues deliberately to confuse the issue. IPCC in 1990 predicted that on business as usual there would be 10-20% more annual CO2 emissions globally than in 1990.”

No, I’m clarifying the issue by showing graphs of what IPCC said their scenarios were, quantitatively. Lord M continues to rely on his misinterpretation of words that he can find. And often mis-stated, as here. The IPCC did not say “than in 1990”. They said, as quoted in the head post
“Note that the aggregation of national projections by IPCC Working Group III gives higher emissions (10-20%) of carbon dioxide and methane by 2025.”
Higher that what? They don’t say 1990. It’s clear from context that they mean higher than what was previously referred to, ie the scenario A global projection emissions. You get a higher figure (10-20%) if you aggregate national figures.

How can we be sure? Because they presented a graph:

comment image

Javier showed it below, to, and shows that the actual 2022 emissions fell just below scenario A “projected emissions” . But I also show the caption, which has the underlined caveat “as an example”. As they explain in the text, the GCM’s then usually did not work from these tonnage emissions, but from the concentrations. Those are what defines the scenario.

Javier
Reply to  Nick Stokes
November 7, 2022 12:44 am

No, it is because gas concentrations are the input data to the GCMs,

So what. The entire crisis revolves around our emissions. It is a fact that we have produced business-as-usual emissions. It is a fact we did not get the business-as-usual scenario from IPCC’s 1990 FAR.

The IPCC was WRONG, WRONG, WRONG. It is a fact.

Producing business-as-usual emissions results in the mildest 1990 scenario. Why shouldn’t we do it?

bdgwx
Reply to  Javier
November 7, 2022 8:13 am

Javier said: “ It is a fact that we have produced business-as-usual emissions.”

False.

Javier said: “It is a fact we did not get the business-as-usual scenario from IPCC’s 1990 FAR.”

True.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
November 6, 2022 2:19 pm

Mr Stokes is, as usual, wrong. IPCC predicted that on business as usual the annual CO2 emissions would increase by 10-20% compared with 1990 by 2025. It is only 2022, but already annual emissions are 60% above their 1990 level. Yet, as Javier has rightly pointed out, the resulting concentration of CO2 is well below the business-as-usual prediction: 420 ppmv instead of 480 ppmv. And the warming is still less: 0.14 C/decade against 0.34 C/decade. Failures of prediction all along the line.

Editor
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
November 7, 2022 9:26 am

Haw haw haw haw haw……,

They are deliberately ignoring Scenario A CO2 emission rate failure from 1990 as it was well below the actual rate because that destroys the IPCC prediction credibility on temperature change over the same time span as it ran way too high well out of credibility zone.

They are fogging up the information with a bunch of evasive nonsense and trying to defend the indefensible frankly I am amazed at their strident defense of the IPCC, a modeling fantasy company.

bdgwx
Reply to  Sunsettommy
November 7, 2022 8:17 pm

Sunsettommy said: “They are deliberately ignoring Scenario A CO2 emission rate failure from 1990 as it was well below the actual rate”

First, no, scenario A emissions were not below actual rates. Like…not even close. It’s actually the opposite. But we’ve already hashed that one out.

Anyway, the main point I want to make is that scenario A (or B, C, or D for that matter) can’t be described as either failures or successes. They are neither right nor wrong. They are what-if constructs; nothing more.

Last edited 2 months ago by bdgwx
Mark BLR
Reply to  Nick Stokes
November 7, 2022 7:06 am

They don’t claim to know the tonnage emissions of CH₄ or N₂O at all.

See my other post above on “Executive Summary Table 2.2” from the WG-III report for the FAR back in 1990.

You may want to consider re-phrasing the above declaration …

… concentration is the sole basis for the scenario

Far quantitative values on GHG concentrations in 2025, see the screenshot of “Executive Summary Table 2.1” attached to this post (with the start of the description for WG-III’s “2030 High Emissions Scenario”, implying it is what the WG-I report called “Scenario A / BaU”).

FAR_WG-III_Chapter-2_ES-Table-2.1-plus.png
Reply to  Mark BLR
November 7, 2022 11:33 am

“You may want to consider re-phrasing the above declaration …”

OK, they don’t claim to have measured values of the tonnage emissions of CH₄ or N₂O at all. There are still none. Everything is deduced from the observed gas concentrations, as in that scenario calculation.

But you are right that the table you cited shows CO₂ going from 6 Gtons/year in 1985 to 11.5 in 2025. Just as in the graph from FAR that I showed:

comment image

Certainly not a 10-20% increase. And in fact, just a little more than what eventuated.

bdgwx
Reply to  Javier
November 6, 2022 6:02 am

Javier said: “Emissions were much higher than projected, yet atmospheric levels and warming rate were much lower.”

You think CO2 was much higher than 440 ppm in 2020?

You think CH4 was much higher than 2500 ppb in 2020?

You think CFC11 was much higher than 325 ppt in 2020?

Doonman
Reply to  bdgwx
November 6, 2022 9:41 am

Why in the world would you worry about bringing up parts per billion and parts per trillion of a radiative gas in the atmosphere? Any effect they can have are lost in the rounding of the measurement error which makes discussion meaningless. You have been told this time and time again, but you keep talking about them.

bdgwx
Reply to  Doonman
November 6, 2022 1:35 pm

Doonman said: “Why in the world would you worry about bringing up parts per billion and parts per trillion of a radiative gas in the atmosphere?”

Because that’s what documented in the scenarios.

Doonman said: “Any effect they can have are lost in the rounding of the measurement error which makes discussion meaningless.”

Not according the predictions using the scenarios. But even if you or Monckton think the predictions will turn out to be wrong that does not grant Monckton justification for misrepresenting those predictions.

Reply to  bdgwx
November 6, 2022 2:23 pm

But Monckton has not “misinterpreted” the predictions. He has caused huge embarrassment among the ranks of the ungodly by citing them verbatim. IPCC predicted that, on business as usual, global annual CO2 emissions would rise by 10-20% by 2025. It is only 2022, but already annual CO2 emissions are up by 60% on their 1990 levels. And yet CO2 concentrations are way below what IPCC predicted for the business-as-usual scenario, and temperature change is still further below. IPCC screwed up. After correcting that monstrous error, climate change is not a problem.

bdgwx
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
November 6, 2022 2:55 pm
Last edited 2 months ago by bdgwx
Javier
Reply to  bdgwx
November 6, 2022 9:48 am

I guess this is too complex for you. I’ll make it simpler:

comment image

bdgwx
Reply to  Javier
November 6, 2022 1:04 pm

First, why not post the whole figure instead of chopping it in half?

Second, does that look like emissions were “much higher than projected”?

Reply to  bdgwx
November 6, 2022 2:26 pm

IPCC predicted that, on business as usual, global annual CO2 emissions would be 20-30% above 1990 levels by 2025. It is only 2022, but already CO2 emissions are 60% above their 1990 level. That is IPCC’s central error. Having committed the scientific community to climate panic, IPCC and its climate-Communist stooges here are unwilling to admit that so monstrous an error could have been made. But it has.

bdgwx
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
November 6, 2022 2:55 pm
Last edited 2 months ago by bdgwx
Editor
Reply to  bdgwx
November 7, 2022 9:30 am

You keep ignoring what the 1990 IPPC report states then you ignored that actual CO2 emission rate is from 1990.

Why are you doing that?

bdgwx
Reply to  Sunsettommy
November 7, 2022 10:01 am

I’m doing the opposite of ignoring what the IPCC said. I’m the one using the contents of the IPCC report to point out Monckton’s disinformation.

Editor
Reply to  bdgwx
November 7, 2022 2:22 pm

Read it again,

“under the IPCC Business-as-Usual (Scenario A) emissions of greenhouse gases, a rate of increase of global mean temperature during the next century of about 0.3 C° per decade (with an uncertainty range of 0.2 C° to 0.5 C° per decade)….”

bdgwx
Reply to  Sunsettommy
November 7, 2022 3:38 pm

Sunsettommy said: “Read it again,”

Yeah. I know what it says. I’ve read it several times. The issue isn’t that the scenario A prediction is 0.3 C/decade through 2100. The issue is that 1) there are 4 scenarios 2) scenario A is not the one humans chose 3) that actual humans emissions (including CH4 and CFC11) did not exceed scenario A 4) that scenario A emissions increases were not 10-20% from 1990 to 2025. Furthermore I submit that scenario C and associated radiative forcing most closely matches atmospheric abundance of GHG. Though, I’m certainly open to discuss whether B is better even though it doesn’t matter that much since the predictions for B, C, and D aren’t that much different through 2021. It is A that diverges significantly.

Reply to  Sunsettommy
November 7, 2022 1:47 pm

You keep ignoring what the 1990 IPPC report states then you ignored that actual CO2 emission rate is from 1990.”

Here is the page in question of that report. It contains the note that Lord M keeps distorting, which says nothing about 1990. And it shows the graph which clearly shows the Scenario A CO2 emissions, which are slightly higher than what evolved.

comment image

Editor
Reply to  Nick Stokes
November 7, 2022 2:46 pm

This is what was posted that is from the same IPCC for 1990:

“Based on current model results, we predict:

  • “under the IPCC Business-as-Usual (Scenario A) emissions of greenhouse gases, a rate of increase of global mean temperature during the next century of about 0.3 C° per decade (with an uncertainty range of 0.2 C° to 0.5 C° per decade). This is greater than that seen over the past 10,000 years. This will result in a likely increase in global mean temperature of about 1 C° above the present value by 2025 and 3 C° before the end of the next century. The rise will not be steady because of the influence of other factors.”

I notice you don’t post the LINK to your chart how come?

Since the IPCC deliberately changed their website set up into a different format a few years ago it is now very hard to find the quotes such as the one the Viscount quoted because they didn’t want people like me to keep showing up their failures in forums, I posted in which I did many times over the years.

The old links to the 1990 IPCC report are all broken now would have to spend a lot of time finding the same stuff they originally published which is deliberate to hide their failures, but even after using Google with that old 1990 quote above it doesn’t show up anymore, I can’t take them seriously anymore.

The IPCC is hiding their numerous failures on purpose.

bdgwx
Reply to  Sunsettommy
November 7, 2022 3:31 pm

It comes from the IPCC FAR WGI SPM on pg. xxxiv. The SPM also contains a summary of the atmospheric concentrations of CO2, CH4, and CFC11 used as the inputs for scenarios A, B, C, D and the corresponding temperature predictions.

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar1/wg1/

toorightmate
Reply to  Nick Stokes
November 6, 2022 4:57 am

Nick,
You STILL seem to miss the point that we have warm weather and we have cool weather. WEATHER IS NOT CLIMATE – YOU NUMSKULL.
Here in the land of Oz at present, we are having relatively cool spring weather leading into summer.
That is weather, NOT climate.
Go back to the REAL 1930s data for some really warm weather.
Come back and talk to me when they are growing bananas in Alaska.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Nick Stokes
November 6, 2022 3:34 pm

And surface temperature measurements are hopelessly corrupted by UHI, bad measurement site selections and inappropriate homogenization. Pristine site selection presents an entirely different picture, more in line with UAH6 over land areas.

The issue is emissions and the control thereof.

Reply to  Dave Fair
November 6, 2022 4:04 pm

And surface temperature measurements are hopelessly corrupted…”

They aren’t, of course. But anyway, the logic here is hopeless. Imagine someone predicted GDP in China would grow by 8%pa over the period. And when we got there the stated growth was, yes, 8%.

But no, they say. China statistics are unreliable. Japan is nearby and much more reliable. So let’s look at Japan. Their stated GDP growth was 4%pa. So see, they were wrong by a factor of 2!!

The Real Engineer, CEng etc.
Reply to  Nick Stokes
November 7, 2022 2:58 am

It is interesting to look at the UK temperature map for the UK from the met office on the BBC. London is at least 2 degrees C above the surrounding areas most days. So the UHI effect is probably about 2 degrees. Most monitoring stations (as found by WUWT) are in urban areas with a similar profile and are then interpolated across many areas of open land. That is where your increased temperature is biased, and cannot be compared to “pre-industrial” temperatures. There were probably insignificant UHI effects in 1850! So much for un-corrupted.

Joseph Zorzin
November 6, 2022 2:04 am

Tony Heller’s latest

Piltdown Mann
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Lxi05i0cd8&t=722s

“A discussion of the greatest fraud in science history – the hockey stick by Michael Mann.”

Steve Case
November 6, 2022 3:11 am

“How IPCC’s 1990 Predictions Expensively Failed”
________________________________________

Besides global temperature, predictions for tropical cyclones, tornadoes, floods, droughts, sea level rise, and polar bear populations have probably not panned out as the climate Communists predicted either.

Doonman
Reply to  Steve Case
November 6, 2022 9:44 am

Al Gore has been really quiet lately. Perhaps he is too busy spending his millions made from selling his TV station to Oil Producers.

Giordano Milton
November 6, 2022 3:51 am

I don’t get why the first graph didn’t support the opening assertion. If you’re gong to say the IPPC was wrong then just posting a graph of actual data while only referencing the IPPC overstatement in text makes fore a weak opening. Show the comparison on the graph, not just in the text.

toorightmate
Reply to  Giordano Milton
November 6, 2022 5:00 am

Homogenization dear Giordano, dear Giordano.

November 6, 2022 4:50 am

« IPCC (2021) continues to predict the same 3 C° midrange long-term warming (equilibrium doubled-CO2 sensitivity, or ECS, broadly equivalent to 20th-century anthropogenic warming from all sources) »
I am afraid this is not what equilibrium doubled-CO2 sensitivity means: it is the temperature rise caused by a doubling of CO2 after 400 years, when equilibrium , according to the models, finally has been established.

Reply to  Hans Erren
November 6, 2022 4:52 am

IPCC TAR figure of equilibrium sensitivity.

98C28256-A695-4E53-BCCF-CC2326B10C05.gif
Hubert
November 6, 2022 4:51 am

my model still valid , combining AMO cycles of about 70 years period , + NOAA AGGI ( anthropogenic Greenhouse Gas Index ) …
wait and see …

AMO-ALL.png
Tom Abbott
Reply to  Hubert
November 6, 2022 1:20 pm

Your graph does not show the Early Twentieth Century warming. The warming that was just as warm as today, and is shown by numerous regional temperature charts from all around the world.

It looks to me like the climate behaves cyclically, just by looking at past history, and so your prediction of cooler temperatures is not out of the question, but, at least for me, using a bastardized Hockey Stick chart as part of your argument doesn’t invalidate the cycle, but it still lends credit to the myth that the temperatures today are the hottest in human history. That’s just not so. According to the written temperature record.

This is what the real temperature profile looks like (Hansen 1999):

comment image

Hansen’s U.S. chart shows the 1930’s to be warmer than the present day.

Other regional charts from around the world show the Early Twentieth Century to be as warm or warmer than today.

Using bogus Hockey Stick charts just perpetrates the Big Lie of Human-caused Climate Change.

Last edited 2 months ago by Tom Abbott
Anthony Marra
November 6, 2022 5:10 am

The fallacy of it all begins with “Based on Current Model results we predict”. The atmosphere is a mathematically chaotic system consisting of many sub-systems. The interactions of many of these systems is not well understood and THAT IS admitted to by the IPCC.. Therefore the equations defining these interactions and which define the models, are approximations of the climate system. In addition, the assumptions made in developing the equations have not been independently vetted. Therefore the equations are, at best, a gross representation of the climate system. Since the equations cannot be solved directly, numerical approximation algorithms are employed by computer scientists in an attempt to produce results. Results that derive from appoximations of approximations, of approxilations. are science fiction. In the words of Dr. Steven Koonin (read his book, “:Unsettled”), a highly regarded theoretical physicist and pioneer in the use of computers to solve difficult problems in physics,”output from climate models must be taken with a grain of salt”.In the works of physicist Stein Storli Bergmark : “In research and modeling of the climate, we should be aware that we are dealing with a chaotic, nonlinear coupled system, and that long-term predictions of future climate states is not possible. ” 

ResourceGuy
November 6, 2022 5:14 am

Imports from coal fired production, nimby, and hypersonic Chinese missiles don’t make a good mix except among manipulated UN agencies and votes. It’s slow motion world War 3 complete with slave labor in concentration camps and land war in Europe. What could possibly go wrong with distractions at seaside advocacy parties?

bdgwx
November 6, 2022 5:58 am

So now you devote an entire article to spread your disinformation?

Your own source says:

ESTIMATES FOR CHANGES BY 2030 (IPCC Business-as-Usual scenario; changes from pre-industrial) The numbers given below are based on high resolution models, scaled to be consistent with our best estimate of global mean warming of 1.8°C by 2030.

Notice that the 1.8 C figure is for scenario A (Business-as-Usual).

Here are all the scenarios the IPCC considered on page xix figure 5 with the progress through 2020 highlighted by red lines.

comment image

Here is the same scenarios presented in terms of radiative as shown on page xx figure 6 with the progress through 2020 highlighted by red lines from the NOAA AGGI.

comment image

Furthermore, on page xi the IPCC says:

. under the IPCC Business-as-Usual (Scenario A) emissions of greenhouse gases, a rate of increase of global mean temperature during the next century of about 0 3°C per decade (with an uncertainty range of 0 2°C to 0 5°C per decade)

. under the other IPCC emission scenarios which assume progressively increasing levels of controls rates of increase in global mean temperature of about 0 2°C per decade (Scenario B), just above 0 1°C per decade (Scenario C) and about 0 1 °C per decade (Scenario D)

It is abundantly clear that the IPCC presented not 1 prediction but 4 based on the emission pathway humans might choose. You selected scenario A (Business-as-Usual) as the basis of your criticism.

Here are the predictions for each scenario with the warming from 1990 to 2020 for scenario C highlighted in red. This is the scenario that most closely matches the concentrations of CO2, CH4, and CFC11 that are actually in the atmosphere. And a blend of HadCRUTv5 and UAH show 0.56 C of warming over this period. It was a near perfect prediction.

comment image

I have one final question for the editors here. How is this blatant disinformation making it through the review process?

Last edited 2 months ago by bdgwx
Mr.
Reply to  bdgwx
November 6, 2022 6:28 am

Bdwx, you and the rest of the commenters here are the review process.

And note that all contributions are published.

Now compare this process with the pal review practice that IPCC prefers.

Last edited 2 months ago by Mr.
Frank from NoVA
Reply to  bdgwx
November 6, 2022 7:19 am

bdgwx,

Let’s make this easy. The IPCC defines the GHE as the difference between LWR emitted by the Earth’s surface and LWR emitted to space. Please choose any IPCC ‘scenario’ you want, or feel free to make up your own, and let us know what they / you believe is the equilibrium change in a) surface temperature, b) total GHE in W/m^2 and c) albedo so that these may be checked for consistency with basic physics.

bdgwx
Reply to  Frank from NoVA
November 6, 2022 1:22 pm

The definition of the GHE or predicted ECS is irrelevant. The IPCC could use a stupid definition of the GHE or predicted an absurd ECS and it would not matter. It does not justify misrepresenting what they said. If Monckton or anyone else wants to criticize the IPCC then criticize what they actually said instead of critizing a misrepresentation of it.

Here’s the thing…there’s plenty of things one could be critical of the IPCC. The Himalayan Glacial decline prediction, the mid troposphere tropical hotspot prediction, Arctic sea ice decline prediction, etc. are all things one could legitimately be critical of. But criticizing them by saying they overestimated the warming without pointing out that you are judging them on scenario A, that they actually presented 4 scenarios, and that scenario C (or maybe even B) were closer to reality is misrepresenting them. And if you continue to do so even after the misrepresentation has been pointed out then I argue that this is disinformation.

Last edited 2 months ago by bdgwx
Reply to  bdgwx
November 6, 2022 2:30 pm

Methinks the well-paid climate Communist bdgwx doth protest too much. IPCC predicted in 1990 that on business as usual global annual CO2 emissions would be only 10-20% higher than in 1990 by 2025. It is only 2022, but global annual CO2 emissions are 60% higher than in 1990. Yet CO2 concentrations are far lower than IPCC’s business-as-usual prediction, showing that IPCC had no idea in 1990 that so little of our CO2 emissions would end up persisting in the atmosphere.

Now that IPCC does know that, it should have altered its predictions on all timescales to conform to reality, but it has refused to do so. The police are circling. This is the costliest fraud in human history, and the public prosecuting and investigating authorities are at last moving in.

bdgwx
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
November 6, 2022 2:53 pm

CMoB said: “IPCC predicted in 1990 that on business as usual global annual CO2 emissions would be only 10-20% higher than in 1990 by 2025.”

Prove it. Post the graph or text as it appears in the FAR backing up your claim.

CMoB said: “Yet CO2 concentrations are far lower than IPCC’s business-as-usual prediction”

Prove it. Post the graph or text as it appears in the FAR backing up your claim.

CMoB said (down below): “But, though it is only 2022, there are 60% more CO2 emissions than in 1990 – triple IPCC’s high-end estimate.”

Prove it. Post the graph or text as it appears in the FAR backing up your claim.

CMoB said: “IPCC’s business-as-usual prediction”

What about scenarios B, C, and D?

What about CH4, N2O, CFC11, CFC12, and HCFC22 emissions and concentrations for each scenario?

Post the graph and text as it appears in the FAR backing up your response.

Last edited 2 months ago by bdgwx
Reply to  bdgwx
November 7, 2022 4:34 am

As usual, bdgwx has failed to read the head posting, where IPCC describes its scenario A prediction. The text is given in full. It says what I said it says, word for word.

bdgwx
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
November 7, 2022 7:54 am

And you misrepresented that text.

Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
November 7, 2022 1:38 pm

Congratulations bdgwx, you were called a well paid climate Communist by the author. In the last Monckton article, I was just declared by the author to be a plain old Communist.

bigoilbob
Reply to  Richard Greene
November 7, 2022 3:11 pm

I know nada about bdgwx personally. But I do know generally where he lives, who is on his city and county councils, state rep and state senator, his US rep, and of course our US senators. Also many of his city neighbors, by blood and marriage. He had to work hard to pick a more unwelcoming area to practice “communism” as defined by Monckton.

My take is that bd*** is admirably almost spectral in his adherence to the math, physics, chemistry under discussion. It certainly gets him more than his fair share of Cloud Yellers – as this exchange demonstrates…

Frank from NoVA
Reply to  bdgwx
November 6, 2022 3:57 pm

‘Here’s the thing…there’s plenty of things one could be critical of the IPCC.’

Yet you support the CAGW narrative. We all know that the IPCC has published numerous documents over the years and made many ‘predictions’, all of which allows acolytes, like Nick, to post evasive responses to simple questions. But I have more respect for you, which is why I asked you previously what specific conditions lead you to believe that burning fossil fuels is an issue. To that end, can you please respond to the questions I posted above?

bdgwx
Reply to  Frank from NoVA
November 7, 2022 7:21 am

Frank from Nova said: “Yet you support the CAGW narrative.”

I think you have me confused with someone else. I have never supported the narrative that all humans on the planet will die within 12 years or a few decades or whatever the criteria for CAGW happens to be for the day. Not that it matters because even if I did support it (I don’t) it does not grant Monckton the justification for misrepresenting the IPCC.

Last edited 2 months ago by bdgwx
Frank from NoVA
Reply to  bdgwx
November 7, 2022 8:48 am

‘I have never supported the narrative that all humans on the planet will die within 12 years or a few decades or whatever the criteria for CAGW happens to be for the day.’

Well, that’s comforting that you’re not on board with the ‘end times’ wing of climate alarmism, but it’s still clear from you comments here (and elsewhere) that you believe rising CO2 emissions will have harmful effects on humanity that vastly offset the well known civilizational benefits of fossil fuel based energy.

So, based on your extensive familiarity with the IPCC’s ‘science’, what is it exactly that they have said that you are afraid of? I only ask, because if you can point out the specific IPCC predictions for changes in surface temperature, total atmospheric LW forcing and albedo that scare you, it only takes a moment to check these for internal consistency using basic physics.

We all have fears. For example, I fear a government that can eliminate any of my inalienable rights for whatever reason, including ‘saving the planet’ from an invisible trace gas that is essential to all life on earth and that has never been demonstrated to have caused significant temperature change.

And note, unlike climate alarmism, there is no shortage of evidence to disparage anyone’s fear of total government. So take a first step towards freeing yourself from climate alarmism, and point out exactly what the IPCC has said that cause you to fear the use of fossil fuels

bdgwx
Reply to  Frank from NoVA
November 7, 2022 9:21 am

Frank from NOVA said: “but it’s still clear from you comments here (and elsewhere) that you believe rising CO2 emissions will have harmful effects on humanity that vastly offset the well known civilizational benefits of fossil fuel based energy.”

I never said or thought that.

Frank from NOVA said: “So, based on your extensive familiarity with the IPCC’s ‘science’, what is it exactly that they have said that you are afraid of?”

I’m not afraid of anything in the IPCC reports.

Frank from NoVA
Reply to  bdgwx
November 7, 2022 12:12 pm

So is it correct to say that you see no reason to restrict fossil fuel use on the basis that doing so adds CO2 to the atmosphere?

bdgwx
Reply to  Frank from NoVA
November 7, 2022 2:08 pm

No, I’ve not said that either. I’ve not said either way. I have little to no interest in public policy. My interest is almost exclusively based on the physical principals that govern the evolution of the climate system and how it can be explained and predicted better.

Frank from NoVA
Reply to  bdgwx
November 7, 2022 2:57 pm

‘My interest is almost exclusively based on the physical principals that govern the evolution of the climate system and how it can be explained and predicted better.‘

Ok, so since the GCM models are all over the map with respect to any given RCP ‘scenario’, maybe you can point towards the single model that is almost exclusively based on the physical principles that govern the evolution of the climate system and provide some examples of your comments where you pointed out that the other models were junk. Otherwise, you would seem to be less than an honest broker with respect to climate science and more of a troll who comments only to disparage skeptics.

bdgwx
Reply to  Frank from NoVA
November 7, 2022 3:26 pm

I’m not talking about RCPs here. Those didn’t come about until much later. I’m talking about scenarios A, B, C, and D from the first assessment report published by the IPCC in 1990.

I’m also not calling any model junk here either. Although the topic of modeling is important in the broader context of predictions, I’m actually more focused on how Monckton is misrepresenting the IPCC FAR in his article.

Frank from NoVA
Reply to  bdgwx
November 7, 2022 3:52 pm

‘I’m actually more focused on how Monckton is misrepresenting the IPCC FAR in his article.’

Ok, so ignoring this article for the time being, do you favor any particular model’s results or are you ok with the idea that the ‘physical principles that govern the evolution of the climate system’ can provide any number of outcomes, even when fed the same emissions scenarios?

bdgwx
Reply to  Frank from NoVA
November 7, 2022 7:23 pm

No. I don’t favor any particular model. They all have their strengths and weaknesses. I also don’t favor any particular type of model either. No model is perfect is none ever will be. It is the imperfection in our understanding of reality that creates a range of possibilities on the outcomes. That range is not cause by reality itself being nondeterministic (quantum realm not withstanding). It’s caused by us not fully understanding how the determinism works. But, also understand that our understanding is not binary. We can have enough understanding to constrain those outcomes.

Reply to  bdgwx
November 6, 2022 7:39 pm

Bdgwx should perhaps read the head posting, where, contrary to what he writes, it is made explicit that the analysis is based on scenario A.

bdgwx
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
November 7, 2022 7:19 am

I never said your criticism wasn’t based on scenario A. In fact, it is precisely because you based your criticism on scenario A that it is wrong. It is wrong because scenario A wasn’t what humans chose.

Reply to  bdgwx
November 7, 2022 7:58 am

Scenario A is what is happening.

bdgwx
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
November 7, 2022 9:59 am

Saying it over and over again does not make it true.

Javier
Reply to  bdgwx
November 6, 2022 9:59 am

It is not disinformation. Our emissions followed Business-as-usual scenario A.

comment image

If just emitting what we want the mildest scenario D plays out, where is the crisis? Why the need to reduce emissions?

Pflashgordon
Reply to  Javier
November 6, 2022 11:18 am

bdgwx and Nick cleverly try to change the basis for comparison from emissions to atmospheric concentration. If emissions are following or exceeding “business-as-usual” Scenario A yet atmospheric concentrations follow Scenario C, obviously IPCC grossly misunderstood the processes that clearly damped and restrained CO2 growth. Prediction FAIL.

THESE WERE INDEED PREDICTIONS, despite efforts to claim they were mere projections based on “scenarios.”

This ruse by Nick and bdgwx is the misinformation here.

bdgwx
Reply to  Pflashgordon
November 6, 2022 12:59 pm

Pflashgordon said: “obviously IPCC grossly misunderstood the processes that clearly damped and restrained CO2 growth”

That is something the IPCC admits. They are terrible at predicting human behavior and decisions (the most significant portion of the so called “processes” you speak of). They are so bad, in fact, that they don’t even attempt to predict it. That’s why they present 4 scenarios and not 1.

They present if-then predictions as scenarios. It is no different than predicting if you put 4000 j of energy into 1 kg of water then you will get 1 C of warming. Or if you put 1 N of force upon 1 kg of mass then you will get an acceleration of 1 m/s^2. No one (except contrarians) would claim that if you put 8000 j in and observed 2 C of warming or 2 N of force in and got 2 m/s^2 of acceleration then your original prediction or model is wrong. Yet that’s what is happening here.

Old Cocky
Reply to  bdgwx
November 6, 2022 2:10 pm

There seems to be a certain amount of arguing at cross-purposes here:

Pflashgordon said: “obviously IPCC grossly misunderstood the processes that clearly damped and restrained CO2 growth”

That is something the IPCC admits. They are terrible at predicting human behavior and decisions (the most significant portion of the so called “processes” you speak of). They are so bad, in fact, that they don’t even attempt to predict it. That’s why they present 4 scenarios and not 1.

Pflashgordon’s proposition is that emissions track Scenario A but concentrations track Scenario B/C, so something is removing far more CO2 from the atmosphere than anticipated, while bdgwx is arguing that concentrations are tacking Scenario B/C, so emissions are lower than Scenario A.

This makes it difficult to make any progress.

bdgwx
Reply to  Old Cocky
November 6, 2022 2:42 pm

Old Cocky said: “Pflashgordon’s proposition is that emissions track Scenario A”

Except…emissions don’t track scenario A. The figure that Javier posted is a misrepresentation. It is a misrepresentation because 1) it is not how the figure actually appeared in the report and 2) because it only included CO2.

Old Cocky
Reply to  bdgwx
November 6, 2022 3:14 pm

Unfortunately, without quantification of the ammonia and CFC GHP figures with respect to CO2, it is quite difficult to determine if those would have any material impact.
That info would have been very useful, as we discussed in an earlier thread.

Reply to  Old Cocky
November 6, 2022 3:42 pm

 while bdgwx is arguing that concentrations are tacking Scenario B/C, so emissions are lower than Scenario A.”

No, he is saying that they can’t predict emissions. There isn’t a scientific basis for doing that. It depends on what we decide to do. The scenario is defined by the concentrations, which is what the GCM’s work from. How we came to have a concentration of 413ppm, or whatever, is not part of the calculation. In fact it is part human decision, and part the (then) uncertain conversion of emission tonnage to concentration.

The key factor relating emission to concentration is the airborne fraction. It’s true that the IPCC numbers seem to have underestimated that by a little. In 1990, their emission data was patchy, so the AF was uncertain. Since the UNFCCC got governments to agree to collect better data, we now know it better. But with the scenarios defined in ppm, that doesn’t matter.

Old Cocky
Reply to  Nick Stokes
November 6, 2022 4:43 pm

The political actions relate to emissions rather than concentrations, so there is a disconnect there.
If the IPCC was quite a lot out on the AF and concentrations are indeed tracking Scenarios B/C, then the responses appear to be disproportionate.

It was quite some time ago, but to paraphrase
Scenario A – oh, hell
Scenario B – not ideal, but we can handle it
Scenario C – the best we can hope for
Scenario D – all our Christmases have come at once.

The targets have changed since the, but is that because of pessimism regarding GHG increases or optimism regarding what is achievable?

Reply to  Old Cocky
November 6, 2022 5:13 pm

The political actions relate to emissions rather than concentrations, so there is a disconnect there.”

The FAR is explicit about the disconnect. They call the emissions “policy scenarios” and the concentrations “science scenarios”:

The first category of emission scenarios is that generated by IPCC Working Group III, which represents a broad range of possible controls to limit the emissions of greenhouse gases, these we refer to as policy scenarios. The second category of scenarios is generated by Working Group I to illustrate the way in which the atmosphere and climate would respond to changes in emissions, these we refer to as science scenarios.”

The science scenarios (for which they show the ppm graphs) are the starting points for the science analysis (the business of WG1).

You can see the connect with methane. ppm is rising, but we have no measured data on tonnage emitted. That doesn’t mean we should ignore the rise. It just means that we have to make policy without benefit of the measure. We still know that emitting methane causes ppm to rise.

Old Cocky
Reply to  Nick Stokes
November 6, 2022 6:01 pm

The second category of scenarios is generated by Working Group I to illustrate the way in which the atmosphere and climate would respond to changes in emissions, these we refer to as science scenarios.”

That looks like WG1 started with emissions as well. Atmospheric concentrations are definitely more usable, as you said.

You can see the connect with methane. ppm is rising, but we have no measured data on tonnage emitted. That doesn’t mean we should ignore the rise. It just means that we have to make policy without benefit of the measure. We still know that emitting methane causes ppm to rise.

Methane is an interesting case. It’s reasonable to assume that rising concentrations result from rising emissions, but it’s also possible for concentrations to rise with constant emission rates and a reduced rate of extraction/conversion. We also get into causes of increased emission rates, which seem at best highly speculative.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
November 7, 2022 4:30 am

Mr Stokes wriggles in vain. IPCC plainly predicted that on Scenario A CO2 emissions would increase by 10-20% compared with 1990 by 2020. The text is given, in full, in the head posting. No ifs, no buts.

bdgwx
Reply to  Old Cocky
November 6, 2022 7:34 pm

Old Cocky said: “The political actions relate to emissions rather than concentrations, so there is a disconnect there.”

Be as that may be the temperature predictions are based on the equilibrium climate sensitivity from the abundance of climate forcing agents in the atmosphere. It is done that way because it doesn’t who/what puts those trace gases into the atmosphere. If humans emit 0 GtC/yr of carbon and nature was net 10 GtC/yr it has the exact same effect as if humans emitted 10 GtC/yr and nature was net 0 GtC/yr. It’s not about how the trace gases got in there. It’s about how much are there.

Old Cocky
Reply to  bdgwx
November 7, 2022 12:12 pm

temperature predictions are based on the equilibrium climate sensitivity

Surely you can’t be serious!
Short to medium term enthalpy/temperature calculations for GHG deltas should use TCS.
The curve for the longer-term enthalpy/temperature changes during the transition pathway to equilibrium is then overlaid.

and, yes, I know I described that poorly.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
November 7, 2022 4:32 am

Mr Stokes is, as usual, wrong. IPCC’s WGIII indeed predicted emissions growth, and predicted it very badly, undershooting by a factor 4. And WGI used that prediction as the basis for its Scenario A.

Pflashgordon
Reply to  bdgwx
November 6, 2022 5:29 pm

More misdirection. Since your assertions about concentrations didn’t work, now you are trying to focus on the IPCC’s inability to predict human behavior. With respect to the model runs back at that time, that question is irrelevant.

Scenario A is based on emissions projections. That scenario is then modeled to predict resultant temperatures. Instead, actual emissions substantially exceeded Scenario A projections, which would suggest even more warming. But actual temperatures are tracking a different scenario.

So Christopher Monckton is indeed correct, and you are either intentionally lying or maybe you are merely confused.

bdgwx
Reply to  Pflashgordon
November 6, 2022 7:22 pm

Pflashgordon said: “Scenario A is based on emissions projections.”

No it isn’t. The FAR says the predictions are based on 1) the best estimate of equilibrium climate sensitivity (ie. doubling of CO2) and 2) box-diffusion upwelling ocean-atmosphere coupled climate models. It is not based on emissions. It is based on the abundance of climate forcing agents in the atmosphere; not on how they got there.

Pflashgordon said: “So Christopher Monckton is indeed correct”

Prove it. Post the figure or text in the IPCC FAR showing that CO2 was 413 ppm in 2020, CH4 was 1900 ppb in 2020, and CFC11 was 225 ppt in 2020, and that RF was 4.2 W/m2 in 2020 for scenario A.

Last edited 2 months ago by bdgwx
Reply to  bdgwx
November 7, 2022 4:29 am

bdgwx is wriggling vainly. For I had quoted IPCC’s actual words describing its 1990 Scenario A business-as-usual prediction. It is plainly based on emissions increasing by 10-20% from 1990-2025, not the 60% that subsequently obtained.

bdgwx
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
November 7, 2022 7:41 am

CMoB said: “It is plainly based on emissions increasing by 10-20% from 1990-2025, not the 60% that subsequently obtained.”

Not even close. You can clearly see that scenario A shows CO2 emissions increasing from about 6 GtC/yr to 11 GtC/yr. That is an increase of 11 / 6 = 83%. In reality CO2 emissions increased about 65%. And remember, when you integrate the emission (GtC/yr) curve the difference between actual and scenario gets magnified in the final accumulation (GtC) result.

The 10-20% figure you cite is the difference between WGIII and WG1. WGIII scenarios are different than WGI scenarios. In fact, they WGIII scenarios are called policy scenarios while WGI scenarios are called science scenarios. The boldening is from the IPCC.

You are totally misrepresenting the IPCC.

Reply to  bdgwx
November 7, 2022 7:57 am

bdgwx is getting desperate. IPCC is cited verbatim in the head posting.

Editor
Reply to  Pflashgordon
November 7, 2022 9:37 am

BINGO!

I am amazed at how difficult this is for certain foggers in the thread since it is plainly written and easy to understand.

Scenario A represents the highest CO2 emission scenario rate in 1990 but actual CO2 emissions have been distinctly higher than Scenario A predicted to year 2025.

Why is that so hard to understand?

bdgwx
Reply to  Sunsettommy
November 7, 2022 9:58 am

Sunsettommy said: “Scenario A represents the highest CO2 emission scenario rate in 1990 but actual CO2 emissions have been distinctly higher than Scenario A predicted to year 2025.”

That is patently false. Nevermind, it completely ignores the CH4, CFC11, etc. that are also considered in the 4 scenarios.

Sunsettommy said: “Why is that so hard to understand?”

Because it is literally contrary to what the IPCC documents in the FAR.

What Monckton is doing here is blatant disinformation. And as an editor on WUWT I consider it your duty to be a gatekeeper on this kind of blatant disinformation. Or at the very least an advocate for calling it out and providing a warming to readers. Is that something you are are willing to take on as part of your role here?

Editor
Reply to  bdgwx
November 7, 2022 2:51 pm

I have read your replies but not a single LINKED quote to make your case against Monckton.

How come?

bdgwx
Reply to  Sunsettommy
November 7, 2022 3:13 pm
Old Cocky
Reply to  Pflashgordon
November 6, 2022 2:03 pm

Leaving aside motives, the growth rate of CO2 emissions does seem to be tracking Scenario A (bad news) while the growth rate of atmospheric CO2 concentration is tracking Scenarios B and C (which is good news)

Reply to  Old Cocky
November 6, 2022 2:37 pm

Old Cocky has put it beautifully. In reality, the growth rate of CO2 emissions is thrice that which IPCC predicted under scenario A, but the growth rate of CO2 concentration is far smaller than IPCC had predicted even on its much lower-than-reality emissions-growth prediction.

Reply to  Pflashgordon
November 6, 2022 2:36 pm

Pflashgordon has neatly spelt out the main point. However, as usual, bdgwx does his best by a Gish gallop of irrelevancies to distract attention from the main point. The main point is that IPCC predicted there would be 10-20% more annual CO2 emissions in 2025 than in 1990. But, though it is only 2022, there are 60% more CO2 emissions than in 1990 – triple IPCC’s high-end estimate. And yet CO2 concentration in 2022 is only 420 ppmv, well below the 480 ppmv that IPCC had predicted on the basis of predicted emissions increases only a third (at most) of what has actually occurred. That is a large error, but the climate Communists duck and dive and weave rather than facing it.

Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
November 6, 2022 3:45 pm

The main point is that IPCC predicted there would be 10-20% more annual CO2 emissions in 2025 than in 1990″

They did not.

Pflashgordon
Reply to  Nick Stokes
November 6, 2022 5:36 pm

Nick, you and Budgeweather are hopelessly, helplessly entrenched in your cargo cult. One cannot engage you in a logical discussion.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
November 6, 2022 7:32 pm

They did. Read IPCC’s ipsissima verba in the head posting.

bdgwx
Reply to  Javier
November 6, 2022 12:49 pm

Javier said: “It is not disinformation.”

If it’s not disinformation then what do you call omitted half of the figure?

Reply to  bdgwx
November 6, 2022 2:40 pm

bdgwx continues to disinform. He fails to concede that IPCC had predicted a rate of growth in global annual CO2 emissions that was only one-sixth to one-third of what has since been observed; and yet that the resulting CO2 concentration is far below what IPCC had predicted. That glaring mismatch is the root of IPCC’s error. It should, therefore, have adjusted all its predictions downward to match, but it has refused to do so, just as bdgwx and other paid climate Communists here refuse to concede the magnitude of the error that has been made. Correct that error – and it is an error – and the supposed “climate emergency” vanishes.

Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
November 6, 2022 3:46 pm

He fails to concede that IPCC had predicted a rate of growth in global annual CO2 emissions that was only one-sixth to one-third of”

Endlessly repeated misinformation, clearly refuted by Javier’s graph.

Old Cocky
Reply to  Nick Stokes
November 6, 2022 4:28 pm

 refuted by Javier’s graph

Which looks as near to Scenario A as to make no difference.

Flame wars tend to entrench people’s starting positions (DAMHIK, IJK) which does little to advance knowledge or understanding.

Stripped of emotion, do Javier’s emissions figures and bdgwx’s concentration figures appear to be in the ballpark?

Last edited 2 months ago by Sunsettommy
Old Cocky
Reply to  Old Cocky
November 6, 2022 4:47 pm

D’oh! That should have read “… near to Scenario A”

Mea culpa.

Reply to  Old Cocky
November 6, 2022 4:59 pm

do Javier’s emissions figures and bdgwx’s concentration figures appear to be in the ballpark?”

Yes. But Lord M says

He fails to concede that IPCC had predicted a rate of growth in global annual CO2 emissions that was only one-sixth to one-third of what has since been observed”

The graph that IPCC showed of emissions (“as an example”) was just below Scen A. Their graph of concentrations was a little further below. That is all.

Old Cocky
Reply to  Nick Stokes
November 6, 2022 5:42 pm

Lord M does seem to delight in stirring up the ant nest.

In the absence of updated (drastically higher or lower) we do seem to have some approximate starting points for future discussions..

bdgwx
Reply to  Nick Stokes
November 6, 2022 7:28 pm

Nick Stokes said: “The graph that IPCC showed of emissions (“as an example”) was just below Scen A. Their graph of concentrations was a little further below. That is all.”

Which makes perfect sense. When you integrate emissions that were consistently just below scenario A you get an accumulated concentration that is a little further below scenario.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
November 6, 2022 7:28 pm

IPCC explicitly states, in its scenario A or business as usual prediction, that annual global CO2 emissions are predicted to be 10-20% above 1990 by 2025. But annual emissions were already 60% above 1990 in 2022.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
November 7, 2022 4:20 am

I have cited exactly what IPCC said in describing their Scenario A prediction. IPCC said that from 1990 to 2025 the global aggregate of predicted national CO2 emissions would rise by 10-20% compared with 1990. In reality, by 2020 the emissions were already 60% above 1990.

Therefore, the emissions were four times what IPCC had predicted in 1990; the CO2 concentrations were less than IPCC had predicted in 1990; and the warming was less in 1990 than even the actual CO2 emissions would imply.

IPCC’s medium-term prediction was disastrously exaggerated, and its long-term prediction was for 3 C ECS. Despite the now-proven exaggeration of its mediuim-term prediction, it has not altered its long-term prediction one iota since 1990. That is not how true science is done: it is how Communist politics is done.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
November 6, 2022 7:31 pm

Mr Stokes here describes as “misinformation” IPCC’s s explicit prediction, cited verbatim in the head posting, that by 2025 global annual CO2 emissions will be 10-20% above those of 1990.

Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
November 6, 2022 7:48 pm

The IPCC did not say anything about 1990. They said
Note that the aggregation of national projections by IPCC Working Group III gives higher emissions (10-20%) of carbon dioxide and methane by 2025.”

The aggregation…gives higher emissions. They are just saying that that process gives a slightly higher answer than the direct one.

Lord M’s misinformation is clearly contradicted by the explicit graph they give of Scenario A emissions:

comment image

Reply to  Nick Stokes
November 7, 2022 4:12 am

Mr Stokes, paid to be wrong, is wrong. IPCC’s appendix describing the scenarios A (business as usual) to D specifically states that the scenarios are “from present to 2100”. “Present” in 1990 was, er, 1990. The end date for IPCC’s medium-term prediction was 2025, as cited in the head posting, which is worth a read before inexpertly commenting on it.

Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
November 7, 2022 4:40 am

Furthermore, the graph shown by Mr Stokes is plainly labeled as “an example”, whereas the prediction of 10-20% growth in emissions under scenario A is taken from aggregation of WGIII’s estimates of national increases in emissions from 1990-2025.

At best, all that one can say for IPCC is that its stated prediction of 10-20% growth in emissions and its graphical example of 60% growth in emissions are mutually inconsistent. But it is the prediction that appears in the summary for policymakers that forms the basis of IPCC’s scenario-A assessment.

Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
November 7, 2022 2:36 pm

“At best, all that one can say for IPCC is that its stated prediction of 10-20% growth in emissions and its graphical example of 60% growth in emissions are mutually inconsistent. But it is the prediction that appears in the summary for policymakers that forms the basis of IPCC’s scenario-A assessment.”

In fact, the 10-20% note and the graph showing actual growth in emissions appear on the same page of the Annex to the SPM:

comment image

Editor
Reply to  Nick Stokes
November 7, 2022 2:53 pm

Another no link chart, where is the link, Nick?

Reply to  Sunsettommy
November 7, 2022 3:52 pm

The whole WUWT post makes claims about predictions in FAR. One might expect to find a link there. But I see there is none. The WG1 report is here
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar1/wg1/

The page I showed is the Annex to the SPM, listed as xxxi.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
November 7, 2022 4:27 am

Unlike Mr Stokes, who is wriggling with increasing desperation, I cited IPCC’s actual words in their scenario A prediction. IPCC’s graph of projected emissions is consistent with observed reality, but not with IPCC’s explicit statement of the prediction from WGIII on which its Scenario A was based. Furthermore, the graph was stated to be an example only, while the prediction expressed in words was the actual prediction.

bdgwx
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
November 7, 2022 7:53 am

CMoB said: “At best, all that one can say for IPCC is that its stated prediction of 10-20% growth in emissions”

As I stated above you are totally misunderstanding the meaning of that 10-20% figure. That is the difference between the policy scenario and the science scenario. The actual growth in emissions from 1990 to 2025 is over 80%.

You are misrepresenting what the IPCC said.

Reply to  bdgwx
November 7, 2022 7:56 am

What IPCC said is cited verbatim in the head posting. One only has to read the first page of the executive summary of the policymakers’ summary of the 1990 report.

bdgwx
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
November 7, 2022 8:10 am

I know. Which makes it bizarre that you are so hellbent on misrepresenting it.

Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
November 7, 2022 11:53 am

Unlike Mr Stokes, who is wriggling with increasing desperation, I cited IPCC’s actual words

I cited their actual numbers with graphs. Their words that you keep mis-citing were:

“Note that the aggregation of national projections by IPCC Working Group III gives higher emissions (10-20%) of carbon dioxide and methane by 2025.”

Nothing about higher than 1990. In fact it just means higher than a different estimate (if you don’t aggregate national projections).

But if you can’t read graphs, Mark BLR cited the table with the numbers:

comment image

Emissions 6 Gtons/year in 1985, going to 11.5 Gtons/year in 2025. That is not a 10-20% increase.

Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
November 7, 2022 1:21 pm

“At best, all that one can say for IPCC is that its stated prediction of 10-20% growth in emissions and its graphical example of 60% growth in emissions are mutually inconsistent. But it is the prediction that appears in the summary for policymakers that forms the basis of IPCC’s scenario-A assessment.”

In fact, the 10-20% note and the graph showing actual growth in emissions appear on the same page of the Annex to the SPM:

comment image

Editor
Reply to  Nick Stokes
November 7, 2022 2:54 pm

Where is the link to the notoriously difficult 1990 IPCC report?

bdgwx
Reply to  Sunsettommy
November 7, 2022 3:09 pm

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar1/wg1/

That’s the first assessment report from working group 1 from 1990.

Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
November 7, 2022 5:28 pm

I cited IPCC’s actual words in their scenario A”
Here is another version of their actual words, SPM xxiii following Table 2:

comment image

It makes it absolutely explicit that the 10-20% refers to a difference between scenario calcs, not to an increase from 1990.

Michael in Dublin
November 6, 2022 6:14 am

Our planet evidently did not get the IPCC memo about how much temperature and CO2 was supposed to increase. 😉

Bill Everett
Reply to  Michael in Dublin
November 6, 2022 7:58 am

If, on the UAH Temperature graph shown, a horizontal line is drawn from the highest temperature around 2004-5 to the present, then that line will have as much temperature value below it as above it. In other words, it will illustrate a pause in temperature rise from around 2004 until the present. This will retain a pattern of alternating, equal length, pauses and rises in temperature that is evident in the temperature record since it was begun in the 1880’s.

Philip
November 6, 2022 8:51 am

If the anthropogenic CO2 emissions are three times higher then expected, what then is the effect on net emissions if any and what does that say about the percentage of total emissions??

Reply to  Philip
November 6, 2022 7:23 pm

It says warming per unit of new emissions is a whole lot less than IPCC had predicted in 1990.

EppingBlogger
November 6, 2022 11:52 am

“The reason for the continuing and widespread use of coal-fired power is that India and China are exempt from the Paris and related agreements, and are greatly expanding their coal-fired power consumption”

OR

maybe it is because the natuions using coal have it under their own soil and it is cheaper per unit of heat.

Gary Pearse
November 6, 2022 12:07 pm

“prediction was that there would be 1.8 C° warming from preindustrial times to 2030.

I’m pretty sure that in 1990 the goal posts were at 1950 (opined to be when our CO2 contribution became noticeable. It was the colossal failure of the prediction that pushed the date back to 1850 to bankroll the 0.6°C that was natural recovery coming out of the LIA.

This is when Hansen invented T jiggering. The 1998 super el Niño failed to break the late 1930s record record high T, much to Jim’s disappointment. Look where 1998 is now after he pushed the late 30s -early 40s down ~1C. This clever maneuver also got rid of most the 35yrs of cooling which had scientists worried about the “Ice Age Cometh”.

With the original record of cooling, the warming of 1980 to 1998 was little more than recovery from cooling spell and then we sank into 2 decades of the “Dreaded Pause”and that was ended by the 2016 el Niño with a cooling period since, that is near becoming an extension of the earlier big pause.

With the whole putsch in the middle stages of collapse, repair of climate data, will restore natural variation and the Mannmade Crisis will be no more.

Reply to  Gary Pearse
November 6, 2022 7:20 pm

As the facsimile from IPCC (1999) makes clear, the 1.8 K predicted warming was from pre-industrial to 2030, not from 1950-2030.

ResourceGuy
November 6, 2022 12:50 pm

Europe needs 43 more coal plants….in China. That is to help supply solar panels and silicon components for renewable energy demand. See how that works. They will get around to the slave labor issue later–after various stall and run-silent tactics.

Edward Katz
November 6, 2022 2:21 pm

It’s the old story: if you want faster short term results, hit the panic button because there are always enough dupes to fall for the exaggerations. But when the politicians and government officials are among the dupes, watch out because they’re the ones that can impose new laws, restrictions and taxes on the public

Laws of Nature
November 6, 2022 10:23 pm

>> “But,” he said, “we’ve been told it’s far worse than climate scientists had thought.” Well, it isn’t.

To be more precise, that thinking never happened..

They took some model results without thinking an over at Real Climate you can read yourself how G. Schmidt is back paddling about newest model reliability, while he tries to smear Scafetta´s latest article on how bad models compare with real world temperature trends:

“Are there issues with the forcings that are artificially boosting warming in some models? Yes. (Fasullo et al, 2021); Are there processes missing in all these CMIP6 models that can explain the southern ocean discrepancy? Probably. (Rye et al, 2020); Is cloud phase in some models being inappropriately tuned? Maybe (Cesana et al, subm).”

BTW if he and R. Spencer cannot agree about how to treat satellite data, then this lead to a systematic uncertainty blanketing the range of both data sets.
“My opinion on that probably differs somewhat from his,”
Neither “opinions” matter in a proper uncertainty estimate! Schmidt is doing it wrong!
But Spencer gives a good reason while his algorithm is better
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/03/25/uah-vs-rss/
” The RSS decision to include the clearly flawed NOAA-14 data in their calculations is highly questionable when the clearly superior NOAA-15 data is available for the period in question.”

If Schmidt insists to also include RSS (or other datasets with the same mistake) in his analysis, this just means that his systematical errors blow up as he also has to consider (or falsify) the UAH trends!
Scafetta and Spencer are just saying RSS is doing it wrong and we know why that is as clear as it gets.

Reply to  Laws of Nature
November 7, 2022 1:35 pm

Here’s how Climate Howler Zeke H. “made” climate models “accurate”:

Used TCS rather than ECS
Used RCP 8.5 rather than RCP 4.5
Used surface temperatures, not UAK satellite data

After those “fixes” the resulting model TCS / RCP 4.5 ranges seem reasonable. What annoys me is that Zeke must have thought Climate Realists were too stupid to figure out what he did, or he just didn’t care because the media would never report his model “fixes”. They would just report that models are accurate … which is exactly what they did. And Climate Howlers say the same thing, just like trained parrots.

Cls
November 7, 2022 3:38 am

In 20 years the AGM theory will be proven utterly false. The tiny fraction of CO2 emmited by humans will be confirmed to have a tiny net benefit. But once exposed as fraud who will be convicted of having directed humanity to have squandered $10s of trillions on hokey inefficient now useless renewable projects?

Not a single one.

Reply to  Cls
November 7, 2022 1:29 pm

AGW will not be proven false
The fraction of added CO2 emitted by humans is 100%, not “tiny”.
Manmade CO2 (CO2 up +50%) has so far been beneficial and harmed no one. You got one of three right — the most important conclusion.

Herrnwingert
November 7, 2022 4:06 am

From the Economist this morning (7th Nov):

The Earth’s temperatures over the past eight years were the hottest on record, according to a new report presented in Egypt at the opening session of COP27, the UN’s annual climate summit. The World Meteorological Organisation also said sea levels are rising twice as fast as 30 years ago. After 48 hours of wrangling, delegates finalised the talks’ agenda. For the first time, it includes “loss-and-damage” financing, which calls on rich countries, including those most responsible for historical emissions of greenhouse gases, to compensate poor countries for the consequences of climate change.

Where do they get their data?

Reply to  Herrnwingert
November 7, 2022 1:27 pm

On record includes a small portion of the global warming trend since the 1690s. So we should expect most decades to set a new record. That is how a rising trend is defined. The record decades will continue until the warming trend reverses to a cooling trend. That has always happened on our planet, it’s nothing new.

Anyone who claims the sea level rise rate has doubled is lying. The use of satellites to inaccurately measure sea level is part of that ruse. Tide gauges do not show any significant change in relative sea level. Their records go back to the 1800s

November 7, 2022 7:42 am

Good article — sticks to the point. Only one mention of climate communists. That’s counterproductive — most Communists in the world are NOT Climate Howlers. And few Climate Howlers in non-communist nations are communists. They are socialists. Some are authoritarian socialists, but not actual communists. So calling Climate Howlers communists just makes them stop listening to what they need to hear about always wrong IPCC predictions of doom.

Four additional points:
(1) The IPCC uses models as props to support their climate scaremongering, with no intention of making accurate climate predictions

(2) When models are compared with global average temperature compilations, worst case assumptions are usually used: All observed warming is assumed to be caused by manmade greenhouse gases, not from natural causes of climate change that models try to ignore. That assumption is not likely to be true. Also, the UAH temperature compilation is assumed to be unreliable, simply because it reports less global warming then the surface temperature compilations.

(3) If the IPCC wanted climate predictions that appeared to be accurate, they would highlight best case TCS predictions using. RCP 4.5,rather than worst case ECS predictions using RCP 8.5. … They also let people believe ECS refers to 50 to 100 years in the future, when it actually refers to several centuries in the future. TCS does refer to 70 years in the future. But the IPCC presents their worst case ECS wild guess, and hides their best case TCS wild guess, Even with the radical RCP 8.5 CO2 growth rate scenario, the IPCC’s TCS range is not scary enough for climate scaremongering. So you don’t need to know about TCS:

The latest IPCC wild guesses using RCP 8.5:
In several centuries (ECS in AR6): +2.5 to +4.0 degrees C.
In 50 to 100 years (TCS in AR6): +1.4 to +2.2 degrees C.

(4) It is impossible to create an accurate climate model. There are far too many climate change variables. The exact effect of each one is not known. CO2 is one of the many climate variables. If a climate model seems to make accurate predictions, that “accuracy” is just an illusion — nothing more than a lucky guess. The current state of climate science knowledge prevents the development of a climate model that is accurate by design. Although one climate prediction developed in 1997, by me, has been accurate: “The climate will get warmer, unless it gets colder”.

Last edited 2 months ago by Richard Greene
November 7, 2022 8:30 am

There are many comments arguing about whether the IPCC / IPCC models failed miserably. That always makes me laugh. Because people are assuming the IPCC models were intended for accurate global average temperature predictions. They are not. They are intended to scare people about the future climate, and they have succeeded in that goal.

If the models were intended for accuracy, their revised predictions would have moved closer to reality over the past 40 years. In fact, the ECS range has moved further away from observations (CMIP6 versus CMIP5). And the Russian INM model, that overpredicts global warming less than all other models, gets almost no attention. If accuracy was a goal, the INM model would get 99% of the attention.

Editor
Reply to  Richard Greene
November 7, 2022 9:52 am

An interesting point you make and one I can accept since there has indeed been a lot of wild scaremongering prediction made by the IPCC over the years and their chronic overheating scenarios never improve after 30 years which is a sign of a failed climate modeling industry since there should have been clear trend of improvements over 30 years.

But instead, we keep seeing the stubborn fact climate models still lacks credible forecast skill to maintain this after THIRTY YEARS using them to drive policy and lie to the public.

It is why I gave up on the IPCC around 10 years ago when they continue to repeat their climate modeling failures as policy support, I can’t support such embarrassment.

Reply to  Richard Greene
November 7, 2022 11:41 am

In fact, the ECS range has moved further away from observations”

There are no observations of ECS.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
November 7, 2022 1:23 pm

There are 172 years of adding manmade CO2 into the atmosphere, since about 1850. CO2 levels were up almost +50%. Global average temperature was up +1.2 degrees C. in that period, with the 1850 average closer to a wild guess than an accurate statistic.

So Mr, Stroker, we have 172 years of temperature data and we were almost half the way to a 100% CO2 level increase in that period.

Those are relevant historical data.
Your comment, however, is irrelevant claptrap.

CO2isLife
November 8, 2022 2:54 am

The fact that they are going after methane is proof this is nothing but a power grab. They have to justify the Government seizing the farms. Socialists know they need to control food and energy to control society. It is that easy.

Josh Scandlen
November 18, 2022 6:22 am

Making sure I can post.