From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THIS
By Paul Homewood
For years, we have been fed a never-ending diet of apocalyptic climate scares – killer heatwaves, biblical floods, deadly droughts, devastating hurricanes, to name just a few.
And it is not just sensationalism from the media that I am talking about. The language may have been slightly less dramatic, but official bodies from the UN down have been equally guilty, including our own Met Office.
All these scare stories have one thing in common – they are based on emissions scenarios, which have long been regarded by independent experts as implausibly high. The scenario in question is known as RCP8.5.
RCPs are a set of greenhouse gas concentration trajectories (not emissions scenarios per se) used by the IPCC for climate modelling and projections. They describe different possible future paths for atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations and the resulting radiative forcing (the change in energy balance in the Earth’s atmosphere, measured in W/m²) by the year 2100.
RCP 8.5 is the highest, being based on continued, strong growth of GHG emissions:
It was described by one of the IPCC’s co-chairs in 2021 as follows:
“The high-emissions RCP8.5 scenario has long been described as a “business-as-usual” pathway with a continued emphasis on energy from fossil fuels with no climate policies in place. This remains 100% accurate.”
However, energy experts have stated that a continuation of the recent growth rate of fossil fuel use simply is not possible, because there are not enough reserves of coal, gas and oil to supply such demand.
Now it has been formally announced that RCP8.5 and other similarly high scenarios, such as RCP6.0, will be eliminated in future.
All of a sudden, the doomsday projections of 4C of warming have been binned.
That does not mean, of course, that the lower emission scenarios are any more credible. But as Prof Roger Pielke Jr puts it:
The now-implausible upper-end scenarios — RCP8.5, SSP5-8.5, and SSP3-7.0 — are not just academic constructs used in esoteric research. They are embedded in the policies and regulations of most of the world’s largest economies, found across the world’s most important multilateral institutions, and used in the climate stress tests that govern hundreds of billions of dollars in bank capital.
https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/rcp85-is-officially-dead
In this country, government policy is influenced and even the Bank of England’s stress tests of banks and insurers must take account of these upper-end scenarios.
Let’s look at the Met Office, for instance.
In 2022, they published a report titled “UK Climate Projections”, (UKCP18). Innocent enough, you might say.
But right at the start, they tell us that their report focusses on RCP8.5:
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/approach/collaboration/ukcp
Sure, you can “extract results” for other scenarios, but it is RCP8.5 that is making the headlines and it is projections using RCP8.5 that form the basis of government policy making.
These are some of the plainly far-fetched claims made in UKCP18:
- Summers will be 5.1C hotter by 2070 and winters 3.8C
- The temperature of the hottest summer days will increase by 6.8C by the 2070s.
- By 2070, summer rainfall could be 45% lower on average and winter rainfall 39% higher.
- There will be an increase in the intensity of summer rainfall
- Summer storms will extend into autumn, as temperatures increase.
- There will be significant increases in hourly precipitation extremes in the future
- Droughts in summer will be much worse
- Snow will be a thing of the past, except for mountainous regions
- Sea levels in London will be 1.15m higher by 2070.
As the Met Office pointed out, “Government will make use of UKCP18 to inform its adaptation and mitigation planning and decision-making.”
How much money then has the Government wasted adapting to events that will never happen?
All of the above fictitious claims, and many others made since by the Met Office, have been discredited by their own data, which has consistently shown none of these things happening in practice. Yet still the projections remain the official source of climate advice for governments:
As the Met Office state:
“As part of the Met Office Hadley Centre Climate Programme, the UK Climate Projections 2018 (UKCP18) offers a range of tools designed to help decision-makers assess their risk exposure to climate change and adapt.
The UKCP18 project uses cutting-edge climate science to provide updated observations and climate change projections until 2100 in the UK and globally. The project builds upon on the success of UK Climate Projections 2009 (UKCP09) to give the most up-to-date assessment of how the climate of the UK may change over the 21st century.”
Now we know that the Met Office have been feeding government with advice based on faulty assumptions. They must now withdraw UKCP18 in its entirety and explain why they used them in the first place, particularly given the long standing criticisms of RCP8.5.
In turn, the Government must now come clean and immediately suspend all programmes, spending and targets, which have been justified on the basis of the Met Office’s climate projections.
They don’t care.
The climate zealots I’ve spoke to say the other RCP scenarios are still scary enough to be worried about so full speed ahead for Net Zero.
Deliberate self impoverishment by the West.
Correct. And, as I have already mentioned, over the last 30 years, they (the climate mafia) have bought the mainstream media, influential NGOs, international organizations and top politicians (sometimes countries as a whole), and they are not going to surrender. Actually this is not the end, this may be the end of the beginning at best.
Facts must be used to demonstrate the Earth’s climate changes.
The Arctic September ice minimum extent decreased until 2006. The Arctic September ice minimum extent began to increase from 2007.
Which climate scientists are hiding data on increasing Arctic September ice minimum extent?
I would say that the Arctic minimum decreased until 2012, when the lowest extent of coverage occurred. That would also suggest that it is recovering faster than your trend line suggests.
Climate scientists description of the Arctic sea ice minimum in September:
An excellent article, thank you! No mention of the scrapping from the liars at the BBC, of course. As for the liars at the Met Office…..they will eventually hide it on their webshite and mention something in passing. The UK govt is licking its wounds after the local elections, so won’t say anything.
The IPCC are as corrupt as ever.
Somebody needs to give us Americans a good run down of last weeks elections in the UK.
I hear Nigel did rather well.
The whole environmentalist movement was funded by the KGB as a way to destabilize Western capitalist governments. It’s the most successful psyop in history as the USSR is the dustbin of history but the operation still is paying dividends.
Leftwing billionaires are the equivalent of the USSR psyop today.
The Physical Scale of Atmospheric CO₂
If all atmospheric CO₂ were compressed into liquid form at a density of ~770 kg/m³, its total volume would shrink dramatically into a cube measuring approximately 16 km × 16 km × 16 km. This represents a ground footprint of 256 km². Visualizing atmospheric CO₂ at this scale transforms an invisible gas into something physically imaginable and reveals the quantity of carbon present in Earth’s atmosphere.
http://www.the-world-of-co2.com
Thank you for sharing this important information. It’s a real shame that the mainstream media isn’t publicising this to the general public. It’s a missed opportunity to tone down the hype surrounding climate change.
At the Mauna Loa Obs. in Hawaii, the concentration of CO2 in dry air is currently 431 ppmv. One cubic meter of this air has mass of 1,290 g and contains a mere 0.85 g of CO2 at STP. This trace amount of CO2 in the air can have no effect on weather and climate.
We really need to inform the people and especially the politicians that CO2 does not cause global warming. China, India, Russia and a great many other nations have determined that the trace greenhouse gas CO2 is not problem and making no effect to reduce the emission of CO2 from the use of fossil fuels.
At your website, the diagram for CO2 is wrong. CO2 is a linear molecule: O=C=O
Needless to say the BBC and the Guardian have a net zero mention policy on this latest embarrassment. The last entry was for their fake statistics show, More or Less, over a year ago…
Whether we like it or not, global warming is happening. The global temperature has already gone up, and it’s going to go up more, because the atmosphere is already full of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, and we’re continuing to add to that stock. Quite how much it will increase by is a very important question for all of us.
…
So what’s going on?
Dr Zeke Hausfather, a climate scientist and the climate research lead at Stripe, explains the argument. BBC
Every [climate] scare, every panic, the whole thing over the last 20 years is now rendered as junk mail. While mad Ed Miliband is busy closing down our sectors of the North sea, Norway is beefing up its sovereign wealth by drilling for more:
The Norwegian government has been heavily criticised for approving plans to reopen three North Sea gasfields nearly three decades after they were closed to help fill the gap in energy supplies created by the Middle East war.
Amid sharp price rises in oil and gas since the US and Israel’s attack on Iran in February, Oslo has also given its approval for oil and gas companies to explore in 70 new locations in the North Sea, Barents Sea and Norwegian Sea.
The decision by the Labour-run government goes against the advice of the country’s environment agency and has infuriated left-leaning parties. – Outraged Guardian
The left has a habit of blanking inconvenient results. The Norwegians are showing them up for the idiots they are. On the bright side, in many English councils Labour scored net seats on Thursday last.
I heard Nigel did pretty good in the elections. I heard some numbers mentioned that were a little hard to believe. What’s the scoop?
And I’m wondering why Norway has no problem shutting down a gas field and then starting it back up, but it is claimed that if Iran shuts down its oil pumping it will permanently damage their oil fields. Different for oil than gas? Maybe Iran needs some advice from Norway.
Labour was trounced everywhere, pretty much – especially in Wales.
When the electorate tells you to jog on…
“the Prime Minister insisted: “I’m not going to walk away from responsibility and plunge the country into chaos.” – MSN
It’s already in chaos. He cannot read the room.
He ‘ran’ away from his ‘responsibility’ over several years, and look what happened. The man is delusional.
And in Wales for the last 100 years if a dog with 3 legs was marked “labour” they would have voted for it.
GOOD BYE GOOD RIDDANCE!! da boch chwi!
As the models used with these high emissions scenarios also run high as to the effects of GHGs, it was even more of an exaggerated scenario.
“All these scare stories have one thing in common – they are based on emissions scenarios, which have long been regarded by independent experts as implausibly high.”
ANY scenario in which a perceptible influence on the climate system from emissions of CO2, CH4, N2O is assumed – “baked in” – from the outset, is implausible in the proper context of dynamic energy conversion within the general circulation.
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1PDJP3F3rteoP99lR53YKp2fzuaza7Niz?usp=drive_link
Don’t get me wrong. It is indeed encouraging that RCP8.5 is being discontinued.
But the “one thing in common” even with many skeptics of climate alarm is the misconception that at least *some* “warming” should be considered attributable to incremental CO2. No one knows that to be true. The “no effect” null hypothesis has not been rejected by any reliable means in all the decades of investigation. And spectral measurements do not suffice for attribution of ANY of the the reported warming to the rising concentrations of IR-active trace gases.
Thank you for listening.
“But the “one thing in common” even with many skeptics of climate alarm is the misconception that at least *some* “warming” should be considered attributable to incremental CO2. No one knows that to be true.”
That is exactly right.
Anyone who disputes that should show his evidence to the contrary.
I could be proven wrong but I won’t be because there is no evidence that CO2 is affecting the Earth’s weather or climate. Any effects CO2 has is “in the noise”.
Earth is cooler w the atmos/water vapor/30% albedo not warmer.
Ubiquitous GHE balance graphics don’t + violate GAAP & LoT.
Kinetic heat transfer processes of contiguous atmos molecules render “extra” GHE energy from a surface BB impossible.
GHE = bogus & CAGW = scam.
Those “W/m^2” of “radiative forcing” are entirely fictional. I would say that we should focus on this more than on the number “8.5” per se.
There is one aspect in which CO2 has a tiny, tiny effect. Specific Heat Capacity of the atmosphere is minutely affected by changes in CO2 concentration. H2O has a much larger role due to its 50+ times the number of molecules compared to CO2 and the nature and structure of H2O versus CO2.
We really should take these warnings more seriously, after all, it’s not just science but…
“The UKCP18 project uses cutting-edge climate science to provide updated observations and climate change projections until 2100…”
/sarc
The projected temperature increases, due to greenhouse gases, are based on a start point described as “pre-industrial” which of course, happens to be the last phase of the Little Ice Age. Imagine that, it is warming up after the end of an Ice Age.
From the article: “How much money then has the Government wasted adapting to events that will never happen?”
All of it.
ISR ToA which the Sun perceives as a discular pin head swings 91 W/m^2 annually, 1,414 W/m^2 at perihelion, 1,323 W/m^2 at aphelion.
Albedo ranges 23 W/m^2 from CFSR 248 W/m^2 to R1 225 W/m^2 with six other expert models between.
Because of the tilted axis ISR ToA swings 701 W/m^2 from 1,311.7 W/m^2 in summer to 610.4 in winter (40 lat).
RCP is, was and remains meaningless rubbish.
Ditto GHE & CAGW.
The crazy thing about all these “emissions scenarios” is that none of it matters except that as far as all life, including humans is concerned, the more CO2 the better. Even if we somehow managed to double our CO2 emissions, any slight warming resulting from that would be 100% beneficial. CO2 is nothing but a bit player in climate. It can’t “drive” anything with the exception of the fits of hysteria the climate caterwaulers go into. Now, there would be all that nasty “greening of the planet” which the climate bell clangers hate so much. Not sure why.
So-called “climate scientists” and the spin-off “climate effects scientists” are today’s necromancers , conjuring up the dead to predict the future.
The fundamental, flawed assumption in fronting that RCPs could plausibly predict future warming trends is that atmospheric concentrations of CO2 (the major identified GHG villain) HAVE NOT already become saturated (essential reached an asymptotic limit) in ability to absorb additional LWIR off Earth’s surfaces.
Professor William Happer and other atmospheric/radiation experts have written extensively— in peer-reviewed scientific papers FWIW—that atmospheric CO2 became essentially saturated around 300 ppm w.r.t. absorbing any more LWIR, whereas Earth’s atmosphere is now at about 430 ppm CO2 on global average.
Reference: “Dependence of Earth’s Thermal Radiation on Five Most Abundant Greenhouse Gases”, W. A. van Wijngaarden and W. Happer, June 2020, free download at https://arxiv.org/pdf/2006.03098 ; Figure 4 for CO2 saturation and these key comments in the Conclusions section: “Doubling the current concentrations of the greenhouse gases CO2, N2O and CH4 increases the forcings by a few percent for cloud-free parts of the atmosphere . . . at current concentrations, the forcings from all greenhouse gases are saturated. ” (my bold emphasis added)
A common analogy is that there are only so many coats of red paint one can put on a barn (typically two) before each additional coat of paint fails to make it more red.
Forcing = caloric redux.
“forcing” = noun or verb
“caloric” = adjective
“redux” = adjective
Forcing ≠ caloric redux
Forcing = imaginary =
caloric = imaginary =
imaginary redux
=
GHE = imaginary
Fault in your logic flow: greenhouse gases definitely intercept LWIR radiated off Earth’s surface, whereas non-IR active atmospheric gases (predominately N2 and O2) do not.
This fact has been scientifically proven in the lab and in the field . . . it is not imaginary.
IR-interactive gases can absorb and emit longwave IR, yes. That doesn’t contradict anything Nicholas wrote. He never said they didn’t. What’s your point?
My point is that GHGs are not “caloric redux” or imaginary, despite what Nicholas Schroeder posted above.
Strange that you needed me to explain this, but there you are.
“despite what Nicholas Schroeder posted above.”
But he never said GHGs are either “caloric redux” or “imaginary”. Strange that you needed me to explain this, but there you are.
Nicholas Schroeder posted at May 10, 2026 3:09 am above:
“Forcing = imaginary =
caloric = imaginary =
imaginary redux
=
GHE = imaginary”
Do you not understand what the phrase “GHE = imaginary” means??? Apparently not!
Strange, your reading mis-comprenhension.
“Do you not understand what the phrase “GHE = imaginary” means???”
What I understand is that you have failed to contradict this claim. Why don’t you try to contradict what Nicholas actually wrote, rather than contradicting something he didn’t write?
“Strange, your reading mis-comprenhension.”
But I’m not the one who put words into other people’s mouths, or their internet postings, am I? No, of course not. That was you, wasn’t it? Yes, yes it was. Very strange indeed. I’m also not the one who mis-spelled “comprehension”. That was you again, wasn’t it? Even more strange.
Oh, oh . . . yes, indeed I did misspell (not mis-spell) “comprehension”. 😉
Nevertheless, congratulations and 1e^42 intergalactic credits for pointing out that typo.
And yet you still haven’t disproven Nicholas’s claim. Are you planning to get around to that any time soon?
..and so are western economies. Mission accomplished!
Lying and cheating is not okay especially by government. Government officials need to be held accountable.
This represents a significant “climate shift.”