The Collapse of IPCC Credibility

PMOD solar modeling construct isn't as good as Acrim solar data which is why the IPCC prefers PMOD......

 

Hot or Not: Steven Koonin Questions Conventional Climate Science and Methodology| Uncommon Knowledge
Charles Rotter
Koonin gives a more refined look at the science behind the climate issue than the media typically offers. . . .

 

He's too damn logical and scientific - the climate gloom-and-doomers will never accept him.

 

New Study: ‘Natural Climate Drivers Dominate In The Current Warming’
By Kenneth Richard on 7. September 2023

Share this...
More and more evidence is emerging that the modern warming trends are naturally driven, not anthropogenic.
Per CERES observations the surface incident shortwave (SW) radiation anomaly increased by +1.61 W/m² from 2001 to 2019, and +1.75 W/m² from 2001 to 2021 (Ollila, 2023).

This SW increase is likely due to natural variations in cloud cover albedo, or reflectiveness; it can explain global warming (0.46°C) over this period.

The IPCC and climate activists have been downplaying or dismissing the increase in downwelling SW radiation as a driver of warming, as this “challenges the basis of the [climate models]” that attribute warming almost exclusively to human activities.



Image Source: Ollila, 2023
Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) trends have also been linked to long-term climate warming since 1750.

Most TSI reconstruction studies depict TSI rising by ~3 W/m² from 1900 to the 1930s (from -2 W/m² below to +1 W/m² above the reference level), and then TSI is “about 1.5 W/m² higher than the reference level” from around 1990 onward.

In all, TSI has increased by 1.1 W/m² since 1750, which is a non-negligible contribution to global warming.

“[T]he temperature impact of the TSI change of 1.1 W/m² from 1750 to 2020 would be 0.32°C.”



Image Source: Ollila, 2023
Finally, there is nothing remarkable about the modern warming trend when viewed in the context of proxy temperature reconstructions of last few millennia.



Image Source: Ollila, 2023

 

It's all coming unstuck.
Manmade Climate Change Remains Unproven, Dutch, German Scientists Say
By P Gosselin on 8. September 2023

Share this...
Anything but certain…
By AR Göhring, EIKE



Source: https://www.mdpi.com/2225-1154/11/9/179

A highly topical peer-reviewed study in the scientific magazine “climate” proves on the basis of measured data that the “man-made” climate change claimed by the media and politicians is anything but certain.

37 international scientists from different institutions statistically examined public data on the temperature development on the continents of the northern hemisphere. They specifically chose the north, since the largest part of the earth’s land mass is located here and therefore a particularly large number of values from measuring stations from many decades are available.

Among the authors are some names known to EIKE readers, such as Willie Soon, Johan Berglund, Marcel Crok, Ana G. Elias, François Gervais, Hermann Harde, Ole Humlum, Patrick Moore, Nicola Scafetta, Jan-Erik Solheim, László Szarka and Fritz Vahrenholt.

Rural vs urban

It was important for the researchers to compare data from measuring stations in rural and urban areas. The reason for this is the well-known heat island effect of settlements, which makes cities and larger villages somewhat warmer than the undeveloped surroundings.

Global Warming: Is the Covered-up Cause the Heat Island Effect?

Every inhabitant can easily understand that Built areas are basically warmer: Building facades heat up more through solar radiation than, for example, a tree or a meadow. Heaters and air conditioners generate heat deliberately or as a side effect – all this causes a higher local temperature by up to 2°C on an annual average.

This naturally raises the question for the honest scientist whether the urban heat island effect does not falsify temperature data. The question is justified, since the number of measuring stations has been drastically reduced since 1990 – and those that have been maintained are mostly located near settlements, since they are maintained from there.

Another problem: In countries like China, cities have grown enormously in recent decades, “overgrowing” previously remote locations of measuring stations. For this reason alone, thermometers at such locations are measuring a higher temperature this year.

Natural warming or industrial global warming?

Government scientists claim that the average temperature of the earth’s atmosphere has risen since 1850 because booming industry has been blowing huge amounts of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide into the air ever since. The “climate” study examined measurement series from 1850 to 2018 and found that the mean temperature has risen by 0.89°C per century. That’s true for mixed measurement data from settlements and the province. If one uses only values from rural areas, one obtains a warming of only 0.55°C (38% less).

Warm industrial age is good for mankind

Now, one could say that even if there is a small error in the data, CO2 still heated the world. Not at all – until 1850 the “little ice age” prevailed in the northern hemisphere, as the cooling phase lasting about 400 years is somewhat dramatically called. It is to be expected that after this long period of time it will naturally become warmer again, and this is good for people. And nothing new: The High Middle Ages and the Roman period were epochs of rich harvests and cultural flourishing.

First appearing at AUF1 (edited)

Also see this presentation by Marcel Crok

 

Lols! This is the paper that they are referencing?
https://www.mdpi.com/2225-1154/11/9/179

wow! Author list looks like the who’s who of fossil fuel payment recipients

 

Evidence for such a claim....?

Thought not.

You don't seem to understand that when your ONLY form of rebuttal is an ad hominem fallacy, you have effectively conceded the argument. Indeed, the list of authors is more of an honor roll of climate scientists who have retained some integrity.

 

Moreover, the stations classed as "rural" do not all represent pristine sites unaffected by non-CO2 human activities. Paving of rural roads, increased use of farm machinery, construction of farm buildings, even installation of outdoor lighting can increase temperature readings in rural areas.

 

I suppose you attack the messengers because you find the message irrefutable. I'm uninterested in your attempt to lower the level of discussion by personal attacks.

 

2,500 years of wild climate change in southern Europe: It was warmer in Roman Times than now
By Jo Nova

Nothing at all about the modern era stands out as unusual
Thanks to David Whitehouse at NetZeroWatch who has found a remarkable paper: Pyrenean caves reveal a warmer past

The new study on stalagmites in caves of the Pyrenees shows that modern climate change is nothing compared to normal fluctuations in the last 2,500 years, when it was at times much hotter, colder, and more volatile. Rapid shifts between temperatures were common.

The researchers looked at 8 stalagmites in 4 caves and local lake levels, but they also compared their results with other European temperature proxies and reconstructions and the pattern is consistent across the region. The Roman Warm Period was much hotter than today, and for hundreds of years as well, even though coal plants were rare. Apparently, there was a reason Romans were dressed in togas.

The Dark Ages were very cold, especially around 520 – 550AD — which may be related to what the researchers call a “cataclysmic” volcanic eruption that took place in Iceland in 536AD. It was followed by two other massive volcanic eruptions in 540 and 547AD. This effect is apparently visible in European tree rings which showed “an unprecedented, long-lasting and spatially synchronized cooling”.

Indeed, the researchers declare that volcanoes and solar variability appear to be the main drivers of the climate in SouthWestern Europe.

So finally we see one long continuous proxy record from ancient Greek times right through until 2010. The big question is why these sorts of studies are not done everywhere and all the time. It’s not like we don’t have plenty of caves with stalagmites to analyze. If the climate really was “the biggest threat to life on Earth” why are these extraordinary datasets not the top item on the wish-list of every institution that claims they care about the climate?

There will be more to say on this remarkable paper:


Click to enlarge. Oxygen isotopes are used to estimate temperatures.



Some passages from the paper discuss how these results match other studies from Europe:

The cold event at ca. 540 AD (the coldest of the speleothem record) may be related to a cataclysmic volcanic eruption that took place in Iceland in 536 AD and spewed ash across the Northern Hemisphere, together with the effect of two other massive eruptions in 540 and 547 AD (Sigl et al., 2015). An unprecedented, long-lasting and spatially synchronized cooling was observed in European tree-ring records associated with these large volcanic eruptions, corresponding to the LALIA period (Büntgen et al., 2016).

Some passages from the paper discuss how these results compare with many other studies from Europe and with stark moments in history.

Keep reading →

 

Highly technical.

Challenging the Mathematical Basis of General Circulation Models
Charles Rotter
His framework invariably ensures well-posed reduced systems for limited domains and has broader applicability, including mesoscale and equatorial atmospheric behaviors, oceanic dynamics, and plasma physics. . . .

 

The Myth of “Settled” Climate Science: A Revelatory Study on Cloud Formation
Charles Rotter
Trees, Clouds, and the Unsettling Truth about Climate Science In a recent revelation from the international CLOUD project at the nuclear research center CERN, researchers have identified sesquiterpenes—gaseous hydrocarbons released…

 

The IPCC's principal skill is looking the other way.
New Studies: Selection Bias In Datasets Advances A False Narrative The Sun Has No Climate Impact
By Kenneth Richard on 5. October 2023

Share this...
Solar forcing may have a 4 to 7 times greater effect on climate change than current climate models indicate, which may mean modern climate change is predominantly natural rather than anthropogenic.
Anthropogenic global warming (AGW) attribution may be significantly dependent on the choice of dataset.

Advocates of AGW may only use Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) reconstructions that align with the perspective that the Sun has little to no impact on climate. Consequently, climate models may only use the PMOD’s model-based satellite data (which shows a declining trend since 1980) rather than the ACRIM (which shows an increasing TSI trend from the 1980s to 2000s).

The biased selection of long-term TSI reconstructions that show little to no variability are also preferred over TSI reconstructions with large variability. For example, the uncertainty in the estimate of the increase in TSI since the Maunder Minimum (1645-1715) ranges anywhere from 0.75 W/m² to 6.3 W/m² (Yeo et al., 2020). AGW advocates will, of course, select the lowest TSI change value (0.75 W/m²) and reject the higher values (6.3 W/m²), as then it is much easier to attribute modern warming to anthropogenic activity rather than to solar forcing.

The IPCC has selected one TSI dataset in the latest (2021) report for its global warming attribution assessments and climate models (GCMs). The dataset of course aligns only with the view modern warming is human-caused, and not natural, and thus it depicts a declining TSI trend since 1980 (PMOD) and almost no variability since the Maunder Minimum.

A new study (Connolly et al., 2023 with press release) identifies 27 other TSI estimates (purposely) ignored by the IPCC, several of which suggest modern warming may be up to 71-87% natural – especially if the temperature stations that do not show a strong artificial urban warming bias are used.

“Several of these different solar activity estimates suggest that most of the warming observed outside urban areas (in rural areas, oceans, and glaciers) could be explained in terms of the Sun.”



Image Source: Connolly et al., 2023 and press release
Another new study (Scafetta, 2023) suggests the Sun’s real climate impact may be 4-7 times larger than just from TSI (radiative) forcing alone, as the solar activity variations may mechanistically affect cloud albedo, which has been observed to drive 1-3 W/m² per decade changes in shortwave forcing (McLean, 2014).

“Thus, at least about 80% of the solar influence on the climate could be generated by processes other than direct TSI forcing.”

Climate models do not allow for any solar influence beyond the small, flat radiative forcing changes associated with TSI forcing, as this way it can be claimed that natural factors have little to no bearing on climate change.

Alternative solar activity records, as shown in TSI #2 Model below, have the Sun’s total impact directly linked to global temperature changes, including for recent decades.



Image Source: Scafetta, 2023

 

Marcel Crok Speaks in the Danish Parliament
Andy May
Clintel’s Marcel Crok gave the Keynote Lecture at the Climate Realism conference: The Climate Emergency is Canceled. The conference was in Copenhagen, Denmark in their beautiful Parliament…

Marcel Crok:

“The errors we documented in [AR6] are so bad and so striking that one day [the IPCC must] react. … The IPCC should reform, or it should be dismantled. … [Currently] the IPCC is a really bad source…”

 

Math models are indeed highly technical and as it turns out they are also extremely seductive to folks that spend enormous amounts of time and attention to gain the ability to build them.

Spoiler: Intermediate Ramble

It's interesting how memory works, and I assume everyone's works more or less the same, with exceptions for photographic memory savants and whatever passes for the opposite end of the curve.

I have random and at times frustratingly vague memories, usually of some scene from a movie that calls my mind's attention to a similarity with some real life scenario I'm living through.

It took me days to finally figure out that the scene I kept vaguely associating with spreading mayo on a slice of bread was from Kill Bill Vol. 2. Whew, man that was a relief. There was a small but vocal cluster of nerves in my brain that just wouldn't let that one go.

I was seduced when I first gained skill at modelling to find that there were interesting models that were based on theory and replicated almost perfectly the experimental data without resorting to large numbers of empirically fitted parameters. To me this meant that the models had to be the reality. My thesis advisor adamantly blew this notion out of my head with one simple reply when I expressed this newly found opinion: No, these are just models. They may be reflective of reality, but they are not reality of themselves. There is too much that we don't know and may never know, so it is important to understand this and not be seduced by the success of any particular model or even the process of modelling in general.

I could link a page to this guy, but I think perhaps not. PM me and maybe I'll share it if anyone is interested.

There remains a big feature of all of the climate modelling that is clearly an oversimplification: a well mixed atmosphere. Meteorology does not apply this concept to weather forecasts. If it did, then rain forecasts would be the same everywhere. This is a similar disconnect that continues to baffle physicists attempting to form a Grand Unification theory between strong and weak forces. Meteorology deals with forecasts that it has been able to get down to an applied science with accuracy going out nominally to maybe as much as half a month.

Climate "science" doesn't even bother to merge this knowledge with its models, and as Mike Crichton asserts - grab your wallet folks, because science is not consensus and consensus is not science.

Cloud modelling is just beginning to be developed to a degree that might be helpful to better understand how cloud effects sustain some possible contribution in chaotic dynamic patterns that must certainly effect the climate. That's my understanding of the state of the art, but I don't really find the subject of sufficient interest to dig into aside from time to time when I choose to post on this general subject here.

The general public accepts the climate crises bs completely on faith. The general public, I suspect, is largely of the opinion that "science" and "scientists" know much more about stuff that anyone actually does. I think the general public has this perspective concerning something along the lines of, at least for important stuff. There are many demonstrable features of modern civilization that lead to this. Everything from antibiotics to atom bombs contribute to this general sense of trust among the general public that all of the important stuff to know has become known, and that things not fully known are marginal details that won't make much difference once they are sorted out.

I am of course speculating about this based on my own experience, because this is exactly the position I had after 12 years of formal education. I had studied stuff within those 12 years that was completely unknown as few as 500 years ago. From my point of view, after 12 years I had an education that provided me with more fundamental knowledge than was known to Aristotle. The hubris was strong and I suppose somewhat helpful in forging ahead with stuff to get on with the things that were necessary for me to do after HS graduation, choices which I would certainly have made differently if I'd known then what I know now. This is the case for all of us, whether some of us choose to acknowledge it or not. A simple proof of this would be something along the lines of investing in Apple or Microsoft if any of us had known then what we know now, but there are far more important applications. I wonder what I would do differently today if today I knew what I will know in 2027, 2034, meh, somewhat disturbing to consider this stuff too much.

There are at least two main features to consider regarding this IPCC "science". One is the science, the validity of the cause and effect relationship between burning organic reserves and undeniable existential threatening levels of heat on Earth. The other aspect is the importance of conserving these resources, as they will one day soon become very expensive. Soon being very likely within a century. I agree with the later and find the former to be incredible.

It was only during and after completing an additional 6 years of formal education that I learned, or formed the opinion that, the greatest lesson of all of that, was to be able to somewhat have some skill in recognizing stuff that I only had the impression that I knew. In fact, I've come to the point that I very often have been pleased to think that the greatest advantage of the additional 6 years was learning that there is all kinds of stuff that I don't know.

Ooof, man, that's an awful lot of thats in that paragraph....

None of this will change the opinions of the general public that has been deceived through numerous examples of scientific success that these climate models are made of anything resembling similar stuff.

But that's Ok, as I fully support efforts to find replacements to civilizations' dependence on the Earth's organic reserves. They are irreplaceable and will almost assuredly be gone within the next 1000 years. Our entire civilization is based on them. This is what f'wits like Al Gore and Greta von Temper-tantrum seemingly have no concept of.

 

New Reconstructions From Brazil, China, Europe Indicate No Net Warming In Recent Centuries
By Kenneth Richard on 26. October 2023

Paleoclimate studies continue to undermine claims of “unprecedented” global warming in the modern era.
A new temperature reconstruction (Oliveira Silva Muraja et al., 2023) for Brazil reveals there has been no net modern warming since the 1400s.



Image Source: Oliveira Silva Muraja et al., 2023
Another new temperature reconstruction (Yue et al., 2023) indicates there has been no net modern warming in Central China since the 1400s.



Image Source: Yue et al., 2023
The Romanian National Meteorological Administration indicates the Danube region cooled from 1961-2013 (Viorica et al., 2023). The driest intervals of the last 250 years include 1949-1960, 1986-1993, and 2015-present. Dry periods coincide with relatively cold North Atlantic sea surface temperatures.



Image Source: Viorica et al., 2023

 

Another demonstration that IPCC claims are built on sand:
New Study: Lower Bound Uncertainty In Aerosol Forcing 10 Times Larger Than 10 Years Of CO2 Forcing
By Kenneth Richard on 30. October 2023

“Despite two decades of advances in many aspects of aerosol-climate science, aerosol climate forcing uncertainty is virtually undiminished. Yet, reducing this uncertainty is critical for any effort to attribute, mitigate, or predict climate changes.” – Kahn et al., 2023
According to a new study, the lower-bound uncertainty in natural aerosol forcing from wildfire smoke, desert dust, volcanic and pollution particles – not including the aerosol-induced cloud formation effects modulating Earth’s radiation budget – is 2.2 W/m² (±1.1 W/m²).

“A lower bound on the uncertainty range of just the direct component of the total global-mean all-sky aerosol forcing (i.e., that due to scattering and absorption by airborne particles but not their indirect effects on clouds) is estimated as ±1.1 W/m²”

To put this uncertainty estimate into perspective, it takes 10 years of CO2 concentration increase (22 ppm) to produce a surface forcing of 0.2 W/m² – and this is only for clear-sky, or an imaginary world in which no clouds exist (Feldman et al., 2015). CO2 forcing over a span of a decade is thus 10 times smaller than the lower-bound uncertainty in natural aerosol forcing.



Image Source: Kahn et al., 2023
Climate models don’t have the resolution to simulate aerosol forcing effects on climate.

“Model representation of aerosol properties often fails to capture the complexity found in nature, particularly in bulk models lacking microphysics, and generally, differences among commonly used aerosol representations in models can produce very different aerosol forcing results in model simulations.”

Because they cannot effectively constrain aerosol contributions to climate forcing, especially in aerosol-cloud interactions (ACI), many global climate models simply neglect or don’t include relevant aerosol processes.

“Many of the relevant processes operate on spatial scales far smaller than the resolution of global models and are therefore either highly parameterized or simply not included, such as some aerosol effects on convective clouds.”

“[Q]uantitative constraints on nearly all the key variables needed to characterize detailed ACI are beyond the capabilities of existing and currently planned space-based remote-sensing instruments.”

Apparently we are expected to remain unskeptical about the popular claim that we humans can determine what happens to the global climate with our daily living activities despite glaring attributional uncertainties.

 

Another IPCC omission highlighted.

Solving the Climate Puzzle: The Sun’s Surprising Role
Posted on November 4, 2023 by curryja | Leave a comment
Solving the Climate Puzzle: The Sun’s Surprising Role
by Javier Vinos

This post features a chapter from my new book Solving the Climate Puzzle: The Sun’s Surprising Role. The book provides a large body of evidence supporting that changes in the poleward transport of heat are one of the main ways in which the planet’s climate changes naturally. It also shows that changes in solar activity affect this transport, restoring the Sun as a major cause of global warming. Since climate models do not properly represent heat transport and the IPCC reports completely neglect this process, this new hypothesis will not be easily dismissed. I am sure that over time it will lead to a better understanding of how the climate changes naturally, and hopefully less climate hysteria.

Continue reading →

 

The IPCC failures are mounting up.
Scientists: Nearly 4 Decades Of Climate Model Failure Undermines Confidence In Future Predictions
By Kenneth Richard on 9. November 2023

IPCC models rooted in assumptions that we humans can and do control the Atlantic Ocean’s circulation with our daily-activity CO2 emissions have been wrong since the mid-1980s. Why should we still believe in them?
The latest IPCC report continues to say it is “very likely” the Atlantic Meridional Ocean Circulation (AMOC), a fundamental climate parameter, will weaken (and unleash cooling, catastrophic storms, drought, floods) in the 21st century.

But, as the authors of a new study note, since the mid-1980s the 84 (CMIP5) and 56 (CMIP6) AMOC models have been contradicted by observations in both magnitude and sign. The AMOC has not been declining in response to increases in atmospheric CO2. There is even evidence of trend increases.

“[W]e find that neither the CMIP5 nor the CMIP6 ensemble mean are successful at representing the observational AMOC data. … We show that both the magnitude of the trend in the AMOC over different time periods and often even the sign of the trend differs between observations and climate model ensemble mean, with the magnitude of the trend difference becoming even greater when looking at the CMIP6 ensemble compared to CMIP5.”

So, as the scientists ask, why should we trust future modeled predictions?

“f these models cannot reproduce past variations, why should we be so confident about their ability to predict the future?”



Image Source: McCarthy and Caesar, 2023

 

Published by the Royal Society no less.

I suspect there will be no response to this one from our right honorable faithful here.

I honestly don't know how you keep your head in the game of all of this nonsense.

I will steal your word, it's risible science, but really it's not any form of science at all.

It's stuff sorely in need of Jonathan Swift style treatment, or perhaps some of the brilliant humor to be found in 19th century Punch articles.

Dr. Merriam Aquifer had matriculated from her academic studies at the Scripps Research Institute specializing her studies on phytoplankton proxies in ocean floor core samples determinate of the Gulf Stream current dating back 300 thousand million years....

Blech...

 

Well, yeah. Propaganda based on incorrect logic tends to be ignored.

The models have been very good. We know the facts, so you can't gaslight us.

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/...are-getting-future-warming-projections-right/

Of course, the success of the models is just icing on the cake. The directly measured evidence proves how good AGW theory is, over and over.

Science. Our side does it, your side avoids it.

Our side puts forth a theory, runs experiment-by-observation, and confirms the theory works.

Your side ... won't even put forth a theory. It just runs around screaming about conspiracies.

I do understand why you all act like you do. If my side had failed completely at everything for 50 years running, I'd deflect madly too ... oh wait, I wouldn't. I'd abandon that side. But I guess that's just me.

 

Enjoying the cherries?

 

You are familiar with at least a few of my many posts here at PF on this general subject?

Just recently I offered someone else to please use the excellent Xenforo search features to review my comments on this general subject.

Noticing you've been here over a decade, I'll hopefully assume not incorrectly that you know how to do this.

***
That you would characterize an article published by the Royal Society, as gaslighting is pathetic. There are a few climatologists that have managed to thread the political needle behind this so-called science well enough to retain their ability to publish contrary views based on scientific principles. And this article I hope is the beginning of the deserved riptide of destruction in desperate need to reclaim science from the grasp of politics.

 

Clever I imagine our right honorable member considers this post to be.
This article isn't a cherry, it's a crumb among crumbs in this entirely marginal construct so vilely construed as based upon science that humans have attained the capability to predict the weather decades from now, much less control it by regulating CO2 emissions.

 

Hmmm. Are you accusing the Royal Society of cherry-picking?