The Collapse of IPCC Credibility

Denmark is in the area of isostatic rebound from the last Ice Age, like most of northern Europe, Asia, and North America. The coastline around Hudson Bay, for example, has risen dozens of meters just in historical times. That means the seafloor under Hudson Bay has also been rising, displacing seawater to elsewhere on the planet. Global sea level increase is therefore fully explained by the isostatic rebound of such formerly glaciated continental shelves in the Northern Hemisphere, with no contribution from purported global warming needed.

 

The IPCC's models are a big part of the problem, but not the only part.
Climate Model Bias 1: What is a Model?

By Andy May
There are three types of scientific models, as shown in figure 1. In this series of seven posts on climate model bias we are only concerned with…

". . . Confirmation[27] and reporting bias[28] are very common in AR6. We also find examples of the Dunning-Kruger effect,[29] in-group bias,[30] and anchoring bias.[31]

In 2010, the InterAcademy Council of the United Nations reviewed the processes and procedures of the IPCC and found many problems.[32] In particular, they criticized the subjective way that uncertainty is handled. They also criticized the obvious confirmation bias in the IPCC reports.[33] They pointed out that the Lead Authors too often leave out dissenting views or references to papers they disagree with. The Council recommended that alternative views should be mentioned and cited in the report. Even though these criticisms were voiced in 2010, I and my colleagues, found numerous examples of these problems in AR6, published eleven years later in 2021 and 2022.[34]

Although bias pervades AR6, this series will focus mainly on bias in the AR6 volume 1 (WGI) CMIP6[35] climate models that are used to predict future climate. However, we will also look at the models used to identify and quantify climate change impacts in volume 2 (WGII), and to compute the cost/benefit analysis of their recommended mitigation (fossil fuel reduction) measures in volume 3 (WGIII). As a former petrophysical modeler, I am aware how bias can sneak into a computer model, sometimes the modeler is aware he is introducing bias into the results, sometimes he is not. Bias exists in all models, since they are all built from assumptions and ideas (the “conceptual model”), but a good modeler will do his best to minimize it.

In the next six posts I will take you through some of the evidence of bias I found in the CMIP6 models and the AR6 report. A 30,000-foot look at the history of human-caused climate change modeling is given in part 2. Evidence that the IPCC has ignored possible solar influence on climate is presented in part 3. The IPCC ignores evidence that changes in convection and atmospheric circulation patterns in the oceans and atmosphere affect climate change on multidecadal times scales and this is examined in part 4. . . . "

 

There is a long history of attempts to create models that are not discredited by observations. Those attempts are thus far mostly unsuccessful.

Climate Model Bias 2: Modeling Greenhouse Gases

By Andy May

Since the late 19th century, with the work by Svante Arrhenius, climate models have been used to estimate the amount of global warming due to human greenhouse…

 

The IPCC continue to damage themselves by presenting hockey stick reconstructions.

IPCC’s New “Hockey Stick” Temperature Graph
Posted on March 1, 2024 by haakonsk
The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) published their latest assessment report (AR6) in 2021. In 2023, the Clintel Foundation published a report which criticizes AR6.

Continue reading →

. . . .
Conclusion

Whether the average global temperature of the past 2000 years forms a hockey stick pattern or not might not be possible to determine from existing proxy records. And there’s disagreement in the scientific literature about how much the pre-industrial global temperature has varied since year 0.

Although the IPCC knew about the disagreement, they still chose to rely on a single temperature reconstruction for the past 2000 years (PAGES 2k 2019) in their latest assessment report. That in itself is unfortunate, since they’re supposed to make an objective assessment of the scientific literature. It’s even more unfortunate considering all the criticism PAGES 2k 2019 has received.

Did the IPCC want to present a hockey stick temperature graph? The Clintel Foundation and McIntyre believe so, and I wouldn’t be surprised, either. But it’s hard to prove.

 

The IPCC does not take the Sun into account.
Climate Model Bias 3: Solar Input

By Andy May
In part 2 we discussed the IPCC hypothesis of climate change that assumes humans and our greenhouse gas emissions and land use choices are the climate change…

Summary
The goal of this post is not to convince anyone that solar variability is responsible for all or part of modern global warming, a subject that is well covered elsewhere.[24] The point is that the IPCC reports and the CMIP models do not consider or investigate this possibility.

It is true that exactly how solar variability occurs and how it affects climate are not known, but the Sun does vary, and the variations correlate with climate changes. It is unlikely that climate changes are a direct result of the change in insolation, the solar changes are amplified by Earth’s climate system somehow.

We also do not know how much solar output has varied since 1650, the middle of the devastatingly cold Little Ice Age and the onset of the Maunder Solar Grand Minimum. There are several possible reconstructions of solar output since then. Figure 3 shows one of them constructed from an ice core beryllium-10 isotope record by Steinhilber, et al. The major climatic periods since 0AD are noted on it, and the Solar Grand Minima are identified.


Figure 3. The Steinhilber, et al. (2009) TSI reconstruction from 10berylium isotopes. The solar grand minima are identified, as well as the major climatic periods since 0AD.
The absolute values of delta-TSI (the change in total solar irradiation), in W/m2, plotted in Figure 3 are based on one of many possible modern TSI reconstructions (PMOD) and may not be accurate, but their values relative to one another are reasonable. None of the modern satellite TSI reconstructions are well supported, and the debate over which one is the best is furious and ongoing. See the discussion here for an introduction to the debate. It is best to not consider the absolute value of the Y axis in Figure 3, and consider it a TSI index, no one really knows how much TSI has changed, even over the satellite era. Further, as we’ve seen, how TSI changes relate to climate changes quantitatively is also not known. All we know is that they generally change together.

In Figure 3 we can see that colder periods, like the Little Ice Age, have some solar peaks and some warmer periods, and the Medieval Warm Period has solar lows. None of the climatic periods identified in Figure 3 were uniformly cold or warm. What we call the Little Ice Age, had some hot periods, and the Medieval Warm Period had cold periods (see the section after figure 2 here for references). Further, the correlation between solar activity and climate is not exact, nor is it uniform and synchronous over the whole planet. This is probably because of the effects of convection and atmospheric and oceanic circulation that I examine in the next post. Climate change is complicated.

The beginning and end of the climate periods identified in figure 3 are approximate, and mostly a judgement call. All the climate periods start and end at different times in different places.

However, we do know that some solar proxy reconstructions correlate well with climate proxies since 1850 (see Table 1 here),[25] and that alone is justification for additional research. Solar variability can explain anywhere from zero to almost 100% of the warming since 1850, depending upon the datasets used.[26]

This is a very brief summary of the evidence that changes in solar activity affect climate. More comprehensive discussions of possible mechanisms and the evidence for them are available.[27] Suffice it to say that this is an area of research that is too often ignored and brushed away as unimportant, especially by the IPCC. The sometimes excellent correlations in the peer-reviewed literature between solar activity and climate change alone should be enough to spur research. The fact that the IPCC has ignored these correlations is evidence of bias.

A point we will make many times in this series is that the Earth is not a uniform single thermodynamic body. Its surface is constantly changing. Treating it as a simple thermodynamic body, and one that can be characterized by a global average temperature is a huge mistake. Next, in part 4, we will discuss the potential impact of long-term changes in convection patterns.

 

The IPCC gets a failing grade in their treatment of Earth's atmospheric circulation system.
Climate Model Bias 4: Convection and atmospheric circulation

By Andy May

In part 3 we discussed the relationship between changes in solar activity and climate changes. Exactly how solar changes affect climate is not understood. It isn’t the immediate change in radiation delivered to the Earth, since that is too small to have much of an effect. So, it must be how Earth’s climate system reacts to the changes. The observed impact of solar irradiance changes over the solar cycle on the climate is much larger than the change in delivered radiation can account for.[1] A likely amplifying mechanism is Earth’s convection and atmospheric circulation system. This post examines that idea. It is yet another important idea that the IPCC and AR6 ignore and brush away as unimportant, vis-à-vis global warming. . . .

 

The IPCC routinely ignores research results that undermine the approved narrative.

Climate Model Bias 5: Storminess

By Andy May

In part 4 the impact of convection and atmospheric circulation on climate was discussed. When circulation patterns change, they change the speed and efficiency of the transport…

Zhongwei Yan and colleagues, which include Philip Jones and Anders Moberg, found that extreme weather has decreased, especially in the winter months since the 19th century, as the world has warmed.[7] They note that the relationship between warmth and weaker weather is most pronounced in Europe and China in the critical winter months. In contrast to Yan, et al., AR6 reports:

“… both thermodynamic and dynamic processes are involved in the changes of extremes in response to warming. Anthropogenic forcing (e.g., increases in greenhouse gas concentrations) directly affects thermodynamic variables, including overall increases in high temperatures and atmospheric evaporative demand, and regional changes in atmospheric moisture, which intensify heatwaves, droughts and heavy precipitation events when they occur (high confidence). Dynamic processes are often indirect responses to thermodynamic changes, are strongly affected by internal climate variability, and are also less well understood. As such, there is low confidence in how dynamic changes affect the location and magnitude of extreme events in a warming climate.”

AR6 WGI, page 1527
Thus, in spite of the evidence reported by Yan, et al. and many others (see Chapter 11 in The Frozen Climate Views of the IPCC), AR6 has concluded that anthropogenic global warming is causing and has caused increases in extreme weather. This is another example of bias. . . .

 

Jack there is a huge glaring hole in your OP!

You insinuated the IPCC possessed a modicum of credibility prior to the expose'. The IPCC was exposed as a corrupt propaganda outlet back in 2001. So much so, any attempt to regain any semblance of credibility whatsoever would exceed the 100 or more year timeframe necessary to resolve the debate with real-time measurements. Seeing as only 20 years have elapsed I'm quite certain you have been overly generous insinuating they were only recently exposed in 2023.

In 2001 shortly after Gore lost his bid for the presidency, ~50,000 emails were hacked from the UN's IPCC and made public. Touted as the top echelon of climate scientists throughout the world. Many thousands of email chains were made public clearly revealing the methods the "scientists" were using to alter the data to support their attempt to "Chicken Little" the issue of Global Warming, and worst of all indicated they knew it was a hoax and that GW was a myth and a fabrication. They had to publicly admit their wrongdoings to avoid being charged and convicted to avoid long jail sentences. What they were basically doing was making up Global Warming and whipping up hysteria so they could obtain funding from various member nations (especially the US) for their personal gain (essentially fraud to the tune of what they hoped was $2 Trillion from the US alone). Al Gore's campaign number.

One of the most damning was an email chain among the top 20 scientists the UN put in charge of the worldwide climate initiative. At the conclusion of which was a particularly telling statement paraphrased:

I think we all agree the election of Bush has closed our window of opportunity to obtain the $2T in funding from the US we were hoping for. Now that the 1998 peak in global temperatures has been reached, by the time another such opportunity presents itself prolonged decreases in temperature will have become apparent as the trough approaches. Might I suggest we shift our tactics by altering the terminology from Global Warming to something along the lines of Climate Change. I suggest we use this term for the foreseeable future to better align with the reality during the downward have of the cycle.

In other words, they knew it was a cycle and they new it had passed the peak. Which is also why they felt compelled to alter the data.

It was the first time I read the words Climate Change. Since the email release they have had ZERO credibility. To my amazement, the environmental wackos completely turned a blind eye to the fact that even their own top guys (the ones pushing the whole hoax) knew it was BS and eagerly embraced the new terminology. It's no longer GW that is the problem, it is drastic changes in the weather patterns. Now they don't care if it goes up or down. ANY CHANGE EITHER WAY and they run to the windows and scream Climate Change!!! Record snowfall - Climate Change. Drought - Climate Change. Wildfires - Climate Change. A hurricane - Climate Change. Heard 1 rube claim we were responsible when they announced increased solar flares. Amazing how so many can be so gullible. They just ignore the fact they've already been exposed and forced to resign (at least those at the very top). Is it any wonder people who gets paid to be Climatologists would find benefit in stirring up hysteria? Convince everyone the world is about to end and you are the only one with the solution. Great gig if you can get it.

 

The IPCC's climate model narratives don't include the benefits of warming and increased CO2.
Climate Model Bias 6: WGII
Andy May
The IPCC AR6 WGII report examines the impact of climate change but ignores the benefits of warming and additional CO2. . . .

. . . . WGII liberally discusses the potential negative impact of climate change,[4] and they discuss the potential benefits of their recommended adaptation and mitigation policies, but the report rarely mentions the well documented potential benefits of global warming and additional atmospheric CO2. [5] The fact that WGII only considers the problems of climate change and not the benefits, reveals their bias and invalidates their analysis. Even when mentioning a benefit, they find something negative in it. For example, they mention that elevated CO2 benefits woody plants, but that woody plants can cause an increase in atmospheric carbon.[6]

As Brian O’Neill writes, while many studies anticipate problems in the future, they also predict a future where humanity is better educated, better fed, longer lived, healthier, with less poverty, and less conflict. This is simply continuing a trend that has been underway for many decades.[7] O’Neill reports that currently there are 700-800 million people at risk of hunger globally. By 2050, even including the possible effects of 2°C of warming, that number will fall to 250 million.[8] . . . .