Friday, August 30, 2013

Why the forthcoming UN IPCC Report is already toast

The IPCC is set to release its latest Assessment Report 5 [AR5] in about 1 month, yet the report will be dead on arrival and hopelessly out-of-date in light of recent inconvenient peer-reviewed papers published after the cut-off date for inclusion, as well as papers published before the cut-off date which the UN continues to ignore. 

Since almost the entire report hinges on the output of climate models, and those models have recently been  falsified at a confidence level of >98% over the past 15 years, and falsified at a confidence level of 90% over the past 20 years, the entire report and its Summary for Policymakers are already invalidated even before publication. Every single one of the 73 IPCC climate models in the upcoming report exaggerate global warming. Even the IPCC admits the models have not been validated and that they don't even know how to validate the models. 

Several recent peer-reviewed papers have lowered climate sensitivity estimates to a third to one-half [or less] than assumed by the IPCC models. 

In addition, US & EU envoys are pressuring the UN to explain why the leaked AR5 report doesn't explain why there has been no global warming for past 15-20 years, which no climate model predicted. 

Furthermore, the leaked report claims an increased confidence of 95% without any basis in statistical analysis or explanation why warming has stopped, removing all doubt that the AR5 is a political document, not scientific. 

70 comments:

  1. The 95% number seems like the new "the science is settled" line. If they persist with it ,they will lose credibility.

    ReplyDelete
  2. In claiming that the climate models have been falsified, this post errs. A model that predicts is susceptible to falsification. A model that projects is insusceptible to falsification. The climate models project. They do not predict.

    Often, in the literature of climatology, authors treat "predict" and "project" as synonyms in making arguments, though the two words have differing meanings. Such an argument is an example of an equivocation. By logical rule, one cannot properly draw a conclusion from an equivocation. To draw a conclusion, including the conclusion that a "prediction" is falsified, is an example of an equivocation fallacy.

    For details on the equivocation fallacy in global warming arguments, see the peer-reviewed article at http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=7923 .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. OK, not falsified. How about "shown not to provide information useful for evaluating human impact on the global climate"?

      Delete
    2. @Oldberg - You're kidding right ?

      I hope you don't mean to stand up for the failed climate models with such a nebulous trife position as "definitions" ?

      Honestly, the cult is still strong for some...

      Delete
  3. Looking at the 73 different IPCC climate models, since they all get different results, without even considering reality, they are all verifying that each one is wrong. Looks like they all guessed wrong. How much money was spent on this guess work?

    ReplyDelete
  4. The models used by IPCC are "not even wrong" since they exclude important climate variables such as the AMO, PDO and effects of EuV variability on the upper atmosphere. In fact, they don't include much of the atmosphere above the tropopause in the models at all.

    Junk. Science.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, and many more, including clouds, which the models all assume are a positive feedback, while the observations indicate a net negative feedback.

      Delete
  5. Terry:
    The climate models have been falsified at >98% certainty by comparing models' hindcasts with actual observation. The hindcasts used actual GHG concentrations and other forcings, not projections or predictions of forcings.
    See: http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=680

    ReplyDelete
  6. http://www.prweb.com/releases/2013/8/prweb11063505.htm?PID=4003003

    ReplyDelete
  7. Many good comments at WUWT regarding this post and refuting Terry Oldberg's assertion:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/31/wuwt-hot-sheet-for-saturday-august-31st-2013/

    ReplyDelete
  8. More reasons why the AR5 is toast

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/31/can-the-ipcc-do-revolutionary-science/

    ReplyDelete
  9. http://judithcurry.com/2013/08/30/inadequate-uncertainty-analysis-in-climate-change-assessments/

    ReplyDelete
  10. Ken Gregory:

    Thank you for taking the time to reply.

    The appearance that the climate models have been falsified is not matched by the reality. A model is falsified when the predicted relative frequencies of the outcomes of events fail to match the observed relative frequencies. For the IPCC climate models there are no events, hence are no outcomes or relative frequencies. The misleading appearance that the models have been falsified is based upon applications of the equivocation fallacy wherein the term "predicted" (among many other terms) is polysemic.

    ReplyDelete
  11. http://judithcurry.com/2013/09/09/laframboises-new-book-on-the-ipcc/

    ReplyDelete
  12. http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2013/9/10/an-unequivocal-rejection-of-the-scientific-method.html

    ReplyDelete
  13. http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/thomas/2013/09/chapter-and-verse-on-the-great-climate-con

    ReplyDelete
  14. http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/straighttalk/archives/2013/09/20130911-073919.html

    ReplyDelete
  15. http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/09/12/climate-models-wildly-overestimated-global-warming-study-finds/

    ReplyDelete
  16. http://drtimball.com/2013/ipcc-ar5-renews-demand-governments-buy-their-climate-change-pig-in-a-poke/

    ReplyDelete
  17. http://junkscience.com/2013/09/13/areas-where-debate-is-not-over-national-academy-of-sciences-admits-climate-sensitivity-sea-ice-loss-precipitation-extremes-need-more-work/

    http://junkscience.com/2013/09/13/shock-admission-ahead-of-ipcc-report-national-academy-of-sciences-says-climate-models-not-ready-for-decision-making/

    ReplyDelete
  18. http://junkscience.com/2013/09/13/national-academy-of-sciences-climate-modeling-not-meeting-needs-of-users-usefulness-decades-away/

    ReplyDelete
  19. http://judithcurry.com/2013/09/06/true-courage/

    ReplyDelete
  20. In interview with Hans Von Storchl:

    http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/interview-hans-von-storch-on-p...

    SPIEGEL: What could be wrong with the models?

    Storch: The first possibility is that less global warming is occurring than expected because greenhouse gases, especially CO2, have less of an effect than we have assumed. The other possibility is that, in our simulations, we have underestimated how much the climate fluctuates owing to natural causes.

    SPIEGEL: But it has been climate researchers themselves who have feigned a degree of certainty even though it doesn't actually exist. For example, the IPCC announced with 95 percent certainty that humans contribute to climate change.

    Storch: Of course, that evidence presupposed that we had correctly assessed the amount of natural climate fluctuation. Now that we have a new development, we may need to make adjustments.

    SPIEGEL: In which areas do you need to improve the models?

    Storch:, there is evidence that the oceans have absorbed more heat than we initially calculated. Temperatures at depths greater than 700 meters (2,300 feet) appear to have increased. The only unfortunate thing is that our simulations failed to predict this effect.

    SPIEGEL: That doesn't exactly inspire confidence.

    Storch: Certainly the greatest mistake of climate researchers has been giving the impression that they are declaring the definitive truth. The end result is foolishness.

    ReplyDelete
  21. http://motls.blogspot.com/2013/09/ipcc-ar5-will-reduce-sensitivity-by-30.html

    ReplyDelete
  22. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/13/national-academy-of-sciences-climate-models-still-decades-away-from-being-useful/

    ReplyDelete
  23. http://judithcurry.com/2013/09/15/leaked-ipcc-report-discussed-in-the-msm/

    ReplyDelete
  24. http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/report-gives-the-truth-about-climate-at-last/story-fni0cwl5-1226720428390

    ReplyDelete
  25. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/health-science/temperatures-rise-over-inconsistencies-in-un-climate-change-report/story-e6frg8y6-1226720483150#sthash.FYzYPVgw.dpuf

    ReplyDelete
  26. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/10310712/Top-climate-scientists-admit-global-warming-forecasts-were-wrong.html

    ReplyDelete
  27. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/health-science/we-got-it-wrong-on-warming-says-ipcc/story-e6frg8y6-1226719672318

    ReplyDelete
  28. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/16/lomborg-climate-models-are-running-way-too-hot/

    http://junkscience.com/2013/09/16/australian-global-warming-science-not-about-belief-it-is-facts-rather-than-belief-that-matter/

    http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2013/9/16/a-response-to-the-csas.html

    ReplyDelete
  29. http://joannenova.com.au/2013/09/pr-wars-ipcc-fights-for-relevance-halves-warming-claims-to-be-95-certain-of-something-vaguer/

    ReplyDelete
  30. http://notrickszone.com/2013/09/16/german-professor-ipcc-science-finds-itself-in-a-serious-jam-5ar-likely-to-be-the-last-of-its-kind/

    ReplyDelete
  31. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/20/when-somebody-hits-you-with-that-new-ipcc-is-95-certain-talking-point-show-them-this/

    ReplyDelete
  32. Peer-reviewed paper:

    http://www.forecastingprinciples.com/files/WarmAudit31.pdf

    "The forecasts in the [IPCC] Report were not the outcome of scientific procedures. In effect, they were the opinions of scientists transformed by mathematics and
    obscured by complex writing. Research on forecasting has shown that experts’ predictions are not useful in situations involving uncertainly and complexity. We
    have been unable to identify any scientific forecasts of global warming. Claims that the Earth will get warmer have no more credence than saying that it will get colder."

    ReplyDelete
  33. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/opinion/politics-interferes-in-the-process-of-science/story-e6frgd0x-1226720469959

    ReplyDelete
  34. http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/08/21/un-scientists-who-have-turned-on-unipcc-man-made-climate-fears-a-climate-depot-flashback-report/

    ReplyDelete
  35. http://m.washingtonexaminer.com/global-warming-report-could-backfire-on-environmentalists/article/2535889

    ReplyDelete
  36. http://www.humanevents.com/2013/09/17/global-warming-report-could-backfire-on-environmentalists/

    ReplyDelete
  37. http://www.cato.org/blog/peer-reviewed-or-not-ipcc-accepts-our-conclusion

    ReplyDelete
  38. http://opinion.financialpost.com/2013/09/16/terence-corcoran-the-tide-is-rising-on-climate-models-and-policies/

    ReplyDelete
  39. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/18/ipcc-to-once-again-illustrate-climate-model-failings-in-ar5-summary-for-policymakers/

    ReplyDelete
  40. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/18/ipcc-to-once-again-illustrate-climate-model-failings-in-ar5-summary-for-policymakers/

    ReplyDelete
  41. Dr Judith Curry on "pause denial" by the IPCC

    http://judithcurry.com/2013/09/19/peer-review-the-skeptic-filter/

    ReplyDelete
  42. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/19/real-climate-science-the-ipcc-doesnt-want-you-to-see/

    ReplyDelete
  43. http://www.cato.org/blog/ipcc-pretty-much-dead-wrong

    ReplyDelete
  44. http://judithcurry.com/2013/09/20/quote-of-the-day/

    ReplyDelete
  45. http://junkscience.com/2013/09/24/lord-monckton-devastates-ap-reporter-on-ipcc-95-confidence-claim/

    ReplyDelete
  46. http://junkscience.com/2013/09/24/lord-monckton-devastates-ap-reporter-on-ipcc-95-confidence-claim/

    ReplyDelete
  47. http://www.edmontonsun.com/2013/09/27/climate-change-what-climate-change

    ReplyDelete
  48. IPCC unprecedented uncertainty

    http://euanmearns.com/ipcc-ar5-unprecedented-uncertainty/#more-138

    ReplyDelete
  49. http://www.energytribune.com/79293/ipcc-5th-assessment-is-very-confident-that-theyre-not-sure#sthash.ydLrlL4L.dpbs

    ReplyDelete
  50. http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2013/10/03/questions-the-media-should-be-asking-the-ipcc-the-hiatus-in-warming/

    ReplyDelete
  51. http://www.reportingclimatescience.com/news-stories/article/ipcc-admits-gap-between-models-and-reality.html

    ReplyDelete
  52. http://www.science-skeptical.de/klimawandel/der-weltklimarat-ipcc-korrigiert-die-spannbreite-seiner-temperaturszenarien-bis-zum-jahr-2100-um-rund-1c-nach-unten/0010877/

    ReplyDelete
  53. http://judithcurry.com/2013/10/02/spinning-the-climate-model-observation-comparison-part-ii/

    ReplyDelete
  54. http://judithcurry.com/2013/10/17/uncertain-future-of-climate-uncertainty/

    ReplyDelete
  55. http://tucsoncitizen.com/wryheat/2013/10/21/critique-of-the-ipccs-summary-for-policymakers/

    ReplyDelete
  56. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/19/scientific-critique-of-ipccs-2013-summary-for-policymakers/

    ReplyDelete
  57. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/22/lack-of-data-for-all-phases-of-water-guarantees-failed-ipcc-projections/

    ReplyDelete
  58. http://www.climatemonitor.it/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/CMIP5-90-models-global-Tsfc-vs-obs.jpg

    ReplyDelete
  59. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/30/statistical-analyses-of-surface-temperatures-in-the-ipcc-fifth-assessment-report/

    ReplyDelete
  60. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/04/lets-face-it-the-climate-has-never-been-more-boring/

    ReplyDelete
  61. http://american.com/archive/2013/october/the-science-of-global-warming-part-2

    ReplyDelete
  62. http://blog.heartland.org/2013/11/ipcc-s-bogus-evidence-for-global-warming/

    ReplyDelete
  63. http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/WrittenEvidence.svc/EvidencePdf/4187

    ReplyDelete
  64. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/14/no-matter-if-its-a-climatic-pause-or-jolt-still-no-warming/

    ReplyDelete
  65. http://www.principia-scientific.org/the-climate-views-of-an-independent-physicist.html?utm_campaign=newsletter_January_02_2014&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter

    ReplyDelete