• Home
  • Current News
  • IPCC in Disarray: Time for a Review of Greenhouse Gas ‘Science’

IPCC in Disarray: Time for a Review of Greenhouse Gas ‘Science’

Written by

As the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) flops with the release of its Fifth Report global policymakers are being left in no doubt why. Skepticism about man-made global warming and doubts about the validity of the ‘science’ of the greenhouse gas ‘theory’ are at all time highs.IPCC sinking

The reason? Despite carbon dioxide (CO2) levels rising by 40 percent, global temperatures have flatlined since 1998. None of the IPCC’s climate models forsesaw this. In fact, the greenhouse gas ‘theory,’ the scientific cornerstone of 30 years of climate alarm, unequivocally states that increased carbon dioxide in our atmosphere must cause more warming. But reality is disproving the theory.

The latest IPCC report is now reduced to conceding “natural variability” does play a part. This admission contradicts another cornerstone of their main thesis, that natural causes are of little or no consequence. But as the ‘Slayers‘ of the theory have long shown, it was always flawed because it made many dubious assumptions including the following:

  • The earth is flat.
  • The earth does not rotate.
  • The sun shines all day and all night with equal intensity.
  • Energy interchange in the climate is entirely by radiation. 
  • Conduction, convection and latent heat transfer do not happen.
  • Energy flow parameters are constants with no variability.
  • Energy flow is “balanced” with input equal to output.
  • Air movements, wind, rain, hurricanes are ignored.
  • Chaos has been abolished.
  • Change in this system is entirely caused by increasing human-induced trace gases in the atmosphere.
  • The earth is dead: there are no living organisms, no trees, animals, birds or people.

At this point honest scientists would admit the ‘theory’ seems discredited. Rational minds would admit that a fresh look is needed at the counterclaims of dissenting scientists. Such scientists have found a rallying point at Principia Scientific International (PSI).

For those willing to cast a fresh eye over the science PSI recommends readers start by taking a look at a groundbreaking paper by Gerlich and Tscheuschner first published in 2008. The full paper (revised 2009) may be found here.But as a primer we recommend the shorter approved version by Hans Schreuder found here.

To whet your intellectually curious appetite here are the final paragraphs of G&T’s summary:

“Already the natural greenhouse effect is a myth albeit any physical reality. The CO2 -greenhouse effect, however is a “mirage”. The horror visions of a risen sea level, melting pole caps and developing deserts in North America and in Europe are fictitious consequences of fictitious physical mechanisms as they cannot be seen even in the climate model computations. The emergence of hurricanes and tornados cannot be predicted by climate models, because all of these deviations are ruled out.

“The main strategy of modern CO2 -greenhouse gas defenders seems to hide themselves behind more and more pseudo- explanations, which are not part of the academic education or even of the physics training. A good example are the radiation transport calculations, which are probably not known by many. Another example are the so-called feedback mechanisms, which are introduced to amplify an effect which is not marginal but does not exist at all. Evidently, the defenders of the CO2 -greenhouse thesis refuse to accept any reproducible calculation as an explanation and have resorted to unreproducible ones.

“A theoretical physicist must complain about a lack of transparency here, and he also has to complain about the style of the scientific discussion, where advocators of the greenhouse thesis claim that the discussion is closed, and others are discrediting justified arguments as a discussion of “questions of yesterday and the day before yesterday”. In exact sciences, in particular in theoretical physics, the discussion is never closed and is to be continued ad infinitum, even if there are proofs of theorems available.

“Regardless of the specific field of studies a minimal basic rule should be fulfilled in natural science, though, even if the scientific fields are methodically as far apart as physics and meteorology: At least among experts, the results and conclusions should be understandable or reproducible. And it should be strictly distinguished between a theory and a model on the one hand, and between a model and a scenario on the other hand, as clarified in the philosophy of science.

“That means that if conclusions out of computer simulations are to be more than simple speculations, then in addition to the examination of the numerical stability and the estimation of the effects of the many vague input parameters, at least the simplifications of the physical original equations should be critically exposed.

“The point discussed here was to answer the question, whether the supposed atmospheric effect has a physical basis. This is not the case. In summary, there is no atmospheric greenhouse effect, in particular CO2 -greenhouse effect, in theoretical physics and engineering thermodynamics. Thus it is illegitimate to deduce predictions which provide a consulting solution for economics and intergovernmental policy.”

As PSI’s former Chairman and co-founder, Dr Tim Ball summed up this week:

“IPCC science assumes the temperature must increase if CO2 increases.” It hasn’t. As such, “The IPCC process, methods and science are complete failures. “

Tags: , , , , ,

Comments (14)

  • Avatar

    Tim Folkerts

    |

    [quote]the greenhouse gas ‘theory … unequivocally states that increased carbon dioxide in our atmosphere must cause more warming. But reality is disproving the theory.[/quote]
    Your logic is a bit faulty. Consider a logically equivalent argument.

    Dietary science unequivocally states that cutting calories will cause weight loss. I have a friend who decreased his calorie intake but gained weight. Does this disprove the theory and tell us that calories have nothing to do with your weight?

    In both cases, there are OTHER factors that ALSO matter. (My friend significantly decreased his exercise due to an accident).

    Having said that, I do agree that the current lack of warming is evidence that CO2 is relatively LESS important than many people thought. Other factors seem to be relatively more important (albedo, solar input, cosmic rays, etc etc).

    ********************************

    [quote]
    But as the ‘Slayers’ of the theory have long shown, it was always flawed because it made many dubious assumptions[/quote]
    Until you realize that these sort of assumptions ONLY show up in the most elementary of models, then you will continue to be attacking strawmen when you say such things.

    • Avatar

      John OSullivan

      |

      [quote name=”Tim Folkerts”][quote]
      But as the ‘Slayers’ of the theory have long shown, it was always flawed because it made many dubious assumptions[/quote]
      Until you realize that these sort of assumptions ONLY show up in the most elementary of models, then you will continue to be attacking strawmen when you say such things.[/quote]

      Tim, not the IPCC or any other authority has published in a peer-review journal or elsewhere any such’sophisticated’ model of the GHE for skeptics to analyze. It is all secret science, so how can anyone refute it?

    • Avatar

      Squid2112

      |

      Mr. Folkerts, please, if you cannot stop yourself from being a climate clown, please stop posting comments. You are completely ([b]SNIP[/b]). I am trying to learn things here and having to skim over your BS is becoming tedious. If you’re going to play Bozo, take it to a different circus, please.

      Respectfully, Squid.

  • Avatar

    Physicist

    |

    Unless and until PSI members understand the mechanism whereby gravity maintains a “lapse rate” in any planet’s troposphere, and this sloping temperature plot “props up” the surface temperature because it represents the state of thermodynamic equilibrium (as required by the Second Law of Thermodynamics) then PSI will have no significant impact in countering this IPCC report.

    The physicists of the world need to be challenged to demonstrate (if they can) that what I am saying is not correct. Heat transfers take place in all directions along the sloping temperature plot by non-radiative processes. That is the reason, and the only reason why the surface of Venus is far hotter than even the Solar radiation without an atmosphere could make it.

    Surface temperatures are not determined by radiation calculations. While ever PSI publishes papers that claim they are they are barking up the wrong tree, and will get nowhere. You need to push the TRUTH of the matter.

  • Avatar

    Sunsettommy

    |

    But here is their 95% probability that failed utterly.

    Now this 95% failure can be thrown back in their faces.

    • Avatar

      Greg House

      |

      Well, no, it can not, because technically it is not a failure. They did not say “it will happen”, they said “we are 95% sure it will happen”.

      OK, some of them did not mention this 95% probability when talking to the media and the public, so you can nail those particular persons for omitting an important detail or misrepresenting what the IPCC actually said, that is all. The IPCC have protected themselves with this 95% probability and you can not build a case on failed projections/predictions.

      • Avatar

        Sunsettommy

        |

        Sure it can be a failure because they PUBLISHED it!

        • Avatar

          Greg House

          |

          If I publish “I am 100% sure Martians will land on Earth tomorrow” and they will not, then it will my failure.

          If I publish “I am 95% sure Martians will land on Earth tomorrow” and they will not, then it will not my failure. Because I admitted the 5% probability that they will not.

          • Avatar

            Greg House

            |

            Sorry, I meant “it will [b]be[/b]…” 😳

          • Avatar

            Sunsettommy

            |

            Oh my after you have been told that their predictions are a failure by data you continue with this nonsense because it is a prediction based on the AGW conjecture.

            Since they have been wrong every time all the way back to 1990 I would say they their new 95% confidence is now old crap since it has been a running 90-95% confidence bullcrap for 23 years.

            Since they have been wrong EVERY SINGLE TIME their latest upgrade from 90% to 95% confidence is pure bullshit.

            Here is the reality Greg,

            [b]They have been wrong 100% of the time[/b],and for 23 years running.

  • Avatar

    Sunsettommy

    |

    Actually Greg,I agree with Tim because the IPCC has made specific temperature projections for the first TWO decades of this century.

    They stated that BASED on the CO2 conjecture there should be a .20C warming trend in [b]EACH[/b] of the first two decades.

    The result is in using the IPCC’s favorite temperature data center.

    A .10C warming:
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2001/to:2010

    That becomes a slight cooling adding from 2011 to this year:

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2001/to:2013

    It is big failure that needs to be trumpeted loudly.

    • Avatar

      Greg House

      |

      [quote name=”Sunsettommy”]Actually Greg,I agree with Tim because the IPCC has made specific temperature projections for the first TWO decades of this century.[/quote]

      The specific projections are a slightly different thing, I did not comment on that.

      John correctly quoted Tim Ball as saying [i]”IPCC science assumes the temperature must increase if CO2 increases”[/i], this was what I commented on.

      Failed projections are, of course, a valid point, but as far as I know the IPCC were clever enough to hide behind certain likelihood, so they can always say “we were not 100% sure” and “if we wait longer, the warming will come sooner or later”. In other words, the 95% probability of something happening is equal to 5% probability that it will not happen, therefore “no warming” was predicted as well with the 5% probability. And, of course, they would refer to their “long term trend”. On the other side those who accept the “global temperatures” fiction can not really argue against this fictitious “long term trend”.

      • Avatar

        josullivan

        |

        Greg, yes the IPCC were shrewd to cover their bogus assessments with confidence levels never expressed above 95%. As such, their cynical sophistry permits them to claim 5% probability of an opposite outcome.

  • Avatar

    Greg House

    |

    [quote]As PSI’s former Chairman and co-founder, Dr Tim Ball summed up this week:
    “IPCC science assumes the temperature must increase if CO2 increases.” It hasn’t. As such, “The IPCC process, methods and science are complete failures. “[/quote]

    John, I am afraid Dr Tim Ball is wrong on that.

    If I was a warmist, I would easily counter that by saying that we warmists mean long term trends. We warmists do not deny some periods of cooling in the 20th century despite rising CO2 concentrations, but long term trend is warming.

    This renders the argument “no warming for X years” Dr Tim Ball loves so much invalid and missing the point. We warmists like it, of course. Please, you are welcome to use invalid argumentation, it is nice to discuss things with you.

Comments are closed