• Home
  • Current News
  • UN IPCC Admission: Negligible Climate Change by end of the Century

UN IPCC Admission: Negligible Climate Change by end of the Century

Written by Andy Rowlands

Careful reading of the most recent report by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reveals that their official expectation is of no more than a 0.5 degrees rise in global temperatures by the end of this century (2100).

The revelation comes in an IPCC weblink* which was posted last week in a Facebook group, and hopefully should be of some small comfort for those who believe the planet is heating out of control.

This inconvenient ‘devil in the detail’ is from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s own SR15 ‘Special Report’ in 2018, of which this is the Summary for Policymakers.

Note first it freely admits they made ‘Changes to the Underlying Scientific-Technical Assessment to ensure consistency with the approved Summary for Policymakers’. (Emphasis added)

This confirms the IPCC change the actual science papers to reflect their summary for policymakers, which had obviously been written beforehand. It could be, and in fact has been, argued this is tantamount to scientific fraud.

Second, look at paragraphs A2 and A2.1. For clarity I reproduce them here:

A.2. Warming from anthropogenic emissions from the pre-industrial period to the present will persist for centuries to millennia and will continue to cause further long-term changes in the climate system, such as sea level rise, with associated impacts (high confidence), but these emissions alone are unlikely to cause global warming of 1.5°C. (Emphasis added)

A.2.1. Anthropogenic emissions (including greenhouse gases, aerosols and their precursors) up to the present are unlikely to cause further warming of more than 0.5°C over the next two to three decades (high confidence) or on a century time scale. (Emphasis added)

What this means is we are unlikely to see more than a 0.5C average global temperature increase by the end of this century, an amount no human or animal would even notice. This also assumes of course that the ‘greenhouse gas theory’ is actually correct, and those of us at Principia Scientific International know it isn’t.

As Canadian space scientist and leading skeptic, Joe Postma has amply demonstrated, the consensus climate theory violates the laws of thermodynamics. Just read Joe’s book ‘In the Cold Light of Day: Flat Earth in Modern Physics and a Numerical Proof for God: A Climate Alarm.’

For clarity, and in simplified terms, the second law of thermodynamics states that heat flow runs only in one direction, and is not reversible.

For example, hot objects always cool, they never spontaneously increase their own temperature. A hot object can increase the temperature of a cold object by conduction or radiation, but a cold object cannot increase the temperature of a hot object.

Postma mentioned in his recent article on PSI that some alarmists are now claiming the Sun has zero effect on our climate, which is simply ludicrous. As Joe says, without the Sun to heat the atmosphere in the first place, no amount of ‘greenhouse gases’ on their own would be able to make the Earth habitable.

Anyone who tells you anything else about how much the temperature may or will rise; like The Guardian, the BBC and various climate activists, or anyone who believes a half degree increase in temperature over 80 years will cause mass extinctions, collapse of ecosystems and unprecedented environmental disasters, is frankly living in cloud cuckoo land, and they need to stop believing the fear-mongering and look at what is actually being said.

The IPCC are not claiming any such disasters will occur, only the far-left radicalized extremist doom-mongers are doing that.

Unfortunately, this is compounded by the IPCC not saying anything to correct such claims, although rather curiously, Michael Hokey Schtick Mann penned an article on the website science 2.0 in June 2019 with the title “Climate change will NOT end human civilization by 2050. Overblown rhetoric and unsupportable doomist framing’.


PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX. 

Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.

 

Trackback from your site.

Comments (40)

  • Avatar

    Barry

    |

    This is so typical of any con , when you see that your predictions are getting wildly out of sinc with reality you simply change your prediction and let enough time go by that the modified prediction becomes what you have always said. Now we are going to say .5. And hope that natural causes will at least get close to that. I am actually astounded at how ignorant the general public is on this subject, the problem with this cult is it is now so entrenched in the faithful that they will start to discount the IPCC reports.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    JDHuffman

    |

    As the AGW hoax falls apart, it will be interesting to watch how the phony scientists try to slink away. I doubt that the shysters will admit that they were wrong.

    That’s why they’re shysters….

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Jerry Krause

      |

      Hi JD,

      The rain and clouds have finally gone away as happens when a high pressure region moved down from the north and over Salem OR.

      At 11pm last night the IRT temperature directly above was -33F, that toward the horizons all around was -24F and the grass temperature was 28F. This morning (5:30am) these three temperatures were -4, 6, 29F. While the sky conditions reported from the airport three miles away were clear all during the nighttime.

      And the air temperature and relative humidity measured in my backyard and the air port both times was about 29F and 90%. But the most important observation which explains why the temperature did not decrease between 11pm and 5:30am was the abundant frost that could be observed on the roofs of 2-story homes all around about 20ft above the grass whose temperature I had measured.

      This data proves the idea (theory) of the greenhouse effect of the atmospheric carbon dioxide is absolutely wrong if one accepts that the observation (measurements) of science can prove scientific ideas absolutely wrong. For the only prediction of the greenhouse effect about which I know is that the atmosphere’s (actually the ground’s temperature) would be 33C (58F) lower than was measured in my yard and by the weather service at the airport. Which temperature we know, in this case, was the frost point (about 29F) and 81F above -58F. And I must stress, these temperatures remained nearly the same while the sky temperature measured directly above with the IRT changed from -33F to -4F.

      Hence, whatever the cause of this change of temperature, did not change grass and frost point temperature. Probably because both -33F and -6F are lower temperatures than 29F.

      What do you think?

      Have a good day, Jerry

      Reply

      • Avatar

        JDHuffman

        |

        I agree jerry, the GHE “theory” is wrong. Physics proves it’s wrong. And observation proves it’s wrong.

        Reply

        • Avatar

          Jerry Krause

          |

          Hi JD,

          Do not know your Friend.

          I will try to explain. Arrhenius did a radiation balance calculation? And he, using observed data calculated an average temperature. Did he do anything wrong to this point? I do not think so. You might think so and you will need to explain why.

          However, back to Arrhenius’ calculated results which were two temperatures which differed by about, say, 30C. And a fact is similar calculations using similar data today produce two temperatures which differ by 33C. More complete data and now we maybe can consider that the calculations are ‘accurate’ within a degree instead of within 10 degrees.

          But since we cannot fault the two calculations, we, as scientists, need to provide a reason, if possible, for this ‘big’ difference.

          Arrhenius used an accepted and observed physical property of the carbon dioxide molecules to explain the difference between the two temperatures. Which is what a scientist usually does to explain something that has been observed. And another component of a good theory is it must explain something more than the observation for which the theory (carbon dioxide mechanism) was proposed. So the prediction became, if not for the carbon dioxide molecules of the atmosphere, the temperature of the atmosphere would be 30C lower.

          Clearly, it is impossible to remove the carbon dioxide molecules, and those with similar physical properties, from the atmosphere. So in this way the prediction cannot not be tested.

          But the prediction does provide another test, which is to prove that the temperature of atmosphere (earth surface) cannot be 33C less for because of a different mechanism, or better, for a different observation not yet considered.

          This observation is when dew or frost forms on surfaces of the earth it is observed that the nighttime temperature, being measured, stops, at the first approximation, cooling.

          Now what needs to be established is if this (the that measured temperature which was cooling, stopped cooling. until after sunrise the next morning) is a common, reproducible observation.

          Which, based upon my experiences, is very commonly observed.

          So, my reasoning about clouds is merely another factor known (observed) to influence atmospheric temperatures one way or another.

          Have a good day, Jerry

          Reply

          • Avatar

            JDHuffman

            |

            Jerry, that’s quite a tangled web you’ve woven. If you’re sincerely trying to explain, then let’s take it one baby-step at a time.

            “Arrhenius did a radiation balance calculation?”

            What calculation is that? (Don’t link to something I will have to figure out. Just show the calculation you mentioned.)

            “And he, using observed data calculated an average temperature.”

            Show the observed data, and the corresponding calculation. Again, I’m not interested in searching the Internet or trying to solve rambling riddles. Treat this as if you want to be a responsible scientist.

        • Avatar

          Jerry Krause

          |

          Hi JD.

          You wrote: “Again, I’m not interested in searching the Internet or trying to solve rambling riddles. Treat this as if you want to be a responsible scientist.”

          Thank you very much.

          Now, PSI readers can clearly compare what I do with what you write.

          Have a good day, Jerry

          Reply

          • Avatar

            JDHuffman

            |

            No problem, Jerry. Glad to help.

            And if sometime later you can verify your claims, responsibly, then I’ll be happy to respond.

      • Avatar

        Jerry Krause

        |

        Hi JD,

        I have to ask: How does physics prove that the GHE theory is wrong?

        Have a good day, Jerry

        Reply

        • Avatar

          JDHuffman

          |

          Jerry, you start with our old friend, “Mr. Scientific Method”. The proper application of our friend means that the burden is on the “theory”. A new theory has to prove itself, or at least provide plausible evidence. A theory can not twist, spin, distort or otherwise violate the laws of physics. Once that happens, our old friend leaves the room.

          With the AGW hoax, Mr. Scientific Method was replaced by the need for funding.

          Reply

  • Avatar

    Barry

    |

    JD that of coarse is what we are seeing here and many other agw sites. I’m sure the next coarse of action will be to tell us how by raising the alarm they were able to curtail mans emmissions enough to just tip the balance in time to save Greta. At some point cons when exposed become a legal issue. This one makes B Madoff (sorry can’t remember the spelling) scheme look like a kindergarten prank.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Matt

    |

    “Two bob each way.” (horse racing betting. A bob is a shilling)

    Australian Slang
    support contradictory causes at the same time, often in self-protection

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Jerry Krause

      |

      Hi Matt,

      It seems you have not yet learned to handicap science horses and you have wasted a bob.

      And I see (https://principia-scientific.org/wisdom-and-accurate-definition/) I failed to list a very important bit of wisdom. “Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.” (Sir Arthur Conan Doyle)

      Past chemists have long recognized that Doyle knew a lot of chemistry even if he did not know that science can never claim to find the absolute truth. Science can only find the approximate truth as it eliminates the impossible.

      Now there is another known property of the compound we call water. It is that pressure melts ice. Hence, the sports involving ice skating and skiing That pressure melts ice is a tip which might help you better handicap science horses.

      Have a good day, Jerry

      Reply

      • Avatar

        Matt

        |

        Hi Jerry.
        Thank you for the tip.
        Of course, I do not gamble as I understand the concept of percentages and a variance of “truth” is usually a sign of corruption if you scratch the surface.
        I appreciate your humour.
        Kind regards Matt

        Reply

      • Avatar

        Jerry Krause

        |

        Hi Matt,

        Thanks for considering I have a sense of humor. I’m not sure of this but I am quite sure that humor is your game. So I really, really, thank you for giving me the opportunity of offering more brief tips.

        According to the Ideal Gas Law each gas molecule in a small volume of space moves independently as it fills the space uniformly.

        But the volume of the Idea Atmosphere is huge so we must take into account the action of gravity upon the movement of each gas molecule as these molecules try to fill the volume of the Ideal Atmosphere.

        Because the molecules of water, nitrogen, oxygen, and carbon dioxide have different masses (here arranged in order of increasing mass) I have read people, who know more about science than myself, have written they would expect the these 4 gases to separate to form a four layer Natural Layered Atmospheric Cake with a carbon dioxide bottom layer, then an oxygen layer, the a nitrogen layer, and finally a water layer. This because of the action of gravity upon the motions of the independent molecules.

        But we have observed that this layered cake is not observed to actually exist. There is a naturally four layered Ideal Atmosphere that is layered by its temperatures. In the bottom layer its temperatures naturally decreases with increasing altitude above the Earth’s surface until an altitude at which the temperature does not decrease further and begins to increase because of photochemical reactions due to the solar radiation being partially transmitted through this middle layer. Then the temperature of this middle layer does not increase further at an variable altitude and the temperature of this third layer begins to decrease again. And again, there is a yet higher altitude at which the temperature of the atmosphere begins to increase again.

        And finally, near the top of the third layer (about say 85km altitude) the atmosphere finally begins to naturally layer according the four masses of the four different molecules of the atmosphere.

        Now, I finally discovered, at the end of my teaching career, that Galileo had stated: “We cannot teach people anything; we can only help them discover it within themselves.” And my some of my experiences during teaching confirmed the wisdom of Galileo’s statement.

        So, when I read Galileo I questioned: How does a teacher help a student to discover knowledge inside themselves? Then I finally saw I had naturally done what Socrates, the first notable teacher of history, had done: ask questions.

        Now, another thing I have read is some atmospheric scientists explain why the four layered cake based upon difference in the four atmospheric molecule’s masses is that the atmosphere below about 85km is being naturally mixed.

        And as a former teacher, I cannot restrain myself from asking: How is the atmosphere, up to nearly the top of the third temperature layer, naturally mixed?

        Have a good day, Jerry

        Reply

        • Avatar

          Jerry Krause

          |

          Hi Matt and PSI readers,

          And I see I must add that I regularly find that I am not able to proof read what I write. But I trust the intelligent readers of PSI can correct my errors for me.

          Have a good day, Jerry

          Reply

        • Avatar

          geran

          |

          Jerry, what does that long rambling spew have to do with either the post topic, or Matt’s comment?

          Maybe you just like long, rambling, irrelevant spews?

          Reply

          • Avatar

            Jerry Krause

            |

            Hi Geran,

            You ask: “what does that long rambling spew have to do with either the post topic, or Matt’s comment?”

            I know the answer to your question but it is a really good question for you to answer.

            Have a good day, Jerry

          • Avatar

            geran

            |

            Jerry, you always try to elude direct questions.

            Did you learn such skills when you were pretending to teach?

          • Avatar

            Jerry Krause

            |

            Hi Geran,

            I turn your question (in this case) back upon you because I have finally learned from Socrates that the best method to teach is to only ask questions of the students. Which might not apply in your case because I see little evidence that you consider yourself to be a student.

            Have a good day, Jerry

          • Avatar

            geran

            |

            Jerry, Socrates once said “An honest man is always a child”.

            But you have stated you are an old man.

            Since you believe you have learned from Socrates, at what age did you become dishonest?

          • Avatar

            Jerry Krause

            |

            Hi Geran,

            You wrote: “Socrates once said “An honest man is always a child”.”.

            And I have read that no one really knows what Socrates really thought because he only asked questions.

            And I have learned that one cannot trust everything one reads or hears.

            This is a terrible problem to which I know no absolute solution. But I ‘trust’ some sources more than others and I combine all with the knowledge I claim to have acquired through my personnel experiences. Of which I have a great variety.

            I know that Galileo made a mistake when he refused to accept the astronomical measurements of Tycho Brahe and Johannes Kepler’s mathematical analysis of them. Which analysis showed that the orbits of the planets about the sun were elliptical instead of perfect circles. And I know that Feynman made a great blunder during the first lecture of The Feynman Lectures On Physics.
            (https://principia-scientific.org/feynmans-blunder-part-1/) (https://principia-scientific.org/feynmans-blunder-part-2/)

            These men were human and made mistakes, I am human and make mistakes. But I really respect the knowledge of both these men because of their much greater positive achievements. No, do not accuse me of considering I am a Galileo or a Feynman.

            For as I make mistake after mistake, my motto is a question that Feynman’s first wife asked him: “What Do You Care What Other People Think?”.

            Have a good day, Jerry

          • Avatar

            geran

            |

            Once again Jerry, you believe a long rambling, non-sensical dissertation can cover up for your incompetence.

            It’s a good thing you had a career as a “teacher”. If you’d had a real job, you would have had to learn about reality.

            But, your incompetence is hilarious.

            More please.

        • Avatar

          CD Marshall

          |

          Jerry,
          Avogadro’s Law.

          Doesn’t that cover your question?

          Reply

          • Avatar

            Jerry Krause

            |

            Hi CD,

            Maybe, if I was sure what specific question to which you are referring. Please update me.

            Must admit I had to review what Avogadro’s Law was. For Avogadro’s Number is what I remembered even now I can not remember studying the experimental results which established the law.

            Have a good day, Jerry

    • Avatar

      Mike Keller

      |

      A “Bob” is not a Shilling, but rather a Pound.

      Reply

      • Avatar

        Matt

        |

        “As silly as a two Bob watch” could apply to your comment Mike.
        A pound is a quid, a florin two Bob, and Bob’s your uncle.
        Only the second time I have ever been right on something so I have to be pedantic.

        Reply

      • Avatar

        Dr Barry Goldman

        |

        Must correct you, but in Australia, back in the middle of last century, a ”bob” was a shilling (12 pence)

        Reply

  • Avatar

    CD Marshall

    |

    Isn’t that Avogadro’s Law ?

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Flawed

    |

    The flaw in this is A.2.1 talks about the warming from existing emissions in the atmosphere.

    We’re likely to see a 0.5 degree increase based on what we’ve already emitted.

    If you are telling me we’re going to stop all carbon emissions tomorrow then great. But if we continue to emit greenhouse gases the warming will continue.

    Nice try though!

    Reply

    • Avatar

      geran

      |

      Something tells me you have no understanding of the relevant physics.

      That makes you a suitable repository for the hilarious pseudoscience.

      Reply

    • Avatar

      Andy Rowlands

      |

      That assumes the so-called ‘greenhouse gas theory’ is correct, unfortunately for those who believe, it isn’t. The Sun controls our climate, not minute quantities of trace gases.

      Reply

    • Avatar

      Andrew

      |

      This is how I read it too and that may be correct if you believe in the green house gas theory. I agree with Andy Rowlands that other items; e.g. sun,
      Was this a recent change to the IPCC report just published this year or is it just a question of interpretation of the original edition of the report?

      Reply

      • Avatar

        Andy Rowlands

        |

        I didn’t see the full report, just the Summary for Policymakers I mentioned. It was released in 2018 and I was made aware of it late last year. I’m not aware of any update to the report being issued.

        Reply

    • Avatar

      Ralph B. Alexander

      |

      I’m no fan of the IPCC but you’re correct, Flawed. The relevant phrase in that IPCC statement is “up to the present.”

      Since we’re still emitting plenty of CO2, the temperature rise by century’s end will be much more than 0.5 degC – if you believe the faulty greenhouse gas hypothesis, that is.

      Reply

  • Avatar

    Richard Castles

    |

    Thanks for this. I’m genuinely curious what they mean by up to “present” and “further”. It doesn’t seem well written in terms of clarity. Do they mean 0.5 on top of the 1.5? And do they mean future emissions will cause a rise beyond 1.5 locked in at present?

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Andy Rowlands

    |

    Who knows what they actually mean Richard, it’s all hypothetical nonsense anyway, which deliberately ignores that established fact that a change in CO2 is the result of a temperature change, not the cause of it.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Peter D Gardner

    |

    I am very sceptical of climate alarmism but I think Andy Rowlands has misinterpreted the IPCC report. He quotes paras A.2 and A 2.1 and writes: “What this means is we are unlikely to see more than a 0.5C average global temperature increase by the end of this century, …
    These paras refer to ongoing warming from emissions already made. the do not refer to the effect of future emissions. the next para makes this clear:
    “A.2.2. Reaching and sustaining net zero global anthropogenic CO2 emissions and declining net non-CO2 radiative forcing would halt anthropogenic global warming on multi-decadal timescales (high confidence). The maximum temperature reached is then determined by cumulative net global anthropogenic CO2 emissions up to the time of net zero CO2 emissions (high confidence) and the level of non-CO2 radiative forcing in the decades prior to the time that maximum temperatures are reached (medium confidence). etc etc”

    Actually what it means is that if we get to net zero anthropogenic then we might stop anthropogenic global warming. It may be wrong but that is what the text means.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Peter D Gardner

    |

    I am very sceptical of climate alarmism but I think Andy Rowlands has misinterpreted the IPCC report. He quotes paras A.2 and A 2.1 and writes: “What this means is we are unlikely to see more than a 0.5C average global temperature increase by the end of this century, …
    These paras refer to ongoing warming from emissions already made. They do not refer to the effect of future emissions. The next para makes this clear:
    “A.2.2. Reaching and sustaining net zero global anthropogenic CO2 emissions and declining net non-CO2 radiative forcing would halt anthropogenic global warming on multi-decadal timescales (high confidence). The maximum temperature reached is then determined by cumulative net global anthropogenic CO2 emissions up to the time of net zero CO2 emissions (high confidence) and the level of non-CO2 radiative forcing in the decades prior to the time that maximum temperatures are reached (medium confidence). etc etc”

    Actually what it means is that if we get to net zero anthropogenic then we might stop anthropogenic global warming. It may be wrong but that is what the text means.

    Reply

Leave a comment