Worst-Case Climate Temperature Predictions Not Plausible
A few days ago, the Daily Mail carried an article entitled ‘Worst-case’ climate predictions of a 9F rise in global temperatures by the end of the century are ‘no longer plausible‘
The article cites a new study by the University of Colorado Boulder, with Roger Pielke Jr. as lead author.
It mentions that existing climate predictions, using what are called Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs), that were developed by the IPCC in 2005.
They envisage what temperature rises would be with different concentrations of ‘greenhouse gases’ by 2100, some 78 years away.
There were several RCP scenarios, the most extreme of which was called RCP8.5, and this is the one that modelled a nine degree fahrenheit, or five degree centigrade, rise.
The IPCC made it clear that was their most unlikely scenario, but climate alarmists latched onto it, and still cling stubbornly to it, as being the most likely outcome unless we cut our ‘greenhouse gas’ emissions to zero.
The article states:
The researchers found that the extreme scenarios and temperature increase predictions were based on outdated data from 15 years ago, that didn’t take into account recent efforts to reduce emissions, and a move to renewable energy.
They said that temperatures are likely to rise by no more than 4 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100, and the 3.6F goal ‘is still within reach’ if emission reduction continues.
They found that by 2100 temperatures are likely to be between 3.6F and 5.4F warmer than pre-industrial levels, with an average of 3.96F.
Seeing as weather forecasters cannot predict correctly what the weather will do more than a few days in advance, can we really believe computer predictions 78 years into the future?
The article also states:
While their study finds that the most extreme scenarios are unlikely, and we could be on target for 3.6F of warming, more optimistic or pessimistic futures could also exist.
‘Because we haven’t updated our [IPCC] scenarios [for many years], there are also some futures which are plausible but haven’t yet been envisioned,’ said Pielke Jr.
However, their findings join other studies that suggest we are no longer headed for the worst case scenario of climate change, including the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report released last year.
The reason for the sudden ‘good news’ is because models and scenarios used to make the predictions are getting old, with most developed more than a decade ago.
The article also mentions an increase in ‘extreme weather’ in a warmer world. This is a lie. Tim Ball told me that in a wamer world you get LESS extreme weather, not more. You get more severe weather conditions each winter when it’s cold, and that would increase in a cooler world.
It continues:
‘A lot has happened since,’ said Matthew Burgess, co-author of this new study.
‘For example, renewable energy has become more affordable and, thus, more common faster than expected,’ he added.
These fast-moving changes are captured in the scenarios drafted by the IEA, a Paris-based intergovernmental organization, which provides updates each year.
Climate scenarios also tend to overestimate economic growth, especially in poorer countries, according to Burgess, an assistant professor of environmental studies.
The team explained that 2010 scenarios were supposed to serve as updates to the assumptions made in the original 2005 scenarios – but they haven’t been widely adopted, with older scenarios still used by scientists.
There it is, clinching evidence that future climate predictions and policies remain focused on implausibly pessimistic scenarios.
The article notes the study has been published in the journal Environmental Research Letters.
Roger Pielke, referred to by the unfortunate, and perhaps unfair, nickname of a ‘lukewarmer’, is one of those who believe CO2 has a small influence on temperature.
All this assumes of course, that there is a ‘greenhouse effect’ in the first place.
PSI’s position is, citing the work of Tim Ball and Joe Postma, that there is no ‘greenhouse effect’, as every ice core examined shows temperature changes first, followed after at least 800 years, by a change in CO2. Therefore, it is difficult to see how carbon dioxide, or methane, can have any effect on temperature at all.
With this 800+ year time lag, the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere is still responding to the Medieval Warm Period, and will continue to rise for some time yet. No amount of ‘decarbonising’ will have any effect on the amount of CO2 at all.
Human activity currently produces about 40 billion tons of CO2 annually, while nature produces 950 billion tons annually. Human activity therefore accounts for just three percent of the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Even if we ‘decarbonised’ the entire planet, which would effectively require turning the clock back about 300 years, we would make almost no difference to the amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide, and would have destroyed our civilisation in the process.
Whoever thought a 9F increase, which is five C, plausible, badly needs educating in my view.
We should also note that alarmists always use fahrenheit instead of centigrade, which makes any temperature increase seem larger than it really is.
See the Mail article here: dailymail.co.uk
Header image: AzerNews
About the author: Andy Rowlands is a university graduate in space science and British Principia Scientific International researcher, writer and editor who co-edited the new climate science book, ‘The Sky Dragon Slayers: Victory Lap‘
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Andy,
I take you to task for writing “PSI’s position is, citing the work of Tim Ball and Joe Postma, that there is no ‘greenhouse effect’, as every ice core examined shows temperature changes first, followed after at least 800 years, by a change in CO2. Therefore, it is difficult to see how carbon dioxide, or methane, can have any effect on temperature at all.”
And for not calling a PSI Reader’s attention to the following PSI articles:
https://principia-scientific.com/prevailing-theories-have-been-proven-wrong-before/
https://principia-scientific.com/new-scientific-law-greenhouse-effect/
https://principia-scientific.com/solar-radiation-sufficient-no-greenhouse-effect-certain-atmospheric-gases/
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Andy,
Do not try to deceive PSI Readers! You know very well I have recently drawn your attention to these three articles.
And it seems you still do not comprehend what D. Boss wrote.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Andy
| #
I am not about to save particular weblinks just because you tell me to, I’ve got enough to do thank you. I am not trying to deceive anyone, and who is D. Boss?
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Andy and John O’Sullivan.
Andy, your comment of February 19, 2022 at 4:02 pm to me proves you are not trying to deceive anyone. And your question–“who is D. Boss?”– is what D. Boss was referring to in his comment to which you responded with another ignorant statement that Mark Bucklin questioned.
So, John please explain to Andy how it is that he is really hurting the reputation of PSI with what he has just written and with what you can read.
Have a good day, Jerry
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
richard
| #
I used to love those cute test tube experiments comparing an increase in CO2 to a test tube with a supposed atmos level of, lets say 390ppm, when the experiments were done by Al Gore et al.
Of course the increased CO2 in the demonstration test tube was now about 500,000+ppm. I believe the term greenhouse gas stemmed from these experiments made back in the 19th century- of course flawed.
There were other flaws in the experiment but that can be read online. As for whether CO2 makes any difference,other gases ( not classed as greenhouse gases) produce the same results in a test tube.
I leave it to I think R. W. Wood who explained it best in his Note on the Theory of the Greenhouse:
“Is it therefore necessary to pay attention to trapped radiation in deducing the temperature of a planet as affected by its atmosphere? The solar rays penetrate the atmosphere, warm the ground which in turn warms the atmosphere by contact and by convection currents. The heat received is thus stored up in the atmosphere, remaining there on account of the very low radiating power of a gas. It seems to me very doubtful if the atmosphere is warmed to any great extent by absorbing the radiation from the ground, even under the most favourable conditions.”
“Robert Williams Wood (May 2, 1868 – August 11, 1955) was an American physicist and inventor. He is often cited as being a pivotal contributor to the field of optics and a pioneer of infrared and ultraviolet photography. Wood’s patents and theoretical work inform modern understanding of the nature and physics of ultraviolet radiation, and made possible the myriad uses of UV-fluorescence which became popular after World War I.[1][2][3][4] He published many articles on spectroscopy, phosphorescence, diffraction, and ultraviolet light.”
Reply
coronistan.blogspot.com
| #
“Worst-Case Climate Temperature Predictions Not Plausible” They want to distract of from the fact that the opposite is true. We in the beginning of a new ice age phase, the Eddy Super Grand Solar Minimum.
Reply
Andy
| #
No I am not being sarcastic. If it were possible to add images here I could show you.
Reply
John O'Sullivan
| #
Jerry, You are free to criticise the article and post your reasons. We welcome open debate. Andy fairly represents the view of PSI, Dr Ball and Postma. For example, he correctly states there is no empirical validation of a radiative-driven greenhouse gas effect, paleo-climatic data for CO2 indicates that rises in atmospheric carbon dioxide come AFTER rises in temperature by about 800 years. If you wish to cite evidence to the contrary, please post it here so it may be discussed.
Reply