IPCC AR6 Is Distortions, Fearmongering And Lies
The official press release to accompany the IPCC’s sxith Assessment Report Summary For Policymakers calls it ‘code red for humanity’, but what the report actually says is, as usual, somewhat different.
The doomers and alarmists have greeted this report with glee, while skeptics have greeted it with derision, and well they should. Let’s take a look at some of the ‘facts’ presented.
This paragraph from the report shows how little the IPCC seems to understand atmospheric physics:
“We are locked into 30 years of worsening climate impacts no matter what the world does. Some of the noticeable effects the world is seeing now – like extreme droughts, severe heatwaves, and catastrophic downpours and flooding – will continue to worsen for at least the next 30 years. Some other impacts will continue for far longer. The enormous ice sheets in Greenland and West Antarctica will continue to melt at least through the end of the century. Global sea level will continue to rise for at least 2,000 years.”
So the climate models are now so accurate we can confidently predict 2000 years into the future? Pull the other one, its got bells on it.
Storms
AR6 says: “Globally averaged precipitation over land has likely increased since 1950, with a faster rate of increase since the 1980s (medium confidence)”
Translation: it is possible, but we are not sure, that the world is experiencing higher rainfall.
Much of the media has taken this to mean that the German floods were caused by AGW, but the report does NOT say that.
In chapter 2 the report states: “..the total number of extratropical cyclones has likely increased since the 1980s in the NH (low confidence), but with fewer deep cyclones, particularly in summer. The number of strong extratropical cyclones has likely increased in the southern hemisphere (medium confidence). The extratropical jets and cyclone tracks have likely been shifting poleward in both hemispheres since the 1980s with marked seasonality in trends (medium confidence). There is low confidence in shifting of extratropical jets in the NH during the mid-Holocene and over 950–1400 CE to latitudes that likely were similar to those since 1979.”
Notice the frequent use of the word ‘likely’. In other words, they think there are more storms now, but there is such a small difference they can’t tell.
This is at odds with what Dr Tim Ball told me via email, that in a warmer world, the smaller temperature difference between the poles and the tropics produces less storms not more, so we should treat this IPCC assertion with some skepticism.
Tropical Monsoons
The report says: “observed trends during the last century indicate that the GM precipitation decline reported in AR5 has reversed since the 1980s, with a likely increase mainly due to a significant positive trend in the northern hemisphere summer monsoon precipitation (medium confidence). However, global monsoon precipitation has exhibited large multi-decadal variability over the last century, creating low confidence in the existence of centennial-length trends in the instrumental record. Proxy reconstructions show likely northern hemisphere monsoons weakening since the mid-Holocene, with opposite behavior for the southern hemisphere monsoons.”
In other words, monsoons MAY have been getting wetter over the past 40 years, but we don’t really know as they are so variable.
Carbon dioxide emission scenarios
The IPCC produced various scenarios of future temperatures, based on differing amounts of ‘greenhouse gases’. RCP8.5, the highest estimate, meant massive burning of ‘fossil fuels’, many times more than we do now, with no regard for pollution, and by that I mean actual pollution, not carbon dioxide, which is NOT a pollutant. The IPCC themselves regard RCP8.5 as the least likely to happen, but alarmists call it ‘business as usual’, indicating they want you to believe that’s what is happening now.
This AR6 report uses the higher, and least likely figures, in almost half their mentions of future climate scenarios, while the lower figures account for less than a quarter of them.
This shows a clear bias toward alarmism.
Sea levels
On page six of the Summary For Policymakers, it states:
“Global mean sea level increased by 0.20 [0.15 to 0.25] m between 1901 and 2018. The average rate of sea-level rise was 1.3 [0.6 to 2.1] mm yr–1 between 1901 and 1971, increasing to 1.9 [0.8 to 2.9] mm yr–1 between 1971 and 2006, and further increasing to 3.7 [3.2 to 4.2] mm yr–1 between 2006 and 2018 (high confidence). Human influence was very likely the main driver of these increases since at least 1971.”
The period 1971 to 2018 is long enough to be climate not just weather, but the NOAA tide gauges do not show such an increase, only satellite data, we are told, shows it.
The tide gauge for Alameda, California shows no increase in the rate of rise:
The tide gauge for The Battery in New York shows no increase in the rate of rise:
The tide gauge for Fernandina Beach in Florida shows no increase in the rate of rise:
North Shields in the UK shows no increase in the rate of rise:
Wismar in Germany shows no increase in the rate of rise:
The Gulf of Mexico tide gauges show a much steeper increase in sea-level rise, but no acceleration, as in this one from Grand Isle, Louisiana:
This difference is of course due to what is known as Isostatic Rebound. The further north you go, the rise in sea levels recorded by tide gauges turns into what appears to be a fall in sea-levels. This is because now the great weight of the glaciers has gone, the land is rising back to where it was before the ice sheets compressed it. At the same time, the same geologic forces are causing the Gulf coast to sink. That is not human-caused, it is natural geology.
To illustrate Isostatic Rebound on the North American continent, here is the tide gauge from Juneau, Alaska:
As Climate Realism recently reported here,, the IPCC’s reported is an error made when two different sets of satellite data sets were combined:
“[t]hetwo most recent satellites record significantly higher rates of sea-level rise than the earlier two satellites. The first two satellites agree quite well, but they both show a much smaller trend than the latter two satellites. Neither set of the satellite record shows any accelerating trend. The UC scientists simply combined the two dissimilar data sets, plotted a new trend showing acceleration, and didn’t mention the difference.”
Therefore, the IPCC claim that sea-level rise is accelerating due to ‘climate change’ IS A LIE.
On page 54, the report descends into fantasyland. It claims if the temperature rises by just 1.5℃ above pre-industrial levels, sea levels WILL rise between six and ten feet within 2,000 years, and up to 20 feet in 10,000 years.
We can now apparently accurately predict 10,000 years into the future….
If sea-levels rose by 20 feet, thay would be about the same as they were during the last interglacial 120,000 years ago, as this chart from the Australian National University shows:
Ocean acidification
Chapter One page 169 of AR6 states:
“[i]ncreasing atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations lead to increasing acidification of the ocean. Projections based on SRES scenarios give reductions in average global surface ocean pH of between 0.14 and 0.35 units over the 21st century, adding to the present decrease of 0.1 units since preindustrial times.”
The report included this chart, which indicates ‘acidity’ starts at a pH of 7.9. THIS IS A LIE.
The acids begin at 6.9, not 7.9.
As I’m sure most readers are already aware, the oceans have a pH of between 7.9 and 8.3, which makes them an alkaline, as shown below:
You cannot increase the acidity of something that is not an acid to start with.
The pH scale, like the Richter Scale for earthquakes, is logarithmic, meaning each number is ten times the previous number. So, to turn the oceans into even the mildest acid at 6.9, the pH level would have to decrease by a factor of 20. That is unlikely in the extreme.
Therefore, the IPCC claim of increasing ocean acidity IS A LIE.
Floods and fires
As has been reported on PSI and elsewhere, there are multiple reasons for the apparent increase in floods. More and more people are paving over their gardens to cater for cars, thus allowing fewer places for rainwater to soak into the ground. So-called ‘green’ policies have stopped or severely curtailed proper management of waterways. Houses are now reguilarly built on known flood plains.
Lastly, news of such events that used to take days or weeks to travel around the world before the internet and social media, can now be flashed around the globe within minutes. Yes, floods are increasing, but NOT for the reasons climate alarmists claim.
Other claims are the forests or the ground is so hot now, fires are breaking out spontaneously. The ignition point of healthy wood is 300C. That means either the tree or the ground around it has to be that temperature for a spontaneous fire to break out. Where in the world are those conditions?
The main reasons for forest fires are improper forest management, careless tourists and arson. As Gregory Wrightstone of Inconvenient Facts has shown, there are five times as many trees per forest acre as there should be. That means five times as many trees competing for the same ground water. That creates arid conditions, NOT ‘climate change’.
Environmental regulations have all but stopped logging, back-burning & brush-clearance, and have caused former logging & access roads, which also served as effective fire-breaks, to either be closed or deliberately blocked. THAT is what creates large forest fires which then cannot be adequately fought.
Computer models
A study published in 2020 compared 38 CMIP6 computer models. It concluded:
“For lower-troposphere and mid-troposphere layers both globally and in the tropics, all 38 models overpredict warming in every target observational analog, in most cases significantly so, and the average differences between models and observations are statistically significant.”
This illustration, prepared by John Christy of the University of Alabama in Huntsville in 2019, shows just how inaccurate the model;s are, yet alarmists claim they are absolutely accurate:
The observations are shown in grey on the left.
Climate Change Dispatch recently commented:
“The same Science article that reported the IPCC scientists’ admission that the models run hot also quoted NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies Director Gavin Schmidt as saying, ‘It’s become clear over the last year or so that we can’t avoid this’ — a slip that suggests that he and others have, contrary to the skepticism inherent in genuine science, been trying to avoid it for a long time.” (Emphasis added)
If in doubt, blame carbon dioxide
Most of this IPCC report is the result of projections, opinions, predictions and computer simulations. Computer models will produce exactly the result they are programmed to. If your model is programmed to show a temperature increase if carbon dioxide increases, that’s exactly what it will show. If you programme your model to show bananas turning blue if the temperature increases more than 1.5C that’s what it will predict.
Computer models are only as good as the assumptions programmed into them. Weather forecasters still cannot predict the weather accurately more than a day or so in advance, yet we are supposed to believe climate predictions decades into the future? To quote a certain sleepy politician; C’mon Man.
The only computer model that matches observations remains the Russian INM CM5, as it has ‘low climate sensitivity’. What does that tell you?
If this IPCC report is ‘code red’ for anything, it is for unprecedented propaganda and outright lies.
Header image: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
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.
MattH
| #
Good info Andy.
The IPCC should have requested approval from Tony Heller before wasting money on printing and stationary. https://realclimatescience.com/
There are records on most things, such as tropical cyclones. So rather than such claims as medium likely, just chart the annual data.
Reply
Andy
| #
Thanks Matt, and I agree with you about weather and Tony Heller.
Reply
Joao
| #
Even the Loto with less variables, it is veeeery dificult to “predict”… They say that they can predict Years???
Not even a month of weather is accurate.
Reply
Karma Singh
| #
Even archaeology has something to say here:-
During the Pax Romanica, sea levels around the UK were almost two metres higher than at present.
How’re you going to fit that into your CO2 propaganda Mr. IPCC?
Fact is, the Roman period was one of those periods when slight changes in Earth’s orbit around our star and high levels of sunspot activity engendered a warm period. Exactly the same happened to cause the medieval warm period. Between them, there was a cold period which caused crop failures and, in 1347 – 1354 the Black Death.
You can follow this pattern all the way back to the Younger Dryad anomaly and see cyclical changes in world temperatures.
What we also note is that a warmer world brings greatly increased prosperity and an easy life which engenders the flowering of new civilisations.
I prefer the reality of a warmer world than the cold one into which I was born.
Blessed be
Karma Singh
Reply
Clyde
| #
It’s rather difficult to take seriously anything they claim when they continue to misuse the S-B equation for graybody objects:
q = ε σ (T_h^4 – T_c^4)
… by treating real-world graybody objects as though they were idealized blackbody objects:
q = σ T^4
… and slapping emissivity on that (sometimes… other times, they treat real-world graybody objects exactly as though they were idealized blackbody objects, with emission to 0 K and ε=1, as above and as the Kiehl & Trenberth diagram does):
q = ε σ T^4
https://i.imgur.com/2Bd25TGl.png
Temperature is equal to the fourth root of energy density divided by Stefan’s Constant (ie: the radiation constant).
T = 4^√(e / (4σ / c))
q = ε σ (T_h^4 – T_c^4)
∴ q = ε σ (ΔT^4)
∴ q = ε σ (Δ(e / (4σ / c)))
Canceling units, we get J sec-1 m-2, which is W m-2 (1 J sec-1 = 1 W).
W m-2 = W m-2 K-4 * (Δ(J m-3 / (W m-2 K-4 / m sec-1))) * m^2
It becomes even more difficult when they then bastardize the S-B equation to hide the fact that they continue to treat real-world graybody objects as idealized blackbody objects via their FUBAR ‘forcing formula’:
4 ε σ (T^3)
The numbers come out very similar to what is arrived at by:
q = ε σ T^4
… for Earthly temperatures, when calculating for a 1 K temperature change.
Except the way the climate loons calculate it is:
q = ε σ T^4_h
q’ = ε σ T^4_c
q – q’
Or, for their FUBAR ‘forcing formula’:
4 ε σ (T^3)
In other words, they subtract cooler object energy flux from warmer object energy flux… rather than:
q = ε σ (T_h^4 – T_c^4)
In other words, by correctly subtracting cooler object energy density from warmer object energy density to arrive at the energy density gradient, which determines warmer object radiant exitance.
Their misuse of the S-B equation inflates radiant exitance for both warmer and cooler objects, which brings about their ‘backradiation’ blather, because they’re forced to subtract a fictional ‘cooler to warmer’ energy flux from the real (but incorrectly calculated and thus too high) ‘warmer to cooler’ energy flux… when the S-B equation isn’t meant to be used that way, it’s meant to be used to subtract cooler object energy density from warmer object energy density, with the energy density gradient determining warmer object radiant exitance.
“Backradiation” doesn’t exist as the climate loons claim, it’s a mathematical artifact brought about by their misuse of the S-B equation, which they continue in IPCC AR6.
Their use of the wrong formula increases radiant exitance of graybody objects far above what it actually is:
https://i.imgur.com/nJh4Z7U.png
https://i.imgur.com/4ulMbq6.png
To balance the equation, they must then subtract on the back end a wholly-fictive ‘cooler to warmer’ energy flux from the real (but incorrectly calculated and thus too high) ‘warmer to cooler’ energy flux… when in reality the S-B equation is meant to be used by subtracting on the front end cooler object energy density from warmer object energy density… the energy density gradient being the regulating mechanism behind warmer object radiant exitance.
This leads to all manner of unscientific, unphysical drivel… ‘backradiation’, ‘Global Warming Potential’, ‘carbon footprint’, their FUBAR ‘forcing formula’, the misuse of the S-B equation in equipment such as pyrgeometers and FTIR spectrometers, and ultimately in their core narrative: CAGW.
Do the calculations… you’ll see that not only do you get nearly identical results for Earthly temperatures, but that their FUBAR ‘forcing formula’ builds-in a warming trend:
For 288 K, a 1 K negative temperature change, ε=0.93643 (ref: NASA ISCCP program):
4 ε σ T^3 = 5.07369679087621 W m-2
For 288 K, a 1.00525093764635 K negative temperature change, ε=0.93643 (ref: NASA ISCCP program):
q = ε σ T^4 = 5.07369679087621 W m-2
For 288 K, a 1 K positive temperature change, ε=0.93643 (ref: NASA ISCCP program):
4 ε σ T^3 = 5.07369679087621 W m-2
For 288 K, a 0.99474906235365 K positive temperature change, ε=0.93643 (ref: NASA ISCCP program):
q = ε σ T^4 = 5.07369679087621 W m-2
So their bastardized equation gives the result for a warming of 0.99474906 K while claiming it’s a warming of 1 K, and gives the result for a cooling of 1.00525093 K while claiming it’s a cooling of 1 K.
And that’s likely why they bastardized the S-B equation… to hide the fact that they continue to treat real-world graybody objects as idealized blackbody objects, and to build-in whatever warming trend they possibly could in order to help sustain their alarmist narrative.
It further stretches credulity when they claim that CO2 removal from the atmosphere will result in the environment continuing to absorb CO2 at the same rate for some time after CO2 atmospheric concentration decreases due to some purported “inertia”… as if Henry’s Law and partial pressure have “inertia”… it’s almost as if they’re wholly incognizant of the fact that pressure is an instantaneous measure… or they don’t even know why the oceans absorb / outgas CO2 in accord with Henry’s Law.
I’ve seen high school students who could come up with better working hypotheses (and do remember, CAGW has barely reached the status of ‘working hypothesis’… it most definitely is not a scientific hypothesis, let alone a theory… the science is most definitely not ‘settled’… that’s merely a feeble attempt by the climate tardlings to quash dissent so they’re not shown up as being wronger than wrong), and those same high school students, upon discovering that their working hypothesis had been nullified (as the working hypothesis of CAGW has been nullified… CO2 is a net atmospheric coolant at all altitudes except for negligible warming right at the tropopause, where it absorbs a greater proportion of cloud-reflected solar insolation and radiation from cloud condensation):
https://i.imgur.com/0DTVYkR.png“>https://i.imgur.com/0DTVYkR.png
https://web.archive.org/web/20190331141324if_/https:/co2islife.files.wordpress.com/2017/01/spectralcoolingrates_zps27867ef4.png
… would have come up with another working hypothesis (rather than desperately clinging to a nullified hypothesis and ‘adjusting’ data, cherry-picking data, making up data out of thin air (usually via parameter-heavy computerized interpolation), concatenating data series while throwing out sections of data series which don’t fit their narrative, quashing dissenting data; bleating alarmist drivel; bastardizing equations; misusing equations and scientific concepts; and generally demonstrating that they are anything but scientific in nature… as the climastrologists do).
Reply
MattH
| #
Hi Andy.
You are probably already aware but the most recent electroverse posting is crucial.
NEW STUDY: 23 EXPERTS IN THE FIELDS OF SOLAR PHYSICS AND CLIMATE SCIENCE CONTRADICT THE IPCC — THE SCIENCE IS NOT SETTLED
You gettim big fulluh.
Regards, Matt
Reply
Moffin
| #
The new study is the lead story on newsmax.
Reply
Moffingtonhead
| #
The new climate report mentioned was the lead article on newsmax for a few minutes. It was then approximately the 24th article on newsmax and now is no longer listed on newsmax news articles.
I have found no reference on any other MSM news site.
Premeditated ignorance and paradigms of prejudice.
Reply
Andy
| #
Hi Matt, I wasn’t aware of the Electro article, but I will certainly look for it now. Thanks 🙂
Reply
MattH
| #
Having NASA associated with this new study matters.
Richard C. Willson, Principal Investigator in charge of NASA’s ACRIM series of Sun-monitoring Total Solar Irradiance satellite experiments (U.S.A.):
“Contrary to the findings of the IPCC, scientific observations in recent decades have demonstrated that there is no ‘climate change crisis’. The concept that’s devolved into the failed CO2 anthropogenic global warming (CAGW) hypothesis is based on the flawed predictions of imprecise 1980’s vintage global circulation models that have failed to match observational data both since and prior to their fabrication.
The Earth’s climate is determined primarily by the radiation it receives from the Sun. The amount of solar radiation the Earth receives has natural variabilities caused by both variations in the intrinsic amount of radiation emitted by the Sun and by variations in the Earth-Sun geometry caused by planetary rotational and orbital variations. Together these natural variations cause the Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) at the Earth to vary cyclically on a number of known periodicities that are synchronized with known past climatic changes.”
I hope Mr Willson, who made the above assertion, does not lose his job as so many have before him.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi PSI Readers,
This sequence of comments and Andy’s article is what PSI was founded to do. A public forum to keep a read up to date about conflicting ideas. But to also to illustrate the absolute necessity of observation; the foundation of SCIENCE.
Andy researched and wrote for us: “AR6 says: “Globally averaged precipitation over land has likely increased since 1950, with a faster rate of increase since the 1980s (medium confidence)”. “Translation: it is possible, but we are not sure, that the world is experiencing higher rainfall.” (Andy)
Now, I am going to be critical of Andy. The statement Andy quoted is clearly about precipitation OVER LAND. Which should alert us how little we know about precipitation OVER WATER which we generally know is about 70% of the Earth’s surface.
I have pointed to the fact the Lewis Elzevir, the publisher of Galileo’s foundation book of PHYSICAL SCIENCE, wrote a PREFACE to the readers of the book. And I have previous quoted a portion of its third paragraph, but never the total paragraph: “Remembering that the wisdom and power and goodness the Creator are nowhere exhibited so well as in the heavens and celestial bodies, we can easily recognize the great merit of him who has brought these bodies to our knowledge and has , in spite of their almost infinite distance, rendered them easily visible. For, according to the common saying, sight can teach more and with greater certainty in a single day than can precept even though repeated a thousand times, or, as another says, intuitive knowledge keeps pace with accurate definition.” (as translated to English by Henry Crew & Alfonso de Salvio, 1914)
I write this comment because I ponder were these two common sayings really common sayings in 1638??? Or were there insights of Louis Elzevir which he found by reading what Galileo had DONE and WRITTEN???
Andy, I consider you did not accurately define … but now after writing what I have written and come to my summary statement I finally see that I was wrong about your ACCURATE STATEMENT which I formerly considered to be INACCURATE!!!
GOOD WORK ANDY AND MATTH. Thank you both for your efforts!!!
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
MattH
| #
Thank you Jerry.
Matt
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Andy, MattH and other PSI Readers. I
I critically evaluate what I write. And I judge that my last comment here was worthless. Matt, you wrote that “Having NASA associated with this new study matters.” as you quoted Richard C. Willson, Principal Investigator in charge of NASA’s ACRIM series of Sun-monitoring Total Solar Irradiance satellite experiments (U.S.A.).
Don’t ignore there is NASA and there is NOAA and worry about Willson’s future at NASA. For might have Willson just fired a rocket at NOAA’s SCIENCE based at the Earth’s surface and studying the circulation of the atmosphere and that of the waters of the oceans and seas and even the solar radiation that is actually incident upon the Earth’s surfaces.
I will conclude this comment by pointing out the fact weather is an infant science and the fact that climate is merely an average of weather at specific locations over a period of several decades. For we generally know that during the past century measured principal factors of weather have been measured to undergo cyclic variations with extreme departures from the average for a year or two or even a decade (the 30s).
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply