 |
No, we do not have
a political agenda. We are a non-profit science
organization!
This research gets funding from nobody!
|
IPCC Climate predictions continuously fail
The IPCC predictions keep on
failing. Not a single one has predicted actual data. Yet, we
increasingly credit them with some near-biblical prophets
status.
"In 1988 Jim Hansen was consulted by the US Senate. He made three predictions about the next 30 years of expected global warming. He predicted, that if CO2 does not have power over temperatures, the temperatures will be low. And he was right. In fact, temperatures are even lower, than he predicted."
The three predictions are shown below (red, green, blue) compared to reality (black and gray). Reality falls below predictions by 0.4-0.8 oC. Thus, using scientific reasoning: if in "[model] then [prediction]", the prediction fails, the model is wrong. "If CO2 is a driving force, then temperature rise of at least 0.8 degrees will occur", if these 0.8 degrees are not reached, then CO2 is not a climate driving force. (Simple, isn't it? Science. Everybody can do it).
Figure and citation taken from Ref. [1]
See also this (the figure speaks for itself):
Note the point at 1998. Reality (blue line) and comparison with IPCC models. At that moment, politicians said "Climate change is accelerating at a much faster pace than was preciously thought by scientists", This, later, proved to be wrong, since in 2012 we can say that real climate temperatures fall well below all models.
In 2007 IPCC came with this statement
"a warming of about 0.2 oC per decade is projected" (IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007).
(Note: a long-term natural trend, not attributed to CO2, is 0.06 degrees per decade)
See image below between predictions (colored lines) from 2000 and range of models from 1990 (green and blue shaded areas), and reality (black line). The prediction are well above reality.
Image from Girma Orssengo, see Ref. [2]. Who also writes
"... comparison of observed increase in human emission of CO2 with increase in GMTA during the 20th century shows no relationship between the two. As a result, the claim by the IPCC of climate catastrophe is not supported by the data."
Instead of 0.2 degrees rise, the temperature has been dropping slightly. If this is "natural variations that mask the underlying accelerating trend" that it will heat up by 0.2 degrees per decade, it had better start doing that very rapidly now. Every year that we now do not see tremendous increases in temperature will further prove a failure of the model with increasing certainty. Simple heating up is not sufficient anymore. It has to heat up dramatically. If not, we are consistently below IPCC models and hence are living the failure of IPCC.
Moreover, according to the IPCC itself, there have never been natural temperature variations before. Take a look at their famous hockey stick figure [3]. No variations (larger than about 0.1 degrees) until mankind starts interfering with the climate.
It seems much more likely that the CO2 uncorrelated trend of 0.06 degrees/decade is continuing, unperturbed by the political interference. Nature has its own agenda. We will see a divergence of IPCC models and reality by about 0.14 degrees per decade.
The UN and the IPCC are rapidly becoming bodies without morally a basis for the things they do in this world. The IPCC and UN cannot claim to be backed by scientists, because science is proving them wrong.
[1] http://climatechange.thinkaboutit.eu/think4/post/how_to_talk_to_a_skeptic_hansens_prediction
[2] http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/25/predictions-of-global-mean-temperatures-ipcc-projections/
[3] IPCC third assessment report.
For more information, contact me at The University of The Algarve,
Hansen's 1988 predictions:
"In 1988 Jim Hansen was consulted by the US Senate. He made three predictions about the next 30 years of expected global warming. He predicted, that if CO2 does not have power over temperatures, the temperatures will be low. And he was right. In fact, temperatures are even lower, than he predicted."
The three predictions are shown below (red, green, blue) compared to reality (black and gray). Reality falls below predictions by 0.4-0.8 oC. Thus, using scientific reasoning: if in "[model] then [prediction]", the prediction fails, the model is wrong. "If CO2 is a driving force, then temperature rise of at least 0.8 degrees will occur", if these 0.8 degrees are not reached, then CO2 is not a climate driving force. (Simple, isn't it? Science. Everybody can do it).
Figure and citation taken from Ref. [1]
See also this (the figure speaks for itself):
Note the point at 1998. Reality (blue line) and comparison with IPCC models. At that moment, politicians said "Climate change is accelerating at a much faster pace than was preciously thought by scientists", This, later, proved to be wrong, since in 2012 we can say that real climate temperatures fall well below all models.
IPCC 2007 predictions:
In 2007 IPCC came with this statement
"a warming of about 0.2 oC per decade is projected" (IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007).
(Note: a long-term natural trend, not attributed to CO2, is 0.06 degrees per decade)
See image below between predictions (colored lines) from 2000 and range of models from 1990 (green and blue shaded areas), and reality (black line). The prediction are well above reality.
Image from Girma Orssengo, see Ref. [2]. Who also writes
"... comparison of observed increase in human emission of CO2 with increase in GMTA during the 20th century shows no relationship between the two. As a result, the claim by the IPCC of climate catastrophe is not supported by the data."
Instead of 0.2 degrees rise, the temperature has been dropping slightly. If this is "natural variations that mask the underlying accelerating trend" that it will heat up by 0.2 degrees per decade, it had better start doing that very rapidly now. Every year that we now do not see tremendous increases in temperature will further prove a failure of the model with increasing certainty. Simple heating up is not sufficient anymore. It has to heat up dramatically. If not, we are consistently below IPCC models and hence are living the failure of IPCC.
Moreover, according to the IPCC itself, there have never been natural temperature variations before. Take a look at their famous hockey stick figure [3]. No variations (larger than about 0.1 degrees) until mankind starts interfering with the climate.
It seems much more likely that the CO2 uncorrelated trend of 0.06 degrees/decade is continuing, unperturbed by the political interference. Nature has its own agenda. We will see a divergence of IPCC models and reality by about 0.14 degrees per decade.
The UN and the IPCC are rapidly becoming bodies without morally a basis for the things they do in this world. The IPCC and UN cannot claim to be backed by scientists, because science is proving them wrong.
[1] http://climatechange.thinkaboutit.eu/think4/post/how_to_talk_to_a_skeptic_hansens_prediction
[2] http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/25/predictions-of-global-mean-temperatures-ipcc-projections/
[3] IPCC third assessment report.
For more information, contact me at The University of The Algarve,
Prof. Peter Stallinga
http://w3.ualg.pt/~pjotr