IPCC Climate Claims Falsified by 2010 Record High CO2 Levels

Rajendra K. Pachauri,
chair of the IPCC

Image via Wikipedia

How many times can official science be wrong before governments stop acting on the claim that human CO2 is causing climate change? The latest example is the claim that atmospheric CO2 levels are higher and show the largest one year increase on record.

“The world pumped about 564 million more tons (512 million metric tons) of carbon into the air in 2010 than it did in 2009. That’s an increase of 6%.”

Tom Boden, director of the Energy Department’s Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center at Oak Ridge National Lab said,

“It’s a big jump…” “From an emissions standpoint, the global financial crisis seems to be over.”

This last comment is incorrect because the global economy continues to falter. It’s necessary to justify the false claim that human CO2 is the problem.

Boden assumes the increase is due to human activity. It isn’t, but he is parroting false official IPCC climate science, which won’t consider other explanations. To do so would contradict their 2007 IPCC Report, which says,

“Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.”

They are very sure about this claim. They define ”very likely” as greater than 90% probability. It’s part of the deception further identified in the leak of more emails from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia.

Figure 1: Comparison IPCC Forecasts CO2 and Temperature with Actual 2001- 2009 Source: After Monckton

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assumes an increase in CO2 causes an increase in temperature. It has never happened, but they continue to perpetuate the belief. It’s built into their computer models, which is a major reason why their predictions/scenarios are consistently wrong. Figure 1 shows the IPCC range of scenarios for temperature and CO2. Actual increases for both variables are below the lowest scenario. When you are this wrong in such a short period something is seriously wrong with your model and assumptions.

It’s difficult to sort out what is happening because the IPCC only focuses on human causes of climate change. In another of their deceptive changes, they abandoned the original definition of climate change written by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and used in the first three Reports and replaced it in the 2007 Report. Here it is as a footnote in the Summary for Policymakers (SPM).

“Climate change in IPCC usage refers to any change in climate over time, whether due to natural variability or as a result of human activity. This usage differs from that in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, where climate change refers to a change of climate that is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and that is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods.”

The problem is they did not and could not alter this Fourth report because they are cumulative and so the basis for including natural variability did not exist.

This is important because most don’t realize the IPCC link scientific model outputs with economic model outputs to create the Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES). They were severely criticized by many including a participant David Henderson who said,

“My main theme is what I see as the uncritical and over-presumptive way in which these various sources have dealt with the scientific aspects of the subject.”

They’re circular arguments that predetermine results, which explains why they’re always wrong.

IPCC has three Working Groups (WG). WGI proves CO2 is the cause. WGII uses that result to determine the impact. WGIII recommends remedial actions. ALL of them assume CO2 will increase because of development. Five specific directions are controlled by the first.

Five criteria that should be met by climate scenarios if they are to be useful for impact researchers and policy makers are suggested: Criterion 1: Consistency with global projections. They should be consistent with a broad range of global warming projections based on increased concentrations of greenhouse gases. This range is variously cited as 1.4°C to 5.8°C by 2100, or 1.5°C to 4.5°C for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration (otherwise known as the “equilibrium climate sensitivity”). Four other Criteria were advisory. Climate sensitivity is a problem for the IPCC and central to the skeptical challenge.
The IPCC assumes, incorrectly, that a CO2 increase causes a temperature increase. But they face a problem because there is an upper limit to the temperature increase, even if CO2 is doubled. A coat of black paint will stop light passing through a window – say 97%. A second coat can only reduce the light by at most 3%. The current level of CO2 is similar to the first coat of paint. Increasing the CO2 barely increases the temperature.
IPCC used a positive feedback to overcome the problem. CO2 causes temperature increase that causes increased evaporation. Water vapour as a greenhouse gas propels the temperature trend upwards. This was discredited by Lindzen and Choi, whose 2011 paper concluded,

“The results imply that the models are exaggerating climate sensitivity.”

Patrick Michaels reports that a new paper by Andreas Schmittner has also reduced the level. Figure 2 compares the paper’s estimates of sensitivity (blue) with the IPCC literature assessment (red line).

Figure 2: Gradual Decline in Claims of Climate Sensitivity

Every time the sensitivity issue is revisited the level is reduced. Eventually they will realize that the value for CO2 is zero and possibly negative because CO2 is an atmospheric cooling agent. It is a more logical conclusion based on the facts. In every record of any duration for any period temperature increases before CO2. The IPCC deception is exposed. Now the politicians must deal with facts and abandon all policies based on the claims that CO2 is causing climate change.

Source