The Collapse of IPCC Credibility

The IPCC has been exposed as a mere propaganda outlet. The criticisms exposed by CLINTEL are devastating.

CLINTEL’s critical evaluation of the IPCC AR6
Posted on May 13, 2023 by curryja
by Judith Curry

Clintel has published a new report entitled “The Frozen Climate Views of the IPCC: Analysis of the AR6.”

“The new Report provides an independent assessment of the most important parts of AR6. We document biases and errors in almost every chapter we reviewed. In some cases, of course, one can quibble endlessly about our criticism and how relevant it is for the overall ‘climate narrative’ of the IPCC. In some cases, though, we document such blatant cherry picking by the IPCC, that even ardent supporters of the IPCC should feel embarrassed.”

Continue reading →

Climate Intelligence (CLINTEL) is an independent foundation that operates in the fields of climate change and climate policy. CLINTEL was founded in 2019 by emeritus professor of geophysics Guus Berkhout and science journalist Marcel Crok.

The CLINTEL Report is edited by Marcel Crok and Andy May, with contributions from Javier Vinos, Ross McKitrick, Ole Humlum, Nicola Scafetta, and Fritz Vahrenholt.

The Chapter topics are:

1. No confidence that the present is warmer than the mid-Holocene
2. The resurrection of the Hockey Stick
3. Measuring global surface temperature
4. Controversial Snow Trends
5. Accelerated sea level rise: not so fast
6. Why does the IPCC downplay the Sun?
7. Misty climate sensitivity
8. AR6: more confidence that models are unreliable
9. Extreme scenarios
10. A miraculous sea level jump in 2020
11. Hiding the good news on hurricanes and floods
12. Extreme views on disasters
13. Say goodbye to climate hell, welcome climate heaven . . . .

 

Professor Curry's conclusion:

JC reflections

The CLINTEL Report provides a much needed critical evaluation and intellectual counterpoint to the IPCC AR6.

There is a lot of good material in the AR6 WG1 Report, but there is also a lot of cherry picking and flat out errors in the Report (the AR6 WG2 Report is just flat out bad). With any kind of serious review, or if the author teams have been sufficiently diverse, we would not see so many of these kinds of errors. Unfortunately, the IPCC defines “diversity” in terms of gender, race and developed versus underdeveloped countries; actual diversity of thought and perspective is dismissed in favor of promoting the politically mandated narrative from the UN.

The consensus disease that that was caught by the IPCC following publication of the First Assessment Report in 1990, combined with pressures from policy makers, is resulting in documents that don’t reflect the broad disagreement and uncertainties on these complex topics. The IPCC’s mandated narrative has become very stale. Worse yet, it is becoming increasingly irrelevant to policy making by continuing to focus on extreme emissions scenarios and the embarrassing cherry picking that is required to support the “climate crisis” narrative that is so beloved by UN officials.

In any event, UN-driven climate policy has moved well past any moorings in climate science, even the relatively alarming version reported by the IPCC. The insane policies and deadlines tied to greenhouse gas emissions are simply at odds with the reality of our understanding of climate change and the uncertainties, and with broader considerations of human well being.

 

Open letter to Dr Hoesung Lee, Chair of the IPCC
Andy May
The following letter was sent to Dr. Lee, the Chair of the IPCC earlier today (May 25th, 2023) by Dr. A.J. (Guus) Berkhout, President of Clintel, Emeritus Professor of Geophysics,…

 

BOOK REVIEW: Climate Uncertainty and Risk – Rethinking Our Response
Kip Hansen
This is one book that is far different, with a difference that is important. It has been written by a real climate scientist. . . .

 

Criticism in detail.
A Critique of AR6
Andy May
After more than two years of hard work, Marcel Crok, I, and 11 other scientists have finally published our critique of the International Panel on Climate Change…

 

I guess that's why every time I dip into AR6, I feel like I need a shower afterwards...

 

The IPCC has failed.
Europe’s Climate Suffers From Lack Of Clouds And Rain…Not From A CO2 Increase
By P Gosselin on 9. June 2023

Share this...
The higher temperatures are clearly attributable to a reduction in cloud cover, not CO2
The DIY way to demystify “greenhouse gas” claims

Rapidly rising temperatures and drought in parts of central Europe are caused by a long-term trend of receding cloud cover. Fewer clouds result in increased solar energy influx and reduced downpour. Both factors lead to higher temperatures. By comparison, the influence of CO2 levels is minimal at best.

By Fred F. Mueller
Preceding chapters see part 1 1), part 2 2), part 3 3), part 4 4), part 5 5), Part 6 6)



Fig.1. Bad weather clouds during a spring storm

Clouds: Unwilling slaves of CO2, or climate drivers of their own right?

According to official sources (NOAA 7), DWD ), the net long-term cooling effect of clouds is about -20 W/m2. It thus is much stronger than the so-called back radiation effect exerted by increased levels of “greenhouse gases,” which is assumed to be just +3,222 W/m2. And since common sense tells us that a warming climate should result in more evaporation of water, this should in turn ultimately form more clouds – resulting in a cooling effect on earth’s climate.

But as we have seen in the past chapters, the IPCC and its followers stubbornly insist on pretending that CO2 and the other “non-condensing greenhouse gases” – mainly methane and N2O – are the only relevant “forcers” of climate change. Water vapor and clouds – the other aggregate conditions of water in the atmosphere – are declared to be simple amplifiers who slavishly obey the directives given by the “forcers.” The short average lifetime of water molecules in the atmosphere is forwarded as the reason why water vapor should be unable to exert a sustainable long-term influence on the evolution of the climate by itself. This is the core of the untruth the IPCC disseminates about the reality of climate control. In the previous parts of the article, we have already seen that clouds are the only climate drivers that are able to prevent solar radiation from reaching earth’s surface by reflecting noticeable proportions of it directly back into space. No other “greenhouse gas” can produce such an effect: at best, they are just slowing down the re-emission of energy into space after it has reached and warmed the surface. It is really remarkable that the “official” climate science has succeeded in negating this unique feature of water in the form of clouds while attributing the role of “only climate control knob” to CO2 and its minor allies methane and N2O, see Fig 2.



Fig. 2. “Hockey stick” Michael E. Mann and his followers have succeeded in selling to the public the story of the (CO2)-tail (red) that wiggles the (cloud-) elephant in the room.

To put it clearly: in terms of climate system influence factors, CO2 is (if ever) just the tail and clouds are the elephant in the room. Fantastic job how Michael E. Hansen and his followers have been able to sell to the public a story that literally turns reality upside down. . . . .

 

Clouds are indeed more important than CO2 in determining surface temperature and climate, but they are not causal primaries. IOW, other factors -- the sun, ocean circulation, etc. -- drive clouds. It is so complicated that full understanding will probably await SAI. The biggest barrier to understanding and progress in climate science is now the temperature record, which has been systematically falsified to conform to the CO2-drives-surface-temperature narrative.

 

A Twitter Debate on Clintel’s IPCC AR6 Critique
Andy May
In May 2023, Clintel published a book (see figure 1) criticizing AR6 (IPCC, 2021), a publication that was supposed to summarize climate science research to date. We…

Conclusions

Chatzstergos inability to see the difference between opposing opinions and actual mistakes is not surprising given the appalling level of scientific training today and the politicization of climate science. That is why I took the time to write this post defending our book.

His tweets confuse facts with opinions. This is also commonly seen in supposed “fact checks” by Climate Feedback and other organizations of that ilk, as we discuss here. Clearly our universities are not training our young scientists very well, this is a real problem that should be addressed.

 

It's amazing how often climate-related "fact checks" promulgate bald falsehoods as "facts."

 

IPCC credibility is on the wane.
The Buzz about The Frozen Climate Views of the IPCC
Andy May
Our new book, The Frozen Climate Views of the IPCC: An Analysis of AR6, is creating a lot of attention and excitement around the world. It is the first authoritative…

 

Ordered this over the weekend. It's about three or four deep in the to-read stack but I had to do a few brief samples. She writes so well and clearly I'm looking forward to digging in.

 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-07-24/antarctic-sea-ice-levels-nosedive-five-sigma-event/102635204

pity the IPCC is proving to be correct

As for “Clintel”. Want to tell me what a commercial fisherman knows about the physics of climate science?

https://www.desmog.com/climate-intelligence-foundation-clintel/

 

New Study: Maps Of Ice Mass Loss Show Geothermal Heat Flow Explains 2003-2019 Antarctic Ice Melt
By Kenneth Richard on 13. July 2023

Share this...
There is a “direct link” between the location of origin for recent ice melt in Antarctica and geothermal heat flow.
High geothermal heat flow (GHF) is mostly why Antarctic ice melts, not “atmospheric and ocean forcing,” which is what has been commonly thought until recently (Haeger et al., 2023).

Even though atmospheric CO2 is well-mixed, or about the same everywhere over the Southern Hemisphere, we are asked to believe anthropogenic CO2 emissions are responsible for ice melt at very specific locations on the Antarctic continent, whereas it is not responsible for the mass gains at other locations on the ice sheet.

This belief that human CO2 emissions concentrate their alleged ice-melting powers at certain locations at the base – underneath – the ice sheet as it simultaneously leaves other ice sheet regions alone cannot be explained with atmospheric physics.

On the other hand, since the location of origin for modern (2003-2019) ice mass losses “coincides with a region of elevated GHF, which can further destabilize the ice sheet and could drive unstable retreat,” it is much more easily assumed GHF is primarily responsible for Antarctic ice melt. Not human emissions.

“It is common to attribute changes in the ice dynamics and subsequent ice loss to atmospheric and oceanic forcing. However, recent studies suggest a direct link between the location of the origin of ice streams and zones of increased heat flow (Petrunin et al., 2013; Rogozhina et al., 2016; Smith-Johnsen et al., 2020) that allows to consider GHF as an important factor in ice dynamics. Our results also show a good spatial correspondence with the map of ice mass loss between 2003 and 2019.”



Image Source: Haeger et al., 2023

 

You didn’t read the article did you? Or if you did you failed to realise that it talks of SEA ICE

 

Of course you did. Won’t read the free IPCC reports though

 

It's 5 or 6 in my fiction stack.

 

Sorry, but you're wrong.
4. Conclusions
The model presented in this study provides not only a novel surface heat flow map, but also a three-dimensional thermal model of the entire Antarctic lithosphere. These data can help to further refine surface GHF values as new data on the crustal structure and its thermal properties are obtained, and can also be used as a reference model providing boundary/initial conditions for further geophysical modeling. We estimate uncertainties of our model through statistical analysis. High values are associated with regions of thick crust, especially in the Gamburtsev Subglacial Mountains where they reach +19 mW/m2 . Uncertainties related to the seismological tomography input model and the calibration thereof are lower and reach their maximum in Marie Byrd Land, where the lithosphere is thinnest. Absolute values are within the range of other seismology-based methods and are much lower than those obtained using for example, magnetic data. We assume high reliability of our model for the deeper lithosphere, which is confirmed by independent data, such as the correlation of predicted thermal anomalies with the main tectonic components of the Antarctic continent and the identified centers of volcanic activity. This as well as the spatial correspondence of positive GHF anomalies with zones of maximum change in ice sheet dynamics indicates a direct connection of deep lithospheric and surface processes. This is in agreement with elevated GHF found below Thwaites and Pope glaciers in a regional study of the Amundsen Sea Sector (Dziadek et al., 2021), though we cannot reproduce their amplitudes. Therefore, it is crucial to include a consistent GHF distribution to accurately model ice dynamics, ice mass balance, and sea level change to better predict possible scenarios for the Earth system dynamics.

 

You'd have to be, like, marooned on a desert island with nothing else to read before that would be a temptation...

 

I see. So, the data points covering just a few dozen years out of cycles lasting from hundreds to millions of years justify a claim that the current data point represents an extreme reached only once in 7.5My...?

Riiiight...

That is like claiming the ordinary increase in LA traffic observed this morning reached a peak that would only be expected to happen once in 20Ky: if it weren't so meaningless, it would be dishonest.

The only things the IPCC has been proved correct about are uncontroversial statements that climate realists agree with. Every alarmist claim has been falsified.

That depends entirely on the quantity and quality of his reading and thinking on the subject -- which are incomparably more important than his "credentials."

 

I suppose that getting everything right for so many years does diminish crediblity among deniers, who assign credibility by how badly any source or organization faceplants with their predictions, and how closely an organization clings to official bizarre party propaganda.

To normal people, however, the IPCC's record of success establishes credibility.

Remember deniers, you can't gaslight anyone who isn't part of your cult. You'll keep trying, but it won't work.

 

The Chapter topics are:

1. No confidence that the present is warmer than the mid-Holocene
2. The resurrection of the Hockey Stick
3. Measuring global surface temperature
4. Controversial Snow Trends
5. Accelerated sea level rise: not so fast
6. Why does the IPCC downplay the Sun?
7. Misty climate sensitivity
8. AR6: more confidence that models are unreliable
9. Extreme scenarios
10. A miraculous sea level jump in 2020
11. Hiding the good news on hurricanes and floods
12. Extreme views on disasters
13. Say goodbye to climate hell, welcome climate heaven . . . .

 

The only things the IPCC has got right are uncontroversial statements that climate realists agree with. Every alarmist claim has been falsified.

Talk about lack of credibility....

The IPCC renounced any claim it might have had to credibility when it doubled down on Lyin' Michael Mann's hockey stick.

Look who's talking about gaslighting! Who are the ones trying to get ordinary people to believe in the self-evidently non-existent "climate crisis", hmmmm? Who's trying to convince everyone this is "the hottest it's ever been" with falsified temperature readings when anyone can just step outside and determine for themselves that it isn't?

You'll keep trying, but it won't work.

 

No Gish Gallops allowed. Gish Galloping is the tactic of someone who can't back up what they say.

If you have a specific topic to discuss, then discuss it, in your own words. "BUT LOOK AT MY PROPAGANDA LINK!" is not a valid argument. If you say it is, I have many times more sources to link to than you do, so I would win.

Oh, "CLINTEL". Right-wing org from the Netherlands, funded by real estate moguls, associated with the kook-right fringe in the USA, nobody in it with any actual climate science experience. It just regurgitates standard bad denier propaganda.

 

We should be more concerned about the AMOC and gulf stream collapsing than the IPCC.