It may come as a surprise to some that “The Science”, as expounded in the IPCC Summaries for Policymakers that inform conference participants, is not uncritically accepted by all scientists in the field, and that widely different views are held by a substantial cadre of experienced and eminent researchers. Moreover, a multitude of peer-reviewed papers contradict many aspects of the IPCC’s alarmist narrative. Furthermore, a coherent theory about the impact of changes in greenhouse gases (GHGs) is starting to emerge, one that is built up from the underlying physics, rather than extracted from fanciful computer simulations.
Let us start with an irrefutable example of the inability of climate models (general circulation models, GCMs) to provide meaningful projections. Climatologist and former NASA scientist Dr Roy Spencer compares observed global sea surface temperatures with those predicted by climate models and provides an analysis (Fig.1). This shows unequivocally that warming is occurring much more slowly than the average model says it should. Indeed, it can be seen by simple inspection that the climate models currently in use by the IPCC (CMIP6) exaggerate observed warming by a factor of up to around five times.
In short, no scientist who studies the range of scientific literature can reasonably claim that the subject of influences on the climate is remotely ‘settled’. The reality is that a multiplicity of factors are at work, and so, by focusing on human emissions, it appears that the IPCC has, through ‘force fitting’ between its selectively chosen historic global temperature estimates and the inadequately structured and parameterised CMIP models, reached a highly exaggerated view of climate sensitivity to CO2. Specifically, the range of ECS values for CO2 adopted by the IPCC overstates those obtained from a physics analysis of causal mechanisms, consistent with satellite measurements, by a factor of up to five to 17 times.
Read the full article on the Daily Sceptic