This thread is for discussion of the sceptical report entitled “Not the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change” published by a group of scientists.

Views: 866

17 Thoughts on “NIPCC

  1. THREAD on 17/10/2010 at 4:17 am said:

    The 2009 report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC)

    Climate Change Reconsidered, was released on Tuesday, June 2, 2009, at a press conference at the Washington Court Hotel in Washington, DC, in conjunction with the Third International Conference on Climate Change. Heartland President Joseph Bast, editor of Climate Change Reconsidered, and authors Craig D. Idso Ph.D. and S. Fred Singer Ph.D.

  2. Richard C (NZ) on 17/12/2010 at 9:02 pm said:

    Paper: Climate models lack fundamentals to determine global warming

    Saturday, December 11, 2010

    As noted on the NIPCC website this week, a peer-reviewed paper published in Geophysical Research Letters concludes that climate models “lack — or incorrectly parameterize — fundamental processes by which surface temperatures respond to radiative forcings.” In other words, climate computer models used by the IPCC are fundamentally incorrect on predictions of global warming due to greenhouse gas concentrations [“radiative forcings”].

    “To distinguish between simultaneous natural and anthropogenic impacts on surface temperature, regionally as well as globally,” authors Lean and Rind performed “a robust multivariate analysis using the best available estimates of each together with the observed surface temperature record from 1889 to 2006.”

    Lean and Rind report that “contrary to recent assessments based on theoretical models (IPCC, 2007) the anthropogenic warming estimated directly from the historical observations is more pronounced between 45°S and 50°N than at higher latitudes,” which finding, in their words, “is the approximate inverse of the model-simulated anthropogenic plus natural temperature trends … which have minimum values in the tropics and increase steadily from 30 to 70°N.” Furthermore, as they continue, “the empirically-derived zonal mean anthropogenic changes have approximate hemispheric symmetry whereas the mid-to-high latitude modeled changes are larger in the Northern hemisphere.”

    Because of what their analysis revealed, the two researchers concluded that “climate models may therefore lack — or incorrectly parameterize — fundamental processes by which surface temperatures respond to radiative forcings.”

    Lean, J.L. and Rind, D.H, 2008. How natural and anthropogenic influences alter global and regional surface temperatures: 1889 to 2006. Geophysical Research Letters 35: 10.1029/2008GL034864.

  3. Richard C (NZ) on 01/09/2011 at 10:19 am said:

    New Report on Global Warming Contradicts U.N.’s IPCC

    According to the new report, “natural causes are very likely to be [the] dominant” cause of climate change that took place in the twentieth and at the start of the twenty-first centuries.

    The 430-page report was coauthored and edited by three climate science researchers: Craig D. Idso, Ph.D., editor of the online magazine CO2 Science and author of several books and scholarly articles on the effects of carbon dioxide on plant and animal life; Robert M. Carter, Ph.D., a marine geologist and research professor at James Cook University in Queensland, Australia; and S. Fred Singer, Ph.D., a distinguished atmospheric physicist and first director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service. Seven additional scientists and one policy expert on sustainable growth made contributions to the volume.

    The book is titled Climate Change Reconsidered: 2011 Interim Report because it precedes a comprehensive volume that is expected to be released in 2013. It focuses on scientific research released since publication of Climate Change Reconsidered: The 2009 Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC).

    Key findings, as outlined in the interim report’s executive summary, include:

    * “We find evidence that the models over-estimate the amount of warming that occurred during the twentieth century and fail to incorporate chemical and biological processes that may be as important as the physical processes employed in the models.”

    * “More CO2 promotes more plant growth both on land and throughout the surface waters of the world’s oceans, and this vast assemblage of plant life has the ability to affect Earth’s climate in several ways, almost all of them tending to counteract the heating effects of CO2’s thermal radiative forcing.”

    * “The latest research on paleoclimatology and recent temperatures [finds] new evidence that the Medieval Warm Period of approximately 1,000 years ago, when there was about 28 percent less CO2 in the atmosphere than there is currently, was both global and warmer than today’s world.”

    * “New research finds less melting of ice in the Arctic, Antarctic, and on mountaintops than previously feared, no sign of acceleration of sea-level rise in recent decades, no trend over the past 50 years in changes to the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (MOC), and no changes in precipitation patterns or river flows that could be attributed to rising CO2 levels.”

    * “Amphibians, birds, butterflies, other insects, lizards, mammals, and even worms benefit from global warming and its myriad ecological effects.”

    * “Rising temperatures and atmospheric CO2 concentrations, by increasing crop yields, will play a major role in averting hunger and ecological destruction in the future.”

    * “The latest research suggests corals and other forms of aquatic life have effective adaptive responses to climate change enabling them to flourish despite or even because of climate change.”

    * “Global warming is more likely to improve rather than harm human health because rising temperatures lead to a greater reduction in winter deaths than the increase they cause in summer deaths.”

    * “Even in worst-case scenarios, mankind will be much better off in the year 2100 than it is today, and therefore able to adapt to whatever challenges climate change presents.”

  4. Richard C (NZ) on 20/04/2013 at 9:01 pm said:

    ‘Anthropogenic Global Warming Science Assessment Report’

    The Right Climate Stuff Research Team
    April, 2013

    The Right Climate Stuff (TRCS) research team is a group of engineers and scientists, most of whom are retired NASA Johnson Space Center employees, who have successfully worked together on manned space projects since the early days of the Apollo Program. Although climate science is not one of our technical specialties, the required expertise in physics, chemistry, geology, meteorology, biology, data analysis and interpretation, and complex systems modeling, is similar to our collective academic training and experience gained through our typical 40 – 50 years of experience working in our nation’s space program. Our natural interest in the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) controversy led to invitations to guest speakers on the subject at our occasional NASA retiree organization meetings. Responding to additional interest generated from these guest speakers, our NASA retiree organization hosted two Symposiums on global warming topics during September and October 2011, featuring speakers on either side of the AGW debate. These symposiums generated even more interest in climate science and motivated self-study of the science and related data by some of our colleagues


    Conclusions and Recommendations
    Our main objective of determining to what extent CO2 concentrations in our atmosphere can cause detrimental global warming has led us to an objective conclusion that this issue is not settled science. Unfortunately, the scientific progress on this issue has been corrupted by political and special interest influences that determine where our research dollars get spent. Political influences in government sponsored research have focused climate change research on CO2 rather than a broader range of factors that need better definition.

    Our recommendation would be to take the time required to improve our knowledge of the critical factors driving temperature prediction uncertainty before attempting to make critical high-economic-impact public policy decisions of doubtful effectiveness based on projections of unvalidated computer simulations. We find no convincing evidence indicating our planet is in a climate crisis. From a historical perspective, temperature variations we have experienced since the dawn of the Industrial Age are well within the earth’s temperature fluctuations of the last 10,000 years, as well as the more recent 2000 years since the Roman Warm Period. The earth’s global average temperature has varied by as much as +/- 2 OC of the 10,000 year average while CO2 levels in our atmosphere were relatively constant during the same 10,000 year period. The earth’s surface temperature has remained within +/- 1 OC of this 10,000 year average since CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere have started to rise during the Industrial Age. There is no impending climate disaster that requires immediate corrective action. In the face of model prediction uncertainty, that is the primary source of alarm, we should continue to be anchored to the stable climate data of the last 10,000 years and assess recent temperature trends against the backdrop of these very stable temperatures.

    We encourage more government sponsored climate change research to remove critical areas of prediction uncertainty. However, we recommend a broader study of all important climate variables and less concentration on CO2 effects in studies using only predictions of unvalidated models. Until models can be improved beyond their present state of effectiveness, and validated with empirical data covering the vast array of variables in physical, chemical and biological processes that they attempt to simulate over time, numerous studies with unvalidated computer simulations have questionable scientific benefits. Eco-engineering solutions for cooling and warming the planet should be studied as well as methods and cost estimates to adapt to a changing climate that we currently do not understand with sufficient precision to try to control.

    [Couldn’t think of a better place than ‘NIPCC’ to put this report – RC]

    • Richard C (NZ) on 20/04/2013 at 9:44 pm said:

      Meanwhile back at NASA:-

      ‘Responding to the Challenge of Climate and Environmental Change: NASA’s Plan for a Climate-Centric Architecture for Earth Observations and Applications from Space’

      June 2010

      Executive Summary
      The Obama Administration is acting on its recognition that climate change is a defining issue of our generation. Our responses to the challenges of climate change—accurate prediction, equitable adaptation, and efficient mitigation—will influence the quality of life for the nation, and indeed the world, for generations to come. The President’s FY2011 budget request provides a cumulative $10.3 Billion (B) funding to NASA’s Earth Science program over the period FY2011–2015 to address pressing scientific and national issues associated with climate change and the nation’s climate research and monitoring capabilities. As recommended by the National Research Council’s (NRC’s) Earth Science and Applications Decadal Survey, this FY2011 budget request returns NASA Earth Science funding to the approximate level that it had in FY2000, an increase of more than 30% from recent levels. This funding allows for the acceleration and expansion of activities across the entire, coordinated Earth Science program—in the areas of flight missions, research, applications, and Earth Science mission technology development—thus advancing the balance and scope that have been hallmarks of NASA Earth System Science. This document outlines the integrated NASA Earth Science program enabled by the FY2011 budget request.


      2. Components of a Climate-centric Architecture for Earth System Science and Applications

      The President’s FY2011 Budget Request includes a substantial new investment in NASA’s Earth Science program to advance the science of climate change and related environmental concerns arising from natural and human-induced changes in the Earth system.

      2.2.1 Modeling, Assessment, and Computing

      The FY2011 budget request will allow for enhanced participation of NASA modeling groups and funded investigators, bringing NASA observational and model products to the 2013 US Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) National Assessment and the 5th Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. It will also provide for a near-doubling of the Scientific Computing budget (by FY2015) to significantly enhance NASA’s ability to provide hardware, software, and data visualization services for the modeling and assimilation activities carried out at NASA centers and by NASA’s funded investigators.


      Particular areas of emphasis include the following:

      • Enhanced opportunity for the NASA investigator community to participate in the IPCC assessment, especially in IPCC Working Group 2 which assesses the vulnerability of socio-economic and natural systems to climate change, consequences of change, and options for adaptation, whereas NASA’s contribution has been mostly to IPCC Working Group 1 which assesses the physical scientific aspects of the climate system and climate change).

  5. Richard C (NZ) on 25/04/2013 at 10:32 pm said:

    Consensus and Controversy: New Report On The Global Warming “Battlefield”

    Published on Tuesday, 23 April 2013 12:31
    Written by Emil Røyrvik, SINTEF

    This report outlines the main positions and debates surrounding the literally hot topic of man-made global warming. Inspired by social studies of science and technology, the goal of the report is to document, describe and take stock of this potent scientific and public “battlefield” that plays out arguably some of the more pressing issues of our time.

    Presenting two broad “ideal type” of positions involved in the science of anthropogenic global warming (AGW), the “consensus” and the “contrarian” perspectives, the report analyses both their cultural premises and places them in relation to the philosophy of science.

    The report positively concludes that an alleged near unanimous scientific consensus on AGW, that “the science is settled”, is overstated. The report finds a robust, critical scientific discourse in climate related research, yet it highlights that a “consensus-building” approach to science might represent a politicised and unscientific belief in science – a belief in tension with the ethos of “normal science”.

    The report calls for a continuing questioning, critical, and undogmatic public debate over man-made global warming, and a clearer separation between science and policy.

    SINTEF is the largest independent research organisation in Scandinavia

    ‘Consensus and Controversy’

    The Debate on Man Made Global Warming

    Author Emil A. Røyrvik

    SINTEF Technology and Society
    Industrial Management
    2013 04 12,%20Consensus%20and%20Controversy.pdf

  6. Richard C (NZ) on 13/06/2013 at 4:23 pm said:

    Via Canada Free Press ‘Chinese Academy Of Science Publishes Climate-Sceptical NIPCC Report’:

    ‘China Translates 1,200-Page Rebuttal to Climate Change Agenda’

    Breitbart News can exclusively report on Tuesday night that the Chinese Academy of Sciences has translated and published a Chinese edition of two massive climate change volumes originally published by The Heartland Institute in 2009 and 2011.

    The volumes, Climate Change Reconsidered and Climate Change Reconsidered: 2011 Interim Report, are chock full of 1,200 pages of peer-reviewed data concerning the veracity of anthropogenic climate change. Together, they represent the most comprehensive rebuttal of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change findings, which have been the basis of the climate change legislation movement across the planet. The Chinese Academy of Sciences is set to present the publication on June 15 at a major ceremony in Beijing.

    The Chinese Academy of Sciences is set to present the publication on June 15 at a major ceremony in Beijing. The Academy employs approximately 50,000 people and hosts 350 international conferences each year, and is one of the most prestigious scientific academies in the world, ranked ahead of every Ivy League school save Harvard.


  7. Richard C (NZ) on 15/06/2013 at 10:01 pm said:

    The Space and Science Research Corporation: ‘Global Climate Status Report for 2013’

    Executive Summary

    The Global Climate Status Report (GCSR) for 2013, Executive Summary, provides a top level assessment of the status of and predicted future for the Earth’s climate. It is intended for policy makers, business executives, educators, and the general public who need a concise overview of the Earth’s climate to quickly understand the most important aspects of ongoing climate change.

    Publication Date: February 18, 2013.

    1. General Assessment.
    a. Methodology. To develop the GCSR, the SSRC uses a standardized set of monitored climate measurement parameters obtained from data supplied by multiple US and international government science agencies. Much of the data is produced by orbiting satellites which since the mid-1970’s have provided highly accurate measurements of critical climatology characteristics used for the Earth’s climate assessment. From this data, trend analysis is performed and summary data, graphs, charts, and reports are developed by the SSRC with assistance from its Supporting Researchers. This Executive Summary and the full detailed Global Climate Status Report (GCSR) are then published. The GCSR addresses five major climate categories:
    (1) Global Atmospheric Temperatures.
    (2) Global Oceanic Temperatures.
    (3) Polar Temperatures, Glacial and Sea Ice Extent.
    (4) Sea Levels and Sea Level Rate of Change.
    (5) Solar Activity Status. This Executive Summary concludes with a short discussion of the likely scenarios for the Earth’s climate for the next forty years.

    b. Summary Climate Assessment.
    The Earth has left the past era of global warming, caused primarily by the Sun, and is in the
    process of a rapid transition to a new cold climate. This next climate change is expected to last for at least the next forty years. The extent and depth of the cold weather produced in this new climate era is estimated to be the worst in over two hundred years. As such, it will likely be historic in scale and highly destructive globally in terms of crop damage and human suffering. Based on past cold climates of this type, the most likely outcome for this next climate change will be worldwide social, political and economic upheaval, and substantial loss of life.

    The Space and Science Research Corporation, (SSRC) is an independent scientific research organization in Orlando, Florida, USA. It has become the leading research organization in the United States on the subject of the science and planning for the next climate change to a long lasting cold era especially with regard to alerting the government, the media, and the people of the need to prepare for this new climate era.

    In addition to the cold weather of this new climate era, the SSRC also believes along with other scientists and geologists, that there is strong likelihood of record volcanic eruptions and earthquakes that will take place during this next climate change. All of these predicted events are the result of the recently started ‘solar hibernation,’ a dramatic reduction in the energy output of the Sun.

    Its staff of Supporting Researchers includes some of the world’s best in the fields of solar physics and geology including earthquake science and volcanism.

    The SSRC and its President, Mr. John L. Casey, have an established record of accuracy in climate change predictions using the Relational Cycle Theory or RC Theory of climate change, a theory based on solar cycles as the main drivers behind the Earth’s variations in climate.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 15/06/2013 at 10:17 pm said:

      Space and Science Research Corporation Press Release June 10, 2013:

      ‘Arctic Sea Ice to Grow as Global Cooling Era Takes Hold’

      Research into the natural atmospheric and oceanic cycles of the Arctic indicates it is poised to begin a decades-long cold era setting new records for maximum sea ice extent.

      This news comes with the concurrent release of the latest quarterly edition of the Global Climate Status Report (GCSR)© produced by the Space and Science Research Corporation (SSRC).

  8. Richard C (NZ) on 19/09/2013 at 10:14 am said:

    ‘New science report debunks climate scare’

    UN has hidden research that shows that nature, not humanity, controls the climate

    OTTAWA, Sept. 17, 2013 /PRNewswire/ – “As the science promoted by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) falls into disrepute, reporters face a difficult decision,” said Tom Harris, executive director of the Ottawa, Canada-based International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC). “Should they cover IPCC reports, the next of which will be issued on September 27th, as if there were no other reputable points of view? Or should they also seek out climate experts who disagree with the UN’s view that we will soon face a human-induced climate crisis?

    “With today’s release of Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science (CCR-II – see, a 1,200 page report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), it is now much easier for media to adopt the second more balanced approached,” continued Harris. “Co-authored and co-edited by Dr. Craig Idso, Professor Robert Carter, and Professor S. Fred Singer who worked with a team of 44 other climate experts, this document cites more than 1,000 peer-reviewed scientific papers to show that the IPCC has ignored or misinterpreted much of the research that challenges the need for carbon dioxide (CO2) controls. In other words, the NIPCC report demonstrates that the science being relied upon by governments to create multi-billion dollar policies is almost certainly wrong.”


    • Richard C (NZ) on 19/09/2013 at 7:38 pm said:

      Summary for Policymakers

      Lead Authors/Editors:
      Craig D. Idso (USA), Robert M. Carter (Australia), S. Fred Singer (USA)

      Chapter Lead Authors:
      Timothy Ball (Canada), Robert M. Carter (Australia), Don Easterbrook (USA), Craig D. Idso (USA), Sherwood Idso (USA), Madhav Khandekar (Canada), William Kininmonth (Australia), Willem de Lange (New Zealand), Sebastian Lüning (Germany), Anthony Lupo (USA), Cliff Ollier (Australia), Willie Soon (USA)

      Contributing Authors:
      J. Scott Armstrong (USA), Joseph D’Aleo (USA), Don Easterbrook (USA), Kesten Green (Australia), Ross McKitrick (Canada), Cliff Ollier (Australia), Tom Segalstad (Norway), S. Fred Singer (USA), Roy Spencer (USA)

      Chapter Reviewers:
      Habibullo Abdussamatov (Russia), Joe Bastardi (USA), Franco Battaglia (Italy), David Bowen (UK), Roy Clark (USA), Vincent Courtillot (France), Christopher Essex (Canada), David Evans (Australia), Sören Floderus (Denmark), Stewart Franks (Australia), Eigil Friis-Christensen (Denmark), Fred Goldberg (Sweden), Larry Gould (USA), William Gray (USA), Vincent Richard Gray (New Zealand), Howard Hayden (USA), Martin Hovland (Norway), Olavi Kärner (Estonia), James O’Brien (USA), Garth Paltridge (Australia), Donald Rapp (USA), Carl Ribbing (Sweden), Nicola Scafetta (USA), John Shade (UK), Gary Sharp (USA), Jan-Erik Solheim (Norway), Antón Uriarte Cantolla (Spain), Gerd Weber (Germany)

      S.T. Karnick (USA), Diane Carol Bast (USA)

      The IPCC claims to know, apparently with rising certainty over time, that “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” (IPCC AR4 SPM, p. 10). This Summary for Policymakers summarizes and interprets a major scientific report that refutes this claim.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 19/09/2013 at 8:41 pm said:

      Executive Summary of the NIPCC Climate Change Reconsidered II Report

    • Richard C (NZ) on 20/09/2013 at 10:40 pm said:

      3 Solar Forcing of Climate [102 pages]

      Willie Soon (USA)
      Sebastian Lüning (Germany)

      Figure 3.1. [page 3] A comparison and contrast of the modulation of the Northern-Hemispheric equator-to-pole temperature gradient (both panels, dotted blue curves) by Total Solar Irradiance (TSI, left panel, solid red line) and by atmospheric CO2 (right panel, solid red line). Adapted from Soon, W. and Legates, D.R. 2013. Solar irradiance modulation of Equator-to- Pole (Arctic) temperature gradients [EPTG]: Empirical evidence for climate variation on multi-decadal timescales. Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 93: 45–56.

      # # #

      By contrast, the solar section of IPCC AR5 SOD Chapter 8: 8.4 Natural Radiative Forcing Changes: Solar and Volcanic, runs from page 30 to page 33 (4 pages vs 102 pages).

      NIPCC Figure 3.1 certainly isn’t highlighted in IPCC AR5 SOD (doesn’t appear at all – no surprise), therefore neither is Soon, W. and Legates, D.R. 2013. I’m guessing they must have missed the cutoff date (sarc).

      TSI – EPTG doesn’t get a mention in either Chapter 8 or Chapter 10: Detection and Attribution.

      There is no solar section at all in Chapter 10 (natch, it’s anthro attribution only after all).

    • Richard C (NZ) on 21/09/2013 at 12:01 am said:

      And two figures on page 57 in the Solar Forcing – Asia section that wont see the light of day in AR5:

      Figure The empirical correlation between China-wide surface air temperature and estimated total solar irradiance from 1880 to 2002. Reprinted with permission from Soon, W., Dutta, K., Legates, D.R., Velasco, V., and Zhang, W. 2011. Variation in surface air temperature of China during the 20th Century. Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 73: 2331–2344.

      Figure The empirical correlation between China-wide surface air temperature and the Japanese sunshine duration record from Stanhill and Cohen (2008) from 1890 to 2002. Also reprinted with permission from Soon et al. 2011.

      NIPCC devotes about 2 pages of Solar Forcing – Asia to Central China (IPCC 4 pages to the entire globe). Might prompt the Chinese to do some translating again.

  9. Richard C (NZ) on 30/10/2013 at 8:26 am said:

    ‘The Alternative Reality of the Heartland Institute’s “NIPCC” Report’

    NCSE [National Centre for Science Education]

    Did you know that “CO2 is a vital nutrient” that “‘greens’ the planet and helps feed the growing human population”?

    None of these claims are true, of course

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *