Home > AGW, Data, Omniclimate, Science, Skepticism > IPCC Data Show “Global” Warming Still Unproved

IPCC Data Show “Global” Warming Still Unproved

A series of exchanges at Millard Fillmore’s Bathtub is a good occasion to re-iterate a simple point: the IPCC has to this day failed to prove that climate change is a worldwide effect.

In other words, there still is no solid evidence of the “global” character of “global warming”.

Let’s look at the IPCC AR4-WG2, Chapter 1.

I presume a “climate non-skeptic” would treat that document as an authoritative source. Better than vague reports on insurance companies or moving plants.

And so: the IPCC AR4-WG2 Chapter 1, dedicated to report ALL changes in a warming planet, lists:

(a) 26,285 significant changes compatible with warming

(b) 3,174 significant changes not compatible with warming (around 11% of the total of 29,459 significant changes)

Plenty to pick-and-choose from, I am sure. But then there are also other quite important numbers from the same report:

(c) 28,234 significant changes are from Europe alone

(d) 1,225 significant changes are from the rest of the world (4.15% of the total)

(e) 25,135 significant changes compatible with warming are from Europe alone

(f) Only 1,150 significant changes compatible with warming are from the rest of the world (4.4% of the total of 26,285 significant changes compatible with warming)

Note that (b) is almost two times bigger than (f). And I haven’t even mentioned the fact that the vast majority of non-European significant changes, come just from North America.

And so, in a sense, it is the IPCC itself that says that the “global” in “global warming” is something that definitely still needs to be demonstrated.

  1. James H
    2008/07/02 at 04:09

    Why should we waste our time trying to change the weather? It changes, the climate changes, everything on earth changes. You speak as if the earth is some sort of personal museum just for humans to enjoy. If a glacier melts, oh no! The planet changes. Species evolve, adapt, or die. New species spring up to take advantage of the new conditions. This all happens naturally, even without influence from humans.

    Didn’t we come out of a big ice age, and then another smaller one more recently? Did SUV’s and factories cause the temperature changes? Did CO2 even cause the changes? If so, why did the CO2 concentration increase only hundreds of years after the temperature started increasing?

  2. 2008/04/14 at 08:16

    Glaciers wherever they exist are melting. Tropical insect and other wildlife moves into formerly temperate zones. Bird migration patterns change. Plant zones published by governments around the world are adjusted, showing tropical zones rising northward and upslope.

    Gosh. Those slick shooters at IPCC have hoodwinked insects, birds, fish, glaciers and plants into thinking that climate is changing, when it hasn’t. Biggest boondoggle, ever.

    Those glaciers will be mad when they figure it out, won’t they?

    Living things are better measures of dosages and other treatments than instruments. Living things are more sensitive, and there are millions more of them.

    If it isn’t a warming climate that produces these changes, it is some genetic disease that is much grander, and probably more sinister, than anything ever found before, or even considered.

    But call Michael Crichton. He’ll tell you “Andromeda Strain” was fiction, and you can go back to sleep.

    Spring will be 8 hours earlier next year. Still, it moves.

  3. Tall Teacher
    2008/04/10 at 08:28

    First question…. how many places around the world are actually measuring these “significant” effects.

    I’m betting most of the measurements are taken in Europe.. hence the numbers.

    The rest of the world is too busy polluting to release data that might be bad for their industry or PR (see China), too poor to care beyond the next meal (see 90% of the third world), or too afraid to release data that goes against the stance of the fanatics (see parts of USA).

  4. Dan
    2008/04/10 at 03:11

    right – and we can certainly discuss why these things may not lead to direct and proportionate results.

    But you suggested explicitly that there would be no significant anthropogenic effect, and used a ridiculous analogy to make your point. And you’re right, smoking one cigarette a year won’t have an effect. But dumping 7 billion tons of carbon into the atmosphere annually surely will have some effect. And the data supports this.

  5. 2008/04/09 at 19:18


    for an argument to be apparent from you in one way or another, you would have to be talking about the geographical bias in the IPCC reports (the original point), or on the fact that even differences of tens of magnitudes may not be relevant, if the end result is “no discernible effect”.

    You might even start musing on that other fact, that a 36% increase in CO2 concentration from 280ppm only adds 5.4% of warming (a further 36% increase, from 380ppm to 516ppm, will only add 5.1% of warming; 36% more, to 700ppm, will only add 4.9% of warming; and so on and so forth, forever decreasing).

    Everything else is waste of time. What do you want your blog to be known for?

  6. Dan
    2008/04/09 at 19:07

    “So there really is no argument from you today.”

    What is the need for an argument? You’re math skills are horrible, and your counterargument is that it’s a “logarithmic effect”???

    It doesn’t matter if it is a logarithmic effect or not, it’s still a logarithmic effect of 16 orders of magnitude!

  7. Dan
    2008/04/09 at 19:04

    More on the moronic analogies that you’re making:

    On the first analogy, to be relevant, you have to adjust it from just you jumping in the ocean to 10,000,000,000,000,000 people jumping into the ocean (I assume all at once). And you’re suggesting that this difference is “next-to-nothing” or “quasi-imperceptible.”


    Oh, and your other analogy:

    “The Moon is gravitationally pulling me 160 times more than Jupiter, on average, but I do not have to worry about either making me fall…”

    I’m not sure exactly, but I hear that black holes have enough gravity to trap even light. Light travels at ~300,000,000 m/s, and the gravity on Earth is 9.8m/s2 (not the moon or Jupiter, but I’m doing this math on the fly). That’s only a difference of 7 orders of magnitude (I know, it’s velocity vs. acceleration, but again, I’m doing this on the fly). I’ll give you some slack also because Jupiter is a good distance away, and the gravity of the black hole would surely drop off over that distance.

    But even given all that, the gravity analogy would clearly have to be a good bit stronger than a black hole (as opposed to Jupiter) to do justice to your inability to compare two concepts.

    Or here’s one more analogy, of my own doing: a light year is 9.4605284 × 10^15 km. By your analogy, you just confused a kilometer and 10 light years!!!

    Thanks for the laughs.

  8. 2008/04/09 at 18:54

    So there really is no argument from you today. Too bad

  9. Dan
    2008/04/09 at 18:19

    LOL – you were off by 16 orders of magnitude, and you get offended for being called intentionally obtuse????


    If the rest of your math is off by that much, how can you possibly think that anyone would take you seriously???

  10. 2008/04/09 at 18:16

    What is it, time for hurling insults already? Hopefully you’ll find an actual argument soon.

    In the meanwhile, the difference between a next-to-nothing and a quasi-imperceptible is…nothing to care about. The Moon is gravitationally pulling me 160 times more than Jupiter, on average, but I do not have to worry about either making me fall…

    By the way…are you aware of the established consensus around the logarithmic effect of CO2 warming? A 100ppm change in CO2 content from 280ppm to 380ppm should actually be seen as a 5% increase in effect. Please let me know if you find that scary.

  11. Dan
    2008/04/09 at 17:10

    Sorry, I was wrong – you’re analogy is even worse than I estimated: the ocean is approx. 1.37 x10^9 km3, or 1.37×10^18 m3, and I’d estimate a human being as less than 1m3 in volume.

    So you were comparing a change of 100+ ppm with a change of 0.000000000001 ppm.

    It’s kind of difficult to be off by 16 orders of magnitude – you have to be intentionally obtuse to do that.

  12. Dan
    2008/04/09 at 16:57

    Regarding alterations: by swimming in the sea I am altering the ocean yet I do not expect worldwide effects…

    For someone who’s looked at the IPCC reports, that’s just blatantly dishonest of you. We’re talking a shift from 280 to 380+ ppm atmospheric CO2, not the addition of 0.001 part per billion volume of sea water.

  13. 2008/04/09 at 16:29

    I am not sure we can simply rename things differently and carry on as if nothing has happened…for example by “climatic changes” do you refer to the ones of alleged human origin?

    Regarding alterations: by swimming in the sea I am altering the ocean yet I do not expect worldwide effects…

  14. Dan
    2008/04/09 at 12:44

    Sure, calling it “Climate Change” is more accurate than “Global Warming.” No argument there. I don’t think anyone even partly informed on this topic suggests that heat-flux or climatic changes are uniform over the globe. Otherwise we might have an Intergovernmental Panel on Global Warming (IPGW) instead.

    But you seem to suggest that not only are the climatic changes non-uniform, they are non-existent. How you can suggest that we could alter our atmosphere without altering the climate is beyond me though. (if that is what you’re suggesting)

  1. 2010/01/25 at 23:29
  2. 2009/01/08 at 00:25

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: