Testing the ICPP CO2 narrative once and for all. Oct. 20, 2019

Posted: 20th ottobre 2019 by rivincitasociale in Ecomarxismo
Commenti disabilitati su Testing the ICPP CO2 narrative once and for all. Oct. 20, 2019

In the Figure 6 of his summary article Franco Zavatti reproduces the graph showing the « Global mid-tropospheric temperature variations models vs observations ». All the ICPP models are far off, except the Russian one.(1)

The issue could be summed up in the following question: Do CO2 increases follow or do they precede temperature changes?

If they follow then this will eliminate the supposed crucial role of human produced CO2 on a supposed dramatic global warming – we would then be free to concentrate on real and pressing environmental issues.

I propose this simple verification to ICPP or critical hard-science specialists:

  1. Take two ICPP Models, one closest to the observed data and one displaying a upper-middle discrepancy with it.
  2. Eliminate the presume anthropogenic CO2 input holding all other things constant. And check the variation from observed data.
  3. Then replace the anthropogenic CO2 input by realistic non-anthropogenic CO2 emission estimates for 1850 onwards – before that date, the process is already clear … And see how it fits with observed facts.
  4. Verification. From an Earth map estimate the areas covered with permafrost and Irish and other peat bogs and phytoplankton, assign realistic CO2 emissions for each and verify the result. In any case, the ICPP’s 12-Year CO2 dramatization results from it knowing that facts will soon prove its models wrong once again – as they did for the long pause in warming up to 2016.

Paul De Marco

1 ) See “Climate and indoctrination” http://rivincitasociale.altervista.org/climate-and-indoctrination-march-2019/ . This article refers to a nice scientific summary in Italian entitled « Sono uno scettico climatico, Si, ma perché? » di Franco Zavatti in http://www.zafzaf.it/clima/sono_scettico.pdf  . It is shown, in particular, that all the ICPP climate simulation models, apart from the Russian one, diverge quite strongly from the data actually observed. I pointed out that they under-rate the significance of the precession of the Equinoxes and that they do not take permafrost into account, so it is not surprising that the oscillations of CO2 do not precede, and therefore do not cause, but instead follow the observed climatic fluctuations. With the ICPP  the Model shamelessly substitutes for Realty.

Comments are closed.