All errors should be reported to

Monday, October 12, 2015

IPCC's global warming alarmists flunk math

An Australian electrical engineer re-checked the math of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

The agency, which is calling for trillions of dollars to be spent changing everything, is overstating the Earth's projected rise in temperatures by a factor of 10.

With a tip of the hat to Right Scoop comes this from Perth Now:
A MATHEMATICAL discovery by Perth-based electrical engineer Dr David Evans may change everything about the climate debate, on the eve of the UN climate change conference in Paris next month.
A former climate modeler for the Government’s Australian Greenhouse Office, with six degrees in applied mathematics, Dr Evans has unpacked the architecture of the basic climate model which underpins all climate science.
He has found that, while the underlying physics of the model is correct, it had been applied incorrectly.
He has fixed two errors and the new corrected model finds the climate’s sensitivity to carbon dioxide (CO2) is much lower than was thought.
It turns out the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has over-estimated future global warming by as much as 10 times, he says.
“Yes, CO2 has an effect, but it’s about a fifth or tenth of what the IPCC says it is. CO2 is not driving the climate; it caused less than 20 per cent of the global warming in the last few decades”.
So much for thawing Greenland and opening another 800,000 square miles of arable land to the planet


  1. IPCC made errors? Tell me it ain't soooooooooooooooooooooo. Well, they have told me, but we know they lie.

  2. Bu-bu-but 97% of climate scientists yada yada yada blah blah blah. Remember one thing. Social Justice Warriors (which environmentalists are) always lie. If they had to rely on facts, they would have no arguments.

  3. Math is hard, which is why the IPCC doesn't understand it and can't do it properly.

  4. How awesome is that this dude said eff it and checked the IPCC's math. Frigging outstanding. And 6 degrees in applied mathematics...Good God.

  5. I'm an AGW skeptic but I'll defer judgement until his articles are peer reviewed and published. Personally, I find it hard to believe that CO2 contributes much to global warming because the atmospheric CO2 spectral bands are highly saturated (=enormously opaque to the transmission of light) and therefore doubling, tripling, or even quadrupling the amount of atmospheric CO2 should have little affect on atmospheric temperatures. For the purpose of blocking the escape of IR radiation to space, vastly increasing the amount of CO2 will not make these spectral features any more opaque and effective in the task of trapping radiation than they already are. AFAIK, all climate models simplify the treatment of the atmospheric heat balance by ignoring the heavy saturation of the CO2 bands.