Personal communication to John Shanahan.
Some significant uncorrected errors by the IPCC
Douglas Lightfoot and Gerald Ratzer
November 2, 2024
1. Introduction
Since the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 's First Assessment Report (FAR) in 1990, the reports have contained at least four significant mistakes that the IPCC has neither acknowledged nor corrected.
These mistakes have been promoted so constantly that governments have come to believe they are true. The result is government policies that hurt their populations.
The situation is so bad that anyone who questions the IPCC results is attacked. Nevertheless, examining the IPCC results has led to several papers identifying and correcting mistakes.
This document summarizes the IPCC's list of significant mistakes, with the hope that the IPCC will acknowledge and correct them.
A second purpose is to inform the climate science community about the extent and significance of the problem. Many papers by climate scientists do not provide this information.
The IPCC has issued a series of reports, including mistakes that have not been corrected. This document describes four of these errors.
1. Section 2.10.2 of the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), published in 2007, contains a math error.
2. In the same report, Table 2.14 states that methane's warming effect is 21 times that of carbon dioxide (CO2), and that of nitrous oxide is 310 times that of CO2.
3. In the Third Assessment Report (TAR) of 2001, in section 6.3.5, the IPCC states that the radiative forcing of CO2 is logarithmic versus concentration, ΔRF = 5.35LN(C/Co).
4. The IPCC claims in the Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) that as CO2 increases, temperature increases, and then water vapor increases [5]. This is based on these three incorrect assumptions.
2. Mistake in AR4
Section 2.10.2 of the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), published in 2007, contains a math error.
This is explained in Reference [1]. The IPCC wanted the difference in the radiative forcing on the curve ΔRF = 5.35LN(C/Co) between 378 and 379 ppm. They used a “small perturbation method” that gave the average a close but incorrect answer. The correct method was to use calculus. The slope of the curve is the first derivative of the equation of the line. The slope of the curve at any given point is the radiative forcing. Thus, the slope of the curve at 378 ppm is 5.35/378 = 0.014153 Wm 2 and at 379 ppm RE = 0.014116 W m-2. This procedure gives the radiative forcing at any point over the entire range of the equation.
3. Mistake in methane and nitrous oxide
In the same report, Table 2.14 states that methane's warming effect is 21 times that of carbon dioxide (CO2), and that of nitrous oxide is 310 times that of CO2. These values are unrealistic as both are measured in parts per
trillion (ppt), whereas carbon dioxide is measured in parts per million (ppm). The calculation method is not given. Using known and reliable chemistry and physics, Lightfoot and Ratzer show that methane's warming is 0.0408% of CO2, not 21 times greater. Nitrous oxides' warming is 0.085% of that of CO2 and not 310 times greater.[2].
None of the 61 greenhouse gases identified in Table 2.14 have a measurable warming effect on the Earth’s atmosphere. Their sum is also so small as to be undetectable [3].
4. Mistake in the Third Assessment Report, TAR
In the Third Assessment Report (TAR) of 2001, in section 6.3.5, the IPCC states that the radiative forcing of CO2 is logarithmic versus concentration, i.e., ΔRF = 5.35LN(C/Co).
The ideal gas laws, PV = nRT, show that volume is directly proportional to temperature at constant pressure. All of the gases in the atmosphere, including CO2, methane, and nitrous oxide, except water vapor, are above their boiling points and, therefore, act according to the ideal gas laws.
Thus, the volume relationship with temperature for CO2 is straight, not logarithmic. This is the most straightforward proof and should not be surprising because the gas laws have been known for over 200 years.
Figure 2 from Reference [4] provides more recent and different proof. It shows dry air’s enthalpy (heat content) as a straight line. Dry air contains all of the atmosphere's component gases except water vapor. Thus, CO2, methane, and nitrous oxide are points in the straight line.
Figure 2 shows 240 points resulting from temperature and relative humidity recorded at 20 representative locations on the Earth on the 21st of each month for twelve months starting in March 2021. The points range from the Tropics to the Arctic and Antarctica.
The graph below shows the dew point line when water vapor is included as moist air. It consists of 400 points recorded at six-hour intervals for five days in February 2022.
The equation of the dew point line is:
y = -0.004x2 + 1.0298x - 37.042 .
(1)
R2 = 0.984, and the asymptote reaches approximately 120 grams of water per kilogram of dry air. When water vapor is included, the line of points is curved rather than straight. Thus, the relationships between temperature and kilojoules per kg of dry air for dry and moist air are significantly
different and can be used to identify whether or not water vapor is included.
Thus, the concept that warming by CO2 is close to its upper limit is incorrect. The water vapor curve has been mistakenly identified as being for CO2.
5. Mistake in the Fifth Assessment Report, AR5
The IPCC claims in the Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) that as CO2 increases, temperature increases, and water vapor increases [5], as in the figure below.
This is based on these three assumptions:
5.1. CO2 and air temperature go up and down together
5.2. CO2 and water vapor go up and down together
5.3. warming by water vapor can be added to that of CO2 to give enhanced warming
We now know that increased water vapor follows the temperature increase when the temperature rises. As a result, CO2 falls because it is diluted by water vapor and increased temperature.
6. Discussion
The mistakes documented in this report are only a sample. Other researchers report other mistakes.
It is important to note that even in 2010, the IPCC's problems became evident.
In March 2010, the United Nations Secretary-General and the Chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) requested that the InterAcademy Council (IAC) conduct an independent review of IPCC processes and procedures.
On October 15, 2019, the IAC issued its report. It is Reference [6].
The key recommendations of the IAC are:
“The Committee’s main recommendations relate to IPCC’s governance and
management, its review process, characterizing and communicating uncertainty, communications, and transparency in the assessment process. Other detailed recommendations on specific aspects of the assessment process appear in Chapters 2-4, and a complete list of recommendations appears in Chapter 5.”
Here is the primary recommendation related to governance and management:
“The IPCC should establish an Executive Committee to act on its behalf between Plenary sessions. The committee's membership should include the IPCC Chair, the Working Group Co-chairs, the senior member of the Secretariat, and three independent members, including individuals from outside of the climate community. Members would be elected by the Plenary and serve until their successors are in place.”
This recommendation was not implemented.
7. Conclusions
This document identifies and includes four significant errors the IPCC made in its official reports: AR4, AR5, and TAR. These errors lead to unrealistic conclusions that are not supported by evidence. These uncorrected errors destroy the IPCC's credibility.
The IPCC must step up and acknowledge these mistakes, correct them, and apologize to the World’s people.
8. References
[1] Lightfoot HD, Mamer OA. Does a math problem in IPCC report climate change 2007: The physical science basis (AR4) compromise the science? Forest Res Eng Int J. 2018;2(4):231. DOI: 10.15406/freij.2018.02.00054
Also, at this Dropbox link: https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/58yt48g9lu37sxjlqllv8/Does-a-math-
problem-in-IPCC-FREIJ-02-00054.pdf?
rlkey=5uzsglulqjc98iyfmay5rri35&dl=0
[2] Lightfoot H D and Ratzer G, Reliable Physics Demand Revision of the IPCC Global Warming potentials, Journal of Basic & Applied Sciences, 2024, 20, 54-58.
Also, at this Dropbox link:
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/24wsi1vo4105rk018vrp7/ReliablePhysics-Demand-Revisiion-of-the-IPCC-Global-Warming-Potentials.pdf?
rlkey=r5bovxfbk80yooiz1xrsqca78&dl=0
[3] Lightfoot H D and Ratzer G, Only the Greenhouse Gas, Water Vapor, Measurably Warms the Earth, Journal of Basic & Applied Sciences, 2024, 20, 87-91
Also, at this Dropbox link: https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/fbuyvm7m8xq2m70xaljiz/Only-thegreenhouse-gas-water-vapor-measurably-warms-the-Earth-JBASV20A8Lightfoot-002.pdf?rlkey=xqlf14uewrw3cx7c03grrjjqj&dl=0
[4] Lightfoot H D and Ratzer G, The Sun and the Troposphere Control the Earth’s Temperature, Journal of Basic & Applied Sciences, 2023, 19, 163173
Also, at this Dropbox link: https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/apz61d4t9vhqux8282g81/The-Sun-andthe-Troposphere-Control-the-Earths-Temperature.pdf?
rlkey=tkewk5jg52e391ukjdrr9hn8v&dl=0
[5] Lightfoot H D, The IPCC Made Three Fatal Errors in Assumptions about CO2, Journal of Basic & Applied Sciences, 2020, 16, 94-104
Also, at this Dropbox link: https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/zrd16n623djhm2pc5grng/IPCC-madethree-fatal-errors-in-assumptions-about-CO2-Copy.pdf? rlkey=27wpy9u9y7f6x8y8he97ja4nf&dl=0
[6] Climate change assessments, Review of the processes and procedures of the IPCC, October 2010. InterAcademy Council, Committee to Review the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Available at: https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2019/03/IAC-Report.pdf