For 30 years GCI has well tempered the focus on UNFCCC-Compliance with C&C
C&C is generated by the same force majeure that generated Pi, Phi, Alpha & DNA, also generated C&C

UKMO & Major Feedbacks Omitted from models & RCP scenarios for IPCC AR5 (2015)

 Click logo to return to 'links-page';

Web Hits

Note 1.

'Unless we get minus 50% GHG emissions globally by 2030,
we’re into a domino effect of ecosystem failures we'll be unable to control'.

Christiana Figueres BBC R4 today 12-12-20.

This reflects various statements from those now at the hub of climate negotiations.

The IMF warns again (04 06 2021) that the climate-crisis will collapse the financial system.

"The broad consensus in the literature is that expected damages caused by unmitigated climate change
will be high and the probability of catastrophic tail-risk events is non-negligible.

The Insurance Industry warned of climate bankruptcy at COP-6 in 2000.

Climate scientists now declare "surprise at the ferocity of the onslaught" of climate impacts.


Only now in 2021 do these reflect the specific warnings & advice offered by GCI at COP-2 in 1996.


Note 2.

SRES equals the 'Special Reporting on EMISSIONS Scenarios' or fixed 'emissions'.
These were used in IPCC up to publication of IPCC AR4 (2007).

RCP equals the 'Representative CONCENTRATION Pathways' or fixed 'concentrations'.
Feedback-free, these replaced SRES, as preparations began in 2009 for IPCC AR5 (2015).


Note 3.

In 2017 we went to court seeking a Judicial Review of the UK Climate Act because of this . . .
Government refused to change their target. Now in 2020 they have done this.

An obvious revelation in this was
100% of UKMO modelled climate-scenario/projections were under-estimates
of the rates of temperature rise and consequently were dangerously misleading


Note 4.

Partly as a result of the activities and developments described below, the increasingly desperate situation
we are now in in 2020 especially including runaway rates of change in the Arctic, compare like this.

(Click to animate): -


Note 5.

In 2021 UKMO admitted it used inadequate and inaccurate temperature data in the
preparations for IPCC AR5 (2010-2015) in which it played a prominent even dominant role.

The UKMO admitted this in 2021.


Note 6.

The catastrophic flooding in Europe (15-20 07 2021) is strong corroboration
of the UKMO's incompetence, inadequacy and dishonesty, as laid out below.


Note 7.

Chief Scientist at the UKMO in 2013 Dame Julia Slingo, gave misleading evidence to Parliament
regarding the omission of feedback in UKMO's climate model preparing for IPCC AR5 (see below).

The consequences of this include the catastrophic flooding the Gemany 15 07 2021 onwards.

Her ludicrous reaction to this on the 17th of July was simply to argue for bigger computers
to predict in more detail what is already happening, "to protect our investments".


In 2009 the Environmental Audit Committe (EAC) of the UK House of Commons announced
an Enquiry into 'Carbon Budgets; were the models on which these were based reliable?'

As contributions . . .

GCI presented written evidence to the EAC Enquiry in 2009
and presented written evidence to the EAC Enquiry in 2013

In both cases, this evidence warned of feedbacks being omitted from climate modelling.
In the latter, an integrated animation in four domains was presented to deal with this - CBAT.


The image/document below contains . . .

[a] UKMO remarks made on the record to the Environmental Audit Committee (EAC) Enquiries in 2009 and
[b] a document with comments regarding omitted feedbacks that appeared on the UKMO website before 2013.

In [b] the UKMO itself had prior to 2013 said major feedback-effects had been ommited from its climate modelling.

This document below was part of GCI's evidence submitted to the EAC Enquiry in June 2013.
The document below quotes [a] UKMO remarks in 2009 and [b] UKMO website comments prior to 2013.

However [b] was removed by UKMO from its website during the 2013 enquiry.
No reason has ever been offered for this removal. Under oath that amounts to evidence tampering.

Click the image to go full size

Department for Energy and Climate change (DECC) admitted feedback omissions in 2016

Not insignificantly feedback omissions were all admitted by DECC in 2016 just before it was closed down that year.

Click the image to go full size.


Background and Detail to Feedbacks Omitted by UKMO/IPCC preparing for IPCC AR5 (2015)

In spoken evidence to the Environmental Audit Committee (EAC) in 2013, the UKMO insisted that they had not omitted any feedback effects
from the climate modelling.

This was untrue.

Julia Slingo, UKMO's Chief Scientific Office at the time spoke. She appears either [a] deliberately to mislead the Committee or perhaps [b] she was misled
into believing by her modellers at UKMO that because 'Coupled Carbon Cycle Modelling' (CCCM) had been included in the models, this meant that all
feedbacks had been included in the climate models.

They had not been.

If [a] Julia Slingo deliberately misled the committee.
If [b] her belief was false and she unwittingly misled the committee.

Either way, the EAC - indeed the whole IPCC AR5 preparation - was significantly misled by evidence significantly led by the UKMO on this most serious matter,
especially considering the acceleration situation we are in already in 2020.

'Coupled Carbon Cycle Modelling' (CCCM)

An early introduction to this CCCM methodology came in 2000 from Richard Betts and Peter Cox of the UKMO. There is a version in Nature.
Coupled or uncoupled, all this is governed by the 'Climate Sensitivity' (CS) constant, the 'Radiative Forcing' value at a doubling of atmospheric CO2.
From the start, the actual value of CS has remained contested throughout this debate. The constancy of this metric over time is contested too.

A helpful contribution into the debate at the time, CCCM was adopted into the IPCC Fourth Assessment WGI Chapter 10 (page 791) in 2007.
However, CCCM is carbon-only & it meant adding what were revised guesstimates of the future potential strength of CO2 sinks. (See below).

As is visible in the chart, the three models vary significantly, but in all four scenarios and for all models, the UKMO (HadCrut) runs
are the largest in all cases. Clarifying this was checked out with the IPCC WG1 Technical Support Unit at the time in 2007 - letter.

[a] because of what is clear in the sub-chart d) marked 'emissions reductions', where for the four scenarios
450 (black); 550 (green); 750 (blue); and 1000 (red) the amounts shown (the differences between coupled & uncoupled)
are 3 to 5 times bigger for the UKMO model than for the Berne model and the U Vic model.

[b] because of what is not clear in the sub-chart d) marked 'emissions reductions' (differences between coupled and uncoupled), while Hadcrut
dominates all four scenario, untangling these differences makes the enormity by weight per unit time clearer. See extreme right-hand column.

However, none of this means that 'all feedbacks' are included in the subsequent creation of the RCPs ~ 2010 in the preparations for IPCC AR5 (2015).
As mentioned above, in CCCM feedback emissions/effects are directly CO2 related, so most non-CO2 related feeback emissions/effects were omitted.

The RCP scenarios

The Representative Concentration Scenarios (RCPs) were the primary basis of preparations for IPCC 5th Assessment and its Summary for policy-makers.
The were published internationally from 4 countries *in 2010* - the UK, Holland, Japan and Austria, where they are all now archived at IIASA.

The highest concentration level had doubled from 1,000 PPMV in the previous SRES 1000 to 1,964 PPMV in RCP 8.5.

RCPs & UKMO to EAC on IPCC AR5 Preparations (2013)

On 'feedbacks' Julia Slingo UKMO Chief Scientific Officer told the Environmental Audit Committee (EAC) in 2013: -
”It is absolutely untrue to say that we don’t include them (feedbacks) is absolutely wrong.

We have, as I think has already been made clear for the (IPCC's) fifth assessment report, entered the fifth assessment
with a full earth system model that includes feedbacks associated with the terrestrial carbon cycle.

It includes dynamic vegetation, so this is the long-term changes in forests and shrub land and so on,
ocean bio-geochemistry and interactive atmospheric chemistry."

CCCM is certainly not the *full earth system* modelling, as was being claimed here. Major feedback effects omitted are
obviously *not* covered. The full reply from Slingo (UKMO), whether deliberate or not, is misleading especially considering the
acceleration situation we are in now in 2020
precautionary warning of which should have been paramount in IPCC AR5.

She also clearly made a global leadership claim for UKMO within the IPCC: - “we have probably contributed more model
simulations than virtually any other group in the world, so we take the IPCC process very seriously.”

Certainly what emerged from the image published in IPCC AR4 (Coupled/Uncoupled Model Runs) is how much UKMO's Hadcrut model
(one of three models cited) subsequently dominated the whole CCCM RCP intervention, underlining the 'leadership' remarks she made.


It is obvious the RCP spreadsheets did not include the feedback omissions listed above, as scenarios 4.5 6.0 & 8.5 all achieve
'equilibrium' or 100% 'sink-efficiency' (where, at least on paper, sources = sinks) by the dates shown in the chart below.

It is straightforward revealing this when weights of carbon emitted in the spreadsheets are compared with weights of carbon
retained in the atmosphere. One Part Per Million by Volume of CO2 (PPMV), by weight equals ~ 2.13 gigatonnes of carbon.

Simply put, the suite of 'scenarios' (RCPs) on which modelling for AR5 was based, explicitly *did not have* what UKMO
falsely claimed as 'Full Earth System Modelling'; i.e where all feedback-emissions-effects included in. The basic RCPs had
some Coupled Carbon Cycle Modelling (CCCM) i.e. guesstimating future carbon sink function. That's all.

The fatal flaw in Coupled Carbon Cycle Modlelling (CCCM) + Representative Concentrations Pathways (RCP)

The CCCM RCP approach is flawed as it puts a fixed cart of assumptions (as parameters), before the ever wilder horses of reality (feedback).

It ties all scenarios to the modelling dominance of human carbon emissions & concentrations & a constancy of climate-sensitivity across time past/future
(2*CO2 atmo) before any feedback modeling is attempted. Thus, with CCCM sink-estimates accounted for, the RCPs start as before-the-fact framework
that captures & makes any subsequent feedback modelling (in the Coupled Model Inter-Comparison Programme (CMIP) for example) after the carbon
scenario fact completely arbitrary.

Feedback emissions/effects should be modelled (or at least estimated) prior to scenario building i.e. not after the fact of these scenario projections.
Failure to do this masks the changing relationship between cause and effect, where temperature rise itself becomes no longer just a result of human
carbon emissions being the primary & only forcing of climate change, but a causative part of the now accelerating change rates increasingly altered by
the secondary non-human feedback emissions/effects already triggered by the human emissions.

In extremis, accelerating temperature rise itself will become the primary & dominant forcer.

Modelling the CCCM-RCP-first way, becomes ever more random the higher human emission/concentrations/temperature go, as we simply
stuck in the framework of what we have already decided in the scenarios. Throughout, the value of 'climate sensitivity' (2* CO2 atmopshere), & RCP
means concentrations remain fixed no matter what, as if they are changed they are no longer Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs).

From this CCCM-RCP approach, no more than a pretence is maintained that we can 'keep-control' & stabilise at +/- 3° C for example. This is false.
In the real world, the fact is we already now know what we are already now unleashing, which is the increase of acceleration amplification in the atmosphere,
ocean, land-masses temperature & GHG concentrations in the global atmosphere that are increasingly & uncontrollaby influenced by feedback emissions/effects.

The Permian Triassic Extinction - the Great Dying (GD)

Nature Magazine pointed out that RCP 8.5 equalled the Permian Extinction. The only difference being that though early in the curve,
we're approaching GD at 1,000 time the rate 251 million years ago when 95% of life-forms died.

Evidence of precisely this point was published in 'Science' (AAAS) in 2013.

"Terrestrial ecosystems have encountered substantial warming over the past century, with temperatures increasing about twice as rapidly over land as over the oceans.
Here, we review the likelihood of continued changes in terrestrial climate, including analyses of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project global climate model ensemble.

Inertia toward continued emissions creates potential 21st-century global warming that is comparable in magnitude to that of the largest global changes
in the past 65 million years but is orders of magnitude more rapid. 

The rate of warming implies a velocity of climate change and required range shifts of up to several kilometers per year, raising the prospect of daunting challenges
for ecosystems, especially in the context of extensive land use and degradation, changes in frequency and severity of extreme events, and interactions with other stresses."

Paris Agreement for 1.5°C - RCP 2.5 was for 2.0°C & RCP 8.5 is roughly the Path we've remained on since 2015

IPCC AR5 was published in November 2015 but the UNFCCC Paris Agreement in December 2015 revised the 2.0°C temperature target to 1.5°C.
This downwards revision & the urgency it portrayed was not anticipated or prepared for by UKMO & IPCC colleagues during preparations for AR5.

The lowest of these was RCP 2.6 for 2.0°C, which is largely the same as the UK Climate Act of 2008 & was already outdated in 2013
as emissions were already higher. The highest was RCP 8.5 and this is roughly the path we are still on in 2020.

Ludicrous results
betray the use of a ludicrous CCCM 'keeping-control' methodology

However, as shown in charts below, IPCC attempts after the fact to make RCP 8.5 *not-equal* the Permian led to ludicrous results.

The ludicrous extent of UKMO et al denying that feedbacks had been omitted from the climate-modelling during the preparation of IPCC AR5,
became clear with this futile attempt to reverse-engineer feedbacks onto scenario RCP 8.5 after the fact as represented by this IPCC chart
in 2015 as AR5 was published - temperature in RCP 8.5 became somewhere between 2.5° & 12.5° C!

Beyond ~ 2.5° we will have not kept but have lost control . . . .

(Click image to enlarge the image published in IPCC AR5 2015).

UKMO et al published the RCP 8.5 carbon-emissions/concentrations scenario shown below.
Radiative Forcing (≈ temperature) was projected as 12.5°C; CO2 concentration as 1,962 ppmv by 2200.

It is ludicrous to have temperature rise 'adjusted' in RCP 8.5 to somewhere between 12.5°C & 2.5°C!

In the chart below

[a] top row - radiative forcing then temperature rise had been 'adjusted' to end up somewhere between 12.5°C & 2.5°C by 2500! 
[b] middle row - concentrations had to remain constant as RCPs were 'Representative Concentrations Pathways'
[c] bottom row - emissions (95% fossil fuels in all the the original spreadsheets).

To put it mildly, this RCP 8.5 temperature result is utter nonsense. It came as a result of applying CMIP-4 from the
'Coupled-Model Intercomparison Project' (CMIP) after the fact & makes nonsense of Climate Sensitivity.

NB 'Climate-Sensitivity' (CS = 2*CO2 atmo) value in RCP 8.5 gives 1,962 PPMV but temperature between 2.5° C & 12.5° C
While we quadruple PPMV CO2 to accomdate 12.5° C, RF drops by ~ 80% to accomodate 2.5° C?

Really? What extent of self-contradiction can this CCCM RCP CMIP combination be driven to? . . .

Here is this 'final' IPCC result analysed by GCI.
(Click image to enlarge).

Here it is analysed by Peter Carter.
(Click image to enlarge).

The acceleration situation we are in now
in 2020.
Is temperature now increasingly driving ice-melt, forests fires, PPMV rise?

As this data-record clearly shows, CO2 concentrations and temperature have accelerated upward since 2015.

If - or as - this continues, there is a real danger of temperature driving feedback-emissions increases & consequently
concentrations increasingly rising in response to the combination of budget emissions and feeback emissions/effects
& temperature rise itself e.g. permafrost emissions and ice-loss turning positive to negative albedo.

GCI warned of this in evidence to the EAC Enquiries in 2009 & 2013. UKMO has attempted to have this dismissed as
alarmism. But due to the rate of warming forest-fires & ice-melt some scientists now dismiss climate models as obsolete.


CCCM is again the basis of future work in the fortchcoming IPCC AR6

(Click image to enlarge).


Acceleration Unmasked

A short movie revealing the rate of Arctic Melt based on temperature rise averages from GISS
for global, oceanic, landmass & Arctic change rates 1880 to 2020.