IPCC Model Errors
The natural radiative forcing is set to zero
Erik Bye November 8, 2025
There is a lot that can be characterized as fraudulent about the climate modelling of IPCC. Here I would like to emphasize the way that IPCC
1. Set the natural radiative forcing equal to zero and 2. The inclusion of the total amount of CO2 in climate models.
The natural radiative forcing is set to zero
Nature has an impact on the climate through variables like the Sun, clouds, water vapor, the temperature of the ocean, volcanoes over and under the ocean, the tilt of the Earth axis and the positions of the planets. None of these variables are considered in climate modelling, due to lack of knowledge. In general, this is a dramatic situation. How is it possible for IPCC to justify that Nature has no impact on the climate? This can be seen in Figure 1, showing only a value of 0.12 W/m2 for the solar radiative forcing for the Sun.
Figure 1. Radiative forces. From:AR4 WG 1, Technical Summary, TS 5, p. 32.
In a mail sequence with Bjørn Samset, a senior climate researcher in CICERO, Norway, and being a main author inAR7, WG 1, I asked how he considered that the natural radiative forcing was set to zero. He answered that the value was not set to zero. It was calculated so low that it was rounded off to zero. Which means that Nature has no effect upon the climate. This is absurd.And IPCC does not comment on this at all. That might be even worse!
The total amount of CO2 is included in the climate models
The Climate hypothesis says that climate change and global warming is caused by the emission of fossil CO2 into the atmosphere. In the atmosphere there is ca. 3,400 GT of CO2. This is 430 ppm (parts per million), or 0.043% of the total atmosphere. Each year the CO2 increase is about 2 ppm, i.e. 0.5% of the total amount in the atmosphere. There is a profound discussion presently, about the ratio between natural and anthropogenic CO2 emission, supposed to be between 4% and 12% of the fossil part.
According to the IPCC, CO2 is the bad guy, being responsible for ongoing global warming. But, despite this, IPCC includes the total amount of CO2 in their climate models. This is evident from Figure 1, where there is only one type of CO2 gas, which is listed with a value for the radiative forcing, i.e. 1.66 W/m2 .
Nature and photosynthesis do not discriminate between natural, or human caused emission of CO2. Thus, it is impossible to predict the emission of fossil CO2. But, since it is claimed that fossil CO2 is the “bad guy” and causing global warming, it must be an extreme exaggeration to run the climate models with the total amount.
This question is an apparent paradox. For a start, there is no scientific documentation for man-made climate change or global warming due to the emission of fossil CO2. Secondly, it has been shown that the climate models of IPCC are completely wrong. The models exaggerate the effects of the CO2-content, as part of the “Nobel Fraud”, according to the work of Roy Clark:
https://scienceofclimatechange.org/wp-content/uploads/Clark-2024-Nobel-PrizeErrors.pdf
https://climatechangedispatch.com/understanding-the-seven-major-errors-inclimate-models/
“The Nobel Fraud” is also described in this link.
Thus, regardless of the type of CO2, the IPCC models are terribly wrong. These erroneous models have been used by IPCC in all their main reports,AR1 -AR6, and the results and the IPCC message must be retracted.
Why has such information gone unnoticed, by the mainstream media?