Media finally notices that the RCP 8.5 climate model is over-hyped science fiction

First, a science fiction preview of DOOM courtesy of the RCP8.5 model:

https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/coupled-physical-model-cm3/

Some sensibility from the WSJ:

Climate Media vs. Climate Science

The good news is that scientists themselves have started to correct the record.

By Holman W. Jenkins, Jr.

Joe Biden has put a presidential imprimatur on climate change being an existential threat, and he doesn’t mean in the Jean-Paul Sartre sense of man’s search for meaning in an uncomforting universe.

He means the end of humanity, a claim nowhere found in climate science.

This is odd because the real news today is elsewhere. Its movement may be ocean-liner-like, the news may be five years old before the New York Times notices it, but the climate community has been backing away from a worst-case scenario peddled to the public for years as “business as usual.”

A drumroll moment was Zeke Hausfather and Glen Peter’s 2020 article in the journal Nature partly headlined: “Stop using the worst-case scenario for climate warming as the most likely outcome.”

This followed the 2017 paper by Justin Ritchie and Hadi Dowlatabadi asking why climate scenarios posit implausible increases in coal burning a century from now. And I could go on. Roger Pielke Jr. and colleagues show how the RCP 8.5 scenario was born to give modelers a high-emissions scenario to play with, and how it came to be embraced despite being at odds with every real-world indicator concerning the expected course of future emissions.

Full article here (paywalled) https://www.wsj.com/articles/climate-media-vs-climate-science-11618355224

Dr. Roger Pielke Jr had this to say on Twitter:

4.7 27 votes
Article Rating
66 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Tom Halla
April 15, 2021 10:15 am

Judith Curry characterized RCP 8.5 as “borderline impossible”. I think she was being polite.

Michael in Dublin
April 15, 2021 10:24 am

If a scientist believed his research was absolutely essential for the survival of mankind he would not hide it behind a paywall.

commieBob
Reply to  Michael in Dublin
April 15, 2021 12:08 pm

It can cost a bundle to publish an open access paper. So, don’t read too much into the fact that a paper isn’t open access.

Paul Penrose
Reply to  commieBob
April 17, 2021 11:51 am

Bob,
A small price to pay to save the world, I would think. Unless you don’t believe that CAGW is an extensional threat.

Spetzer86
Reply to  Michael in Dublin
April 15, 2021 6:14 pm

If you really believed you’d found the signs of the end of the world, you’d publish the evidence everywhere and try to get anyone to listen. You’d publish the data. You’d publish the computer models. You’d publish every reference you used to identify the problem. You’d publish it all for free or give it to anyone with a website. Finally, you’d pray someone would find evidence that you were wrong and it was all a bad dream.

If you won’t publish the data or give out the models/parameters, and you restrict access because you know others are “just trying to prove you wrong”, you’re probably doing something other than science.

Editor
Reply to  Spetzer86
April 15, 2021 6:44 pm

It costs upwards of US$1,000 to publish a paper in virtually all peer-reviewed journals, and often several times that much. I have submitted two papers, one to a mainstream peer-reviewed journal with a limited-time special offer (they took 11 months to reject), another to a low-cost open-source journal (they said it was outside their scope (untrue)). I may try again, but at least I have been able to get those two papers and a number of other articles published on WUWT and JoanneNova. It’s not just the cost, it’s the whole process. If you’ve got really important findings, even with a deep-pocketed sponsor, you might easily give up because of the time-wasting obstruction, and just blog it. That’s why the propagandists insist that if it’s not in a peer-reviewed journal it doesn’t count.

BTW, it’s the same with the coronavirus. If you find a cure and it’s really cheap and effective, the peer-reviewed medical journals will block it and then the media won’t report it because it’s not peer-reviewed. I have now acquired some Butesonide, thanks to bloggers, no thanks to the peer-reviewed journals or mainstream media. Its reports are impressive, and if it was no good then someone somewhere would say so. The fact that there is no mention in any “official” source tells me that it’s almost certainly effective. I’ll keep an eye out though.

commieBob
Reply to  Mike Jonas
April 15, 2021 8:06 pm

Indeed.

If your career depends on getting published, you will do it. I think most people would prefer to publish in open access journals. For instance, I remember reading one paper where the authors thanked one of their buddies for coughing up the open access fee.

Also, depending on your field, journals are pretty tolerant of you publishing preliminary work, etc. online. It’s not uncommon that the data and foundational work is made available online even if the paper itself is behind a paywall.

The other question is whether a scientist should become an activist. When we look at the ‘scientific’ work of Dr. Mann, we dismiss it outright because its credibility is destroyed by his activism.

Rod Bramwell
Reply to  Mike Jonas
April 16, 2021 3:21 am

Not true about Budesonide and Covid.
Budesonide shortens recovery time in patients not admitted to hospital, study findsBMJ 2021;373:n957

JLawson
Reply to  Spetzer86
April 19, 2021 12:41 pm

If you really believed you’d found the signs of the end of the world, you’d publish the evidence everywhere and try to get anyone to listen. You’d publish the data. You’d publish the computer models. You’d publish every reference you used to identify the problem. You’d publish it all for free or give it to anyone with a website. Finally, you’d pray someone would find evidence that you were wrong and it was all a bad dream.”

This is something I’ve been harping on since the first articles on CAGW. ‘We don’t have to show it’, ‘We don’t have to share it’, ‘You can’t question it’, ‘We don’t want you to falsify it’ – they WANTED the bad dream, they WANTED the nightmare because they could use it to get attention and power.

Trouble is, the more you predict the apocalypse the more you need to have an apocalypse happen… and it simply isn’t. So now they’re predicting 50-100 years out instead of 5 or 10, expecting that (a) nobody will remember, and (b) they’ll be dead before they’re held to account.

Gerry, England
Reply to  Michael in Dublin
April 16, 2021 6:17 am

Just use the money you get from your share of the payout we are suppose to get from Big Oil.

Chaswarnertoo
April 15, 2021 10:26 am

Still haven’t caught up with a grand solar minimum and a little ice age, though.

Joel O’Bryan
April 15, 2021 10:27 am

RCP 8.5 has done exactly what it was intended to do by its creators. It was meant to be a honey pot to lure in researchers from diverse disciplines to use its impacts to further the establishment of a State of Fear, and it has succeeded.
The more realistic forcing scenarios (much lower emissions) simply do not provide statistically significant impacts in most modeled ecosystem responses to a rising temperature or precip changes. RCP 8.5 rides to rescue and delivers those high impacts in spades. The temptations to use RCP 8.5 grim fairy tales, and its coming equivalent in AR6, are irresistible.
Those ecology or biological systems researchers toil away hoping to get a first name or senior author paper per year on average published. Rejection rates are high at the high impact factor journals and/or relegated to obscure, low Impact Factor journals without showing significant impacts, if they can get published at all. This is especially a problem for young, tenure-track scientists, where the dictum “publish or perish” means career success and job security.

Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
April 15, 2021 11:51 am

Joel, I agree with you in the short run, but not the long run, consequences. As the impossibility of RCP 8.5 becomes better recognized, the more the ‘climate scientist’ studies based on it become discredited. The over reach damages ‘ climate science in the long run. We have seen that already with Hansen, with Mann, and many others. Each year the ridicule grows, and that will eventually help stop the madness. As will a real big renewables induced blackout in California or UK. Texas was just a warmup (joke intended).

Dave Yaussy
Reply to  Rud Istvan
April 15, 2021 12:09 pm

I believe you are right, Rud, but I question how quickly it will happen. It seems to me those pushing the RCP 8.5 are a lot like embezzlers – they know they are going to get caught eventually, but they delay the day of reckoning by continuing the fraud until it is exposed. For catastrophists, their world collapses without RCP 8.5, so they have no choice but to hang onto it as long as possible – and beyond. It doesn’t require conspiracy, either. Simple self-interest among the mainstream media, “researchers”, academics, government officials and corporations could keep that house of cards up for a long time to come. Hope I’m wrong.

Pat Frank
Reply to  Dave Yaussy
April 15, 2021 4:29 pm

All they need do, Dave, is leverage the RCP8.5 hysteria until progressives attain police power. When that — the actual goal — is attained, the utter implausibility of RCP8.5 won’t matter any more.

commieBob
Reply to  Rud Istvan
April 15, 2021 12:12 pm

FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt) doesn’t have to work forever. It can be an effective short to mid-term strategy.

gbaikie
Reply to  commieBob
April 15, 2021 1:22 pm

Effective in terms of making money. Al Gore’s 100 million dollar haul, is a lasting effect for him. Al made peanuts compared to others.
But Al warned it wouldn’t last forever. AOC thought it was going to last for 12 years, but she is not too bright. But is more likeable than Al Gore, and likely to become Speaker of House.

Frank from NoVA
Reply to  gbaikie
April 15, 2021 10:01 pm

IMHO Speaker AOC is a very unlikely outcome. She may have millions of Twitter admirers, but to date has been very ineffective as a legislator. If the Republicans get their act together, she’ll be even less so. The real problem she has is that while her district may be overwhelmingly Democrat, it’s predominantly working class folks who currently aren’t doing well under Cuomo and de Blasio, and are probably not that thrilled with what’s now happening at the southern border. This makes her very vulnerable to eventually getting beaten in a primary by a more rational Democrat.

Sunface jack
Reply to  commieBob
April 16, 2021 12:31 am

So close to FUDGE is it not

Laws of Nature
Reply to  Rud Istvan
April 15, 2021 1:17 pm

Dear Rud, I humbly disagree .. Mann and Hansen are perceived Heroes of the climate movement, right with some teenagers, their legacy is not threatened at all! (no matter how “bizarre” their science has gotten)
All these other scientist who gotten funding from the Billions generated by the 8.5 CMIP modeling are one step closer to retirement and no one remembers or cares what they researched or published in the last five years anymore. We are off to the next big question: Has the Atlantic current some periodicity? (with good data for several thousands years) That is the story Heroes are up against a little more or less forcing (possibly more than 5x higher than real world data suggests) is just not important anymore.

ATheoK
Reply to  Rud Istvan
April 16, 2021 5:43 pm

The over reach damages ‘ climate science in the long run.”

Seriously, Rud?
Damage “climate science”?
Worse than they’ve already damaged climate science into utter non-science?

The damage is so bad, that their idiocy is badly affecting weather science and many other scientific disciplines as climate science and false environmentalism hog ever greater funding sums while pumping out press release alarmism..

DMA
Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
April 15, 2021 12:20 pm

“The more realistic forcing scenarios (much lower emissions) simply do not provide statistically significant impacts in most modeled ecosystem responses to a rising temperature or precip changes.”
These may be “more realistic” predictions of future human emissions but are almost irrelevant to forcing as human emissions are only about 5% of all CO2 emissions and do not “build up” in the atmosphere. CO2 forcing is small to negligible to start with but the human portion of it is truly negligible.

HAS
Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
April 15, 2021 12:51 pm

I disagree about the motives. It was a genuine attempt to develop scenarios that would represent the potential range of futures. This is what should be done when addressing uncertainty. The fact that they had to go to extreme assumptions to produce the target emissions didn’t go unremarked by the authors.

As they said ‘a conservative BAU scenario’ where they took a conservative position on all of their input assumptions, so their joint likelihoods became vanishingly small.

It’s those that came later that misused. I blame a lack of basic statistical capabilities in researchers and a political machine that exploited the opportunities.

Pat Frank
Reply to  HAS
April 15, 2021 4:33 pm

It was a genuine exhibition of incompetence. The lack is basic training in physics. And by basic, I mean first year undergraduate level. Modelers are scientific incompetents as a group.

Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
April 15, 2021 1:49 pm

 “’publish or perish’ means career success and job security”

Which highlights the difference between research science and engineering. You can publish something that is quite wrong and get away with it as long as it wasn’t deliberate fraud that gets discovered. On the other hand, there are real consequences if say a bridge fails.

Mohatdebos
April 15, 2021 10:32 am

One could be an optimist and hope that reality — crops destroyed in France, coldest April temperatures in South Korea, snow and cold in northern U.S. — are telling the alarmists that their gig is coming to an end. I wonder how many “it is worse than we thought” papers prepared for COP26 will go in the dust bin if the earth continues to cool this year.

markl
Reply to  Mohatdebos
April 15, 2021 10:43 am

“I wonder how many “it is worse than we thought” papers prepared for COP26 will go in the dust bin if the earth continues to cool this year.” You’re not paying attention. It makes no difference when the media controls the narrative in lieu of reporting the truth. Witness how many doomsday scenarios have come and gone without materializing with no media recognition. Polar bears anyone?

Gary Ashe
Reply to  markl
April 15, 2021 2:09 pm

Mark is correct, my gold fish have longer memories than the climate hustlers

DaveS
Reply to  Mohatdebos
April 15, 2021 11:13 am

The climate doom-merchants find a way of linking every run of bad weather to global warming – never mind if it’s unusually cold, or hot, or wet, or dry, it’ll always be explained by global warming. So I think you probably are being a tad optimistic. These people don’t ‘do’ reality.

E. Schaffer
April 15, 2021 10:34 am

Fun with modtran:

http://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/modtran/modtran.html

Lets us try out a couple of scenarios. First we pick “1976 US standard atmosphere”, chose a temperature offset of -0.2 (to get to 288K straight) and opt for “Holding fixed: relative humidity”. Emissions are 267.28W/m2.

Now we double the amount of CO2 to 800ppm and emissions drop to 264.3W/m2. In order hold emissions constant (as above), we will have to addept temperatures. You may try out yourself, but I have done it already and with a temperature offset of +0.86 we get back up to 267.28W/m2. Now that is with surface temperatures of 289.06K.

In other words, we have climate sensitivity of 1.06K for doubling CO2, while holding relative humidity constant! But we are not done yet.

In reality we have clouds. Regrettably in this model the highest cloud level to pick from is only at 3.0km. We choose the option “altostratus cloud, top 3.0km..” and re-run the whole thing, starting again with 400ppm CO2 and -0,2 temperature offset. Emissions: 227.49W/m2.

With 800pm we get the same emissions with a temperature offset of +0.43. The total ECS just dropped from 1.06K to only 0.63K by adding clouds to the model.

I know why this is. But I guess anyone not having my understanding might find it interesting at least..

Mr.
Reply to  E. Schaffer
April 15, 2021 11:50 am

Yes.
That “Holy Grail” of the climate capers (ECS) is proving to be just as elusive as the original Holy Grail.

And just as fanciful.

DMacKenzie
Reply to  E. Schaffer
April 15, 2021 2:39 pm

And the cloud parameters in Modtran are fairly weak. In the real world, higher surface level temp, by increasing the relative humidity, makes more low and intermediate level clouds that afternoon, reflecting more insolation. But if you manually input the resultant higher RH,
Modtran will calculate higher, rather than lower temperatures, because of the few watts of H2O back radiation and ignoring the additional cloud cover, which is fixed by your entry parameters. At least that’s my take on it. So Modtran is good on IR and incoming SW absorption, not so good on SW cloud reflectance during the daytime, nor LW cloud emission at night.

Solar Mutant Ninjaneer
Reply to  E. Schaffer
April 15, 2021 3:13 pm

E Schaffer – Increased greenhouse gases like CO2 and methane have even less effect than your Modtran analysis suggests. The temperature difference between the earth’s surface and the top of the troposphere is driven by heat transfer. The heat of compression (adiabatic heating and cooling) works to support this temperature gradient (lapse rate), but it is fundamentally a heat transfer problem.
Solar heat absorbed by the earth’s surface (about 163 W/m2) is transferred by both radiation and convection in parallel. With convection being the dominate mechanism, accounting for well over half of the 163 W/m2, any increase in temperature caused by the increased radiative thermal resistance from additional CO2 or methane in the atmosphere is diluted by convection.
Modtran and climate models are fundamentally flawed in that they assume all of the heat absorbed at the earth’s surface is transferred by radiation or is transferred by radiation and convection in series to the top of the atmosphere. Aside from obviously not being a series process, this assumption violates thermodynamic law. The most that can possibly be transferred by radiation from earth’s surface to the top of the atmosphere through a vacuum is less than 150 W/m2. Through a radiatively participating media like the troposphere filled with greenhouse gases, and largely covered by radiation barriers called clouds, the radiative component is substantially less than the 150 W/m2 theoretical maximum and much less the 163 W/m2 needed to satisfy the first law of thermodynamics.
Heat transfer is analogous to electrical transfer where temperature difference is analogous to voltage, heat flux is analogous to current, and thermal resistance is analogous to electrical resistance. (Hydraulic analogs of pressure/temperature difference; fluid flow/heat flux; and flow resistance/thermal resistance also exist.) As with a simple electric circuit with two resistors in parallel (or water flow through two pipes in parallel) with a fixed current, increasing the electrical resistance (or flow resistance) of one of the resistors (or pipes) does not increase the voltage (or pressure drop) across the parallel network proportionally. The total resistance, Rt, increase is much less and can be calculated from 1/Rt = 1/Rc + 1/Rr, where Rc and Rr are the thermal resistances to convective and radiative heat transfer, respectively.
This fundamental error along with the ridiculous notion that increased temperature from the additional CO2 or CH4 increases water vapor, which amplifies the greenhouse effect, results in over predicting warming by a factor of between 5 and 10. Instead of a climate sensitively from doubling CO2 in the atmosphere of 1.5 to 5C, the sensitively is more like 0.15 to 0.5C.
This is why there is no evidence of CO2 driving temperature throughout earth’s history.

RickWill
Reply to  E. Schaffer
April 15, 2021 4:20 pm

All heat in Earth’s climate system is absorbed in the tropical oceans. The net energy input is the result of surface insolation less OLR. Try to reproduce the OLR emission of a tropical ocean at 303K of 200W/sq.m.using MODTRAN

Most OLR emissions from Earth are emitted from ice in the temperature range 220K to 273K anywhere on the surface to even above 10km in the atmosphere. MODTRAN has no hope of reproducing that. It produces meaningless numbers. It has been misapplied by the climate prognosticators to arrive at the primary forcing used in climate models who think the US Standard Atmosphere is representative of the global atmosphere. You also need to remember they then add positive feedback for all the extra moisture, which is yet to materialise.

Climate models already have absurd outputs- the futility of producing warming trends where there can be none.

Slide2.PNG
ResourceGuy
April 15, 2021 10:38 am

The nickname for the RCP 8.5 climate model should be the Madoff Model.

I’m struck by the similarities of the Madoff case with climate scare models.

From the recent Madoff case summary story on April 14th WSJ:

1) Madoff, one-time chairman of the Nasdaq market (authority figure)
2) Madoff exuded respectability and cut an aristocratic figure( name you climate BT Barnum)
3) He was famously secretive about his methods, adding to the allure (M. Mann)
4) Madoff falsely claimed to beat the market with his “split-strike conversion strategy (cutting edge climate model)
5) Inside the Madoff offices on the 17th floor of the Lipstick Building, only a few trusted employees had access with a keycard. The phony trades were conducted giving higher returns to favored clients (climate data manipulation to fit the message)
6) Madoff didn’t go unsuspected. A 2001 Barron’s article focused on the improbability of his returns. (WUWT)
7) Madoff insisted that his trading operation remain a black box, rebuffed requests from institutional investors to visit his operations or explain them (that Mann again)
8) The SEC’s failure to discover Madoff’s fraud revealed it, in the minds of many, as an ineffectual guardian of the markets. (name your failed agency or professional society)
9) Only the pressure from the financial crisis brought Madoff down, as his fund was overwhelmed with redemption requests when people lost money elsewhere (sadly, the climate does not move that fast so the great con game continues)

John Garrett
April 15, 2021 11:21 am

I’m not going to hold my breath waiting for a mea culpa report by Pravda (a/k/a The New York Times) or the Washington Post or NBC or the Los Angeles Times or NPR or MSNBC or CNN or PBS’ News Hour or ABC or CBS or the Associated Press (Seth Borenstein).

They are biased, partisan and conscious and intentional distributors of disinformation. This will not come as a surprise to readers of WUWT..

What is surprising is that a number of them have publicly admitted as much (an amazing number are supposedly reputable).

There is a list of print and broadcast news organizations who have signed a public agreement to disseminate propaganda. If you don’t believe me, see:

https://coveringclimatenow.org/the-press-and-the-climate-emergency/
 

https://coveringclimatenow.org/partners/partner-list/

Last edited 3 months ago by John Garrett
Alba
Reply to  John Garrett
April 15, 2021 1:22 pm

No surprises in the list of organisations signing up to CCN. But I notice that the Managing Director of CCN is Judy Doctoroff. Plenty of fun with that name.

Gary Ashe
Reply to  Alba
April 15, 2021 2:19 pm

I bet Judy is a doctoroff BS.

Last edited 3 months ago by Gary Ashe
Alba
Reply to  John Garrett
April 15, 2021 1:34 pm

It’s not just list of orghanisations signed up which is interesting. So also is the list of organisations funding them:
Covering Climate Now has been made possible by generous grants from Actions@EBMFDavid and Lucile Packard Foundation, Michaux Family Foundation, Park Foundation, Rockefeller Family & Associates, Schumann Media Center and Wayne Crookes. The fiscal sponsor for Covering Climate Now is the DC-based 501c3, The Fund for Constitutional Government.

Steve Case
Reply to  John Garrett
April 15, 2021 5:25 pm

Those links are truly depressing.

Tedz
Reply to  John Garrett
April 16, 2021 4:54 am

Have those links vanished now? I can’t get them up.

Editor
April 15, 2021 11:24 am

Zeke? A scientist?

saveenergy
April 15, 2021 11:34 am

“Joe Biden has put a presidential imprimatur on climate change being an existential threat”

No fool like an old fool …
but it makes him feel important !

Climate believer
Reply to  saveenergy
April 15, 2021 12:11 pm

The MSM aren’t going to ease up on the fear, it’s the foundations of their business models.

Fear, and the “end is nigh” articles that spew from dawn till dusk will keep coming, and the sheeple will keep clicking… and on…. and on…

This isn’t coming to any rational end anytime soon.

download (1).png
Alba
Reply to  saveenergy
April 15, 2021 1:24 pm

Biden is the opposite of King Canute. Canute knew well the limits of his own power over the elements.

Lark
April 15, 2021 11:50 am

Follow the money (and power).
The most ridiculous scenario may not be the most likely —
but it brings in the most graft.

Boff Doff
April 15, 2021 12:01 pm

For goodness sake. The Clergy of the New Religion have woken up to the fact that their shrieks of Armegeddon are so obviously implausible they are counterproductive. Hence the renewal of the “There’s still time” narrative.
It changes nothing.

Douglas Lampert
Reply to  Boff Doff
April 15, 2021 12:15 pm

There’s always one last chance.

If they said, “We said X years ago there was only X years left to prevent a catastrophe, it’s too late now.” Then people would be open to geoengineering and the like, as there’d be no reason NOT to try desperate measures.

“We’re all going to die! But it will be EVEN WORSE if we put sulfur into the stratosphere to stop it” isn’t very persuasive. The goal is to scare people into doing various things, to do that you MUST always claim that there is still time for one last chance.

Mr. Lee
April 15, 2021 12:56 pm

If it is too alarmist:
1) People will be less likely to believe it
2) People will be less likely to believe responding will help any

Whether it is 1) or 2), in both cases, the global warming scare will lose its power to control the general population.
So perhaps this WSJ article isn’t about getting to the truth, it is about finding the right level of alarm to maximize control over the population.

sparko
April 15, 2021 1:14 pm

Lets call it the Covid effect. People are beginning to notice that science seems to be based on garbage computer models, and that politicians by and large are ignorant of science. Journalists are way behind on this.

ross
April 15, 2021 1:14 pm

When you are digging yourself a hole theres a point common sense tells you to get out before its too deep. I think the IPCC/UN have gone so far beyond that point ironically they risk striking oil.

April 15, 2021 1:18 pm

Sorry for OT, but the last discussion about COV-19 and vaccines is more or less over:

Adenovirus-Platelet Interaction in Blood Causes Virus Sequestration to the Reticuloendothelial System of the Liver
Intravenous (i.v.) delivery of recombinant adenovirus serotype 5 (Ad5) vectors for gene therapy is hindered by safety and efficacy problems. We have discovered a new pathway involved in unspecific Ad5 sequestration and degradation. After i.v. administration, Ad5 rapidly binds to circulating platelets, which causes their activation/aggregation and subsequent entrapment in liver sinusoids. Virus-platelet aggregates are taken up by Kupffer cells and degraded. Ad sequestration in organs can be reduced by platelet depletion prior to vector injection. Identification of this new sequestration mechanism and construction of vectors that avoid it could improve levels of target cell transduction at lower vector doses.
For more than a decade, adenovirus serotype 5 (Ad5)-based vectors have been used as intravenous (i.v.) gene transfer vectors. Unfortunately, as a non-blood-borne pathogen, Ad5 has not evolved mechanisms to survive in blood and is rapidly cleared from the circulation, with only a fraction reaching the target tissue (1, 28). Most i.v.-delivered Ad5 is sequestered in the liver, and animal studies indicate that Kupffer cells (KCs) play a major role in this trapping (20, 25, 38, 46, 51). Recent studies have shown that liver sequestration is not mediated by the Ad5 receptor, CAR, but involves either a direct (44) or a blood factor (coagulation factors IX and X and complement protein C4BP)-mediated (34, 35, 40) interaction between the Ad fiber and cellular heparansulfate proteoglycans.

[…]
For D-dimer, we found significantly elevated levels in sera 5 min (P = 0.047) and 6 h (P = 0.003) after Ad injection (Fig. 1D). Although Ad induces thrombocytopenia in both animals and humans, thrombocytopenia itself is not life threatening, as platelets are readily replenished by megakaryocytes. However, the downstream effects of platelet activation and aberrant initiation of coagulation upon Ad injection are dangerous. Activation of the coagulation cascade can cause disseminated intravascular coagulation, an adverse side effect seen upon clinical Ad injection

Not sure if my understanding of medical English is correct enough, but if yes, why use Adonovirus as vaccine vector against COV-19 ??

Last edited 3 months ago by Krishna Gans
whiten
Reply to  Krishna Gans
April 16, 2021 12:08 am

Oh, well;
the “new” “vaccine” method,
is not only useless and non efficient lacking any pros,
but also is kinda of toxic too in it’s nature… so far.

cheers

April 15, 2021 1:26 pm

Once again sorry for OT…. just an other study of the subject:

Adenovirus-induced thrombocytopenia: the role of von Willebrand factor and P-selectin in mediating accelerated platelet clearance
Thrombocytopenia has been consistently reported following the administration of adenoviral gene transfer vectors. The mechanism underlying this phenomenon is currently unknown. In this study, we have assessed the influence of von Willebrand Factor (VWF) and P-selectin on the clearance of platelets following adenovirus administration. In mice, thrombocytopenia occurs between 5 and 24 hours after adenovirus delivery. The virus activates platelets and induces platelet-leukocyte aggregate formation. There is an associated increase in platelet and leukocyte-derived microparticles. Adenovirus-induced endothelial cell activation was shown by VCAM-1 expression on virus-treated, cultured endothelial cells and by the release of ultra-large molecular weight multimers of VWF within 1 to 2 hours of virus administration with an accompanying elevation of endothelial microparticles. In contrast, VWF knockout (KO) mice did not show significant thrombocytopenia after adenovirus administration. We have also shown that adenovirus interferes with adhesion of platelets to a fibronectin-coated surface and flow cytometry revealed the presence of the Coxsackie adenovirus receptor on the platelet surface. We conclude that VWF and P-selectin are critically involved in a complex platelet-leukocyte-endothelial interplay, resulting in platelet activation and accelerated platelet clearance following adenovirus administration.

Both studies are from around 2006/2007 – shouldt be well known among professionals, isn’t it ?

Last edited 3 months ago by Krishna Gans
Reply to  Krishna Gans
April 16, 2021 4:59 am

This study found a way into University Greifswald actual research about Astrazeneca thromboses:

Thrombotic Thrombocytopenia after ChAdOx1 nCov-19 Vaccination
Several cases of unusual thrombotic events and thrombocytopenia have developed after vaccination with the recombinant adenoviral vector encoding the spike protein antigen of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) (ChAdOx1 nCov-19, AstraZeneca). More data were needed on the pathogenesis of this unusual clotting disorder.

n.n
April 15, 2021 1:39 pm

It’s still plausible, maybe. Let’s go to the polls… Perhaps a democratic override is in order.

gringojay
Reply to  n.n
April 15, 2021 2:05 pm

If only “education” on the subject was presented right to voters.

CAA1A172-457E-4E24-9F9A-C06022260CDF.jpeg
RickWill
April 15, 2021 3:57 pm

When the only thing altering surface temperature is CO2 then using ssp585 (you need to use the correct terminally; rcp is so OLD), it makes sense to use the worst case, which is right on target for 2020 anyhow.

Models already hindcast/forecast absurd results in the tropics. Trying to show warming where there can be none becomes an exercise in futility. They either have to cool the past absurdly or warm the present absurdly. I have had responses from two climate prognosticating groups on these charts and both groups claim their results are middle of the road. They do not even try to justify the absurdity.

It is more difficult to show the silliness of predictions across the globe because there is so much noise but warm pools regulate to 30C and warm pools drift into and out of the Nino34 region. The 27C average is trendless.

Slide3.PNG
Last edited 3 months ago by RickWill
Tom
April 15, 2021 5:23 pm

The problem is not the scenarios, it’s the models.

Pat Frank
April 15, 2021 5:28 pm

Here’s the GFDL RCP8.5 anomalies compared to GISS and CRU global air temperatures, and to the RCP8.5 forcings.

Notice the descent and recovery of the GFDL anomalies between 1955 and 2000, with a minimum at 1963.

That feature is not in the temperature record and it’s not in the forcing. Where did it come from?

The “Historical” record in the head post picture contains this feature, and so represents simulated anomalies rather than the actual historical measurement record (such as it is).

The Agung volcano blew up in 1963 and put an aerosol cooling into the forcing metric. But the 1991 Pinatubo cooling was much larger, and it makes a much more modest appearance in the record and in the GFDL projection.

Myself, I suspect there is an offset glitch in the presentation of the simulation. Perhaps the pre-1950 historical record was not simulated at all, but just grafted on.

The only other simulation in which I recall seeing a similar glitch is in the CMIP6 UKESM1-0-LL f2 SSP simulations. Simulations from other climate models don’t have it.

Weird at 1963.jpg
Herbert
April 15, 2021 6:42 pm

Lord Lawson has described the theory of CAGW or dangerous man-made climate change as “a kernel of truth buried in a mountain of nonsense”
On the “mountain of nonsense”,English engineer John Bignell founded numberwatch.co.uk assembling some 700 plus items caused by climate change.
The List starts with acne and AIDS, progresses through circumcision in decline, haggis threatened,polar bears deaf, seals mating more, short nosed dogs endangered to yellow fever and finishes with zoonotic diseases.
The mighty list of guffaws is beyond parody as the late Professor Bob Carter noted.
Not forgetting extinctionclock.org listing a considerable number of apocalyptic predictions since 1970, by various alarmists.
They fall into the categories of those now past (100% fail rate) and those yet to occur,predictably unlikely.

John Garrett
April 16, 2021 6:28 am

When is the world going to figure out that Michael R. Bloomberg and Jeremy Grantham are crackpots ?

TonyG
April 16, 2021 8:03 am

Looking at the trends RCP to RCP on that graph, RCP-10 is going to loop back on itself.

Mike Maguire
April 16, 2021 4:08 pm

Many of the gatekeepers and people that use the models, do so, not as science but to force political and economical model changes on society……..based almost entirely on busted computer simulations of the atmosphere using a speculative theory that can be represented by mathematical equations that are subjectively chosen to get the result they want.
The most extreme projection departs greatly from any remotely plausible scenario when applying authentic science. But it’s the best political choice by a wide margin!

Mike Maguire
April 16, 2021 4:12 pm

The disparity in the solutions tells us how uncertain that the climate science is…..but we are told “the science is settled and debate is over” What they should say is “the politics has been determined and the solutions are known”

Mike Maguire
April 16, 2021 5:03 pm

The reality is that the Climate Accord will have almost ZERO affect on the climate and weather ……………it’s entirely a political tool to get to the objective. 
The simulations of the atmosphere going out 100 years with apocalyptic end points are pure politics and zero authentic science…..disguised as science and accepted by mainstream scientists with a huge political and scientific bias which prevents them from using the scientific method……..no matter how smart they are!
Seriously, as an objective atmospheric scientist for 39 years, studying climate change closely for 3 decades, I don’t know whether to laugh or feel depressed that my field of expertise was hijacked for a political agenda and is selling this garbage to people. Actually, the emotions include embarrassment and at the same time, utter amazement that they bamboozled the entire world and have actually won. The governments and many people actually believe all this stuff. Even alot of smart people. 
We should note, that the junk science is being used to sell us on the idea that in order to save the planet, we must follow everything in the Climate Accord.
The call is not for nations to cut emissions on their own but they must sign up with the Climate Accord and abide by the politics written in there…………rich countries send money to poor countries, CO2 from rich countries is killing the planet, CO2 from poor countries…….is not killing the planet. What the heck, that’s not science, that looks just like global socialism!

 Keep in mind that I’ve been a practicing environmentalist for most of my life and all for helping the poor much more than we do. But can we please stop stealing people’s intelligence on climate science and environmentalism to get them on board with a political scheme. I might actually support it then because it would be authentic/honest.

%d bloggers like this: