By P Gosselin on 10. August 2021
German IPCC critic: Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt, Image: GWPF
IPCC’s sixth climate report disappoints across the board
By Die kalte Sonne
(Translated, headings by P. Gosselin)
The IPCC’s 6th Assessment Report on Climate (AR6) was published yesterday, August 9, 2021. Fritz Vahrenholt has summarized the most important things on Roland Tichys Einblick.
“Climate models (CMIP6) have failed across the board”
One notices in the report that it’s primarily politically and less scientifically anchored. How can it be the uncertainty range of CO2 climate sensitivity (i.e. the climate effectiveness of CO2) has been drastically narrowed down when the latest climate models (CMIP6) have failed across the board?
Reruns of an old myth
Curious: one of the chapter authors (Mauritsen) himself has for years represented a value well below the new range of 2.5-4.0°C per doubling of CO2. As in the 2001 AR3 report, the IPCC again is pushing a hockey stick in the summary for politicians. Allegedly, the climate of the past has hardly changed.
PAGES2K controversy
‘Die Welt’ conducted an interview with paleoclimatologist Ulf Büntgen, who explained how there had been a scandal in the PAGES2k group responsible for the new hockey stick. Many members left the group because they did not agree with the approach. Exactly as our Klimaschau had already speculated in 2020.
IPCC on this ice
Also peculiar: The IPCC states that this time it would use less the climate models for its forecasts (because they failed, but you don’t say that so openly), but instead the known climate past. And just that (“the son of the hockey stick”) is as wrong as the model results.
The IPCC is on very thin ice with this. It assumes rock solid that 100% of the warming since 1850 is man-made. All natural climate factors, which must have worked in former times (because the pre-industrial climate changed also significantly) must have been switched off today by “magic hand”. How does that work?
Flawed extreme weather models
Equally curious is that the report now sees a man-made component in extreme weather quite definitely. That’s pretty crazy, because most extreme weather has no trend at all over the last 150 years. And the models of Friederike Otto and colleagues regularly fail in the task of mapping extreme weather trends over the last pre-industrial millennia. These flawed models are then used to make the “attribution” i.e. assignment of man vs. nature. It’s like driving without a license.
Using “unlikely RCP 8.5 emissions scenario” a “serious mistake”
The AR6 treats the unlikely RCP 8.5 emissions scenario as if it were a plausible possibility. A serious mistake that misinforms politicians and other non-specialists. Now the air is getting thin for the IPCC because the AR6 has nothing to do with an open-ended, neutral summary of the state of knowledge. Only the ONE side of the scientific opinion spectrum is included.
Critical side excluded
Critics were not allowed to write in from the beginning. They were allowed to unload their frustration as reviewers and write down their criticism. However, they ended up directly in the wastepaper basket. The review editors were elected by the same political body as the authors, the IPCC board. And the board is elected by the governments, especially the green-influenced environment ministries of the countries.
“Scientific foundation as weak as ever”
After all the dust from this week’s AR6 report settles, things will likely, quickly become quiet about this new report. Because those involved know what they have hid from the public, where it gets dicey. True to the motto “The show must go on”, the AR6 was put on the stage with lots of hype although the scientific foundation was as weak as ever.
Stained scientists
The authors involved will be professionally rewarded by their governments. From the point of view of scientific ethics, however, a stain now sticks to them. For one may assume that the broad outlines of AR6 were already determined BEFORE they were written. The wide range of CO2 climate sensitivity had long been a thorn in everyone’s side. For 30 years the range existed, without progress. Now one has simply reduced the span by force, without technical basis. A true magic trick, but its illusion will be gone shortly thereafter.
Luke-warmers have the science on their side
Because research continues. The researchers who favor a value below 2.5°C/2xCO2 have strong scientific arguments that they will use in the coming years. For the IPCC, however, there will then be no turning back. A hopeless situation.
Heading should read, “On Thin Ice”, not “This”.
Narrowing the ECS range should have lowered it, eg to 0.1 to 2.1 degrees C. Without feedback value is about 1.1, but feedbacks are at least as likely to be negative as positive.
Threadjack: Don’t forget to read and review the actual report for yourself and put your comments on the WattsUpWithThat thread.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/08/09/discussion-thread-new-ipcc-ar6-report/
I’ve put a few on the bottom of the comments myself.
Thanks. Not sure I have much to contribute. But will read yours.
I did make a few comments and reply to your cloud question. It appears that now clean air is a threat, depriving the planet of cloud condensation nuclei.
Not to worry! China’s numerous new coal plants to the rescue!
Thank you. (I say before being banned for threadjacking).
I don’t make the rules, but IMO that wasn’t threadjacking.
Thanks for drawing my attention to the new approach by the Carbonari.
The estimate of CO@ warming effectiveness is meaningless. Even if a perfectly accurate estimation could be arrived at it could only be a stand alone amount in the absence of counter influences. Counter influences will exist in countless forms of countless variability in both time and space. Probably influenced themselves by CO2 and vice versa.
The conditions possible for the atmosphere are probably near infinite in number given the variations possible in inputs-outputs and in composition locally and globally.
Rick, right on! Le Châtelier’s principle, discovered in relation to chemical reactions but found to be much more broadly applicable to other systems including mechanical (Newton’s laws of motion, back EMF in starting an electric motor, etc.) and even economics (interactions between supply, demand and price). Definition (chemistry):
“When a system at equilibrium is subjected to a change in temperature, volume, concentration, or pressure, the system readjusts to partially counter the effect of the change, resulting in a new equilibrium.”
Logically, the system need not be in equilibrium to react. Also, (my supposition) the greater the number of interactant components, the stronger the effect. The climate is a perfect example of this.
How to apply it? Let’s assume that climate scientists were correct in their use of physics to estimate future warming, feedbacks, etc., using the kaleidoscope of components in climate. Let’s say, that when the projected date arrives, the estimated temperature change is 300% too high! The estimated Le Chatelier coefficient to apply to the system is 0.33. The climate equations should include such a coefficient.
I may be wrong but this principle seems not well known to physicists. Because it was discovered by chemists, the broader application of it may better described as a universal law. I’d like to here from physicists on this.
Do you even know what the 1.1K figure for 2xCO2 is based on? If you knew, you would not quote it. If the surface was a perfect emitter, if CO2 was not overlapped with vapor and clouds, then CO2 had a GHE of some 34W/m2. Then if you doubled CO2 you would gain some additional 4W/m2. With this figure you could even claim 1.2K, as 288-((240-4)/240)^0.25*288 = 1.2
If you try different iterations of this formula, like taking 255K as base temperature and/or 3.7W/m2 (allowing a surface emissivity of 0.97 for example) you will get something between 1 and 1.2K, figures you find throughout the literature.
Problem: it is all totally wrong. After allowing for realistic surface emissivity and the overlapping, CO2 only adds about 19W/m2 to the GHE. A doubling of CO2 will enhance this forcing by about 2.1W/m2 and that results in some 0.55K warming only. It is one simple mistake driving ECS by a factor of 2!
Please see Haría Seldon quoting Dr. Happer below.
Well, I will take Happer only with a lot of salt. You may want to look up his most recent ECS estimate, where he concludes something different (1.4K for 2xCO2, 2.3 or 2.2K including vapor feedback).
https://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Wijngaarden_u_Happer_2020.pdf
I still have to figure out how he gets to these odd 1.4K. Yet there is something interesting in the paper:
And that is true, if you allow for the overlap with vapor and N2O. The problem is, he still holds on to a surface emissivity of 1 and ignores the overlapping with clouds. Ignoring both factors will largely overstate the 2xCO2 effect, and he is not the only one making this mistake.
Actually I have discussed this problem with him, but apparently he does not understand it.
“Actually I have discussed this problem with him (Will Happer), but apparently he does not understand it.”
Mr Schaffer, perhaps you should read Dr. Will Happer’s ĺ
resumé/biography to disabuse yourself of the notion he doesn’t understand the concept of ECS and overlap of water vapor absorptive wavelengths.
“I still have to figure out how he gets to these odd 1.4K.”
Hmmm… and here you are saying YOU don’t understand Dr. Happer!
Oh, and btw, an emissivity 0.895 is close enough to 1.0 for most calculations, particularly in a science that has a range of ECS of 1.5 – 5.0!!! If Happer didn’t reply to you, I think you know the reason why not.
Sorry, I have no such veneration for authorities, especially not climate scientists. It is nothing disrespectful to be hard on the facts. There are a couple of issues.
If he says doubling CO2 would hardly cause more than 1K warming, after publishing a paper claiming an ECS of 2.3K, it simply makes no sense.
3W/m2 would mean ((240+3)/240)^0.25*255-255 = 0.79K, not 1.4K. All I am saying I have not identified yet the cause for this difference in the paper.
No, sorry there you are totally wrong and Happer has the same logical problem in his paper.
The problem is that any radiative forcing or GHE attributed to a GHG is nothing but the difference between measured emissions TOA and inferred emissions at the surface. So this difference is highly sensitive to ANY deviation in surface emissions. For instance 1-0.7 = 0.3, but 0.895 – 0.7 = 0.195. Now that is a very different result. And this is not just true for any given GHE, but equally for the slope of the underlying function. That is how much warming an increase of GHGs will produce.
So both, what you are saying and what Happer suggests are indeed fatal mistakes.
It’s unscientific to venerate authorities. Rather, analyze their actual work. If you can find fault with it, more power to you!
Dr. Happer is the world’s leading specialist on the physics of light in the atmosphere, but not a “climate scientist”, ie GIGO computer gamer. But I don’t concur with his view of ECS without feedbacks because he’s an “expert”, but because to me it appears sound.
Oh, and btw, I just looked it up: within that CO2 band (13.1 – 17.2µm) water has a hemispheric emissivity of only 0.895. That is why assuming a perfect surface emissivity will produce a substantial error.
In addition to (as usual) completely ignoring or overlooking the basic, foundational assumption of this alleged “effect” on temperature, which is “all other things held equal.” By the time the feedbacks have their way with this purely hypothetical effect, you will not be able to differentiate it from zero.
Which is exactly the conclusion that observations support.
The feedbacks are most certainly negative. Otherwise there would not be a descent into an ice age with ten times the CO2 we are supposed to panic about today in the Earth’s climate history, nor would there by repeated occurrences of reverse correlation between CO2 and temperature, which are seen in the ice core reconstructions and even during the instrument record during the “ice age cometh” climate scare that was also supposedly our fault.
In short, with no empirical evidence that CO2 drives temperature, and plenty of empirical evidence that suggests it does not, the “CO2 drives the climate” nonsense should have been dismissed years ago.
The resurrected GHG hypothesis was born falsified by the 32 years of global cooling after WWII but before the PDO shift of 1977. Callender lived to suffer the brutal cold of the ‘60s.
That doesn’t mean that more plant food in the air has no effect. But it’s negligible compared to other human factors and natural variation.
Alarmists try to explain away the Ordovician glaciation under 4400 ppm CO2 by weaker solar radiation. But it was only 4% less powerful then, with over ten times more food for the earliest land plants than now, when our vast vegetation most needs more.
And yet, with CO2 levels above 4,000ppm for 100 million years prior to that, and rising at the time of the plunge into glacial conditions, you would think according to the current “CO2 drives temperature” bullshit that assumes an immediate effect of CO2 on temperature, that small differences in solar radiation notwithstanding, the Earth should have been on its way to “becoming Venus” via the supposed “runaway greenhouse effect” by that time, based on all that, you know, “trapped heat.” LOL.
It all makes perfect sense when you take te beam from your eye and realise that AGW is not rooted in science, but politics and profit.
https://climateaudit.org/2021/08/11/the-ipcc-ar6-hockeystick/
Steven McIntyre quickly breaks the latest hockey stick, having already demolished the underlying bogus, contradictory “reconstructions”.
The IPCC is skating on imaginary ice with imaginary skates.
a few inches above the ice, because of the levitation effect
It’s not levitating, its called “Glacial Isostatic Adjustment”.
Well, one usually plays hockey on ice, so if you are going to play with imaginary hockey sticks, imaginary ice would be the place to be.
You may, here in the land of the Bluestockings, its palyed on muddy fields by nubile schoolgirls in short skirts
The are attempting to walk on water.
In an ever decreasing spiral of desperation – let’s hope they disappear up their own fundament soon. It’s less of ‘the show must go on’, more of ‘le cirque continue’. I think the scientific foundation is getting weaker and weaker as they come up with nothing new and holes are being shot through what little they have left.
It’s not surprising when UNEP mandated a “human-caused” basis for the IPCC. The results are slowly coming around to the fact that “human-caused” is not the driver of the climate. It may have some minor effects, but the emerging results don’t give it much room.
The IPCC only exists because it has produced the message that human emissions are the cause for increasing temperatures and hence comprise a serious risk. If it had concluded otherwise it would have been disbanded.
It is not surprising therefore, that it complied with the political intent. The result being a FALSE message, not supported by the science.
The heavy hand of politics is clear to see.
If you dig deeper into you will find that the political intent stems from the UN and it’s acolytes which over the years has been infiltrated by left wing /marxist? activists, with an agenda to reset the whole global economic system upon Marxist principles overlaid by many with disregard for the norms of ethics.
Sadly there is no global constitution which enables the creation of an organisation capable of challenging the UN or calling it to task. All very depressing.
So hang on to your wallets folks. Be careful who you vote for and don’t leave it too late to react as little by little the noose gets tightened.
Yes indeed Richard.
The result will be an upsurge in what I would describe as “Cognitive Dissonance” type articles and reports emanating from sources purporting to be from official and recognised expert organisations. All desperately attempting to explain the failures away, often by moving the predictions further into the future.
I agree. However – that will be their undoing, I believe. A good question is “Why did the psychological behaviour modification (structured fearmongering) work to make us comply with COVID lockdowns (in the main) but fail when applied to the Global Warming scam?” The fear factor with COVID was immediate, local and largely unknown whereas the AGW scam is far too remote; both in location and time, and is known – we’ve lived with extreme weather as have our ancestors. By making it more and more remote they are going to undermine and damage their cause; the fear will mainly dissipate.
Mountain passes are being shot through what little they have left: “The IPCC AR6 Hockeystick”
Welcome back Stephen! https://climateaudit.org/2021/08/11/the-ipcc-ar6-hockeystick/
Speaking of ice, Arctic sea ice yesterday was higher on that date than in any year since 2015. Its extent looks to cross over 2015’s today or tomorrow.
Antarctic sea ice was higher than any year since the monster record extent in 2014.
So now is a world of ice, not fire.
Yes, but in the IPCC’s fantasy world, more ice = “natural variation;” less ice = incontrovertible proof of the human influence on climate. No matter what happens, they think they are “right,” but in reality, are “wrong” as they have been from the start.
More like “skating on thin ice with heated lead boots.”
Perhaps, when you consider the number of pratt falls the IPCC has taken, they were skating on imaginary ice with imaginary roller skates.
It was instructive to see the range estimates on one graph. From Charney in 1979 to the present, the range of climate sensitivity would widen slightly, narrow slightly, and now has roughly a span indentical to where it all began, but a central value nudged upward slightly — and I mean slightly. The only thing we know for certain is that billions of taxpayer dollars doesn’t buy much.
Buys a ton of propaganda!
And phoney baloney jobs.
There is a bug in the system it seems, in the way this sensitivity value is calculated. Unless the calculations include the thermodynamics of the water evaporation process at phase change where the sensitivity coefficient is Zero; as it occurs at constant temperature, NONE of the calculations will result in a correct answer.
“Luke-warmers have the science on their side”
Luke-warmers must chose which side they are in!
It is very comfortable to have one foot in each side, thay can always claim that they were right, whaterever will be proved as right. It is an opportunistic stance.
By “which side” I mean the side of science and scientific reasoning, or the side of superstition and religious reasoning. Obviously, NOT “pro-warm” vs. “pro-cool”; NOT “warmist” vs. “sceptical”; NOT etc.: all these apparent dichotomies are misleading because the point is what is the ground (scientific or not) over which we walk.
As in politics, there is no “Third Way” in between.
Sorry, but I have to push back on this. Please don’t become a victim of the prison of two ideas. While there are some situations where you are forced to make a binary choice, such as election with exactly 2 candidates, addressing the climate issue does not require one to either accept the alarmist position or deny that humans contribute at all to warming.
There is a range of positions some more defensible than others. There is an extremely wide range of responses to the alleged problem, ranging from nothing to the extreme positions proposed by green new deal advocates. It is not necessary to choose one of those two extremes.
One can reject the nonsense of the green new dealers, while accepting that improving efficiency of machines, taking reasonable steps to reduce pollution (and I’m not counting CO2 as a pollutant), as well as reasonable building codes to deal with earthquakes, fire and flooding.
Strawman much?
Strawman? I think this was a rather definite statement to argue against.
“there is no “Third Way” in between”
Huh? As Rick noted, I was disagreeing with the assertion that there is no third way. It’s wrong here, and rarely applies in politics (with the narrow exception noted of a voting booth decision).
Here is your strawman: “addressing the climate issue does not require one to either accept the alarmist position or deny that humans contribute at all to warming.” Skeptics/Climate Realists claim no such thing, and you know it, meaning that you are being disingenuous.
Further strawman: “improving efficiency of machines, taking reasonable steps to reduce pollution (and I’m not counting CO2 as a pollutant), as well as reasonable building codes to deal with earthquakes, fire and flooding.”
No one here would argue against any of that.
Thank you, Bruce!
Actually, Stephen evaded my point: there is no third way between science and superstition. That was what I have written, and what I think. No one will disagree with many proposed mitigating actions; but I must add: IF, and only if, they are clearly grounded on scientific knowledge. I would not support a program of earthquake prevention that was based on the work of some psychics with paranormal gifts…
Surely you are aware that many people, including many who contribute to these discussions, insist either that the alarmist position is well justified or that humans contribution to warming is zero. You can’t possibly be unaware of this.
My statement says I disagree with either position and you calling it a straw man means you think no one disagrees. Obviously, many do.
Case-in-point: the urban heat island.
“One can reject the nonsense of the green new dealers, while accepting…” whatever you want, IF, and only if, it is grounded in scientific knowledge, NOT on superstitious thinking.
That was my point.
That’s not literally true, but let’s focus on your main point which I take as an emphasis on scientific knowledge rather than superstitious thinking. I’m totally in agreement. Now, how do we persuade the IPCC?
Eliminate their financing.
(On a more “constructive” tune)
Insist on (scientists) NOT proposing decisions of the political realm based on what we don’t know or on opinions, irrespective of who utters them. An opinion is fallible, political decisions have consequences in the immediate but also in the long run; some may lead to irreversible mistakes.
Political decisions should be taken based on what we know, and not on what we suspect, presume, fear or wish. Because what we suspect can be just nothing, a bogeyman.
Philosophically, the absence os knowledge is not a good ground on where to build. Just build on what is sure and safe, and wait to understand (at least a little better) what we don’t know now.
Financing with public moneys think tanks, international institutions like de IPCC, even university departments, so that they can freely make their living designing abstract scenarios that only exist in their imagination is a tremendous waste of money, human and material resources, and it only contributes to a sort of “moral wear and tear” of the societies. Most of all, these state resources are dis(mis)placed, as they could and should be used to solve real problems and to improve our lives where they can be improved. (Of course, I am against financing by the state “artists” just because they are “artists”; but nothing against them earning money selling their works to whoever wishes to buy: if their activity has a market, they should live from it. The same with think tanks: should be financed by who benefits from their work.)
And yes, one last argument (for now):don’t compromise the future of other, younger people. Hasty political decisions grounded on false bases are not good assets to let for those that will come after us. At 70 years of age, I am more and more convinced each day that passes that the best heritage that we can let to our descendants is the best world and living conditions that we can build for ourselves. So, don’t sacrifice the present on the altar of an imaginary future decades ahead, which will most certainly not be similar to any of the scenarios that we build today.
As Voltaire’s Candide said to his professor Pangloss, “Je sais qu’il faut cultiver notre jardin”. Allow our descendants the freedom to cultivate their gardens.
Just one thing – none of what follows “while accepting” have anything to do with one’s scientific position regarding the ridiculous notion of catastrophic changes to the Earth’s climate being caused by the relative pittance of human CO2 emissions, when atmospheric CO2 has never been demonstrably shown to “drive” anything.
Improving efficiency of machines? Sure, why not – as long as “efficiency” improvements are not at the expense of function.
Reasonable steps to reduce pollution? Absolutely – who would argue against that (assuming “pollutants” don’t include things that are not pollution, like CO2).
Reasonable building codes to deal with earthquakes, fire and flooding? Absolutely! I don’t want to effectively pay (through government “disaster relief,” insurance “pools” that artificially suppress insurance costs in such areas, etc.) for those who want to live in “high hazard” areas without paying for the risk of doing so themselves.
Not finding a cogent argument here.
Nor a currency with current civilization.
Pollution is very well controlled in many if not most Western Civilizations.
That is, there is already plenty of “reasonable” pollution control. EPA attempts to control certain elements/molecules to below natural levels is not reasonable!
“Improving efficiency of machines?” As AGW is Not Science points out, there are many quibbles about just what is “improving efficiency of machines?
The EPA has one concept and they happily derive regulations to force their version. Their efficiency is not efficiency to me. Why should I have to wait twice as long to fill a pitcher of water at the sink because EPA mandated certain efficiencies?
“Reasonable building codes?“? Just where are unreasonable building codes in place? All the conditions you bemoan are already covered in building codes.
Unless you believe that all building built before those codes came into existence must retrofit… A never ending task as building codes are updated every year.
Don’t forget that many of the commenters here are lukewarmers, myself included.
Lukewarmers are still skeptics!
CO₂ is a greenhouse gas even as illogical as that description is, CO₂ is interactive with the light spectrum, even though it intereacts with a pitiful few light wavelengths.
Alarmist rationale goes from “Oh! CO₂ is a GHG” to CO₂ is an evil molecule that will kill us all.
Leaving an astonishing amount of scientific territory below that CO₂ is the devil belief system.
You identify yourself as a lukewarmer but in your arguments you assume a scientific stance: you have chosen the side where you stand.
There is more to the world than Western civilizations. If you don’t think pollution is a problem you haven’t traveled very far.
In much of the world. Surely you have read about earthquakes which create modest damage and zero deaths in the US cause destruction and thousands of deaths in some parts of the world. I do appreciate the earthquakes aren’t a good example of climate issues but the same applies to fire wind and flood exposures.
Have you ever read a comment from someone whose comment about the “climate crisis” is that it doesn’t exist and we should do nothing? Even worse, some literally proposed to buy gas guzzlers and deliberately run them simply to annoy the warmists.
There is no “climate crisis” and we therefore should do nothing about it. There, I said it. The non-solutions to the imaginary “crisis” will do multitudes more damage to humanity than doing “nothing.”
Climate may be changing as always, but all we can do about that is all we will ever be able to do about that – adapt to the changes that actually occur, or die – and there is little we need do currently as nothing “dramatic” is occurring, despite all the breathless headlines.
All of which has nothing to do with mitigation of pollution, building codes, or “efficiency of machines.” None of these has anything to do with the climate.
Still don’t see a cogent argument.
We lukewarmers are on the side of science and always have been.
The science behind the misnamed greenhouse effect is solid and has been for well over a generation.
I think you have been downvoted by peole who didn’t understand what you are saying: Which I take to be that the very small effect of CO2 on radiation is real and well demonstrated and well understood and not disputed. What is at issue is the effect that that modulation of radiation will have on climate.
And here it is all about the feedback, what magnitide it is and what sign it is.
Alarmist have it large and positive. warmists have it very small. I myself suspect it is moderately negative, simply because that is consistent with the history of climate ex of man made emissions.
Only alarmists construct a scenario in which it is worth doing anything to prevent it. All other scenarios suggest being ready to simply mitigate its effects.
“Alarmist have it large and positive.”
Alarmists either
Ignorance or pushing a concealed (political) agenda?
“Luke-warmers have the science on their side”
Sounds a bit religious, that.
There is no side to Climate, only the arguments being made about why and how rapidly it is changing. One can agree with some arguments, partially agree with others, and consider the rest incorrect.
I believe that the natural climate is always changing for example, but that does not preclude impacts made by the activities of mankind. So it is the degree to which mankind is affecting climate and what the outcomes of those effects will be that interest me…or should interest me assuming there was not such a wild speculative and essentially hysterical set of arguments now being made by the Greenies.
It would not surprise me if mankind can be attributed some of the observed warming. It would surprise me to discover that it is as much as natural warming contributes. It would also surprise me if changes to land use and the darkening of snow packs by carbon do not contribute a lot to the sense that the world is warming faster than it actually is. And mostly, it would surprise me if the effects of the current rate of warming turn out to be any problem at all…after all most of the warming is in cooler places, at night, and tends to make the planet Earth more moderate. If people cannot build a decent seawall in 100 years maybe they should not be living in that place?
Your last paragraph says it all. There is a lot of scientific and common sense behind your words.
Of course only people who suffer from simplistic one dimensional Boolean thinking consider there are only two sides to anything.
To say that all warming is man made is as erroneous as to say that no warming is man made. Everything is connected, everything affects everything else, as a matter of degfinition.
The effect on climate of fossil fuel usage will vary somewhere along the range of inconsequential to deeply concening. But it will never be 100% nor will it ever be 0%
My guess is, after negative feedback, somewhere in the 0.1-0.5°C level, So pretty much inconsequential.
“Of course only people who suffer from simplistic one dimensional Boolean thinking consider there are only two sides to anything.”
I agree.
But my point was NOT that, I was not writting about “anything”: I was writting about the method to know anything: science and reason or suprstition and belief. Can you show, or formulate, any method in between those two?
“Anything” can objectively be measured, or it can be the result of a subjective opinion: what has been called “science” for centuries is on the former side, knowing by observing and describing (and eventualy finding the causes). From where I stand, the question is NOT to have an opinion somewhere in between, but saying “I don’t know”: in-between is the realm of “don’t know”, NOT of opinion; if we bring opinions there, we are practising some kind of superstition, or religion, but not science.
I have seen statements like this many times in discussions, but the gist of the argument is that lukewarmers should either become full-blown warmists or argue that man’s contribution to climate changes is zero. I reject that and I see that you do as well. It has always been my impression warmers buy into science, so I’m not sure I understand why you implore them to choose their side – they already have.
We are happily on the same side — supportive of science. Unfortunately, the warmists claim to have science on their side, so stating whether you support science isn’t a litmus test.
However I did misinterpret your original point and for that I apologize.
Thank you for the last sentence, not needed because one can guess it from your words. Anyway, very kind of you.
You touch one critical point that seldom enters the discussion: what is, or can be, that “litmus test”. I agree, it is not what each one declares to be. It should be what each one assumes in his thinking, writing, etc.: the facts and behaviours, not the words.
And that is a realy interesting question: what is the litmus? Perhaps using it would help resolve this political (and already social) problem of climate catastrophism; discussing small details and little facts will lead nowhere. But certainly you know that even regarding that litmus (a philosophical question, NOT a scientific problem) there are a few very conflicting and uncompromising schools of thought. (so, I don’t ask, as you did elsewhere, “How to convince the IPCC?”: I ask “How to convince the government?” or “How to convince the citizens, the voters?”. It is a political problem, not a scientific one, so its solution will never be scientific).
Nice to have met you, best regards (for sure we shall meet again here in WUWT).
Didn’t a previous IPCC conclude that only warming since the mid 1900s was significantly attributable to man? Is this change in position based on science or by force of selective consensus?
Overall, this post is excellent.
Die kalte Sonne points to the resurrection of the totally discredited hockey stick, finds the absurdity in a human contribution to a trend in extreme weather events even though that trend is zero, and argues the report leans too heavily on the implausible RCP 8.5 scenario. (It’s a clever approach — they can point out correctly that they list many other scenarios even while they know that the media will pick up on the RCP 8.5 projections)
However, I do have a minor quibble. The statement:
is not accurate based upon my cursory reading of the report. The report doesn’t argue that natural climate factors have been “switched off” — the conclusions are consistent with treating natural climate factors as still existing but averaging zero over long periods of time. This assumption doesn’t change the long-term projections but it does not mean they’ve assumed that the natural climate factors have gone away. (Please note carefully I am not defending their conclusion, simply pointing out that it doesn’t quite match this statement)
Stating that the natural factors zero out eventually is even more ridiculous a position?
How many years/centuries/millenia does it take to zero out? Eventually we will zero out the entire holocene as we go back into glaciation but what does that prove?
I agree. I think we should focus on the utterly discredited hockey stick right at the start. And yes, these side issues, while very importnat in themselves, serve as a distraction at this stage. The IPCC say they have included natural factors, they say they have included urban heat islands, and so on. In each case it turns out they are fraudulently or demonstrably illogically handled, but we’ve been distracted – we’re back down in the swamp with a knife between our teeth.
So let’s just look at that silly hockey stick – right at the start – and ask – where’s the medieval warm period, the little ice age or the Roman warm period? How come the vikings called Greenland Greenland, and farmed there? How come the Romans grew grapes for wine in Northern England, and how come the Thames Froze over? That was climate change!
It’s not the same hockeystick. Though it is derived from mannian type cherry picking and misused proxies.
See “The IPCC AR6 Hockeystick” by Stephen McIntyre.Stephen does a deep dive into the many mannian type approaches.
Translation: the conclusions are consistent with treating natural climate factors as irrelevant and blaming a non-factor like atmospheric CO2 as the “climate control knob.”
Which is exactly what the original quote speaks out against, since past climate changes that cannot be blamed on human CO2 emissions were every bit as much and/or as fast as anything currently occurring, so the “null hypothesis” is that said changes are natural as were past changes, absent some actual evidence otherwise, which they have none.
Well, we’ve had about 300 years of gradual warming from the Little Ice Age. Should we expect 300 years of cooling to “… averaging zero over long periods of time.?”
Please reread my comment. I emphasized that I wasn’t defending the assertion that natural factors average out, I was making an important distinction between averaging out and not existing. Averaging out does not imply not existing. That’s the point I was making.
The IPCC warming this year looks like that:
Noaa reanalyse 2 m temp Northern Amercia
Noaa reanalyse 2 m temp Asia
Noaa reanalyse 2 m temp Asia and South America
Welcome to the solar minimum of the cycle! Not that something similar happened before. Can clearly remember record snow in 2010/11 in central Europe. But the sun has no influence…
If I am not mistaken they even eradicated the old graph even if it denies already any impact from the sun:
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/figures/WGI_AR5_Fig8-17.jpg
Is it already too dangerous to even mention it at all?
One could really ask why IPCC not have been able to nail the ECS or (TCS) after more than 40 years of spending so much money. Maybe because they don’t want to show the actual values as it might stop the whole circus of agw. Many new scientific papers on this subject suggests ECS to be in the range 1-2C, but new papers also suggests that the actual value is in the range 0.4-1.0C. With such low values the agw hypothesis will show NO emergency and no need for IPCC at all. However IPCC rigorous claims that all their predictions are spot on, so we urgently need every IPCC prediction to be taken down using falsifiable data and serious science based on observation and best practices.
Quite interesting all the Greenhouse Theory is based on the thesis that the mean temperature of the Earth is 288K (15C) – guess what the present mean temperature is now just about 15C. So when you measure temperature from 1850 and up, you will see a rise in temperature because we have just raised from a low point back then to the mean temperature now, no alarming in that?
kind regards
SteenR
Since the temperature in my garden can vary several degrees K from spot to spot, I must assume it would take billions of accurate measurements averaged to arrive at a mean. Since this is a practical impossibility I have to assume that the estimate of earths average temperature has a possibility of error wider than the assumed recent warming. Perhaps all the recent warming is simply an artifact of the numbers.
Actually, satellites and radiosondes reveal some minor recent warming. Their trends, however, are significantly less than those of the adjusted surface temperatures. I’m also going to review the relevant sections of the UN IPCC CliSciFi AR6 to see how they treat satellite temperature estimates.
One could also ask why the IPCC has never even ventured to answer the question of whether a rise in the mean temperature of a sliver of atmosphere on Earth over time is due to the highs getting higher, or the lows not getting as low. One would think that that would be fundamental to projecting the future of climates around the world, yet the question is ignored completely. It’s not as if we don’t have the data to find out.
Because “Global Milding” is no “catastrophe” they can “sell” to the masses.
The real irony is the human influence on weather from building worse-than-useless wind farms is probably more of an issue than all the CO2 we will ever emit, and they haven’t even given that a moment’s thought.
Always have been curios about it cause it just can’t have no impact. That would violate the law of energy conservation.
Can’t probably be a lot globally but locally is a different story and maybe interesting in the context of precipitation.
Well if more incoming is balanaced by more outgoing radiation the net effect at the ecosphere – ground level – is essentially zero.
Once again we are trapped by the binary nature of many words which are used to describe what are more or less analogue states in the world.
Exactly. When you extract a considerable quantity of energy from the wind and convert that into mechanical energy to turn turbines, that obviously is going to have effects on the weather. Certainly more of an effect than the “butterfly flapping its wings in Peking causing New York to have rain instead of sunshine” of “chaos theory” fame.
To say nothing of the ecological effects of killing large numbers of birds, bats and insects on various food chain, pollination and pest control dynamics.
What they are doing with wind and, to a lesser extent, solar is the equivalent of building a dam and expecting the water flow down river from the dam will be unaffected. And they haven’t given it the slightest thought in their zeal to shove wind ‘power’ and solar ‘power’ down people’s throats – all while presenting themselves as “friends of the ‘environment’.”
Simple – they don’t want to as their task is to justify the UNFCCC and NOT to objectively look at climate science. As one of our esteemed contributors here has said in the past, the IPCC is a climate change advocacy group.
And once again, this “value” is based on the assumption “all other things held equal.” ANY “sensitivity” is purely hypothetical.
In reality, observations show absolutely no “sensitivity” of temperature to atmospheric CO2 at all.
We get dragged into this cesspool of hypothetical bullshit over and over. Arguing about the “degree” of something never empirically demonstrated to exist in reality is a fool’s errand.
I dont think that position holds water. To have no effect whastoever would be to violate the principles of causailty and the current laws of physics. At best we might assert that any variation due to CO2 is below the level of reliable detectability.
Not saying “no effect,” just “no effect on temperature.”
Multiple observations of reverse correlation in that respect pretty much seal the deal on that notion, and other observations nix any notion of “runaway” effects borne of CO2 levels.
Maybe the effect is a bit more cloud cover, or more precipitation, but it certainly isn’t the driver of the Earth’s temperature when multiple episodes of reverse correlation between CO2 and temperature lasting centuries can be seen in the climate record.
CO2 doesn’t dictate the Earth’s temperature any more than exhaust coming from your car’s tail pipe dictates the direction your car heads in.
I’ll be carefully reviewing the sections of the UN IPCC CliSciFi AR6 dealing with their processes for determining TCR and ESC. I’m interested in learning why they ignored the numerous observationally determined values conducted over the past number of years.
Searching for the pony?
“With all that shit, there’s got to be a pony in there somewhere.”
LMAO – I’m going to have to adopt that one legally!
“Observationally determined values” assume that CO2 is the cause of temperature change, and they have no evidence of that, it is merely an assumption pinned on their belief in their pet hypothesis and their willfully ignoring its basic implicit assumption of “all other things held equal.”
And Turkeys dont vote for Christmas.
Yes, that’s exactly right. They “don’t want the truth because deep down in places you don’t talk about at parties, you want
me on that wall.ESC to be at least 3.“One should read Donna Laframboise’s book on the serial dishonesties of the IPCC. Has it got better since the days of Rajendra Pachauri when pal review and Mikey Mann as chapter leader promoting his own work were prevalent? Plus lies about paper provenance and review. I wonder
“One notices in the report that it’s primarily political”
Hardly surprising when the IPCC’s authors are chosen by governments and the SPM itself is authored according to governments’ needs and has to be signed off by those governments as well.
It’s a farce.
Maurice Strong said it several years before the IPCC that global warming would make a near perfect fund and influence raising opportunity before the beginning of the IPCC.
So the PTB set the perimeters of discussion and everyone follows? Climategate exposed AGW as a fraud 12 years ago, so why is everyone ignoring factual reality? It’s like indulging a child’s fantasy, but instead of toddlers it’s psychopaths.
Faucigate is another one; the little man was exposed as a fraud just two months, but he’s baaack, spewing tyrannical bulls*it out of that smug face and who cares what the silent majority thinks and tyranny is the obvious agenda. And tyrants always use fear and censorship, to use the mother of all lies they’ve conjured a carbon jackboot to crush our liberty, don’t kid yourself. They’re just having ‘fun’ with the plandemic; scared and muzzled sheeple are a duper’s delight.
But since the PTB only fool a small minority, they faithfully follow Rules for Radicals #1: ‘Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have’; and #1b: ‘Whatever you do, don’t let the enemy know their own power or we’re f****d!’ So good people should stop being their useful idiots and go for the juggler. Tyrants are terrified of the truth, it’s pure and deadly like water on the witch, so I guess the question is, are we courageous men or compliant munchkins?
Sorry, hit ‘post’ before correcting.
The juggler was the one who was supposed to deflect the King from making a big mistake.
The masses must be controlled. It does not have to be a reasonable, sensible or kind control. All must be forced to file in the same direction even if it is over the cliff. Leadership by whip is still leadership. Truth is unimportant. Only results matter.
The difficulty is determining the real goals of our leaders so as to counter them if necessary.
You are bound to step in dog poo if you never look down but bird poo comes from above.
That is the most nonsensical rant I have ever done, but it was fun.
…go for the juggler. I think it’s go for the jugular (as in the vein in the throat), but come to think of it – I like juggler as well. Tyants are also terrified of ridicule – so let’s go for that.
I think Linda had it right.
When confronted by a hostile group of clowns, go for the juggler.
Absolutely! In a cafe the usual cry if staff drop anything loudly on the floor is to “sack the juggler!” So, when one of these idiots have dropped a clanger, one should go straight for the juggler – you know it makes sense!
You don’t prove this report was weaker than other reports
It needs proving? The tendentious 41-page ‘summary for policymakers’ document, was written by a committee in cahoots with governments around the world. It is all about projections of doom and catastrophe, based on computer models.
The CMIP6 models are producing even more warming than the CMIP5 models did and they were hopelessly wrong.
Keep da faith, brother
** STOP FEEDING THE TROLL **
A simple scalar to estimate a nonlinear, unwieldy, incompletely, and, in fact, insufficiently, characterized (chaotic) system and processes. So, they selected a sacrificial atom and element, and normalize a wicked solution to an actual hard problem: past reconstructions and future predictions. We have, indeed, made great progress ([unqualified] monotonic change): one step forward, two steps backward.
I cannot believe there aren’t serious — and well-known — scientists out there who can do anything other than look at this report and question its contents. Where are the Richard Feynmans, great scientists who would at very least have offered a more balanced view, looked at the hard evidence and put things into perspective.
The world just seems full of scientists who are either so left wing they’re prepared to let their politics get in the way of truth or so focused on “sound-bite physics” for TV contracts, which they’re terrified of losing by speaking out.
What a dreadful state of affairs we’ve now reached. Has the quality of academia ever been so low, with free speech under threat and politics and fear overriding everything? I cannot recall a time like it and I’m well into my 60s.
Scientists who do not have solid climate science credentials will be dismissed. Scientists who do have solid employment science credentials have to worry about future grant proposals.
Scientists interested in studying the mating habits of grasshoppers know the uphill challenge to get adequate funding for such a study, and they have learned that studying the mating habits of grasshoppers in the context of climate change greatly increases their chance of getting a grant. But if they do the studying conclude that climate change doesn’t have any impact that may be their last grant approval for anything to do with climate.
I have a three-year-old and one-year-old grandchild and teaching them about the magic words please and thank you. Those work for kids — adult scientists have learned that the magic word, when applying for a grant, is “climate change”.
It takes a courageous person like Judith Curry, who was willing to give up her university post and chances and grants from the usual sources to speak the truth. We need more due Judith Curry’s but if you are an ambitious scientist in the early part of your career, you may not be willing to commit career suicide.
All too true, I fear. On top of all that we have the politics. All the left-wing people I know — many are good friends — cannot accept that academics are like everyone else, with bills to pay and mouths to feed; and that as a result academics are not prepared to rock the boat. All the right wing people I know — again, many are good friends — take the view, like me, that the science is extremely doubtful.
However, there are still high ranking scientists out there who must be able to see what’s going on. I do a lot of mathematical and statistical analysis and can see for myself the huge issues involved with the climate modelling, so there must be scientists in other fields, such as physics, who can see this as well.
It’s the same with statisticians. Climate models NEVER have confidence intervals associated with them, despite this being a key requirement for any robust model, yet nobody questions this. I know why the confidence intervals aren’t quoted, of course, but so must all the other statisticians who look at this stuff. Why aren’t THEY questioning this?
It begs a lot of questions…
Money … Power … Prestige … Fear.
For the genuine scientists who do know better, it’s all about the fear of losing a career that took decades to build. Especially those with families to support.
Indeed it is. I have met so many scientists who are absolutely skeptical, deeply mitsrustful, simply do not know, and they all share one common characteristic. They keep their mouths shut and the grant money rolling in.
The noise doesnt come from scientists – it comes from wannabe intellectuals and PR companies.
I’m nigh 80 and dread what lies ahead for my grandchildren and their progeny.
The IPCC is not skating on thin ice because the ice is gone – melted by all this global warming. Perhaps they think they can walk on water but that too is humanly impossible. They are literally between the devil and the deep blue sea.
The pivot will begin:
“Well, even if our number is wrong, it’s still good for the environment to cut back on CO2”
When the voting populace realise that nothing these climate enthusiasts has ever done has ‘been good for the environment’ then heads might start to roll, metaphorically speaking.
I’m unsure it will be metaphorical. I think Tommy Wils answered what would happen back in climategate emails, which would be why they fight so hard to maintain the narrative. They are starting to look like Hitler in his bunker, screaming at the walls as the Soviet army closes in.
There have been many of those memes using the Bruno Gantz rant scene from “Downfall”, i think its time for someone to produce one regarding the collapsing consensus on AGW?
No trend of extreme weather. Victor Davis Hanson said the crushing weight of lies will snap the spine of those asked to carry and disseminate them. He was speaking of wokism and the failure of the cultural revolution but it could apply to all intentional lies carried out for a purpose.
If they are not lies then the information so strongly put forth on climate change is bad science. No trend in extreme weather.
Here ist the statement of William Happer at the public hearing of the Bundestag (German Parliament), 21 July, 2021.
https://www.bundestag.de/resource/blob/848534/5e565ef29607bb8b04f53cb4acd39683/Prof-Dr-em-William-Happer-Princeton-University-data.pdf
At the end of the public hearing it seemed, that the president of the public hearing (a “very green” lady) was “somewhat” frustrated.
The main statement concerning ECS in Mr. Happer´s statement:
“There is no theoretical support for CO2 changes being a major factor in climate change. Instantaneously doubling CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, a 100% increase, only decreases the thermal radiation to space by about 1%. To first approximation, this would raise the average temperature of the Earth by a bit less than 1 C. To predict larger temperature rises, fanciful positive feedbacks have been added to climate models. But, as summarized by Le Chatelier’s Principle, most feedbacks in nature are negative,
not positive: When a settled system is disturbed, it will adjust to diminish the change that has been made to it. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Chatelier%27s_principle, n.d.
Thanks for this. Happer is always delightful and executes the kill with a minimum effort.
Here is the video of the public hearing including also some slides from Mr. Happer:
https://www.bundestag.de/dokumente/textarchiv/2021/kw25-pa-umwelt-847518
Again thanks Hari. Andy should really pick up on this current impact appearance by Happer for a separate item on WUWT. I have made a nice pdf out of the German translation and will be happy to share Happer by e-mail.
Here is the video on youtube (only the interview with Mr. Happer):
Hari, thanks for bringing Dr. Happer’s statement to our attention. He seems to summarize the issues with the climate scare narrative very well. I have bookmarked it for future reference.
All the parliaments and legislatures of the world need to hear this, especially here in the U.S.
We need an army of Happers to put an end to the Climate Fascism and CO2 fetishism. Let’s hope he reached a few of the “believers.”
You’re lying, the article says nothing about peak oil. It does state that China uses proportionately more coal than oil or gas. Most people who follow energy use around the world know that and know that China is planning to expand their use of coal through 2030.
Either you know that you’re lying in which case you have an agenda that just isn’t supported by the facts or you’re perseverating on a paranoid delusion in which case you should seek mental health care.
Y’know – I want to say ‘a’ and give him the benefit of the doubt, but all of his posts point to ‘b’.
Nope!
Wrong again.
Try reading the title you posted: “china-sticks-goal-carbon-emissions-peak-2030”
Yeah, but China also didn’t have a mysterious lung disease in December 2019 if you’d asked.
Shuttup, spammer.
This article expressed opinions…the same as you and now I am doing in the comments section.
So either you wasted everyone’s time on purpose, or you think there is something helpful in expressing one’s comments, and therefore the article was helpful.
Equally curious is that the report now sees a man-made component in extreme weather quite definitely.
You only need to look at N hemisphere weather over the last 3 months to know that we have climate change causing extreme weather.
Dear Mr. Griff,
pls, find below an illustration of the same flooding event in Germany in 1804 as it has happened again in July 2021 on the same place. Yes, partially you are right: The catastrophe has been mainly man-made, because the affected settlemens have been built practically in riverbeds. However, this has nothing to do with weather, climate, CO2, etc.
Sorry, here is the illustration:
You only need to look at N hemisphere weather over the last 3 months
Phew! For a moment I thought you were going to quote the Met Office.
3 months is not a trend, it’s a duff summer.
Oh please let’s quote the Met Office – they’ve gone from predicting a long hot August heatwave to predicting the dates when we could expect the heatwave and now the latest is that we shouldn’t expect a heatwave, there will be quite a lot of rain showers and people may get some hot, sunny spells in between. It’s absolutely laughable that this is a modern meteorological organisation that has spent several fortunes on state of the art equipment and yet cannot make accurate predictions more than about 2 days in advance. That is what you get when you replace experienced, knowledgeable professionals with inexperienced computer geeks and their new toy.
Perhaps, ineffable dunce giffie is referring to the sudden increase in Northern Hemisphere ice?
… is NOT climate change.
Since when was “climate” defined as “weather over the last 3 months”?
You are right!
There are people who detect polution by smell.
And that childish lady, Greta, can see CO2.
There are psychics that can do anything we can imagine. For instance, “knowing” the effect of “the last three months” in a multidecadal average of annual values…
griff will continue this lie until the new talking points memo comes out.
What happened in the N hemisphere?
Except of one flood that happens once within every century at the same place and arsonist running amok around the mediterranean sea nothing comes to mind.
So what is it?
The IPCC report confirms that rising heat is saving lives, and rising CO2 is greening the world.
The IPCC confirms that climate change indeed has increased heatwaves. However, the report equally firmly, if virtually unacknowledged, tells us that global warming means “the frequency and intensity of cold extremes have decreased.”
This matters because globally, many more people die from cold than from heat. A new study in the highly respected journal Lancet shows that about 500,000 people die from heat per year, but 4,500,000 people die from cold.
As temperatures have increased over the past two decades, that has caused an extra 116,000 heat deaths each year. This, of course, fits the narrative and is what we have heard over and over again. But it turns out that because global warming has also reduced cold waves, we now see 283,000 fewer cold deaths.
· You don’t hear this, but so far climate change saves 166,000 lives each year.
· People continue to move to the Palm Springs Desert, but nobody is moving to Siberia.
It also mentions climate upsides like the fact that more CO₂ in the atmosphere has acted as a fertilizer and created a profound global greening of the planet. One NASA study found that over a period of 35 years, climate change has added an area of green equivalent to twice the size of the continental United States.
But don’t expect to read about this in any of the breathless IPCC articles on the climate impact on weather fatalities, or the CO2 greening of the world.
How about supplying your detailed analysis of the report? It is easy to criticize, especially when you feel no need to “give specific examples.” How about demonstrating that you have the ‘Right Stuff’ to independently analyze a complex topic and make it comprehensible to an audience with a wide background? Your whining is tedious.
Put up, or please, shut up!
** STOP FEEDING THE TROLL **
I see a problem coming on. The IPCC will run out of colours. What comes after ‘code red’?
Ooh – code blue perhaps, then they can say that Gaia needs emergency medical treatment, perhaps some sort of cosmic defibrillator!
“A serious mistake that misinforms politicians…”
No mistake, the point is to misinform so that politicians have cover for economy and standard of living destroying policies that benefit a few politically connected billionaires who will receive subsidies that provide a government guaranteed profit for useless activities.
OT ! (but might be of great interest)
Ouch !
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9881213/-Hunter-Biden-claiming-
Sounds as if they have run out of ideas, or are SO BORED with dreaming up “hell on earth” situations that they are recycling their own lies !!!!
A very good analysis. I agree that narrowing the sensitivity range has no basis. The models are hotter while a lot of observational studies are lower, so the range is actually widening.
The “thin air” graphic is fun too.
I like it – “Stained Scientists”.
Unfortunately they have also placed a stain ON science as a profession.
Some very interesting analysis here, but on the way to curing the IPCC of its myriad faults, I would be interested to hear some ideas on how to rid internet forums of serial pests such as the insufferable new Mark Ingraham.
As a starting point some sort of blocking function might be a worthwhile development.
I talked to a friend of mine today, and he had apparently seen the Climate Change Hype coming out of the IPCC, and he told me he was worried about the future and how higher temperatures would detrimentally affect his crops.
I told him I was familiar with the IPCC Climate Change claims and it was all BS, and he and his crops had nothing to worry about from CO2.
We then proceeded on to talk about other subjects.
Question: have IPCC models ever been run into the far future, beyond 2100, to see what would happen? And did it show runaway greenhouse warming?
Whatever happened your pretense to be conservative and to find alarmists offensive?
Gone with the wind when the fake reports you adore appear on the scene.
Back to your basement, trollop!
** STOP FEEDING THE ingraham TROLL **
“Ignore him. His statements look even dumber when nobody bothers to respond.” (dhoffer)
“The researchers who favor a value below 2.5°C/2xCO2 have strong scientific arguments”
No increase in water vapour hence all we have is the warming from CO2. Thats the principle argument we have.
NVAP-M ISCCP etc. WV is not increasing. CO2 is safe, and beneficial.
By the time you apply feedbacks, you don’t even have the (purely hypothetical) warming from CO2. They merely assume CO2 causes warming, and misattribute any and all temperature increase to it.
The one mistake here is, I believe, the notion that politicians are being deceived. More likely it is the politicians who are pressuring the IPCC to torture the report to make the most alarmist interpretation they can, which they then wave in front of their gullible populations, like Boris Johnsons declaring “this makes sober reading.”
“One notices in the report that it’s primarily politically and less scientifically anchored.”
You don’t say?
Is this the end of the road for meat consumption? (msn.com)
‘The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that feeds scientific input into the UN has advocated for a shift to more plant-based food consumption to combat climate change.’
To date,the IPCC has a perfect record,so it may be getting to be a tough act to follow.
Over 30 years and wrong every time.
Your dart throwing drunk stock picking chimpanzee has a better chance of being correct ..
It takes religious zeal to be so wrong and so certain,almost as is they indulge in Policy Based Evidence Manufacturing..
Oh right,I recall some emails back in 2009,and some stunningly corrupt “Public inquiries” otherwise known as “A Blinder Well Played”..
That the IPCC still exists is more a comment on systemic political corruption than any window into the workings of our climate.
The desire to be gulled,apparently still dominates our effete elites,who are well past”Let them eat cake” and are now demanding the peasants all be shot as “The peasants are revolting”.
Get your government Goo,it is Double Plus Good for you..
Same bunch of “Helpers”..
See a pattern yet?
Parasites gotta do what they do.
The alternative is too hideous for them to contemplate..”Work”?
The UN has stood for Useless Nutjobs,for decades now.
A massive International bureaucracy where bureaucrats go as a reward for their localized destruction..
These are the people that make the International Olympic Committee look ethical and honest .
The minions all mindlessly chant;
“We are from the Government,we are here to help you”,left unsaid is what they are helping you into..
Which seems to be perpetual slavery,for the benefit of these “helpers”.
The follow on from decades of Climatology,seems to be this Dread Covid Theatre,same players,same deceit.
Same hatred of the “masses”.
Code Red?
Sounds more like Code Brown.
“Why aren’t the peasants cheering?”
Gang Green plus accountability equals Brown Shorts,for Brown Shirts..
We are way past “Fire Them All”.