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.
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”.