Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
The new UN IPCC Assessment Report 6 (AR6) is out, available here. They make it quite clear that a good chunk of what is in the report is not science. Instead, it is the opinions of scientists. They describe what they are using, for example, as:
… structured expert judgement (i.e., a formal, calibrated method of combining quantified expert
assessments that incorporate all potential processes)
First off, there’s no way to know if they’ve included “all potential processes”. We don’t know that much about the climate, and new discoveries are made monthly. Next, what is a “quantified expert assessment” when it’s at home? A numerical guess that they’ve thought a lot about?
And what is the “formal, calibrated method” for combining a bunch of numerical guesses made by “experts”?
Here’s the description of how they assess the likelihood of something, as well as how much confidence they have in that assessment of the likelihood (emphasis mine).
Throughout this Technical Summary, key assessment findings are reported using the IPCC calibrated uncertainty language (Chapter 1, Box 1.1). Two calibrated approaches are used to communicate the degree of certainty in key findings, which are based on author teams’ evaluations of underlying scientific understanding:
(1) Confidence is a qualitative measure of the validity of a finding, based on the type, amount, quality and consistency of evidence (e.g., data, mechanistic understanding, theory, models, expert judgment) and the degree of agreement; and
(2) Likelihood provides a quantified measure of confidence in a finding expressed probabilistically (e.g., based on statistical analysis of observations or model results, or both, and expert judgement by the author team or from a formal quantitative survey of expert views, or both.
A few notes on this quote. First, “evidence” in their world is not just data, observations, and mechanistic and theoretical understanding. “Evidence”, for them, also includes models and expert judgment. As a man who has programmed computer models of a host of systems, I can assure you that model output is “evidence” only in the very simplest of systems. That’s why Boeing and Airbus use wind tunnels to test physical scale models of proposed airplanes whose design is based on computer model outputs … because model outputs aren’t evidence.
And “expert judgment”, whether it is from one expert or “expert judgment by the author team or from a formal quantitative survey of expert views”, is not evidence in any sense. It’s valuable, to be sure, but a hundred years ago “expert judgment” said malaria was caused by lack of hygiene and fresh air, said ulcers were caused by stress, and said that continental plates couldn’t move … was that “evidence”?
It is hubris of the highest order to think that is not happening now in a variety of fields.
In any case, I thought I’d take a look to see just how good their “expert judgment” might be. I noted that they have a new “Sea Level Projection Tool” to give us their expert judgment on what sea-level rise might be in various areas around the planet.
Figure 1. Screenshot of the UN IPCC Sea Level Projection Tool. For a number of locations (blue dots), it gives both future levels and future rates of rise by decade, starting in the 2020s.
Now, I’ve written about sea level before, including discussing one of the best and longest records in the world. This is the San Francisco record, measured about an hour and a half south of where I write this. Here is that record.
Figure 2. San Francisco sea-level record.
In common with about 80% of the long-term sea-level records, there’s no sign of any acceleration in the rate of sea-level rise in San Francisco, either overall or during the last half-century. The sea-level rise has been stable for a century and a half at 2 mm per year, which is just under 8 inches per century.
So with that as prologue, what would the simplest prognostication be for the future San Francisco sea level rise? Me, I’d say given that there’s been a steady 2 mm rise for 170 years, the first guess would be not much different from 2 mm per year … particularly in the current decade, the 2020s.
And what do the UN IPCC models and the “expert judgment” tell us about the future sea-level rise in San Francisco? It depends on the “Scenario”. The UN IPCC uses five different scenarios. In order of increasing CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions, and thus in order of increasing theoretical temperature rise, they are called the “1.9”, “2.6”, “4.5”, “7.0”, and “8.5” scenarios. In addition, for sea-level rise there are two “low confidence” scenarios. They say:
Two low-confidence scenarios, indicating the potential effect of low-likelihood, high-impact ice sheet processes that cannot be ruled out, are also provided. … Global mean sea level rise above the likely range – approaching 2 m by 2100 and 5 m by 2150 under a very high GHG emissions scenario (SSP5-8.5) (low confidence) – cannot be ruled out due to deep uncertainty in ice sheet processes.
With that as prologue, here are their median (50% quantile) projections of the rate of rise of future San Francisco sea levels, by decade, for those seven different scenarios.
Figure 3. UN IPCC projected rates of sea-level rise by decade. These are the median values.
(Let me note that this reveals one of the huge benefits of this kind of analysis for their “experts”—almost regardless of what the sea level does in the future, they can truthfully say “See, we projected that!”. But I digress …)
However, there’s a deeper and much more serious problem. To highlight it, here are the four least extreme scenarios, 1.9 through 7.0.
Figure 4. Same as in Figure 3, but for the four least extreme scenarios. Again, these are the median values.
I’m sure that you can see the problem. In their “expert judgment” of the model results, the median result (50% quantile) of the models for San Francisco sea-level rise for the current decade is 4 mm per year … say what? It’s been half of that for 170 years, and it’s suddenly gonna double this decade?
Now, at present we’re 2 years into the decade of the 2020s … so for the entire decade to average 4 mm per year, the rate would have to start accelerating today and continue accelerating to the point where it would hit about 7.5 mm per year by 2029. Only then would the decade average 4 mm per year.
It gets worse. The high estimates of sea-level rise (the 95% quantile) give San Francisco rates of rise ranging from 6.4 to 11.6 mm per year … for the current decade.
Sorry, but this is not science in any form. This is a joke. There’s no way on this earth that during the 2020s the average San Francisco sea level rise will average either 4 mm per year or 8 mm per year.
Bear in mind that this is the result of “a formal, calibrated method of combining quantified expert assessments that incorporate all potential processes”. Doesn’t that make you feel all warm and fuzzy about the rest of the UN IPCC AR6 claims?
So remember this monumental sea-level rise madness whenever someone points out that “the IPCC says” something about the future … their “expert judgement by the author team or from a formal quantitative survey of expert views” may not be worth a bucket of warm spit.
My very best to everyone—even in these parlous, fractious times, life is good.
w.
My Invariable Request: When you comment, please quote the exact words you are referring to. It avoids endless misunderstandings.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Their estimates of sea level rise are something between WAG and pure POOMA.
Yes but they have a formal, calibrated method of combining those WAGs and POOMAs that incorporate all potential processes, so it’s all good 😉
PMOL to the IPCC … “as in pull my other leg”
Channeling JFK…(moon speech)
“We institutionalize science for
the sake of the Climate Change steamroller
in this Decade and do the other things,
not because they are truthful
but because they are scary
And will motivate people to give up
both their rights and freedoms
and make them want to give US Absolute Power”
To the best of my knowledge, there is no scientific field that would ever consider using this process of expert guessing to settle an actual science issue. DEFUND THE IPCC now.
We have just seen this same scenario play out with COVID and the NIH in the US. The experts have been guessing for 18 months now, and they are still either wrong or unsure.
“calibrated”. IOW, it measures up to what we decided was the required outcome.
I don’t know what WAGs and POOMAs are but I do know that four Claratyne tablets are a good initial dose derived from structurally expert judgment of a calibrated method of observing and analysing empirical evidence on how to stop diarrhoea, otherwise known as putting a cork in it.
There could be a never before seen major solar flare that melts Antarctica. Who knows what such people dream about at night?
Then they should keep their hands over the duvet!
And that would be from a never before experienced therefore unprecedented, BUT WELL MODELED, feedback loop caused by an interaction between INCREASING CO2 and the increased Polar Auroras activity caused by a more energetic sun…
Wink wink
The 62Mt rock that is heading toward Earth at 30km/s only needs a slight nudge to shift the trajectory directly toward Earth. It is so close that it will pass between Earth and moon and through the path of some of the higher orbit satellites.
If it hit Earth, I predict humans would then know what climate change looks like.
About 1/2 the weight of a loaded logging truck. With a good load bonus these are often seen approaching 30 km/s.
The Figure 3 clearly shows a total disconnect from reality.
You forgot the SOMP
But isn’t there a structural issue in estimating covariance between WAG and POOMA, and wouldn’t they need to be constantly re-calibrated to the sensitivity of the re-cal-ibrator via the means of advance multi-variate occular re-regression? I think we need to convene a committee to commission a study on the need to reconfirm this.
The format appears entirely different from AR5.
No way to compare the two, what changed, what got dropped, what was quietly swept under the rug.
Where is AR6’s version of AR5’s TS 6 Key Uncertainties?
Did they resolve the huge unknowns in TS 6?
Bait & switch, used car salesman hocus pocus.
Not that it matters.
See previous comments.
They are not even pretending any more. They’ve gone full moron.
The 8.6 forecast is fun, it is put there especially for the Guardian so they can headline :
IPCC report shows sea level rise may be as much as one foot per decade by 2150 !!
I’ll wait and see.
You know what, even at luney crazy level of a foot per decade, there’s plenty of time to build dikes around the vulnerable stuff and other mitigation strategies, that will be cheaper, less disruptive and more reliable than all the insanity recommended by the Church of Greta.
That why the whole issue just leaves me shaking my head. Back in the 90s, one could have stimulating discussions of nuclear power, solar power satellites, ocean fertilization, vast areas of the Arctic blooming. But now it’s just a suicide cult that demands blood now to stop a sci-fi future pulled out of L. Ron Hubbard ass, that has mesmerized the ambulance chasing media with the doomsday stupidity.
Really, science, business and the political class are totally off the rails. King Louis and Marie Antoinette where genuises compared to the whole brain trust running the world now.
With the exception of the Chinese and Russians, at least they act like they know the climate is fairly stable, and are smart enough to take advantage of climate-stupid politicians.
Take a look at NOAA’s Boston Harbor tide gauge. From 1920 to 2020 the sea rose 2.87 mm / year with no increase in the rate of rise. The graph is a straight line for 100 years.
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=8443970
As I mentioned in the head post, “no acceleration” is the norm for sea level records rather than the exception. I probably should write a post on this question.
w.
Please, do!
There is a lot of confusion in the use of the terms, “speed”, “rise”, “accelerated” (very common in mainstream media, when they simply mean an increase or a fast increase, irrespective of its being steady or accelerated). Not to mention the confusion of sea level rise with subsidence.
Yes Willis, a post on the ‘no acceleration’ issue would be very useful if you have the time/inclination. Especially so if you could update and expand on your previous posts on the satellite record vs. tide gauge issue, just how reliable GIA is, etc.
Not only no acceleration, Willis, but on our side of the Pacific [Aust] the old sea wall that I helped build in 1946 which the [normal BP] king tides used to often just cover and trickle into our well if we didn’t keep a levy around it, nowadays are up to a foot LOWER and never higher.
Tom Wysmuller already did.
Sadly Tom Wysmuller passed away a few weeks ago. Another great skeptical figure gone…
I had the pleasure of attending one of his talks at the Porto Conference a few years ago and he gave a very good and memorable presentation.
Please write it in a manner that will be understood and accepted by some of these warmish people. They don’t get the scientific reason why 4, 8 or 30mm/year sealevel rise is so difficult to achieve.
Take a random look at the PSMSL viewer. There are lots – lots – of places with trivial sea level rise and few with any rise above 3 mm/yr
Willis, thanks for catching this “anomaly” by the geniuses in IPCC. If only the science writers at NPR, Gaurdian, BBC, NYT, etc were able to analyze and think as clearly. AR6 will be touted as the be-all and end-all report while pulling more wool over the eyes of the sheep.
Some of the useful idiots are in on the scam but most are terrified little lambs that have been convinced that the sky will, indeed, fall on their heads. They will realise in time that they have been scammed then they’ll get very angry.
Sad to say it, but I’m not holding my breath for that. This scam has been going on for many decades, with the clamor getting louder and louder, and yet I see no evidence of the “terrified little lambs” even beginning to question it.
Regrettably, Richard, it takes a very long time to reach the point where enough people are angry. The first few get demonised (jailed if possible) so that the next few decide not to show their heads above the parapet (sorry about the mixed metaphor) and then the next few after that can see no-one objecting so maybe their own thoughts are wrong, etc, etc. And all the time the media will be pumping out the propaganda. Only with a free press is it impossible to fool everyone all the time.
Ah yes. Yearning for a free press. The good ol’ days. I remember.
Try to post something to https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2021/08/a-tale-of-two-hockey-sticks/?unapproved=794432&moderation-hash=13ffeaa54a7739a2d3503200ee5a0101#comment-794432 and see that the truth will never see the light of day on this public funded web site that this clown, Gavin Schmid, runs and see when the anger factor kicks in.
RealClimate, funded by unwilling taxpayers and run during work hours by Gavin Schmidt, Michael Mann, William Connolley, etc., and funded by George Soros through Fenton Communications. Climateprogress, funded by George Soros’ string puppet Joe Romm, etc. And the new “Climategate Chairman,” funded by the heavily pro-AGW Grantham Foundation…
VS
WattsUpWithThat, funded by a few dollars a day in ad revenue, and mostly by voluntary reader contributions.
Question: Which ones are “well funded and well organized,” and which one is actually serving the general public interest?
Only a few real scientists, including disgraced Dr. James Hansen and corrupt Dr. Mario Molina, support climate alarmism. The rest are serial perjurer Michael Mann and countless practitioners of environmental studies and climate change science.
Climate alarmism is a huge fraud that is riding a gravy train of enormous size. The climate change industry alone boasts an annual revenue of $1.5T (yes, $1.5 trillions). It’s likely an exaggeration but there are still hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayers money that are spent on climate alarmism promotion – the largest PR operation in history.
Did thee IPCC experts include the evidence, as from the Pacific Islands, where they subtracted subsidence from relative sea rise? I suspect not
As discussed here https://perhapsallnatural.blogspot.com/2021/07/islands-of-truth-emerging-from-murky.html
Research shows “after subtracting subsidence effects from the +1.3 mm/year average relative sea level rise, the average absolute rate of rise computed to an astonishingly low +0.125 mm/year; with no signs of acceleration or evidence of thermal expansion”
Here is the data
Jim, what do the V, W, and U correspond to?
Table 1 and Figure 9 present a summary of the tide gauge and GPS results for the LTT stations of Oceania. v is the relative rate of rise of the sea level, a the acceleration of the sea level, w the absolute vertical velocity of the tide gauge, u the absolute rate of rise of the sea level. The table also proposes as w the GIA vertical velocities VM2 from [4, 24].
https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/nleng-2020-0007/html
Now, can I guess what similarity there is between the geology of Honolulu and Auckland?
If Jim will excuse my butting in, they are rates of sea level rise.
It seems to come from this paper.
Relative sea-level rise and land subsidence in Oceania from tide gauge and satellite GPS (degruyter.com)
Which says:
In the above regressions, if y represents sea level relative to a fixed datum, and x represents time, then in a linear regression, v in equation 1 represents the velocity of sea level rise.
In equation 3, what is the “absolute vertical position” of a GPS antenna? Relative to what datum? A satellite, whose orbital radius can change much faster than sea level? Why would the “absolute vertical position” of a GPS antenna vary with time?
If a quadratic regression such as equation 2 results in a better fit (r^2 value closer to 1.0) than a linear regression, then the “a” term (coefficient of x^2) would represent an acceleration in mm/yr^2. But for a regression over a very long period of time (which tends to smooth out short-term variations) the “a” (or acceleration) term should be close to zero. Only if the people doing the regression cherry-pick a short time frame where sea-level rise was slower near the beginning and faster near the end can a value of “a” be calculated that is significantly greater than zero.
If a non-zero acceleration is regressed from equation 2, then the instantaneous rate of sea level rise at time x is the derivative of equation 2, or dy/dx = B’ + 2ax.
WTF?
I just quoted the linked paper to answer the nomenclature question.
Not my work.
And add the fact that many Pacific islands have been growing, especially the ones most crying for climate cash.
These are the sorts of analyses one uses when the data does not support the claims one wishes to make.
Regards SF and the whole west coast, satellite data shows sea level fell from 1990s to 2014
Interesting graphic. Can the Jason folks explain how the water level at one end of a ‘bathtub’ can fall while the other end rises? (I understand there are transient effects in any system, but aren’t we looking at about a decade here)?
El Nino & La Nina. Looks like most years the easterlies push all that water west towards Asia. It sloshes back on during El Ninos
Also the earth is rotating at 1000mph from the west toward the east this should also act to relocate some mass westward
If the rotation were accelerating, it would, but it isn’t. It’s slowly decelerating over a geologic timescale.
It’s just prevailing winds. Same as a wind-driven storm surge does, raises sea level faster than the water returns the other way.
La Niña. Trade winds stack up water in the west pacific so the sea level there can be quite a bit higher than in the east (west coast of the Americas).
You see a similar affect in the Atlantic
If the water is warmer at one end of the bathtub, it is less dense, so the equilibrium level is not flat as we had the habit of thinking. The easterly trade winds ( blowing westwards ) in the tropical Pacific, push warm surface water westwards.
The less dense water of the west Pacific warm pool depresses the cold deep water and floats higher, forming a “lens” of warm water.
My interpretation of Jim’s map is that it must have spanned a period ending in La Nina conditions before this warm water flows back across the equator forming an El Nino event.
The dates of the period should have been included in the graphic since this is not long enough represent any kind of long term average.
You mean, like the typical newspaper heading “worst / highest / deepest ever? Calculated over a WHOLE human lifetime!
Interesting graphic, I live on the north east coast of Australia. I used to live in PNG years ago. A few years ago, two centuries of tectonic shift caused a problem with navigation charts. The entire plate is moving north fast (in geological terms) causing uplift. Where I live, sealevel is falling. North of here, it increasingly exposes coral reefs at low tide (which ‘experts’ say is due to climate change). Go to the coast to the west of Finschafen in PNG, and you can see evidence in the shoreline benches, like a series of 100 meter limestone steps. I can’t find a photo anywhere, spectacular but off the beaten track.
Just don’t trust the Australian data from our marine science people.
The time period is interesting. It spans from before the 97-98 monster El Nino to just before the 15-16 version. What that suggests to me is that the warm water piles up in the warm pool until a “tipping point” happens – maybe a short interruption in the easterlies that triggers the slosh. We should be able to use this data with different time intervals to track the buildup and perhaps come to a better estimation of when the next El Nino is likely.
Great points as always. Nearest I can figure the majority of sea level rise occurs if the oceans warm and expand or more ice melts than freezes every year.
I guess there is some star water that may be dropping in from outside our atmosphere and burning of hydrocarbons will contribute, although they are also being formed so I’m not sure what the net-net is. Additionally we get transpiration from plants but again they also absorb water so who knows about this one. Plus we have tectonics move the basin bottoms up and down but these are generally over long time periods.
Looking at warming oceans and ice melting, it seems we aren’t going through any acceleration since neither are happening at a faster clip and they both may actually be going the other way. Antarctica is brutally cold this SH winter and Greenland’s melt season this year is pretty much a bust. Already temps above 60N are falling and the first forecast I’ve seen for December is it is going to be a cold one to remember in the US east of the Mississippi.
I’m glad for President Obama and Al Gore not having to worry about their beach houses going under, regardless of all the expert judgement calls on what is to come soon.
You can also add “fossil water”, pumped up from aquifers.
That would be cool, how about Willis does the same thing for Martha’s Graveyard ?
Brilliant evisceration Willis.
Somehow I don’t think the market for seaside villas even flinched, unless politicos are piling in more than before the scare campaign. Also, the market for whole-island retreats of billionaires has not changed.
This is the scientific method…of diplomats with spin consultants.
They appointed themselves the sole experts in an uncertain field of science, then gave us their opinions, then gave us their opinions about how accurate their opinions are.
Obfuscation is the goal of these reports.
Heads I win, tails you lose!
Good job tearing into these science pretenders, Willis. The internet is filled with experts opinion, some of it obviously paid for, and a medium-skilled person searching for an answer is not commonly able to sort out the science from the scientist’s opinion. Now Oregon (Kalifornia soon to follow?) has made the 3 R’s irrevelent to a High School Diploma, in the interest of eliminating racism. Cultural regression is upon us.
I’ve been looking for people to bet money with about the ridiculous sea level rise predictions in the next five or ten years since its easy to verify . should be easy money .no takers yet .
Anyone willing to bet would be a hard core liberal, so cannot be trusted to pay up anyway.
They will either find a suitably rigged satellite record saying it rose; claim your “science” was a product of white cisgender patriachy and thus not valid; or say they have a 1/32 ancestor who was a slave and you own them ten times the wager in “reparations”.
That’s without even trying to imagine the kind of insane BS they will have invented in the meantime.
same. I started with the brilliant scientists and their cohorts at realclimate back in 2008. could never get any takers at 50% of the model projections. Guess they are smart enough not to believe their own propaganda
Predicting sea level rise (and any acceleration) for any given location is a mugs game due to several natural Earth forces at work, including a 18.6 year tidal cycle caused by our Moon. Not to mention any subsidence, uplift, long term prevailing winds, the planetary Geoid itself and a host of other natural causes such as ocean currents causing local oceanic cooling and warming in longer term cycles.
For the IPPC to try and boil it all down similar to water in a bathtub is foolish, but their goal is promoting some mythical climate emergency, not any actual science. And if they are trying to use sea level rise for a climate emergency, well that is going to take dozens of years to even establish any trend and then that will still only be local. We are in a very stable state of sea level rise comparative to long term history, which the best science as presently established is an average of 2 mm a year. Even if it were to get to 3 mm a year, still not any concern for the next couple of decades, if this century.
This would be the weakest ‘evidence’ of all regarding any climate emergency. And the easiest to disprove to those that might be taken in by such opinionated science, which should be evident to anyone willing to learn.
And there you have summarized it quite nicely.
And since any sea level “trend” was well established before any meaningful human CO2 emissions, clearly it won’t be changed by trying to “manage” human CO2 emissions.
Yes, that is probably the most important point to be seen from this.
The 2mm a year is not CO2 because IPCC says that was only a significant player after 1960. So the “man made” effect here is difference between early 20th c. and later 20th c.
ie ZERO. That is the effect we are trying to “fix”.
Nicely done, Willis.
In the SPM they manufactured global SLR acceleration by splicing the faulty satalt (doesn’t close) onto tide gauges (which do close) at a global dGPS vertical land motion corrected 2.2mm/year, about like SF. A version of Mann’s hide the decline trick.
Thanks Rud, could you explain “doesn’t close”?
Dear Willis,
“It gets worse. The high estimates of sea-level rise (the 95% quantile) give San Francisco rates of rise ranging from 6.4 to 11.6 mm per year … for the current decade.”
Nice find and exactly what needs to be done! I saw postings that this report is political, of course it is, why posting it? What is needed is an analysis like this one, why the reported scenarios contradict established science and in this case common sense!
I believe there are statements about the temperature development till 2030 as well, which would need an average five-fold warming rate or an order of magnitude higher warming rate by 2030 then now, without giving any hint about which real world parameter could possibly responsible for a change like that!
Cheers,
LoN
“….IPCC calibrated uncertainty language …” Calibrate, I like definition number 4–“to adjust precisely for a particular function. ” Wonder what their ‘function’ was?
My (well don’t own it yet) sea level just went down like it was supposed to this time of year, again not covering the road as predicted two decades+ ago.
Nice to know that the IPCC has formally adopted the confidence level method used for the “97% of scientists”, https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/11/10/freeman-dyson-on-heretical-thoughts-about-global-warmimg/#comment-2205470.
That famous figure 97% comes from 75 scientists out of a carefully selected sample of 77 scientists from the originally polled 3,146 scientists.
Don’t bother with “sigmas” when estimating probability. Sigmas are racist anyway.
Now for something really funny – do the math:
Their 97% consensus was contrived by ignoring…wait for it…97% of the responses! LLLMMMFFFAAAOOO 😀 😀 😀
I was looking at the report and found this, not sure I can do this but—
“Final Government Distribution…Do Not Cite, Quote or Distribute ”
Interesting! I thought that it was only 75 “scientists” out of 77(who bothered to respond to the survey) that said they believed mankind was causing climate change!!! Total number approached was around 10,000 via online!!! Either way, it’s simply an exercise in playing with numbers to produce that desired outcome, just like those Lara-Croft X-Box 360 computer models the IPCC are so fond of!!!
I live down by the sea in the South-West of England, & sea-level rise is horrendous, several feet each day twice a day!!! Of course it falls twice a day every day…..I think!!! I live in a two-storey apartment staring at first-floor level, so if the sea-level rises 15-16 feet then I might be in trouble, but sea-fishing would be a doddle!!! ;-))
In the Mersey estuary between the Wirral and Liverpool sea level can vary by as much as 9 metres on many days!
When looking for a meaningful analogy for the “climate crisis” bullshit, I compare it with measuring the rate of rise of the water as the tide comes in and extrapolating that trend as if it will continue indefinitely.
The difference being that people have enough information over a sufficient period of time to understand that the water will not continue to rise at the same rate ad infinitum. With long term temperature changes, their entire lifetime is insufficient to notice the ebbs and flows, and therefore it is easy to prey on their fear of the unknown, the “climate crisis” being the pseudo-“science” version of “witches.”
Great post but unfortunately the only thing some will remember is the “code red” headlines blasted all over the MSM the last few days.
Greens have gone red. Can’t say I’m the slightest bit surprised.
They always were, only now they’re not too bothered in hiding it!!!
I don’t think most people will pay any attention to ‘Code Red.’
It’s not a reference to anything climate, like good ol’ Climate Change or Global Warming. There’s some imagery with those terms. Code Red conjures up images of….
… wait. Wasn’t there a version of Mountain Dew branded Code Red? I think it was an extra-caffeine fruit punch flavored Mountain Dew (a Pepsi product).
My guess is that a lot of people in the U.S. will think Mountain Dew from all the Code Red advertising that was pushed out.
I just went through two scenarios. Rincon west of Los Angeles and Battery at the tip of NYC. Both of them from lowest to highest all show small rises 2020-2030 with error bars that absolutely encompass all possibilities. My conclusion is that the construction of these forecasts are tailored make sure no career is likely to face the consequences of their bad tarot card readings.
Willis, your analysis shows the ‘Team’ doesn’t work out the logic of their pronouncements.
In the article before this one in which prof Varenholt (Die Kalte Sonne), criticizes AR6, I argue the applicability of Le Châtelier’s principle for
multiple interactive compo systems.
My example is the the 30yr projections of temperature with only changes in CO2 content of the atmosphere. Observations showed estimated temperature change to be 300% too high.
Assuming the underlying “physics” to be ‘correct’ (big assumption!), the Le Châtelier coefficient to be applied to IPCC projections should be 0.33 and this should be incorporated into their models. Perhaps the IPCC experts should be considered another component added to the system!!
Their 6.4 mm-11,6 mm/yr (x 0.33), becomes 2.1mm -3.8mm. We can live with that.
If they’re not lyin’ they’re not tryin’. Speaking of which, anyone else notice that this year’s Climate Liarpalooza starts on Halloween? You just can’t make this up. They’ll be there, pretending to be scientists and saviors of the planet, with the ultimate goal of scaring the bejeebers out of everyone, in hopes of grabbing all the climate candy -money, power, fame, etc.
Ha ha!
A terrific opportunity for the likes of Josh to parody that! All those climate worriers going door to door looking for all the ‘Climate Reparations’ they are owed.
The Battery in New York City has SF beat. It goes back to the time of Lincoln, like SF but the increase has been about a linear 2.8 mm/year of which most is land settlement.
It’s called having a flat battery.
Willis,
“…may not be worth a bucket of warm spit.”
I would like to point out that you have fallen into the word salad trap of the alarmists by using the word ‘may!’ It is either worth that much or not, and from reading the rest of your analysis; I think it is safe to say that it approximates the value of a week-old bucket of spit or even the dreaded pi$$ bucket! I am truly shocked, as you are usually so precise!
I prefer the Aussie expression : not worth a crock of shit.
“What a crock!”, was an American expression which came to Australia from Hollywood movies during the late 1970’s. We kids wondered what it meant, thinking it meant ‘croc’, as in, “What a crocodile”. … eh? Hence our consternation. Imported US 1980’s TV programs then progressed that to, “That’s a crock of shit!”, and we realized it’s not a reference to crocodiles, probably a reference to US ‘bed-pan’ crockery.
Australians used blunter terms like, “What a load of shit!”, referring to cart-loads of steaming horse manure collected on cold mornings from local thoroughfares via horse ‘n cart teams with shovels. My second job as a boy was to collect such from a local race-course stables and mix it with soil for use on gardens. It creates heat as it decays to compost. So this had the fruity variation; “What a steaming load of horse shit!” Which variant was traditionally reserved for use only in political or religious discussion. If you said, “What a crock!” to an Australian in 1970, they would have had no idea what it meant.
Abo, I’m always cautious in my claims. If I say that everything the IPCC says isn’t worth a bucket of warm spit, someone will undoubtedly come up with an IPCC statement that is true … and I’ll have to retract my statement.
Hard lesson learned from a lot of online posts …
w.
Willis,
The odds of someone from the IPCC actually speaking some scientific truth is as remote as the moons of Neptune, and probably as easy reach!
I feel safe in my claim because speaking truth for them is likely to cause their head to explode! Either way it’s a win-win for us old climate realists!