Originally tweeted by Roger Pielke Jr.🇺🇦 (@RogerPielkeJr) on February 28, 2022.
🧵
An initial thread on the IPCC AR6 WG2 report released today
Whereas WG1 received a mixed review in my areas of expertise (specifically: poor on scenarios, solid on extremes), my initial reaction to the WG2 report is that it is an exceedingly poor assessment
The first observation is that the report is more heavily weighted to implausible scenarios than any previous IPCC assessment report
In particular, RCP8.5 represents ~57% of scenario mentions
This alone accounts for the apocalyptic tone and conclusions throughout the report
Remarkably, RCP8.5 is characterized in the report as a "business as usual" future, and RCP4.5 is a "low emissions future"
In actual reality, RCP4.5 is currently thought of as an upper bound trajectory under current or stated policies & RCP8.5 is implausible
WG2 is not ignorant of the debate over implausible scenarios, but they chose to ignore almost all of the relevant literature
Instead they quote the widely discredited & COIed Schwalm paper to justify emphasizing RCP8.5 & some hand-waving about C cycle feedbacks
Embarrassing
WG2 states, correctly: "Nonetheless, the likelihood of a climate outcome, and the overall distribution of climate outcomes, are a function of the emissions scenario’s likelihood"
And then cites NONE of the relevant literature on this point
None of it
That was a choice
I'll jump around a bit
On US hurricane damages the report cites 2 studies to counter our study on normalized US hurricane damages (which is cited!)
What is not stated is that there are 7 other studies in the literature, all of which point in the same direction
Blatant, obvious
I did the work for the IPCC, performing a literature review on normalization methodologies across the literature, reviewing > 50 studies
Unlike in past IPCC reports this literature was ignored
https://doi.org/10.1080/17477891.2020.1800440
Like WG1 Grinsted appears to justify claims that economic losses from climate extremes are increasing due to climate change, despite almost all literature (and previous IPCC reports) coming to contrary results
On floods, WG2 completely misrepresents the conclusions of AR6 WG1
(L) WG2 says increased frequency & magnitude of river floods was given "high confidence" by WG1
Nope
(R) WG1 said the opposite: confidence is "low"
There are many indicators of decreasing vulnerability to weather and climate, one leading paper is Formetta and Feyen 2019, which WG2 casually dismisses deep in Chapter 16
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378019300378
Formetta and Feyen 2019 contradicts much of the doom and gloom of this report
Even so, the good news of Formetta and Feyen 2019 sneaks in elsewhere
Interestingly, WG2 reports that globally, wildfire shows regional patterns but no overall global trend
WG2 states that reported flood deaths have increased but somehow fails to note that the paper cited to support that claim explains the increase is due to better reporting in the EM-DAT database (right)
In fact, Tanoue et al. 2016 report – as is widely found in the literature but not in this WG2 report – that flood mortality is dramatically down over decades
If the IPCC's job is to review the relevant literature, there are massive gaps in this report
https://www.nature.com/articles/srep36021
No room in the report for assessing the substantial literature on economic damage associated with weather and climate, but somehow the NOAA billion-dollar disaster press releases make it in
The IPCC report outlines a bizzaro world in which up is down
This NYT article accurately reflects the IPCC report but not the reality of the world we live in
In actual fact, the world has made incredible progress on adaptation and vulnerability
Climate change is real
It poses significant risks for the future of people and ecosystems
Vigorous adaptation & mitigation should be prioritized
None of the above justifies science assessments built for headlines and political advocacy, which WG2 appears to be
Bottom line:
Disappointing.
🤓
/END
Originally tweeted by Roger Pielke Jr.🇺🇦 (@RogerPielkeJr) on February 28, 2022.
Thank you, Roger, for the assessment. And thanks, WUWT, for posting it here.
Regards,
Bob
I predict someone has a heavy freezer placed in front of Pielke’s office door or he has to face some other physical/mental impediment at the University of Colorado because of his stands.
In others words, his speaking truth about such matters cannot engender good will from his colleagues and the administration at the university.
We call 538 Bronze.
================
The good news is that Pilke isn’t at an Australian university, where tenure doesn’t really mean anything.
Bob, Roger’s Bottom Line of “Disappointing” is far too mild. “Criminal” would be an accurate description. The report’s lies are so blatant that one cannot ascribe incompetence to their production.
ICPP, RCP, UN, once you start telling lies you have only 2 choices, confess, or tell a bigger lie and keep going. This telling a bigger lie and keep going is right out of the Saul Alinsky book “Rules for Radicals”, which is the bible for the left. Reality is so inconvenient.
Sounds like a preview of Biden’s State of the Union address.
He’s either drunk the KoolAid or there’s a cut for the Big Guy in all the Green Initiatives. Could be both.
Agencies and bureaucracies exist to “solve” problems. Once those problems are gone and solved, the agency/bureaucracy should go as well. However, with a little taste of power and enforcement, people in charge find a way to kick the can of closing or otherwise become indispensable. After, who doesn’t want to important?
Thanks Dr. Pielke, it is always a pleasure to read your thoughts. It seems that in the diminished evidence from reality to support the alarmist narrative new and outrageous leaps into very unlikely projections have to be used. Sadly the media will miss this obvious truth and the easily frightened will be convinced that” it’s worse than we thought” and “we’re all going to die”. I suppose this is the famous Overton Window shifting to the absolute BS end of The Science ® such as it is.
“The IPCC was created to provide policymakers with regular scientific assessments on climate change, its implications and potential future risks, as well as to put forward adaptation and mitigation options. Through its assessments, the IPCC determines the state of knowledge on climate change.”
It doesn’t seem to be working.
One might blame the feckless policymakers.
But it seems they have decided the natural gas and nuclear is “green energy” but
this seems to not resulted from IPCC information.
So it seems we just left with blaming IPCC for decades of incompetence.
Is IPCC aware that we are in an Icehouse climate?
Any mention that we could be entering a Grand Solar Minimum?
Do they even know what a Grand Solar Minimum is?
Can IPCC point to any success that they have made in terms of their purpose
for existing?
gbaikie, I assume your initial quote is from the IPCC main page. If you go to their HISTORY page…
History — IPCC
…you’ll discover that the IPCC was founded to support political agendas…aka the anti-growth, anti-capitalism UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change), which include the KYOTO Protocol and the Paris Agreement.
From the IPCC History page:
“The establishment of the IPCC was endorsed by UN General Assembly in 1988. Its initial task, as outlined in UN General Assembly Resolution 43/53 of 6 December 1988, was to prepare a comprehensive review and recommendations with respect to the state of knowledge of the science of climate change; the social and economic impact of climate change, and potential response strategies and elements for inclusion in a possible future international convention on climate.”
Regards,
Bob
Well, there you are comment. Where ya been?
A simple wave of the wand, and offering to the proper gods …
I have found that lately my comments and votes have been responded to very sluggishly.
gbaikie, I assume your initial quote is from the IPCC website.
If you go to their HISTORY page…
https://www.ipcc.ch/about/history/
…you’ll discover the IPCC was founded to support anti-growth, anti-capitalism political agendas, known as the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), and I quote:
“The establishment of the IPCC was endorsed by UN General Assembly in 1988. Its initial task, as outlined in UN General Assembly Resolution 43/53 of 6 December 1988, was to prepare a comprehensive review and recommendations with respect to the state of knowledge of the science of climate change; the social and economic impact of climate change, and potential response strategies and elements for inclusion in a possible future international convention on climate.”
Those future conventions include the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement.
Why anyone would think any of UN’s bodies, including the IPCC and WHO, is something other than a political entity is beyond me.
Regards,
Bob
Y voila! Hurrah!
===========
Yup, it reappeared out of nowhere.
Regards,
Bob
My comment on this thread disappeared twice. I am not going to rewrite it again.
Regards,
Bob
Bob, while you were typing it or after you hit the “post comment” button?
I did hit the “post comment” button both times after writing long comments, Frank from NoVA. And both times they appeared as they always do, only to disappear when I returned a few minutes later to see if there were replies.
Thanks for asking.
Regards,
Bob
PS: I wonder whether they slipped into a moderation file somewhere for some reason. Never had this happen in all the years I’ve been here, many of those years as the author of the post.
Did you write the word K I L L or S O R O S or N A Z I 🤓
Thanks, Derg. That made me laugh.
What I did write was that the IPCC was founded to support anti-growth, anti-capitalism political agendas, and included quotes from and links to an IPCC webpage to confirm that fact.
Regards,
Bob
Note that the cooling scare of half a century ago also supported an anti-growth, anticapitalist agenda.
We may yet see a cycle and the next scare will be a cooling one, again purported to be caused by civilization and industrialism.
Those promoting these manipulative schemes might as well be alien, so anti-human do they appear to be.
But, the poor devils fight both nature and human curiosity, and will lose, as always.
================
I’ve been told that a lot of links will get a post sent to moderation.
Thanks, MarkW. My comments did include lots of links in the quotations.
I just checked my email and there was one that said my WUWT comment had been approved, but it didn’t explain why it had been sent to moderation.
Lesson learned. Next time I’ll clear the links in the quotations.
Thanks again.
Regards,
Bob
For $1000, who is George?
We all want to know.
Bob ==> My condolences. As a sometimes-author here, I have appreciated your comments over the years, and remind you of the basic rule of authorship: ALWAYS BACKUP YOUR WORK.
For comments, if I am doing anything more than a quick dash off comment, I always write it in a Text Pad like program — a basic text editor — then copy and paste into the comment box.
Can’t tell you how many times the gremlins that inhabit the internet system have snatched and disappeared really good comments before they could arrive in print online.
Sorry you have been having problems. The moderators here are very helpful when things go awry and can quickly check to see if your comments have arrived in No-No Land. or feel free to email me at my first name at i4.net and I can give you at least 12-hour turn around service in tracking missing comments.
This really is a macabre game of telephone. It’s model upon model upon model – and no sense of shame for presenting something that even a non-scientist should easily recognize as biased and political.
You’d have to be a “journalist” to repeat that stuff without flinching.
The ‘macabre’ is in the deliberation. These are purposeful lies. The deception is planned and succeeding but for the intransigence of nature choosing its own course.
Ah, the Karma accruing; Sunday morning coming along and it’s a long way down.
============
I had a quick look. The very first section about the information used contains this paragraph
Which told me all I needed to know. The conclusions just aren’t supported by the data.
And, in that section, the following stands out:
Our beloved Dr. Mann will be so distraught. That caused me to cry so many crocodile tears that I’ve run dry. Ok, so maybe they were tears of joy. Anyway, is this the repudiation of the hockey stick it appears to be?
I thought that, because of polar amplification, the effects of global warming should be most easily observed in the arctic.
IIRC, the usual thing for these reports is that the policy parts aren’t supported by the scientific parts. It seems to me, that every time one of these reports comes out, folks find some honest science buried in the parts that don’t get read a lot.
Truth be told, it is relatively cooler today than much of the past several thousand years.
The Piltdown Mann soon to be straitly shafted by the faked, straightened shaft of his unholy icon, that stick straight from the Hell of his tormented and twisted mind.
=========
“Climate change is real
It poses significant risks for the future of people and ecosystems”
We have been hearing this for 50 years but our world has steadily got better despite rising emissions and wasted time, money and effort on renewable sources of energy.
Can someone please inform me when the negative effects of climate change will manifest themselves and precisely what they will be. Another 50 years away isn’t a realistic time frame as I don’t have that long.
Risks are not harms. Risks are things we need to watch and counter as when appropriate.
The confusion over the difference between Risks, Harms and Irrelevancies explains a lot of the disagreement between Alarmists, Sceptics and the Ill-informed.
True, but the expectation is that risks will eventually become harms if not planned for and mitigated, otherwise you risk becoming the boy who cried wolf. Climate alarmist have been crying wolf for over 40 years, with no real harms manifesting.
Thing is, they needn’t be mitigated if they are adapted to.
That’s why the graphs here about flood deaths (as one example) are important. Get richer, get flood defences and get on with life – no problems.
It’s a policy error, not a science error.
OK. The policy started going wrong due the hockeystick science errors but that’s a long tome ago now It’s the policy errors that are funding and driving academia now.
Maybe no real harms to the climate and nature, but plenty of real harms to our energy policies, our politics and our subjugation by unnecessary regulation. In that sense, climate alarmist cries have caused real harm.
“Climate risks” are nothing more than boggiemen. They are based on nothing more than fantasies and lies. The Climate Liars are the ones causing great harm.
With “risk”, the devil is in the details. If I live in NJ, each hurricane season there is a risk we’ll take damage from a hurricane. But the risk is the product of the probability of the event and the severity of the event. I could install roll-up storm shutters such as are popular in Florida, but a risk analysis would likely show that it’s cheaper to forgo the shutters and take a chance on having to repair the windows. In this case, adaptation to the risk suggests doing nothing.
An excellent point which deserves to be elevated to a thread/post of its own.
Risks are postulated by the CliSciFi crowd based on speculations, including unverified models. Unquantified risks, including likelihood of occurrence, serve no basis upon which one may act. “Keeping an eye on” is vastly different than “fundamentally altering one’s society, economy and energy systems.”
The world ends again in 2030.
If raining, will be held indoors.
All wear masques.
==============
You had better show up with your N95 mask and vaccine passport then. Otherwise things could get significantly worse.
No, the
sciencepolitics has changed. STOTU time, ya know.“Climate change is real.” whatever that is supposed to mean. Death is real, though the statement is not particularly informative or useful. It is so axiomatic as to be absurd. I think the ambiguity, and the absurdity, are quite intentional, almost mantric in its mindlessness. But then, we do seem to be living in the Age of Meme!
Whenever someone tells me or writes “Climate change is real”. I reply “Whenever did climate not change?”
So far I have not had any answers.
You can see the negative effects right now in Australia, or Africa, or California… you can just look at the extreme weather events across the world in the last 12 months.
I can’t see them at all, griff
Try giving us a reference or a link, eh?
There are extremes weather events every year in one place or another, at least in my experience of almost 80 years.
How can weather events that happen over and over again be extreme?
Skateboarding raindrops.
You said it the other day, idiots don’t do research. We are actually within a period of lower extreme weather.
Would that be ‘extremely normal’?
Many philosophers, such as Aristotle, have recommended moderation in all things.
I’ve always wondered if one can be excessively moderate?
Beats being moderately excessive.
Isn’t “moderately excessive” an oxymoron? Or, would it have to be “minimally excessive?”
Look mummy, it’s climate change up in the sky.
I can look at all the climate extremes of the past thousand years and see that nothing unusual is happening today
I bet that you really like the Emperor’s new clothes
Like them, he’s ordered three sets for himself.
Lions and tigers and weather. Can we bear it?
============
Griffter, did you learn nothing about regression to the mean? I’m guessing that you didn’t even read the article. I base my guess on 3 factors; 1) You didn’t address why your observation isn’t simply observation bias, cherry picking, or poor statistics, 2) you are almost never on point, and 3) you are a numpty.
Were you born yesterday? In my lifetime alone, and I’m only 76, I’ve seem more and worse weather. Will you climastrologists Just stop calling every Flippin storm a climate change caused calamity.
Usual nonsense from griff.
Is his nonsense getting extreme?
🤣
Show me.
For your sake, you should get paid by the amount of replies your posts get, notwithstanding the content therein.
He has content?
One more:
Griff. You forgot the /s
Ok. I’m done.
Are you referring to the -0.50 deg C February temperature for Oz, as reported by Roy Spencer?
Yes you can.
At the NCEI / NOAA “Daily Weather Records” website.
[ URL : https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cdo-web/datatools/records ]
If you click on the “Global Records Summaries” tab you can see that for “Global All Time Records” over the “Last 365 Days” [ NB : 365 days = 12 months = 1 year ], out of all the GHCN weather stations :
709 established new “highest temperature EVAH !” records,
31 established new “lowest temperature EVAH !” records,
214 established new “the most rain EVAH !” records, and
31 established new “the most snowfall EVAH !” records
As the BSG school of theology puts it : “All this has happened before, all this will happen again.”
PS : Don’t despair. The whole “providing supporting evidence” notion will become clear to you … eventually.
All this false alarm supporting a political and financial horror of deception is a tremendous waste of money.
Lost opportunity costs compound and our descendents will suffer from the effects of this purposely engineered madness of the crowd for a long, long time.
They will necessarily recover their senses and then Katie, Bar the Door.
They may move heaven and earth seeking to avoid a repetition of this morbidity of information.
We, or better, they, will understand. Fershur!
==========
When one sees such nonsense, the only good thing to do would be to defund the IPCC (instead of the police). The IPCC must be cancelled since it has produced nothing really useful since it’s founding. This was inevitable since it was a political organization from the very beginning with a few scientists on board to give it scientific credibility, although these scientists were largely ignored. “Disappointing” is really a vastly positive exaggeration of what this organization really is.
“a function of the emissions scenario’s likelihood”
How many fingers am I holding up, Winston?
“Unlike in past IPCC reports this literature was ignored”
For the last two years a captive audience has been bombarded with messages of climate doom reinforced with a message that covid was a result of climate change:
“IS COVID-19 CAUSED BY CLIMATE CHANGE?
Dr Richard Williams, Researcher in the University of Derby’s Environmental Sustainability Research Centre, discusses whether there is a connection between COVID-19 and climate change, and explains how climate affects disease distributions.”
https://www.derby.ac.uk/blog/is-covid-19-caused-by-climate-change/
The reason the literature is ignored is because it can be ignored, now.
A newspaper or media outlet runs the [alarming] headline before even peer review is complete. It’s blasted out. Then the paper might fail review or later be shown to be in error. But that’s no problem because no correction or retraction will ever be published or broadcast – the fake fact(s) stand.
The heavy reliance on RCP8.5 betrays the increasing desperation. The war in Ukraine makes it all seem rather irrelevant, really.
“The war in Ukraine makes it all seem rather irrelevant, really.”
Indeed, rather telling how a real crisis makes them double down.
When will we see RCP10.5 in order to keep alarmism going? If it doesn’t keep getting worse then it has ceased changing.
WAIT! IT JUST HIT ME! Climate change caused Russia to invade Ukraine. DUH. How did I not see the connection earlier. It’s so obvious now.
Yes! What with the weather getting warmer the Russians need to move south to get even more warmer. And those hurricanes will be coming in from the North Atlantic after they spin up east of Ireland! All that northern hinterland will be melting!
IPCC AR6 WG2
Pure political propaganda.
Science this ain’t.
Truth this ain’t.
Roger Pielke’s analysis shows how bad things have become. The IPCC is a political organization, nothing more. Everything is bent to fit the political agenda.
The purpose of this ‘report’ isn’t to inform, it’s to scare.
Or perhaps simply to confuse, to keep the waters muddy.
Keep the money flowing.
IPCC continues to “jump the shark”
When retard is not enough go full retard that will convince them.
Skip full retard and go to potato. There’s a meme somewhere with that sentiment. That’s what the “climate” folks have done, long ago.
WG1: bad science
WG2: bad fairy tailes
WG2 is so stupid, it is not even worth commenting on. But I think people do not realize how messed up WG1 is. For instance only in AR5 the eventually introduced a correct defintion of the GHE, that is without “back radiation”. A little bit late, for a “settled science”.. LOL
Another thing WG1 still struggles with is “lapse rate feedback”. The problem is, a) it is negative by nature and b) it is technically not a feedback (but just a percentage wise less warming of the surface as opposed to the troposphere). Yet they can not help but to treat it as a real feedback, causing all kind of problems.
AR4:
With central estimates ECS would be..
1.1 x 1 / ( 1 – (1.8 – 0.84 + 0.26 + 0.69) x 0.3) = 2.58K
Excluding LFR you get..
1.1 / ( 1 / ( 1 – (1.8 + 0.26 + 0.69) x 0.3)) = 6.29K
The -0.84W/m2 of LRF reduce ECS by 59%(1 – 2.58/6.29). For any higher ECS, that percentage would even grow. The problem is caused by treating it as a feedback, which it is not.
Seemingly realizing there is an issue, AR6 tuned down LRF to only -0.5W/m2. While that mitigates the impact of the error, the error itself has not been cured.
https://greenhousedefect.com/the-holy-grail-of-ecs/vapor-feedback-ii-the-lapse-rate-and-the-feedback-catastrophe
They don’t even try to hide the corruption of science any more.
Roger has tweeted some more.. some very dodgy stuff – might be worth adding as an update?
see thread, starting with this one.
https://twitter.com/RogerPielkeJr/status/1498661943820705795
ie. When you look at Carleton et al. you will find that under SSP3-RCP4.5 mortality increase due to climate change is ~0 +/-
The high confidence, no uncertainty IPCC WG2 conclusion of 9 million deaths per year is entirely a result of using SSP3-RCP8.5
https://s.w.org/images/core/emoji/13.1.0/svg/1f937-200d-2642-fe0f.svg126Roger Pielke Jr.https://s.w.org/images/core/emoji/13.1.0/svg/1f1fa-1f1e6.svg@RogerPielkeJr·6m
This kind of sloppiness and sleight is just disappointing
The death projections are based on a 2014 WHO brochure and a non-peer-reviewed working paper that improperly relies on implausible and impossible scenarios
By the way, in that 2014 WHO brochure is the following
https://twitter.com/RogerPielkeJr/status/1498670049464311813/photo/1
Barry, your “This kind of sloppiness and sleight is just disappointing [sic]” is the understatement of the Thread. It is criminal and should lead to formal investigations and official sanctions of those involved.
The UN IPCC leads in reporting the state of the science. The WMO is an UN agency that pronounces on the state of the climate. The WCRP is another UN agency that manages the CMIP program and coordinates the climate model development project. The UN is up to its ears in climate change alarmism.
Ottmar Edenhofer, a former UN official, is famous for stating that the UN uses climate change as a vehicle for the redistribution of wealth from the richer countries to the poorer ones. The COP meetings are where poor countries plead environmental collapse, draught, floods and wild fires. The UN preaches that an apocalyptic climate catastrophe is upon us and its officials pin down promises of money. The UK is obliged to pay £11.6 Billion over the next five years and that is just from the Paris agreement.
The IPCC now seems to be abandoning any pretense of serious science and it now concentrates on ever more alarming rhetoric. Is this to ratchet up wealth redistribution as a sort of climate damage reparation exercise? Is this becoming an extreme case of noble cause corruption?
Or is the UN still ambitious to lead some form of global governance and enjoys the support of the money men from Davos? Climate change has become the chosen justification for sweeping away whole industries and replacing them with new ones, regardless of cost and fitness for purpose. Never before has such change been inflicted upon the world with guaranteed subsidies, compulsory bans, and legally enforced changes. The wealthy cannot believe their luck and the taxpayers and consumers are being bled dry.
As long as bogus science is allowed to dominate the policies of governments, I cannot see an end to this.
Winter is coming.
=============
And it’s cold!
Disappointing?
Try f-ing garbage!!!
Climate change is real
It poses significant risks for the future of people and ecosystems
Vigorous adaptation & mitigation should be prioritized
….and it’s driven by co2 right roger. lol.
Can you say controlled oppostion?
Apparently the authors of the WG2 either have no respect for the truth, or are so brainwashed that they publish what they want to believe is the truth, without bothering to verify that their memory is correct.
It is a sad state of affairs when scientists will commit such blatant twisting of truth, particularly when they should expect someone like Pilke will call them on it.
Undoubtedly the Ministry of Truth is re-writing the WG1 as we speak.
The further they push the extremes, the more the projections diverge from reality, and the easier it becomes for people to notice.
The same thoughts in essay form by Prof. Pielke on his substack page:
“A Rapidly Closing Window to Secure a Liveable Future: The IPCC goes all in with implausible scenarios and political exhortation” by Roger Pielke Jr. on 2-Mar-2022
https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/a-rapidly-closing-window-to-secure