Essay by Eric Worrall
h/t Hedley; “People are already dying of climate change right now” – but “accelerating solar and wind” will save us from “the most severe climate change scenarios”.
A new climate reality: Less warming, but worse impacts on the planet
The most severe climate change scenarios now appear less likely, but extremes are nonetheless poised to overwhelm societies, scientists say
By Scott Dance
January 6, 2023 at 6:30 a.m. EST
Accelerating solar and wind energy adoption means global warming probably will not reach the extremes once feared, climate scientists say. At the same time, recent heat, storms and ecological disasters prove, they say, that climate change impacts could be more severe than predicted even with less warming.
Scientists pointed to recent signs of societies’ fragility: drought contributing to the Arab Spring uprisings; California narrowly avoiding widespread blackouts amid record-high temperatures; heat waves killing tens of thousands of people each year, including in Europe, the planet’s most developed continent.
“People are already dying of climate change right now,” said Sonia Seneviratne, a professor at ETH Zurich’s Institute for Atmospheric and Climate Science in Switzerland. “We have started to see events at near-zero probability of happening without human-induced climate change.”
…Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2023/01/06/climate-change-scenarios-extremes/
Back in the real world, total consumption of coal hit 8 billion tons for the first time ever in 2022. Oil use is skyrocketing. The rise in CO2, measured at Mauna Loa observatory whenever the volcano isn’t erupting, has showed a remarkably steady progress upwards.
So what has brought on this desperate attempt to talk up lesser climate scenarios, and claim, despite the lack of evidence, that wind and solar is about to have an impact the global rise of CO2?
My guess, and this is only speculation, is climate scientists are worried about the impact on their credibility of the growing pause in global warming.
I’m not suggesting any of them have considered the possibility they might be wrong. Alarmist climate scientists truly believe in their models. But pauses and warming trends which deviate from their predictions upset them, even when they tell each other the deviation is due to natural variation.
Many of them are expecting a breakout of extreme global warming any moment now, once the unexplained natural variation which is hiding pent up global warming releases its grip. In my opinion this is why they keep making ridiculous “end of snow” predictions.
… Where did the heat go? … How come you do not agree with a statement that says we are no where close to knowing where energy is going or whether clouds are changing to make the planet brighter? We are not close to balancing the energy budget. The fact that we can not account for what is happening in the climate system makes any consideration of geoengineering quite hopeless, as we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not! It is a travesty! …Climategate Email 1255523796.txt (10/14/2009 speaker Professor Kevin Trenberth)
Some of them have even expressed hope the world will suffer a global climate catastrophe, just so they can be unequivocally proved right.
… This is from an Australian at BMRC (not Neville Nicholls). It began from the attached article. What an idiot. The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK, it has, but it is only 7 years of data and it isn’t statistically significant. … As you know, I’m not political. If anything, I would like to see the climate change happen, so the science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences. This isn’t being political, it is being selfish. …Climategate Email 1120593115.txt (7/5/2005 speaker Professor Phil Jones)
How much evidence would it take to convince alarmist climate scientists they are wrong about global warming?
In 2015, then British climate change secretary Amber Rudd tried to get skeptics and alarmists together in the same room, to see if they could resolve their differences.
According to Breitbart;
“We pinned them down on this hiatus… they were arguing that yes, there might have been a hiatus, but warming might be going into the ocean, or it could be due to volcanic activity. So we asked at what point would you begin to accept there had been no warming. If there is no warming for five years, or ten years? “
Finally they conceded they would wait fifty years.
“We asked would that be fifty years from now, or fifty years from 1997, when the hiatus started? They said they wouldn’t change their mind for fifty years from now.
…Read more: http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/06/16/exclusive-well-all-be-dead-before-climate-change-orgs-admit-theyre-wrong-says-mp/
In other words, we shall never convince most of the core cadre of climate believers. Most of the core cadre will go to their graves still waiting for the great global warming breakout, regardless of observational evidence which contradicts their model predictions.
“People underestimate the power of models. Observational evidence is not very useful. Our approach is not entirely empirical.” – John Mitchell, UK MET.
If we can’t convince the most committed alarmist climate scientists, we can try to reach people who are less committed to their theories. We regularly demonstrate predictions of imminent climate catastrophe are not credible, by highlighting all the absurdities and failed predictions.
Y’know all those bugs the WEF want’s us all to eat?
They are about to get swatted.
No, NATURE’S bugs will all be on the endangered species list. EDIBLE bugs will all be raised under unnatural, controlled conditions that prevent them from mixing with nature’s bugs — by one of the five global corporations that have agreed to keep prices high enough to maintain most people near the starvation level. Once full ensconced, the system will be discovered to be an armageddon complex that must be scaled way back in order to save the planet. Unfortunately, most of the remaining peasants will have to go the way of the dodos.
We asked would that be fifty years from now, or fifty years from 1997, when the hiatus started? They said they wouldn’t change their mind for fifty years from now.
In other words
Science advances one death at a time
Then again, not a single global temperature data set still shows a warming hiatus since 1997. They all show statistically significant warming, even UAH (+0.117 ±0.107 °C/decade (2σ)).
They didn’t have to wait 50 years after all.
No surface temperature dataset is untainted or torture free
UAH is not a surface temperature data set.
Then what use is it? We live on the surface, not thousands of feet in the air. If the atmosphere doesn’t affect the surface temp then ???? why are we spending trillions to affect the surface?
Excellent, long may it continue.
Where’s the hockey stick?
Statistically, 3 significant figures is not justified with that level of certainty. In any case there is nonzero probability that the trend is zero or negative, i.e., it’s cooling.
HAHAHAHAAH — three significant digits!
It’s called mathematics.
Rather than observation.
UAH doesn’t use direct temperature observation. Go figure why everyone here thinks it’s the best one.
After adjustments and homogenization, surface records are not exactly “direct”.
Nothing uses “direct” temperature measurements. All measure changes in some physical substance that is converted to temperature. UAH is no different than other observational measures in that respect.
Mathematics is incomplete. Why do you place your faith in an incomplete system?
Sorry, TheFinalNail, but I can’t help wonder what you think when the global warming heat wave causes white stuff to fall, in great quantities, and accumulate and the deniers call it snow? Buffalo? Hello? Hello?
What does this comment even mean?
“UAH (+0.117 ±0.107 °C/decade (2σ))”
LOL – Find me an atmospheric thermometer which can reliably measure temperature to 3 decimal places.
At that rate, to raise the average global temperature by 1°C will take 100 years. Confirmation that, not only do we have plenty of time, but that we haven’t a clue what’s going to happen over the next 100 years. Even our kids will likely be dead by then.
Or even tomorrow!
Thanks, HotScot. Reminds me of those slide rules we used back in the 60’s before pocket calculators….. 3 significant figures for certain logs on the scales, and hard pressed to get more than one on other intervals. Of course, we got to the moon using those things and designing high performance airplanes. But we admitted their limitations.
You can get “averages” of data out to 4 or 5 decimal points, but you’ll have a hard time measuring stuff with that degree of precision. In the high tech bidness, those very precise values are gained from Kalman filters, et al and mucho other processing techniques, but not absolute measurements. The result most see is your GPS position in our autos or when hiking. But for climate projections, beam me up! How many critters can even sense one degree of temperature change unless it is the ice forming on the pond.
Slide rule wizards knew how to get around those limitations by using mathematical tricks.
Doing the calculations 100 times and averaging the results to get another significant figure?
Frankly, I think they should do away with calculators in school, at least in the 12 grade, and require they work out their math problems on a slide rule. Kids that have graduated high school lately haven’t the foggiest idea of whether an answer is even in the correct order of magnitude. Hell, they can’t even make change without the cash register telling ’em.
It’s not a thermometer reading.
Ever heard of cycles?
The 1990 IPPC report predicted/projected far more warming than we are getting about 50% too high based on their predicted warming rate to 2025.
Only if you cherry-pick their high-end emissions scenario.
But but, alarmists always use the ”high-end emissions scenario.”
And some people wonder why there are sceptics.
You should read that up since the 50% too high warming prediction was based on BUSINESS AS USUAL emission scenario which turned out to be too low to this date and the warming rate error is now more like 75% too high.
What happens to your global data set when the urban heat island effect (UHI) is taken out of the data?
Temperature stations at airports were primary intended for pilot and aviation safety according to the link below. The NWS (I suspect) isn’t be interested in talking about how the temp data at airports can be tainted by various heat sources to which the temp station should not be exposed. Is that data fit for scientific purposes?
Why Are Weather Stations at Airports? | Weather Station Depot
I suspect that few if any climate alarmists are interested in answering these questions about the data quality of the surface temp record for reasons that are not hard to understand.
UAH (and RSS) are lower stratosphere temperature data sets. They are not impacted at all by UHI. They both show statistically significant warming since 1997.
Where does the heat go when it leaves the urban dome?
And, UHA graph usually seen is for the Troposphere,
not the Stratosphere.
Quite right, my mistake. Lower troposphere (they also do a stratospheric range).
Regarding where heat goes: I could equally ask you why the Arctic is the fastest warming region on earth (again, according to UAH), when it has the smallest UHI impact.
And why is the air over the oceans warming too? UHI can’t explain that either.
Natural warming sounds like it’s an alien concept to you.
Fastest warming? Based on what reference?
Does the word “gradient” mean anything to you?
How about the word “entropy”?
Does net heat travel from hot to cold or from cold to hot?
The big stretch is to make a minuscule warming into an existential problem. When the warming is mainly in higher lows, not higher highs, we should celebrate this minor beneficent change.
When the percentage change is based on anomalies and not on absolute temps then one needs to consider the scaling factor between the anomaly and the absolute.
“UAH (and RSS) are lower stratosphere temperature data sets. They are not impacted at all by UHI.”
Huh! I guess heat doesn’t rise in your world.
And then there’s a view that takes into account natural climate factors. The following graph separates out the PDO phase change in 2014.
All of a sudden over 95% of the period shows no warming at all. In fact, we appear to be cooling off from the one year PDO induced warming.
When I first started getting interested in this subject, a certain scientist, featured heavily on this blog, was forecasting imminent cooling due to the PDO.
That forecast turned out to be… not so good.
I suspect your forecasts will turn out to be every bit as reliable as his were.
How about your guys forecasts like “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is”(Viner), “the Arctic is screaming”(Sereeze). How about you taking to task some of the alleged scientists making outrageous apocalyptic climate projections. The claim is that people are already dying of man-made climate change. Are you supporting that a minuscule warming is responsible for these alleged climate deaths and by what mechanism is this minuscule warming effecting these alleged climate deaths?
That error range is 90% of the base value. You think that’s useful or reliable?
The error range is smaller than the best estimate warming trend.
So it’s statistically significant warming.
Good thinking. Your answer is relevant to my question … how?
Then I don’t understand the point of your question.
Statistical signifigance at the 2-sigma level is well enough understood.
UAH, like every other global temperature data set, shows statistically significant warming since 1997.
Its best estimate value remains positive even after the 2-sigma uncertainty value is deducted from it.
When the error bars encompass 90% of the range, the value is too erratic to be reliable.
“The temperature tomorrow will be 40 to 50 degrees, with an uncertainty of 4.5 degrees.” Would you ever tune in to that forecast again?
“He was driving 20 mph over the speed limit, with an uncertainty of 18 mph.” Would even the most subservient of traffic court judges accept such nonsense?
Your “error range” is based on the use of anomalies, i.e. an artificially scaled value.
A 100% change in the anomalies could be only 5% when scaled back to the absolute value.
Forecasting typically weights current data more heavily than old data. Current data shows a pause. It’s only when you weight old data the same as current data that you see a statistically significant warming.
Ever listen to the disclaimer that always gets given on advertisements associated with financial products?
So … (+0.117 ±0.107 °C/decade (2σ)) could be only +0.010 per decade?
And the proof that the cause is Man’s GHG and not Natural or even “bad” is …?
Or it could be as high +0.224C per decade.
Therein lies the rub.
”Or it could be”
Therein lies the rub.
That’s no rub unless you linearly project that minor trend well into the future. Where is the evidence that the trend will continue in linear fashion. The historical record shows cycles of warming and cooling extending back over the Holocene. Why should we credit your linear projection when nature shows otherwise.
“And the proof that the cause is Man’s GHG and not Natural or even “bad” is …?”
You didn’t answer the questions.
Where’s the PROOF of either?
Without the PROOF, there isn’t even “TheFirstNail”.
Everywhere in the news renewables are being pushed. Everywhere in the comments people are scathing about their inability to perform adequately.
We are in sight of ‘peak renewables’. The scam cannot continue – but it is, now, too big to fail. Trillions have been invested, and will have to be written off. The lenders will be in severe financial trouble.
Which poses a massive dilemma.
I dont have an answer to that.
Good point. And as the years go by over the next decade or two there will be an increasing number of wind turbines and solar PV arrays coming to the end of their useful life and their investment life. What then? Reinvest or decommission? The escalating cost of materials alone will likely mean giving up on these land- and materials-intensive intermittent sources.
Even more/higher taxpayer subsidies?
“…the end of their useful life…”
You mean they had a useful life?
Wind Europe say 38GW of Europe’s onshore wind capacity will be reaching the end of its normal operational life by 2025. Some may be repowered but most will go to landfill.
I think the answer will happen once the existing turbines become obsolete and need replacing.
The cost of that transformation will be enormous. Add that to the ‘plan’ to build thousands more new ones and more blackouts occur because of there unreliability, the cat will finally be let out of the bag.
“Below is a similar comparison breaking the trends out into space (using the Berkeley Earth dataset). It compares maps of the rate of change of annual average temperature and annual hottest temperature since 1975.” https://twitter.com/patricktbrown31/status/1555920258241683456
Of course the trend in the difference of the low temps and mean will be even more negative.
Warming seems to be making the climate more stable.
Not only are Arctic Blasts becoming less intense & less frequent*, so are hurricanes.
*Lows increase much more than the mean & highs increase much less. Activists mislead by looking a fixed threshold. A more honest measure is deviation from mean.
I actually suggest something like this would likely happen over a decade ago in the comments here.
I suggested that warming would likely be beneficial overall, but could make weather worse occasionally during brief periods of quasi-cyclical climate regimes (likely when we would expect cooling).
The weather isn’t getting worse, it’s just changing – slightly.
My belief is the amount of energy in the world’s weather remains largely the same over time, it just constantly shuffles bits of it about depending on a myriad of yet to be understood conditions.
I suspect the earth’s energy is often out of balance for long periods of time, maybe it is almost never in balance.
If you had a friend with an above ground pool, you’d remember when everyone would walk in a circle, adding energy, it’d create a smooth, controlled whirlpool. It was when everyone got out or stopped that the water became choppy & chaotic with rogue waves.
“”A new climate reality””
One their models couldn’t, er, model.
They genuinely need a disaster and Ehrlich etc keep promising them…
From the article: ““People are already dying of climate change right now,” said Sonia Seneviratne, a professor at ETH Zurich’s Institute for Atmospheric and Climate Science in Switzerland. “We have started to see events at near-zero probability of happening without human-induced climate change.”
An absurd statement. She couldn’t find human-induced climate change if she used both hands.
There is NO evidence human-derived CO2 is inducing any changes in Earth’s climate. Sonia can claim there is, but she has no proof. She’s not even close to having any proof. It’s just more of the same from alarmists: An Unsubstantiated assertion.
Greta claims she can see CO2. Sonia claims she can see the effects of CO2 on the Earth’s atmosphere. Both are delusional.
That’s unfair! She’s been pulling huge, steaming chunks of data out her own colon for years…which is strange, as she is actually cited as a specialist in extreme expressions of. bovine colonal discharges.
Easy; all one has to do is substitute the words “climate change” for “extreme weather” and you can “prove” global warming – “Just look out your window” as most journalists and activists say.
Never mind that we have experienced the same “extreme weather” since the start of recorded time.
Climate hasn’t changed for 100 months according to scientists. So people must be dying from something else then.
Following Al Gore’s movie most of the western world was convinced warming was a big problem.
A few small voices of dissent opposed that view.
Those dissenting voices have multiplied until, it seems, the UK government (Amber Rudd) was forced to take them seriously enough to invite debate.
A global survey was recently undertaken to understand the publics perception of climate change and it turns out 40% of the public didn’t believe it was a problem. It was a few % points higher than when the last global survey was conducted (I don’t know when that was) however the increase was a whopping 8% in France.
It’s interesting that the west is fawning over Trans rights in an embarrassingly public way yet there are estimated to be only 0.05% of the global population who are genuinely Trans yet the 40% who doubt climate change is a threat are ignored, silenced and cancelled other than on one meaningful occasion (Amber Rudd).
The climate sceptic movement has been gradually gathering momentum, almost unseen, over the years, insisting that science does not support the belief in CAGW.
But the dynamics are changing, the issue has now moved from the scientific to the financial – how much and who pays? – which hits everyone in the wallet.
Now people are compelled to pay for their beliefs serious questions are being asked by even the climate agnostics.
Every month on WUWT, Christopher Monckton shows how the satellite Ts are not going up as the AGW hoaxers predict, and the same cast of characters comes out of the woodwork to whine and generate a lot of meaningless noise, trying to deny reality.
You are right, things are changing, else they wouldn’t care what CMoB writes.
The article misspelled “pseudoscientists”.
So sue him!
(That’s the pseudosceantists MO, isn’t it?) 😎
Good post, Eric!
I like that full quote from Kevin Trenberth from 2009, including: “We are not close to balancing the energy budget.”
One has to wonder about the two-decimal-place reports of the energy imbalance.
For example – “The mean EEI during 2005–2015 was estimated to be 0.71 ± 0.10 Wm−2.” from Raghuraman et al 2021 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-24544-4
Really? 710 +/- 100 milliwatts per square meter?
This is one reason why I keep posting this link to the GOES East Band 16 animations. The radiance at 30C (yellow) on the “brightness temperature” scale used for visualization is 10 times the radiance at -90C (white). Watch from space to judge whether it looks reasonable to report a precise value for a whole-planet energy imbalance.
Trenberth was right. We are not close.
Like most everything else in climate science, those radiometric uncertainties are at least two orders of magnitude too small.
“Most of the core cadre will go to their graves still waiting ..”
Probably even waiting for Godot makes more sense …
Not worse impacts on planet.
Fewer severe hurricanes/typhoons/cyclones.
Worse impact on property.
In general, areas which have historically experienced hurricanes/typhoons/cyclones, are far more populated today, increasing damage and repair costs.
“People are already dying of climate change right now” – but “accelerating solar and wind” will save us from “the most severe climate change scenarios”.
Right. And the southern border is secure. Inflation is transitory. There is no CRT or gender transition training in schools. The vaccine is harmless and totally effective. Queue Oceania theme (which, I’ll admit, is a kinda cool anthem).
I prefer the Sardaukar chant myself.
They can see the same factual satellite data that everyone else does and they know they need to start positioning new BS and deflection for that.
Yep, the cracks are really starting to show, despite all of their cover up work, and they know it. This is a sign that they are getting nervous and we will see more attempts to reposition the narrative. This will be a harder position to
for them to defend, trying to pivot from “the end is near” to “the end is here”. It’s basically going to require the approach of “who are you going to believe, us, or your lying eyes”. I think we should encourage this. Their previous position of “trust the models, it’s going to be terrible” was impossible to conclusively contradict (at least from the perspective of a largely ignorant public at large). It is basically a he said, she said, where one side has been silenced. However, if they want to change the playing field from the hypothetical modeled future to the NOW, and come into the world of actual empirical observations, let’s pave the way for them. Even with all of their political and media support, I think it’s a losing position for them. But they have spun harder to believe stories, so maybe I’m naive.
Has Scott Dance made any effort to find out what a small percentage of total energy is produced by solar and wind? Has he noticed as a percentage of the total this has hardly increased over the past few years? I saw a graph recently but unfortunately cannot remember where. Perhaps another reader who knows can attach the link?
According to the BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2021 wind and solar provided 10.2% of world electricity with coal remaining the dominant fuel for power generation increasing to 36%. Remember electricity is only 20% of total energy use.Fossil fuels amounted to 82% of primary energy use.
Also see Andy May’s post on Jan 5th ‘Energy Use 2020 to 2021’ https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/01/05/energy-use-2020-to-2021/
They love to use Mauna Loa to chart the rise in CO2. Is anyone seriously worried that the climate where they live might become as nice as the climate around Mauna Loa? Volcanoes aside, people all over the world dream of being able to live in a climate as ideal as Hawaii.
“We asked would that be fifty years from now, or fifty years from 1997, when the hiatus started? They said they wouldn’t change their mind for fifty years from now.”
What might work is showing them their science is wrong. Once they understand the mistake I think a lot of scientists will come around.
The problem turns out to be fairly simple but also deceptive. The energy flows used in the models are daily energy flow, that is 240 w/m2 solar input and 240 w/m2 OLR. On the surface this seems obvious and simple. The following quote applies.
“For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.” – H L Mencken
The usage of this energy flow will lead to a warming from doubling CO2 of around 1.1 C. It is accepted by all of climate science and many skeptics as well. Here’s what really is going on.
1) Energy is absorbed at the surface and radiated upward.
2) CO2 absorbs energy around the 15 mm frequency band.
3) CO2 passes that energy on to other atmospheric molecules via kinetic energy collisions.
4) Kinetic energy collisions excite a CO2 molecule.
5) CO2 molecule emits IR randomly.
Climate science and many skeptics ignore steps 3) and 4). See almost any description of the the enhanced greenhouse effect. It seems reasonable on the surface but leads to a significant problem. What happens next?
6) Another CO2 molecule reabsorbs the IR photon.
And then steps 3) through 5) are repeated. Eventually, the CO2 photon is lost to space as part of the 240 m/m2 OLR mentioned above. Once again key steps are ignored in mainline climate science. The process is considered a radiation only event. Reabsorption and reemission are viewed as the only important events.
What is wrong with this view? It ignores all the energy already absorbed into the atmosphere from any and all sources. This becomes important when you change the concentration of a well mixed GHG such as CO2 or CH4.
Changes in these gases increase the emissivity/absorptivity of the atmosphere. Not only is the energy from daily surface radiation involved in step 4). All of the atmospheric energy gets involved to a greater extent. Using only the energy from the surface will not show an increase in upward radiation flow but the extra absorptivity from doubling CO2 will show a slow down in the energy flow. This is where the 1.1 C warming is derived.
When all the energy of the atmosphere is involved, you also get an increase in the upward energy flow which counters the slow down of energy flow. The two opposite effects cancel out and no warming can occur.
As a result there is no decrease in OLR when you double CO2 and the surface temperature remains the same. There are a few other considerations but this is the key factor that needs to be understood.
Wijngaarden and Happer describe the processes in detail, and show how they vary with altitude, temperature (which affects the energy of collisions and the energy distribution of molecules in a neighbourhood) and atmospheric composition.
Unfortunately, they get most of their results from radiation models which include the above error.
If they were honest, they would say that people are actually dying from climate change policy.
Note how the above CO2 chart never changes in its trend, it gradually grows geometrically. BTW, has anyone calculated the internal rate of return of that chart to see by what % it does grow each year? Anyway, my point is that oil consumption collapsed in 2019 and 2020 and we are still not back to per-COVID levels. The Atmospheric CO2 trend didn’t show even the slightest decrease. That is all the evidence any real scientist needs to know to understand this is a huge fraud. Also, with the higher CO2 levels since COVID are temperatures higher? Nope. Just imagine the economic damage that would need to be inflicted on the populations to even hope to make an impact on atmospheric CO2. It would be devastating. One election will be able to destroy the world.
Is the global sea surface temperature dropping because La Nina is strengthening?
The first indication of a pivot where the enviro-mob will eventually claim that the recent ‘warming’ was actually a pause in overall global cooling, thus enabling them to claim they’ve been right about Clima-Change™ since the 1960s.
Repent! The end is nigh.
Their models are them. Their beliefs are them. They can’t let go. Who would they be?
When did one professor from Switzerland become “scientists say”? And when did professors become scientists? Does she wear a lab coat to school?
Washington Post = garbage in garbage out, nothing more need said.
Who are these people allegedly dying from Climate Change ™ ?
Are they the Darwin Prize winners in Buffalo who decided to go out in a well-predicted blizzard?
Or are we simply attributing every death caused by a weather event to the Climate Collapse Catastrophe?
Scott Dance’s delusions, fantasies and dredged up failed predictions are baseless. Apparently, Scott used these old twisted refuted claims so he could assemble a fake story around a whopping lie.
A false story to fill some rag’s empty columns.
N.B., Scott does not provide any names or links to specific valid research. His story is all nightmarish fairytale allegories.