Earlier this week, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released its AR6 climate change report. Expectedly, the report is defined by serial doomcasting and claims of impending catastrophe despite the growing mountain of failed predictions that are conveniently ignored.
One of the most controversial claims made in the report is that anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) is the main driver of temperature change. Real-world data has proven this false, yet it’s the main takeaway in each IPCC report.
First released on Monday was the “Summary for Policymakers,” a section intended to guide policymaking decisions across the globe. The AR6 report continues to omit key information in favor of sensationalized claims that are easily refuted. For example, the 36-page summary doesn’t include a single mention of the logarithmic relationship between atmospheric CO2 concentrations and global temperature. Surely, policymakers should know that each unit of CO2 added to the atmosphere has a decreasing effect on temperature. The IPCC’s omission of this relationship implies that the warming effect of CO2 concentrations is linear, leading policymakers to overestimate the impact of CO2 emissions on global temperature and overcommit to emissions reduction strategies that are expensive and ineffective.
Don’t miss this data-driven discussion with host Anthony Watts and panelists, H. Sterling Burnett and Linnea Lueken, on Climate Change Roundtable, live every Friday at 12pm CT.
Watch LIVE HERE:
Yipeee, we’re doomed!!!! Now I can feel great when not a freakin thing happens.
If the current Ala Moana Observatory measurement is converted to percentage instead of PPM, then the current level of atmospheric CO2 is four hundredths of one percent. This percentage of CO2 in a CO2 fire extinguisher would render it useless for extinguishing a fire. How then can this percentage level of CO2 in the atmosphere be expected to change the Earth’s temperature and climate to the point that a crisis for humans is created?
The fire extinguisher analogy does not work for me because the fire extinguisher uses a “big number” concentration to achieve a “big visibility” effect. The AGW argument needs a “small number” type analogy. If I had an example I’d use it.
The purpose of using a CO2 fire extinguisher is to extinguish a fire, not create a “big visibility” event.
The fire extinguisher comparison is not apt, as you use it. A CO2 fire extinguisher works by reducing oxygen concentration at the source of the fire below the lower flammability limit.
But you are correct that the current atmospheric CO2 concentration represents but a trace gas in air, and it is by no means the atmospheric thermostat as the warmunists claim.
Didn’t one of our trolls recently assure us that Greens love hydro power?
Funnily enough, Mark, the most boring and simultaneously the most entertaining lefty departed when registration came in. Which does appear quite odd.
But we can invoke his memory with his patent power generator. Yes, the bicycle with the raised rear wheel and fitted dynamo…. good old Griff.
We’re doomed, so fug it, let’s party!
Like it’s… 2099
I’d still like more discussion on infrared spectrum saturation. I’m unsure that’s the correct term.
Yes, I thing you’re asking for “when do they think another molecule stops mattering?” using tech terms. Logically, an asymptote is approached.
Saturation at some frequency band occurs in our case when all of the radiation from the surface in some frequency band is absorbed by CO2 molecules. Using the log dependence of absorption vs concentration that can never happen, but that relationship fails under some conditions.
The log dependency requires that there be no other source of radiation in the gas that can excite the CO2 molecules. Obviously that is not true in our case as the CO2 is heated through Blackbody radiation and kinetic energy from O2 and N2 molecules.
It also breaks down if the concentration becomes too great.
They are saying it is their final warning. If only…
Wot, no models?!!!
“Global climate models are the best tools we have for understanding what drives climate changes”
Or, “Global climate models are the best tools we have for driving political, social and economic changes to bring about a neo-feudalist world”
There’s no room for data or scientific discovery – it’s settled, right? – what really counts is your faith in the [neo-feudalist] high priests (aka climate sceantists) and the holy narrative they preach via the media, education and big censored tech.
No, you have it wrong. Being people of the left, all they had to do was redefine the word “data” to mean the “output of computer games”. Voila, instant data that says whatever we want it to say!
Sucess!! Now the UN can replace its HVAC systems, award travel benefits, expand its cocktail parties, and expand its doomsday youth league program.
If you read the IPCC’s charter (I have read it), you will see that they are ONLY concerned about human-caused climate change. That means they CAN ignore anything that is natural, and they can continue to ‘blame’ CO2 as evil. If they didn’t have CO2 as the bad guy, they wouldn’t have a job, because the whole IPCC is structured around CO2. No CO2 problem, no IPCC.
Yes. We all have bills to pay.
Summary for Policymakers is ment to sway public opinion to accept nonsense.
However, public opinion is concoction of misinformation (propaganda), prejudice, self-interest, ignorance and often very few if any facts as it is the case on this occasion.
When Sean Youra was 26 years old and working as an engineer, he started watching documentaries about climate change. Youra, who was struggling with depression and the loss of a family member, was horrified by what he learned about melting ice and rising extreme weather. He started spending hours on YouTube, watching videos made by fringe scientists who warned that the world was teetering on the edge of societal collapse — or even near-term human extinction. Youra started telling his friends and family that he was convinced that climate change couldn’t be stopped, and humanity was doomed.
In short, he says, he became a climate “doomer.”
Now, this is certainly a twist … watching videos made by fringe scientists .. brings on the gloom and doom. story tip
Nice to know that nobody here is a “fringe scientist”
I note,that the IPCC highlighted the shortage of fresh water, and its impacts on communities. So, what are they going to do about lithium? It takes 2M+ litres of water to process 1 tonne of lithium. That’s 2000 tonnes of water.
Googled my term and saw negative bias under “people ask” results.
So I googled a philosophically opposed term… and also saw negative bias under “people ask” results.
So I just discovered my own negative bias toward Google.
Using big web data to build character profiles for the masses must be so discouraging if people are like me. What a bunch of nattering nabobs of negativity we are.
And the “shortage of water on Earth” in turn stops being a problem by throwing enough of electric power at it. Which obviously was the entire reason for the whole thing. I mean, not just Cowfart Apocalypse, but nuclear chicken fest before that. Raw power production can solve far too many problems (real and bogus alike) so easily that there’s not even much grift to be done.
Today they added the “Longer Report” to their SYR website (direct link).
At first glance the (85 page, 13 MB PDF file) document looks like the equivalent of the “Technical Summary” section of the individual Working Group assessment reports.
Note that this document has the word “Adopted” in the top-left corner and the phrase “Subject to Copyedit” (bold in the original) in the bottom-left corner of each page.
“Surely, policymakers should know that each unit of CO2 added to the atmosphere has a decreasing effect on temperature.”
Begging the question: When would the next unit of CO2’s effect on temperature become infinitesimal?
I know that many people here believe the next unit of CO2’s effect on temperature has always been infinitesimal. There is value in getting an answer rom another viewpoint.
Simple. The effect upon temperature from additional CO2 will approach zero eventually, huh?
However, before that happens one or more of the natural factors will dominate as they have for the last 7 or 8 glacial periods that began “free” of the extra CO2 that burning fossile fuels creates and has created by we puny humans.
Based on the continued false narrative that these organizations continue to get away with, as a skeptic it should be equally valid for me to claim that reduced solar activity causes warming.
Accurate IPCC summary for policymakers:
My own reply to “We’re doomed” is: “Yes, you’re quite right. You’re doomed.”
Somehow I think that the nuances of mathematics, ie linear vs log relationships, is going to go right over the heads of most policy makers with their degrees in pre-law, law, political “science” (as if), sociology, and liberal arts.
Their understanding of math is limited to “it goes up … or, it goes down”.
Question: Is this ‘Synthesis’ report a renaming of the old AR ‘summary for policymakers?
[ Enter “answer questions literally” mode … ]
Short answer : No.
Slightly longer answer : They explain at the start of the version of the SPM released on Monday what the “Synthesis Report” (SYR) will consist of :
NB : Although most media articles say the IPCC “released” the report on Monday, what was actually published on their website (direct link, and see attached screenshot below) was the “Approved” version of the SPM section of the SYR, not the “Final” version of the complete report.
Yesterday (Friday) they added the “Adopted, Subject to Copyedit” version of the “Longer Report”, but we are still waiting for any version of the “Full volume” file to be added to their website.
[ … exit “answer questions literally” mode ]
PS : Note the continued use by the IPCC of “rewriting the dictionary”, which appears to be designed to destabilise opponents by keeping them asking “What does that (completely new) term mean ???”.
At first glance the “Longer Report” of the SYR is the equivalent of what all three Working Groups called the “Technical Summary” in their (AR6) assessment reports.
Thanks for the detailed answer. But dammit, I was going to ignore this AR go around. Now I suppose I’ll have to read it, or part of it, at least.
News at 11.
“Expectedly, the report is defined by serial doomcasting and claims of impending catastrophe despite the growing mountain of failed predictions that are conveniently ignored.”
I could not even begin to count all of the times in human history when we were doomed.
The gloom-and-doomcasting goes back at least to the Millerite Movement in the 19th century, although that was based on Biblical prophecy. Solar eclipses were probably seen as the end of the world in ancient and prehistoric times.
Isn’t it interesting that we humans never seem to get tired of prognosticating our own doom after centuries and perhaps even millennia? Some things never get old.
“”” One of the most controversial claims made in the report is that anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) is the main driver of temperature change. Real-world data has proven this false “””
Hmm I must have missed that proof somehow. I was under the impression that long time reliable global warming data does not exist and we still have great uncertainty about even basic facts about global warming, for example the role of the sun in recent trends.
Regardless, it seems to be well established, that a doubling of CO2 from 280 to 560ppm has a direct warming effect of about 1°C in a norm atmosphere.
That together with the work of R. Spencer and yourself, establishing that at least in the US the real temperature trend is likely lower that report by GISS or RSS actually strengthen the anthropogenic is a main driver threory.. but it also means that these high feedback values are an utter fantasy and there is no danger whatsoever, just planetary greening.