© Clintel Foundation / Tuesday May 9, 2023
Amsterdam, 9 May 2023
* IPCC hides good news about disaster losses and climate-related deaths
* IPCC wrongly claimed the estimate of climate sensitivity is above 2.5°C; it is more likely below 2°C
* IPCC misleads policy makers by focusing on an implausible worst-case emissions scenario
* Errors in the AR6 report are worse than those that led to the IAC Review in 2010
The IPCC ignored crucial peer-reviewed literature showing that normalised disaster losses have decreased since 1990 and that human mortality due to extreme weather has decreased by more than 95% since 1920. The IPCC, by cherry picking from the literature, drew the opposite conclusions, claiming increases in damage and mortality due to anthropogenic climate change. These are two important conclusions of the report The Frozen Climate Views of the IPCC, published by the Clintel Foundation.
The 180-page report is – as far as we know – the first serious international ‘assessment’ of the IPCC’s Sixth Assessment Report. In 13 chapters the Clintel report shows the IPCC rewrote climate history, emphasizes an implausible worst-case scenario, has a huge bias in favour of ‘bad news’ and against ‘good news’, and keeps the good news out of the Summary for Policy Makers.
The errors and biases that Clintel documents in the report are far worse than those that led to the investigation of the IPCC by the Interacademy Council (IAC Review) in 2010. Clintel believes that the IPCC should reform or be dismantled.
With the recently published Synthesis Report, the IPCC finished its sixth assessment cycle, consisting of seven reports in total. An international team of scientists from the Clintel network has analysed several claims from the Working Group 1 (The Physical Science Basis) and Working Group 2 (Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability) reports. This has now led to the report The Frozen Climate Views of the IPCC.
In every chapter the Clintel report documents biases and errors in the IPCC assessment. The errors are worse in the WG2 report than in the WG1 report. Given the political relevance of what is known as “Loss and Damage” (at the yearly COP meetings, countries currently negotiate donations to a Loss and Damage fund) one would expect a thorough review of the relevant literature. However, Clintel shows that the IPCC has totally failed in this respect. For example, a review article on the subject, published in 2020, showed that 52 out of 53 peer reviewed papers dealing with “normalised disaster losses” saw no increase in harms that could be attributed to climate change. The IPCC highlighted the single paper that claimed an increase in losses. That paper is – unsurprisingly – flawed, but its cherry picking by the IPCC suggests they found its conclusions irresistible.
Climate-related deaths
“We are on a highway to climate hell”, said UN-boss Guterres recently. But an in-depth look at the mortality data shows that climate-related deaths are at an all-time low. Well-known economist Bjorn Lomborg published that important information in a 2020 peer-reviewed paper, but the IPCC, again, chose to ignore it.
The strategy of the IPCC seems to be to hide any good news about climate change and hype anything bad.
Erasing climate history
The Working Group 1 report is not free from bias and misleading conclusions either. The report documents problems in every chapter the Clintel team reviewed. The IPCC has tried to rewrite climate history by erasing the existence of the so-called Holocene Thermal Maximum (or Holocene Climate Optimum), a warm period between 10,000 and 6000 years ago. It has introduced a new hockey stick graph, which is the result of combining cherry-picked proxies. And it has ignored temperature reconstructions that show more variability in the past, such as the well-documented Little Ice Age.
The IPCC claims there is an acceleration in the rate of sea-level rise in recent decades. Clintel has shown this claim is flawed, because the IPCC ignores decadal variability in sea level. We also show that its sea-level tool – made available for the first time – shows a mysterious and improbable jump upward in 2020.
Climate sensitivity
Canadian economist Ross McKitrick has pointed out that all global climate models used by the IPCC show too much warming in the troposphere, both globally and in the tropics (where models predict a ‘hotspot’). This probably indicates some fundamental problems in the way that these models simulate the climate system.
A ’spectacular’ result of the IPCC AR6 report was the rise of the lower bound for the climate sensitivity likely range from 1.5°C to 2.5°C, therefore claiming that low values for climate sensitivity are now unlikely. The Clintel report shows this rise is not justified. The Clintel report suggests that observed warming and other evidence indicates that the true figure is more likely to be below 2°C than above 2.5°C. This also means that the best estimate for climate sensitivity, which the IPCC says is 3°C, is not justified.
On top of that, the IPCC is ‘addicted’ to its highest emissions scenario, so-called RCP8.5 (or now SSP5-8.5). In recent years, several papers have demonstrated that this scenario is implausible and should not be used for policy purposes. Deep inside the WG1 report, the IPCC acknowledges that this scenario has a ‘low likelihood’ but this very important remark was not highlighted in the Summary for Policymakers, so these important audiences are unaware of the issue. RCP8.5 is the scenario most often referred to in the IPCC report.
IAC Review
Back in 2010, errors in the WG2 report of the Fourth Assessment led to the investigation of the IPCC by the U.N. Interacademy Council (IAC). This review recommended, amongst other things, that “[h]aving author teams with diverse viewpoints is the first step toward ensuring that a full range of thoughtful views are considered.” This important recommendation is still being ignored by the IPCC. Worse, we document that Roger Pielke Jr, a scientist with considerable expertise in these areas, is regarded as a kind of ‘Voldemort’ by the IPCC, and they deliberately avoid mentioning his work or even his name. This leads to biased conclusions.
Reform
We are sorry to conclude that the IPCC has done a poor job of assessing the scientific literature. All countries rely on the IPCC reports to support their climate policies and most of the media blindly trust its claims. The Clintel report The Frozen Climate Views of the IPCC shows that this trust is not justified.
In our view the IPCC should be reformed, and should include a broader range of views. Inviting scientists with different views, such as Roger Pielke Jr and Ross McKitrick, to participate more actively in the process is a necessary first step. If, for some reason, such inclusion of different views is unacceptable, the IPCC should be dismantled.
Our own conclusions about climate – based on the same underlying literature – are far less bleak. Due to increasing wealth and advancing technology, humanity is largely immune to climate change and can easily cope with it. Global warming is far less dangerous to humanity than the IPCC tells us.
The report can be downloaded here.
The press release (in English) can be downloaded here in pdf.
Dutch press release here.
Hungarian press release here.
ABOUT CLINTEL
The Climate Intelligence foundation (Clintel) was founded in 2019 by emeritus professor of geophysics Guus Berkhout and science journalist Marcel Crok. Clintel’s main objective is to generate knowledge and understanding of the causes and effects of climate change, as well as the effects of climate policy. Clintel published the World Climate Declaration, which has now been signed by more than 1500 scientists and experts. Its central message is “there is no climate emergency”.
Great article. Unfortunately IPCC, the UN, the WEF DO NOT care about facts.
They are only interested in pushing THEIR agenda, and ignore any information which counters that agenda, ably assisted by some governments and media
“Show me the the incentive and I’ll show you the outcome” – Charlie Munger
$$$$$$$$
Why would you want any more than a scan to know it is fantasy. Page 934 of WG1 is what the whole fairy tale relies on and it is truly farcical.
There is next to no long wave radiation at ground level. The idea of forward radiation and back radiation at ground level is as silly as suggesting there is forward and back radiation in a rock.
Convective heat transport at ground level is more than two orders of magnitude higher than long wave radiation transfer.
Duohhh……Rick, net IR at ground level averages about 60 watts upwards (398-342), while convection plus evaporation is about 100 watts (82+21). That’s about a 2:1 ratio, not 2 orders of magnitude (100:1), but is also quite variable from day to night and from clear to cloudy skies, leaving lots of room for interpretive heat transfer numbers on those various heat balance Sankey diagrams…but at least they are getting to “all sky” and “clear sky” versions. Hopefully the next step will be “daytime” and “nighttime” versions of those two graphs.
I would point out that the “clear sky” case in the graphic has the same 398 W/sq.M upwards IR, which means it uses the same surface temperature as the 65% cloudy “all sky” case.
This is incorrect except on a local, short term basis where the surface is constantly 289C.
The only constant is 340 Watts average SW from the Sun.
In the clear sky case, the surface temperature would increase due to the increased sunlight…surface temperature would go up…increasing IR to outer space through the atmospheric window…this can be solved fairly closely on Modtran, so we are not sure why the IPCC didn’t do it right….
Rubbish – the satellite high resolution spectrum shows next to no long wave radiation makes it from the surface to space.
Tropical atmosphere has a long wave spectrum well correlated to a black body at 235K where surface is 303K. Clear sky over the Sahara correspond to a black body at 270K when the surface temperature is 298K – per attached. High resolution spectral curves from this paper:
https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/15/6561/2015/
Here is a simple question – why do wild animals have fur – to reduce the radiative heat loss or to stop convective heat loss. If you say both, give the ratio.
A second question – if there is forward and back radiation in air at ground level, hows much is there in a rock.
Third question – you claim that there is net radiation of 80W/m^2 at surface level as a result of forward and back radiation while convection transports heat from the surface at 100W/m^2. What about the back convection? Surely there is convection in both directions as well!
Well from 8 to 14 microns wavelength, the atmospheric window, representing Weins Law temp of about +90C to -65C in other words all Earthly temperatures, you can see that about 80-90% of those wavelength get from surface to outer space. However surfaces at about room temp only emit about 35% of their IR at 8-14 microns. Plus clouds cover 65% of the window.
Your curve is imaginary. Is does not relate to ToA measurements.
I have attached the spectra from the various scenes based on actual satellite measurement extracted from the paper I linked to above. You will note the peak radiance over Sahara is 558/cm or 17.9 micron. Way lower than your imaginary peak in your chart.
The peak for the tropics is 436/cm or 22.9 micron with surface T at 303K. Almost 1:1 correspondence with 235K black body. Try to replicate that with your make believe radiation model.
Convection matters at ground level. Long wave EMR goes nowhere – truly trivial. Satellites can spend a month over the southern ocean and never get any meaningful surface view.
Well its from Modtran…and here’s their Sahara matchup…prepare to eat crow, Rick…
Modtran is make believe. It is a model that produces nothing like the measured. Why would anyone think a model produces something more meaningful than actual measurement?
Look at where the peak is in MOdtran – about 850/cm. The measured spectrum for the tropics peaks at 435/cm.
You are looking at something from a model. Not real data.
I have done my own measurements and MEASURED convective heat transfer at ground level being more than 200 times radiative transfer for a surface at 400K or below in ambient of 285K. And that was in still conditions
Compare your modelled chart with the satellite measured data.
”…compare….”
Rick, the black line IS a satellite measurement. And your interpretation of which photons are getting to outer space to from ground level, or from higher altitudes, needs a little work.
Looks like the peak would have been at 650 not 558 if not for the absorption, you should be using the blackbody temp at that longer wavelength, no?
I don’t think the Sahara is a good place to take CO2 IR lessons from. Low water vapor. Hot sand during the day, cold sand at night. Local albedo similar to the Moon. Temp inversions the norm at night. Convection high during the day. Same CO2 as everywhere else, lost in big variations in radiation by Planck’s law.
All relative but not what I would consider cold. At 9pm surface air T would be over 20C and probably under 40C. I checked the night air temp for the Sahara at the corresponding location/time of year and day specified. Does not go back to 2012 but it ranges from 20 to 40C at that time of night over the years.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#2014/04/17/1200Z/wind/surface/level/overlay=temp/orthographic=-342.53,28.11,374/loc=26.539,25.814
The measured OLR correspond to black body spectrum of 270K; well below any probable surface temperature. In the far infrared being measured by the satellite, the emissivity of sand is not much below 1. So nothing from the sand surface is making it to the satellite to be measured.
If what you say were true, then the Earth could only come back into radiation balance by reaching a temperature where it would glow. In reality depending on how much water vapor the atmosphere carries, a clear sky is 12-35% transparent to IR radiation in the 4.5-20,000 micrometer wavelegnth region.
You have proven my point. In clear sky you have as little as 12% getting out from the surface. Then think how often is there clear sky over tropical ocean where most of the short wave energy is taken up?
The measured full spectrum for OLR from a tropical atmosphere is almost identical to black body radiation of 235K. Nothing like the 303K surface temperature. No part of the spectrum would be produced by a high emissivity surface at 303K.
Radiation makes negligible contribution to heat loss for Earth’s surface. The vast majority of long wave radiation leaving Earth is from high in the atmosphere. There is close to zero radiated energy from the surface of tropical oceans direct to space. It is all absorbed in the first few metres. The surface heat is convectively transported above 6,000m before there is any transparency direct to space.
How much of the 342 W/m2 you mention is from CO2? You mention “heat Transfer” so what temperature would CO2 be to transfer heat to the surface of the earth?
Well you can guesstimate the relative areas under the curves following compared to their totals. Looks like CO2 is responsible for about 15% in the LW, >4 microns
So what temp does CO2 have to be to transfer heat to the Earth…..well…warmer than the surface, since heat flows from hot to cold only. But at any temperature warmer than outer space, those greenhouse gases reduce the heat that can be transferred compared to transfer to outer space at a given surface temperature.
And if the heat out is reduced, the sun is just going to heat the surface more the next day…..
Not a great analogy, but think of your furnace running flat out keeping your house just the right temp inside….then add some insulation to the walls and ceiling….your house temp is going to go up since your furnace is still running flat out…right? The sun is our furnace.
The difference being that your house is enclosed space with walls to block convection directly to the outdoors.
The atmosphere has no enclosure.
The point is a source of heat being supplied internally. I knew someone would pick on my “not a great analogy”.
You really ought to study these subjects a bit longer. I recommend 15 years if not a life time, and a book: ‘Radiative Transfer’ by Chandrasekhar, Nobel laureate.
In a fully convective atmosphere about half the heat flow is in the convection and the other about half in the radiative flux. This can be easily understood since the radiative lapse rate without convection is about 12-13 degree C/km, whereas the real atmosphere, with convection, exhibits a laps rate of 6 degrees/km.
Ed
And? Have you done the relevant calculations? In fact: I did. It was really a lot of work. But my results show that the net result of more CO2 in the air is nothing.
An evaluation of the greenhouse effect by carbon dioxide | Bread on the water
The warming is coming from earth itself, in different ways.
1) more volcanic
2) more green = more black = lower albedo
3) more green = more exothermic reaction in the night and in the growth seasons, causing the noted increase in minima.
So what is the “radiative lapse rate” at surface level over a tropical ocean?
An atmosphere of average composition, including water vapour, but not convective,13 C/km. But the water vapour content drives the heat transfer into the convection mode and then the adiabatic lapse rate applies, which is 6 C/km. That is about the rate applied in the Standard Atmosphere used in aviation.
What you are calling the radiative lapse rate is universally known as the dry adiabatic lapse rate and it is 9.8C/km. It depends solely on gravity and specific heat of dry atmosphere.
https://www.britannica.com/science/lapse-rate
The saturated lapse rate is also determined under adiabatic/isentropic equilibrium.
Now do you know what adiabatic means? The simplest meaning:
So the fact that you are referring to adiabatic lapse rate means that any radiation transfer within the troposphere is negligible. Otherwise it would not be called the “adiabatic” lapse rate.
Radiative heat loss from the atmosphere over the tropics only becomes significant above the level of free convection and that radiation loss above the LFC is essential for developing CAPE and pumping up the tropical atmosphere to power global advection.
Guess what, there is plenty of back- and forth radiation within a rock. Not just in rocks of course, but everywhere. Almost every molecule radiates and absorbs radiation and it does not care if it is incidentally located at a “surface” or not.
If you think so. But what about back convection?
EMR energy transfer is unidirectional in time and space. That is a fundamental requirement of satisfying Maxwell’s equations that govern electro-magnetic energy transport.
And EMR is not heat. It must be thermalised by matter. Any what EMR leaving the surface of the Earth mostly gets absorbed (thermalised) in a few metres.
Convective and advective power fluxes are orders of magnitude higher than surface long wave fluxes. Think of a cyclone. Wind power density of the order of 100,000W/m^2 at ground level. Go up to 250hPa and WPD up to 200,000W/m62. Long wave transmission is not significant below 270K in clear sky and 230K of tropical oceans. A cyclone reduces ocean surface temperature by 3C in its wake. The highest measured 24 hour rainfall is 1830mm. Think of the convective heat transport to liberate that from the ocean and drop it on land at 2000m elevation.
Why do you think the lower atmosphere is called the troposphere?
I don’t understand this statement. If you position two identical lasers so their beams cross at right angles, what is the direction of EMR energy transfer in the small volume of space where the two beams cross?
Like the gravity field, there is only one electric and one magnetic field. And the oscillating electric field and magnetic field are coupled. The beams exist in that coupled field and both will influence it.
It is possible to have two lasers cancel each other as explained here:
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1qgvzb/when_two_beams_of_laserlight_are_put_in_perfect/
Energy in the E-M coupled field travels with a phase velocity that is related to the square root of the inverse of permittivity times permeability of the material; known as the speed of light in a vacuum.
:
All matter communicates at the speed of light throughout the universe. EMR is one manifestation of that communication. The Sun and Earth communicate through both the gravity and coupled E-M fields at the speed of light to keep Earth in orbit around the Sun and to provide a source of EMR that Earth thermalises at the required rate to maintain a stable temperature.
You are stuck in bad logic. Terms like “electro-magnetic energy transport”, “thermalised” or “long wave fluxes” should all be avoided, because they mean nothing.
What the hell is a “long wave flux”??? Radiation does not flow, it radiates. Whether there is a transfer of energy depends on a delta in temperature. As surface and surface near atmosphere are about the same temperature, there is basically no energy transfer due to back- and forth radiation. In this regard the energy budget diagram above is pointless. Also it is the reason why “back radiation” is unrelated to the GHE.
Let me educate you.
https://www.techtarget.com/whatis/definition/flux
The term “radiation” is an abbreviation of Electro-Magnetic Radiation. The energy is transported in the Electric Field and Magnetic Field at the wave phase velocity which is a function of the electrical permittivity and magnetic permeability – the square root of the inverse of the product of these two constants. In a vacuum it is the speed of light.
Thermalisation of solar EMR is the portion of the available energy in the E-M that is exchanged with the Earth system as in:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermalisation
Not all solar EMR available at the top of the atmosphere is involved in thermalising the Earth system. Earth only thermalises the amount needed to maintain its temperature. The rest is reflected.
If the IPCC was right then this method of air conditioning wouldn’t work. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zW9_ztTiw8
Three points on this video:
Then he clearly demonstrates he has no understanding of radiation because he has back and forward radiation in complete misunderstanding of EMR in THE coupled electro-magnetic field.
I have done a very simple experiment that most people could do that demonstrates quantitatively the ratio of convection and radiation transfer at surface level. Under 400K surface temperature convection transfer is more than 200 times radiation heat transfer:
Globe_Heat_Tranfer.pdf
Any organization that would use Michael Mann as an “expert” is not doing science.
So …., you’re saying that expert propagandist is NOT a legitimate career in science?
no surprise here
Yeah, what else is new?!
Unless the IPCC has changed their processes recently, their Summary for Policymakers is written by policymakers (i.e. bureaucrats) during plenary sessions, so it should be no surprise that it’s nonsense.
Regards,
Bob
Maybe “Summary for Policymakers” should be re-titled, Summary for and by Climate Alarmists.
True.But now what? Should we not get the IPCC up in a court for spreading false information? Fake news. Is what it is. Same as the Club of Rome in the 70s
I was going to make exactly the same comment Bob.
I read reports years ago how the bureaucrats dominated the scientists at these Policy Sessions after the scientists had made there reports
They had and still have an agenda so the policy is moulded to fit their vision .
To hell with the facts .
In past years, the Summary for Policymakers was finished before the authors had completed work on their chapters. The authors were then instructed to make sure that the chapter summaries matched the Summary for Policymakers.
The IPCC was created to study and mitigate the impact of human (industrial) activity on the climate. The IPCC is not interested in any evidence to the contrary.
Agree. Reporting evidence to the contrary of a climate crisis is outside the charter assigned by the General Assembly. No call for cost/benefit analysis or fair and balanced. The assumption is there’s a climate crisis and the IPCC needs to determine how bad it is,and recommend measures for the world governments to cooperate together to “fix it”.
6 December, 1988
43/53 Protection of global climate for present and future generations of mankind
The General Assembly, …”Conservatism of climate as part of the common heritage of mankind.”
Concerned that human activities could change global climate patterns, threatening present and future generations with potentially economic and social consequences.
Noting with concern that the emerging evidence indicates that continued growth in atmosphere concentrations of “greenhouse” gases could produce (sea level rise).
Paul wrote, “The IPCC was created to study and mitigate the impact of human (industrial) activity on the climate.”
I disagree. The IPCC was founded by unelected bureaucrats to provide propaganda, masquerading as science, for anti-capitalist, anti-growth, and anti-American agendas.
Regards,
Bob
Sounds to me Ike you’re both saying essentially the same thing.
No surprises here. IPCC will not reform, as it is staffed by people whose professional careers depend on climate alarm.
What will make a big dent is failed predictions and failed renewable solutions. We already have plenty of the former, but not enough yet of the latter.
“staffed by people whose professional careers depend on climate alarm”
So much of life is waiting for attrition without becoming attrition.
Rud.
The burned-up canaries, deer, trees and homes in the Sierra foothills could be chalked up to “failed renewable solutions.” –
Who’s Afraid of Retail Electricity Rate Reform? – Energy Institute Blog
(wordpress.com)https://energyathaas.wordpress.com/2023/04/17/whos-afraid-of-retail-electricity-rate-reform/comment-page-3/#comment-89206
The post and comments highlight the DEATH of the “Affordable Renewable Energy” sustainable development goal.
I don’t why anyone would believe anything coming out of these globalist oriented bodies. They get nothing right, they lie and distort. They are as hyperbolic as it my sound interested in control and destroying national sovereignty. My god look at the new proposed rules( as we have) from the WHO. And most people are sound asleep. ( except us few here and there)
There’s definitely a climate emergency with the emergence of all these climate catastrophists.
There is a climate POLICY crisis. As in, if the Eco-Nazis get to put their coveted policies in place, it will be a crisis beyond imagination.
“All countries rely on the IPCC reports to support their climate policies…”
Not counting China, India and Africa.
Do those three places have climate policies?
Their policies are to dismiss the “climate emergency” and improve their nations’ economies for the benefit of their people- wisely ignoring the IPCC and its reports.
Those India will be building the worlds largest solar “farm”.
https://www.newyorker.com/news/dept-of-energy/indias-quest-to-build-the-worlds-largest-solar-farms
I doubt it’s to “save the planet”- more likely to enrich some companies.
They have policies such that allow for a seat at the table. No obligations accrue to them, however.
They actually have excellent (for them) climate policies.
They talk up the dangers of climate change, plead poverty – so no restrictions on their economies, and then cash the checks while idiot politicians in the west send all of their good manufacturing jobs to these regions!
Of course they do .You would have to dig deep but these countries ( Asia and Africa’s climate policies ) which are ” let the rest of the world believe in what the IPCC tell them and de carbonize.”
But they are much smarter and just keep on burning coal ,gas and oil expanding their industries because some one has to do it.
The clown governments running most western countries all have destructive policies because all major infrastructure needs constant maintenance .
Maintenance of roads, railways, ports ,shipping ,airports,heavy machinery and city buildings all need materials made using fossil fuel or made from fossil fuel .
Any country taking these crazy actions will very soon that find out that lack of maintenance will have dire consequences .
When infrastructure starts falling apart there will be materials available in Asia .
Iron and steel, aluminum,bitumen ,cement new cargo and passenger ships , the list is endless .
The worlds wealth will then flow to Asia .
Western world governments remind me of Nero who fiddled as Rome burned .
And all other “developing” nations…
I see that Sir John Hougthon passed away April of 2020 I don’t remember that any other of the assessment reports made mention of deaths since the previous report.
Well anyway, I’m rather sure Sir Hougthon is the responsible party for the Global Warming Potential numbers. He must have had a hearty laugh up his sleeve every time the Main Stream Media reported how many times more powerful than CO2 methane is.
Here’s the LINK to the current report. Is there any place to down load individual chapters? Doing [Ctrl-F] search on the whole thing is pretty much unworkable.
“I don’t remember that any other of the assessment reports made mention of deaths since the previous report.”
Maudlin sign of aging leadership. They’re reaching the “naming decorations after each other as memorials” stage. Next, they start berating younger team members in public.
The individual chapters for the Physical Science Basis can be downloaded here:
Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis | Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis (ipcc.ch)
Thanks Different format, I assume the text and charts are the same.
Very good news. The IPCC is wretched.
The IPCC is run by the UN which has Agenda 21 as its main policy purpose. There is no need to say anything else.
“normalised disaster losses have decreased since 1990”
I guess “normalised” must be British slang for inflation-corrected. Were other factors corrected for?
Yes the normalization process developed by Roger Pielke Jr. normalizes for inflation, population, and increasing prosperity. Pielke Jr. wrote a nice literature review article in 2020, see here:
Economic ‘normalisation’ of disaster losses 1998–2020: a literature review and assessment: Environmental Hazards: Vol 20, No 2 (tandfonline.com)
It also includes estimates of infrastructure placed in harms way.
Probably the fact that we keep building more “stuff” in areas prone to hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, wildfires, etc.
That’s why the Eco-Nazis like to use meaningless metrics like “losses” (and APPEAR to give such meaningless metrics “validity” by “inflation adjustment”), since this clever sleight of hand willfully ignores how much more property value is in the path of recent as opposed to historical storms.
“human mortality due to extreme weather”
Needs correction by a complicated graduate school model to account for technological HVAC advances. Also for global standard of living increase and population increase.
“Clintel believes that the IPCC should reform or be dismantled.”
Or held on a cruise ship in the Carribean? Clintel is a big party pooper.
In March, WUWT published an article titled “Claim: Climate Change will Cause More Drought and More Frequent Intense Rainfall in Britain“, in which Dr Elizabeth Kendon claimed
So I asked Dr Kendon why she had used RCP8.5:
——–
——–
Dr Kendon responded
——–
——–
——–
Dr Kendon did not respond.
We can draw our own conclusions.
“We appreciate RCP8.5 is a high end scenario, with lower emissions scenarios now considered more likely – however understanding plausible high end changes are needed for some users to support precautionary planning.”
This is really shocking. She is literally saying she knowingly chose the most extreme – and unlikely – scenario for political effect. In other words, propaganda. Putin would be proud of her.
What better example of the corruption of science?
Chris
Why did all this money and effort have to be pissed away simply to say UN are lying f*cks? Is there really nothing productive and profit making you could have done with all this time and money? Really? How f*cking sad.
On the up side, I see you waited until after noon to start drinking.
Wow. You down voted my comment 11 times, what a delicate little turd blossom you prove yourself to be, sweety. You un scumbags are so easy to jab. F*ck off. Tell your lies to someone else, I ain’t buying them.
Lets not mince words. They are committing scientific fraud. Cherry picking being the most obvious example. Empirical evidence which destroys their false narratives are simply ignored.
Lack of empirical evidence in support of their ridiculous claims is also simply ignored.
December 19, 2019
“…A large group of countries, regions, cities, businesses and investors signaled their intention to achieve net-zero CO2 emissions by 2050…”
My readings find that during the past five (5) years somewhat of a consensus has developed that a doubling of C02 in the atmosphere will cause a temperature increase of 1.0 C + – 0.5C (negligible for at least the next 50 years). Another “somewhat of a consensus” is that wind and solar, beyond a 50% grid penetration (15% solar/35% wind) is not workable without storage and that >10% solar and 20% wind destabilizes the grid and makes electricity more expensive. The cost of battery storage is prohibitive, and is now increasing, rather than decreasing as it did in the previous decade, and will continue to increase indefinitely (nearly certainly forever),
If the IPCC is serious about the need for action to significantly reduce CO2 because of “fossil fuels” they simply need to go all in for nuclear. Otherwise, the appropriate response is to defund The IPCC because it is a conspicuous hoax. None of this is complicated.
Joel O’Bryan
December 19, 2019
To maintain reliability on grid, a good rule of thumb is market penetration of an energy source must not exceed its annual averaged capacity factor (CF).
Onshore Wind CF is around 30%, Solar PV CF in the South is like 20%. Maybe 25% in So Arizona and SoCal.
Thus Places like Texas can probably get to 50% since they have both wind and solar availability. But it does mean much higher electric bills for reliability to pay for all the idle backup.
But further up north solar PV is non-viable due to snow, long winter nights etc. So no more than 30% renewable without significant cost and grid reliability problems.
Global warming is far less dangerous to humanity than the IPCC
tells us.LOL!
I have not read the Clintel report yet, but look forward to. Maybe the answer to this is in the report – I hope so.
In the 4th section here you state that the IPCC ignored 53 papers on normalized loss and quoted the 54th that is the only one showing an increase in such losses. The critique here being that they ignored the mass of papers and favoured the one.
In the following section you state that the IPCC ignored the one paper (from Bjørn Lomborg) that shows a reduction in climate-related deaths.
From the looks of it you have reversed your argument. First you scold them for ignoring the mass of papers and only quoting the one, then you scold them for not quoting the one.The form of argumentation is thus inconsistent.
As I started off saying, the details in the Clintel-report may give a better view of this but you might want to consider how you put forward the arguments in this WUWT-piece. As of now it doesn’t really stick.
AndersV,
I don’t understand your objection. Both statements are true and are separate AR6 problems.
Roger Pielke Jr identified 53 papers that had conclusions on the human impact of weather disasters, 52 concluded there was no impact, one concluded there was an impact. AR6 only cites the one.
AR6 concludes that weather is having a detrimental impact on humanity and the impact is increasing, yet Bjorn Lomborg shows that mortality due to weather events has drastically decreased (more than 90%) since 1920. They do not cite Lomborg’s excellent peer-reviewed paper at all.
If this isn’t clear in the press release, look it up in the report. The papers I’ve mentioned are cited in the report if you want to read them.
It’s not about the numbers of papers; it’s about how the IPCC consistently ignores anything that doesn’t feed the “climate crisis” bullshit.
AndersV ==> The science involved is not just “paper counts” — The IPCC clearly cherry picks the data on weather damages….
On climate-related deaths — it isn’t just one paper by Lomborg == it is the international disaster database held by EMDAT, associated with the UN and UN’s WMO that shows the incredibly huge decline in weather/climate related deaths — in other words, the IPCC simply ignores the facts which it has collected and asserts untrue death statistics.
Except for the unfortunate alliteration with Clinton, a brilliant piece!
RickWill wrote :
I have a different opinion on what “the whole fairy tale” is, which is :
“We have to reduce CO2 emissions ! ! !”
As far as I can tell that particular fairy tale “relies on” Figure 5.31 on page 750 (see attached graphic at the end of this post).
Notes
1, about the units used) 1 PgC (Peta-gram of Carbon) = 1 GtC (Giga-tonne of Carbon).
2) By replacing the “Calendar Year” X-axis with a “Cumulative CO2 emissions” one instead the IPCC can avoid having to answer questions like “When will we cross the ‘dangerous’ threshold ?” or “How long do we actually have to act ?”.
3) Using “Cumulative carbon-dioxide emissions” instead of “Cumulative greenhouse-gas emissions” simplifies the messaging when explaining to the ignorant peasants why they “have to” shut down their coal and CCGT power plants.
4) All three of the “fiddle factors” end up reducing the final “carbon budget” numbers.
NB : The “Non-CO2 contribution” fiddle factor can be invoked in response to “But what about methane emissions ?” like questions, along with “Don’t worry your pretty little heads about the details, all of the numbers were calculated by experts and (climate) scientists …”.
5) The grey “TCRE triangle” does not start at (cumulative emissions = 0 GtC [ = 1850 ], temperature anomaly = 0°C), it actually starts at (~600 GtC [ = 2015 ], ~1.05°C [***] ).
[***] The IPCC WG-I report gives the “likely range” of the estimated temperature anomaly — relative to the 1850-1900 “pre-industrial proxy” average — for the 2010-2019 decade as “0.8 to 1.3°C”, i.e. 1.05 +/- 0.25°C.
See section 3.3.1.1.2, page 442.
– – – – –
The whole “TCRE concept” that is currently being used to “justify” reducing CO2 emissions is 100% based on the computer model simulations of the various purely theoretical SSP emissions pathways.
Follow-up post 1 (of 2).
The distortions to the actual empirical data / “instrumental record” by the change in X-axis described in my “Note 2” are quite large.
For the moment I have only reached the stage of “observing” this phenomenon.
I am nowhere near being able to either explain it or “deduce” (/ infer ?) all of the ramifications that result from switching to this alternative viewpoint.
Follow-up post 2.
The discrepancies between the results derived from assuming “the TCRE concept” and the actual empirical data are much more obvious when using the “X-axis = Calendar year” viewpoint.
You only get a “good” match to the trends from roughly 2005/2010 to 2022.
The WMO — and the IPCC, see the “Climate” entry in the “Glossary” annexes for all three of the AR6 Working Group assessment reports — says that by default you need (at least) thirty years of weather data before you can declare the trend (or average) to be “climate”, not fifteen.
PS : I repeat, all of this is still WIP (Work In Progress). I am nowhere near being able to draw even tentative “conclusions” from these observations, let alone definitive ones.
“there is no climate emergency”
But, but… my local council has had a vote and declared that there is one!
There is a fool born every minute.
NO, massive bureaucracies can never be reformed.
On the other hand NO ONE has the power or authority to disband them. The UN and all its officials get blanket diplomatic immunity everywhere in the world.
That’s right. No audit , no accountability, no legal recourse.
How can they have done a poor job? They came up with the right answer. /sarc