Archives par mot-clé : Misinformation

climate-debate

‘Less ice means more conflicts with polar bears’ narrative not supported by scientific evidence

by S. Crockford, Apr 18, 2023 in WUWT

 

In another failed prediction, a new study on the number of polar bears killed in self-defense in Svalbard, Norway did not find the expected correlation with lack of sea ice or more tourists (Vongraven et al. 2023). Contrary to expectations, fewer bears were actually killed in self-defence as sea ice declined between 1987 and 2019.

Money Quote from the abstract:

“…ice cover had no significant impact on the odds for a [polar bear] kill.”

It seems the warning from polar bear specialist Andrew Derocher a few months ago was just plain wrong:

“Poor ice conditions for polar bears at Svalbard this year. Low ice will make tough hunting conditions this coming spring. Time to plan for more human-bear conflicts unless conditions change.” [13 Feb 2023 tweet, my bold]

…

From the Discussion section of the Vongraven paper (pg. 9), my bold:

“More bears on land for longer periods during which more people were accessing the same habitats could have been expected to increase the number of bear-human interactions, and the number of bears killed in defence of life and property. Despite a positive relationship between number of tourists and number of kills at a given time, the total numbers of bears killed did not increase over the years of the study and per-capita kills strongly declined. … This overall reduction in kills, despite greatly reduced sea ice habitat availability and more polar bears spending more time on land, may reflect success of the Svalbard Environmental Act of 2001.”

Nice save there, at the end. Hey, this wasn’t a failure of our prediction that loss of sea ice due to global warming would cause more polar bears to be killed because they attacked people, it’s a resounding victory for a law prohibiting people “seeking out” polar bears! As noted in the next two sentences:

…

unclassified

What Is A 1000 Year Flood?

by P. Homewood, Apr 18, 2023 in NotaLotofPeopleKnowThat

We’ve all heard the terminology. An extreme event happens — a flood or heat wave — and soon after it is characterized as a “1,000-year event” (or it doesn’t have to be 1,000, it could be any number). This week I watched one of the world’s most visible climate scientists, Michael E. Mann, go on national TV and in process show that he had no idea what the concept actually means.

Let’s start by correcting that climate scientist who expressed a popular misconception (about which climate scientists should know better). A 1,000-year flood does not refer to a level of flooding that comes around every 1,000 years.

…

…

Australia

Happy Easter, Happy End of the 2023 Cyclone Season at the Great Barrier Reef

by J. Maroshasy, Apr 11, 2023 in WUWT

Year on year, however, contrary to human-caused global warming theory, neither the number nor intensity of cyclones has increased at the Great Barrier Reef. The available data shows that there has been a steady decline in both the number and intensity of cyclones since the 1970s.

This is probably why coral cover, as measured around the perimeter of coral reefs, is reported to be so high. The most recent Australian Institute of Marine Science survey reported coral cover to be the highest in 36 years. Cyclones can be incredibly damaging to corals, with fewer cyclones there will be more coral.

Contrary to expectations, this last 2022-23 season has also been quiet, with few cyclones. The exact number will hopefully be published at the Bureau’s cyclone page, that is here. But I doubt there will be a media release.

…

…

 

See also: Bellies Full of Coral

climate-debate

Why You Should Ignore The Latest IPCC Climate Report

by R. Barmby, Mar 31, 2023 in ClimateChangheDispatch

You have a fever with jaundice, feel crappy, and are vomiting.

You go to the emergency room at the local hospital.

The ER doctor does not run any tests, but based on the symptoms his diagnosis is acute alcoholism and prescribes abstinence or you will drink yourself to death.

“What about some tests, or a second opinion?” you ask. The doctor informs you that “the administration in this hospital has two rules: firstly, the only diagnosis we give out for these symptoms is chronic alcohol abuse; and secondly, we delete any data to the contrary from your file.”

You check into rehab but the fever, jaundice, and nausea persist. Six days later you die from acute fulminant viral hepatitis (Hep B). But sober.

A reasonable person would not accept a diagnosis dictated by the hospital administration and the deletion of conflicting data. Especially if you knew acute alcoholic hepatitis and acute viral HBV hepatitis present the same symptoms and it takes blood tests to differentiate them with certainty.

And that’s why you should ignore the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reportbecause two similar rules govern their analysis and reporting. The cure is also similar: Net Zero CO2 by 2050.

The IPCC Report Cycle

The IPCC’s 1988 mandate from the United Nations was to review, “The state of the knowledge of the science of climate and climatic change”.

In that mandate, the UN expressed “concern that human activities could change global climate patterns, threatening present and future generations…” and also includes the conjecture “…emerging evidence indicates that continued growth in ‘greenhouse’ gases could produce global warming…”

For the last 35 years, the IPCC has developed this mandate into an industry of perpetual reporting on a six-year cycle designed to instill constant fear of human-caused global warming.

The foundation of each reporting cycle, which in its whole is termed an Assessment Report (AR), is the report from Working Group I (WG I) as that is the physical sciences basis addressing the UN mandate.

It is then followed by a report from Working Group II (WG II) which assesses the impacts of climate change and then Working Group III (WG III) dictates what needs to be done to mitigate the damages caused by climate change.

Each of these reports consists of between two thousand to three thousand pages, and each is condensed into a Summary for Policy Makers (SPM). Ultimately a Synthesis Report combining all three Working Groups is issued, again with its SPM.

…

…

climate-debate

Media Regurgitate Nonsense About Greenland Ice Sheet And Sea Level Rise

by D. Burton, Apr 3, 2023 in ClimateChangeDispatch

CNBC and the Potsdam Institute (PIK) report that:

We’re halfway to a tipping point that would trigger 6 feet of sea-level rise from the melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet

PUBLISHED WED, MAR 29 202312:12 PM EDT By Catherine Clifford

KEY POINTS:

● Once people have cumulatively emitted approximately 1,000 gigatons of carbon in total, then the southern part of the Greenland Ice Sheet will melt eventually causing the sea level to rise by almost six feet.

● Once humans have cumulatively emitted approximately 2,500 gigatons of carbon in total, the whole Greenland Ice Sheet will eventually melt and the sea level rise would rise by 6.9 meters or 22.6 feet.

 

● And right now, now we are at approximately 500 gigatons of carbon emissions released.

Here’s the article.

Here’s the paper.

Like most things from PIK, this “study,” and this CNBC article, are nonsense. [emphasis, links added]

The best estimates are that since 1850, anthropogenic carbon emissions have totaled about 675 Gt of carbon (a/k/a PgC) (not 500).

Over that same period, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by only about 135 ppmv CO2 = 287 PgC (gigatonnes carbon).

The difference is the amount removed from the atmosphere by natural negative feedbacks, such as absorption by the oceans, the greening of the Earth, and rock weathering.

(Aside: Petagram ≡ gigatonne ≡ Gt, and “PgC” means “petagram of carbon,” so 1 PgC = 1 Gt of carbon (GtC). 1 ppmv CO2 = 7.8024 Gt CO2 = 2.12940 PgC.)

Yet we’ve only gotten an estimated 1.02 to 1.27 °C of warming from all that CO2, and it’s beenaccompanied by negligible acceleration in sea-level trends:

….

climate-debate

The Latest UN Climate Report Is Bumper-Sticker Climate Science

by J. Curry, Mar 29, 2023 in ClimateChangeDispatch

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has issued a new Synthesis Report, with fanfare from the UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres:

“The climate time-bomb is ticking but the latest IPCC report shows that we have the knowledge & resources to tackle the climate crisis. We need to act now to ensure a livable planet in the future.”

The new IPCC Report is a synthesis of the three reports that constitute the Sixth Assessment Report, plus three special reports. [emphasis, links added]

This Synthesis Report does not introduceany new information or findings.

While the IPCC Reports include some good material, the Summary for Policy Makers for the Synthesis Report weakly emphasizes justified findings on climate impacts driven by extreme emission scenarios and politicized policy recommendations on emissions reductions.

The most important finding of the past five years is that the extreme emissions scenarios RCP8.5 and SSP5-8.5, commonly referred to as “business-as-usual” scenarios, are now widely recognized as implausible.

These extreme scenarios have been dropped by the UN Conference of the Parties (COP) to the UN Climate Agreement.

However, the new Synthesis Report continues to emphasize these extreme scenarios, while this important finding is buried in a footnote:

“Very high emission scenarios have become less likely but cannot be ruled out.”

The extreme emissions scenarios are associated with alarming projections of 4-5°C of warming by 2100.

The most recent Conference of the Parties (COP27) is working from a baseline temperature projectionbased on a medium emissions scenario of 2.5°C by 2100.

…

…

climate-debate

Climate Expert: The Misinformation In The IPCC, Part 1

by R. Pielke, Mar 29 2023 in ClimateChangeDispatch

Today, in the first of two posts, I explain how the IPCC made several misleading claims related to tropical cyclones.

The IPCC’s failures are both obvious and undeniable.

I will walk you through them in detail. Once again, I conclude that the IPCC needs reform. Mistakes can creep into massive assessments, to be sure, but the failures I document below are unacceptable. [emphasis, links added]

The first failure never rose above the depths of Chapter 11 of its AR6 Working Group 1 (WG1) report. The second is a bit technical and is much more significant – having made its way into the Summaries for Policymakers (SPMs) of both WG1 and the Synthesis Report released last week.

Before proceeding, let me reiterate that the IPCC is not just one report or one group of people. It is many things and comprised of many different people. Its products are of uneven quality, and even individual chapters in the same report can be of very different scientific quality.

For instance, in general, IPCC AR6 WG1 did a nice job on the physical science aspects of extreme weather, whereas IPCC AR6 WG2 was chock full of massive problems. …snip…

…
…
climate-debate

The IPCC’s Dangerous Dance With Climate Misinformation And Political Demands

by R. Pielke Jr., Mar 23, 2023 in ClimateChangeDispatch

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is an important institution. I have often said that if it did not exist, it would have to be invented. The IPCC is often referred to as a model for how to do a scientific assessment.

Consequently, we should have the highest standards for evaluating its work, not least because climate change is important, and effective mitigation and adaptation policies are essential. [emphasis, links added]

Below I share a brief few critiques of the culminating report of the current IPCC cycle, called the Synthesis Report. The new report covers six IPCC reports published over the past nine years.

Before proceeding, it is crucial to understand that the IPCC is not a single entity or group of people. It is many different groups doing many different things, with many strengths — for instance, WG1 on extremes was particularly good.

The IPCC also has some notable weaknesses — its reliance on out-of-date scenarios most obviously. The Synthesis Report was written by a small group of people.

For better or worse, the work of this small group of people reflects upon the entire IPCC and the years of effort leading to this week’s report.

If I were an IPCC participant not involved with the Synthesis Report, I’d be pretty upset. My view is that the IPCC has strayed far from its role to assess the scientific literature in support of policymaking.

It has increasingly taken on a stance of explicit political advocacy and as it does so it has ignored and even misrepresented relevant science.

The IPCC needs a complete overhaul.

Below are some more detailed thoughts on the Synthesis Report.

Scientific Assessment Minus the Science

…

…

unclassified

Attenborough’s Arctic Sea-Ice Fearmongering Bordering On Misinformation

by C. Morrison, Sep 13, 2022 in ClimateChangeDispatch

The Arctic has been a happy hunting ground for the climate scaremonger Sir David Attenborough. Two years ago he made the fanciful claim that polar bears could die out in the 2030s.

It is now generally accepted that polar bears have been thriving and increasing in numbers, and in his latest BBC documentary Frozen Planet II, Attenborough makes no mention of his previous claim. [bold, links added]

But he does make the astonishing suggestion that all the summer sea ice in the Arctic could be gone within 12 years.

Unfortunately, such predictions are now out of date. Summer sea ice hit a low in 2012 and has been steadily recovering ever since.

According to the latest data from the US-based National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) for the end of August, “Sea ice extent is likely to remain higher than in recent years.”

The evidence is shown in the graph below.

….

As can be clearly seen, the 2022 blue line is well above the 2012 low point. According to the NSIDC, the average sea ice extent for August ranked 13th lowest in the recent satellite record.

The growth of Arctic sea ice has been confirmed by a number of sources. The EU weather service Copernicus reported that the coverage of Arctic sea ice is now very close to the 1991-2020 average.

…
better to know...?, climate-debate

THE DANISH METEOROLOGICAL INSTITUTE ADMITS IT WRONGLY REPORTED GREENLAND’S “RECORD WARM TEMPERATURE” THIS SUMMER

by Cap Allon, November 17, 2019 in Electroverse

The Danish Meteorological Institute (DMI) admitted it wrongly reported Greenland’s record summer warmth, in what it called “good news from a climate perspective”…?

The DMI, a key player in monitoring Greenland’s climate, reported a “shocking” early-August temperature of between 2.7C (37F) and 4.7C (40.5F) at the Summit weather station, located some 3,202m above sea level at the center of the Greenland ice sheet.

This news quickly spread to every corner of the left-leaning web, like some nasty EOTW rash. But just a few days later the DMI posted a tweet retracting that record temp, saying that after a “closer look” (whatever that means exactly) it was revealed that the monitoring equipment had been giving “erroneous results”.

“Was there record-level warmth on the inland ice on Friday?” said the institute’s tweet dated Aug 08. “No! A quality check has confirmed out suspicion that the measurement was too high.”

…

Blue Melt River, Petermann Glacier, in remote northwestern Greenland, on Nares Strait. (Photo by: Dave Walsh/VW Pics/Universal Images Group via Getty Images)
climate-debate

Climate Scientist Calls Out Media (and Mann) ‘Misinformation’ On Wildfires And Global Warming

by Michaele Bastach, August 10, 2018 in WUWT

With wildfires engulfing over 620,000 acres of California, there’s been a concerted media campaign to single out man-made global warming as the primary force behind the deadly blazes.

But that’s not what the data suggests, according to University of Washington climate scientist Cliff Mass.

“So there is a lot of misinformation going around in the media, some environmental advocacy groups, and some politicians,” Mass wrote in the first of a series of blog posts analyzing the California wildfires.