Archives par mot-clé : Misinformation

Australia, better to know...?, climate-debate

Soon corals may invade all those useless bare patches of sand…

by Jo Nova, Aug 11, 2026 in JoNovaBLog 

The Fact is, after forty years of man made global warming and 1,100 billion tons of CO2 there is better coral cover on the Great Barrier Reef than there was in 1985.

VIDEO in the text, 14min

The ABC hasn’t reported this, so I feel compelled to share the news as a public service. We know if it were “another record low” it would have been the lead story on the 7pm news.

So here we are, yet again — Humans have dumped 1.1 Trillion tons of CO2 into our atmosphere since these comprehensive surveys started and who can tell? That’s over sixty percent of all human CO2 emissions ever, that have been recklessly released since 1985 and there is nothing to show for it in the largest and longest surveys we have of the biggest reef in the world.

“Lucky” the UN didn’t slap an endangerment warning on it isn’t it? Lucky for them.

…

…

Misinformation is a government funded industry

Ten years after the corals hit a record low, the Australian Environment Foundation survey showed that half the country didn’t realize the reef has recovered. Only 3% knew the corals were at a record high, and nearly half the Green voters were as wrong as they possibly could be — they thought coral cover was at a record low.

This mass ignorance is not an accident. The ABC cultivates it. But AIMS, the CSIRO and most of our academics stayed silent when they could have spoken up. All around the world right wing governments are being created that are taking an axe to corrupt programs. Will these self-serving institutions wise up and raise their game in time, or will they sink with the Big Bloated Government Team that they nakedly campaign for?

better to know...?, climate-debate

How ‘Preapproved Narratives’ Have Corrupted Science

by A. Finley, Oct 2, 2023 in ClimateChangeDispatch

Scientists were aghast last month when Patrick Brown, climate director at the Breakthrough Institute in Berkeley, Calif., acknowledged that he’d censored one of his studies to increase his odds of getting published.

Credit to him for being honest about something his peers also do but are loath to admit. [emphasis, links added]

In an essay for the Free Press, Mr. Brown explained that he omitted “key aspects other than climate change” from a paper on California wildfires because such details would “dilute the story that prestigious journals like Nature and its rival, Science, want to tell.”

Editors of scientific journals, he wrote, “have made it abundantly clear, both by what they publish and what they reject, that they want climate papers that support certain preapproved narratives.”

Nature’s editor, Magdalena Skipper, denied that the journal has “a preferred narrative.” No doubt the editors at the New York Times and ProPublica would say the same of their own pages.

Mr. Brown’s criticisms aren’t new. In 2005 Stanford epidemiologist John Ioannidis wrote an essay titled “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False.”

He contended that scientists “may be prejudiced purely because of their belief in a scientific theory or commitment to their own findings.”

“The greater the financial and other interests and prejudices in a scientific field, the less likely the research findings are to be true,” Dr. Ioannidis argued.

“Many otherwise seemingly independent, university-based studies may be conducted for no other reason than to give physicians and researchers qualifications for promotion or tenure.”

In addition, many scientists use the peer-review process to suppress findings that challenge their own beliefs, which perpetuates “false dogma.”

As Dr. Ioannidis explained, the more scientists there are in a field, the more competition there is to get published and the more likely they are to produce “impressive ‘positive’ results” and “extreme research claims.” …snip…

The peer-review process is supposed to flag problems in studies that get submitted to journals. But as Dr. Ioannidis explained in a Sept. 22 JAMA editorial, the process is failing:

…

better to know...?, climate-debate

New Scientist: How worried should we be about climate change?

by D. Whitehouse, Aug23, 2023 in NetZeroWatch

How worried should we be, asks New Scientist in a Climate Change Special Issue. The 19th August issue is billed as a guide to a year of extreme weather – “a year of extremes,” when 2023 is barely half way over.

In a New Scientist Climate Special Report senior reporter Michael Le Page asks if climate change is worse than we thought it would be? Well, it depends upon who you ask – and New Scientist usually asks the same experts for their unwavering opinions which, as we shall see, are sometimes just a premonition they have.

The article in question quotes the usual crew: Peter Stott of the UK Met Office, Piers Forster of the University of Leeds, Zeke Hausfather of Berkeley Earth and Stefan Rahmstorf of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany. Together they have been quoted in the New Scientist 109 times.

…

better to know...?, climate-debate

“97% Consensus” — What Consensus?

by G. Wrightstone,  Aug 31, 2023 in WUWT

You have likely heard that 97% of scientists agree on human-driven climate change. You may also have heard that those who don’t buy into the climate-apocalypse mantra are science-deniers. The truth is that a whole lot more than 3% of scientists are skeptical of the party line on climate. A whole lot more.

The many scientists, engineers and energy experts that comprise the CO2 Coalition are often asked something along the lines of: “So you believe in climate change, then?” Our answer? “Yes, of course we do: it has been happening for hundreds of millions of years.” It is important to ask the right questions. The question is not, “Is climate change happening?” The real question of serious importance is, “Is climate change now driven primarily by human actions? That question should be followed up by “is our changing climate beneficial or harmful to ecosystems and humanity?”

There are some scientific truths that are quantifiable and easily proven, and with which, I am confident, at least 97% of scientists agree. Here are two:

  1. Carbon dioxide concentration has been increasing in recent years.
  2. Temperatures, as measured by thermometers and satellites, have been generally increasing in fits and starts for more than 150 years.

What is impossible to quantify is the actual percentage of warming that is attributable to increased anthropogenic (human-caused) CO2. There is no scientific evidence or method that can determine how much of the warming we’ve had since 1900 that was directly caused by us.

We know that temperature has varied greatly over the millennia. We also know that for virtually all of that time, global warming and cooling were driven entirely by natural forces, which did not cease to operate at the beginning of the 20th century.

The claim that most modern warming is attributable to human activities is scientifically insupportable. The truth is that we do not know. We need to be able to separate what we do know from that which is only conjecture.

What is the basis for the “97% consensus” notion? Is it true? 

…

climate-debate

Shock Retraction of Climate Science Paper Showing No Climate Emergency Draws Comparisons with Climategate Scandal

by C. Morrison, Aug 26, 2023 in TheDailySceptic

Shocking details of corruption and suppression in the world of peer-reviewed climate science have come to light with a recent leak of emails. They show how a determined group of activist scientists and journalists combined to secure the retraction of a paper that said a climate emergency was not supported by the available data. Science writer and economist Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. has published the startling emailsand concludes: “Shenanigans continue in climate science, with influential scientists teaming up with journalists to corrupt peer review.”

The offending paper was published in January 2022 in a Springer Nature journal and at first attracted little attention. But on September 14th the Daily Sceptic covered its main conclusions and as a result it went viral on social media with around 9,000 Twitter retweets. The story was then covered by both the Australian and Sky News Australia. The Guardian activist Graham Readfearn, along with state-owned Agence France-Presse (AFP), then launched counterattacks. AFP ‘Herald of the Anthropocene’ Marlowe Hood said the data were “grossly manipulated” and “fundamentally flawed”.

After nearly a year of lobbying, Springer Nature has retracted the popular article. In the light of concerns, the Editor-in-Chief is said to no longer have confidence in the results and conclusion reported in the paper. The authors were invited to submit an addendum but this was “not considered suitable for publication”. The leaked emails show that the addendum was sent for review to four people, and only one objected to publication.

What is shocking about this censorship is that the paper was produced by four distinguished scientists, including three professors of physics, and was heavily based on data used by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The lead author was Professor Gianluca Alimonti of Milan University and senior researcher of Italy’s National Institute of Nuclear Physics. Their paper reviewed the available data, but refused to be drawn into the usual mainstream narrative that catastrophises cherry-picked weather trends. During the course of their work, the scientists found that rainfall intensity and frequency was stationary in many parts of the world, and the same was true of U.S. tornadoes. Other meteorological categories including natural disasters, floods, droughts and ecosystem productivity showed no “clear positive trend of extreme events”. In addition, the scientists noted considerable growth of global plant biomass in recent decades caused by higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

In fact this scandal has started to attract comparison with the Climategate leaks of 2009 that also displayed considerable contempt for the peer-review process. One of the co-compilers of the Met Office’s HadCRUT global temperature database Dr. Phil Jones emailed Michael Mann, author of the infamous temperature ‘hockey stick’, stating: “I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-reviewed literature is!”

…

climate-debate

Fact Checking The Met Office’s Fact Checks

by P. Homewood, Aug 25, 2023 in NotaLotofPeopleKnowThat

It seems the Met Office is getting worried that its one-sided reporting of climate change is becoming exposed, as people are beginning to check the facts for themselves

A toolkit of information you can trust.

There is overwhelming evidence that climate change is affecting the health of the planet and the wellbeing of billions of people around the world. The impacts are affecting the lives and livelihoods of many, sometimes on a daily basis.

Despite the evidence and public concern about climate change – 82% of people in the UK are at least fairly concerned with 39% very concerned according to a recent survey by the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero – there is a proliferation of climate misinformation especially on social media. As one of the world’s leading weather and climate organisations we believe it is important we all have access to trusted, up to date information on climate change.

In this age where the flow of information is shared so quickly, we have developed a toolkit to provide information and clarity around topics on which misinformation is sometimes shared. This will enable individuals to form opinions from information based on peer-reviewed science. Much of our scientific research forms part of the national and international scientific evidence for climate change and climate change impacts. These pages include the latest climate science from our own research as well as the latest internationally agreed science collated by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

There are certain areas that are regularly questioned and unfortunately some of this scepticism can deflect attention away from important issues such as the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. When we spot themes of climate misinformation, we will update the content on these pages to give you access to trusted information on what we believe is one of the greatest challenges to the future of our planet and society.

If you would like to find out more about what you can do to help tackle climate change, visit our Get Climate Ready webpages.

https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/climate-change/tackling-climate-misinformation

…

better to know...?, climate-debate

No, July Wasn’t The Warmest Month In Human History

by Dr M. Wielicki, Aug 14, 2023 in ClimateChangeDispatch

What’s going on?

During the last month, we were bombarded with headlines such as:

This month is the planet’s hottest on record by far – and hottest in around 120,000 years, scientists say —CNN, July 27, 2023

July 2023 ‘Virtually Certain’ To Be Hottest Month In Human History —Forbes, July 27, 2023

So is there any validity to these claims… Was July the hottest month in human history? [emphasis, links added]

…snip…

Our civilization’s trajectory, from its humble beginnings in the wild to its current digital sophistication, serves as a testament to humanity’s relentless drive for advancement and ability to adapt.

The African Humid Period (AHP) and the rise of the Egyptian civilization…

The African Humid Period (AHP) is a climatic phase during the Holocene epoch characterized by much wetter conditions in large parts of Africa, especially the Sahara region, compared to the present day.

This significant shift in precipitation patterns had profound impacts on both the environment and early human societies of the continent.

The AHP roughly spanned from about 15,000 to 5,000 years ago, though exact timings can vary based on specific regions within Africa. It began at the end of the Last Glacial Maximum when ice sheets started retreating in the Northern Hemisphere.

One of the most dramatic manifestations of the AHP was the transformation of the Sahara desert. Today’s vast desert expanse was once a mosaic of grasslands, lakes, and rivers.

This “Green Sahara” supported a variety of wildlife, from large mammals like elephants and giraffes to a variety of fish in its waterways.

The wet conditions of the AHP supported a much denser human population in regions that are now desert. Archaeological evidence shows that these ancient Saharan communities engaged in fishing, hunting, cattle herding, and even agriculture.

The abundance of water and food allowed for relatively settled lifestyles compared to the more nomadic existences necessitated by the arid conditions that followed.

The primary driver behind the AHP is believed to be warmer summer temperatures and changes in the monsoon systems, which brought more rain to the African continent.

As these parameters shifted over millennia, the monsoons weakened, leading to the aridification of vast regions.

The African Humid Period serves as a reminder of the profound climatic variability our planet has experienced throughout relatively recent geological history at preindustrial levels of CO2, and the relative insensitivity of surface temperature and/or humidity and the concentration of GHG in the atmosphere.

…

better to know...?

Stop Blaming Fires In Canada, Greece, And Now Maui On Climate Change

by Dr M. Wielicki, Aug 10, 2023 in ClimateChangeDispatch

There is currently a wildfire on the Hawaiian island of Maui that has forced evacuations and led some people to flee into the ocean for safety.

The fires are being driven by strong winds and dry air, primarily associated with Hurricane Dora passing hundreds of miles to the south.

The fires have reportedly burned structures and prompted evacuations in Maui, particularly in the Upcountry and Lahaina areas. Lahaina is a popular tourist destination on the island’s northwest side. [emphasis, links added]

Multiple evacuation orders are in effect for the island and there are no details yet on the extent of the damage.

A dozen people were rescued by the Coast Guard after jumping into the ocean to reportedly avoid the flames. Acting Governor Sylvia Luke issued an emergency proclamation on behalf of Gov. Josh Green.

As with every natural disaster, the links to climate change were made almost immediately.

However, attributing a single wildfire directly to climate change is an oversimplification of the myriad factors at play.

Wildfires can be influenced by various causes, including local weather, forest management, human activities, and natural events like hurricanes passing and changing wind patterns.

Historically, the climate has always exhibited natural variability with periods of extreme conditions. It’s crucial to differentiate between this natural variation and the changes driven or intensified by human activities.

Of course that didn’t stop folks from attributing the fires in Maui directly to anthropogenic climate change…

…

…

climate-debate

Hawaiian Fires: Fueled by Invasive Grasses, a Wet Spring and Human Ignition Sources

by J. Steele, Aug 11, 2023 in CO2Coalition

The Maui fire would have devastated Lahaina in a colder or warmer climate. It would have devastated Lahaina in high or low CO2 concentrations. The key is managing the dead grasses that become flammable in just hours. Climate change was irrelevant. Declaring a climate emergency to reduce fossil fuels is a useless remedy that only misdirects funds that will be needed to better manage a fire-prone landscape.

The massive destruction and loss of life in Lahaina, Hawaii due to the recent wildfire has evoked tremendous compassion and concern from around the world for the people of Lahaina. I can’t comprehend the intense pain now being felt by the people who have lost loved ones, lost homes, and lost all their belongings. So how can such a tragedy be prevented from ever happening again?

First, according to meteorologist Cliff Mass, Hawaii is one of the most fire-prone states in the U.S. (see Figure 1 for some historical fires).

Lightning is rare on Maui. Fewer than thirty thunderstorms rattle across the Hawaiian Islands each year, and most occur during January and February. Accordingly, there have been no reports of an August lightning strike, so it seems doubtful this tragic fire was started naturally.

According to Hawaii Wildfire Management Organization, 98% of all Hawaiian fires are started by people, of which 75% are due to carelessness.  Thus, a Smokey-the-Bear type campaign that “only you can prevent forest fires” would help raise people’s consciousness, especially newcomers.  As retirees flock to Hawaii seeking the health benefits of a warmer climate, the population has tripled since 1980, which only increases the probability of a careless fire being started.

If started by an electrical spark, efforts to secure a vulnerable electrical grid is required. Sadly, the remaining fires have been suspiciously ignited by arsonists, and arson is nearly impossible to prevent.

However, there are other precautions that Hawaiians can take to prevent the rapid spread of fire that caught so many people in Lahaina by surprise.  Dr. Clay Trauernicht, a professor of natural resources and environmental management at the University of Hawaii, notes wildfires have quadrupled in Hawaii in recent decades.  We agree with his assessment that unmanaged, nonnative grasslands that have flourished in Hawaii after decades of declining agriculture have provided the fuel for more rapidly spreading and extensive wildfires.

As Maui’s pineapple and sugar cane plantations were abandoned, they became dominated by invasive annual grasses that flourish in disturbed soils. Fire experts categorize such small diameter grasses as 1-hour lag fuels, meaning that within half a day of dry weather, these grasses become highly flammable, allowing fires to rapidly spread in even moderate winds. Annual grasses typically die during the dry seasons. Maui’s rainless period typically lasts from about May 25 to July 15.

Furthermore, Lahaina is situated on the leeward side of Maui’s mountains. These highlands wring out the moisture carried by the trade winds, with only 15” of rain falling in Lahaina compared to 300” on the mountains to the east. Thus, Lahaina’s surrounding grassland vegetation is primed each summer to rapidly burn once ignited.

…

See also: Of the Many Factors Behind the Maui Wildfires, Climate Change Was Not One, Experts Say

and  The Origin of the Hawaii Fires/Preventing a Similar Tragedy in the Future

and Hawaii wildfires: how did the deadly Maui fire start and what caused it?

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.