Today’s the day of the big AR6, the Committee of Experts report of the IPCC. Everybody knows the IPCC. They have been promising us runaway tipping point global warming since AR1. Only this time they mean it!
Here are the subheadlines to a major news story! (Thanks to Nate Winchester for the tip.) Look at all these exclamation points! That’s how you know it’s serious!
* Secret report warns of rioting and nuclear war
* Britain will be ‘Siberian’ in less than 20 years
* Threat to the world is greater than terrorism
The story opens with a heat blast! “Climate change over the next 20 years could result in a global catastrophe costing millions of lives in wars and natural disasters.”
warns that major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a ‘Siberian’ climate…Nuclear conflict, mega-droughts, famine and widespread rioting will erupt across the world.
The document predicts that abrupt climate change could bring the planet to the edge of anarchy as countries develop a nuclear threat to defend and secure dwindling food, water and energy supplies. The threat to global stability vastly eclipses that of terrorism, say the few experts privy to its contents.
Dude! If you think that’s bad, wait until you hear this! “Disruption and conflict will be endemic features of life” and “Once again, warfare would define human life.” Wow!
All that for maybe a globally averaged fraction of degree warmer in a few years than it was at some times, yet still cooler than it was at others?
Well, go ahead and scoff. But this report was written by Experts. And we all know how studied in expertology they are. They have degrees and credentials. Yes, and major awards, too!
Oh, did I mention the report was written in the Year of Our Lord 2003?
And “leaked” to the press in early 2004?
So, Expert readers, let me ask you this. Has Britain turned Siberian?
What’s that you say? Speak up. Us non-Experts have a hard time hearing you.
And have there been mega-droughts? Mega-famines? Nuclear war (which carried its own inherent mega)? Mega-widespread riots?
“Yes! There has!” shouted the Expert.
I don’t mean the mostly peaceful shopping sprees and woke spectacles of 2020 taking place in mask-mandated cities across the USA. Any widespread riots that can be blamed on global cooling a.k.a. global warming a.k.a. climate change?
Say, Experts like “Sir John Houghton, former chief executive of the Meteorological Office”, “group of eminent UK scientists”, another “large body of respected scientists” including Professor John Schellnhuber? Where did you go?
Maybe all the eminences, Experts smarter than all us put together, ran off to read the Science article “U.N. climate panel confronts implausibly hot forecasts of future warming”. This one is from the end of this July.
But as climate scientists face this alarming reality [the same “reality” promised in AR6 as that one promised before], the climate models that help them project the future have grown a little too alarmist. Many of the world’s leading models are now projecting warming rates that most scientists, including the modelmakers themselves, believe are implausibly fast. In advance of the U.N. report, scientists have scrambled to understand what went wrong and how to turn the models, which in other respects are more powerful and trustworthy than their predecessors, into useful guidance for policymakers. “It’s become clear over the last year or so that we can’t avoid this,” says Gavin Schmidt, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies
Our old pal Gav!
Now, you know it must rankle old Gav something severe to swallow this error and admit it publicly. The poor guy has lost enough hair already. This is going to drive him right to the wig store.
You’ll notice the too-hot error is the same as the one skeptics have been pointing out since the beginning. Ahem. Only it’s now getting air.
By the time modelers exposed that bias [i.e. a huge problem], the supercomputing runs were already done and the IPCC report was nearing completion.
That report is released today. Rather than wait until the models got good enough to make skillful future forecasts, and then make intelligent guesses about what might happen, they decided to release the report with the known faults and make not-so-intelligent guesses anyway.
Maybe so journalists could make a stink like they did two decades ago. Let’s wait and see.
The article concludes by saying “The modelers hope to do better next time around”.
We hope so, too.
Subscribe or donate to support this site and its wholly independent host using credit card or PayPal click here