German IPCC critic: Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt, Image: GWPF
By Die kalte Sonne
(Translated, headings by P. Gosselin)
The IPCC’s 6th Assessment Report on Climate (AR6) was published yesterday, August 9, 2021. Fritz Vahrenholt has summarized the most important things on Roland Tichys Einblick.
“Climate models (CMIP6) have failed across the board”
One notices in the report that it’s primarily politically and less scientifically anchored. How can it be the uncertainty range of CO2 climate sensitivity (i.e. the climate effectiveness of CO2) has been drastically narrowed down when the latest climate models (CMIP6) have failed across the board?
Reruns of an old myth
Curious: one of the chapter authors (Mauritsen) himself has for years represented a value well below the new range of 2.5-4.0°C per doubling of CO2. As in the 2001 AR3 report, the IPCC again is pushing a hockey stick in the summary for politicians. Allegedly, the climate of the past has hardly changed.
‘Die Welt’ conducted an interview with paleoclimatologist Ulf Büntgen, who explained how there had been a scandal in the PAGES2k group responsible for the new hockey stick. Many members left the group because they did not agree with the approach. Exactly as our Klimaschau had already speculated in 2020.
IPCC on this ice
Also peculiar: The IPCC states that this time it would use less the climate models for its forecasts (because they failed, but you don’t say that so openly), but instead the known climate past. And just that (“the son of the hockey stick”) is as wrong as the model results.
The IPCC is on very thin ice with this. It assumes rock solid that 100% of the warming since 1850 is man-made. All natural climate factors, which must have worked in former times (because the pre-industrial climate changed also significantly) must have been switched off today by “magic hand”. How does that work?
Flawed extreme weather models
Equally curious is that the report now sees a man-made component in extreme weather quite definitely. That’s pretty crazy, because most extreme weather has no trend at all over the last 150 years. And the models of Friederike Otto and colleagues regularly fail in the task of mapping extreme weather trends over the last pre-industrial millennia. These flawed models are then used to make the “attribution” i.e. assignment of man vs. nature. It’s like driving without a license.
Using “unlikely RCP 8.5 emissions scenario” a “serious mistake”
The AR6 treats the unlikely RCP 8.5 emissions scenario as if it were a plausible possibility. A serious mistake that misinforms politicians and other non-specialists. Now the air is getting thin for the IPCC because the AR6 has nothing to do with an open-ended, neutral summary of the state of knowledge. Only the ONE side of the scientific opinion spectrum is included.
Critical side excluded
Critics were not allowed to write in from the beginning. They were allowed to unload their frustration as reviewers and write down their criticism. However, they ended up directly in the wastepaper basket. The review editors were elected by the same political body as the authors, the IPCC board. And the board is elected by the governments, especially the green-influenced environment ministries of the countries.
“Scientific foundation as weak as ever”
After all the dust from this week’s AR6 report settles, things will likely, quickly become quiet about this new report. Because those involved know what they have hid from the public, where it gets dicey. True to the motto “The show must go on”, the AR6 was put on the stage with lots of hype although the scientific foundation was as weak as ever.
The authors involved will be professionally rewarded by their governments. From the point of view of scientific ethics, however, a stain now sticks to them. For one may assume that the broad outlines of AR6 were already determined BEFORE they were written. The wide range of CO2 climate sensitivity had long been a thorn in everyone’s side. For 30 years the range existed, without progress. Now one has simply reduced the span by force, without technical basis. A true magic trick, but its illusion will be gone shortly thereafter.
Luke-warmers have the science on their side
Because research continues. The researchers who favor a value below 2.5°C/2xCO2 have strong scientific arguments that they will use in the coming years. For the IPCC, however, there will then be no turning back. A hopeless situation.