Even the UN IPCC has dropped extreme model scenarios because they are ‘implausible’ –
This impacts ALL scenario projections – including LOWER temperature scenario models – revisions to climate modelling assumptions now required by policy makers/politicians/researchers
Climate change is chaotic and occurs over decades and centuries, identifying its causes is a matter of conjecture and guesswork – any idiot can design a model – the UN IPCC is a body of idiots who consistently fail to match predictions with causes and outcomes – what is lacking is proof that the models they develop to predict he future – say in ,10 to 20 years with any degree of accuracy – say within one or two degrees centigrade.
Policy makers in governments across the world use these useless models to formulate policy that costs everyone a fortune and consigns the third world to energy poverty and appalling living standards.
THERE IS NO CLIMATE ‘CRISIS’ – CO2 is food for plants and does not impact global temperaures like some temperature control knob.
There have been some changes to models used by the UN IPCC.
From here:
IPCC will fail to finish their report in time for COP33 – Shame - The Expose
And here:
We have these comments:
“The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (“IPCC’s”) Seventh Assessment Report (“AR7”) is behind schedule due to disagreements among member countries. The disagreement is led by a coalition including Saudi Arabia, Russia, China, India and Kenya.
AR7 was supposed to be finished in time for the UN’s second Global Stocktake of “greenhouse gas emissions” scheduled to conclude at COP33 in 2028, but has been delayed to late 2029, with uncertain prospects.
UNEP warns that the IPCC trust fund may run out before AR7 is finished. Slovak climate alarmist scientist propagandist Jozef Pecho describes this as a “slow-motion erosion of the institution.”
And he sees the erosion of the IPCC’s timeline as threatening the ability of “science” to inform political accountability and decision-making in Europe about the so-called looming climate catastrophe. Pecho relies on IPCC reports to work on European climate impacts, and so he considers the delay a direct attack on the work his entire field does.”
“Evidence is mounting that the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (IPCC) is failing or at least flailing about. The most recent indicator of this is the ongoing inability of the IPCC’s science committee to come to an agreement on the scope and timing of the next Assessment Report.
With little or no notice from the mainstream corporate media, but to the consternation of the environmental press, the 64th meeting of the science body of the IPCC concluded in Bangkok in late March, with no agreement concerning when the first section, the key science section, of the 7th Assessment Report will be produced.
As detailed by environmental and climate outlets such as Carbon Brief and SDG Knowledge Hub, the meeting of 330 delegates representing more than 100 countries failed to agree on a variety of issues, including the scope and work plan for the report and, most importantly, the deadline for its production.
“According to reports, this is the fifth consecutive meeting where no progress has been made concerning the timing of the report, as well as what groups are responsible for producing what sections of the report. As detailed in this guest post by Robert Bradley, Jr., founder and CEO of the Institute for Energy Research, who recently presented at the 16th International Conference on Climate Change, researchers who depend on the IPCC reports to support and drive the narrative that humans are causing catastrophic climate change are aghast at the lack of progress and the seeming ongoing deconstruction of the IPCC, the supposed authoritative body on climate change matters, as an institution.”
“Forcing scientific consensus to fit a political narrative is now in big trouble. Climategate back in 2009 lifted the curtain on IPCC-insider scientists cheating to help “the cause” (a Michael Mann term).
Sound science in the voluminous body of the report just dies with the politicised Summary for Policymakers being as alarmist as it can be. The whole IPCC process, begun in 1988 with the First Assessment released in 1990, was never intended to find carbon dioxide (CO2) and other manmade greenhouse gases innocent.
The comments on Pecho’s post were brutal. “All suggests a final collapse of the house of cards. For good, I’d say,” said one. “It’s amazing this scam has gone on for so long,” said another. And:
“What matters today is that the group with official responsibility for developing climate scenarios for the IPCC and broader research community has now admitted that the scenarios that have dominated climate research, assessment, and policy during the past two cycles of the IPCC assessment process are implausible: They describe impossible futures.
Tens of thousands of research papers have been — and continue to be — published using these scenarios, and a similar number of media headlines have amplified their findings, and governments and international organizations have built these implausible scenarios into policy and regulation.
We now know that all of this is built on a foundation of sand.
From here:
🚨RCP8.5 is Officially Dead - by Roger Pielke Jr.
The new scenarios come from the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP) — a project of the World Climate Research Programme (WCRP), co-sponsored by the World Meteorological Organization, the International Science Council, and UNESCO’s Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission.
Under CMIP, now in its seventh iteration, sits another little-known committee with responsibility for developing the scenarios necessary for earth system models to project future climate.1 That committee — called ScenarioMIP — just published the new scenario framework that will underpin the IPCC’s Seventh Assessment Report (AR7) and much of the research that it will draw upon.
When challenged form another committee with another acronym and obfuscate – well, Roger can write climate ‘models’ too.
The bottom line – although dropping the more extreme models, the assumptions behind he other models – especially those that forecast world population growth remain.
Last April I argued here at THB that the climate science community was on the brink of repeating the RCP8.5 mistake with SSP3-7.0 — which assumed a 2100 global population approaching 13 billion, well above any contemporary demographic projection and a five-fold expansion of global coal use. Neither assumption survives current understandings of demographics or energy systems.
ut the new HIGH still sits well above the plausibility range that we identified in Pielke, Burgess, and Ritchie (2022). We found that of the >1,000 scenarios in the AR5 database, the plausible subset centered on a median of ~3.4 W/m² in 2100, with an upper end near 6 W/m². The new HIGH scenario is well above that upper end.
The authors of Van Vuuren et al. partially acknowledge that the new HIGH scenario is exploratory — a thought experiment, not a projection:
“Clearly, this scenario is not a “business-as-usual” scenario nor the no-policy reference scenario for the other scenarios. The scenario is intended to explore the upper end of GHG emissions resulting from deep political, technological, and structural deviation from current trends.”
Note that first sentence — It means that any future research that compares the HIGH scenario to lower scenarios in order to characterize the effects of climate policy will be fundamentally flawed. The HIGH scenario is not a projective scenario, but a “what if?” exercise.
As discussed below, the new population assumptions of the updated SSP3 are ridiculous, and by themselves render the HIGH scenario implausible. The lack of any systematic effort to evaluate plausibility of scenarios remains a fundamental weakness of the scenario development process.
The 2024 demographic update (KC et al. 2024, IIASA Working Paper WP-24-003, also referred to as WIC2023) revises SSP 2100 populations upward: SSP3 jumps from 12.6 to 14.5 billion. SSP4 increases from 9.3 to 13.3 billion — an eye-popping 43% increase.
We’ve known since 2017 that upper end climate scenarios are fatally flawed. Nine years later, that understanding has now become officially recognized. That is good news.
We can debate whether nine years is short or long for the overturning of scientific understandings with massive economic and policy implications. But today, that overturning is undeniable.
The middle of the set (of scanrios)is more pessimistic than trajectories of current and announced policies. The plausibility vacuum at the heart of the architecture has yet to be addressed.
All this means that users of climate models and model output based on legacy scenarios will now face decisions about if and how they’d like to realign with the latest scientific understandings versus continuing to rely on outdated research.
Science is self-correcting. What matters now is what happens next.
Please take a (paid or unpaid) subscription or forward this article to those you think might be interested.
You can also donate via Ko-fi – any amount from three dollars upwards. Ko-fi donations here:
with peddling 'virus' BS...none of what you share and write is to be relied on....