Thoughts On The AR6 Summary for Policymakers
Guest Essay by Ian Cunningham
Some observations on statements made in the Summary for Policymakers IPCC AR6 WGI
(red text)
A. The Current State of the Climate
A.1 It is unequivocal that human influence has warmed the atmosphere, ocean and land. Widespread and rapid changes in the atmosphere, ocean, cryosphere and biosphere have occurred.
This statement adds nothing to our understanding. Nobody disputes that humans have increased the quantity of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and that given that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas it should cause some warming. There is also broad agreement that there has been warming but how much of this is natural and how much is human induced? The second sentence would apply to both natural and human induced changes. The use of ‘rapid’ is questionable; a 1.07°C rise (see A.1.3) over about 150 years can hardly be described as such.
A.1.3 The likely range of total human-caused global surface temperature increase from 1850–1900 to 2010–2019 is 0.8°C to 1.3°C, with a best estimate of 1.07°C.
A recent peer reviewed paper points out that there are problems in determining global surface temperatures (eg rural stations show less warming than urban stations). Indeed a global average temperature is a seriously flawed concept. Also in concluding that the sun has had no influence on surface temperatures it appears that the IPCC used only a selection of the available data sets which estimate the solar contribution. Depending on which data sets are used all of the recent warming could be due to changes in solar activity or all of it could be due to human activities. The statement at A.1.3 therefore cannot be relied upon.
A.2 The scale of recent changes across the climate system as a whole and the present state of many aspects of the climate system are unprecedented over many centuries to many thousands of years.
To support this there is a ‘hockey stick’ graph at page SPM7. Such a graph was also included in earlier IPCC reports but was completely discredited because it was apparently constructed by omitting tree ring data which did not fit the desired shape. It was not included in the last report. An analysis by the same mathematician who discovered the flaws in the earlier version has also revealed similar flaws in this new ‘hockey stick’. "Rather than hiding the decline in the final product, they did so for individual trees: they excluded the “divergent portions” of individual trees that had decreasing growth in recent years."
A.2 therefore cannot be relied upon.
A.3 Human-induced climate change is already affecting many weather and climate extremes in every region across the globe. Evidence of observed changes in extremes such as heatwaves, heavy precipitation, droughts, and tropical cyclones, and, in particular, their attribution to human influence, has strengthened since AR5.
Given that the degree of human influence is not clear (vide supra) this statement would be better started without the words ‘Human-induced’.
But has the warming since 1850-1900 produced more climate extremes as claimed? In a warming world higher temperature extremes might be expected and minimum temperatures might also be higher.
In paragraphs A.3.1 to A.3.5 statements are made where it is claimed that human induced climate change is the main driver of many events. Helpfully it is explained in a footnote that ‘main driver’ means responsible for more than 50% of the change. This seems somewhat at odds with A.1.3 which claims changes in temperatures are almost all due to humans but here it might just be 51%.
A number of diagrams are provide at SPM12. The second picture is entitled
b) Synthesis of assessment of observed change in heavy precipitation and
confidence in human contribution to the observed changes in the world’s regions.
From this 19 regions out of 47 are said to have experienced an increase in heavy precipitation events since 1950 but in 45 out of 47 there is only low confidence of a human contribution. Note the base line is now 1950 and not 1850-1900.
Similarly in the next picture entitled:-
c) Synthesis of assessment of observed change in agricultural and ecological drought
and confidence in human contribution to the observed changes in the world’s regions.
it is said that in 12 out of 47 regions there has been an increase but in 45 out of 47 there is no evidence of a human contribution. Note also that some of this is based on simulated changes in total column soil moisture,
For both examples (b) and (c) it is not stated what the level of increase was and whether it was beneficial or not.
It is interesting to compare these pictures and the data with the text at A.3.2 where it states
The frequency and intensity of heavy precipitation events have increased since the 1950s over most land area for which observational data are sufficient for trend analysis (high confidence), and human-induced climate change is likely the main driver.
Human-induced climate change has contributed to increases in agricultural and ecological droughts in some regions due to increased land evapotranspiration (medium confidence).
At best these statements are grossly misleading when set against the data above and therefore are not to be relied upon.
At A.3.4 it is stated
There is low confidence in long-term (multi-decadal to centennial) trends in the
frequency of all-category tropical cyclones. Event attribution studies and physical understanding indicate that human-induced climate change increases heavy precipitation associated with tropical cyclones (high confidence) but data limitations inhibit clear detection of past trends on the global scale.
Simplified this means that globally it has not become stormier and it is not possible to know whether current storms produce more intense rainfall than happened in the past.
Throughout the Summary mention is made of attribution studies.
Another peer reviewed publication has just pointed out that nearly all such studies depend on methodology developed in 1999. This methodology is now said to be flawed and hence any claims of weather events being attributed to human-induced climate change cannot be relied upon.
Elsewhere no explanation is provided for the apparent overall stability of the Antarctic Ice sheet (parts losing and parts gaining ice). Statements are made about Arctic sea ice and glaciers which appear to be at odds with well-recorded historical events.
The rest of the summary about the future is speculation based on flawed assumptions made in section A set out above.
There is no mention of the beneficial effects of increased levels of carbon dioxide and warmer temperatures.
This is not science; it is a selected set of data, manipulated in a selective manner and based on flawed methodology. It attempts to re-write history but fails.
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
It’s beyond belie that governments around the World are encouraged, or even coerced, into taking the AR6 SMP as factual and that they then formulate further misguided policies and taxes to impose on their inhabitants.
As has been pointed out many times on this blog, there is no statistical evidence whatsoever that extreme weather events are increasing, indeed if anything there may be a decreasing trend – eg floods, where the worst 30 in recorded history (excluding tsunami and volcanic origin) were all pre 1980.
But is there any theoretical reason why warming would cause more extreme storms? Surely storms and their intensity are triggered by temperature differentials rather than absolute levels? If there was 20 degrees of warming would there be worse storms? Can anyone with more meteorological knowledge than I have clarify this?
‘….more energy in the system’ is the usual reason trotted out and it is sloppy thinking. I thought it has been accepted that hurricanes etc are driven by the temperature difference between the pole and the equator. If the former are warming faster than the latter surely this effect would be decreasing. I also not rhe Met Office referring to ‘warmer and wetter summers’. When I worked with the UKCP09 projections it was ‘warmer and drier summers’.
Yes, I still have my information and free toilet hippo from Ken Livingstone when it was going to be drier summers. But then it got wetter…
A brilliant analysis. Right up your street Paul. I especially like the dismissal of any meaningful “global average” temperatures.
Vernon E – you cannot apply ‘averaging’ to a time series derived from a non-linear dynamic system except to show a possible (but unproven) trend over a short set of data. Non-linear dynamic systems can convert even ‘white’ noise into a power law distribution. This was established back in 1988 in a landmark PhD by a colleague, David Harrison at Leeds University as part of our investigations into oscillator noise. In dynamic systems with large, multiple non-linearities, the possibility of tying time series to a singular causal vector is practically impossible and conclusions drawn from simulation using simplistic linear approximations will inevitably diverge with time. Too many so called ‘climate scientists’ use mathematics they do not understand the limitations of – whining that they require larger and larger computers cannot not help when the underlying mathematical basis is flawed.
Hansen himself said several years ago that ‘GAT’ is “not a meaningful metric”. Obviously he didn’t circulate the memo widely enough. I do remember the mantra several years ago, “a warmer world will be a calmer world”. That one seems to have bitten the dust as well!
When you infill missing areas by using data from other areas, despite the clear large variation possible between areas (as in the US this summer) , you are simply increasing any trend in the data you have. To claim it “proves” warming is just a joke.
“given that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas it should cause some warming” – Really? “Should” is not exactly evidence, and a word used when something is mere assumption. Even if man’s tiny increment of CO2 could ‘hold’ heat, the amount is so small as to be insignificant and unmeasurable. The whole CO2 flux question also makes it debatable whether man’s addition is in any way significant and not just the IPCC trying to mislead us (https://papundits.wordpress.com/2021/08/22/the-ipccs-deliberate-co2-deception/).
Some US Government research has estimated that only 3.2% of CO2 being released in to the atmosphere is from human activity yet this part of the release is being touted as being responsible for all of climate change. The release from natural sources obviously have no adverse affects.
https://principia-scientific.com/carbon-dioxide-revisited/
Perhaps Ian, it would have been better to say that almost no one has disputed that humans have significantly increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. I can think of a number of people including myself. In fact anyone who knows about Henry’s Law and about the quantity of carbon dioxide in the seas as compared with the atmosphere should have their doubts, especially as we are clearly in a warm period for whatever reason. I am tempted to add another answer to “What have the Romans done for us?” As “Well they certainly didn’t think it worthwhile doing anything about the warm period that they found themselves in other than importing some vines to grow grapes for their future drinks.
Another interesting feature of the report is their use of “common place”, easily-understood, language whenever scientific evidence supports their arguments.
High confidence becomes “very likely”
Medium confidence becomes “likely”
By inference Low confidence NEVER becomes “Unlikely”
All “low confidence” statements are wrapped up in long winded scientific jargon to make them less obvious. A good example is section B.2.5.
“The Arctic is likely to be practically sea ice free at least once before 2050 under the five illustrative scenarios considered in this report”
“There is low confidence in the projected decrease of Antarctic sea ice.”
To use consistent language they should have said:-
“We are unlikely to see any decrease in Antarctic sea ice”
I don’t even understand the Arctic ice claim. Is it ice-free or not in the scenarios? And why “illustrative” scenarios? They are making it deliberately confusing so they appear to be saying the Arctic will be ice-free by 2050 whilst in fact saying it might be in at least one of the illustrative (but not necessarily likely or even possible) scenarios.
This sort of language not allowed by government regulatory agencies in say financial markets.
‘a best estimate of 1.07°C’
False precision fallacy. To two decimal places. Rilly?
Actual estimates to one decimal place but the “average” to two.
Was a wrong answer when I did O level Sciences.
‘Nobody disputes that humans have increased the quantity of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and that given that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas it should cause some warming.’
‘There is also broad agreement that there has been warming but how much of this is natural and how much is human induced?’
Starting a critique with declarations of orthodoxy says, “Read no further.”
Correct.
A good reflection on AR6 but there’s too much money driving the man-made global warming theory. What we need is a calm consideration of all the aspects of the theory without ill-reviewed papers being rushed out for COP26.
This opening statement is false: “Nobody disputes that humans have increased the quantity of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere…”
There are several well known arguments against the hypothesis that the CO2 increase has been caused by humans. The best known is that it is due to the warming coming out of the Little Ice Age.
Also I recently pointed out that the IPCC’s SPM claim the the increase is simply a build up of our emissions is more than false. It is a deliberate deception.
See my https://www.cfact.org/2021/08/21/the-ipccs-deliberate-co2-deception/
Nobody the author knows or prefers to consort with or knows of someone who is offering a research grant to confirm what the government wants the causation to be, disputes the hypothesis. The issue has been one of linguistics from the start. The dramatic prose and now, with XR, the enactments, are contrivances of dramatisation and proof that there is an increase of intrusion into our live by the media, causing a heated environment.
If we present ourselves as in agreement with the suggestions pertaining to AGW and adopt the language of resistance, such as calling our opponents deniers, we prove little other than the ease with which words can be weaponised. Concede the proprietorial possession of verbiage to whoever claims it.
To be thought of as sensitive and, strangely, missionary (the trouble missionaries have stirred), knowing, we arrive at the David Attenborough school of omnipotence. Why have a relevant science degree when you could have gone to RADA? Sincerity is a powerful weapon; once you have learned to fake it, you are made.
Groucho Marx said that,apparently.
The weapon against them maybe laughter..they are a humourless lot and it may burst their bubble of supreme self confidence
CO2 increases causes warming?
We had global warming from 1975 through 2003, and from mid-2015 through 2020
CO2 increases do not affect the global average temperature?
We had a flat temperature trend from 2003 through mid-2015
CO2 increases cause global cooling?
We had global cooling from 1940 through 1975
Temperature increases lead CO2 level increases by an average of 800 years?
Over the past 800,000 years, based on Vostok, Antarctica climate reconstructions
Question:
How does that evidence
add up to settled science,
enabling accurate predictions
of the future climate?
Answer:
It does not !
The controller s hate humans. This report purely blames humans, just setting up a narrative to control everything we do. Vax passport=digital id=CBDC=Social Credit system = game over for freedom.
Why does no one ever mention geo-engineering. Over the Wirral, NW (most of UK from observations I’ve seen) we got hit by heavy spraying on Monday 23rd. What damage is being done to environment & humans. I had sore throat and pressing headache. The metal if particles could be seen via rainbow effect.
Hi Matt: There has been quite a bit of geoengineering done on the Wirral since its formation as a Triassic plateau of sandstone some years ago. Of course the last ice age also did quite a lot of work, leaving the boulder clay along the Wirral side of the Dee. The bed of the Dee has been relaxing after having the weight of rather thick ice over it and the stream now called the Mersey has taken over from the Dee as the main water way in the area. The latter being l helped somewhat by the Bernoulli effect. As regards manmade geoengineering the answer I would give at present is “Don’t do it!”. By the way count yourself lucky, the Russians did some cloud seeding after Chernobyl to drop radioactive particles before they reached Moscow.