IPCC's Big cs Error
The IPCC's Big Climate Sensitivity Error raising more doubts about a survivable future!
For decades the recognized world's leading authority on climate change, UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (the IPCC), has been plagued by climate change calculation and politicization problems. Here is it's latest!
Job one for Humanity Editor's Forward
The IPCC just released its latest 2022 climate report. No matter how bad this new 2022 climate change report seems, it is still grossly underestimated!
The IPCC's history of climate change calculation problems and other errors includes:
a. the politicization of climate science,
b. serious errors in their calculations and assumptions, and
c. serious computer modeling omissions.
Items a, b, and c above all result in the gross underestimation of current climate change consequences, timetables, and remedies. The new article below is about another serious IPCC climate change calculation error. It is called the IPCC climate sensitivity error.
Climate sensitivity is a critical measurement in climate science, and it is used as a mathematical constant in the various formulas the IPCC uses for many of its climate calculations and predictions. Climate sensitivity measures how much Earth's surface will cool or warm after a specified factor causes a change in its climate system, such as how much it will heat for a doubling in the atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration.
Making sure one uses the correct climate sensitivity in climate computer models is critical. If you get this sensitivity mathematical constant number wrong, all risk assessment and climate planning based on that incorrect climate sensitivity constant level will be wrong and dangerous for anyone relying on it. This new climate sensitivity error makes the current IPCC's current climate change consequences, consequence timetables, and remedies underestimated by another approximate 25%.
The following article discusses in depth the IPCC's climate sensitivity error. It is full of climate sensitivity science, but most people can still understand it.
When reading it, keep in mind that in order to determine the proper climate risk and threat assessment spectrum, one should always use the higher climate sensitivity range to envision the true risk and threat spectrum one faces.
In the article below, it is you who gets to be the judge if the IPCC has underestimated future climate change model projections by up to 25% or more by skewing the climate sensitivity calculations for the benefit of global fossil fuel interests.
The following climate sensitivity section of this article was written by Peter Carter. Peter Carter was an expert reviewer for the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) fifth climate change assessment (AR5, 2014) and the IPCC’s 2018 Special Report on 1.5ºC. In 2018, he published Unprecedented Crime: Climate Science Denial and Game Changers for Survival, which he co-authored with Elizabeth Woodworth. He is published on climate change, biodiversity, and environmental health.
The IPCC does not adequately assess global climate change for risk
The IPCC 2021 sixth assessment climate sensitivity is fatally flawed, making the entire assessment fatally flawed for policymaking.
Climate sensitivity is the fundamental metric used in climate change computer modeling. It determines by how much and how fast the global average (land-ocean) temperature will increase over the coming many centuries in response to an increased atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide.
Originally, back in the 1980s, this climate sensitivity was chosen as a single fixed metric of an increase of 3°C (from the pre-industrial period) if atmospheric carbon dioxide doubled, even though the models have always given a very wide range for climate sensitivity. Furthermore, a conclusion of a 2004 IPCC workshop on climate was that “sensitivity cannot be only one global number.”
Before I complain about the IPCC’s bad sense of science, I must say that the most important and truthful statements on climate change ever were made by the IPCC Chair at the last two UN climate conferences.
At the opening of the UN Madrid COP25 (2 Dec 2019), IPCC Chair Hoesung Lee said:
“Let me start by reminding you that our assessments show that climate stabilization implies that greenhouse gas emissions must start to peak from next year.” Global emissions had to be in decline by 2020!
At the opening of the UN Glasgow COP26 (31 October 2021), he said:
“It is now unequivocal that human influence is causing climate change, making extreme events more frequent and more severe. Global warming of 1.5°C and 2°C will be exceeded during this century unless immediate, rapid, and large-scale reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, especially of carbon dioxide and methane, occur in the nearest future.” Global emissions have to be in decline now for any chance of limiting to the catastrophic 2°C.
This was completely ignored by all concerned who to this day are claiming global warming can be limited to 1.5°C. This is an absurd, misleading falsehood. As the 2018 IPCC 1.5°C Report and the 2021 6th assessment Working Group 1 The Science said, the current emissions scenario puts the world at 1.5°C around 2030. This is now absolutely unavoidable.
However, both of these most important climate science statements went completely unreported even though the IPCC put them out as media releases.
Computer models designed by experts are used to estimate how the global climate, oceans and land regions will change due to greenhouse gas (GHG) global heating emissions. At every stage of the projections, from an increase in atmospheric CO2 to global surface warming and to the melting of Arctic sea ice (for example), the computer models project a very wide range of results.
There are, therefore, fatal fundamental flaws in the IPCC 2021 sixth assessment (AR6) climate change science. Not only has the IPCC rejected risk, it arrived at a climate sensitivity number lower than the latest models.
There is nothing in climate science more important than the climate sensitivity because it is the metric used to calculate how much the average surface temperature warms for any given atmospheric concentration of CO2.
As applied in climate change assessment, climate sensitivity has always been a single — virtually unchanging — global average temperature increase, estimated from a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide. It is defined as the ultra long-term equilibrium climate sensitivity (ES), which takes many hundreds of years.
The metric is arrived at by computer projecting the increase in long-term equilibrium global surface temperature with a doubling of atmospheric CO2. The computer models result in a very wide range of temperature increases. 2014 IPCC fifth assessment has a “likely” range of climate sensitivity of up to 4.5°C, but the IPCC gave the same fixed 3°C for policymaking. The 2021 sixth assessment gave a likely upper range of 5°C, but the IPCC still only gave the single fixed 3°C for policymaking. For risk, this is obviously the wrong number to choose. The right number for policymaking is the top of the “likely range” (IPCC). This was 4.5°C in 2014 and, with new models, 5°C in 2021.
There is another reason why climate sensitivity has to be at least 4.5°C if not 5°C. Applying the single 3°C for projecting a temperature increase also gives a very wide range that gets wider over time as the temperature increases higher. Under the worst-case scenario (which the world is on, by the way), at 2050 the IPCC gives a temperature increase of 2.4°C, but the IPCC says the “likely range” is up to 3°C, and by 2100 the range increases to 5.7°C — while the IPCC gives 4.4°C for policymaking. In the best-case scenario for 2050, the IPCC gives 1.6°C but the likely upper range is 2°C.
The IPCC takes the median of this range, but the best model projection could be the one projecting the highest. As a single fixed temperature increase, climate sensitivity has always been flawed for future projections, and the AR6 makes it worse. It was originally used as a fixed standard to compare the different climate models developed by different climate centers. The IPCC’s climate sensitivity does not account for increased concentrations of the other main greenhouse gases, methane and nitrous oxide, which the scientists assume make no difference.
The IPCC does not include in its climate sensitivity the extra warming from large planetary sources of amplifying feedbacks, nor the damage that warming does to forests that reduces their capacity as a carbon sink, and nor the reduced ocean carbon sink from ocean heating.
The new models (called CMIP6) projected much higher sensitivities, which was largely due to better representations of the feedback from clouds as temperature increases.
In fact, there have always been some individual model results of sensitivity far higher than the 3°C used by the IPCC.
Going back to the fifth assessment in 2014, there were some models that, by studying actual cloud changes closely, had arrived at values much higher than 3°C and with upper limits higher again. Four out of ten models had an upper limit double the 3°C mean that was used. These upper ranges were so extremely much higher than 3°C that applying a higher sensitivity than 3°C became an imperative.
To conclude, the IPCC has fudged the sixth assessment’s most crucial number, making it truly fatally flawed in a way that exposes the future to climate catastrophe, benefitting no one except the fossil fuel industry. It is basic to risk assessment that the higher number — not the single median number — be applied for future projections. The difference between a climate sensitivity of 3°C against 4.5°C is life and death for our future and all life. (End of Peter Carter's article.)
The following are illustrations showing the IPCC climate sensitivities and the much higher climate sensitivities created by other qualified climate scientists or climate research organizations.
Despite far higher climate sensitivities being the appropriate sensitivity choice, once again in their newest just released 2021 report, the IPCC uses the lower 3C climate sensitivity estimate to appease its fossil fuel producing and using supporters!
Job One for Humanity Editor's Epilogue
The IPCC has fudged the most current sixth assessment's most important number making it fatally flawed in a way that exposes the future to endless climate catastrophes, benefitting no one except the fossil fuel industry. It may be assumed this massive additional source of climate calculation error was the work of the government policymakers who sit on the IPCC panel and have the power of line-by-line approval for the final assessment to be published.
The question, of course, is how could climate scientists reject any possibility of climate sensitivity above 3°C, when the models consistently gave results far higher than 3°C, and when avoiding global climate catastrophe depends upon choosing the correct climate sensitivity with the highest and most accurate sensitivity. The answer to this question is the extraordinary unique make-up of the IPCC panel.
This panel had government representatives sitting on the panel who had to approve every line of the assessment before it could be published. This means the big fossil fuel producing or supporting governments have not permitted a climate sensitivity to go higher than the first 1990 IPCC assessment of 3°C.
What does this new error mean for your future, and who is most at risk using the IPCC's current climate data for their risk assessments and climate planning
The danger of this severe climate sensitivity calculation error and the many other IPPC errors (described further below) is that it will cause the gross underestimation of climate consequences, timetables, and remedies. Yet, the world's governments, intelligence agencies, national reserve banks, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, trans-national global corporations, think tanks, risk assessment firms, hedge funds, investment bankers, and insurance companies all use and currently depend upon the IPCC's grossly underestimated summary reports for their climate change planning, strategies, projections, etc.
This widespread use of the IPCC's seriously unreliable climate consequence predictions, timeframes, and remedial action information means:
1. these critical organizations (and the rest of us) are in for a massive series of unpredicted, expensive, and painful climate consequence shocks within our many economic, political, and social systems, and
2. The world's foremost organizations have grossly underestimated the actual climate change threat levels, risks, and the timeframes of an already unfolding climate change-driven system collapse and extinction scenario.
3. Because of only the ongoing climate sensitivity error, the IPCC's newest climate consequence predictions, timeframes, and remedial action information will be underestimated by as much as 25% or more. (This 25% does not include the effect of the other IPCC errors described further below.)
Because the underestimation and other errors of the IPCC are so considerable and so extensive, and the foremost organizations we rely upon for stability are using that flawed climate information, humanity and global society are in for a painful, wild, and chaotic ride that will lead us well into mass human extinction and if not fixed soon, total extinction.
Here are more links explaining the decades-long history of the IPCC's many serious climate change calculation errors making their reports too unreliable for the world's survival
The immediate survival of humanity is at stake in the climate emergency. We can no longer rely upon the IPPC's climate calculations to create reliable risk assessments or for future climate change-related planning actions.
(Please note: In the links below, we are not attacking or criticizing any of the thousands of hard-working and honest volunteer scientists worldwide who submit their climate research to the IPCC. Instead, we call attention to the IPCC's administrative processes and politicized leadership. They are the ones who alter and contort the real climate science received by these scientists into 5-7 year climate summary reports. Before they are released, these 5-7 year summary reports must get the line-by-line sign-off of the IPCC's major funders, the fossil fuel producing nations, and the fossil fuel-dependent nations.)
Click here to understand the long-term history of the IPCC underestimating the consequences, timeframes, and the needed global fossil fuel reduction targets by as much as 20-40% or more.
Click here to see precisely how the IPCC "cooked the books" and grossly skewed the current IPCC global fossil fuel reduction calculations by including unproven and non-existent "carbon sucking unicorn" technology into their projections.
Click here to see the IPCC's Perfect Day problem with its computer climate modeling.
Click here to see the eleven key climate change tipping points that have been mostly excluded from the IPCC calculations on how much fossil fuel use we must reduce each year globally.
Click here to see the four key reasons why the IPCC's 26 global climate conferences have failed to produce results or legitimate global fossil fuel reduction targets.
Click here to see the IPCC's huge atmospheric methane calculation problem.
Click here to see the latest 2022 IPCC climate change summary report on the critical climate sensitivity error. Because of only this ongoing climate sensitivity error, the IPCC's newest climate consequence predictions, timeframes, and remedial action information will be underestimated by as much as 25% or more. (This 25% does not include the effect of the other IPCC errors described in the links just above.)
Click here to see a new study showing that the IPCC does not include many critical climate system factors in its computer climate modeling. Those missing factors equal wrong and distorted results. This Feb 2022 paper strongly refutes the absurd IPCC claim that the Arctic sea ice melt-decline is reversible. It is not reversible, and that is a monster problem for humanity's weather, seasonal climate, and future!
All of the above linked decades of IPCC error, miscalculation, and polarization problems also means that the IPCC is an unreliable partner for truthful and accurate climate change information. Their climate consequence predictions, timeframes, and remedial action information are grossly underestimated by 25 - 50 %+ and possibly more!
In general, if the IPCC currently says some climate consequence will happen or something must be done in ten years, it is more likely to occur in 5-6 years. For example, if the IPCC says we must reduce global fossil fuel use by 45% by 2030, the actual amount will be 75% by 2025-2026. Start discounting everything coming out of the IPCC by 50% to compensate for all of their decades of errors, miscalculations, and polarization, and you will not be too far from the truth, which they are desperately trying to hide or disguise.
At the minimum, we hope that by the time you this article and its documentation, you too will adopt the general rule of thumb that, whatever the IPCC tells you about the coming climate change consequences, timeframes, and remedies will be underestimated by at least 20-40%!