IPCC AR6 SPM Credibility Destroyed by the “Disappearing” Medieval Warming Period. – Is it good?

Essay by Larry Hamlin

The Climate Intelligence Fund (CLINTEL) has cataloged critical errors in the UN IPCC AR6 Compendium for Policymakers (SPM) and distributed this list and analysis of errors to the IPCC Chair and other world leaders to notify them of these errors.

Identified errors lead to SPM does not meet objective scientific integrity standards and thus, mislead world leaders into proper climate policy by falsely pointing out that a “climate crisis” exists in fact. SPM has the serious shortcoming of “inappropriately used to justify dramatic social, economic and human changes through severe mitigation, while prudent adaptation” would much more suitable.

The fatal errors are grouped into six main areas recognized in the CLINTEL report as follows:

The SPM argues that human influence alone has warmed the planet to be “obviously” false with this claim ignoring natural climate effects including the effects of solar variability, natural events, and climate change. Natural disasters such as ENSO, El Niño, La Niña, AMO, PDO etc such as impacts from geomagnetic storms, earthquakes, tsunamis and volcanic eruptions along with other areas of evidence outlined in the CLINTEL report have systematically ignored by the IPCC as shown in the summary below.

Most statistical schemes with significant errors (attribution to “obvious” are based on the claim “major advances in attribution science”) have been relied upon by the IPCC to support the “obvious” claim. with these diagrams by world-renowned statisticians, questioned Dr. Ross McKitrick and Steven McIntyre. These challenges require further assessment by proponents of IPCC SPM climate warnings.

This questionable “obvious” claim contaminates all SPM statements across six key assessment areas as reflected in the repeated use of the flawed terms “man-made”. created”, “man-made” and “human-influenced”.

A portion of the CLINTEL summary refuting SPM’s “explicit” statements is provided below.

The CLINTEL report provides further examination of the issues noted above regarding the “human effect” and then addresses the statistical errors used in the “obvious” attribution statement as follows: :

The CLINTEL report concludes:

“So the opening statement in the SPM“It is clear that human influence has warmed the atmosphere, oceans and land” is not scientifically strong. In addition, the omission of any serious attempt to investigate any other explanations for climate change reflects the IPCC’s lack of objectivity and open-mindedness. ”

AR6 SPM uses flawed statistics to reinvent fake “hockey sticks” to mask natural temperature climate variability over the past 2,000 years as identified in the CLINTEL report, where note the complete exclusion of colleagues from the broad Middle Ages Warming Period and have a review of proven data and research in addition to omitting Minoan warming data and studies and Rome.

An example of one of many peer-reviewed temperature reconstructions captures these well-established warming periods in the figure below.

Consider what IPCC has done with the AR6 SPM “hockey stick” memory of the IPCC “Concealing Denial” hoax incident back in the days of climate science Watergate exposed the data manipulation scandals of the “scientist” climate alarmist (admitted that the nature of the “trick” used to conceal the attenuation is different from the statistical “trick” used in the AR6 SPM report) as shown below.

The CLINTEL report addresses an SPM misrepresentation of climate-temperature reconstruction data over the past 2,000 years as shown in the summary below.

The CLINTEL report concludes:

“It was concluded that the ‘hockey stick’ presented in the SPM had no solid scientific basis and misrepresented climate change over the past two millennia. As a corollary, it cannot be asserted that recent climate changes are “unprecedented”.

United Nations IPCC AR6 SPM “disappeared” The Middle Ages of Warming is such a flawed climate warning propaganda scheme that it deserves much greater public attention and scientific scrutiny .

The Medieval Warming Period is unquestionably scientifically proven as presented (top photo) in many works that reconstruct paleontological surface temperatures including that of Dr. Judith Curry as shown in the comparison below, clearly showing the very large manipulated distortion in the temperature reconstruction data present in the IPCC SPM over the past 2,000 years (bottom image).

Besides in a paper at JoNova, which summarizes just a few of the many processes that reconstruct paleontological surface temperatures around the globe. is provided to unequivocally establish the foolishness of attempting to deny that the Medieval Warming Period existed as was done in the IPCC AR6 SPM.

The IPCC’s denial of the Medieval Warming Period is based on flawed statistical “tricks” and haphazardly concocted by politically oriented climate alarm authors who arrogantly believe that their “tricks” outperform and outperform decades of global data collected and analyzed by dozens of colleagues, and that published studies are simply astounding as proven. evident by the Medieval Period data and studies from the JoNova paper shown below. This article was first written in 2019 but is completely relevant now considering the AR6 SPM warming phase deception.

Then, JoNova’s paper provides a summary of just a few of the vast amounts of scientific data that have been reviewed and researched that unequivocally support unusual climate variability over the past two millennia. , including the Medieval Warming Period that the United Nations IPCC attempted to “disappear” using the flawed statistical “trick” addressed by Drs McKitrick and Steve McIntyre in the CLINTEL report.

The United Nations IPCC’s implementation of an extremely ill-advised and flawed plan such as negating the established scientific confidence that the Middle Ages warming was driving climate change over the past two millennia shows their desperate attempt to justify the “fake and ludicrous climate crisis.” The propaganda statement with this action clearly advocates that the SPM does not meet the standards. on “objective scientific integrity”.

In addition, the large global preponderance of peer-reviewed scientific temperature reconstruction studies unequivocally supports the existence of a Medieval Warming Period (as well as a Medieval Warming Period). Minoans and Romans) is clear evidence that the statistical plans and “tricks” used by the IPCC to “disappear” this warming period must be judged as flawed and flawed.

This blatant act of “disappearing” This Medieval Warming period shows a politically motivated lack of political capacity and integrity of the entire UN IPCC AR6 reporting and process, and shows It is clear that the IPCC promotes the politicization of climate warning propaganda even if it means false denial, distortion, and manipulation of peer-reviewed and proven scientific data.

The AR6 SPM has been deliberately manipulated to meet alarming political goals that will aid COP26 efforts to force global nations to abandon fossil fuels and overuse and waste energy Renewables depend on redundant and unreliable power sources.

Fortunately, this plan completely failed and the developing countries (led by China and India) controlled the outcome of COP26 by refusing to meet the demands that were destructive in terms of economic, scientifically flawed and purely climate warning.

The next CLINTEL report addresses misrepresentations of SPM (again note the use of the terms “man-made” and “human-influenced”) related to extreme weather as described Below is a summary of the criticisms CLINTEL contained in the summary expanded in more detail in their report .

The CLINTEL report notes that the draft AR6 WG1 is inconsistent with the SPM’s claims regarding flooding, noting that “there is low confidence in human influence on changes in major river flows across on a global scale”, that “greater rainfall does not always lead to greater flooding” and “the number of significant trends in major floods across North America and Europe approximates expected by chance alone” as well as “timely changes in the occurrence of major floods are driven by multi-level variability rather than by long-term trends. ”

The report notes that “Perhaps the best overview of weather events since the last Ice Age is given in HH Lamb’s classic “Climate, History and the Modern World”, first published in 1982, has been reprinted many times since then. It also records extreme weather phenomena around the globe cooling period of the 1960s and 1970s. This book alone leaves many doubting that modern-day so-called “weather extremes” events are by no means unheard of.”

“As a conclusion, SPM misrepresents detailed findings on extreme events.”

The next CLINTEL report addresses SPM misrepresentations (again note the use of the term “human influence”) of developments in the Cryosphere as summarized below.

Dr. Curry in his presentation provided data that addresses the long-term behavior of higher temperatures in the Arctic over the past 2,000 years as shown below with even higher Arctic temperatures occurring during the Holocene Thermal Optimum between 4,000 and 8,000 years ago.

Antarctica, Greenland and Glaciers are summarized in the CLINTEL report section below.

“In summary, the changes that have been confirmed in the cryosphere are not caused by observations.”

The subsequent CLINTEL report addresses SPM misrepresentations (again note the use of the terms “human influence” and “human influence”) on development in the Ocean. .

Dr. Curry in his presentation specifically addressed the flawed claim that “human influences” have been the main driver of sea level rise since 1971 as shown in the chart below. here’s hers.

NOAA Tide measurement data continue to support the results “That absolute global sea level rise is thought to be between 1.7 and 1.8 mm/year.” as noted in their documentation shown below. This magnitude of global sea level rise is in line with the CLINTEL GMSL increase discussed above in their report disproving claims of sea level rise at a faster rate over the past 3,000 years.

The media hype claims about the catastrophic sea level rise of Maldives & Pacific Island-Indian Ocean are baseless as shown below from the report.

Regarding ocean warming and acidification, the CLINTEL report notes:

“In short, the claims regarding sea level rise, warming and acidity are misrepresented.”

The next CLINTEL report addresses SPM misrepresentations of the sensitivity of climate models.

Regarding the troposphere temperature trends observed by satellites, the CINTEL report notes:

The CLINTEL report includes a brief comment on the importance of adaptation and mitigation as follows: