Pielke Jr. about IPCC AR6 WG2 Release – Would you stand out for that?
Originally tweeted by Roger Pielke Jr.🇺🇦 (@RogerPielkeJr) above February 28, 2022.
🧵
Initial topic on IPCC AR6 WG2 report released today
While WG1 received mixed reviews in my area of expertise (specifically: poor on script, solid on extremes), my initial reaction to the WG2 report was extremely poor.
The first observation is that the report gives more weight to the utopia than any previous IPCC assessment report.
In particular, RCP8.5 represents ~57% of script mentions
This alone sets the tone and doomsday conclusion throughout the report.
Notably, RCP8.5 is described in the report as a “business as usual” future and RCP4.5 is a “low emission future”.
In fact, RCP4.5 is now considered an upper bound orbit under current or stated policies & RCP8.5 is implausible
WG2 did not ignore the debate about unimaginable situations, but they chose to ignore nearly all relevant literature.
Instead, they cite the authoritative paper & COIed Schwalm extensively as justification for emphasizing RCP8.5 and some handshake on C-cycle feedback
Awkward
WG2 correctly states: “However, the likelihood of climate outcomes, and the overall distribution of climate outcomes, is a function of the likelihood of the emissions scenario”
And then cite NO relevant documentation on this point
Without it
It’s a choice
I’ll dance around a bit
Regarding US hurricane damage, the report cites 2 studies to counter our study of normalized US hurricane damage (cited!)
What is not stated is that there are 7 other studies in the literature, all of which point in the same direction
Clear, clear
I worked for the IPCC, did a literature review of standardization methods across the literature, reviewing >50 studies
Unlike previous IPCC reports, this document has been omitted
https://doi.org/10.1080/17477891.2200.1800440
Like WG1 Grinsted seems to justify claims that economic damage from extreme climate is increasing due to climate change, even though most literature (and previous IPCC reports) make the same contradictory results
Regarding flooding, WG2 completely misrepresents the conclusions of AR6 WG1
(L) WG2 indicates that increased river flood frequency and intensity is given “high confidence” by WG1
Is not
(R) WG1 says the opposite: “low” confidence
There are many indicators of reducing vulnerability to weather and climate, a leading paper being Formetta and Feyen 2019, which WG2 inadvertently removed in depth in Chapter 16
https://www.sciasedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378019300378
Formetta and Feyen 2019 contradicts much of the gloom and gloom of this report
Even so, the good news about Formetta and Feyen 2019 has appeared elsewhere
Interestingly, WG2 reports that globally, wildfires show regional patterns but no global trends.
WG2 claims that the number of reported flood deaths has increased but somehow fails to note that the article cited to support that claim explains that the increase is due to better reporting in the database. EM-DAT database (right side)
In fact, Tanoue et al. Report 2016 – as is widely found in the literature but not in this WG2 report – that flood mortality has fallen dramatically over decades
If it is the IPCC’s job to review relevant literature, this report has major gaps
https://www.nature.com/articles/srep36021
There is no place in the report to assess the substantial literature on weather- and climate-related economic damage, but somehow NOAA’s multi-billion dollar disaster press releases put it’s in
IPCC report outlines a world of bizzaro in which there are
This NYT article accurately reflects the IPCC report but does not reflect the reality of the world we live in.
In fact, the world has made amazing progress in terms of adaptability and vulnerability
Climate change is real
It poses significant risks to the future of people and ecosystems
Strong adaptation and mitigation should be prioritized
None of the above justifies the scientific reviews constructed for headlines and political advocacy, which WG2 appears to be.
Bottom line:
It’s disappointing.
🤓
/END
Originally tweeted by Roger Pielke Jr.🇺🇦 (@RogerPielkeJr) above February 28, 2022.