Odd Contradiction in the IPCC Report

Earlier today, I noticed an odd contradiction in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fifth Assessment Report (AR5). The Working Group II (WGII) Summary for Policy Makers says:

Global economic impacts from climate change are difficult to estimate. Economic impact estimates completed over the past 20 years vary in their coverage of subsets of economic sectors and depend on a large number of assumptions, many of which are disputable, and many estimates do not account for catastrophic changes, tipping points, and many other factors. With these recognized limitations, the incomplete estimates of global annual economic losses for additional temperature increases of ~2°C are between 0.2 and 2.0% of income (±1 standard deviation around the mean)

While citing Chapter 10. The Final Draft of Chapter 10 says:

Globally aggregated economic impacts of global warming are a small fraction of income up until 3°C [10.9.2, medium evidence, high agreement]. A global mean average temperature rise of 2.5C may lead to global aggregated economic losses between 0.2 and 2.0% of income (medium evidence, medium agreement) and losses increase with greater warming.

The SPM says “additional temperature increases of ~2°C” will cause a loss of 0.2 and 2.0% GDP. Chapter 10 says a “global mean average temperature rise of 2.5C may lead to global aggregated economic losses between 0.2 and 2.0% of income.” Why does the SPM say those damages will happen half a degree sooner?

I don’t know. What I do know is the previous version of the SPM said damages for a:

global mean temperature increase of ~2.5°C above recent levels are between 0.2 and 2.0% of income

Meaning the SPM was changed at the last minute to say those damages will happen sooner, contradicting the section it cites.

This Amuses Me

Some of you may have read the latest post at Climate Audit in which it’s shown the lastest IPCC report exaggerated concerns about undernourishment and its relation to global warming. I wasn’t going to respond to it, but I saw this comment by Richard Drake:

All you’re reporting from the SOD to final (h/t HaroldW also) is truly astonishing. Kudos to Richard Tol but woe to the lead authors and a system that seems to turn a blind eye to such abse. The result being that the world’s undernourished are used by the IPCC to support the unsupportable, “social and economic issues” be damned.

Which is too funny to pass up. Richard Tol abused the IPCC process to a huge degree, yet here, he’s being praised for his stand against “the lead authors and a system that seems to turn a blind eye to such ab[u]se.”

Feedback on a Video

Hi all. As some of you likely know, I’m planning on moving in about a month. That, plus a rather difficult bathroom remodel, has kept me from having much time to work on a number of projects I’ve started. The remodel recently finished though, and today I decided to work on one of them.

This project stems from my earlier series of posts on various questionable, or even outright dishonest, things Michael Mann has done in his work on global warming. I think those posts turned out okay, but they weren’t that accessible to people new to the subject. That problem gave rise to the idea of creating YouTube videos to explain some of these issues. I decided to try making one. You can see it here:

Obviously, it is a very crude rough draft. I recorded the audio in one take with no prep, and all the images I used were ones I had created beforehand. I’d like to rework them for aesthetics, especially to give them all clear labels. I’d also like to find images to fit in the empty spaces.

Other than obvious stuff like that though, what do you think? Was the script understandable? Were there any points you think I should have covered but didn’t? Do you think my voice is annoying and I should never speak out loud again?

Let me know what you think. Be gentle though. I’m new to this.

Basic Truths, Part Two

Some time back, I wrote a post about basic truths everyone should be able to agree to. Unsurprisingly, some people refused to agree to them. One such person banned me from his blog (And Then There’s Phsyics) because of an exchange about them. That banning came up at Judith Curry’s blog recently, and more people have decided to join in on the denial.

I normally wouldn’t bother writing a post about this. However, one such individual, Tom Curtis, wrote a lengthy response to some of what I said, and he gets things incredibly wrong. He’s so incredibly wrong, I have to discuss it. Before I do though, I want to highlight Curtis’s description of me and my being banned (referencing a discussion on this post of mine:

After a discussion with Shollenberger on his site, I heartily endorse Anders sentiment of never wanting to discuss anything with Shollenberger again. It is not a moral or a personality flaw to dislike discussing things with people who do not discuss in good faith, show a lack of personal integrity, and behave like complete pricks.

If you agree with his description of me, I suggest you stop reading. You’ll never believe what I say, no matter how right I am.