Bishop Hill A sneak peek at the IPCC report
Aug 17, 2013 Climate: IPCC Reuters seems to have managed to get itself a peek at the IPCC report. Hard though it is to believe, things are worse than we thought.
Drafts seen by Reuters of the study by the U.N. panel of experts, due to be published next month, say it is at least 95 percent likely that human activities - chiefly the burning of fossil fuels - are the main cause of warming since the 1950s. That is up from at least 90 percent in the last report in 2007, 66 percent in 2001, and just over 50 in 1995, steadily squeezing out the arguments by a small minority of scientists that natural variations in the climate might be to blame. That shifts the debate onto the extent of temperature rises and the likely impacts, from manageable to catastrophic. Governments have agreed to work out an international deal by the end of 2015 to rein in rising emissions.
Reader Comments (76)
It's a bit like exam grade inflation. Each time they have to come up with a number larger than the last, until it gets so silly that the whole thing has to stop.
Strange how the contributers to the IPCC are surer of AGW as the climate model validity is plummeting through the floor.
I suppose those who believe in astrology act in the same way.
I do like the idea that the “slower rise” in temperatures since 1998 may be “just a blip”.
After the hockeystick, the flat blip.
Tim Ball sums it all up rather well, I think:
http://drtimball.com/2013/another-bizarre-form-of-the-science-is-settled-claim-in-the-climate-debate/
They say that:
1 - they are surer than ever that humans are to blame, but
2 - they now do not know what the effects will be.
That's very convenient. Any effect (including nothing happening at all!) now comes under the heading of Climate Change. The ONLY thing they need to measure is CO2 increase, and that increase ON ITS OWN is sufficient justification to close down all human energy generation.
...because humans are to blame. For whatever. As is always the case with green activism...
Or as they say on The Apprentice, they are 110% certain.....
Absurd on so many levels. The most important being that it doesn't matter. That small an increase, of which only 51% is caused by man? Low sensitivity folks. Apocalypse not.
However the first thing that went through my mind on reading this will no doubt be considered dangerous: that it is now 95% certain that CAGW is a conspiracy.
Dr Lew has been sent to spook us from saying so, Royal Society gongs and all. But surely by now it's staring everyone in the face. This level of disregard for the truth, for the sake of power, cannot be accidental.
I'm not saying I know who is pulling the strings. The Reuters reporter is probably just being lazy. But that's what the 95% means to me this morning.
<I>squeezing out the arguments by a small minority of scientists that natural variations in the climate might be to blame</I>
Small minority? Perhaps, if only "climate scientists" (as defined by IPCC) are counted, no physicists, astronomers, meteoroligists...
As the article "Old Goat" linked points out, and as I have been saying for some time, the IPCC was formed and charged with finding human/climate interfaces ONLY, and disregards (as best it can) any non-human-influence report even in its own publications to construct the "climate for dummies" political summary.
From WUWT:
Ah well, we can all forget about the failure of computer models to predict the current standstill in global warming. After all, when you are surer than ever that man-made emissions of CO2 are to blame, who needs models that are a source of embarrassment?
Well that's sorted it out then.
A good result for the 30 odd billion spent on "climate science".
I particularly like the "might" - that was the final touch of the real pro.
Cognitive dissonance writ large.
Or, if you're going to tell a lie, tell a big lie.
"Fiction is the form of any work that deals, in part or in whole, with information or events that are not real, but rather, imaginary and theoretical—that is, invented by the author." Wikipedia
This definition seems to cover the work of the IPCC and that of Rajenda Pachauri.
That's consistency if nothing else.
AR5 is obviously sh*t or bust time. Madness and desperation are writ large. They know there will be no AR6.
Irrespective of the level of truth, science and reality in the IPCC report, we already know that the spin machine is already in gear, and the story of their choosing is what will hit the headlines in September. Those news items are already written, the seminars planned and the 'expert's lined up to look serious on TV and frighten the plebs into parting with cash they don't have.
I'm just surprised the IPCC couldn't squeeze and extra 2% confidence into there report.
More pseudo science. At least the missing energy is not all sinking to the floor of the oceans. But the way they are using weather, such as heat waves, to support their arguments is a recent, complete about turn, surely. How many times in the past were we told not to confuse climate and weather, when extended cold periods were used to counter AGW?
I wonder what was the main cause of similarly rapid warming before 1950 and why it couldn't also be the cause of warming after 1950.
"Scientists believe causes could include: greater-than-expected quantities of ash from volcanoes, which dims sunlight; a decline in heat from the sun during a current 11-year solar cycle; more heat being absorbed by the deep oceans; or the possibility that the climate may be less sensitive than expected to a build-up of carbon dioxide."
Cited as the reasons for no temp rise since 1998. So they don't have a handle on ash, are unsure of solar variation effects, are uncertain on energy flow and only ever had an expectation for climate sensitivity.
I'm 95% certain that they are a bunch of clowns.
Well, I dunno about this ... If Reuters is declaring that this is a "U.N. panel of experts" it may not be an IPCC report.
You see, according to no less a personage than the once upon a time "world’s leading climate scientist" and now "noted environmentalist", Rajendra K. Pachauri (who is the Chair of the IPCC), the IPCC is not a "UN organization". And he should know, shouldn't he?!
Mind you, Pachauri has also declared that climate change - which he has recently relegated to a mere "subset" of a "bigger issue [which is that] society is having an unsustainable growth" - is "the 10-tonne gorilla which is in the room" (or at least it was a year ago!)
So, whichever way we look at it, as Bish says, things are definitely worse than we thought.
But every cloud has a silver lining, does it not? So I'm sure that the members of this congregation will be absolutely astounded to learn that Pachauri has now pronounced that ... drumroll, please ...
For details (including an almost larger than life poster of Pachauri and his proclamation) pls see:
It’s official: We have the right to question science!
;-)
I wonder what the experts in the Met Office will make of this?
Pachauri - I thought he worked for Tata!! Not the UN.
I wonder what the experts in the Met Office will make of this?
Aug 17, 2013 at 10:40 AM | Registered CommenterPhillip Bratby
Whatever greanpeace tells them. !!!!
I'm 100% certain that the 100% of climate scientists who are 95% certain that human activities are the main cause of global warming are 100% reliant for funding from tax-payers to show that human activities are the main cause of global warming and that if they cannot convince 100% of governments that human activities are the main cause of global warming, then 100% of their funding will disappear and then 100% of climate scientists will have to find an honest and productive alternative employment, which I'm 100% certain that 0% of them are capable of doing.
Philip Bratby
Full marks for that last comment. 100% in other words.
Inconvenient facts, such as the Mannopause, are the exceptions that prove the rule for true believers.
I posted this on the trust.org -page. Lets see how the moderation goes...
Basically, what has happened since the last IPCC reports is:
1. CO2 levels have risen far more than anticipated.
2. Warming has kept on stalling. Now for more than 16 years.
3. No sign of acceleration in sea level.
4. Climate models have been so far off that they have practically been falsified.
5. Scientists are already producing research which expects climate sensitivity to be far lower than what earlier IPCC reports have claimed.
6. People have completely lost interest in climate change and especially all the doomsday predictions.
And these people ignore everything and try to hammer through their message by being more sure than ever? Really? What are you smoking? This is complete madness.
the ipcc is there for a reason. ask yourselves, does this draft report sound justified within that reason? I don't think so.
perhaps the Reuters "leak" is a desperate call for the text to be changed, since at the moment is absolutely useless and might actually hamper climate change negotiations for still more time.
Of course, as the effect becomes smaller each year, the chance that the majority of the cause is mankind's puny efforts becomes greater.
This reminds me of some companies who continually increase dividends to retain investors, despite a worsening financial performance.
The evidence for a substantial SAT impact from poorly understood multidecadal variation has been mounting. High-end estimates of climate sensitivity come only from AOGCMs; the CMIP4 models have no skill in forecasting global average surface temperature, regional temperatures and precipitation, integrated tropospheric temperatures, nor OHC.
The observation-based evidence for a climate sensitivity considerably below the AR4 range has been mounting with some 15 well researched papers in the last few years.
Let's increase the dividend again.
I wonder if this will prove to be a leading tactic of those who want to alarm us over CO2 and climate:
The faltering pursuit of links between rising CO2 and the climate system, and the sharing of evidence for other influences on the system has been increasingly unfavourable to that group. Furthermore, with one sloppy paper after another clutching at straws for more alarm now being eviscerated within hours or days of appearing on the internet, what else can they do but try to shift the focus as far away from causes (i.e. science) as they can, and on to impacts and responses (i.e. politics and finance).
Will enough people be able to hold on to the fanciful notion that CO2 is a dominant driver of climate for the political momentum to be sustained? That is their gamble, and I guess it is one for the Last Chance Saloon.
You only need look over the pond, Obama's gone green barmy because he is a dead duck president. For him, there is nothing else to do, his foreign policies are up the proverbial creek and the US-Welt-Politik under his democrat stuffed administration - is, has become a joke.
So the question is - how to put your name up in lights, a legacy - to become the hero who saved the world.
The answer is a left leaning wet dream and an easy way is to promise the earth whilst doing the taxpayer.
Thus, in so doing Obama can in one stroke solve all his monetary problems and a provide a mega pension for life - his banking mates will see to that - oh and George [Soros] of course.
An added bonus, also, sorting out mother Gaia - sorts out the EU and helps them secure 'sustainability slavery' ETS is saved - well into the near term future.
Strategy:
a. IPCC report first - some major fixing [- know what I mean, wink, wink] was needed and some real backbone put back into those wavering scientists - jeepers - those creeps were starting to get real!
b. Time to get cracking heads screams POTUS for - 2015 is the big date but on the road to climate nowhere:
linkIt's no wonder that, Obama's re-election was heralded by the left as some sort of miracle.
Great for the left, a disaster for realism, the taxpayer....................... and science.
"Scientists believe causes could include: greater-than-expected quantities of ash from volcanoes, which dims sunlight; a decline in heat from the sun during a current 11-year solar cycle; more heat being absorbed by the deep oceans; or the possibility that the climate may be less sensitive than expected to a build-up of carbon dioxide."
This is the mathematics of idiots! They admit that they don't understand any of the variables but they are 95% certain that they know the probability distribution of the answer. Heat hiding in the deep oceans is the "get out of jail free card".
I wonder if it is nice, the weather on the planet that they are living on?
They continue to change the narrative to whatever they think they can get away with. Their new angle is to concede that they are finding it hard to predict near-term local impacts. I suspect they will use this as the excuse for the fact that temperatures in the UK (and Europe?) have been falling rapidly for a decade, see http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/.
95% confidence level is a term all politicians understand from their work with polling statistics.
The IPCC is fabricating the confidence level to give credibility to yet more useless AGW policy demands.
This is actually the worst report the IPCC has ever done. Instead of dealing honestly with the gaping holes in the supporting evidence, they push forward. Instead of acknowledging the increasing consensus of low sensitivity, they seek to push buttons in decision makers to shut the debate down.
This report seeks to return to the 'science is settled' scam with even more faux evidence.
This report is really bad for people who care about science, integrity and good public policy.
Greenism's "talent" seems to be lying about error-regions.
Doubt after 16 years of temperature stasis should be approaching 100%.
Roger Longstaff,
I know that a lot of people have been using it as such, but the truth is that the Otto et al study used the most aggressive (highest) estimates of ocean heat uptake possible - and they still found a TCR of 1.3 deg C and a modal value of ECS of around 2 deg C.
As a hand-waving argument against low climate sensitivity, it leaves a lot to be desired.
Good, their claims are even less defensible than last time. All the better.
So, it is everything as before. If the temperature rises it Man-made Global Warming. If it flat-lines or falls, it's Natural Variation.
I am 95% certain that it's a load of *******!
That is not the press agency Reuters. Notice the wrong URL. (trust.org, Reuters is reuters.com)
It is a UK narrow agenda charity.
Much more to this than face value. I'd follow the Norwegian connection.
Reuters always Tickells Thomson's interests...
Ta dah @tim channon is a genius
- yep "Don't take things at face value"
- There is a Reuters page with 95% quote on Published 9 months ago !
- They switched off the comments after the 2nd commenter as he pretty much demolished the hype
Tim;
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/16/us-climate-report-idUSBRE97F0KM20130816
Same.
Yep Alister Doyle wrote both the Dec 2012 and the Aug 2013 new longer story.
- anyone detect any NEW evidence ?
Gareth:
"I wonder what was the main cause of similarly rapid warming before 1950 and why it couldn't also be the cause of warming after 1950."
Exactly so. It seems as if the IPCC make up whatever narrative they think they can get away with, so long as it supports their man-made CO2 global warming hypothesis. The level of atmospheric CO2 did not undergo a sudden increase at mid-century and the logarithmic law of CO2 warming means that the CO2 forcing conditions in the 1918 to 1945 period of warming were similar to those prevailing from 1979 to 1998. It looks as if the IPCC discounted man-made CO2 as the predominant cause of the 1918 to 1945 warming not for valid scientific reasons but simply because if they hadn’t, they would have had difficulty explaining the 1945 to 1979 cooling in the face of ongoing CO2 forcing, just as they are now having difficulty explaining the unanticipated temperature standstill of the last 16 years in the face of rising atmospheric CO2 levels. As it is, their explanation for the cooling from 1945 to 1979 smacks of pulling a rabbit out of the hat, namely that it was due, uniquely for that period, to atmospheric aerosols.
Rather than getting all hot and bothered now, why not wait till next month and read the actual report?
Entropic;
We're neither hot nor bothered.
Do keep up.
:)
ssat
Are you sure you're cool?
There's a lot of hot air here.
Thanks for your scientific analysis, Entropic Man. Certainly thinking folks at this blog should stand down for weeks while the 95% narrative is established with as little debate or questioning as possible. After all, the climate gate emails and Lewandowski "studies" have clearly shown the calm, professional attitude and demeanor of the consensus, Certainly we should not get all hot and bothered about them.