Leaked IPCC Draft: Climate Change Signals Expected To Be Relatively Small Over Coming 20-30 Years

It seems that according the early draft, CO2 induced climate change is going to take a backseat to natural variability.

Newsbytes from Dr. Benny Peiser at The GWPF

The IPCC draft, which has found its way into my possession, contains a lot more unknowns than knowns. When you get down to specifics, the academic consensus is far less certain. The draft gives even less succour to those seeking here a new mandate for urgent action on greenhouse gas emissions, declaring: “Uncertainty in the sign of projected changes in climate extremes over the coming two to three decades is relatively large because climate change signals are expected to be relatively small compared to natural climate variability”. –Richard Black, BBC News, 13 November 2011

But before declaring victory, it is worth noting Richard Black’s expectation that governments will be pressing for different conclusions because money is at stake. The good news about the leaked document is that efforts to alter the text will be noticed. Based on Black’s report, it seems that the IPCC has at long last done the right thing on extreme events and climate change.  It will be most interesting to see the reactions. –-Roger Pielke Jr, 14 November 2011

Southern Europe will be gripped by fierce heatwaves, drought in North Africa will be more common, and small island states face ruinous storm surges from rising seas, a report by United Nations climate scientists says. The assessment is the most comprehensive yet by the 194-nation Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change into the impact of climate change on extreme weather events. A 20-page draft ‘summary for policymakers’ says that global warming will create weather on steroids, and that these amped-up events – cyclones, heatwaves, diluvian rains, drought – will hit the world unevenly. –Marlowe Hood, Agence France-Presse, 14 November 2011

Russia’s chief climate negotiator said the country will “never” sign up to extend the Kyoto Protocol for a second implementation period, casting further doubt on chances of a deal at the international climate conference in South Africa at the end of this month. “We will never sign Kyoto 2 because it would not cover every country,” Oleg Shamanov, director of international cooperation on the environment at the Foreign Ministry, said late last week. Roland Oliphant, The Moscow Times, 13 November 2011

A new and broader climate deal is out of reach for now and instead nations need to focus on how to replace the ailing Kyoto Protocol before 2020, Britain’s minister of state for energy and climate change said on Monday. The view is recognition that agreement on a pact that commits all major greenhouse gas polluters to curbing the growth in planet-warming emissions is slipping further away, in part because of sluggish economic growth and a mounting debt crisis. Henry Foy and Matthias Williams, Reuters, 14 November 2011

Academic freedom is an old privilege. Academics can report the results of their research without fearing that the political fall-out would affect their economic security or their career. –Richard Tol, Climate Etc, 12 November 2011

Finally, a vestigial government-funded program actually worth cutting gets taken out as Denmark’s new regime change is opting to excise Bjorn Lomborg’s $1.6 million in funding for his Copenhagen Consensus Center. “It’s been very strange that particular researchers have received special treatment due to ideology. We’re going to run fiscal policy differently,” said Ida Auken from the Socialist People’s Party. –-Laurel Whitney,  Desmog, 28 September 2011

Hint to green wastrels in the Energy Department and elsewhere: when even the New York Times thinks the green madness has gone too far, it has. Putting green lipstick on a pig doesn’t turn that pig into Ralph Nader. There may be a dumber mass movement in the country than the fuzzy minded sentimentalists of the great green herd, but it isn’t easy to figure out which mass movement that would be. –Walter Russell Mead, Via Meadia, 13 November 2011

About these ads

87 thoughts on “Leaked IPCC Draft: Climate Change Signals Expected To Be Relatively Small Over Coming 20-30 Years

  1. I smell a rat. How did the IPCC draft somehow find its way into Richard Black’s possession? Did it walk all by itself into the BBC? How did it know where to go?

  2. Avast! Save ye meme at all costs! Nay, it be hidden in the din of background variance…but we must reveal its stealth, and bring it to the fore! It must be ever-present on the minds of the holder of the purse-strings! Let not it fall by the wayside, for the way is fraught with rogues and skulduggery!!

  3. So we have no warming over the last decade and then expect AGW signal for 30 years. So now we are talking 40 years with little or no AGW. After 40 years does weather finally becomes climate?

  4. Am I misremembering, or hasn’t there been a little problem with final reports (at least some sections) not always bearing much resemblance to the drafts that participants signed off on? I think I’ll wait and see.

  5. “Uncertainty in the sign of projected changes. . . ”

    Wow. One has to be impressed how far they will go in obfuscating the language to avoid saying something understandable like “we’re not sure if it will get colder or warmer”, because far too many people would actually understand, and that would be a real problem for them.

  6. Oh, and btw, since we’ve already had a decade of flat. . . IPCC is now saying we could go 40 years without a significant rise. . .but they’re still right about AGW? That’s some serious blankie clutching right there.

  7. Carl Bussjaeger says:
    November 14, 2011 at 9:19 am
    Am I misremembering, or hasn’t there been a little problem with final reports (at least some sections) not always bearing much resemblance to the drafts that participants signed off on? I think I’ll wait and see.

    I think you are not misrebembering. Do you also recall when they released the executive summary for policy makers before they finished the final report?

  8. Natural variability, whoever would have considered that to play a major role in climate?!

    It will take a lot more than a leaked “Trojan Horse” report to restore my confidence in the IPCC.

  9. Steeptown, fellow commenters, Antony (thanks again),

    That you can smell a rat does not mean that there is only one rat.
    I think there is a large rat nest under our educational political and societal institutions.
    They (the rats) are demanding we kill ourselves so they can live in carbon splendor (diamonds and all).
    Yes, no warming since 1998, but still pushing more or less the same prescription.

  10. Keep your powder dry, they have said that AGW will be masked by natural forcings, this will give them cover until AR6, and should warming resume they’ll hype it up. What natural forcings are they talking about anyway? We have been led to believe in TAR and AR4 that CO2 was a major forcing which with slight increases in ppm would rack the temperature up to a point where positive feedbacks kick in. So why can’t it overcome the puny forcings of nature?

  11. OK a leaked document, I’m fine with leaked documents.

    But what IPCC leaked document?

    AR5 WG1 (or WG2 or WG3)?

    No.

    “For almost a week, government delegates will pore over the summary of the IPCC’s latest report on extreme weather, with the lead scientific authors there as well. They’re scheduled to emerge on Friday with an agreed document.”

    So it’s the “summary of the IPCC’s latest report on extreme weather.”

    Not AR5 WG1 (or WG2 or WG3).

    As to (duration, intensity, and/or frequency of) extreme weather events, IMHO, not a major show starter/stopper (for me anyways), you will always need a long baseline of extreme events (itself (somewhat) ill defined) to statistically support a “theory of increased extreme events” in the first place.

    As to AR5 WG1 (or WG2 or WG3), it will have two stages of open public review AFAIK, all comments will also be in the public domain AFAIK.

    Leak AR5 WG1 (or WG2 or WG3) for all I care, today, yesterday, or tomorrow.

    Would I care at all?

    Not in the least.

  12. “Uncertainty in the sign of projected changes in climate extremes over the coming two to three decades is relatively large because climate change signals are expected to be relatively small compared to natural climate variability”

    The UN is clearly trying to salvage the IPCC. In 20 to 30 years when the natural cycle of warming starts again, they will say “See! We told you so. Now obey us or things will be even worse!” This is a lot like predicting when the next winter solstice will be and then acting like you are a prophet who knows the future. Even though the UN has Isaiah’s words about beating swords to plowshares at its building, it is not a prophet. Just someone manipulating natural variability to its advantage.

  13. I could be mistaken but in my life (40 years’ish) there has been more drought years in North Africa than non drought years. And I can’t recall when it has been published that a recovery in drought stricken areas has been made. Did I miss the memos or does North Africa seem to be in prone to droughts?

  14. What, no “signals”? Not to worry, Climate Science’s “method” never needed any. But in trying to hype every normal adverse climate and weather event, along with the multitude of other “peer reviewed” genuine, fabricated “outcomes”, into a “climate change disaster”,

    You know If it wasn’t for bad luck
    If it wasn’t for real bad luck
    They wouldn’t have had no kind of luck at all…
    That ain’t no lie

    Or could it just be the usual result of the Progressives amongst us assiduously opposing reality and real science at every opportunity in order to create the arbitrary items in their “perception is reality” Fantasyland? Nah.

  15. Given the sums of dosh at stake, I confidently predict a lot of games, spin, and outright chicanery before the final report is published.

    Nevertheless, I think I hear the sucking sound of numerous sovereign governments under enormous fiscal pressure vacuuming up lots and lots of dollar bills previously allocated to climate research and CO2 mitigation.

    They’re playing our song and it’s music to my ears.

  16. “CO2 induced climate change”

    That’s the bit I can’t understand. CO2 is identified by three quite distinct spectroscopic bands. All three bands are very effective at shielding the surface from SOLAR RADIATION at those bands.
    Only ONE of those bands can absorb radiation from the surface at night. On agregate CO2 provides far more cooling than warming.

  17. If one thing is certain about politics in democracies then it is the fact that politicians are not into projects that will soak up money but won’t yield votes in time for the next election. A ten year horizon is barely possible, two to three decades are a death knell even if the issue WAS based in fact. Expect a quick and stealthy shuffling of funds out of climate change and into projects that show more promise at dazzling the voters.

  18. Funnily enough this puts them at the traditional 50 year mark. For those of you not familiar with it, 50 years tends to be the average of predictions of when the world will end. It’s far enough in the future to avoid accountability if you’re wrong, close enought to get people scared. Sad that people still fall for this BS, but there it is. In fact if I were a betting man I’d say in 50 years the ultimate global warming apocalypse will still be predicted to be evident… in another 50 years. And people will still buy it, for some reason or another.

  19. Thank God for sane countries like Russia! (Never thought I’d say that, but it’s unfortunately true in the post-1989 world. We’re the crazy ones now.)

  20. One can always hope that this “leak” is from people within the IPCC that are tired of being laughed at and are trying to restore integrity. If patchy and Trenberth start giving interviews explaining that it was a incomplete draft and not finished, then you know it was a whistleblower that wanted their actual work to be seen before it was revised out of existence.

  21. Richard111 says:

    …“CO2 induced climate change”…
    That’s the bit I can’t understand. CO2 is identified by three quite distinct spectroscopic bands. All three bands are very effective at shielding the surface from SOLAR RADIATION at those bands.
    Only ONE of those bands can absorb radiation from the surface at night. On aggregate CO2 provides far more cooling than warming.

    ———————————-
    And that, could be a problem with a Glaciation about due any day now. Worse still, that would mean that the CAGW crowd would have been proven right, albeit for the wrong (opposite) reasons.

  22. 1 Ask Black (or the IPCC) to post the copy and subsequent versions on the web so we can monitor the changes as the document progresses through the washing machine of UN IPCC bureaucracy .
    2 Ask IPCC to post the minutes of the meetings on the web to ensure open and effective public scrutiny of the process.
    3 Governments intention to raise tax on the pretext of solving the supposed alarmist view of Climate Change is very real. Legislation once enacted as is the situation in Australia and New Zealand is very difficult to unwind.
    Lets celebrate the leaked doc and use it to force open government in UN IPCC deliberations because the cost to the economies of the world of getting this wrong are large. Already the costs to the economical deprived are forcing them further into poverty. This is a recipe for disaster far greater than any effect of Climate Change.

  23. This leaked document would imply that nothing will happen for a couple of decades. If the AR5 has nothing scary to report, then CAGW is dead. It must be scary or it will be ignored by the voting public, there are bigger fish to fry, simple as that.

  24. “Why would this document need to be “leaked”?”

    Hmm, very good question. Why was it leaked and why so close to Durban?

  25. “climate change signals are expected to be relatively small compared to natural climate variability”

    So, if the earth warms, it is all due to AGW. But if there is little or no warming then it has to be due to natural climate variability masking the warming. I’m sorry, but you can’t have it both ways. If natural climate variability can cool the earth, it can also warm the earth. This is just a form of CYA. When the earth fails to warm over the next few decades, this will become the cover story for warmists. They will avoid criticism by claiming that the masked heat is still in the pipeline and that temperatures are set to explode at some point in the future – after they are safely retired or dead.

    How do you disprove that without AGW temperatures would be even colder? It’s like trying to disprove that without huge deficit spending by the government, unemployment would be even worse than it is.

  26. Mike Smith says:
    November 14, 2011 at 10:12 am

    Given the sums of dosh at stake, I confidently predict a lot of games, spin, and outright chicanery before the final report is published.

    …-

    You forgot skullduggery. (-:

  27. “Uncertainty in the sign of projected changes in climate extremes over the coming two to three decades is relatively large because climate change signals are expected to be relatively small compared to natural climate variability”.

    Hmmm, funny, I thought “they” had natural variability pinned down, and man’s influence was catastrophically bigger……
    Perhaps, “they” are wrong, perhaps “man made Global Warming” (as predicted) could only happen in an imaginary “reality”..

    How though, could such be pulled off????

    We all know,
    Watt = Joule per second.
    and,
    Joule = Watt per second.
    BUT, do “we” know what that really means………..ie, Black body “reality”..
    Page 3, in particular, onwards..

    http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/forums/thread-1071.html

    Dam, we did not…

    Do you feel a bit silly. Really, do you???
    If not, please show (easily and understandably) where I am wrong,
    in my reasoning and conclusions.

  28. Academic freedom is an old privilege. Academics can report the results of their research without fearing that the political fall-out would affect their economic security or their career. –Richard Tol, Climate Etc, 12 November 2011
    _______________________
    GEE he must be on some really good “stuff” to believe that.

  29. Considering that “Climate Change Signals” are already microscopically small or non-existent, especially for the preceding 20-30 Years, only a fool would expect the next 20-30 years to be any different.

    Unfortunately, there are a lot of fools out there.

  30. Sounds like they’ve cottoned onto the fact that there is a ~60 year cycle in global temperatures, and they are setting up to ride the next wave.

  31. polistra says:
    November 14, 2011 at 10:31 am

    Thank God for sane countries like Russia! (Never thought I’d say that, but it’s unfortunately true in the post-1989 world. We’re the crazy ones now.)
    _______________________________________
    Russians are well acquainted with dishonest politicians, hunger, famine and nasty winters. They got the Bolshevik Revolution stuffed down their throats by Wall Street.

  32. You have to be fair to both sides.
    BEST “leaked” their paper as well, and didn’t get the same reaction here.

  33. Is the timing of this leak significant? Is this evidence that there is a mole/whistleblower in the warmist camp who thinks that the world would benefit from a does of reality?

    Shortly before Copenhagen, we had Climategate which de-railed Copenhagen. Now shortly before Durban, we have the leak of this draft which may de-rail Durban.

    Whilst I was not envisaging any significant developments to come out of Durban (the financial problems facing the developed world mean that they have more important issues to deal with rather than wasting dollars on climate change, and Russia and China have for a long time made it clear that they will not sign up to something that prejudices their growth), this leaked document may further pull the rug from under the feet of those pressing for action. The leaked document strongly supports the view that there is presently no need for any pressing action and therefore governments can kick the tin down the street.

    Before we crow too loud, we need to see how the draft is worked upon and more significantly what form the final version of the summary for policy-makers takes, but the summary of the draft does at this stage sound somewhat encouraging.

    It does appear that in 10 or so years time there may be a concession that climate scientists have mis-read and under-estimated natural variability and over estimated climate sensitivity to CO2 and that may be how all of this sherade dies a natural death. Who knows, with a quiet sun and neagtive ocean phases, the end game may be in sight. I am probably being both niaive and a little over-optomistic in thinking this way, after all money rules and climate change is mega bucks. .

  34. J Martin says:

    “Only ONE of those bands can absorb radiation from the surface at night. On aggregate CO2 provides far more cooling than warming.”

    Would you be so kind as to provide the energy flows in/out of each of these bands that CO2 is affected by? Otherwise, your statement is handwaving.

  35. Is there a solar physicist in the house who could sit down and have a cosy chat with the AGW crowd?…it may be painful but cheaper than a shrink.
    If the words “settled science”, “renwables” and “green taxes” are ever mentioned then take the tablets or leave the country…..
    We were betrayed they will shout…we believed….

  36. “climate change signals are expected to be relatively small compared to natural climate variability” To all the skeptics out there, it looks as if just the passing of Julia Gillards CARBON TAX legislation is working already.

  37. “…climate change signals are expected to be relatively small compared to natural climate variability…”

    What’s the difference between a ‘climate change signal’ and ‘natural climate variability’?

    So that we are not caught by the thimble and pea trick, we also need the current defintions used for any new document as these are not necessarily static. According to http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/glossary/ar4-wg3.pdf:

    Climate Change (CC)
    Climate change refers to a change in the state of the climate that can be identified (e.g. using statistical tests) by changes in the mean and/or the variability of its properties, and that persists for an extended period, typically decades or longer. Climate change may be due to natural internal processes or external forcings, or to persistent anthropogenic changes in the composition of the atmosphere or in land use.
    Note that UNFCCC, in its Article 1, defines “climate change” as “a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods”. The UNFCCC thus makes a distinction between “climate change” attributable to human activities altering the atmospheric composition, and “climate variability” attributable to natural causes.

  38. Gail Combs says:
    November 14, 2011 at 12:24 pm
    polistra says:
    November 14, 2011 at 10:31 am

    Thank God for sane countries like Russia! (Never thought I’d say that, but it’s unfortunately true in the post-1989 world. We’re the crazy ones now.)
    _______________________________________
    Russians are well acquainted with dishonest politicians, hunger, famine and nasty winters. They got the Bolshevik Revolution stuffed down their throats by Wall Street.

    I’m almost afraid to ask, but…

    What?

  39. Following the TOL link above around led me to Judith Curry’s blog and a post last week about two papers that were published at the same time as BEST and had some significantly different conclusions. One of the papers published in International Journal of Modern Physics

    http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/uploads/media/How_natural.pdf

    Warming? An Analysis of 2249 Surface Temperature Records
    Horst-Joachim Ludecke, Rainer Link, and Friedrich-Karl Ewert
    EIKE, European Institute for Climate and Energy

    finds two things which lept out at me. One is well known and the other isn’t. The well known one is that SH warming is less than NH warming. The second (unsurprising to me) finding is that warming is far less if temperature stations reports from stations higher than 800 meters above sea level are excluded. The authors explicitly state that [they] have no explanation for this second observation. I certainly do. It’s because greenhouse gases don’t have much effect over the ocean. I left the following comment on Curry’s blog:

    Interesting that LL paper finds a marked decrease in temperature rise if only stations below 800m msl are chosen. Even more interesting is they say the reason is unknown.

    As I’ve said before when you find the right solution to something all the observations start making sense.

    In a different thread on this blog not long ago I pointed out that the ocean surface does not [ ] cool the same way the land surface does. Ocean surface cools primarily via evaporation whereas land cools by radiation. Greenhouse gases operate by absorbing upwelling radiation and reemitting a portion downward to the source. Latent heat of vaporization carried in evaporated water molecules is unaffected by greenhouse gases.

    So we arrive at the tentative position that greenhouse effect is much greater over land surfaces than water surfaces. Then we consider the observations in light of this to determine if it makes sense or not.

    In this case we consider what is different about stations above and below 800m mean sea level. One primary difference that leaps out immediately is that the closer a station is to sea level the closer it is likely to be to an ocean as continental interiors are generally at higher elevations than the coasts. So if greenhouse gases have markedly less effect over the ocean we would expect that land surfaces adjacent to ocean surfaces would experience some amelioration of the greenhouse effect due to this proximity.

    See… everything makes sense once you hit on what’s really happening.

    The paper also notes that southern hemisphere warming is markedly less than northern. Once again, if we examine this in consideration of GH effect being less over ocean surfaces and the fact that there is twice as much land in the northern hemisphere as in the southern, then once again we find rhyme and reason.

    Thank you Dr. Curry for your consideration and grace in allowing people like me who lack appropriate credentials to speak and be heard.

  40. Actually this makes sense. There is no evidence of AGW being of any concern to date, therefore the new cry will be “we only have 30-40 years to reduce our CO2 output to 1990 levels or else we will all die”. More credible than the past decades cry of only having 5 years, or 10 years or similar short term scares that are not proving even remotely accurate.

  41. to Ed_B.

    Sorry, I didn’t say that. I was quoting Richard111.
    My apologies for the lack of clarity with the speech marks. What I said was under the dashed line, which was;
    And that, could be a problem with a Glaciation about due any day now. Worse still, that would mean that the CAGW crowd would have been proven right, albeit for the wrong (opposite) reasons.

    However, perhaps Richard111 would like to answer your question.

  42. Leaked to Richard Black!! nope , not for a millsecond, don’t trust the guy. This was leaked for Durban.

  43. Reading Richard Black’s article conveys a new message. The problem of CAGW has not gone away, just put on ice for a couple of decades. I predict that the message of AR5 is that we no longer have to act this minute (or should have acted 5 years ago), but can delay for a decade or two. Just long enough to sort out some messy government finances.

  44. Richard Black from the BBC offers a wonderful example of how Greens have turned the word “consensus” into utter nonsense:

    “But when you get down to specifics, the academic consensus is far less certain.

    Enhanced glacier melt could speed up sea level rise in the coming decades
    There is “low confidence” that tropical cyclones have become more frequent, “limited-to-medium evidence available” to assess whether climatic factors have changed the frequency of floods, and “low confidence” on a global scale even on whether the frequency has risen or fallen.”

    The fact that there is low confidence in the claim that tropical cyclones have become more frequent translates as the academic consensus is far less certain? Nonsense, it means there is no consensus.

  45. Climate Change Signals Expected To Be Relatively Small Over Coming 20-30 Years

    Just about the time needed for the PDO shift to shift back to the warm phase.

  46. What I read is it is going to get really cold for the next several decades, how are we going to cover our butts and keep people believing this stuff when they are freezing?

    First, they have been telling us for decades that the effect of CO2 was major, and the effect of natural variability was small, now they are basically telling us that all they have been telling us for decades was BS. If they are right, and natural variability will rule for the next several decades, then the obvious question is, has it been ruling in the past as well, and if it has, does that not mean that the effect of CO2 was relatively minor? If CO2′s effect has been minor, can I get my money back for all that has been spent to mitigate it? How is it that the same people who have been saying that natural variability is so weak are now saying that it is so strong? That latter leaves two options, they were wrong, the question then is, how do I know that they are not wrong again, and the second option, they were flat out lying. If the IPCC releases a report saying this, they have a lot of explaining to do, and they owe a lot of people a lot of money.

    Second, what we have here are the “climate experts”, and what they are telling us is that it will be increasingly cold for the next several decades. The obvious problem, how to keep freezing people believing in warming. The solution, blame it on CO2 anyway, say that CO2 is causing “extreme climate”. Expect that the many inclement weather conditions which have always been present somewhere at some time will be ruthlessly hunted down and reported on breathlessly. Further expect that the amount of ‘adjustments” we have seen before are just the tip of the iceberg, every effort will be made to hide the extent of the cold from being noticed, or at least reported. This can be done by ignoring any cold and not mentioning any records broken (and I would expect there to be many set), adjusting any longer term temperature records to make the cold look less, inventing places to hide “missing heat” for later, and especially trumpeting any places where it is hot or there is any inclement weather of any kind anywhere (even from places we have never even heard of, or places that have that sort of thing frequently). Expect also that the words “global warming” will no longer be spoken, “extreme weather” will be the new mantra. A lot of sciency sounding speak will go on to explain how somehow CO2 causes bad things that are not warming. Ignored will be the obvious truth that if it does not cause warming, then it cannot cause anything, since that is the only effect it can have (yes, CO2 causes warming, no, CO2 does not cause enough warming to worry about).

    Third, “climate change signals” means heat, that is the only thing it can mean. What they are really saying, without, of course, coming right out and saying it, is “it is going to get really cold. Remember, these are the climate ‘experts” telling us this, so buy long underwear. How will this cold effect the growing season? What about heating costs? If people are hungry and cold, should we be saddling them with regulations and costs on farming and fuel? If we do, how will they react? That reaction may not be friendly, hence, this report looks like the start of some serious butt covering. A lot of people are going to be asking a lot of questions, and they may not be too squeamish about how they get their answers. If the CAGW people can grab enough power fast, how will they prevent that, massive propaganda alone may not be enough, they may have to resort to “stronger measures”. Just how far will they go to protect their power base if things get too bad? If things get too cold, and thus too bad, that is usually a good time to grab power, desperate people tend to believe it then when a “great leader” comes along and promises to make it all better (“hope and change”, anyone?). I can only hope it does not get too cold, because otherwise, kiss your liberties goodby.

  47. “Uncertainty in the sign of projected changes in climate extremes over the coming two to three decades is relatively large because climate change signals are expected to be relatively small compared to natural climate variability”

    Was it different over the past 100 years?

  48. If Richard Black is unwilling to post a link to the draft, then I suspect it is not a draft. I would suggest that this was a press release given to one of the faithful to test public reaction to a possible IPCC self preservation technique. Given the reaction on Richard Black’s blog it would appear they will have to go back to the drawing board. This one is not going to fly.

    Natural variability was supposed to be insignificant compared to the awesome force of the evil gas CO2. Changing the story may help some scientists, but the “in light of new scientific studies” line will not be workable for politicians and activists who have used the language of vilification to describe sceptics. Doom needs to be just around the corner. Claiming doom is going to be on hold for a period that strangely coincides with a weak SC24 and a weaker SC25 is a recipe for political disaster.

    Ocean “acidification” looks like a dead end as well. I suggest they go with giant Triffids. Spawned in the chemical waste in China’s rivers, fertilised by excess anthropogenic CO2 and their seeds spread on the landing gear of fossil fuel guzzling 747s. Gaia’s venomous tentacled vengeance! Doomed! Dooooomed!

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triffid

  49. From EFS_Junior from November 14, 2011 at 9:46 am:

    OK a leaked document, I’m fine with leaked documents.

    Excellent! Then there won’t be any complaints about the UEA-sourced Climategate documents from you.

    This is cheering news!

  50. The IPCC has stepped into “it” with way too many “gates”, and has grown into an embarrassment.

    Leaking its next AR makes sense. It is putting it’s finger up in the air to see which way the wind is blowing before making it public.

    Let’s not kid ourselves. The IPCC is a political animal and nothing else.

  51. “….Russians are well acquainted with dishonest politicians, hunger, famine and nasty winters. They got the Bolshevik Revolution stuffed down their throats by Wall Street.
    __________________________________
    More Soylent Green! says:
    November 14, 2011 at 1:14 pm
    I’m almost afraid to ask, but…

    What?
    __________________________________
    A rather well kept secret. However Bankers dearly love to fund BOTH sides in a war. They have no loyalty except to their wallet.

    …Professor Sutton stated, “Western textbooks on Soviet economic development omit any description of the economic and financial aid given to the 1917 Revolution and subsequent economic development by Western Firms and banks.” “In the Bolshevik Revolution we have some of the world’s richest and most powerful men financing a movement which claims its very existence is based on the concept of stripping of their wealth,” declared Allen. “[M]en like the Rothschilds, Rockefellers, Schiffs, Warburgs, Morgans, Harrimans, and Milners.”

    Perloff agreed, “Jacob Schiff, the head of Kuhn, Loeb and Co., heavily bankrolled the [Communist] revolution. This was reported by White Russian General Arsine de Goulevitch in his book “Czarism and the Revolution.”…..

    http://www.thehiddenevil.com/communists.asp

    If you do a search there is quite a bit on who funded the revolution. Checkout the sealed gold train too. The Czar had already stepped down months BEFORE the “Revolution” BTW and a provisional government with a Parliament (Duma) had been set-up.

  52. Legatus, “global warming” is a term predominately used by sceptics, and has been for some time. The preferred term for the IPCC and kin is “climate change”. Notice their very name…

  53. “Climate Change Signals Expected To Be Relatively Small” … relative to what? The equally small signals so far don’t seem to be bringing us too much catastrophe. I suggest they also try a name change again, to “Raudive climate change”, since the “signals” they claim to perceive are becoming increasingly indistinguishable from the natural noise.

    (Raudive voices are the voices you think you hear in tape hiss, radio static and similar white-noisy sounds, most likely caused by straining your hearing to hear weak signals down in the noise. After a while your brain goes into pattern-matching overdrive and starts improvising. There’s a wikipedia page on the phenomenon under “Electronic Voice Phenomenon”.)

  54. Alexander says: November 14, 2011 at 5:14 pm

    Alex, you are new, not bright or just plain disingenuous. The IPCC is only interested in warming, despite the name, and the preferred term became the preferred term when warming stopped after 1998. Even Kevin Trenberth has been known to lament the travesty of the missing heat, although he was pretty sure he had recently discovered it in the depths of the oceans. Climate change is not the issue and never has been. Climate always changes… sometimes warmer and sometimes cooler, but the IPCC is not interested in “climate change”, its raison d’etre is to promote the idea of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (or “CAGW” as we in the denialosphere prefer to term it) (Uhhh, in case the four and five syllable words are too difficult, the term “catastrophic” means “something very, very bad“, while “anthropogenic” means “caused by human beings“).

  55. @Legatus says:
    November 14, 2011 at 3:22 pm
    ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
    Further to the point made by Legatus and others regarding natural variability over powering the CO2 forcing, one must not forget the relative CO2 concentrations during the past 100 years.

    The IPCC has been claiming that CO2 forcing dominates natural variation when CO2 concentration was about 300ppm. Now they are suggesting that natural variation can dominate CO2 forcing when CO2 concentration is about 400 ppm or perhaps even closer to 440 ppm (estimated CO2 concentraion in say 30 years time). That suggests that CO2 forcing is even weaker (or the converse natural variation is even more powerful).

    If natural variation can cool (mask CO2 warming), then obviously it can also warm and can therefore fully explain the twentieth century warming.

    I have not seen the leaked draft report, but wonder whether the IPCC mention aerosols and whether behind their concession that there is likely to be little in the way of CO2 induced climate change they assume that China will continue to emit large quantities of aerosols/particulates which which neutralise the effects of CO2 forcing.

  56. >>
    Gail Combs says:
    November 14, 2011 at 4:50 pm

    A rather well kept secret.
    <<

    It’s not too well kept. This Trilateral Commission, Council of Foreign Relations, Rothschild, Rockefeller, J. P. Morgan, etc. conspiracy has been around for more than forty years. Try “None Dare Call It Conspiracy,” by Gary Allen and Larry Abraham, copyright 1976. “Bankrolling the Bolshevik Revolution” is the title of chapter 4.

    I wouldn’t lose sleep over it.

    Jim

  57. Alexander says:
    November 14, 2011 at 5:14 pm
    Legatus, “global warming” is a term predominately used by sceptics, and has been for some time. The preferred term for the IPCC and kin is “climate change”. Notice their very name…

    The terms, “Global Warming” and “Climate Change”, has been in use since at least 1880 when the socialist-communist movements of the late 19th Century asserted their political opposition to the development of the industrialized economies and their reliance upon fossil fuels. Members of the scientific community sympathetic to the ideas of the socialist-communist movements have been using the terms interchangeably ever since, often using combinations such as “global climate change” and “global warming change.” Members of this community used such terminology from 1929 in various international organizations and in the WMO into the 1960s. The government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain was persuaded to adopt these usages in 1974 for its political agenda. The WMO spoke of “global warming” and “climate change” in its symposia in 1975. Both terms and others have been an integral component of the United Nations and the other international organizations since they weere founded by people promoting the belief in the danger of fossil fuels affecting the Earth’s climate. The accusation that ““global warming” is a term predominately used by sceptics” alone is absurd in the face more than a century of the proponents of alarmism inventing and using the terms for much longer than a century.

  58. It appears, that the modelled case for alarm does only persist for those time ranges that cannot be refuted (yet) by measured data.

    The same story has developped with sensitivity and measured versus modelled data.

    But there is another, much more basic reasoning, that has not been notified yet by anybody:

    The Hadley Center has recently published their updated sea surface record HadSST3. As there is now common agreement about greenhouse warming happening on top of natural cycles, it doesn’t make sense to quantifiy warming by linear tends, particularly linear trends starting in natural cycle minima (around 1900) and ending in natural cycle maxima (around 2000). A much better warming estimate would be to take the difference between the 1940s and the 2000s warming peaks. HadSST3 gives this difference and it is just 0.3 degrees, and only 0.2 degrees undoing a questionable raw data altertation (according to Steve McIntyre). An increase of 0.2-0.3 degrees in 70 years is massively below projections.

  59. Alexander says:
    Legatus, “global warming” is a term predominately used by sceptics, and has been for some time. The preferred term for the IPCC and kin is “climate change”. Notice their very name…

    Tell me, what possible effect does CO2 have on the climate besides radiative forcing? The only. bad effect of CO2 ever claimed was radiative forcing, where it traps some of the heat given off by the sun warmed earth and re-radiates it back down. No other effect has ever been stated. This effect can only lead to warming. If "global warming" is now not stated as the effect of CO2, you tell me, what exact effect does CO2 have, and exactly how does it do that?

    The term “global warming” used to be the term used, then it was deliberately changed to “climate change” ( a very convenient term since climate is always changing, thus the “proof” is always there), and then yet again to “global climate disruption” (since there is always some bad weather happening to someone somewhere, and people were beginning to notice not enough change). The problem is that the warming effect of CO2 is too small to be panicked over, or even really noticed in the up and down of natural variability (as now admitted by this report), hence, a new name was needed to keep the panic going despite the non observance of warming. Changing the name is simply trying to get us to not notice that the only possible effect that CO2 can have, according to physics, is warming by radiative forcing. The problem being, it doesn’t do enough of that to generate the needed quantity of panic.

    Sooo, Alexander, tell us, exactly what does CO2 do that is bad if it isn’t warming?

  60. I would suggest that this was a press release given to one of the faithful to test public reaction to a possible IPCC self preservation technique.

    If this is true, they will have two options:
    *Go with this idea to hope it flies when things get cold, hype “extreme weather’ and hope no one notices that the only possible physical thing that CO2 can do is warming, which aint happening. Basically, look everywhere for weather people don’t like (which I expect will increasingly be cold weather) and find some way to blame it on CO2. There is no scientific rational for this, but hey, with the state of scientific knowledge imparted by our wonderfull public schools, many will not notice.
    *See that this idea doesn’t fly, and change back to warming, and hope that it warms. It probably won’t, predictions are that it will go into a mini little ice age, and obviously this draft shows that the “climate experts” agree and are trying to cover their butts for when this happens. But hey, maybe they can get people paniced enough before that heppens to grab power and use that to silence dissent. Or, maybe they can just grab the noney and run. The problem may be, if it gets cold enough and people get angry enough, they may not be able to run far enough.

    Either way, a lot of people are going to remember the term ‘warming” associated with all this, and they won’t be too happy with the IPCC when the cold hits. Can’t say I am especially sad about that. The only possible hope for them is to grab enough power that no one can do anything to them, no matter how angry they get.

  61. “A number of comments have quite rightly pointed out that the “hide the decline” email was also critiqued at the time of “ClimateGate” in its proper context – ie, reconciling a tree-ring dataset with an instrumental dataset.”

    This wasn’t the sense in which I dealt with it in this post, obviously – I was focussing on the mis-use of the email in claims that it “hid a decline”, or slowdown, in temperatures from 1998 onwards.

    “With hindsight I should have made that clear in the text, and I could also usefully have pointed out that some “sceptical” blogs took pains to clarify the issue at the time, such as the wattsupwiththat post reading “contrary to what you’ve likely read elsewhere in the blogosphere or heard from the few policymakers and pundits actually addressing the issue, it was not the temperature decline the planet has been experiencing since 1998 that Jones and friends conspired to hide”.

    What I see in a google search is this notion that Jones couldn’t have been hiding the decline unless he had a crystal ball, since the email was written in November, 1999. I gather that’s where Black got the idea. There’s another red herring for you. I don’t see how I can take seriously anything that Richard Black says after this silly exercise.

  62. This is yet more evidence that just like stage psychics ‘cold reading’ their marks, climate scientists have been ‘cold reading’ the climate, trying to appear authoritative while guessing at the truth and pushing certain themes to keep the audience enthralled.

  63. “”J Martin says:
    November 14, 2011 at 1:48 pm
    —–
    However, perhaps Richard111 would like to answer your question.””
    ====================
    OK, will try to keep this short. The spectroscopic bands under discussion are 2.4, 4.3 and 15 microns respectively.
    Wien’s Law tells us peak radiation is at 800C, 400C and -80C respectively. If the temperature of the radiating body falls below any peak, radiation at that band drops off markedly. There is no shortage of photons at those bands from the sun radiating at 5,000K. Luckily for us we are some 93 million miles from the sun and radiation LEVELS are reduced such that by the time they arrive at the TOA all levels are within the 1,360 watts per metre squared level but there is no shortage of photons with the required energy levels to absorbed by CO2 at all three bands.

    Surface radiation temperature at night is supposed to be about 15C, way below levels required to produce photons for the 2.4 and 4.3 micron bands.

    So it is clear CO2 is absorbing SOLAR energy and thus preventing some of that energy from reaching the surface. There is much discussion as to how much but lets take the warmists claim of “half up half down” and we have three bands of radiation reduced by half in daylight.

    At night, even if half the 15 micron band is back radiated (which it isn’t) we still see an agregate COOLING EFFECT from CO2 in the atmosphere.

  64. In the meantime there is a “Climate Conference” coming up in Durban shortly. At this get together the begging bowls will be out claiming “compensation” for the west stuffing up the developing world’s climate.

    Mrs. Shelley wrote a story about this and the monster had to be destroyed by the bitter cold in the frozen north.

    The law of unintended consequences is never repealed.

  65. Manfred says:
    November 14, 2011 at 7:36 pm
    ////////////////////////////////////////////////////
    Manfred’s point is important as many people have in the past commented that one should view warming over a complete cycle peak to peak, or trough to trough.

    If there is a 60 year cycle then it is noteworthy to look at the previous 60 year period, ie., the period 1880 to 1940. This is important since this period runs before there was any significant increase in CO2 due to manmade activities. This period is therefore an indicator of what warming can be expected as the result of natural variation as Earth rebounds/comes out of the LIA.

    It would appear that during this period (1880-1940) there was a warming of about 0.15degC, ie., the underlying trend of natural warming is 0.15C per 60 year period. That being the case, the difference between the 1880-1940 warming (natural variation) and 1940-2000 warming (natural +manmade CO2 warming) is only 0.05C (ie., 0.2 -0.15) or maximum 0.15C (ie., 0.3-0.15). This suggests that any warming due to CO2 lies between 0.05 to 0.15C per 60 year period range. On any interpreation this is not an alarming figure..

  66. The IPCC still talk as if climate change never happened before we industrialized.

    Close them down with the EPA.

  67. Richard111: “At night, even if half the 15 micron band is back radiated (which it isn’t) we still see an agregate COOLING EFFECT from CO2 in the atmosphere.”

    CO2 and the other IR-active (aka ‘greenhouse’) gases, away from the surface, radiate out heat to space at night, thus cooling the atmsophere. Increasing the amount of these gases such as CO2, increases this cooling effect. AGW science supporters know it, but never refer to this phenomenon. Preferring instead to project CO2 as a kind of perilous heat-grabbing gas trapping the earth in an impenetrable blanket.

    If CO2 was more generally known to increase its cooling effect with increasing concentrations, it would spoil many of the AGW supporters most persistent messages on rising CO2 levels.

  68. “Climate Change Signals Expected To Be Relatively Small Over Coming 20-30 Years”

    Seems like they are saying that the sensitivity to a CO2 doubling is variable and will be near zero for the next few decades, of increasing CO2. Well isn’t that just… just… peachy. Let’s join hands and sing “If I only had a brain!”. GK

  69. >>
    G. Karst says:
    November 15, 2011 at 9:54 am

    Well isn’t that just… just… peachy. Let’s join hands and sing “If I only had a brain!”
    <<

    And when the scarecrow gets a brain he says:

    “The sum of the square roots of any two sides of an isosceles triangle is equal to the square root of the remaining side. Oh joy! Rapture! I got a brain!”

    This shows that straw brains aren’t any better than straw arguments (or climate science logic).

    Jim

  70. That`s funny, I just read a leak from AFP, and the spin is totally different what is being said here. They talk about extreme climat that will become more common. Things are getting worse…

  71. Derek said November 14, 2011 at 11:54 am
    “perhaps “man made Global Warming” (as predicted) could only happen in an imaginary “reality”..”

    Well, there’s Plato’s “world of forms”, that other realm in which concepts must exist. The foundation of many ideologies, like Marxism which praises contradictions.
    A realm of wishful thinking, except that Plato and followers called it real whereas what we see normally is not real. I know, it’s bizarre but that’s the nature of flawed philosophy.

    Relevant as so many climate alarmists accept Marxist presumptions about humans.

  72. OK, we’ve got a ‘leaked’ trial balloon from the IPCC. What does that tell us? Assuming that the items in this article are representative, it may be that the IPCC is looking for a graceful retreat from the extremist baloney in AR4.

  73. “Uncertainty in the sign of projected changes in climate extremes over the coming two to three decades is relatively large…”

    Please note, the statement above refers explicitly to climate extremes NOT globally averaged temperatures. At approximately 0.16C/decade, 30 years is more than enough for global temperature rise due to AGW to overcome natural variability (excluding a spate of volcanic eruptions). Nothing in the statements listed contradicts this position.

    Re “Global Warming” vs “Climate Change”, my preference is global warming (making it clear this refers to global average temperature). Global warming is an unequivocal definition, falsifiable given enough time.

Comments are closed.