BREAKING: IPCC AR5 report to dial back climate sensitivity

Update: the IPCC edifice is crumbling, see The state of climate science: ‘fluxed up’

See also Willis’ article One Step Forward, Two Steps Back, and Lomborg: climate models are running way too hot

This post will be a sticky for awhile, new posts will appear below it. – Anthony

Dialing Back the Alarm on Climate Change

A forthcoming report points lowers estimates on global warming

by Dr. Matt Ridley

Later this month, a long-awaited event that last happened in 2007 will recur. Like a returning comet, it will be taken to portend ominous happenings. I refer to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) “fifth assessment report,” part of which will be published on Sept. 27.

There have already been leaks from this 31-page document, which summarizes 1,914 pages of scientific discussion, but thanks to a senior climate scientist, I have had a glimpse of the key prediction at the heart of the document. The big news is that, for the first time since these reports started coming out in 1990, the new one dials back the alarm. It states that the temperature rise we can expect as a result of man-made emissions of carbon dioxide is lower than the IPPC thought in 2007.

Admittedly, the change is small, and because of changing definitions, it is not easy to compare the two reports, but retreat it is. It is significant because it points to the very real possibility that, over the next several generations, the overall effect of climate change will be positive for humankind and the planet.

Specifically, the draft report says that “equilibrium climate sensitivity” (ECS)—eventual warming induced by a doubling of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which takes hundreds of years to occur—is “extremely likely” to be above 1 degree Celsius (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit), “likely” to be above 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.4 degrees Fahrenheit) and “very likely” to be below 6 degrees Celsius (10.8 Fahrenheit). In 2007, the IPPC said it was “likely” to be above 2 degrees Celsius and “very likely” to be above 1.5 degrees, with no upper limit. Since “extremely” and “very” have specific and different statistical meanings here, comparison is difficult.

Still, the downward movement since 2007 is clear, especially at the bottom of the “likely” range. The most probable value (3 degrees Celsius last time) is for some reason not stated this time.

Most experts believe that warming of less than 2 degrees Celsius from preindustrial levels will result in no net economic and ecological damage. Therefore, the new report is effectively saying (based on the middle of the range of the IPCC’s emissions scenarios) that there is a better than 50-50 chance that by 2083, the benefits of climate change will still outweigh the harm.

==============================================================

Above are excerpts of an article Dr. Ridley has written for the Wall Street Journal, who kindly provided WUWT with a copy.

Read the entire story here

About these ads
This entry was posted in Climate sensitivity, IPCC and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

230 Responses to BREAKING: IPCC AR5 report to dial back climate sensitivity

  1. dp says:

    Well, yeah.

  2. Lanny says:

    So basically the whole “Global warming thing” has been a tempest in a teapot.

  3. marcjf says:

    Is there any information on what is a climate optimum? Is it better in the 2000’s than the 1970’s for example? Is is better warmer or cooler than now? If so by how much? And why?

  4. Lil Fella from OZ says:

    They weren’t wrong then??!

  5. Steve Jones says:

    They are putting an awful lot of effort into calculating these temp rises v. probability and none of it is via the scientific method. Their concern is to keep their gravy train rolling whilst distancing themselves from the more ridiculous projections that real world data is falsifying right now.

    Let’s hope the IPCC falls off this tight-rope and soon.

  6. so does this mean that Dr. Train Driver/engineer will be out of a job now :-)

  7. Birdieshooter says:

    Since earlier projections of increases in extreme weather,ie, hurricanes and tornadoes etc, have not come to pass, I wonder how they will address that aspect.

  8. craigm350 says:

    It is ‘likely’ further studies are needed *cough*

  9. ConTrari says:

    The basic question for IPCC in a world that is cooling not only in temperature but also in attitudes towards them, is how to preserve their status and funding. So they must backpaddle a bit, to avoid the danger of being called activist alarmists. It is, however, a razorthin edge to walk along, with the abyss of oblivion and insignificance on the other side of the knife’s edge.

    They may adopt the practical view that in order to keep themselves clothed, warm and well-fed, the vision of a boiling globe and a starving humanity must be pushed a bit into the background.

  10. Claude Harvey says:

    Self-interest is a powerful motivator. A tactical retreat is one thing; capitulation is quite another. Do not expect those who gain their fame and make their livings under the banner of “ANY effect man may have on the environment is BAD” to fold their tents and steal away into the night.

  11. Adam Gallon says:

    The shift will continue towards “Ocean Acidification”, “Loss of Diversity” and any other “measured impact” that can conceivably keep the gravy train rolling onwards.

  12. KNR says:

    no matter what , reality will out . Lets just hope the merchants of BS get to pay the price for all the years they been putting on a demonstration of world class arrogance and ignorance

  13. AlecMM says:

    In reality, the warming must be <0.1K; easy to demonstrate when you cut the 'mistakes' out of Climate Alchemy. The worst of these is in 1981_Hansen_etal.pdf.

    Para 2: the claim that CO2 inhibits IR to space in the range 7 – 14 microns is untrue (a bit around 10 microns). Later on they went for 15 microns which is true but easily bypassed.

    Para 3: the implication that removing all ghgs from the atmosphere would make the -18 deg C composite emitter in radiative equilibrium with Space coincide with the Earth's surface, hence the ghe is the difference between it and the present 15 deg C average, is plain wrong. No clouds or ice would increase SW energy by 43% so the real surface temperature would be 4 – 5 deg C, a ghe of ~ 11 K. The ratio 33/11 is the imaginary 'positive feedback'. That this passed 'Science's' peer review shows this failed then and has continued to fail for 32 years.

    As for the real story, that involves irreversible thermodynamics and correction of Sagan's mistaken aerosol optical physics. The sign of the real effect of pollution on cloud albedo is reversed. In 2004, NASA claimed the fake 'surface reflection from small droplets argument' to get AR4. Now we have Trenberth claiming imaginary ocean heating to get AR5. There may be some, but it would be from the MWP!

    It's time Hansenkoism is put in the dustbin marked 'Great Scientific Hoaxes of the Past'.

  14. lemiere jacques says:

    well.;regarding action that is supposed to be done to prevent warming it doesn’t change anything.

    if you want to be SURE to prevent to be flooded , what is important is not how likely is a giant wave to be ‘(as its probability is not zero) but how hight a wave can be…and..that can be really very very veryvery expensive to avoid something very very very unlikely…

  15. berniel says:

    It seems to me that sensitivity in the high end of the usual range to 4 or 5 deg (or more) has typically been rare in the history of the modelling since the 1960s. A survey of 34 published sensitivity predictions published by William Clark in 1982 shows that half came in at 2 degrees or below. He comments on the the higher end results from 3D GCMs: ‘The NAS study in 1979 reviewed results available at that time concluded that the most likely (sensitivity) was 3 plus/- 1.5.’ But he notes that ‘the upper estimate relies heavily on…unpublished studies by Hansen’ & co at Goddard. He says no other GCM results exceed 3 deg. At this time Schneider and Revelle had just made the first big pitch to congress and with Hansen’s 1981 paper AGW broke through and grabbed the headlines. There is plenty of evidence of a scientists backlash against Hansen’s attention grabbing efforts in 1988, but here is Clark in 1982: ‘When atypical high estimates of sensitivity were proposed by GISS and reported by NAS, but the supporting data and calculations remain unavailable for independent review, there was little more than disgruntled mumblings. The implied double standard should be removed.’

  16. Phillip Bratby says:

    A few degrees of warming plus a lot of CO2 would do wonders for agriculture and the economy in general in the UK.

  17. Konrad says:

    It appears from this report that the IPCC pseudo scientists and their paymasters are complete idiots. In the age of the Internet they are trying to engineer a “soft landing” using the old fashioned lame stream media technique of “slow walkback”, followed by “issue fade and replace”. This exit strategy just won’t work in the Internet age.

    The basic question if very simple. Is the net effect of radiative gases in our atmosphere warming or cooling? The answer is that radiative gases act to cool our atmosphere at all concentrations above 0.0ppm. When they have gotten the science so totally and utterly wrong, no amount of “slow walkback” and no attempt at “issue fade and replace” is going to work. The shame of every person who sought to promote or profit by this inane hoax will burn on the Internet forever.

  18. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    Dial back the sensitivity until the lower bound can yield the little bit of warming that did happen, but still keep an impossibly high upper bound. Claim the models do now match reality.

    Then argue for immediate overwhelming action since when of course the higher temperatures will naturally happen that will then naturally average out the entire relevant temperature record to the long-term middle-range amounts predicted by the consensus of the world’s best climate science, well, it’ll be pretty bad.

    Might as well use this temporary magical statistical hiatus for some good and get irrevocably committed to twice as many carbon emission reductions as we should have done ten years ago when the lucky pause started, right?

  19. richard verney says:

    In the recent article on the three options for the IPCC, I said that the IPCC cannot afford to ignore the recent paprs on lower climate sensitivity.

    The fact is that the worth of the IPCC report will not be judged in 2013 when it is released to the usual fanfare and distorted press releases, but rather in 2015 when negotiations begin at the next climate conference.

    If there is no warming between now and then there will be between 19 and 24 years without any warming. This is a distinct possibility and even the Met Office (who I have no confidence in) are suggesting that warming will not resume before 2017. Accordingly, one can expect to see more papers between now and 2015 discussing climate sensitivity and all these will be suggesting lower climate sensitivity to that expresses in AR4. AR5 would become an irrelevance if it was so out of kilter with developments showing up by 2015.

    In my opinion, the revisions are more psychological than of substance. A sensitivity of 6 degC (with positive water feedback) is rediculous since in the paleo record there are many instances of high CO2 levels and cool temperatures as well as rising CO2 levels and cooling temperatures. These examples are inconsistent with high sensitivity at least if coupled to positive feedback and it is only positive feedback that permits even lip service to hifgh climate sensitivity since without positive feedback, climate sensitivity must inevitably be low. So dropping the obviously absurd claim as may be as high as 6degC merely drops an example where the IPCC claims are so obviously over exaggerated that little confidence can be had in their work as a whole.

    Matters will, in 2015, be very contentious. Negotiators will inevitable look at the previous report (AR4) and compare it with AR5. As I understand the leak, there is no claim that climate sensitivity is ‘likely’ above 2degC. That is a game changing amendment since that was the battle ground and the rasion d’etre for the action.

    We are now left with the position that it is ‘likely’ to be above 1.5degC and significantly even this is down from a probability of ‘very likely’ above 1.5degC.

    All of this suggests (ie., the reading between the lines postion) is that we are looking at Climate Sensitivity somewhere between 1.5degC to 2degC, but not above that figure. That is according quite well with the recent papers on climate sensitivity.

    Over the next few years, if the pause continues, I expect to see claims regarding climate sensitivity coming down. However, by 2015 there probably will not be a plethora of papers cl;aiming a sensitivity of below 1.5degC so there probably will be nothing to give the IPCC AR5 a fatal blow before the 2015 climate conference takes place.

    It seems to me that the IPCC have judged matters quite cleverly to keep the gravy train alive and not to derail the 2015 climate conference. Perhaps given the speciality of the President, he knows something about derailing, and has in this particlular instance been politically astute.

  20. stephen says:

    I am not convinced they can measure the earths temp to that degree, not now not in the past not in the future.

  21. Scarface says:

    IPCC Irresponsible Prophets of their Cargo Cult

    They are finetuning their message of doom, so what. The IPCC should be trialed for the mess they have created worldwide: the billions lost in wind en solar, the billions lost in foodburning.

  22. Jon says:

    The art of diplomacy is to say nice doggy until you find a stick that is big enough. They are just trying to wait it out hoping for the next El Niño?

  23. Friends:

    The AGW-scare was killed at the failed 2009 IPCC Conference in Copenhagen. I then wrote on WUWT and elsewhere

    The AGW-scare is dead but it will continue to move as though alive in similar manner to a beheaded chicken running around a farmyard. It continues to provide the movements of life but it is already dead. And its deathly movements provide an especial problem.

    Nobody will declare the AGW-scare dead: it will slowly fade away. This is similar to the ‘acid rain’ scare of the 1980s. Few remember that scare unless reminded of it but its effects still have effects; e.g. the Large Combustion Plant Directive (LCPD) exists. Importantly, the bureaucracy which the EU established to operate the LCPD still exists. And those bureaucrats justify their jobs by imposing ever more stringent, always more pointless, and extremely expensive emission limits which are causing enforced closure of UK power stations.

    Bureaucracies are difficult to eradicate and impossible to nullify.

    As the AGW-scare fades away those in ‘prime positions’ will attempt to establish rules and bureaucracies to impose those rules which provide immortality to their objectives. Guarding against those attempts now needs to be a serious activity.

    I stand by everything I wrote in late 2009, and I consider the need to guard against “rules and bureaucracies” to be growing in importance.

    The reduction to asserted climate sensitivity is part of the ‘fading away’ of the AGW-scare.
    As the scare fades those who want the “rules and bureaucracies” can see they are running out of time to obtain their desires so they can be expected to increase their pressure to get what they want.

    Richard

  24. Jack Savage says:

    It is an interesting thought experiment to imagine that this article had been written by, say, James Hansen, Al Gore or George Monbiot. Would the news be greeted with a huge sigh of relief from all the catastrophists, or would a great tide of hate roll in and cries of “denier” be heard?
    Personally, the whole idea of there being a figure for the “sensitivity of climate” directly attributable to a trace gas, notwithstanding its properties, strains my credulity.
    However, greater minds than mine seem convinced that this is the case and so I suppose I must accept it. However, you will have to continue to excuse my incredulity that anyone could yet come anywhere close to calculating it correctly.

  25. Jordan says:

    The IPCC will gradually morph into something else over a number of years. Its remit will change into something which means nobody can claim it was disbanded. CO2 induced climatastrophe will be left to wither on the vine, hopefully to eventually drop out of view. This way, nobody has to admit fault and nobody loses their jobs.

    The trick is to do this before any obvious harm comes from past policies aimed at averting CO2 catastrophe.

    Expect lots of legislation to be repealed and targets quietly missed.

    Expect lots of denial about who said what in the past, claims of having been misreported, and explanation of what they really meant, or passing the blame around in circles so nobody can be individually blamed.

    It is unrealistic to expect any kind of “public execution” of the most active alarmists.

    Unfortunately, this will also leave a residual of grass roots diehards who will bleat-on about CO2 climatastrophe for decades to come.

  26. Peter Miller says:

    By deduction AR7 and AR 8 – assuming this pseudo-science organisation is not tossed into the dustbin of bad science by then – will be predicting an imminent ice age.

    That means they were right to move from ‘global warming’ to ‘climate change’ and we were wrong all along – sarc off.

  27. Athelstan. says:

    AR5 – precis: what ifs and buts and not a lot else.

    Now then, it seems to me – and way, way past it’s sell by date [by about 25 years] the end of the line has been reached.

    And not before time, because personally I believe the mere fact that we’ve reached a fifth assessment was stretching the patience of mankind but particularly the western world to go on funding this ludicrous gravy train junket [UNEP IPCC].
    At long last, it’s time to decommission this particular loco-train and shunt it into a siding, with its engine master – where he and it can rust and seize up in perpetuity – and in glorious silence.

  28. Peter Miller:

    Your post at September 14, 2013 at 2:40 am says in total

    By deduction AR7 and AR 8 – assuming this pseudo-science organisation is not tossed into the dustbin of bad science by then – will be predicting an imminent ice age.

    That means they were right to move from ‘global warming’ to ‘climate change’ and we were wrong all along – sarc off.

    I suggest there is no need for your sarc tag.

    Around the turn of the century – when alarmists were still proclaiming the then recent ENSO peak was a sign of things to come – I wrote the following in several places on the web.

    “The global temperature fell from ~1940 to ~1970.
    Alarmists then claimed emissions of SO2 from power generation were disrupting the climate system so were threatening climate disaster from global cooling.

    The global temperature started to rise after ~1970.
    By ~1980 it was no longer possible for alarmists to scare about global cooling so they morphed the scare into fear of global warming.
    Alarmists then claimed emissions of CO2 from power generation were disrupting the climate system so were threatening climate disaster from global warming.

    If global temperature were to cool for a decade then the global warming scare would probably be morphed back to global cooling scare.”

    Alarmists always ridiculed this whenever and wherever I posted it.

    We have not had a decade of clear global cooling, but global warming has ceased for a decade, and the global warming scare is being reigned-back.

    One is often forgiven for being wrong but rarely forgiven for being right. (Sigh)

    Richard

  29. KNR says:

    The fun part is as the IPCC backs down , the AGW fanatics will turn on them like rabid dogs , as they show time and again how badly the react to ‘anyone’ that dares to question the purity of ‘the cause ‘
    Popcorn futures just went up as the left does want it does so very well , step itself in the back,.

  30. KSO says:

    So now perhaps the IPCC would care to explain the Minoan and Roman Optima, both of which were (if GISP2 data is to be believed) rather warmer than today, by about 2 degrees C…..

    Thought not.

  31. Jimbo says:

    It looks like we’ll hit the 2C target without any action. :-)

  32. J Martin says:

    There will surely be a statement for policy makers at the end where they will state that the need for anti co2 measures are more urgent than ever and that policy makers should seize the opportunity afforded them by the pause to build windmills and destroy the economy. Also implying that governments keep funding the gravy train.

    I feel that if they make no mention of the possibility that cooling is possible, then they will have painted themselves into a corner with no available exit strategy. The writing is on the wall, after 23 years of no significant warming and the last 8 years showing a slight cooling trend, there is every chance that we could see a steeper cooling trend arrive, PDO, AMO, Livingston and Penn (ap ?).

  33. TC says:

    “very likely be less than 6C” – clearly for the benefit of those that preach the “precautionary principle”.

  34. RC Saumarez says:

    For the US, what will the EPA’s response be to lower climate sensitivity?

  35. Jean Parisot says:

    >> The AGW-scare was killed at the failed 2009 IPCC Conference in Copenhagen.

    I believe the fatal wound was the 97-0 no confidence vote Al Gore received upon his return from Kyoto in a Democrat controlled Senate. Without the US economy bleeding into the carbon markets, the whole charade didn’t make sense.

  36. joshuah says:

    Those models are really starting to take quite a beating from reality

  37. rivtenko says:

    By not stating a “most likely” number, they are consciously obscuring the fact that climate sensitivity has been climbing down.

    They also refuse to describe 4-6 degrees as f. ex “unlikely”, even though this would be a natural thing to do according to how they deal with the lowest numbers.

    Here we see IPCCs bias in reporting the science quite clearly. Always maintaining the threat, never admitting to any positive scientific developments.

    It is politics in its purest sense.

  38. William Astley says:

    The IPCC is making progress. It will be interesting to listen to the explanation for cooling.

  39. johnmarshall says:

    All this despite empirical evidence that it is temperature that drives CO2 not the reverse as assumed by the IPCC.

  40. John Whitman says:

    The IPCC will morph into global cooling concernism, it will suggest then a policy for a world government to enforce a mandate to increase release of ghg into the atmosphere to mitigate cooling.

    When asked why the models of the previous 20 years did not predict climate cooling then the IPCC will say the cheapskate US government never provided enough funds for modeling to achieve accuracy.

    John

  41. Jean Parisot:

    At September 14, 2013 at 3:23 am you quote my having said

    The AGW-scare was killed at the failed 2009 IPCC Conference in Copenhagen.
    and add

    I believe the fatal wound was the 97-0 no confidence vote Al Gore received upon his return from Kyoto in a Democrat controlled Senate. Without the US economy bleeding into the carbon markets, the whole charade didn’t make sense.

    You make an interesting point and you may well be right, but historians will debate such matters for years to come.

    I observe that if you are right then the importance of that vote was not recognised (although many – including me – trumpeted it).

    The Kyoto Protocol restricted a ‘basket’ of six GHGs (notably CO2) by Annex A (i.e. developed) countries. Annex B (i.e. developing countries) were exempted from the restrictions. This encouraged Annex B countries to support the Protocol because the constraints on Annex A countries encouraged transfer of industrial activity from Annex A countries to Annex B countries.

    Indeed, this encouragement of transfer of economic activity is why e.g. the USA refused to ratify the Kyoto Protocol.

    The 2009 Copenhagen Summit was intended to provide a successor to the Kyoto Protocol. It was hoped this successor would encompass all major GHG emitting emitting countries. Simply, it would – in effect – move e.g. China from Annex B to Annex A.

    Developed countries proclaimed this proposed new Protocol as being a way to “Save The World”. The then British Prime Minister declared the Copenhagen Summit was “Six days to save the world!”. And the newly elected US President attended the Summit (the US government said) in fanfare for the same reason .

    In reality, the government leaders 2009 attended the Copenhagen Summit for economic reasons.

    The proposed new Protocol would inhibit industrial development in developing nations and, thus, inhibit the increasing economic competitiveness of the developing nations.

    China was an Annex B country and the proposed new Protocol would – in effect – make China an Annex A country. So, China would have none of it, and the negotiations to obtain a successor to the Kyoto Protocol failed.

    That failure is not reversible. And, therefore, the main political motivation for the AGW-scare was killed at the 2009 Copenhagen Summit.

    Richard

  42. Frans Franken says:

    lemiere jacques says:
    September 14, 2013 at 1:15 am
    ====================
    I expect the same. There will likely be much appeal to the timely installed precautionary principle. The probability of dangerous warming may be smaller (reduced climate sensitivity), but the consequences of it will be stressed as disastrous. Risk = Probability x Consequence. Alarmist governments will persevere in very expensive mitigation measures to try and avoid this risk. The amount of warming c.q. climate sensitivity will not much interest politicians, until they understand that it’s very very very probable that it will remain below their self-defined danger threshold of 2 C.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/29/climate-science-exploited-for-political-agenda-according-to-journal-of-american-physicians-and-surgeons/#comment-1402931

  43. I apologise for the formatting errors in my above post.

    Richard

  44. Bill Illis says:

    I admit I am surprised by this development and sure hope it comes to turns out to be the case.

    Other than the 6.0C outlier, the numbers quoted in the article are much closer to what appears to be the reality. Didn’t think we would see this happen at this time.

  45. David says:

    Bill Illis says:
    September 14, 2013 at 4:22 am
    Other than the 6.0C outlier, the numbers quoted in the article are much closer to what appears to be the reality. Didn’t think we would see this happen at this time.
    ———————————————————————————-
    I think they have no choice but to give up the warming aspect of CAGW. Instead they are concentrating all their political force on “extreme” events. Of course there is no increase in extreme events, but an increase in reporting said events can keep the funding going, and can be used as an excuse by political hacks like Obama to attack the coal industry. The C the G and the W are MIA from CAGW.

  46. Dodgy Geezer says:

    …Most experts believe that warming of less than 2 degrees Celsius from preindustrial levels will result in no net economic and ecological damage. Therefore, the new report is effectively saying (based on the middle of the range of the IPCC’s emissions scenarios) that there is a better than 50-50 chance that by 2083, the benefits of climate change will still outweigh the harm….

    So there is a gap in the market place for ‘expert’ opinion that warning of LESS than 2 deg could be dangerous?

    Look for a new generation of ‘climate experts’ to fill that gap over the next few years….

  47. Dodgy Geezer says:

    @richardscourtney

    …I apologise for the formatting errors in my above post….

    “It is a good rule in life never to apologise. The right sort of people do not want apologies, and the wrong sort take a mean advantage of them.”
    ― P.G. Wodehouse, The Man Upstairs and Other Stories

  48. Ceetee says:

    And so the climb down begins…… Has there ever been a finer quango than the IPCC?. I would have preferred my tax dollars went to those that truly needed them but then I suppose all bets are off around the dog bowl at feeding time.

  49. Bill Illis:

    Your post at September 14, 2013 at 4:22 am says

    I admit I am surprised by this development and sure hope it comes to turns out to be the case.

    Other than the 6.0C outlier, the numbers quoted in the article are much closer to what appears to be the reality. Didn’t think we would see this happen at this time.

    Well, I am not “surprised” and I suspect many others are not, too.

    The ‘pause’ makes a reduction of climate sensitivity necessary if the scare is to be kept staggering on. When asked,
    “Why does the pause exist?”
    they can answer with words to the effect,
    “We slightly overestimated climate sensitivity, but as the science has progressed so we have corrected that in the light of new knowledge. We are 95% certain that AGW is real and we need to prevent the horrors it threatens.”

    It is hard to see an alternative tactic which would keep the scare going in the light of the ‘pause’.

    Please note the careful nature of the new statement.
    A climate sensitivity is “likely” to be above 1.5°C and “very likely” to be below 6°C. Thus, they can claim to be making a conservative assessment because they refute the most extremist – and ridiculous – alarmist claims but keep the scare alive.

    Also, importantly, they do not withdraw (because they do not mention) their assertion in the AR4 that the “most likely” value is a scary 3°C. If they were being honest then THAT is the value they would have most considered.

    Richard

  50. AlecMM says:

    Don’t be confused by the 1980s and 1990s warming. Much of that was natural (ENSO) but some was from Asian aerosols reducing cloud albedo, a process that saturated in about 2000.

    The reason is that Sagan’s aerosol optical physics is wrong – he missed out a second optical process. The result of this is that the sign of the effect is reversed. There was no significant CO2 warming.

  51. Dodgy Geezer:

    Thankyou for your post addressed to me at September 14, 2013 at 4:40 am.

    Whatever P.G. Wodehouse said was “a good rule of life, when I know I have been wrong then I apologise and if I think I am right then I stand my ground. That has always provided clarity for others. And I think it is a “good rule” for actions on WUWT.

    Richard

  52. TRBixler says:

    But skyrocket himself is still driving the EPA on a fools errand. We the taxpayers will continue to pay dearly for his killing prosperity by increasing energy costs.

  53. Baronstone says:

    What I find amazing is that there is any doubt that the planet is warming. You guys are saying that this proves that global warming is a hoax, but this report doesn’t come to that conclusion! In fact it doesn’t come anywhere close to saying that. What it says is that the warming isn’t as severe as was originally predicted. Now that’s nowhere near them saying, “The whole thing was a lie!”

  54. Eliza says:

    Old soldiers never die they only fade away. This is the way the IPCC etc AGW will disappear over the next year or so. People need to live so getting them new jobs etc will take time. The only HUGE eye popping omission in above article is that it may COOL 1 to 4C in the coming decades so the whole concept of C02 having ANY effect whatsoever on earth atmospheric temperatures (due to overwhelming negative feedbacks) could be absolute HS.

  55. Ceetee says:

    @ Eliza, The IPCC and AGW will NOT die over the next year or so because it(they) are a political construct hiding behind the still largely respected scientific establishment. That scientific establishment needs to find an emphatic and very public way of divorcing itself from this charade not only for it’s own sake but for the sake of us all. I believe it’s as simple as that.

  56. OssQss says:

    Where do we get the refund of the trillions of dollars spent on the IPCC’s failed ideology and psychological cirrhosis placed on our children ?

    Guilt by attrition!

  57. johnny pics says:

    Regarding annex a and b countries, I believe russia was classified as annex b
    They would not sign treaty otherwise . Russian scientists knew agw was bs.
    Please correct me if I am wrong.

  58. Clovis Man says:

    Yeah but, no but yeah but I didn’t say that. Anyway Jimmy Hansen told me to say it.

    (Britishers will get this ;)

  59. BBould says:

    Its a step in the right direction but I don’t believe it is nearly enough to justify the last 17 years or so. I’m fairly certain that it will be the Governments of the world that have the final say on the IPCC report and it will be interesting to see what happens later this month.

    Also, I urge all Americans to write their Congressman and Senators about the EPA’s unbridled power to rule and regulate CO2, this is not how the country should be run. I have and do often.

  60. Silver Ralph says:

    I thought the science was settled?!?

  61. Jim Cripwell says:

    Eliza and Ceetee. You have touched on the key issue for the scientific establishments. Sure, like old soldiers, the IPCC can just fade away. But what do all the leading scientific organizations, led by the Royal Society and the American Physical Society, do with their over-the-top, unscientific statements, supporting CAGW? These cannot just “fade away”.

    I find it difficult to think how these organizations can get out of the mess that they are in, without a major climb done, and a mea maxima culpa. But who is going to lead the charge that forces this change on them in the near future?

  62. JimS says:

    At one time, the science was “unsettling.” Now, everything has changed just because of non-cooperating temperatures worldwide. Mother Nature just can not be bought – she is not a whore.

  63. Beta Blocker says:

    AR5’s words concerning CO2 sensitivity mean nothing by themselves. What do AR5’s prediction curves look like?

  64. Jim Cripwell:

    I am replying to your post at September 14, 2013 at 6:31 am. To save others needing to find it, I copy it here.

    Eliza and Ceetee. You have touched on the key issue for the scientific establishments. Sure, like old soldiers, the IPCC can just fade away. But what do all the leading scientific organizations, led by the Royal Society and the American Physical Society, do with their over-the-top, unscientific statements, supporting CAGW? These cannot just “fade away”.

    I find it difficult to think how these organizations can get out of the mess that they are in, without a major climb done, and a mea maxima culpa. But who is going to lead the charge that forces this change on them in the near future?

    In my opinion, the three of you are discussing a very important point. As I said in my above post at September 14, 2013 at 2:33 am
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/14/breaking-ipcc-ar5-report-to-dial-back-climate-sensitivity/#comment-1416740

    As the scare fades those who want the “rules and bureaucracies” can see they are running out of time to obtain their desires so they can be expected to increase their pressure to get what they want.

    And the scare will ‘fade away’ and NOT “change” “in the near future”.

    This is because the politicians cannot say they were wrong and reverse direction: that would be political suicide. Therefore, politicians will slowly withdraw from the AGW-scare and not rapidly reverse policy. It will take a decade for politicians to slowly alter their policies or to be replaced by politicians who have not been party to the scare.

    As political interest in the scare assuages the interest of the media in the scare will reduce especially when output of the so-called ‘science’ of the scare will reduce as politicians progressively reduce funding for it.

    Few among the public know of policy statements by scientific institutions so those institutions will progressively amend their statements until those statements are so bland as to be meaningless. And no “charge” can force “this change on them in the near future”. How could it and why would it?

    A decade from now the AGW-scare will be over, and two decades from now few will remember it unless reminded of it (as few now remember the ‘acid rain’ scare unless reminded of it).

    I say the AGW-scare is dead but the stench from its decaying corpse threatens imposition of bureacracies intended to make harm from the scare permanent. And we need to prevent establishment of those bureacracies.

    Jim, you suggest that the corpse needs to be buried before the stench can cause the permanent affect, but I don’t think it can be buried.

    Richard

  65. Richard M says:

    They are getting closer but still about two times too high (or more). I think .6 – 1.0 C will turn out to be much closer.

    The big question between now and 2015 is … will we see another El Niño. If we do this will be used to fuel the propaganda machine. In the meantime the propaganda machine will continue to highlight any and all bad weather events. OTOH, a major La Niña would help skeptics. Even though neither event would be meaningful in the long term, they could have a huge impact on public opinion.

  66. Jimbo says:

    Will John Cook of the oddly named Skeptical Science also dial back?

    SkS
    Last updated on 11 September 2010 by Michael Searcy.
    Theory, models and direct measurement confirm CO2 is currently the main driver of climate change….

    While natural processes continue to introduce short term variability, the unremitting rise of CO2 from industrial activities has become the dominant factor in determining our planet’s climate now and in the years to come.
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/CO2-is-not-the-only-driver-of-climate.htm

    It’s so dominant that global temps rose in the last 16 years and a very slight cooling for around a decade. / sarc

  67. Jimbo says:

    SkS, it’s time to catch up with the IPCC

    Last updated on 17 October 2010 by dana1981
    Although it is important to reduce the remaining climate uncertainties, such as the magnitude of the impacts of short-lived pollutants, it does not change the fact that CO2 is very likely the driving force behind the current global warming, or that if we double the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere from pre-industrial levels, the planet will likely warm in the range of 2 to 4.5°C.
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-warming-35-percent.htm

    Very LIKELY.

  68. RockyRoad says:

    So the IPCC is 95% certain they pretty much got the alarmism wrong?

    Glad to see they’re certain about something.

  69. Jimbo says:

    This dial back is similar to the graph quietly released on Christmas Eve by the Met Office. I suspect the ‘great walkback’ started on that date and is gathering pace.

  70. ferd berple says:

    ohnny pics says:
    September 14, 2013 at 6:07 am
    Regarding annex a and b countries, I believe russia was classified as annex b
    =============
    The BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India, China) countries have and will continue to define what happens in the climate negotiations. They are more than happy to sign any treaty if it will hasten the transfer of industrial production from the west to BRIC countries.

    The BRIC countries have no problem reducing pollution. If the bureaucracy is charged with reducing pollution 20%, the reports of current pollution will be reduced 20%, or past reports will be adjusted upwards 20%. Future reductions of 50% can be as easily achieved.

    The BRIC countries know full well the ego of western politician in the media spotlight. They fully expect to receive trillions in economic consideration for a 2015 “Climate Deal for Our Time”. And like Chamberlain’s 1938 “Peace for Our Time”, it will all turn out to be a monstrous sham.

  71. John Whitman says:

    Matt Ridley said,

    “Admittedly, the change is small, and because of changing definitions, it is not easy to compare the two reports, but retreat it is. It is significant because it points to the very real possibility that, over the next several generations, the overall effect of climate change will be positive for humankind and the planet.”

    [. . .]

    “Most experts believe that warming of less than 2 degrees Celsius from preindustrial levels will result in no net economic and ecological damage. Therefore, the new report is effectively saying (based on the middle of the range of the IPCC’s emissions scenarios) that there is a better than 50-50 chance that by 2083, the benefits of climate change will still outweigh the harm.”

    – – – – – – – –

    Matt Ridley,

    You make it seem that there is a real consensus about the 2 C and that it has some real meaningful scientific basis. And you appear to be using it as a substantial arguing point to support the moan thrust of your article.

    Are you not skeptically critical of how that 2 C is being presented and the basis of determining it by those whom you call ‘most experts’?

    Is there a shift in the previous profoundly skeptical Matt Ridley (who I admired) in the past year (or so) to less skepticism? If you have had shift in your skepticism then can you point to where you have explained why? Thank you.

    Respectfully,
    John

  72. John Whitman says:

    Oops.

    Spelling alert in my comment ‘John Whitman on September 14, 2013 at 7:50 am’ to Matt Ridley.

    main not moan . . .

    Sorry.

    John

    REPLY: No, you had it right, there was moaning in the writing of the IPCC report – Anthony

  73. Jim Cripwell says:

    Richard, you write “Jim, you suggest that the corpse needs to be buried before the stench can cause the permanent affect, but I don’t think it can be buried.”

    I cannot disagree with what you write, but I have a nagging doubt that this can drag on for too long. Very briefly, the reason is the UK Climate Change Act. This, and similar measures in the EU are strangling the European economy. With fraking, shale oil and gas, the North American economy is starting to improve. Here in Canada, compared with Europe, we are doing really very well. Our Prime Minister is promising a debt to GDP ratio of 25% by 2020. This is not happening in Europe. And George Osborne knows this all too well. He needs to do something soon, and the longer he waits, the more urgent action becomes.

    So, it may well be that some very important politicians suddenly WANT to believe the CAGW is a hoax, and a load of scientific nonsense. If that happens, and I am not saying that I think it is going to, but if it happens, then all bets are off.

  74. Yes, even the IPCC starts to see that CO2 is much less powerful than the models assume.

  75. This new sensitivity estimate is merely a minimum tweak to a hopelessly faulty process.The climate models are incorrectly structured because they are based on three irrational and false assumptions. First that CO2 is the main climate driver ,second that in calculating climate sensitivity the GHE due to water vapour should be added to that of CO2 as a feed back effect and third that the GHE of water vapour is always positive.As to the last point the feedbacks cannot be positive otherwise we wouldn’t be here to talk about it .
    Temperature drives both CO2 and water vapour independently,. The whole CAGW – GHG scare is based on the obvious fallacy of putting the effect before the cause.As a simple (not exact) analogy controlling CO2 levels to control temperature is like trying to lower the temperature of an electric hot plate under a boiling pan of water by capturing and sequestering the steam coming off the top.A corollory to this idea is that the whole idea of a simple climate sensitivity to CO2 is nonsense and the sensitivity equation has no physical meaning unless you already know what the natural controls on energy inputs are already ie the extent of the natural variability.
    Furthermore the modelling approach is inherently of no value for predicting future temperature with any calculable certainty because of the difficulty of specifying the initial conditions of a large number of variables with sufficient precision prior to multiple iterations. There is no way of knowing whether the outputs after the parameterisation of the multiple inputs merely hide compensating errors in the system as a whole.
    In summary the projections of the IPCC – Met office models and all the impact studies(especially the Stern report) which derive from them are based on specifically structurally flawed and inherently useless models.They deserve no place in any serious discussion of future climate trends and represent an enormous waste of time and money.As a basis for public policy their forecasts are grossly in error and therefore worse than useless.For further discussion and an estimate of the coming cooling see
    http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com

  76. Jim Cripwell:

    Thankyou for your thoughtful reply to me at September 14, 2013 at 7:57 am.

    It concludes saying

    So, it may well be that some very important politicians suddenly WANT to believe the CAGW is a hoax, and a load of scientific nonsense. If that happens, and I am not saying that I think it is going to, but if it happens, then all bets are off.

    On balance, I hope you are right because the AGW-scare is inflicting much harm on economic and energy policies in several countries. But I doubt that rapid collapse of the GW-scare can happen for the reasons I stated in my post you have replied.

    And if – as I hope – you are right then I would be saddened because it would cause much damage to all science and not only to the pseudoscience of so-called ‘climate science’.

    Thankyou for your thoughts.

    Richard

  77. ferd berple says:

    Jim Cripwell says:
    September 14, 2013 at 7:57 am
    So, it may well be that some very important politicians suddenly WANT to believe the CAGW is a hoax
    ==========
    The politicians wanted to believe in AGW because it promised significant tax revenues. However, these promises turned out to be hollow, because the revenues came at the expense of shrinking the tax base. In effect AGW delivers a larger share of a smaller pie, and with every bite the pie gets smaller still.

    The politicians know full well from history that when the pie runs out, hungry people eat the politicians.

  78. Allan MacRae says:

    From above:

    Specifically, the draft report says that “equilibrium climate sensitivity” (ECS)—eventual warming induced by a doubling of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which takes hundreds of years to occur—is “extremely likely” to be above 1 degree Celsius (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit), “likely” to be above 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.4 degrees Fahrenheit) and “very likely” to be below 6 degrees Celsius (10.8 Fahrenheit). In 2007, the IPPC said it was “likely” to be above 2 degrees Celsius and “very likely” to be above 1.5 degrees, with no upper limit.
    _____

    I reject the (alleged) IPCC estimates of ECS in AR5 as scientifically untenable.

    Alternative A assumes that the conventional IPCC climate science hypo (that CO2 primarily drives temperature) is broadly valid:
    Conclusion: These IPCC ECS estimates are “extremely likely” to be higher than reality.
    Why?
    An ECS of ~1C is the hypothetical equilibrium figure with no feedbacks.
    An ECS greater than ~1C assumes positive feedbacks and an ECS less than ~1C assumes negative feedbacks.
    Based on the evidence, the feedbacks are negative.
    Therefore It is “extremely likely” that ECS will be less than ~1 degree C.

    Alternative B assumes that net ECS is effectively near-zero or non-existent, because of clear evidence that CO2 lags temperature at all measured time scales.
    Same conclusion: These IPCC ECS estimates are “extremely likely” to be higher than reality.
    Why?
    Because, it is “extremely likely” that the future cannot cause the past.

    I further suggest that the IPCC’s estimates of ECS are more political than scientific in origin. This reduction in ECS from previous IPCC estimates is a structured political retreat from an untenable extremist position. The IPCC are now admitting that they were half-wrong. We will have to wait for AR6 for them to admit they were fully wrong.

  79. Jimbo says:

    How did we arrive at the 2C limit? I vaguely recall Dr. Phil Jones asking the same question in the leaked CRU emails. I can’t find it.

  80. Beta Blocker says:

    Andres Valencia says: September 14, 2013 at 8:00 am
    Yes, even the IPCC starts to see that CO2 is much less powerful than the models assume./blockquote>

    All such speculation is premature until the AR5 prediction curves are officially published and can be compared to the AR4 prediction curves.

    As long as AR5 still makes the claim that most of the temperature increase in the last fifty years can be attributed to human causation, then the fine tuning of the words the IPCC needs to cover the possibility that temperatures remain flat between AR5 and AR6 won’t make any real difference to the Climate Science Industrial Complex.

    Regardless of how the AR5’s wording concerning CO2 sensitivity is written, the IPCC policy recommendation will remain “full steam ahead” on reducing CO2 emissions.

  81. Allan MacRae says:

    Dr Norman Page says: September 14, 2013 at 8:12 am
    Allan MacRae says: September 14, 2013 at 8:20 am

    Remarkable similarity – I read your post of 8 minutes earlier after posting mine.

    Enjoy your day Dr. Page.

    Regards, Allan

  82. Beta Blocker says:

    Corrected post ……

    Andres Valencia says: September 14, 2013 at 8:00 amYes, even the IPCC starts to see that CO2 is much less powerful than the models assume.

    All such speculation is premature until the AR5 prediction curves are officially published and can be compared to the AR4 prediction curves.

    As long as AR5 still makes the claim that most of the temperature increase in the last fifty years can be attributed to human causation, then the fine tuning of the words the IPCC needs to cover the possibility that temperatures remain flat between AR5 and AR6 won’t make any real difference to the Climate Science Industrial Complex.

    Regardless of how the AR5′s wording concerning CO2 sensitivity is written, the IPCC policy recommendation will remain “full steam ahead” on reducing CO2 emissions.

  83. dp says:

    Can’t wait to see Mosher’s next dry buzzkill remark.

  84. Jimbo says:

    Jimbo says:
    September 14, 2013 at 8:24 am

    How did we arrive at the 2C limit? I vaguely recall Dr. Phil Jones asking the same question in the leaked CRU emails. I can’t find it.

    I found it!

    Dr. Phil Jones – CRU emails – Climategate 2.0
    The 2 deg C limit is talked about by a lot within Europe. It is never defined though what it means. Is it 2 deg C for the globe or for Europe? Also when is/was the base against which the 2 deg C is calculated from? I know you don’t know the answer, but I don’t either! I think it is plucked out of thin air. I think it is too high as well. If it is 2 deg C globally, this could be more in Europe – especially the northern part. A better limit might be maintaining some summer Arctic sea ice!
    http://junkscience.com/2011/11/23/climategate-2-0-jones-says-2o-limit-plucked-out-of-thin-air/

  85. Pamela Gray says:

    Modeled uncertainty (calculated from the range of the multiple model runs) under pre-industrial parameters (no anthropogenic parameter data included) is actually larger than the range in observations (IE modeled-natural appears to over estimate real-observations when hindcasting). Therefore the outer bands of the CO2 scenario projections are wide substantially because of this pre-industrial uncertainty. This is why climate scientists are worried. They can’t find the wriggle of anthropogenic CO2 warming in the observations to a significant degree because that wriggle hasn’t risen above natural variation. Which also means they can’t point to “it” in the projections. Not even in the lowest one.

    So it appears that mathematically one can calculate the wriggle in anthropogenic warming, just like one can calculate the solar wriggle, but it is not significant enough to show in the noisy intrinsic observations.

    It’s like people, grown adult people, are afraid of an imaginary boogy man and have decided to tax the rest of us because of it. The boogy man tax. I am paying for a &%$*@ boogy man tax!

  86. Arfur Bryant says:

    Two points:

    1. ["(ECS)—eventual warming induced by a doubling of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which takes hundreds of years to occur..."]

    Say what? So the Hockey Stick warming started more than one hundred years before the industrial revolution? So the current flattening is due to the reduction of the non-existent anthropogenic CO2 increase somewhere c1800?

    2. The very idea of an ECS is a theoretical construct. There is absolutely NO evidence that doubling (or even increasing) CO2 makes ANY measurable difference to ‘real’ global temperature. As with all warmists, the IPCC argues from an assumption and doesn’t even make sense of that!

    Pathetic.

  87. Bill Illis says:

    For those interested in water vapor feedback numbers, here is the latest data up to August 2013.

    The IPCC climate models are over-estimating water vapor by quite a bit so far. They have it an increase of 6.0% right now (and 22% by 2100) while last month, it was just 0.9% above average.

    http://s23.postimg.org/qme9cxx4r/PCWV_IPCCAR5_Aug_2013.png

    That is because (temps aren’t increasing as fast as predicted of course but also that) the ENSO is by far the biggest driver of water vapor levels. Water vapor lags 3 months behind the ENSO (like temperatures do which is not surprising).

    http://s22.postimg.org/j48hjy7bl/ENSO_PCWV48_Aug_2013.png

    But there is a well-known theory, Clausius-Clapeyron, that predicts a 7.0% increase in water vapor per 1.0C increase in temperatures and this is directly built into all the climate models. Clausius- Clapeyron is not entirely wrong, its just that the real Earth decides to use a slightly lower value of 4.6% instead (somehow tied in to the ENSO).

    http://s22.postimg.org/exwtw3mhd/PCWV_vs_RSS_UAH_Temps_Aug_2013.png

    This might say water vapor is indeed a positive feedback, but if you run the numbers at 4.6% rather than 7.0%, the CO2 doubling sensitivity falls to 2.0C per doubling (and then put clouds at zero net feedback rather than positive and the CO2 doubling sensitivity falls to 1.5C – that’s my number and it seems to pop out close to that number no matter how many different ways I look at it).

  88. Alcheson says:

    As it is likely that none of the models showing high CS show the possibility of a 15+ yr stall in temperature rise they all have been proven to be invalid. All of those models should be removed from use and “projections”. They still keep the invalidated models in the analysis because without the high end possibilities the whole scare (scam?) goes away. Actually, it is likely ALL of their models have been shown to be invalid because of too high a CS value, since none show the possibility of lack of warming for over 17+ years. The truth is more apt that the CS is extremely likely to be less than 2C and very likely less than 1.5C. Thus the CO2 addition has been net BENEFICIAL to mankind. Increased plant growth, fewer people freezing to death, larger areas for farming, higher yields per acre.
    Time for congress to declare war on the EPA and disband all of the global warming and “CO2 is bad” regulations. My electricity bill here in southern CA is expected to go up another 40% by 2016 (18% this year alone) all in the name of fighting CO2. High energy costs leads to death and lower standards of living , loss of jobs, and the destruction of the lower and middle class. It is time to END this war on CO2.

  89. thingadonta says:

    And next report it will come down again, when it fails to warm and they still won’t admit the models are wrong.

  90. Athelstan. says:

    Baronstone says:
    September 14, 2013 at 5:05 am

    What I find amazing is that there is any doubt that the planet is warming. You guys are saying that this proves that global warming is a hoax, but this report doesn’t come to that conclusion! In fact it doesn’t come anywhere close to saying that. What it says is that the warming isn’t as severe as was originally predicted. Now that’s nowhere near them saying, “The whole thing was a lie!”

    Clueless and very poorly phrased twaddle, but let me help you out sonny.

    No one on this site, or anywhere else doubts that the earth has warmed since the LIA – no one disputes that.

    What we do dispute, is, mankind’s fingerprint in the warming signal, we do not dispute that CO2 is GHG and man adds CO2 to the atmosphere at ± 5-7%. A puny amount but which is neither here nor there and even if that footling amount did cause some negligible warming – would we ever be able to quantify it? Short answer to that is: no.

    In conclusion, though the earths average temperature has been in stasis for the last 17 years – and CO2 atmospheric concentrations are ever rising why are the [IPCC] models wholly devoted to ‘proving’ the link between >CO2=>T’s. Why are the IPCC models, still predicting rises – when temperatures are dead flat?
    Even, a junior grade student must begin to question the foundational premise of the IPCC – that of, anthropomorphic emissions of CO2 are causing runaway warming.
    I’d go further, anecdotal evidence and recent temperature records in England and Germany highlight and clearly point to a decline in average temperatures – in total contradiction to posited rises in world Temperatures boldly predicted by IPCC models and thereby obliterating the fundamental raison d’etre of the IPCC.

    So, the question is – why is the IPCC still spouting utter tripe about nebulous threats?

    And the short answer to that is – jobs for civil servants, jobs for NGO’s around the world, jobs for academia [paid for by you] and a God send for the political classes of the western world, in that, they can promise everybody – “manna tomorrow”.

  91. Greg says:

    “Let’s hope the IPCC falls off this tight-rope and soon.”

    Well I hope they fall with one leg either side of the rope!

  92. Greg says:

    ” Therefore, the new report is effectively saying (based on the middle of the range of the IPCC’s emissions scenarios) that …”

    so why are we talking about “middle of the range” here? Are we achieving that level of emissions cuts? I thought we were still on ” business as usual”.

  93. James Strom says:

    I’m a little curious about the “sociology” of the science here. Assuming that this change in wording holds, and that it’s a precursor of more change to come, are we seeing scientists trying to protect their reputations as they beat a very slow retreat, or gradually accepting new research and observations, or are we merely seeing a glacial change in the field as the result of deaths and retirements. To me it’s fascinating because the warmists I know would never, ever, ever change their opinion.

    However, I would not be surprised if opinion leaders among the climatologists are now trying to find a way to say that it’s not going to be too bad, and we knew it all along.

  94. Allan MacRae:

    Your post at September 14, 2013 at 8:35 am begins

    Dr Norman Page says: September 14, 2013 at 8:12 am
    Allan MacRae says: September 14, 2013 at 8:20 am

    Remarkable similarity – I read your post of 8 minutes earlier after posting mine.

    While we are considering a possible consensus, you may wish to add the earlier post
    richardscourtney says: September 14, 2013 at 4:53 am

    Richard

  95. Steve Oregon says:

    Future Update!

    BREAKING: IPCC AR6 report to dial up academia sensitivity.

    Dialing up Academia on Lack of Climate Change

    A forthcoming report points to lower hope for global warming

    by Dr. Ratt Midley

    Later this month, a long-awaited event that last happened in 2013 will recur. Like a returning comet, it will be taken to portend ominous happenings. I refer to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) “sixth assessment report,” part of which will be published on Sept. 27.

    There have already been leaks from this 4 page document, which summarizes 14 pages of scientific discussion, but thanks to a senior janitor, I have had a glimpse of the key prediction at the heart of the document. The big news is that, for the first time since these reports started coming out in 1990, the new one dials up the anticipated reaction by academia. It states that the many PhDs and climate related researchers (who have been living precariously on the nostalgic memories of their heyday) can no longer endure the absence of climate catastrophe.

    Admittedly, the absence of climate change is not easy to compare to the earlier predictions now being lampooned in every publication. Retreat has been painful for global warming missionaries in academia. Out in the public they often get the kind of reception once experienced by only the shadiest of societies characters.

    “It been humiliating and now I just can;t take any more”, said Michael Mann as he rushed out of a restaurant full of people mocking him.

    This is significant because it points to the very real possibility that, over the next several generations the overall effect of no climate change will be positive for the return of academia truthiness.

  96. Jimbo says:

    Baronstone says:
    September 14, 2013 at 5:05 am

    What I find amazing is that there is any doubt that the planet is warming. You guys are saying that this proves that global warming is a hoax, but this report doesn’t come to that conclusion!….

    Global warming has happened since 1850. It is not a hoax. Some of the warming since 1950 is very likely to have been caused by man. My question to you is how much???

    Global warming has however stopped. Here are many temperature standstill quotes from the likes of Dr. Paul Jones, Dr. James Hansen and other ‘climate scientists’. Some peer reviewed. Here is a small sample:

    Dr. Yu Kosaka et. al. – Nature – 28 August 2013
    Recent global-warming hiatus tied to equatorial Pacific surface cooling
    Despite the continued increase in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, the annual-mean global temperature has not risen in the twenty-first century…”
    __________________
    Professor Masahiro Watanabe – Geophysical Research Letters – 28 June 2013
    “The weakening of k commonly found in GCMs seems to be an inevitable response of the climate system to global warming, suggesting the recovery from hiatus in coming decades.”
    __________________
    Professor Anastasios Tsonis – Daily Telegraph – 8 September 2013
    “We are already in a cooling trend, which I think will continue for the next 15 years at least. There is no doubt the warming of the 1980s and 1990s has stopped.”

  97. johnny pics says:

    New study from whatsammata u ” wind farms blowing is causing planet to cool”

  98. If one looks at all the temperature changes over the last 20000 years, one will see the current rise from the end of the Dalton to around 2002(when the temp. rise ended approx.) was very feeble in comparisome to other temperature rises following cold periods.

    Look at the three Dryas periods, oldest,older and younger and the 8200 year cold snap as examples.

    It is ridiculous to claim the global warming we had last century was somehow the first of it’s kind when in reality last century featured more or less very stable climatic conditions .

    To add insult to injury to the IPCC, the temperature trend going forward will be down , the only question is how far down, due to prolonged solar minimum conditions..

  99. I concur with DR. NORMAN PAGE. In addition the hockey stick created by Dr. Mann is not worth the paper it is written on.

  100. Reed Coray says:

    Now for the headline I never thought I’d see:

    IT’S BETTER THAN WE THOUGHT!

  101. anengineer says:

    The question is: Do they still say that we must take immediate and crippling steps to reduce CO2 emissions?

  102. Jim Steele says:

    All the evidence suggested increasing biological benefits. Its about time they admitted it. http://landscapesandcycles.net/less-arctic-ice-can-be-beneficial.html

  103. Allan MacRae says:

    richardscourtney says: September 14, 2013 at 9:47 am

    Thank you Richard for pointing out this post.

    I am mulling over an approach to climate science that we employ in certain sectors of geotechnical engineering called the Observational Approach or Observational Method, as enunciated by Karl Terzaghi.

    “In both design and construction, it is advisable to be as adaptive and flexible as possible, which is the premise of the observational approach developed by Karl Terzaghi (e.g., Bjerrum et al., 1960) and Ralph Peck (e.g., Peck, 1962, 1969, 1980). This suggests that remediation systems should be designed and built per known and predicted future conditions, while at the same time anticipating plausible variations in site conditions and having contingency plans in place.”
    http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11146&page=329

    The Observational Approach is most helpful in those areas of engineering where it is too difficult or too expensive to measure the key parameters that enable predictive skill, and/or where our models are inadequate and provide inadequate predictive capability. It is particularly useful where economics dictates that our “Factor of Safety” (or similar concept) is too close to unity (incipient instability) and yet we still need to function in a safe and reasonably predictable environment.

    The Observational Approach typically involves detailed ongoing measurements of the parameters one is most interested in, and the ongoing adjustments of predicted outcomes (and predictive models) based on these detailed measurements.

    I suppose it could be argued that this is in fact what the IPCC is doing, but if so, they are doing it very slowly and poorly and are not prepared to abandon their failed model hypotheses in spite of the apparent lack of predictive skill.

    I suggest a more competent and timely use of the Observational Approach would have already led the IPCC climate science community to revise or abandon their current models and develop hypos and models that have much greater ability to accurately hindcast and forecast. This , I suggest, they have failed to do, apparently even in AR5.

    Furthermore, in the event that Earth’s climate is not predictable within our current scientific capabilities, the Observational Approach can also be used as an empirical tool to assist our ability to adapt, even if we do not have adequate predictive skill.

    Perhaps this is all obvious and is in fact a description of the approach that many parties, particularly climate skeptics, have been using for the past few decades.

    Regards, Allan

  104. Reed Coray says:

    Jordan says: September 14, 2013 at 2:40 am
    CO2 induced climatastrophe will be left to wither on the vine, hopefully to eventually drop out of view. This way, nobody has to admit fault and nobody loses their jobs.

    I agree. I also make a prediction. [Just so Nick Stokes doesn't get confused. That's a prediction not a projection.] If over the next five to ten years the Earth’s temperature stays flat or decreases, with the exception of the (C)AGW leaders finding one of the “97% scientists” will be harder than finding a hen’s tooth.

  105. Frans Franken says:

    Jimbo says:
    September 14, 2013 at 8:39 am
    Jimbo says:
    September 14, 2013 at 8:24 am
    How did we arrive at the 2C limit?
    ====================
    2010:
    http://unfccc.int/essential_background/items/6031.php
    In 2010, governments agreed that emissions need to be reduced so that global temperature increases are limited to below 2 degrees Celsius.

    2008:
    http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/international/negotiations/future/docs/brochure_2c_en.pdf
    Summary
    This paper outlines the scientific background for the EU climate protection target – the 2oC limit – established by the EU Governments in 1996 and reaffirmed since then by the Environment Council 2003, and European Council, 2005, 2007.

    …the information provided in the IPCC’s Third Assessment Report (IPCC TAR, 2001a,b,c,d), and developments in the scientific literature and in peer reviewed publications such as “Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change” (Schellnhuber et al., 2005) supported and advanced the scientific basis for the assessment of impacts and risks that underpin the adoption of the 2oC target and confirms our view that 2oC is an appropriate target.

    2005:
    http://www.eeg.tuwien.ac.at/eeg.tuwien.ac.at_pages/publications/pdf/NAK_BOO_2006_01.pdf
    “Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change” (Schellnhuber et al., 2005)

  106. whytech says:

    “The question is: Do they still say that we must take immediate and crippling steps to reduce CO2 emissions?”

    Depends on what the meaning of “they” is (with acknowledgement to Slick Willy). The walk back may be beginning in some circles but I see no evidence of this in the political class, at least in the U.S.

  107. @AlecMM at 1:14am

    Para 3: the implication that removing all ghgs from the atmosphere would make the -18 deg C composite emitter in radiative equilibrium with Space coincide with the Earth’s surface, hence the ghe is the difference between it and the present 15 deg C average [33 deg K], is plain wrong. No clouds or ice would increase SW energy by 43% so the real surface temperature would be 4 – 5 deg C, a ghe of ~ 11 K. The ratio 33/11 is the imaginary ‘positive feedback’.

    Could you elaborate on that point a bit. I also do not believe the 33 deg K estimate from GHG warming and believe it to be as smaller number.

    The way I see it is the 33 deg K difference comes from assertion that with out GHG’s and a 30% albedo, the average insolation is 240 W/m^2 giving the earth a surface temperature of 255 deg K. GHG’s ride to the rescue and raise the temp to 288 deg. K. But that argument treats the albedo as a one-way mirror, reflecting 30% of the energy from the sun, but reflecting none from the earth — except as a GHG effect. This is fundamentally wrong. The Albedo has Two Sides. (WUWT Perpetuum Mobile – Jan 21, 2011).

    We can model the reflectivity off the top of the albedo as “A” and off the bottom as “a”. When we model the reverberating wave paths between ground and the albedo we get total Energy received by the earth’s surface as 342 W/m^2 * ( (1-A)/(1-a) ). If A=30% and a=0 (the Kiehl-Trenberth illustration) in a zero GHG scenario, you would get 240 W/m2. But where is the argument that a=0? If A=a, then the surface receives the full 342 W/m2. and is at 278 deg K for any value of “A”.

    Tim Folkerts and I had an interesting dialog in “Perpetuum Mobile” from Feb 7, 2012 to >Feb 14 exploring how the albedo is a function of wavelength and therefore “a” doesn’t have to equal “A”, but neither does it equal zero.

    I’m still a long way from accepting “a = 0”, for as you note: the “albedo layer” must emit radiation just as well as it absorbs that same radiation.

  108. Craig W says:

    Us “skeptics & deniers” who base our arguments on facts instead of sketchy computer modeling and half-cocked theories are still “wrong” … right?

  109. John Whitman says:

    John Whitman on September 14, 2013 at 7:56 am
    Oops.

    Spelling alert in my comment ‘John Whitman on September 14, 2013 at 7:50 am’ to Matt Ridley.

    main not moan . . .

    Sorry.

    John

    REPLY: No, you had it right, there was moaning in the writing of the IPCC report – Anthony

    – – – – – – – –

    Anthony,

    Chuckle. : )

    Sometimes misspellings appear to be some kind of a surprising karma. Right?

    John

  110. Steven Mosher says:

    The IPCC is offically granted membership in the lukewarmer camp

    steven
    mosher
    cmo lukewarmer r us

  111. Frans Franken says:

    Sleepalot says:
    September 14, 2013 at 11:55 am
    ====================
    Thank you; illuminating article. The 2C “danger” limit has been politically established, obviously.

    In the figure in this article below, 10 out of 17 recent climate sensitivity estimates are 2C or lower (3 IPCC estimates counted as 1):
    http://www.cato.org/blog/current-wisdom-even-more-low-climate-sensitivity-estimates

    I don’t care about consensus, but for what it’s worth: 10 out of 17 means a 59% consensus that climate sensitivity is likely to be 2C or lower and as such global warming is not dangerous according to UN politically agreed criteria.

    In the same article:
    The average value of the best estimate of the equilibrium climate sensitivity across all the new studies is about 2.0°C.

  112. Sleepalot says:

    Frans Franken says: “In the same article:
    The average value of the best estimate of the equilibrium climate sensitivity across all the new studies is about 2.0°C.”

    Except of course that if you have several different answers, most of them are wrong,
    and an average of many wrongs does not make a right.

  113. Bruce Cobb says:

    Steven Mosher says:
    September 14, 2013 at 12:32 pm

    The IPCC is offically granted membership in the lukewarmer camp

    Be sure and wake us when they enter the Reality camp.

  114. Admad says:

    So when do we finally get our rebates for being screwed over for so long?

  115. pesadia says:

    Who would have thought (three weeks ago) that parliament would reject attacking syria.
    Who would have thought (three weeks ago) that America and Russia would agree on anything.
    Who would have thought (three weeks ago) that Syria would agree to scrap its chemical weapons.
    Who would have thought (three weeks ago) that the IPCC would reduce climate sensitivity.

    The world is a different place today than it was three weeks ago. In my opinion
    A better place.

  116. clipe says:

    Former prime minister John Howard has been booked to deliver this year’s Global Warming Policy Foundation lecture in November. The title of his address: One Religion is Enough.

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/opinion/carbon-tax-on-ice-climate-science-left-to-deal-with-pause-in-proceedings/story-e6frgd0x-1226718786991

    Above article is paywalled so paste headline in Google News

    Carbon tax on ice, climate science left to deal with pause in proceedings

  117. clipe says:

    pesadia says:
    September 14, 2013 at 1:59 pm

    Who would have thought…

    All is not what it seems behind rose-coloured glasses

    http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/and-now-for-som-1.html

  118. pesadia says:

    Clipe

    Agreed but I am ever the optimist and should have included events in Australia
    to the list.

  119. Eric Simpson says:

    It’s time to dial “climate sensitivity” down to zero (0).

    What does the mismatch between rising greenhouse-gas emissions and 15+ years of not-rising temperatures mean? CO2 is not getting the “job” done. What does the near identical match between rates of temperature change in the first (low CO2) and second (higher CO2) halves of the 20th century mean? CO2 isn’t doing anything!!!! The evidence is stark and clear and a 6 year old would probably understand it better than these politically motivated activist scientists. Forget your “established physics” and unassailable theoretical model of the GHE, the empirical evidence does not support the GHE as posited. See what I mean: http://www.c3headlines.com/2013/06/ipccs-gold-standard-hadcrut-confirms-co2s-impact-on-global-temps-statistically-immaterial-insignific.html

  120. Eric Simpson says:

    My feeling, though, is we shouldn’t give these leftist activists (oh, excuse me, “scientists”) any credit. Unless they dial climate sensitivity down to zero. Because there’s no evidence that CO2 does squat. Let’s just get on with our lives, and forget this sorry episode where the leftist activists and leftist media and leftist scientific establishment have co-opted the institutions of govt and procured a huge huge level of funding in order to dupe the public into supporting their extreme leftist agenda.

  121. wayne says:

    ” Let’s hope the IPCC falls off this tight-rope and soon. ”

    A little grease (truth from the MSM) would help.

  122. AB says:

    Turkeys don’t vote for Xmas, so this walk back by the IPCC is significant.
    Lots of excellent posts in this thread.
    If no one has pointed it out I think the world owes Anthony Watts and the internet (kudos, Al Gore, LOL) a huge thank you. WUWT is definitely influencing the trend to sanity.

  123. The equilibrium climate sensitivity (TECS) is the ratio of the increase in the global equilibrium surface air temperature to the increase in the logarithm to the base 2 of the atmospheric CO2 concentration. As the equilibrium temperature is not an observable, when the IPCC claims that TECS has a particular numerical value, this claim is insusceptible to being tested. It follows that TECS is not a scientific concept.

    Also, knowledge of the change in the logarithm to the base 2 of the CO2 concentration provides a policy maker with no information about the change in the global equilibrium surface air temperature by the definition of “information.” Thus, as a concept, TECS is useless for making public policy on CO2 emissions. TECS is one of the several blunders on the part of global warming climatologists by which they have stuffed the 200 billion US$ that were entrusted to them by taxpayers for global warming research down the proverbial rat hole.

  124. Truthseeker says:

    I still think that the most pertinent analysis of the IPCC fictional physics was done here (without using any physics other than stuff everyone agrees with) …

    http://knowledgedrift.wordpress.com/2011/03/03/why-the-co2-greenhouse-gas-debate-doesnt-matter/#more-999

  125. Terry Oldberg:

    Your post on this thread at September 14, 2013 at 4:24 pm provides more of your irrational sophist nonsense which has disrupted several WUWT threads in the past.

    In hope of encouraging you to desist, I can do no better than to quote a reply to your blather which p@ Dolan provided a few hours ago on another WUWT thread; i.e. the thread at
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/11/rss-global-temperature-data-no-global-warming-at-all-for-202-months/

    I especially like his phrase “a limaceous slubberdegulion”.

    p@ Dolan says:
    September 14, 2013 at 1:53 pm

    @ Terry Oldberg says:
    September 12, 2013 at 8:17 am

    “richardscourtney (Sept. 11, 2013 at 3:02 pm):

    On Sept. 11 at 3:02 pm you state that “There is an ‘event’ (i.e. the global temperature in 1997)…” To state that the global temperature in 1997 is an example of an event is logically similar to stating that in a flip of a coin, “heads” is an example of an event. Actually, it is the flip that is an example of an event. Would you care to take another stab at the identity of the events underlying the climate models of IPCC AR4 or do you now admit that there are none?”

    You know, I was going to leave this all to Lord Brenchley and Richard, who were doing such a wonderful and entertaining job of putting you in your place. But it appears you must play the fool, and this was, for me, the last straw, and I skipped the rest of the replies to tell you so (and thus, if I am repeating what anyone else has already pointed out, please forgive my impetuousity—but this Terry Oldberg person is really annoying).

    First, you asserted,
    ” richardscourtney:
    Contrary to your claim, the global temperature in 1997 is not an example of an “event.” ”

    You are wrong. An event may be the experience of two or more events that occur in sequence or concurrently that can be subsequently categorized as an “event.” This is a well known, non-esoteric use of the term “event.”

    You then asserted, “By the way, to inaccurately smear the reputation of a professional,
    including me, is illegal under the defamation laws of both the US and the UK.”

    You are wrong again, at least as regards the United States (as an aside, what would it mean if I “accurately” smeared your reputation? For one who prates about “logic”, and likes to toss around polysyllabic, esoteric terms, the vagueness and imprecision of “inaccurately smear”—as polysemic as any world or phrase you accuse Richard of using—is breathtaking). As the Supreme Court of the United States found, in its decision in re New York Times v. Sullivan, public officials could win a suit for libel only if they could prove “actual malice” which was defined in the decision as, “knowledge that the information was false,” or that it was published “with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.”

    By the way, the truth is always an absolute defense against libel in the United States.

    “Professionals” are not given any separate standing under the law; and if they were, we have only YOUR assertion that you are a professional. At what, sir? I too am a professional. So what? The simple fact is, the law does not protect you from libel because you claim to be a “professional,” nor does it protect you from ordinary opinions which rise from the use of First Amendment rights. You must prove actual malice. Good luck with that.

    You asked of Crispin of Waterloo about the “issue” of whether the global temperature in 1997 was an event. There IS no issue. It would appear that the only issue is that you alone are not aware that the mean of all the recorded surface temperatures for 1997 qualifies as an event.

    As I told one who appears to be one of your ideological brethren, elsewhere (ie., he too appears to be a limaceous slubberdegulion), I have no rights on this blog to tell you to peddle your “logic” elsewhere—but I do wish you would.

    Richard

  126. Mike Haseler says:

    richardscourtney … agree very much with your comments.

    All I can say is the actions of those writing ARS appear to be very much lie my chickens.

    Today I let the chickens out … but this time through a smaller side door. An hour of so later I saw one of the chickens trying to get back into the pen. It could see where it wanted to go but however hard it tried it could not get through the barb wire. For about 10 minutes it walked back and forth unable to understand how it could get to the place it could see so obviously but to which it was barred. Eventually having tried all other places several times it finally walked just that bit further so that it was around the corner where the door was … and now when it tried to get into the pen, its way was not barred.

    At no time did this chicken show the slightest sign of “problem solving” … it was just shear dumb luck and random probing without any clue or insight to the problem which finally brought it to a position where the problem very much solved itself.

    Likewise I think the IPCC will constantly try to find a way to get its model to work and constantly be thwarted … and it will try more and more variations of the same theme … swinging back of forth with ever more wilder models … until it finally … by shear dumb luck, picks a new parameter to fit into the equation and which by shear dumb accident … actually has some basis in reality.

    And then, slowly, without any real understanding of how or why the new parameter seems to work … it will gradually come to dominate the models.

  127. Latitude says:

    You can always count on the weather…to ruin a perfectly good game
    ===
    Dr Norman Page says:
    September 14, 2013 at 8:12 am
    This new sensitivity estimate is merely a minimum tweak to a hopelessly faulty process.The climate models are incorrectly structured because they are based on three irrational and false assumptions.
    =====
    Norm, there’s four….
    The climate models have been tuned/backcast to past temps that have been jiggled to show more/faster warming…..

    Even if someone designed the perfect climate computer game…..they would never be right

    That is the one most important factor that will always make them fail……….

  128. Craig Moore says:

    Lanny says:
    September 14, 2013 at 12:23 am

    So basically the whole “Global warming thing” has been a tempest in a teapot.

    More like a tempest in a peepot.

  129. Alan Millar says:

    Things are getting serious now for the alarmists, they are already planning their exit strategies.

    Even Gavin at Real Climate is starting to prepare the ground for the abandonment of the models as the underlying reason to have faith in CAGW.

    Just look at this thread on there and his numerous comments. Looks like he is distancing himself from the model results.

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/09/on-mismatches-between-models-and-observations/#more-15652

    Alan

  130. RoHa says:

    @Lil Fella from OZ

    Of course they weren’t wrong. They’re scientists; they’re experts. They weren’t wrong in the past, they aren’t wrong now, and they won’t be wrong in the future. Even when they are saying something completely different from what they said in the past.

  131. Robert of Ottawa says:

    equilibrium climate sensitivity … that’s a new one.

    Message: “OK but we were within 100% error bounds and we got the direction right. Now, quake and shake in fear of Planetary Doom! (unless you keep funding us)

  132. Robert of Ottawa says:

    Lanny says @ September 14, 2013 at 12:23 am

    So basically the whole “Global warming thing” has been a tempest in a teapot.

    Yes, but a very superheated tea-pot.

  133. Steve Obeda says:

    “So basically the whole “Global warming thing” has been a tempest in a teapot.”

    — No. They’re not going to say that yet. First they have to dial it back a little bit. Then later they’ll have to dial it back a little bit more. Then they’ll incorporate “new findings” and a new general consensus will build on what should be said in the speech about how “science” works.

    “Yeah, we update models all the time. It’s part of the normal process. Sorry about trying to get everyone to decimate the global economy. Our bad. We’re cool though, right?”

  134. Robert of Ottawa says:

    Hansenkoism is put in the dustbin

    I like the term but Hansenkoism is part of the Great Leap Forward, don’t you know …

  135. Robert of Ottawa says:

    Alan Millar , in response to your post at @ September 14, 2013 at 5:44 pm

    Yes, I read his post and you are right. Suddenly he poses scientific and logical, rather than ideological, arguments.

    Yes, Gavin is preparing his exit from the bus.

  136. Chip Javert says:

    Steven Mosher says:
    September 14, 2013 at 12:32 pm
    The IPCC is offically granted membership in the lukewarmer camp
    =======================================================

    We could be approaching a time when the low-information warmist true-believer mob attacks the (supposedly) hi-information CAGW “team member” turn-coats. It’s bad news to take away an evangelical, unknowledgeable, politically active mob’s reason for existence (especially while they still have pitch-forks).

    Maybe this will make the French revolution look like a company picnic.

    Of course, not that I would actually enjoy (chuckle) this carnage (heh heh).

  137. Amber says:

    Lets see 114 of 117 climate models grossly over forcast global warming many by 200% .The IPcc

    climb down is underway and they will use whatever weasle words are needed to keep their funding ,jobs and scam going for at least 5 years then most of them will bugger off.

    Can we expect a Christmas book from the IPcc chair or maybe a nice glossy hard cover coffee table book from Big A. …This scam is over .

  138. SAMURAI says:

    So let me get this straight….

    The IPCC wishes to destroy the world economy and starve the world of energy and food at a cost of $76 trillion over the next 40 year’s (UN estimate), to keep global temps below 2C, when even their wildly pessimistic and disconfirmed projections (formally known as predictions) now suggest that climate sensitivity could be as low as 1.5C, without spending a dime.

    And so it goes….until sanity and freedom is restored….

  139. RoHa says:

    So we’re not as doomed as we should be?

  140. Chewer says:

    What are the mechanics/physical components for this downgrade in hysteria?
    Is the supposed + feedback still in cloud formation and do they use the function of nearly X3 in the feedback loop?

  141. richard verney says:

    Alan Millar says:
    September 14, 2013 at 5:44 pm
    //////////////////////////////

    Further to the point raised by Alan, Gavin when discussing the performance of models suggests that “The first thing to note is that any climate model-observation mismatch can have multiple (non-exclusive) causes which (simply put) are:
    1. The observations are in error
    2. The models are in error
    3. The comparison is flawed”

    I particularly liked the first point he makes when discusssing observational errors since his denial of the true culprit brought a wry smile.

    Gavin states: “These errors can be straight-up mistakes in transcription, instrument failure, or DATA CORRUPTION…”(my emphasis). He is then in denial regarding the most stark data corruption, namely that contained in the land based thermometer record. He mentions the satellite data and says: “These assumptions can relate to space or time interpolation, corrections for non-climate related factors, or inversions of the raw data to get the relevant climate variable. Examples of these kinds of errors being responsible for a climate model/observation discrepancy range from the omission of orbital decay effects in producing the UAH MSU data sets” and yet he does not mention the effects of UHI, poor siting isssues and station drop outs, nor the endless bastardisation of the thermometer record via endless adjustments/homogenisation (the need and correctness of which is moot to say the least) which has significantly corrupted the thermometer record.

    One reason why models perform so badly, is that they are tuned to a bastardised thermometer record. If the record was more accurate with past temperatures not cooled so much and recent temperatures not warmed so much, when tuning via hindcast, the models would have had to have used a lower climate sensitivity figure so as to reasonably accord with the past temperature record. That would have helped the model going forward and the projections would not have been as extreme.

    Gavin’s article, whilst on realclimate, a site that I do not like linking to or recommending, is worth a read.

  142. These people at IPCC have to be knocked off their high horse. That they put so much value in the language they use in their reports is insulting to me. The the language they use will have billions of taxpayer dollar paid implications is at the heart of the matter. To change a simple word costs them billions is at the heart of the insult. Screw them.

    The planet is getting colder because of the new Grand Solar minimum [trimmed], get over it. No more tax payer dollars for you.

    If I’m a conduit to celestial powers, that has been praying for no Sun spots because I want to screw over the man-made global warming carbon dioxide tax crowd, then so be it. Probably just a coincidence but I’m still praying for no sunspots to teach certain people a lesson they will never forget.

  143. Skiphil says:

    Yikes, the alarmist trolls will be going nuts over this one:

    new David Rose article

    Last night Professor Judith Curry, head of climate science at Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta, said the leaked summary showed that ‘the science is clearly not settled, and is in a state of flux’.

    She said it therefore made no sense that the IPCC was claiming that its confidence in its forecasts and conclusions has increased.

    For example, in the new report, the IPCC says it is ‘extremely likely’ – 95 per cent certain – that human influence caused more than half the temperature rises from 1951 to 2010, up from ‘very confident’ – 90 per cent certain – in 2007.

    Prof Curry said: ‘This is incomprehensible to me’ – adding that the IPCC projections are ‘overconfident’, especially given the report’s admitted areas of doubt.

  144. richard verney says:

    Eric Simpson says:
    September 14, 2013 at 3:36 pm
    //////////////////

    If one looks at the satellite record, the only long term temperature variation is a one off and isolated ENSO event not in anyway coupled to CO2. There is simply a one off step change temperature, not some broadly linear increase correlating in some way to the broadly linear increase in CO2.

    The data is only 33 years in length, but based on that data, there is no first order correlation between temperature and CO2 during its 33 year period and this suggests that then signal to CO2 (ie., Climate Sensitivity) is so low that it cannot be measured within the sensitivity, resolution and errors of our best current temperature measurements. In short, we cannot presently seperate the signal of CO2 from the noise of natural variation. This suggests that Climate Sensitivity (if indeed such a concept exists) is at this stage of the Holocene with aprroximately 360ppm of CO2 (and over) is extremely low and may well be zero. It is unmeasurably small using current best observational data.

    If there is no further warming for the next 10 or so years the case for low sensitivity will become ovewhelming.

    Given that the Chinese in Rio suggested that they would do nothing before 2020, the battle ground may lie not in 2015 but in 2020. If no warming between now and then, what will the IPCC be forced to concede with respect to Climate Sensitivity. My guess (and it is only aguess) that they will roll back to a position that it is unlikely to be above 2degC and probably within the 1 to 1.5degC range. That will probably be too high when viewed against what will then be 40 years of satellite data, but even with that claimed sensitivity AGW will have withered on the vine. Regrettably at a wasted cost of several trillions of dollars and having left much of the developed world with a deficient energy production system and handed industrial soverienty over to the developing nations. What a price to have paid for all this madness. How the politicians allowed themselves to get so divrced from reality will be the question of the day.

  145. Gareth Phillips says:

    If this is true, the IPCC run a serious risk of being labelled as deniers by the climate Taliban.

  146. Jon says:

    “You make an interesting point and you may well be right, but historians will debate such matters for years to come.”

    When I realized that people like Al Gore, Gro Harlem Bruntland and other leftists where behind or backing UNFCCC and IPCC I instantly became Sceptical

  147. richard verney says:

    Stephen Rasey says:
    September 14, 2013 at 11:44 am
    ////////////////////////////////////////

    Stephen

    I would appreciate you expanding on this.

    K&T suggest that incoming solar is 342w/m~2 of which some 77w/m~2 gets reflecting upwards by clouds and other aerosols such that it never reaches the surface ground below. A further 87w/m~2 is absorbed by the atmosphere (presumably heating the atmosphere) and it too never reaches the surface ground below.

    Accordingly of the incoming 342w/m~2 of solar energy only some 198w/m~2 makes it to ground level of which some 30w/m~2 is reflected (presumably predominantly by the oceans and ice) such that only 168w/m~2 is absorbed and goes to heat the surface of the Earth.

    Now are you saying that clouds (their underside) reflect back to Earth some of the 30w/m~2 which has been reflected from the surface and not absorbed by the surface such that the surface receives 198w/m~2 plus a component reflected from the underside of clouds (and possibly also aeroslos in the atmosphere) consisting of some part of the 30w/m~2 which had originally been reflected off the surface, or are you suggesting that an even greater quantity of energy (not DWLWIR) is reflected downwards?

    Stephen, I would appreciate you going through your figures again in relation to the K&T budget.

    Finally, do you have any views on whether some part of the DWLWIR is simply reflected and not absorbed? As you know, K&T give a figure of 342w/m~2 for DWLWIR and suggest that all of this is absorbed by the surface. However, does the surface reflect any part of this DWLWIR. Since DWLWIR is omnidirectional, much of the DWLWIR is impacting at a low grazing angle (about some 11% must be impacting the surface at an angle of 10 or less degrees), and I wonder whether water, ice, sand, or other highly reflective surfaces reflect some element of DWLWIR impacting upon them at low grazing angles without absorbing the DWLWIR.

    I know that water is a very good absorber of LWIR, so perhaps it will not reflect much LWIR even if the grazing angle is low. However, I have never seen data on the reflectivity of LWIR on different surfaces in relation to the grazing angle.

    This is material since if only 2 or 3% of DWLWIR were to be reflected and not absorbed by the surface then the entire K&T energy budget would not balance and if the budget does not balance then the entire fundamentals are thrown into doubt.

    I look forward to reading your further comments.,

  148. richard verney says:

    Further to my last post (1.07am) and the point raised by stephen regarding reflectivity off the albedo.

    Perhaps I should have mentioned two points.

    Firts, we know that the clouds and atmosphere reflect light back to Earth and this is why one can still see details in shaddow areas. If one looks at an area of ground that is in direct sunlight boardered by some land that is in shaddow and which does not receive direct sunlight, the shaded area is not wholly dark and this is because it is being illuminated by diffused sunlight which is the residue of sunlight reflected back to Earth from the underside of clouds and from the general diffusion of the atmopsphere itself. The K&T energy budget only looks at direct sunlight and does not additionally include a component received and absorbed by the ground of refected/diffused solar radiation coming down from above. We know the surface must receive this additional component, indeed, any photographer is familiar with this and before the days when cameras were fitted with automatic light sensors,photographic films gave much information on the light available in different lighting conditions and how the film would respond in various different lighting scenarios so that the photographer could make the appropriate exposure setting. So this is undeniably real,

    Second, AGW is all about small quantities of additional energy or missing heat etc. We have been discussing the effect of an additional 3.7w/m~2 per doubling of CO2. 3.7w/m~2 is approximately 10% of the the 30w/m~2 incoming solar which K&T claims that the surface reflects without absorbing. But what if the underside of clouds re- reflect back to Earth 10% of the 30w/m~2 of reflected solar?. That would be an additional 3w/m~2 received by the surface. What if just 1% of DWLWIR were to be reflected by the surface and not absorbed by the surface? That would be 3.42w/m~2 of energy not absorbed by the surface.

    So quite small errors in the K7T energy budget could have far reaching consequences. The failure to account for solar energy reflected down from the atmosphere back to the surface of the Earth (a process that we know must be happening since we witness this with our own eyes every day) and the possibility that some part of the DWLWIR is not infact absorbed but is instead simply reflected back to space without absorption at the surface could be very significant and has not, in my opinion, been adequately adderessed.

  149. Stacey says:

    Am I or have missed the point here. The premise is that man made submissions will double atmospheric carbon dioxide. Matt Ridley does say this will take hundreds of years but maybe this should be shouted out loudly.
    Is there any quantative research that shows that industrial production and energy use will increase to such levels that it will double the CO2 in the atmosphere?
    The whole theory of CAGW is built on this ridiculous premise.
    Apologies in advance if I’ve missed something?

  150. Caleb says:

    Who’s the “flat-earther” now, Mr. President?

  151. I liked this résumé from Norman Page:
    “This is like the Jehovah’s witnesses recalculating the end of the world each time a specified doomsday passes.”
    And I can’t wait to see whether there will be another for years generously funded AR6 another x years from now, eventually estimating the cooling rate, eager to see another new set of edifying schtickientific terrories as well as learn the resulting taxrates to fund such fun and redeption from the recycled cool doom they haunted man with in seventies. Thrilled to see the full circle. I bet it would be at least so amusing as the current CAGW horror that my grandgrandchildren could feel 0.x°C warmer if I don’t throw my SUV I don’t have for scrap and stop eating the cows they dangerously fart.
    For now I just wonder where they want to get the 670 GtC (an equivalent of roughly 70 years on current rates of fossil fuels consumption) which given the known carbon sinks would be needed to make the anthropogenic CO2 doubling happen. (To rather say nothing about the enhanced CO2 sequestration rates due to flora thriving on its everrising levels…under minor condition it is not under ice) -I’m really quite not sure there’s so much oil, coal and gas left in the ground, nor whether it all burned would really add the ~5.5W per square meter GHE forcing something tells me is needed for the feat of overcoming the Stefan-Boltzman law for their “extremely likely” 1°C surface temperature rise prediction come true. (To say nothing of the “likely” 1.5)
    But I must say I’m really frustrated they abandoned the auspiciously looking 6, I always enjoyed so much being entertained by the I. M. Becile type of blokes from the realm beyond lunacy. A slight consolation is they still mention the number in the still apparently deadly serious manner, it is at least LoL…although one could surely deserve at least ROFLMAO for the piles of money they get.

  152. Gail Combs says:

    marcjf says:
    September 14, 2013 at 12:27 am

    Is there any information on what is a climate optimum? Is it better in the 2000′s than the 1970′s for example? Is is better warmer or cooler than now? If so by how much? And why?
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Hostory (and Archeology) shows Warm is good Cold is bad. SEE:
    Of Time and Temperatures: http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2011/03/03/of-time-and-temperatures/

    Egyptian Dark Ages: http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2013/04/28/egyptian-dark-ages/

    Great Famine of 1315 vs The Sun: http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2012/08/17/great-famine-of-1315-vs-the-sun/

  153. Bruce Cobb says:

    It’s models all the way down, I guess.

  154. richard verney says:

    Stacey says:
    September 15, 2013 at 2:59 am
    //////////////////
    According to the story, since the industrial era, we have caused CO2 levels to rise from 280 ppm to 400ppm. That is an increase of 120ppm (approximately 40%) and the majority of that increase has occured since the beginning of the 1940s (coincidentally just when temperatures fell – which might be insightful to the claim that CO2 forces temperaturess upwards).

    We are currently adding CO2 at the annual rate of about 1.5 ppm (in the 50 years between 1960 to 2010, CO2 emissions rose by about 75ppm from just over ~320 to ~395ppm). See :http://s1136.photobucket.com/user/Bartemis/media/emissions.jpg.html?sort=3&o=6#/user/Bartemis/media/CO2GISS.jpg.html?sort=3&o=7&_suid=137924939711805379602833706999

    Accordingly, should we continue to add CO2 at that rate, it would take about 266 years (ie., 400/1.5) to double current CO2 levels from today’s level of 400ppm to 800ppm, but it would take just ~106 years from now to double CO2 levels from the pre-industrial figure of 280ppm to 560ppm (ie., [560 -400]/1.5).

    So it depends upon how you look at it. If you are looking at doubling CO2 from the pre-industrial levels to 560ppm then this may well happen in a further ~106 years. Of course even if Climate Sensitivity is say 2degC that will not result in a rise of 2 degC from today’s temperature level but rather a rise of 2 degC from pre-industrial levels. That begs the question of what were temperatures back in pre-industrial levels and how much rise have we already seen?

    Some people suggest that we have already seen a temperature rise of about 0.8degC. If that is so, then the future rise (on a climate sensitivity figure of 2degC) would be a further 1.2degC.

    However, there are problems with that claim. First the logarithmic effect of CO2. We have already raised CO2 levels by more than 40% and this should therefore represent closer to 50% (rather than 40%) of the perceived warming. Accordingly, this would suggest that Climate Sensitivity is no more than 1.6degC, and not 2 degC. Second, the 0.8degC rise in temperature anomaly is from around the mid to late 19th century, whereas pre-industrial times were somewhat earlier.

    Anyway, there is not much future warming to come since we have already experienced about half the warming associated with a doubling of CO2 from pre-industrial imes.

    If you look at it as from today, ie., one is fearful of a further 2degC warming from today’s temperatures, then this will not occur for about 266 years (at the current rate at which we are adding CO2). So any perceived problem is well into the future.

    One of the rediculous things about the scare is that however one looks at it, the scary scenario does nott unfold for 100 may be 260 years time, and no account is taken of the the extreme likelihood that we will not by then be using fosil fuels to generate energy. In 100 years time, the prospects that we will have solved the problems associated with say nuclear fusion are high. It is almost certainly the case that we will be using different means of energy production and that fosil fuel usage will naturally decline (irrespective of peak oil and/or the need to embrace green renewables) as the future unfolds just because of technological advances which will almost certainly ensue.

    Of course, one further issue is whether warming would be bad. I am repeatedly pointing out that history tells us that cold is bad and warm is good. I have repeatedly commented upon man’s aquisition of techology and the global spread of the iron age and bronze age being temperature/warm climate dependent. So personally, i wouldn’t worry if there was some warming of a few degrees. It is likely that that would be a godsend.

    PS. When I use ‘we’ I do not seek to imply that man is responsible for the rise in CO2 emissions. This rise may be natural (perhaps temperature related since it appears that temperature leads CO2, and not the other way around, or it may be due to some other natural happening, eg., a rise in ant/termite populations since ants and termites emit more CO2 than man and if their numbers are growing then one would expect global CO2 levels to rise).

    I am not endorsing either that we have already seen a rise of some 0.8degC (whilst I consider there has been a rise in temperature rom the low of the LIA, I consider that fhat the errors associated with the thermometer record are large and I would not like to say whether we have seen a rise of 0.8degC or 0.6 or 0.4degC from pre-industrial times, we just don’t know), nor that all of the temperature rise is due to CO2, rather than some, most or even all of it being the result of natural variation (I hold to the null hypothesis position that unless there is clear evidence to displace the null hypothesis, the rise in temperature is natural – although I consider it likely that there has been some rise in temperature on a local basis due to land usage changes but on a global level the effect of this is modest)

  155. richard verney says:

    For British readers, I note that Ed Davey is still sprouting his usual nonsense. He is argue that the climate can’t wait for Tory unity on green issues. I guess that he is not aware that the IPCC are rolling back on Climate Sensitivity and that accordingly matters are less urgent, and the one thing we can do is wait a bit.

    The prudent thing would be to immediately halt or green initiatives. After all the USA has been the most successful country at reducing its CO2 emissions and it did not sign up to Kyoto. The experience of the USA strongly suggests that if you are serious about reducing CO2 then the best way to achieve this is to increase dependancy on gas. The case ffor shale in the UK is overwhelming if one wishes to reduce CO2 emissions.

    However, given the pause we ca now afford to delay taking action, and insead wait and see what the next 10 years informs us. If temperatures do not increase, even more so should they fall, we will know that the case for AGW has been very much over hyped and that Climate Sensitivity is even lower than even the latest papers are suggesting such that the need to take any action is unlikely.

    Ed Davey needs to get with the latest research and needs to consider the implications of the pause, or is he just intent on increasing the number of old and vulnerable people killed each year (I would say murdered) as a result of the UK government energy policy and the needless and grossly reckless increase in energy cost pushing millions of people needlessly and avoidably into fuel poverty. When interviewed by Andrew Neil, he suggested that his policies were no regret policies. I take it that he does not regret being a party (indeed a prime mover) to the murder (I will not sanitise it with expressions of ‘collateral damage’ or ‘killing’, when it is the direct and foreseeable result of policy – it is rightly to be clasified as murder and nothing less) of thousands of people who have been forced into fuel poverty.How this man sleeps at night, I do not know.

  156. Tom J says:

    I’ve thought of a political slogan for the UN and all of this (and unnamed political actors), and in the spirit of community I’m willing to hand it out free of charge (yeah, like I’d get paid for it anyway). So here it is:

    “Rearward!”

  157. AlecMM says:

    There is no DWLWIR. That is based on misinterpreting pyrgeometers which measure temperature and output the theoretical energy flux to a sink at absolute zero. In reality ALL that potential energy is offset by the radiation field of the surface.

    The only significant surface IR is via the atmospheric window, the self-absorbed ghg bands mutually annihilating as required by Maxwell’s equations.

    This is expressed in the standard atmospheric physics qdot = – Div Fv where qdot is the monochromatic heating rate of matter per unit volume and Fv is the monochromatic radiative flux density per unit volume. This is simple conservation of energy and when integrated over all wavelengths gives the difference between the radiation fields.. The climate models are a perpetual motion machine so have zero utility.

    When will people who comment or work in climate science use correct bloody physics instead of Sagan, Houghton and Hansen’s miserable cock-up to pretend we might become another Venus!

  158. pyromancer76 says:

    Too many writers and commenters at WUWT are conceding that both the UN and the IPCC will exist for “the next round”. History suggests that when new sources of energy (the most game-changing element especially in open, intelligent societies) enabling new technological development, enhancing significantly productivity and creativity, and creating heretofore unimaginable wealth by all sorts of different measures, then new social, financial, and economic structures emerge. I might be a optimist because I am an American historian. However, the heaping up of new discoveries and developments is astonishing, including relatively inexpensive desalinization processes — water as an essential natural resource necessary for wealth creation. (How many humans live near coasts of continents?)

    Yes, things are pretty rotten now, but this current “system” beginning in the early 1970s, evolved to suck up all the wealth developed by the post-War II generation. That was the time U.S. oil supposedly “ran out”, and so did hope for creating new wealth. That was also the time of success of one of the most remarkable movements in representative democracy — the Civil Rights Movement; in the early 1970s it began to sour and it sold the American (all people’s) dream — 1) freedom, 2) equality-of-opportunity and 3) working-hard-for-one’s-family — for a pot of porridge: special rights and privileges for “victims” over the “victimizer” with everlasting payments from the government. This will not last; entrepreneurs of all colors and ethnic backgrounds who know about developing resources will not stand for it.

    Europeans seem not to understand this part; they idealize their governmental institutions and cannot revere institutions of freedom and entrepreneurialism. As we know from history, Europeans appear to have a death wish and Americans have bailed them out many times. Do notice, do remember, that the UN and its IPCC is primarily a European-like institution. Therefore, it can have little to do with science or the scientific method. I think we need to stop giving them any credibility by “assuming” they will exist in the future that they have abandoned.

    The Saudis, who had an opportunity for immense wealth development as the next big energy producer in the world after the U.S. and an opportunity to lead the Islamic world, turned to Wahhabism, a fundamentalism requiring closing down the Islamic mind and with it entrepreneurialism and freedom of opportunity. The Saudis also enabled the attacks on American wealth and freedom. (They also appear to have recommended and paid for someone’s tuition at Harvard Law School.) The Islamic part of the world is now involved in internecine battles. We should help them (individual countries or groups) only where they will be helped.

    Today, too many and their citizens that honor some measure of human freedom and inventiveness find themselves in possession of immense stores of energy resources. We, they, will not squander them. I predict (even though predictions are useless in the vast chaos of history, e.g., who predicted the end of the Soviet Union) that the UN, including their IPCC, is history, and not in the distant future, thanks to new institutions like WUWT and many others, and thanks to scientists who stand by the scientific method. It won’t be easy, but it is time to think ahead; we know there is absolutely no reason for the IPCC to exist except as a relic of the wealth-sucking institutions built beginning in the early 1970s. We are in a new era.

  159. rtj1211 says:

    ‘marcjf says:
    September 14, 2013 at 12:27 am
    Is there any information on what is a climate optimum? Is it better in the 2000′s than the 1970′s for example? Is is better warmer or cooler than now? If so by how much? And why?’

    This is a very interesting question which depends on what you define ‘better’ to mean.

    Here are a few questions which may help you to define ‘better':

    1. If farmers can adapt to changing climate by optimising their use of agricultural land, will a temperature increase or decrease increase overall global yields of the foods that are most healthy for human beings, most storable over a few seasons and most capable of being cooked/prepared efficiently?
    2. If human beings leave large areas of land for the growth of trees, jungles and other foliage, will temperatures increases increase or decrease the stability of the carbon cycle on earth??
    3. If the oceans warm, will this increase biomass in a way which increases biodiversity or decrease it?
    4. Given where human settlements are now, will temperature increases cause greater or fewer human disasters due to natural climatic events of unusual extremes?
    5. If temperature increases, will overall ability to provide cost-effective energy to humankind increase or decrease?

    NO doubt other questions could be added, but the key to note from the questions I have asked is that I assume that human kind adapts suitably to whatever comes along.

    It is a wholly different set of questions if humankind attempts to control nature rather than adapt to it, since such questions will have to include the likelihood that human control has beneficial vs detrimental effects in reality as opposed to in conception.

  160. Luther Wu says:

    The latest IPCC report will stand firmly like a seawall against the coming waves of criticism, buttressed by the key words which lie at the foundation of all IPCC reports: may, might, could, possibly, likely, probable, projected.

  161. Theresa says:

    I don’t think he’s a doctor though. He’s a journalist. Still, he might be right.

  162. John Whitman says:

    The part of the erosion of IPCC credibility that occurred on Pauchari’s watch may provide the IPCC Bureau with an IPCC saving strategy. The IPCC Bureau can say that everything is Pauchari’s fault and they will appoint a new leader under a reform banner.

    Would that work?

    Nah, the IPCC’s problems are inherent to its structure and to its founding framework.

    What could extend its life is the start of significant cooling. They would start on a scary Global Cooling exaggeration campaign.

    John

  163. Jim G says:

    Jim Steele says:
    September 14, 2013 at 10:48 am
    “All the evidence suggested increasing biological benefits. Its about time they admitted it. http://landscapesandcycles.net/less-arctic-ice-can-be-beneficial.html

    So, do you suppose the US EPA will undeclare CO2 as a pollutant? Or admit that wind power’s main contribution to ecology is as a bird and eagle blender? I think not. Since the US federal government is known for paying for litigation against itself for all of the green groups, can we not form an organization or get an existing one that will litigate for economic damages from the EPA. They are already substantial in the coal mining business, just to name one of many. Any ideas out there?

  164. John Whitman says:

    John Whitman on September 15, 2013 at 8:37 am

    [. . .]

    What could extend its life is the start of significant cooling. They would start on a scary Global Cooling exaggeration campaign.

    John

    – – – – – – – –

    Cooling or Warming?

    Remember Robert Frost’s poem ‘Fire and Ice’?

    Fire and Ice
    By Robert Frost

    Some say the world will end in fire,

    Some say in ice.

    From what I’ve tasted of desire

    I hold with those who favor fire.

    But if it had to perish twice,

    I think I know enough of hate

    To say that for destruction ice

    Is also great

    And would suffice.

    To me it looks like the Earth-Atmosphere System (EAS) is not yet well understood. Get to work on it now that the IPCC centric AGW dogma / myopia is being disenfranchised.

    John

  165. Ralph Kramden says:

    It reminds me of a weatherman predicting tomorrow’s high temperature will be between 60 and 90 degrees. The information is about as useful.

  166. Jean Meeus says:

    IPCC AR5 now says that the temperature rise is lower than the IPCC thought in 2007.
    But, but… recently Yvo de Boer said that the next U.N. climate report will “scare the wits of everyone” (WUWT, July 19, 2013).
    Idiots.

  167. Jimbo says:

    Frans Franken says:
    September 14, 2013 at 11:02 am

    Jimbo says:
    September 14, 2013 at 8:39 am
    Jimbo says:
    September 14, 2013 at 8:24 am
    How did we arrive at the 2C limit?…………

    Thanks for the Frans. My apologies for not being clearer. What I should have asked was what is the science behind concluding for a 2C limit? I think it’s in your last reference.

    …..Recent studies suggest that global warming
    transcending 1.5 – 2º C with respect to pre-industrial levels could wreak havoc on quintessential ecosystems like the Great Barrier Reef (Leemans and Eickhout 2004) and heavily reduce ecosystem services in Europe (especially in the Mediterranean, the mountain and the boreal areas; see Schröter et al. 2005). Some progress in understanding ecosystem vulnerability has been made in recent years, yet the analysis needs to advance much faster…..

    Now let’s look at the present and way back to a much warmer time.

    Abstract – Stephanie Pau et. al. – 23 May 2013
    Clouds and temperature drive dynamic changes in tropical flower production
    …..Our results show that temperature, rather than clouds, is critically important to tropical forest flower production. Warmer temperatures increased flower production over seasonal, interannual and longer timescales, contrary to recent evidence that some tropical forests are already near their temperature threshold…..
    doi:10.1038/nclimate1934

    Abstract – James L. Crowley – 12 November 2010
    Effects of Rapid Global Warming at the Paleocene-Eocene Boundary on Neotropical Vegetation
    Temperatures in tropical regions are estimated to have increased by 3° to 5°C, compared with Late Paleocene values, during the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM, 56.3 million years ago)………eastern Colombia and western Venezuela. We observed a rapid and distinct increase in plant diversity and origination rates, with a set of new taxa, mostly angiosperms, added to the existing stock of low-diversity Paleocene flora. There is no evidence for enhanced aridity in the northern Neotropics. The tropical rainforest was able to persist under elevated temperatures and high levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide,…….
    doi: 10.1126/science.1193833

    Abstract – Carlos Jaramillo et. al. – May 2013
    Global Warming and Neotropical Rainforests: A Historical Perspective
    …Our compilation of 5,998 empirical estimates of temperature over the past 120 Ma indicates that tropics have warmed as much as 7°C during both the mid-Cretaceous and the Paleogene….. The TRF did not collapse during past warmings; on the contrary, its diversity increased. The increase in temperature seems to be a major driver in promoting diversity.
    doi: 10.1146/annurev-earth-042711-105403

  168. Tom J says:

    Jean Meeus
    September 15, 2013 at 9:46 am
    says:

    ‘IPCC AR5 now says that the temperature rise is lower than the IPCC thought in 2007.
    But, but… recently Yvo de Boer said that the next U.N. climate report will “scare the wits of everyone” (WUWT, July 19, 2013).
    Idiots.’

    Maybe what de Boer really meant was that the report would “scare the wits” out of all the climate scientists working for the UN since it meant that, assuming they can, they’ll all have to get new jobs; and this time be judged on whether they can provide a valuable service. I’d be terrified too.

  169. Stephen Richards says:

    Don’t get excited by this. They haven’t written those statements without a backup clause. They are no gone yet. AR6 will begin shortly.

  170. Stephen Richards says:

    Ralph Kramden says:

    September 15, 2013 at 9:19 am

    It reminds me of a weatherman predicting tomorrow’s high temperature will be between 60 and 90 degrees. The information is about as useful.

    That is exactly what the UK met off does. Look at their 5 days ahead forecast on the BBC site.

  171. Jimbo says:

    Jean Meeus says:
    September 15, 2013 at 9:46 am

    IPCC AR5 now says that the temperature rise is lower than the IPCC thought in 2007.
    But, but… recently Yvo de Boer said that the next U.N. climate report will “scare the wits of everyone”

    LOL. Thanks for the reminder. So it’s going to be more scary than 2007 while not really being scary at all. I’m shaking in my boots already.

    July 20th 2013
    “THAT report is going to scare the wits out of everyone,” said Yvo de Boer recently. He is a former United Nations chief climate negotiator and was talking about the forthcoming fifth assessment by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). With two months to go before the assessment is to be published, however, one sign suggests it might be less terrifying than it could have been.
    http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21581979-peek-inside-next-ipcc-assessment-sensitive-information

  172. jeremyp99 says:

    pesadia says:
    September 14, 2013 at 1:59 pm

    The world is a different place today than it was three weeks ago. In my opinion
    A better place.
    ==================================================================

    5000 dead in Iraq last month from sectarian violence.

    Not for everybody, pesedia. Nor will it be for Syrians until the Jihadis are exterminated – even then, the likelihood is that it will never be the tolerant society it was only three years back. The world can not be a better place until the problem if Islamic fundamentalism is dealt with; the West should start by stopping its policy of appeasement. We all know how that one works out.

    Sorry OT, but whilst I wish pesedia was right, he facts suggest otherwise. The Middle East is convulsed, and there is no sign of an end to this.

  173. jeremyp99 says:

    Error

    “More than 5,000 people have been killed so far this year in Iraq, 800 of them in August alone, according to the United Nations.”

    Still appalling figures, still ongoing.

  174. M Courtney says:

    May I enter into the debate, a new player?
    Environmental Journalists.

    Almost no-one will notice what the IPCC says or does. But they will note a news story in the mainstream media. And the “news” will be spun by the Environmental Journalists.

    If AGW is not disastrous, or at least the cause of disasters, then Environmental Journalists are not going to get to publish stories. Then their relevance becomes less. Their credibility is lost. And it isn’t as though the media can carry lots of freeloaders at the moment.

    Environmental Journalists amplify alarmism and then feed it back to the politicians and thus boost funding for research that provides alarmism that they then amplify…

    My point is that the IPCC is irrelevant unless their change in position is hammered home to news editors –bypassing their usual gatekeepers.
    The Environmental Journalists.

  175. @richard verney 1:07am
    Thanks for the interest in my 9/14 11:44 am on “Two Sides of the Albedo.” My comment was to draw out AlecMM at 1:14am on what might be a shared concern, that the 33 deg K warming from GHGs is overestimated because they treat the Albedo as a one-way mirror.

    I will summarize and link back to expanded comments. The Kiehl-Trenberth diagram (K7T) starts off with the “divide by 4″ average insolation. This simplification establishes spherical symmetry which leads to a dead planet [2], iso-thermal atmosphere, without lapse rates, without thermals, without weather. Already the KT diagram has some problems with consistency.

    A big one was that they reflect 77 W/m2 (or 99 W/m2 if 30% albedo is used) off the top of cloud albedo. But nothing reflects off the bottom! Instead K7T have reflections off the bottom of albedo layer mixed up with the Back Radiation from GHG’s. This is at best sloppy bookkeeping. It is via this one-way mirror albedo bookkeeping that KT can reduce the ground energy to 240 W/m^2 and a temperature of 255 deg K before the effects of GHG. K7T’s albedo is a Maxwell’s Demon – physical impossibility.

    Some of the Surface Radiation must be reflected off the bottom of the Albedo layer even if there are no GHG’s. That results in a leaky trapped wave guide between the surface and the bottom of the albedo. When you do the algebra of the reverberations [1], than the total energy received at the surface by insolation without GHG’s is S * (1-A)/(1-a)
    Where S = the solar insolation (340 W/m2 in the KT average case)
    A = Albedo of the top (30% is commonly used)
    a = Albedo of the bottom of the albedo layer. (what value?)
    in K7T diagram, a = 0. They ignore it and move any effect into the GHG column.
    In reality “a” will be equal to A, otherwise you create a Maxwell’s Demon. If “a” is not equal to “A”, then a temperature differential across an albedo layer is possible and a backpacker’s liquid oxygen generator [1] is possible if “a” is small.

    The discussion with Tim Folkerts from Feb 7, 2012 to Feb. 14. established that spectrum conversion can make “A” not equal to “a”. If “a” is greater than “A”, you can get an oven.

    If “a” is less than “A”, you can make a refrigerator out of a cardboard box if you wrap it with the right albedo material. I cannot accept that. If A=99% and a=0, then you could make liquid oxygen in that cardboard box.

    But if “a” = “A”, then 340 W/m2 is received at the earth surface without GHG giving 278 deg K, not 255 deg. K. That means GHGs raise temperatures only from 278 deg K to 288 deg K.

    References: (I nominate all for a Watts’ Best Collection).
    [1] Brown, R.G.; Earth’s baseline black-body model – “a damn hard problem”, Jan 12, 2012, with 446 Responses.

    [2] Brown, R.G.; Refutation of Stable Thermal Equilibrium Lapse Rates, Jan. 24, 2012. with 1011 Responses.

    [3] Brown, R.G.; What we don’t know about Earth’s energy flow, Jan 6, 2012, 236 Responses.

    [4] Eschenbach, W; Perpetuum Mobile, Jan 19, 2012, 911 Responses.

  176. Amber says:

    If you were a legit scientist would you now lend your name to the IPCC train wreck? The political class will come and go along with their tax and spend habit but the real scientists are in it for the long haul . Their work is now on the net and will follow them not with just their peer group . Most know this grossly exaggerated scam has run its course.

  177. jorgekafkazar says:

    Obama and his unelected minions will press on with their destructive policies anyway. “Foolks,” he’ll say, “The IPCC has just spoken ag’in, an’ its message is loud and clear. The Earth’s weather is a-changin’. We’ve just had the hottest decade in millions of years. This is the Fifth IPCC Assessment report, AR5, and it says rah-cheer [looks at teleprompter, looks at his hands, sees a book in one of them, holds it up and brandishes it as if it were the Koran] that things haven’t gotten any better since AR1. The time is act is now, not 30 years from now when the climate gets worse. So I’m orderin’ the EPA to shut down all coal-fired electric plants over the next ten years. Screw that Congress thing; I’ve got the Supremes in my pocket.”

  178. ut8t5 says:

    “I was standing on a white house toilet, smoking a joint next to the window, and I fell and hit my head on the sink. And that’s when I came up with the idea for the flux capacitor.. which is what makes global warming fraud possible.” – Al Gore, Back In the Money, Part 1.

  179. TomR,Worc,MA says:

    Baronstone says:
    September 14, 2013 at 5:05 am
    What I find amazing is that there is any doubt that the planet is warming. You guys are saying that this proves that global warming is a hoax, but this report doesn’t come to that conclusion! In fact it doesn’t come anywhere close to saying that. What it says is that the warming isn’t as severe as was originally predicted. Now that’s nowhere near them saying, “The whole thing was a lie!”

    =============================================

    This is as close to saying exactly that that these people will ever get to.

    Mate, the CAGW ship is sinking and you need to find a liferaft ……. FAST.

  180. J Martin says:

    pyromancer76 said “Europeans appear to have a death wish” As a UK and European citizen I agree with you to some extent, and with up to 25% of German heavy power use industry considering leaving the country and some having already left the signs are there. Not to mention the UK fools of parliament who think they can legislate anything and it will happen, the example in question being an 80% switch to renewables via the building of immense numbers of bird slicers which are known to use more energy to build and maintain than they generate within their limited lifespans.

    But I draw no comfort from observing the size of the US national debt combined with the fact that 49% of the US population now gets some sort of state handout. Before long a majority of the US population will be able to vote itself unlimited sate handouts. This can no doubt be propped up for some time by fracking beyond all previous historical cases where a country imploded or collapsed.

    Fracking and cheap energy will buy the US time to sort itself out and prevent the biggest ever societal and economic crash in Earth’s history. The question is …

    The lunatics in charge of the German Bundes Asylum and the UK House of Gullible Fools are beginning to show signs of moments of lucidity, possibly even glimmers of sanity, so clearly someone is trialling a new form of medication which seems to be showing some promise. Europe may yet come to its senses.

  181. A couple of other WUWT posts I found worth mentioning on Climate Sensitivity.
    Monckton; Monckton on Sensitivity Training at Durban, Dec. 5, 2011, 119 Responses. Tagged: Climate Sensitivity (many)

    More skepticism on the 33 deg K warming GHG contribution:
    Corey, R.; A controversial look at Blackbody radiation and Earth minus GHG’s, Dec. 26, 2011, 239 Responses, Tagged: Black Body (4)

  182. J Martin says:

    I forgot to mention the name of the new medication which is thought to be The Farage.

  183. J Martin says:

    Richard Verney says “How the politicians allowed themselves to get so divorced from reality will be the question of the day.”

    Yep. But unfortunately no World War style tribunals with similar powers. Nowadays we hand out lots of money to kick them into retirement and big pensions instead of jailing them. I would like to see all those who voted for the insane climate change act tried in a court of law with a life jail sentence as an option for sentencing.

    The UK politicians simply read the front pages of the newspapers and voted accordingly. Only 5 of them voted against, the ones that voted for were totally irresponsible and obviously made no effort to double check what was on the front pages of those newspapers. Reckless irresponsibility.

  184. Jimmy Haigh says:

    So. After a generation of “climate scientists” have pissed billions of dollars against the wall, they are slowly coming to the conclusion that those of us, who have any common sense at all knew 25 years ago, that CAGW ia a total crock.

  185. JMurphy says:

    Is this the final final nail in the coffin of the global warming ‘scam'; the beginning of the end of the great global warming ‘conspiracy'; the end of the beginning of the good fight against the black helicopters, or just another normal day in WUWT-land?

  186. Margaret Smith says:

    The Mail on Sunday continues it’s series of double page spreads under the general heading’THE GREAT GREEN CON’ this Sunday.
    In it David Rose is scathing about the new IPCC report. The MoS reports that on the Guardian website nasty posts had to be removed but one left in suggests Rose’s children murder him! He thinks self-defence will,in a few years, be a defence for killing their father. These people must be very afraid.

  187. pat says:

    more UN “figures”. if govts implement a “don’t waste food” program, we could call the whole CAGW thing off & save a fortune! LOL.

    A third of food is wasted, making it third-biggest carbon emitter, UN says
    ROME, Sept 11 (Reuters) – The food the world wastes accounts for more greenhouse gas emissions than any country except for China and the United States, the United Nations said in a report on Wednesday…
    http://www.pointcarbon.com/news/reutersnews/1.2564792

  188. Gail Combs says:

    richardscourtney says:
    September 14, 2013 at 2:33 am

    Friends:

    The AGW-scare was killed at the failed 2009 IPCC Conference in Copenhagen. I then wrote on WUWT and elsewhere

    The AGW-scare is dead but it will continue to move as though alive in similar manner to a beheaded chicken running around a farmyard. It continues to provide the movements of life but it is already dead. And its deathly movements provide an especial problem…..

    Bureaucracies are difficult to eradicate and impossible to nullify.

    As the AGW-scare fades away those in ‘prime positions’ will attempt to establish rules and bureaucracies to impose those rules which provide immortality to their objectives. Guarding against those attempts now needs to be a serious activity.

    I stand by everything I wrote in late 2009, and I consider the need to guard against “rules and bureaucracies” to be growing in importance……
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    In this we again agree. Diverting wealth and strangling wealth creation via idiotic red tape and ever expanding bureaucracies is what kills civilizations. Most exist for about 200 to 250 years. It seems we are not the only ones who notice this problem.

    ART CASHIN: If America Is Anything Like History’s Great Civilizations, Then This Is The Beginning Of The End Mar. 20, 2013,
    In an interview with Charlie Rose last week, GMO’s Jeremy Grantham reminded us that civilizations have historically collapsed after around 250 years.

    Now, UBS’s Art Cashin is talking about the same thing.

    “Martin Armstrong has just issued a 46 page report titled ‘The 224 Cycle of Political Change. Is 1789 – 2013 Really Here?'” …..
    According to many internet sources, Tytler is reputed to have published this stunning quote in a book called “The Decline and Fall of the Athenian Republic” (ironically said to have been published in 1776 when something interesting was happening across the pond).

    “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising them the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over a loss of fiscal responsibility, always followed by a dictatorship. The average of the world’s great civilizations before they decline has been 200 years. These nations have progressed in this sequence: From bondage to spiritual faith; from spiritual faith to great courage; from courage to liberty; from liberty to abundance; from abundance to selfishness; from selfishness to complacency; from complacency to apathy; from apathy to dependency; from dependency back again to bondage.”

    … There is, however, no sign or evidence of the alleged book nor of the quote. Some feel it was manufactured…. It does feel disturbing prophetic however.

    We should be smart enough by now to study history and learn from it.

  189. bwdave says:

    The ‘cratz are counting on people to believe they are honestly correcting their own errors. This fosters trust. Meanwhile, they are heading ‘forward’ with regulations that enable their forceful control of virtually everything anybody ever does.

    Imagine EPA as more of a door to door TSA.

  190. Gail Combs says:

    Baronstone says: @ September 14, 2013 at 5:05 am

    What I find amazing is that there is any doubt that the planet is warming. You guys are saying that this proves that global warming is a hoax…..
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    You are not looking at the LONG view. The earth is cooling down from the Holocene optimum.
    NH Summer Energy: The Leading Indicator (See graph)

    ….That the NH has been cooling for the past 6,000 years has found new supporting evidence in a recent article (Jakobsson, 2010) that states in the abstract:

    “The combined sea ice data suggest that the seasonal Arctic sea ice cover was strongly reduced during most of the early Holocene and there appear to have been periods of ice free summers in the central Arctic Ocean.“

    Older evidence:

    Temperature and precipitation history of the Arctic

    ….Solar energy reached a summer maximum (9% higher than at present) ca 11 ka ago and has been decreasing since then, primarily in response to the precession of the equinoxes. The extra energy elevated early Holocene summer temperatures throughout the Arctic 1-3° C above 20th century averages, enough to completely melt many small glaciers throughout the Arctic, although the Greenland Ice Sheet was only slightly smaller than at present… As summer solar energy decreased in the second half of the Holocene, glaciers reestablished or advanced, sea ice expanded, and the flow of warm Atlantic water into the Arctic Ocean diminished. Late Holocene cooling reached its nadir during the Little Ice Age (about 1250-1850 AD), when sun-blocking volcanic eruptions and perhaps other causes added to the orbital cooling, allowing most Arctic glaciers to reach their maximum Holocene extent….

    The real question is how close is the earth to the minimum NH Summer Energy need to kick it into the next glaciation. So far that answer is elusive.

    Recent research has focused on MIS 11 as a possible analog for the present interglacial [e.g., Loutre and Berger, 2003; EPICA community members, 2004] because both occur during times of low eccentricity. The LR04 age model establishes that MIS 11 spans two precession cycles, with 18O values below 3.6o/oo for 20 kyr, from 398-418 ka. In comparison, stages 9 and 5 remained below 3.6o/oo for 13 and 12 kyr, respectively, and the Holocene interglacial has lasted 11 kyr so far. In the LR04 age model, the average LSR of 29 sites is the same from 398-418 ka as from 250-650 ka; consequently, stage 11 is unlikely to be artificially stretched. However, the June 21 insolation minimum at 65N during MIS 11 is only 489 W/m2, much less pronounced than the present minimum of 474 W/m2. In addition, current insolation values are not predicted to return to the high values of late MIS 11 for another 65 kyr. We propose that this effectively precludes a ‘double precession-cycle’ interglacial [e.g., Raymo, 1997] in the Holocene without human influence.” Lisiecki and Raymo, 2005 – http://large.stanford.edu/publications/coal/references/docs/Lisiecki_Raymo_2005_Pal.pdf

    >b>Determining the natural length of the current interglacial
    http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n2/full/ngeo1358.html?WT.ec_id=NGEO-201202
    ….. The glacial inception during Marine Isotope sub-Stage 19c, a close analogue for the present interglacial, occurred near the summer insolation minimum, suggesting that the interglacial was not prolonged by subdued radiative forcing7. Assuming that ice growth mainly responds to insolation and CO2 forcing, this analogy suggests that the end of the current interglacial would occur within the next 1500 years, if atmospheric CO2 concentrations did not exceed 240±5 ppmv.

    Lesson from the past: present insolation minimum holds potential for glacial inception (2007)
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379107002715

    ….Because the intensities of the 397 ka BP and present insolation minima are very similar, we conclude that under natural boundary conditions the present insolation minimum holds the potential to terminate the Holocene interglacial. Our findings support the Ruddiman hypothesis [Ruddiman, W., 2003. The Anthropogenic Greenhouse Era began thousands of years ago. Climate Change 61, 261–293], which proposes that early anthropogenic greenhouse gas emission prevented the inception of a glacial that would otherwise already have started….

    And as if all that ice is not bad enough Carbon starvation in glacial trees recovered from the La Brea tar pits, southern California “….we found evidence that C3 primary productivity was greatly diminished in southern California during the last glacial period.”

    Sure sounds like a darn good reason to produce as much CO2 as possible. (The trees will thank you.)

  191. Bob says:

    It is interesting that most people on WUWT think that the end of the IPCC is nigh, or within a couple of years. I don’t think so. The things we read are not published in the main stream press, like the NYT, Washington Post, etc. The big networks are not picking up on the story, and that includes Fox. No word from them of which I am aware.

    We all comes to this gigantic echo-box of WUWT, and indulge in our own group think sessions with these AR5 leaks. In my opinion all this will not do the IPCC any harm, but it won’t help them, either. They will simply re-tool their message as they have done before, and we still have to be prepared to combat whatever their new marketing message. Fenton Communications or other left-wing communications outfit will continue to collect money on this job.

    I am not trying to be a defeatist, just realistic. It ain’t over ’til its over.

  192. Chris Riley says:

    Richard Verney says:
    “One reason why models perform so badly, is that they are tuned to a bastardised thermometer record.”

    These people essentially “borrowed” credibility from the social institution called (Science) in order to drive a marketing campaign for the benefit of another social institution (Social Engineering).
    Science need to get its credibility back (with interest). The only way this can happen is if Science purges its institutions of Social Engineers and those involved in approving the “loan”.

  193. goldminor says:

    Jon says:
    September 14, 2013 at 2:25 am

    The art of diplomacy is to say nice doggy until you find a stick that is big enough. They are just trying to wait it out hoping for the next El Niño?
    —————————————————
    Your comment made me wonder if there can be a Grand La Nina, the counterpart to the Grand El Nino of 1998?

  194. markx says:

    Subtleties of changes summarized

    AR4 published in 2007 stated that the planet was warming at a rate of 0.2C every decade.
    AR4 said there is 90% confidence that AG emissions are responsible for most of the recent warming.

    AR5 (leaked) says the true figure since 1951 has been only 0.12C per decade – a rate far below even the lowest computer prediction.
    AR5 says there is 95% confidence that AG emissions are responsible for more than half of recent warming.

    (from a commentator on another site – apologies for not noting details)

  195. Jean Meeus says:

    Mark says:
    September 15, 2013 at 10:51 pm
    ———————-
    Perhaps AR6 will say there is 99% confidence that AG emissions are responsible for 10% of recent warming?

  196. Julian in Wales says:

    Daily Mail have a copy of the leaked report and gone in hard on the IPCC calling for it to be disbanded: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2420783/Global-warming-just-HALF-said-Worlds-climate-scientists-admit-computers-got-effects-greenhouse-gases-wrong.html?ico=home^editors_choice

    Sorry have not read the 200 plus comments. Quite likely it has been mentioned in this thread already.

  197. JMurphy:

    I read your comment. Please tell nurse that you have forgotten to take your meds.

    Richard

  198. markx says:

    nevket240 says: September 16, 2013 at 12:45 am

    http://www.radioaustralia.net.au/international/radio/program/pacific-beat/scientists-criticise-reporting-of-ipcc-leak/1191262
    Straight from the mouth of Johnny Cook himself.

    Well, this (below) is Johnny Cook in response to the interviewer’s question:
    POPE: Take us through the main point of the article. It says that the IPCC’s 2007 Assessment Report claimed that the planet was warming by 0.2 °C every ten years and that this leaked update says that it’s only 0.12 °C, which is a reasonable difference. Are those figures accurate?

    COOK: I find that actually quite extraordinary that they say that. I went straight to the 2007 report this morning to have a look at what the IPCC actually said and they say that the warming trend over the last 50 years was 0.13 °C per decade, which is almost exactly the same as the accurate value that the Australian is talking about. So they just seem to have made up this 0.2 °C per decade number.

    Below From Barry Woods | September 15, 2013 at 10:32 am (Climate etc)
    pg 12 SPM AR4

    Projections of Future Changes in Climate
    “For the next two decades, a warming of about 0.2°C per decade is projected for a range of SRES
    emission scenarios. Even if the concentrations of all greenhouse gases and aerosols had been kept constant at year 2000 levels, a further warming of about 0.1°C per decade would be expected. {10.3,10.7}

    • Since IPCC’s first report in 1990, assessed projections have suggested global average temperature increases between about 0.15°C and 0.3°C per decade for 1990 to 2005. This can now be compared with observed values of about 0.2°C per decade, strengthening confidence in near-term projections. {1.2, 3.2}”

    http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf

  199. cd says:

    Matt

    I wouldn’t get too excited by this admission by the IPCC. Personally, it looks like more obfuscation and ambiguity in order to downplay the lack of success. If they have pdf of model outputs from which they’re deriving their likelihoods, then they’ll also have a most likely, if not most probable, outcome.

  200. tobyglyn says:

    Probably already been linked to but the SMH has an article denying any dial back:

    “Australian scientists have rejected claims a multi-national climate change body is set to revise down its previous warnings about the rate of global warming.

    The United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is preparing to hand down the first part of a major report on the updated science of global warming in Stockholm next week.

    But a series of apparent leaks has sparked media speculation the IPCC’s highly-anticipated assessment could contain an admission it overstated rising temperatures.

    It’s a claim that’s rattled Australian scientists, who say such a finding is hard to believe given it contradicts decades of data and the draft version of the report hasn’t even been finalised yet.
    Advertisement

    In particular, they’re furious at suggestions the IPCC will admit it got its numbers wrong and that over the past 60 years the world has been warming at half the rate stated in its previous 2007 report.

    “That is complete fiction,” Professor David Karoly, a review editor of the IPCC report at the University of Melbourne, told AAP on Monday.

    He said the observed global average warming of surface air temperature over the last 60 years was 0.12 degrees per decade – almost identical to the 0.13 value reported in the IPCC report of 2007.

    That assessment was backed by Dr John Cook from the University of Queensland, who warned such statements misrepresented the findings of the IPCC.”

    http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/scientists-slam-claims-of-cooler-climate-20130916-2tv7w.html

  201. tobyglyn:

    Your post at September 16, 2013 at 3:56 am quotes a falsehood reported by “SMH” to have been provided by David Karoly and also by John Cook.

    The truth of the matter is stated – with quotations from the 2007 IPCC Report (AR4) – by markx at September 16, 2013 at 2:08 am. This is a link to his post
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/14/breaking-ipcc-ar5-report-to-dial-back-climate-sensitivity/#comment-1418340

    In addition to the quotes from the Summary For Policy Makers (SPM) provided by markx, the body of the AR4 Scientific Report says

    The multi-model average warming for all radiative forcing agents held constant at year 2000 (reported earlier for several of the models by Meehl et al., 2005c), is about 0.6°C for the period 2090 to 2099 relative to the 1980 to 1999 reference period. This is roughly the magnitude of warming simulated in the 20th century. Applying the same uncertainty assessment as for the SRES scenarios in Fig. 10.29 (–40 to +60%), the likely uncertainty range is 0.3°C to 0.9°C. Hansen et al. (2005a) calculate the current energy imbalance of the Earth to be 0.85 W m–2, implying that the unrealised global warming is about 0.6°C without any further increase in radiative forcing. The committed warming trend values show a rate of warming averaged over the first two decades of the 21st century of about 0.1°C per decade, due mainly to the slow response of the oceans. About twice as much warming (0.2°C per decade) would be expected if emissions are within the range of the SRES scenarios.

    In other words, it was expected that global temperature would rise at an average rate of “0.2°C per decade” over the first two decades of this century with half of this rise being due to atmospheric GHG emissions which were already in the system. And the emissions have been as expected but there has been no discernible rise in global temperature since 2000.

    I suggest that Australian readers of this thread may care to write to the “SMH” to provide rebuttal of the falsehood it has reported from David Karoly and from John Cook.

    Richard

  202. tobyglyn:

    In my post addressed to you at September 16, 2013 at 4:10 am I failed to provide a precise reference to the quotation I provided.

    I apologise for that oversight and write to correct it.

    The quotation is from IPCC AR4 WG1 (2007) Chapter 10.7 which can be read at
    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch10s10-7.html

    Richard

  203. tobyglyn says:

    Thank you Richard

  204. pesadia says:

    jeremyp99
    Hi
    It was not my intention to suggest that the world was in a good place.
    Only that it was relatively better.
    Like you I am appalled by the state of the world at the moment which
    is why I look for crumbs of comfort like those I listed.

  205. richard verney says:

    J Martin says:
    September 15, 2013 at 1:44 pm
    /////////////////////////////

    The Climate Change Act is the second most expensive piece of peace time legislation (after the setting up of the welfare state) and yet only a few MPs could be troubled to debate and scrutinise the Act and its impications. If ever there was a case for gross deriliction of public office/public duty, surely this must be it. Quite an extraordinary state of affairs, but then given the system of government majority, do ordinary MPs have any substantial role to play in the democratic system. perhaps the Syria vote suggests that they might, but that is a far too rare example.

    Can you imagine a private company embarking on the second mosts expensive piece of capital expenditure in its history without a very thorough and extensive board review, and possibly even an extraordinary general meeting so input could be had from the shareholders and investors. yet MPs sign us up to this without even a cursory scrutiny of the Act and its implications on energy, and the quality of life of its citizens.

  206. Latitude says:

    they say that the warming trend over the last 50 years was 0.13 °C per decade,
    ====
    so, 100% of their prediction….is from jiggling the temp history…..so show faster warming and make it look scarier

    to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change

  207. Harpo says:

    What a con job…. Cook and Karoly switch to observed temperature when the discussion is about predicted temperature…. That’s what they are paid to do… perpetuate the con… “Scientists” like Cook & Karoly are a cancer in the Australian scientific community…. Fairfax Media is the host. Thankfully the cancer is killing the host.

  208. Ryan Stephenson says:

    At the very least it seems to me that any climate change that is occuring due to increased CO2 is so slow and at such safe levels that we can sit back and take some proper measurements over the next 30 years or so before working out if we really need to do anything about it. And if we do find we need to do something about it, we will have a further 30 years or so in which to set about doing it.

    So can we please now go back to “business as usual”, close down the IPCC, thanks to all concerned, yoiu’ve all set our minds at rest but please keep an eye on those thermometers and let us know if anything changes.

  209. Beta Blocker says:

    Bob says: September 15, 2013 at 6:08 pm …. It is interesting that most people on WUWT think that the end of the IPCC is nigh, or within a couple of years. I don’t think so. The things we read are not published in the main stream press, like the NYT, Washington Post, etc. The big networks are not picking up on the story, and that includes Fox. No word from them of which I am aware.

    A thirty to fifty year trend of statistically significant cooling occurring in the face of continuously rising CO2 emissions will be needed before the Climate Science Industrial Complex admits that something might be wrong with their basic CO2-controls-climate narrative.

    In the meantime, with assistance from the mainstream media, the climate science community will hang tough in finding ever new and creative ways to explain away the lack of warming.

    Millions of people make their living from government-funded anti-CO2 careers, and they are not going to give up their livelihoods just because someone on the Internet has demonstrated conclusively that the climate models are not making accurate predictions.

  210. Rob Potter says:

    The National Post Online have this story as their headline article at the moment. Yes, I know the NP has not been a died-in-the-wool alarmist paper for a while with Lawrence Solomon and Terence Corcoran writing for them, but to have the lead story is a bit of a coup:

    http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/09/15/climate-agency-accused-of-cooling-on-global-warming-as-new-report-lowers-predicted-temperature-increase/

    This is probably follow up to the reports over the weekend rather than original reporting, but it doesn’t do any harm at all to have that headline on your desktop.

  211. george e. smith says:

    Well while they are “dialing back” their estimate of “Climate Sensitivity”, that legacy of presumably the late Dr Stephen Schneider, they might also consider the claim that:-

    ” The mathematical relationship between mean global surface or lower troposphere Temperature; and the atmospheric CO2 abundance, is a logarithmic one. ”

    That might possibly be true; based on the actual real measured Temperature data round the world for the last 150 years; but the belief has one serious flaw in it.

    The experimental data seems to say the logarithmic relationship, is equally good either way round.

    That is; it doesn’t matter whether you take the log of the Temperature, or the log of the CO2. Or you could take the log of both as well, or the log of neither one.

    Well the data can be fit to the form:- y = exp (-1/x^2) about as well as any other equation..

    And from a modeling theoretical point of view; the Beer-Lambert Law, that seems to be the theoretical foundation for the logarithmic claim, is a law of ABSORPTION OF RADIATION as a function of material thickness, or absorbing species concentration.

    Unfortunately it IS NOT a law of TRANSMISSION OF EM RADIATION ENERGY.

    Beer’s law assumes that absorbed radiant energy stays dead, instead of being transmitted under new ownership.

  212. MarkW says:

    Greg says:
    September 14, 2013 at 9:27 am

    Until the recent recession, CO2 output was actually above the “business as usual” scenario.

  213. Bruce Cobb says:

    So essentially, it’s “dialing for dollars”, since ultimately that’s what CAGW is about.

  214. Maybe this AR5 chapter 11 “Near-term Climate Change can be of use here. To me it very much looks like they predict 0.4 – 1C warming 2016-35 (page 11-4 line 22) which looks to me rater stunning range after their last 0.2/decade didn’t fulfilled itself at all.

  215. SkepticGoneWild says:

    So does anyone have a link to this “leaked” Summary for Policymakers? Or did I miss it.

  216. dscott says:

    I was reading elsewhere that the report was using 1951 as the benchmark date for the warming trend? Is this just a new date they conjured up to show at least some warming of 0.12 C per decade? What was the date/year they were using before?

  217. THE ipcc IS STILL WORTHLESS.

    Global temperatures will be in a down trend as this decade proceeds.

  218. Ian W says:

    richardscourtney says:
    September 14, 2013 at 2:33 am
    Friends:
    The AGW-scare was killed at the failed 2009 IPCC Conference in Copenhagen. I then wrote on WUWT and elsewhere
    The AGW-scare is dead but it will continue to move as though alive in similar manner to a beheaded chicken running around a farmyard. It continues to provide the movements of life but it is already dead. And its deathly movements provide an especial problem.
    Nobody will declare the AGW-scare dead: it will slowly fade away. This is similar to the ‘acid rain’ scare of the 1980s. Few remember that scare unless reminded of it but its effects still have effects; e.g. the Large Combustion Plant Directive (LCPD) exists. Importantly, the bureaucracy which the EU established to operate the LCPD still exists. And those bureaucrats justify their jobs by imposing ever more stringent, always more pointless, and extremely expensive emission limits which are causing enforced closure of UK power stations.
    Bureaucracies are difficult to eradicate and impossible to nullify.
    As the AGW-scare fades away those in ‘prime positions’ will attempt to establish rules and bureaucracies to impose those rules which provide immortality to their objectives. Guarding against those attempts now needs to be a serious activity.

    I stand by everything I wrote in late 2009, and I consider the need to guard against “rules and bureaucracies” to be growing in importance.
    The reduction to asserted climate sensitivity is part of the ‘fading away’ of the AGW-scare.
    As the scare fades those who want the “rules and bureaucracies” can see they are running out of time to obtain their desires so they can be expected to increase their pressure to get what they want.
    Richard

    Absolutely correct. This is now a political movement hurrying to put in place irrevocable rules and regulations that will cripple industries and push many more individuals into energy poverty. They will proceed as if the science is completely settled. As I have said before this is the raison d’etre of the EPA now the EPA will not cease their activities to limit CO2 emissions even if the IPCC completely folds now. The same goes for the European Commission where similar anti- industry bureaucrats are enforcing regulations to close down functioning modern power generation based on the same non-science. They are also still pushing the entire world airlines, through the UN International Civil Aviation Organization to come to an agreement on carbon credits; despite the AGW ‘science’ being discredited. They know that once these bureaucratic regulations and taxes are in place they are in a ‘job for life’.
    It will take political upheavals in the US and Europe equivalent to those in Australia to reverse this bureaucratic vandalism. Unfortunately, almost all politicians in the US and EU have their snouts firmly in the AGW trough and are pushing just as hard to put their money laundering schemes in place before the population gets too restive. Only one thing will prevent these schemes becoming permanent and that is the climate cooling that is happening despite the spin and the fiddling of figures. Yet even there, the UK politicians did not even raise a question when the numbers dying of cold in fuel poverty went up by more than 5000 a month last winter – their wallets will have priority until the people start getting really angry. I am concerned that some may even want that anger so it can also be used for the imposition of even more regulation.

  219. MrX says:

    I went on a liberal forum and they 100% absolutely deny that there’s been no warming in the past 17 years. I was amazed. There’s a whole host of issues that are WAY past defending and they’re still at it. They’re now at the stage where they’re just making stuff up to validate their world view.

  220. cba says:


    Bill Illis says:
    September 14, 2013 at 8:53 am
    For those interested in water vapor feedback numbers, here is the latest data up to August 2013.

    The IPCC climate models are over-estimating water vapor by quite a bit so far. They have it an increase of 6.0% right now (and 22% by 2100) while last month, it was just 0.9% above average.

    http://s23.postimg.org/qme9cxx4r/PCWV_IPCCAR5_Aug_2013.png

    That is because (temps aren’t increasing as fast as predicted of course but also that) the ENSO is by far the biggest driver of water vapor levels. Water vapor lags 3 months behind the ENSO (like temperatures do which is not surprising).

    http://s22.postimg.org/j48hjy7bl/ENSO_PCWV48_Aug_2013.png

    But there is a well-known theory, Clausius-Clapeyron, that predicts a 7.0% increase in water vapor per 1.0C increase in temperatures and this is directly built into all the climate models. Clausius- Clapeyron is not entirely wrong, its just that the real Earth decides to use a slightly lower value of 4.6% instead (somehow tied in to the ENSO).

    http://s22.postimg.org/exwtw3mhd/PCWV_vs_RSS_UAH_Temps_Aug_2013.png

    This might say water vapor is indeed a positive feedback, but if you run the numbers at 4.6% rather than 7.0%, the CO2 doubling sensitivity falls to 2.0C per doubling (and then put clouds at zero net feedback rather than positive and the CO2 doubling sensitivity falls to 1.5C – that’s my number and it seems to pop out close to that number no matter how many different ways I look at it).


    Bill,
    I did some numbers a while back and fed them into a 1-d absorption model. H2o is resjponsible for about 2x the absorption of co2 and is between two and 3x the power absorption when it comes to a doubling of the amount. One can come up with a simple number sensitivity for warming per W/m^2 increase based upon the current values we see and on the fact that there is a 33 deg C warming due to them. That value is 0.22 deg C rise per W/m^2. That indicates co2 without the h2o would accomplish 0.8 deg C rise for a doubling. If one assumes a 2 deg C rise in temperature thenone needs an additional 1.2 deg C due to ‘feedbacks’ with h2o being the major – acording to the experts. That means an additional 5.5 W/m^2 would be needed to achieve the 2 deg C rise that would cause the roughly 14% h2o vapor increase. This 5.5 W/m^2 is closer to a full doubling of h2o vapr, not a meager 14% increase. Hence 2 deg C could not be realized bya doubling of co2 and an h2o vapor increase of 14% or less. While 2 deg C may get close (just maybe) the outageous 4 and higher deg C per doubling shows the needed W/m^2 feedback increases get worse and worse with no where to get them from.

  221. tom s says:

    Beta Blocker says:
    September 16, 2013 at 7:51 am

    A thirty to fifty year trend of statistically significant cooling occurring in the face of continuously rising CO2 emissions will be needed before the Climate Science Industrial Complex admits that something might be wrong with their basic CO2-controls-climate narrative.//////////////////////////////////////////////////

    We already do…it’s called the 1940s thru the 1970s…

  222. Geoff Sherrington says:

    Stopped reading at ” The shaded envelopes are the multimodel averages ±2 x s(t), where s(t) is the “between model” SD of the 20 (ALL+8.5) and 16 (NAT) ensemble-mean anomaly time series. To ”
    This is a sort of measurement of precision.
    There is no component of bias.
    Most errors are a combination of precision and bias.
    Why do so many ‘climate’ people make so elementary an error?

  223. goldminor says:

    richardscourtney says:
    September 16, 2013 at 4:10 am

    tobyglyn:
    ———–
    I see that neither of the Australian media links are allowing comments for this article. I believe that this is a new tactic with certain news outlets. The BBC stopped comments on climate change articles. The sceptics always seem to win the debate and they are pissed about that.

  224. Brian H says:

    No comments→no readership→no income ☻

Comments are closed.