BREAKING: IPCC AR5 report to dial back climate sensitivity

Well, yeah.

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?

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.

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.

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

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'.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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,.

It looks like we’ll hit the 2C target without any action. 🙂

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

>> 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.

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.

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

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.

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!”

@ 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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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).

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

“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!

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.

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.

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

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

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

@ Baronstone.
You need to read this.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/11/rss-global-temperature-data-no-global-warming-at-all-for-202-months/#more-93635

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.

“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.

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

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

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

@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.

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?

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.

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.

“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

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.

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/

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)

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!”

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

[dupe]

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.

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)

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.

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.

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.)

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”.

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)

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.

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.

Thank you Richard

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.

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.