NOTE: Please see the 2 updates at the end of the post.
# # #
The IPCC released their “approved” Summary for Policymakers for their 5th Assessment Report early this morning (eastern U.S. time), still in draft form. As far as I can tell, there are two paragraphs that discuss the recent global temperature plateau.
Note: I haven’t yet crosschecked between the draft and the approved versions to see if they’ve made any significant changes, so the following may be old hat.
From page 3:
In addition to robust multi-decadal warming, global mean surface temperature exhibits substantial decadal and interannual variability (see Figure SPM.1). Due to natural variability, trends based on short records are very sensitive to the beginning and end dates and do not in general reflect long-term climate trends. As one example, the rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998–2012; 0.05 [–0.05 to +0.15] °C per decade), which begins with a strong El Niño, is smaller than the rate calculated since 1951 (1951–2012; 0.12 [0.08 to 0.14] °C per decade).
And from page 12:
The observed reduction in surface warming trend over the period 1998–2012 as compared to the period 1951–2012, is due in roughly equal measure to a reduced trend in radiative forcing and a cooling contribution from internal variability, which includes a possible redistribution of heat within the ocean (medium confidence). The reduced trend in radiative forcing is primarily due to volcanic eruptions and the timing of the downward phase of the 11-year solar cycle. However, there is low confidence in quantifying the role of changes in radiative forcing in causing the reduced warming trend. There is medium confidence that internal decadal variability causes to a substantial degree the difference between observations and the simulations; the latter are not expected to reproduce the timing of internal variability. There may also be a contribution from forcing inadequacies and, in some models, an overestimate of the response to increasing greenhouse gas and other anthropogenic forcing (dominated by the effects of aerosols). {9.4, Box 9.2, 10.3, Box 10.2, 11.3}
Regarding the cause of the warming, still living in fantasy world, they write:
Greenhouse gases contributed a global mean surface warming likely to be in the range of 0.5°C to 1.3°C over the period 1951−2010, with the contributions from other anthropogenic forcings, including the cooling effect of aerosols, likely to be in the range of −0.6°C to 0.1°C. The contribution from natural forcings is likely to be in the range of −0.1°C to 0.1°C, and from internal variability is likely to be in the range of −0.1°C to 0.1°C. Together these assessed contributions are consistent with the observed warming of approximately 0.6°C to 0.7°C over this period. {10.3}
They’re still misleading the public. Everyone knows (well, many of us know) their models can’t simulate the natural processes that cause surface temperatures to warm over multidecadal timeframes, yet they insist on continuing this myth.
Judith Curry wrote in her recent blog post Can science fix climate change?:
JC message to IPCC: Once you sort out the uncertainty in climate sensitivity estimates and fix your climate models, let us know. Then please do the hard work of understanding regional vulnerability to climate variability and change before you tell us what constitutes ’dangerous’ climate change. And let us know if you come up with any solutions to this ‘problem’ that aren’t worse than the potential problem itself.
And as I concluded my new book Climate Models Fail:
The primary obstacles for the climate science community in the years and decades to come are: (1) the expectations of government funding agencies, which are obviously tied to political agendas; and (2) the anchoring effect of the fanatical beliefs of those members whose careers and funding skyrocketed as a result of their drum beating for the IPCC.
The people of the world rely on the findings of the climate science community, and in order for climate science to move forward, that community will have to be honest within itself and with the public. Hopefully, that will occur in my lifetime, but I’m not holding my breath.
It appears the climate science community, under the direction of the IPCC, is still not interested in being honest within itself or with the public. What a shame!
# # #
Also see my brand new video Climate Models Used by the IPCC Are…</a
# # #
Update 1: The IPCC press release for the AR5 Summary for Policymakers is titled Human influence on climate clear, IPCC report says. (Why didn’t they just copy and paste the AR4 SPM onto AR5 letterhead and save the world 10s of billions of dollars?)
UPDATE 2: I just created a Side-By-Side Comparison of Draft and Final IPCC AR5 SPM on Warming Plateau and Attribution from the final draft (7Jun2013) and the approved final version (27Sep2013) of the IPCC’s AR5 Summary for Policymakers. Looks like the politicians deleted the attribution discussion for the warming plateau.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The GOP should make defunding of the IPCC and her profiteers in US science a higher priority than Obamacare.
Even if they were presented with cast iron proof that cagw was non-existent, none of those involved with the IPCC would be prepared to be the first to stand up and say ‘the emperor has no clothes’.
The force of this posting is once again downgraded by the self-adertising of books and videos.
Just imagine the new size of ‘troughs’ that will have to be ordered to hold the monumental amounts of taxpayers cash all governments are now going to have to spend counteracting dangerous global warming . Get your snouts in guys – if you cant beat em join em !! ( sarc off )
Bloke down the pub:
At September 27, 2013 at 3:21 am you say in total
The IPCC is only permitted to say AGW is a significant problem because they are tasked to accept that there is a “risk of human-induced climate change” which requires “options for adaptation and mitigation” that can be selected as political polices and the IPCC is tasked to provide those “options”.
This is clearly stated in the “Principles” which govern the work of the IPCC. These are stated at
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/ipcc-principles.pdf
Near its beginning that document says
So, the IPCC does NOT exist to summarise climate science.
The IPCC exists to provide
(a) “information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change”
and
(b) “and options for adaptation and mitigation” which pertain to “the application of particular policies”.
Hence, its “Role” demands that the IPCC accepts as a given that there is a “risk of human-induced climate change” which requires “options for adaptation and mitigation” which pertain to “the application of particular policies”.
The IPCC is pure pseudoscience intended to provide information to justify political actions; i.e.Lysenkoism.
Richard
Bob Turner:
Your post at September 27, 2013 at 3:29 am says in total
No, the force of this thread is once again downgraded by the presentation of a troll comment which provides a ‘red herring’ intended to deflect the thread from its subject.
Richard
I was just thinking that we’ll probably have to wait until global temperatures actually fall before these guys give up. And then I realized – GISS and HadCRUT? – Fall? – Inconceivable! These are the people who make the past get colder each day. It would take a very rapid drop in temperatures indeed to overwhelm their capacity to bend temperature graphs ever upwards.
It is, without reservation, the epitome of a “gravy train”.
These wilful carpetbaggers are frothing at the mouth in order to sustain their own little (and in some cases, not so little) sinecures from Governmental largesse.
The greatest mass insanity since the Tulip Craze has just started unravelling – it is simply delightful to be an observer.
The “other” Kaboom – from Australia).
Bob Turner says: “The force of this posting is once again downgraded by the self-adertising of books and videos.”
Actually, Bob, the video reinforces the fact that the climate models prepared for the IPCC are crap, and the link to my book is provided as a courtesy.
Have a nice day.
The IPCC is clearly doing damage-control. They have room for no more and that says it all.
It was probably wishful thinking to expect introspection and self doubt from the IPCC crew. They are instead throwing up the hail mary pass for the big money line but are prepared for retirement along the lines of Lois Lerner at IRS.
I didn’t hear it all – just the latter bits. But the first thing I heard Stocker say was something about the effects of CO2 but not thru warming. Scary thinking and insinuations there. Later he referred to the explanation for the PAUSE and quickly corrected himself to say Potential explanation for the pause and mumbled a rehearsed line about the oceans taking heat. Oh so very imprecise and un-courageous. Anyhow I had a closer look at the IPCC site after all that and saw the IPCC calendar. Who would suggest CAGW is no longer an issue when by promoting it you get to see the world, all expenses paid in low carbon footprint airliners and hotels, to keep on discussing it and no-one but no-one can fire you. These guys are smarter than we think.
abc news reported they still reckon seas will rise 3ft by end of this century…I spilt my coffee.
1880 to now they said .86 temp rise.
so 133 yrs and a lot of evil co2 for less than a degree of warmth and not one mention of anything nature does..it was ALL OUR FAULT.
sigh.
I think the Report can be summed as “Sodomy non sapiens.” The language used is so full of caveats it has become meaningless.
I have just had another complaint rejected by the BBC trust who say in repudiation “It is not part of the BBC complaints procedure to review evidence we the trust have already formed our opinion” glad these people are not running the justice system in the UK by now I would have been ritually disembowelled hung drawn and quartered for just breathing in the presence of a superior organisation such as the BBC who proclaim their virtuous relationship with human rights campaigns across the planet which apply to everyone except those who choose to cite evidence as being somewhat different to views and opinions. Brian Cox a physicist appeared in a BBC program last night postulating the “scientific method” as the gold standard and then when interviewing the editor of Nature espoused mystery that the scientific consensus had managed to gain so much traction to the point where it is not universally acclaimed with no challenge whatsoever especially in Nature, the reason given for this omission by the editor of Nature was that no one has ever written a paper that has managed to challenge the scientific consensus on AGW to his knowledge hence no article has ever appeared in Nature. Cox had some value for me until last night when clearly he is guilty of cognitive dissonance apparently believing that the scientific method being diametrically opposed to consensus when it comes to the climate is mutually inclusive not exclusive. The BBC pays well and it is noticeable that once these guys are in receipt of large pay cheques they are more than prepared to be compliant with the views and opinions expressed by those who run the BBC are in respect are also well paid. Since the fracas over large pay offs at the BBC they have recently hire six more executives at salaries of between £200k and £300k with lovely gold plated pensions and expenses and now HS2 that other green figment of the imagination – how does a 250mph train run on an interruptible supply of wind and solar generated electricity? – has appointed a new chairman to sell the nonsense at a salary of £591k a year for a 3 day week, no doubt he will say exactly what the coalition want us to hear, just more green crap. Will someone please pay me to tell other people what he or she wants them to hear, please???
Bob Turner says:
September 27, 2013 at 3:29 am
“The force of this posting is once again downgraded by the self-adertising of books and videos.”
Didn’t they teach you anything in concern troll school. See, it works like this, here’s an example of how you construct a concern troll comment:
Anth0ny, I love your blog and have been reading it for years, but you really do yourself a disservice by having fringe elements denunciate the unequivocal findings of the best climate scientists in the world.
You know, the key element is pretending that you’re one of us.
Besides, the ads are for lipsticks, not for books.
They have moved the goal posts again . Now they are stating that the global surface temperatures are going to increase by 1.5 C relative to 1850 to 1900 not relative to 1990 as they used to state. Since temperatures have already gone up by about 0.7 C , is their new projection from now to 2100 only o.8C?
@DirkH – the ads are targeted by individual so each person sees something different. He may see books. I see airlines.
I gather that one of the reasons they give for no increase in global temperatures over the last 17 years is because all the excess heat is warming the depths of the ocean! Since this concept goes against all the well established laws of thermodynamics, logically their not-so-well established and clearly incorrect computer models MUST be wrong.
Sorry, I forgot, there is no logic in climate “science!”
Here are the exact words that they used:
“Global surface temperature change for the end of the 21st century is projected to be likely to
exceed 1.5°C relative to 1850 to 1900 in all but the lowest scenario considered, ”
NOTICE RELATIVE TO 1850-1900
Excellent review, Bob Tisdale. The problem I see is too much has been invested by the “scientific” and political community in AGW, our need to control the climate and atone for our sins for anyone to go “oops” we were wrong.
Ah, the warmista must miss the good ol’ days when they could reuse the previous year’s headline “Last year was the hottest on record!(*)” Then they had to say “The last decade was the hottest on record!(*)” Now they’re reduced to saying “The last multi-decade had quite a bit of warming(**)(***).”
“Okay, we can’t live in the past like we did with AR4 (that was a reanalysis of AR3, IIRC), and we really want to show you 1979-1998, but you’d just laugh at us so here’s 60 years and we laugh at your PDO, hey, look at those aerosols from the 1970s, we think they’re back. (***)”
(*): “And we’re all gonna die!”
(**): “But please keep paying attention to us.”
(***): “Please don’t ask us about natural variability, because while we put on a good front, we really don’t have a clue.”
But, not to be deterred from following the recently resurrected “Momentum for Change” Grand PR Plan, the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) – taking its cue from head honcho, Achim Steiner’s word salads – comes through with flying colours on the recycled “unprecedented” message front via twitter [@UNEP].
Obviously, the UNEP is very proud of the “accomplishments” of its offspring, The Delinquent Teenager …. This child continues its practice of throwing reason – and respect for the intelligence of the reading public – Into the Dustbin 😉
1997 to present is the more significant timeframe as this includes the year before the El Nino.
another load of crap http://www.smh.com.au/environment/ipcc-report-finds-temperatures-on-track-to-rise-by-more-than-two-degrees-20130927-2ujhw.html