Sorry IPCC – How You Portrayed the Global Temperature Plateau is Comical at Best

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.

About these ads

53 thoughts on “Sorry IPCC – How You Portrayed the Global Temperature Plateau is Comical at Best

  1. 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’.

  2. 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 )

  3. Bloke down the pub:

    At September 27, 2013 at 3:21 am you say in total

    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 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

    ROLE
    2. The role of the IPCC is 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, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy, although they may need to deal objectively with scientific, technical and socio-economic factors relevant to the application of particular policies.

    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

  4. Bob Turner:

    Your post at September 27, 2013 at 3:29 am says in total

    The force of this posting is once again downgraded by the self-adertising of books and videos.

    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

  5. 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.

  6. 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).

  7. 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.

  8. 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.

  9. 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.

  10. 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.

  11. 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???

  12. 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.

  13. 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?

  14. 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!”

  15. 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

  16. 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.

  17. 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.

    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(**)(***).”

    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, (*)(***)

    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

    “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.”

  18. 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 ;-)

  19. The way the mainstream models solar forcing catastrophically fails simple diagnostics, so it’s not at all clear how they arrived at the notion that it’s the right way to model solar forcing — probably they just made assumptions and never bothered to run diagnostics on real observations. Also, it can be geometrically proven that their “internal” variations narrative is total BS. The resistance to this geometric proof is taking the insanity of the solar/climate discussion to whole new levels of backwards evolution, possibly ensuring that we’ll soon reach the level of monkeys.

  20. Herkimer, good spot.
    You inspired me to try and put this on Guardian website but I doubt they’ll allow it through:

    “Global surface temperature change for the end of the 21st century is projected to be likely to exceed 1.5C relative to 1850 to 1900 in all but the lowest scenario considered, and likely to exceed 2C for the two high scenarios.”
    Note the change in starting point: 1850-1900 – not from now.

    This is important as the world has been warming quite well before the industrialisation of the latter part of the twentieth century. In fact we have had 0.7°C already.

    So the IPCC now says a further 0.8°C by the end of the century – about the same as last century at about the same rate – except in the most extreme scenarios.
    And as the models all overestimate the warming the higher range scenarios are most improbable.

    The IPCC is coming down to the sceptical position; it’s nice to be proven right.
    Now let’s deal with the real problems in the world; poverty, fragility of infrastructure, poor medicine and sanitation – the things that cheap energy can help with.

  21. News flash! I’ve managed to locate some exclusive footage taken during an interview of a prospective IPCC staffer:

  22. ANTHONY HOLMES (September 27, 2013 at 3:37 am) wrote:
    “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 )”

    Anthony intended this sarcastically, but some recent egregiously dark narrative developments within the “skeptic community” have convinced me that without a major internal shake-up, it’s an absolute guarantee that the skeptical “side” of the “debate” will lose no matter what the climate does moving forward. For the first time since I’ve been involved with the solar/climate discussion, I’m considering switching “sides” for strictly practical reasons.

  23. Friends:

    Most attention is likely to be focused on IPCC AR5 statements about the “hiatus”.

    Some may notice the fall-back from the previous assertion of 2°C maximum permissible global warming to now being 2.5°C and the new obfuscation of the start date of that warming.

    But, in my opinion, by far the most egregious IPCC AR5 statement is the change to 30-year periods for climate assessment. This is Orwellian historical revision which hides the decline in model credibility, evades the issue of the “hiatus”, and – very, very importantly – it hides the demonstrable fact IPCC understanding of climate change in its previous (i.e. AR4) Report is plain wrong.

    The adoption of the 30-year period is a severe change by the IPCC; for example, in 1994 the IPCC used 4-year periods to compare changes in hurricane frequency.

    Very importantly, the AR4 made a 20-year prediction (n.b. PREDICTION and not a projection) based on its understanding of existing heat in the climate system. This prediction was 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.

    This goes to the heart of the IPCC understandings of climate, the “hiatus”, and the performance of the models because NONE of that “committed warming” has happened although it was stated as being confidently predicted for the 20-year period from 2000 to 2020.

    By adopting the 30-year period for climate assessment the IPCC is saying its understandings as stated in its previous Report (AR4) are plain wrong. And if those errors of understanding are not explicitly corrected in the AR5 then there is reason to accept that the IPCC’s understanding of climate are still plain wrong.

    The pertinent passage in the AR4 is in IPCC AR4 (2007) Chapter 10.7 which can be read at

    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch10s10-7.html

    It says there

    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.

    Richard

  24. M.COURTNEY

    Here is the mean hadcrut 3gl global temperature 1850-1900

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/data/hadcrut3gl/from:1850/to:1900/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1850/to:1900/trend

    The mean temperature was -0.338C for this period . Today the last hadcrut 3gl for 2013 accumalative is 0,406C
    So we have risen 0.744 C since the 1850-1900 period leavIng 0.756 C to go to 2100. Like you say identical to our past 100 year trend . They are not forecasting unprecedented warming at all

  25. MCOURTNEY
    IPCC used the terms temperature rise by 2100 is “to exceed 1.5C” and “exceed 2 C” relative to 1859-1900 base. This means that the temperatures are predicted to exceed 1.5-0.744=.756 C or exceed 2-.0.744= 1.256C during the remaining part of this century . This is a far cry from the 3-6 C rise that they used to predict. These forecasts do not seem to reflect any typical past 30 year pauses of which there were two since 1850 . So even this latest prediction is very likely high as we are already heading into the first pasue that could last 30 years and another before 2100 is also possible in my opinion

  26. The Award for the Best Comical Portrayal of the Global Temperature Plateau goes to…
    Steve Mosher! (applause) quote:

    “if you read here long enough you will hear people say.. Its the sun! C02 isnt everything!
    well, there is some truth in that.
    The temperature we see is the result of MANY forcings. c02 represents less than 50% of all forcings.
    You will also hear people say what about the negative forcings?
    they are important too.
    You will hear people say ..what about sunshine!.. well yes, things that block sunshine are important.

    Since 1998 the authors sum up the pluses and the minuses.

    1. Sun: suns gone quiet. We all agree the sun matters. So do the scientists! and they put a number on it.
    2. Air pollution! yes, particles that block the sun are important! so they look at sulfur.
    3. Natural variability! yes, they look at that too.

    When it’s all said and done, the net forcing over this short term has been negative.
    C02 isnt everything. over the short term, the short termed additional positve forcing from C02
    (.13w) can be Offset by all those other factors that people have pointed at.

    It didnt warm because C02 is NOT the only forcing. In fact its less than 50% of all forcings.
    It can be overwhelmed in the short term by other forcings.. like a quiet sun, or like more sulfur in the air. Those observations confirm the theory. they confirm the theory because the theory says the final temp is a function of ALL the forcings.”
    July 2011
    :)

  27. The ocean covers 3/4 of the earths surface but the models are all wrong because they didn’t consider that the ocean covers 3/4 of the earth’s surface and might just influence temperatures a wee bit?

    Bawahahahahahahahaa! REALLY!

    sounds like what we call an ID10T error in software development.

  28. So they think the Sun does make a contribution to Global Cooling but not Global Warming? Who knows WTF hey do mean?

  29. When you are reporting findings with degrees of confidence, you aren’t reporting findings. You’re reporting possible explanations from a particular point of view. More like interpreting polling results for an organization promoting a viewpoint than empiricism. No – exactly like when you consider the data isn’t unadulterated to start with – the data itself is an opinion.

  30. Once again, the IPCC comes out with a load of baloney, and once again, the media sycophants (e.g. BBC) are out in force to try to bolster a completely unsustainable set of conclusions. IPCC needs not only to be defunded by the United States government, it needs to be abolished by the UN. But power seeks its own levels of incompetence.

  31. philjourdan says:
    September 27, 2013 at 4:29 am
    “@DirkH – the ads are targeted by individual so each person sees something different. He may see books. I see airlines.”

    :-) Gotcha!

  32. I couldnt stop laughing reading this. They did worse then I thought they would, trying to make the data fit their agenda. The charade is dying slowly before our eyes. In the last report they outright listed all factors except co2 a having low consensus and understanding. Yet they listed the values for these in the quoted text. Also listed the claimed values for co2. Except the “inconvenient truth” is that we would still be warming if the natural shifts were as weak as they claim and co2 is as strong as claimed at driving temps. The theory now relies on the general publics inability to do basic math and the fact so many view “science” as infallible?

    They are digging their own grave and making the fact there is indeed agenda here clearer all the time. A bit of honesty, while explaining they still expect for the missing heat to show up somewhere (LOL) might have left them more of the cliff to stand on.

    Apparently the theory now relies 100% on people not looking at the data, or even basic claims. Only look at scary news headlines!!! and cagw slips further toward being a actual religion.

    BE AFRAID AND REMEMBER DO NOT EAT THE FRUIT OF THE TREE OF KNOWLEDGE!!!

  33. “Prediction is very difficult, especially if it’s about the future.”

    Niels Bohr
    =========
    Sorry, couldn’t resist.

  34. Evan as a an 8th grader, I knew that the temps above the school parking lot were much higher than the temps above the football field.
    If we keep taking data from areas where there is more concrete/asphalt/and buildings, we are always going to see higher temps.

    Also, there is a lot of SPIN in those words. Perhaps that’s where this years’ hurricane season went. it was consumed by this document.

  35. Doug Keenan has drawn attention the following sentence in the IPCC’s AR5 summary:

    “The globally averaged combined land and ocean surface temperature data as calculated by a linear trend, show a warming of 0.85 [0.65 to 1.06] °C, over the period 1880–2012, when multiple independently produced datasets exist. The total increase between the average of the 1850–1900 period and the 2003–2012 period is 0.78 [0.72 to 0.85] °C, based on the single longest dataset available.”

    Bob Tisdale has pointed us to another paragraph:

    “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”.

    If both these statements are correct there are several possible logical conclusions but one that stands out is that whereas the observed warming between 1951 and 2010 was 0.60 to 0.70 the total average global warming over the period 1880-2012 was only 0.850. So between 1880 and 1950 the global mean surface temperature only rose by between 0.150 and 0.250.

  36. The denial camp has again won the PR battle here. Whether climate advocates and scientists can wrest back the debate as the IPCC rolls out the rest of its Fifth Assessment over the next few months is as much a question today as it was in 2010.

    http://wwwp.dailyclimate.org/tdc-newsroom/2013/09/swiftboating-climate-scientists

    But how can this be? Billions for Calamatological liars, a few million for sceptical climate scientists and zero for climate bloggers. Maybe truth is not expensive but propaganda is.

  37. “Why didn’t they just copy and paste the AR4 SPM onto AR5 letterhead and save the world 10s of billions of dollars?”

    Perhaps collecting those billions of dollars is the whole point.

  38. wellingtonx1@btinternet.com says:
    September 27, 2013 at 4:18 am

    Cox had some value for me until last night when clearly he is guilty of cognitive dissonance

    Just a usage note: cog dis is not an act, or an error. It is the discomfort and mental disruption caused by making observations that contradict strong opinions. It is not something you can commit, or be “guilty” of, any more than you can be guilty of a stomach-ache.

  39. DirkH says:
    September 27, 2013 at 4:19 am

    Besides, the ads are for lipsticks, not for books.

    I see no ads as I use AdBlock, but I understand they are personalized, reflecting prior purchase patterns. Others probably don’t share those particular ones. ;P

    (:{}

  40. herkimer says:
    September 27, 2013 at 4:25 am
    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?

    Bullseye!

  41. Another big contradiction is this: they limit both natural “forcing” and “variation” to 0.1 degree in half a century – astonishing hubris for them to go on record with this derisory figure. But at the same time they invoke decadal variations to account for the current “Mannopause” of static temperatures.

    From this figure the divergence between current temperature and the 2007 IPCC projection is already 0.3 degrees!

  42. “And let us know if you come up with any solutions to this ‘problem’ that aren’t worse than the potential problem itself.”

    Quote of the week!

    cynical_scientist says:
    September 27, 2013 at 3:46 am

    Indeed. He who controls the past controls the future.

    DirkH says:
    September 27, 2013 at 4:19 am

    “Besides, the ads are for lipsticks, not for books.”

    Be advised – they are probably tailored based on your cookies. There was a comical exchange on another blog in which a person complained about the porno ads he was getting!

  43. DirkH says:
    “He may see books. I see airlines.”
    Well, I see dead people… oh wait, I’ve just read the IPCC report news coverage :)

Comments are closed.