It seems that according the early draft, CO2 induced climate change is going to take a backseat to natural variability.
Newsbytes from Dr. Benny Peiser at The GWPF
The IPCC draft, which has found its way into my possession, contains a lot more unknowns than knowns. When you get down to specifics, the academic consensus is far less certain. The draft gives even less succour to those seeking here a new mandate for urgent action on greenhouse gas emissions, declaring: “Uncertainty in the sign of projected changes in climate extremes over the coming two to three decades is relatively large because climate change signals are expected to be relatively small compared to natural climate variability”. –Richard Black, BBC News, 13 November 2011
But before declaring victory, it is worth noting Richard Black’s expectation that governments will be pressing for different conclusions because money is at stake. The good news about the leaked document is that efforts to alter the text will be noticed. Based on Black’s report, it seems that the IPCC has at long last done the right thing on extreme events and climate change. It will be most interesting to see the reactions. –-Roger Pielke Jr, 14 November 2011
Southern Europe will be gripped by fierce heatwaves, drought in North Africa will be more common, and small island states face ruinous storm surges from rising seas, a report by United Nations climate scientists says. The assessment is the most comprehensive yet by the 194-nation Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change into the impact of climate change on extreme weather events. A 20-page draft ‘summary for policymakers’ says that global warming will create weather on steroids, and that these amped-up events – cyclones, heatwaves, diluvian rains, drought – will hit the world unevenly. –Marlowe Hood, Agence France-Presse, 14 November 2011
Russia’s chief climate negotiator said the country will “never” sign up to extend the Kyoto Protocol for a second implementation period, casting further doubt on chances of a deal at the international climate conference in South Africa at the end of this month. “We will never sign Kyoto 2 because it would not cover every country,” Oleg Shamanov, director of international cooperation on the environment at the Foreign Ministry, said late last week. Roland Oliphant, The Moscow Times, 13 November 2011
A new and broader climate deal is out of reach for now and instead nations need to focus on how to replace the ailing Kyoto Protocol before 2020, Britain’s minister of state for energy and climate change said on Monday. The view is recognition that agreement on a pact that commits all major greenhouse gas polluters to curbing the growth in planet-warming emissions is slipping further away, in part because of sluggish economic growth and a mounting debt crisis. Henry Foy and Matthias Williams, Reuters, 14 November 2011
Academic freedom is an old privilege. Academics can report the results of their research without fearing that the political fall-out would affect their economic security or their career. –Richard Tol, Climate Etc, 12 November 2011
Finally, a vestigial government-funded program actually worth cutting gets taken out as Denmark’s new regime change is opting to excise Bjorn Lomborg’s $1.6 million in funding for his Copenhagen Consensus Center. “It’s been very strange that particular researchers have received special treatment due to ideology. We’re going to run fiscal policy differently,” said Ida Auken from the Socialist People’s Party. –-Laurel Whitney, Desmog, 28 September 2011
Hint to green wastrels in the Energy Department and elsewhere: when even the New York Times thinks the green madness has gone too far, it has. Putting green lipstick on a pig doesn’t turn that pig into Ralph Nader. There may be a dumber mass movement in the country than the fuzzy minded sentimentalists of the great green herd, but it isn’t easy to figure out which mass movement that would be. –Walter Russell Mead, Via Meadia, 13 November 2011
I smell a rat. How did the IPCC draft somehow find its way into Richard Black’s possession? Did it walk all by itself into the BBC? How did it know where to go?
Avast! Save ye meme at all costs! Nay, it be hidden in the din of background variance…but we must reveal its stealth, and bring it to the fore! It must be ever-present on the minds of the holder of the purse-strings! Let not it fall by the wayside, for the way is fraught with rogues and skulduggery!!
So we have no warming over the last decade and then expect AGW signal for 30 years. So now we are talking 40 years with little or no AGW. After 40 years does weather finally becomes climate?
Meant to say we expect little AGW signal for 30 years.
Am I misremembering, or hasn’t there been a little problem with final reports (at least some sections) not always bearing much resemblance to the drafts that participants signed off on? I think I’ll wait and see.
Anybody curious about the USA history’s in government development of alternate and green energy?
Let me tell you, it ain’t pretty:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/before-solyndra-a-long-history-of-failed-government-energy-projects/2011/10/25/gIQA1xG0CN_story.html
“Uncertainty in the sign of projected changes. . . ”
Wow. One has to be impressed how far they will go in obfuscating the language to avoid saying something understandable like “we’re not sure if it will get colder or warmer”, because far too many people would actually understand, and that would be a real problem for them.
Oh, and btw, since we’ve already had a decade of flat. . . IPCC is now saying we could go 40 years without a significant rise. . .but they’re still right about AGW? That’s some serious blankie clutching right there.
I think you are not misrebembering. Do you also recall when they released the executive summary for policy makers before they finished the final report?
Natural variability, whoever would have considered that to play a major role in climate?!
It will take a lot more than a leaked “Trojan Horse” report to restore my confidence in the IPCC.
Steeptown, fellow commenters, Antony (thanks again),
That you can smell a rat does not mean that there is only one rat.
I think there is a large rat nest under our educational political and societal institutions.
They (the rats) are demanding we kill ourselves so they can live in carbon splendor (diamonds and all).
Yes, no warming since 1998, but still pushing more or less the same prescription.
Keep your powder dry, they have said that AGW will be masked by natural forcings, this will give them cover until AR6, and should warming resume they’ll hype it up. What natural forcings are they talking about anyway? We have been led to believe in TAR and AR4 that CO2 was a major forcing which with slight increases in ppm would rack the temperature up to a point where positive feedbacks kick in. So why can’t it overcome the puny forcings of nature?
OK a leaked document, I’m fine with leaked documents.
But what IPCC leaked document?
AR5 WG1 (or WG2 or WG3)?
No.
“For almost a week, government delegates will pore over the summary of the IPCC’s latest report on extreme weather, with the lead scientific authors there as well. They’re scheduled to emerge on Friday with an agreed document.”
So it’s the “summary of the IPCC’s latest report on extreme weather.”
Not AR5 WG1 (or WG2 or WG3).
As to (duration, intensity, and/or frequency of) extreme weather events, IMHO, not a major show starter/stopper (for me anyways), you will always need a long baseline of extreme events (itself (somewhat) ill defined) to statistically support a “theory of increased extreme events” in the first place.
As to AR5 WG1 (or WG2 or WG3), it will have two stages of open public review AFAIK, all comments will also be in the public domain AFAIK.
Leak AR5 WG1 (or WG2 or WG3) for all I care, today, yesterday, or tomorrow.
Would I care at all?
Not in the least.
I recall hearing exactly the same just before the Climate change conference held in Cancun last year.
3 months later we had severe floods in Andalusia.
http://news.sky.com/home/world-news/article/15558806
“Uncertainty in the sign of projected changes in climate extremes over the coming two to three decades is relatively large because climate change signals are expected to be relatively small compared to natural climate variability”
The UN is clearly trying to salvage the IPCC. In 20 to 30 years when the natural cycle of warming starts again, they will say “See! We told you so. Now obey us or things will be even worse!” This is a lot like predicting when the next winter solstice will be and then acting like you are a prophet who knows the future. Even though the UN has Isaiah’s words about beating swords to plowshares at its building, it is not a prophet. Just someone manipulating natural variability to its advantage.
I could be mistaken but in my life (40 years’ish) there has been more drought years in North Africa than non drought years. And I can’t recall when it has been published that a recovery in drought stricken areas has been made. Did I miss the memos or does North Africa seem to be in prone to droughts?
What, no “signals”? Not to worry, Climate Science’s “method” never needed any. But in trying to hype every normal adverse climate and weather event, along with the multitude of other “peer reviewed” genuine, fabricated “outcomes”, into a “climate change disaster”,
You know If it wasn’t for bad luck
If it wasn’t for real bad luck
They wouldn’t have had no kind of luck at all…
That ain’t no lie
Or could it just be the usual result of the Progressives amongst us assiduously opposing reality and real science at every opportunity in order to create the arbitrary items in their “perception is reality” Fantasyland? Nah.
Given the sums of dosh at stake, I confidently predict a lot of games, spin, and outright chicanery before the final report is published.
Nevertheless, I think I hear the sucking sound of numerous sovereign governments under enormous fiscal pressure vacuuming up lots and lots of dollar bills previously allocated to climate research and CO2 mitigation.
They’re playing our song and it’s music to my ears.
…“CO2 induced climate change”…
That’s the bit I can’t understand. CO2 is identified by three quite distinct spectroscopic bands. All three bands are very effective at shielding the surface from SOLAR RADIATION at those bands.
Only ONE of those bands can absorb radiation from the surface at night. On agregate CO2 provides far more cooling than warming.
If one thing is certain about politics in democracies then it is the fact that politicians are not into projects that will soak up money but won’t yield votes in time for the next election. A ten year horizon is barely possible, two to three decades are a death knell even if the issue WAS based in fact. Expect a quick and stealthy shuffling of funds out of climate change and into projects that show more promise at dazzling the voters.
Funnily enough this puts them at the traditional 50 year mark. For those of you not familiar with it, 50 years tends to be the average of predictions of when the world will end. It’s far enough in the future to avoid accountability if you’re wrong, close enought to get people scared. Sad that people still fall for this BS, but there it is. In fact if I were a betting man I’d say in 50 years the ultimate global warming apocalypse will still be predicted to be evident… in another 50 years. And people will still buy it, for some reason or another.
Thank God for sane countries like Russia! (Never thought I’d say that, but it’s unfortunately true in the post-1989 world. We’re the crazy ones now.)
Now they tell us! Any chance of postponing the UK Climate Change Act for 20 years or so? No I thought not.
There again, it was never about global warming, was it?
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2011/11/14/uk-climate-change-actcosts-and-implications/
One can always hope that this “leak” is from people within the IPCC that are tired of being laughed at and are trying to restore integrity. If patchy and Trenberth start giving interviews explaining that it was a incomplete draft and not finished, then you know it was a whistleblower that wanted their actual work to be seen before it was revised out of existence.
Paul Homewood says:
“Now they tell us! Any chance of postponing the UK Climate Change Act for 20 years or so? No I thought not.”
Just get rid of the bloody thing:
http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/2035