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
Had to laugh at a big feature on De Smog Blog: “Revealing the Climate Cover-Up”. Saywhatnow?
Reading Richard Black’s article conveys a new message. The problem of CAGW has not gone away, just put on ice for a couple of decades. I predict that the message of AR5 is that we no longer have to act this minute (or should have acted 5 years ago), but can delay for a decade or two. Just long enough to sort out some messy government finances.
Good grief, there it is, WWF statement says it all;
http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2011/11/russia-will-sign-up-to-extend-kyoto.html
The IPCC disappoints. – gavin
Richard Black from the BBC offers a wonderful example of how Greens have turned the word “consensus” into utter nonsense:
“But when you get down to specifics, the academic consensus is far less certain.
Enhanced glacier melt could speed up sea level rise in the coming decades
There is “low confidence” that tropical cyclones have become more frequent, “limited-to-medium evidence available” to assess whether climatic factors have changed the frequency of floods, and “low confidence” on a global scale even on whether the frequency has risen or fallen.”
The fact that there is low confidence in the claim that tropical cyclones have become more frequent translates as the academic consensus is far less certain? Nonsense, it means there is no consensus.
“Climate Change Signals Expected To Be Relatively Small Over Coming 20-30 Years”
Just about the time needed for the PDO shift to shift back to the warm phase.
What I read is it is going to get really cold for the next several decades, how are we going to cover our butts and keep people believing this stuff when they are freezing?
First, they have been telling us for decades that the effect of CO2 was major, and the effect of natural variability was small, now they are basically telling us that all they have been telling us for decades was BS. If they are right, and natural variability will rule for the next several decades, then the obvious question is, has it been ruling in the past as well, and if it has, does that not mean that the effect of CO2 was relatively minor? If CO2’s effect has been minor, can I get my money back for all that has been spent to mitigate it? How is it that the same people who have been saying that natural variability is so weak are now saying that it is so strong? That latter leaves two options, they were wrong, the question then is, how do I know that they are not wrong again, and the second option, they were flat out lying. If the IPCC releases a report saying this, they have a lot of explaining to do, and they owe a lot of people a lot of money.
Second, what we have here are the “climate experts”, and what they are telling us is that it will be increasingly cold for the next several decades. The obvious problem, how to keep freezing people believing in warming. The solution, blame it on CO2 anyway, say that CO2 is causing “extreme climate”. Expect that the many inclement weather conditions which have always been present somewhere at some time will be ruthlessly hunted down and reported on breathlessly. Further expect that the amount of ‘adjustments” we have seen before are just the tip of the iceberg, every effort will be made to hide the extent of the cold from being noticed, or at least reported. This can be done by ignoring any cold and not mentioning any records broken (and I would expect there to be many set), adjusting any longer term temperature records to make the cold look less, inventing places to hide “missing heat” for later, and especially trumpeting any places where it is hot or there is any inclement weather of any kind anywhere (even from places we have never even heard of, or places that have that sort of thing frequently). Expect also that the words “global warming” will no longer be spoken, “extreme weather” will be the new mantra. A lot of sciency sounding speak will go on to explain how somehow CO2 causes bad things that are not warming. Ignored will be the obvious truth that if it does not cause warming, then it cannot cause anything, since that is the only effect it can have (yes, CO2 causes warming, no, CO2 does not cause enough warming to worry about).
Third, “climate change signals” means heat, that is the only thing it can mean. What they are really saying, without, of course, coming right out and saying it, is “it is going to get really cold. Remember, these are the climate ‘experts” telling us this, so buy long underwear. How will this cold effect the growing season? What about heating costs? If people are hungry and cold, should we be saddling them with regulations and costs on farming and fuel? If we do, how will they react? That reaction may not be friendly, hence, this report looks like the start of some serious butt covering. A lot of people are going to be asking a lot of questions, and they may not be too squeamish about how they get their answers. If the CAGW people can grab enough power fast, how will they prevent that, massive propaganda alone may not be enough, they may have to resort to “stronger measures”. Just how far will they go to protect their power base if things get too bad? If things get too cold, and thus too bad, that is usually a good time to grab power, desperate people tend to believe it then when a “great leader” comes along and promises to make it all better (“hope and change”, anyone?). I can only hope it does not get too cold, because otherwise, kiss your liberties goodby.
“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”
Was it different over the past 100 years?
If Richard Black is unwilling to post a link to the draft, then I suspect it is not a draft. I would suggest that this was a press release given to one of the faithful to test public reaction to a possible IPCC self preservation technique. Given the reaction on Richard Black’s blog it would appear they will have to go back to the drawing board. This one is not going to fly.
Natural variability was supposed to be insignificant compared to the awesome force of the evil gas CO2. Changing the story may help some scientists, but the “in light of new scientific studies” line will not be workable for politicians and activists who have used the language of vilification to describe sceptics. Doom needs to be just around the corner. Claiming doom is going to be on hold for a period that strangely coincides with a weak SC24 and a weaker SC25 is a recipe for political disaster.
Ocean “acidification” looks like a dead end as well. I suggest they go with giant Triffids. Spawned in the chemical waste in China’s rivers, fertilised by excess anthropogenic CO2 and their seeds spread on the landing gear of fossil fuel guzzling 747s. Gaia’s venomous tentacled vengeance! Doomed! Dooooomed!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triffid
From EFS_Junior from November 14, 2011 at 9:46 am:
Excellent! Then there won’t be any complaints about the UEA-sourced Climategate documents from you.
This is cheering news!
The IPCC has stepped into “it” with way too many “gates”, and has grown into an embarrassment.
Leaking its next AR makes sense. It is putting it’s finger up in the air to see which way the wind is blowing before making it public.
Let’s not kid ourselves. The IPCC is a political animal and nothing else.
“….Russians are well acquainted with dishonest politicians, hunger, famine and nasty winters. They got the Bolshevik Revolution stuffed down their throats by Wall Street.
__________________________________
More Soylent Green! says:
November 14, 2011 at 1:14 pm
I’m almost afraid to ask, but…
What?
__________________________________
A rather well kept secret. However Bankers dearly love to fund BOTH sides in a war. They have no loyalty except to their wallet.
http://www.thehiddenevil.com/communists.asp
If you do a search there is quite a bit on who funded the revolution. Checkout the sealed gold train too. The Czar had already stepped down months BEFORE the “Revolution” BTW and a provisional government with a Parliament (Duma) had been set-up.
Legatus, “global warming” is a term predominately used by sceptics, and has been for some time. The preferred term for the IPCC and kin is “climate change”. Notice their very name…
“Climate Change Signals Expected To Be Relatively Small” … relative to what? The equally small signals so far don’t seem to be bringing us too much catastrophe. I suggest they also try a name change again, to “Raudive climate change”, since the “signals” they claim to perceive are becoming increasingly indistinguishable from the natural noise.
(Raudive voices are the voices you think you hear in tape hiss, radio static and similar white-noisy sounds, most likely caused by straining your hearing to hear weak signals down in the noise. After a while your brain goes into pattern-matching overdrive and starts improvising. There’s a wikipedia page on the phenomenon under “Electronic Voice Phenomenon”.)
Alexander says: November 14, 2011 at 5:14 pm
Alex, you are new, not bright or just plain disingenuous. The IPCC is only interested in warming, despite the name, and the preferred term became the preferred term when warming stopped after 1998. Even Kevin Trenberth has been known to lament the travesty of the missing heat, although he was pretty sure he had recently discovered it in the depths of the oceans. Climate change is not the issue and never has been. Climate always changes… sometimes warmer and sometimes cooler, but the IPCC is not interested in “climate change”, its raison d’etre is to promote the idea of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (or “CAGW” as we in the denialosphere prefer to term it) (Uhhh, in case the four and five syllable words are too difficult, the term “catastrophic” means “something very, very bad“, while “anthropogenic” means “caused by human beings“).
@Legatus says:
November 14, 2011 at 3:22 pm
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Further to the point made by Legatus and others regarding natural variability over powering the CO2 forcing, one must not forget the relative CO2 concentrations during the past 100 years.
The IPCC has been claiming that CO2 forcing dominates natural variation when CO2 concentration was about 300ppm. Now they are suggesting that natural variation can dominate CO2 forcing when CO2 concentration is about 400 ppm or perhaps even closer to 440 ppm (estimated CO2 concentraion in say 30 years time). That suggests that CO2 forcing is even weaker (or the converse natural variation is even more powerful).
If natural variation can cool (mask CO2 warming), then obviously it can also warm and can therefore fully explain the twentieth century warming.
I have not seen the leaked draft report, but wonder whether the IPCC mention aerosols and whether behind their concession that there is likely to be little in the way of CO2 induced climate change they assume that China will continue to emit large quantities of aerosols/particulates which which neutralise the effects of CO2 forcing.
>>
Gail Combs says:
November 14, 2011 at 4:50 pm
A rather well kept secret.
<<
It’s not too well kept. This Trilateral Commission, Council of Foreign Relations, Rothschild, Rockefeller, J. P. Morgan, etc. conspiracy has been around for more than forty years. Try “None Dare Call It Conspiracy,” by Gary Allen and Larry Abraham, copyright 1976. “Bankrolling the Bolshevik Revolution” is the title of chapter 4.
I wouldn’t lose sleep over it.
Jim
The terms, “Global Warming” and “Climate Change”, has been in use since at least 1880 when the socialist-communist movements of the late 19th Century asserted their political opposition to the development of the industrialized economies and their reliance upon fossil fuels. Members of the scientific community sympathetic to the ideas of the socialist-communist movements have been using the terms interchangeably ever since, often using combinations such as “global climate change” and “global warming change.” Members of this community used such terminology from 1929 in various international organizations and in the WMO into the 1960s. The government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain was persuaded to adopt these usages in 1974 for its political agenda. The WMO spoke of “global warming” and “climate change” in its symposia in 1975. Both terms and others have been an integral component of the United Nations and the other international organizations since they weere founded by people promoting the belief in the danger of fossil fuels affecting the Earth’s climate. The accusation that ““global warming” is a term predominately used by sceptics” alone is absurd in the face more than a century of the proponents of alarmism inventing and using the terms for much longer than a century.
It appears, that the modelled case for alarm does only persist for those time ranges that cannot be refuted (yet) by measured data.
The same story has developped with sensitivity and measured versus modelled data.
But there is another, much more basic reasoning, that has not been notified yet by anybody:
The Hadley Center has recently published their updated sea surface record HadSST3. As there is now common agreement about greenhouse warming happening on top of natural cycles, it doesn’t make sense to quantifiy warming by linear tends, particularly linear trends starting in natural cycle minima (around 1900) and ending in natural cycle maxima (around 2000). A much better warming estimate would be to take the difference between the 1940s and the 2000s warming peaks. HadSST3 gives this difference and it is just 0.3 degrees, and only 0.2 degrees undoing a questionable raw data altertation (according to Steve McIntyre). An increase of 0.2-0.3 degrees in 70 years is massively below projections.
Tell me, what possible effect does CO2 have on the climate besides radiative forcing? The only. bad effect of CO2 ever claimed was radiative forcing, where it traps some of the heat given off by the sun warmed earth and re-radiates it back down. No other effect has ever been stated. This effect can only lead to warming. If "global warming" is now not stated as the effect of CO2, you tell me, what exact effect does CO2 have, and exactly how does it do that?
The term “global warming” used to be the term used, then it was deliberately changed to “climate change” ( a very convenient term since climate is always changing, thus the “proof” is always there), and then yet again to “global climate disruption” (since there is always some bad weather happening to someone somewhere, and people were beginning to notice not enough change). The problem is that the warming effect of CO2 is too small to be panicked over, or even really noticed in the up and down of natural variability (as now admitted by this report), hence, a new name was needed to keep the panic going despite the non observance of warming. Changing the name is simply trying to get us to not notice that the only possible effect that CO2 can have, according to physics, is warming by radiative forcing. The problem being, it doesn’t do enough of that to generate the needed quantity of panic.
Sooo, Alexander, tell us, exactly what does CO2 do that is bad if it isn’t warming?
If this is true, they will have two options:
*Go with this idea to hope it flies when things get cold, hype “extreme weather’ and hope no one notices that the only possible physical thing that CO2 can do is warming, which aint happening. Basically, look everywhere for weather people don’t like (which I expect will increasingly be cold weather) and find some way to blame it on CO2. There is no scientific rational for this, but hey, with the state of scientific knowledge imparted by our wonderfull public schools, many will not notice.
*See that this idea doesn’t fly, and change back to warming, and hope that it warms. It probably won’t, predictions are that it will go into a mini little ice age, and obviously this draft shows that the “climate experts” agree and are trying to cover their butts for when this happens. But hey, maybe they can get people paniced enough before that heppens to grab power and use that to silence dissent. Or, maybe they can just grab the noney and run. The problem may be, if it gets cold enough and people get angry enough, they may not be able to run far enough.
Either way, a lot of people are going to remember the term ‘warming” associated with all this, and they won’t be too happy with the IPCC when the cold hits. Can’t say I am especially sad about that. The only possible hope for them is to grab enough power that no one can do anything to them, no matter how angry they get.
“A number of comments have quite rightly pointed out that the “hide the decline” email was also critiqued at the time of “ClimateGate” in its proper context – ie, reconciling a tree-ring dataset with an instrumental dataset.”
This wasn’t the sense in which I dealt with it in this post, obviously – I was focussing on the mis-use of the email in claims that it “hid a decline”, or slowdown, in temperatures from 1998 onwards.
“With hindsight I should have made that clear in the text, and I could also usefully have pointed out that some “sceptical” blogs took pains to clarify the issue at the time, such as the wattsupwiththat post reading “contrary to what you’ve likely read elsewhere in the blogosphere or heard from the few policymakers and pundits actually addressing the issue, it was not the temperature decline the planet has been experiencing since 1998 that Jones and friends conspired to hide”.
What I see in a google search is this notion that Jones couldn’t have been hiding the decline unless he had a crystal ball, since the email was written in November, 1999. I gather that’s where Black got the idea. There’s another red herring for you. I don’t see how I can take seriously anything that Richard Black says after this silly exercise.
This is yet more evidence that just like stage psychics ‘cold reading’ their marks, climate scientists have been ‘cold reading’ the climate, trying to appear authoritative while guessing at the truth and pushing certain themes to keep the audience enthralled.
“”J Martin says:
November 14, 2011 at 1:48 pm
—–
However, perhaps Richard111 would like to answer your question.””
====================
OK, will try to keep this short. The spectroscopic bands under discussion are 2.4, 4.3 and 15 microns respectively.
Wien’s Law tells us peak radiation is at 800C, 400C and -80C respectively. If the temperature of the radiating body falls below any peak, radiation at that band drops off markedly. There is no shortage of photons at those bands from the sun radiating at 5,000K. Luckily for us we are some 93 million miles from the sun and radiation LEVELS are reduced such that by the time they arrive at the TOA all levels are within the 1,360 watts per metre squared level but there is no shortage of photons with the required energy levels to absorbed by CO2 at all three bands.
Surface radiation temperature at night is supposed to be about 15C, way below levels required to produce photons for the 2.4 and 4.3 micron bands.
So it is clear CO2 is absorbing SOLAR energy and thus preventing some of that energy from reaching the surface. There is much discussion as to how much but lets take the warmists claim of “half up half down” and we have three bands of radiation reduced by half in daylight.
At night, even if half the 15 micron band is back radiated (which it isn’t) we still see an agregate COOLING EFFECT from CO2 in the atmosphere.
In the meantime there is a “Climate Conference” coming up in Durban shortly. At this get together the begging bowls will be out claiming “compensation” for the west stuffing up the developing world’s climate.
Mrs. Shelley wrote a story about this and the monster had to be destroyed by the bitter cold in the frozen north.
The law of unintended consequences is never repealed.