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
Manfred says:
November 14, 2011 at 7:36 pm
////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Manfred’s point is important as many people have in the past commented that one should view warming over a complete cycle peak to peak, or trough to trough.
If there is a 60 year cycle then it is noteworthy to look at the previous 60 year period, ie., the period 1880 to 1940. This is important since this period runs before there was any significant increase in CO2 due to manmade activities. This period is therefore an indicator of what warming can be expected as the result of natural variation as Earth rebounds/comes out of the LIA.
It would appear that during this period (1880-1940) there was a warming of about 0.15degC, ie., the underlying trend of natural warming is 0.15C per 60 year period. That being the case, the difference between the 1880-1940 warming (natural variation) and 1940-2000 warming (natural +manmade CO2 warming) is only 0.05C (ie., 0.2 -0.15) or maximum 0.15C (ie., 0.3-0.15). This suggests that any warming due to CO2 lies between 0.05 to 0.15C per 60 year period range. On any interpreation this is not an alarming figure..
The IPCC still talk as if climate change never happened before we industrialized.
Close them down with the EPA.
Richard111: “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.”
CO2 and the other IR-active (aka ‘greenhouse’) gases, away from the surface, radiate out heat to space at night, thus cooling the atmsophere. Increasing the amount of these gases such as CO2, increases this cooling effect. AGW science supporters know it, but never refer to this phenomenon. Preferring instead to project CO2 as a kind of perilous heat-grabbing gas trapping the earth in an impenetrable blanket.
If CO2 was more generally known to increase its cooling effect with increasing concentrations, it would spoil many of the AGW supporters most persistent messages on rising CO2 levels.
Jean Parisot says: November 14, 2011 at 11:03 am
Why would this document need to be “leaked”?
Shhhh. Perhaps it was hacked!
D. Patterson says: November 14, 2011 at 7:11 pm
Citations for your statement about the first usage of the term “global warming” etc, please
Here’s Bloomsberg’s “take” on this story (temperature extremes likely to rise, along with damage from storms–(but cannot be reliably attributed to AGW!):
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-11-15/temperature-extremes-virtually-certain-to-rise-un-draft-says.html
“Climate Change Signals Expected To Be Relatively Small Over Coming 20-30 Years”
Seems like they are saying that the sensitivity to a CO2 doubling is variable and will be near zero for the next few decades, of increasing CO2. Well isn’t that just… just… peachy. Let’s join hands and sing “If I only had a brain!”. GK
>>
G. Karst says:
November 15, 2011 at 9:54 am
Well isn’t that just… just… peachy. Let’s join hands and sing “If I only had a brain!”
<<
And when the scarecrow gets a brain he says:
“The sum of the square roots of any two sides of an isosceles triangle is equal to the square root of the remaining side. Oh joy! Rapture! I got a brain!”
This shows that straw brains aren’t any better than straw arguments (or climate science logic).
Jim
That`s funny, I just read a leak from AFP, and the spin is totally different what is being said here. They talk about extreme climat that will become more common. Things are getting worse…
Derek said November 14, 2011 at 11:54 am
“perhaps “man made Global Warming” (as predicted) could only happen in an imaginary “reality”..”
Well, there’s Plato’s “world of forms”, that other realm in which concepts must exist. The foundation of many ideologies, like Marxism which praises contradictions.
A realm of wishful thinking, except that Plato and followers called it real whereas what we see normally is not real. I know, it’s bizarre but that’s the nature of flawed philosophy.
Relevant as so many climate alarmists accept Marxist presumptions about humans.
OK, we’ve got a ‘leaked’ trial balloon from the IPCC. What does that tell us? Assuming that the items in this article are representative, it may be that the IPCC is looking for a graceful retreat from the extremist baloney in AR4.
“Uncertainty in the sign of projected changes in climate extremes over the coming two to three decades is relatively large…”
Please note, the statement above refers explicitly to climate extremes NOT globally averaged temperatures. At approximately 0.16C/decade, 30 years is more than enough for global temperature rise due to AGW to overcome natural variability (excluding a spate of volcanic eruptions). Nothing in the statements listed contradicts this position.
Re “Global Warming” vs “Climate Change”, my preference is global warming (making it clear this refers to global average temperature). Global warming is an unequivocal definition, falsifiable given enough time.