IPCC Draft Lowers Global Warming Projections on Climate Sensitivity
“That report is going to scare the wits out of everyone,” said Yvo de Boer recently. He is a former United Nations chief climate negotiator and was talking about the forthcoming fifth assessment by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). With two months to go before the assessment is to be published, however, one sign suggests it might be less terrifying than it could have been. [The draft IPCC report] seems to reflect a growing sense that climate sensitivity may have been overestimated in the past and that the science is too uncertain to justify a single estimate of future rises. If this does turn out to be the case, it would have significant implications for policy. —The Economist, 20 July 2013
The next United Nations climate report will “scare the wits out of everyone” and should provide the impetus needed for the world to finally sign an agreement to tackle global warming, the former head of the UN negotiations said. Yvo de Boer, the UN climate chief during the 2009 Copenhagen climate change talks, said his conversations with scientists working on the next report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change suggested the findings would be shocking. “That report is going to scare the wits out of everyone,” Mr de Boer said in the only scheduled interview of his visit to Australia. “I’m confident those scientific findings will create new political momentum.” –Peter Hannam, Brisbane Times, 7 November 2012
The wave of new evidence of low climate sensitivity has presented the IPCC with a dilemma. They could try to bluff it out, an approach that could be terminal given the widespread reporting of the new science in the media. Alternatively they could ‘fess up’. This too could be extremely damaging, but perhaps might not be the end of them. Being good bureaucrats they have gone for the option that is most likely to lead to their survival. –Andrew Montford, Bishop Hill, 18 July 2013
At C02 concentrations of between 425 parts per million and 485 ppm, temperatures in 2100 would be 1.3-1.7°C above their pre-industrial levels. That seems lower than the IPCC’s previous assessment, made in 2007. Then, it thought concentrations of 445-490 ppm were likely to result in a rise in temperature of 2.0-2.4°C. —The Economist, 20 July 2013
Rapid melting of polar ice sheets may be due to short-lived natural events rather than climate change, scientists said. New research suggests more time is needed to predict the likely impact of global warming and ice loss on sea levels. –John von Radowitz, AFP, 15 July 2013
It is misleading, and just plain incorrect, to claim that disasters associated with hurricanes, tornadoes, floods or droughts have increased on climate timescales either in the United States or globally. It is further incorrect to associate the increasing costs of disasters with the emission of greenhouse gases. –Roger Pielke Jr., testimony to the US Senate, 18 July 2013
A paper published by the Danish Meteorological Institute finds a remarkable correlation of Arctic sea ice observations over the past 500 years to “the solar cycle length, which is a measure of solar activity. A close correlation of high significance is found between the two patterns, suggesting a link from solar activity to the Arctic Ocean climate.” The paper adds to several others demonstrating that Arctic sea ice extent and climate is controlled by natural variations in solar activity, ocean & atmospheric oscillations, winds & storm activity, not man-made CO2. —The Hockey Schtick, 17 July 2013
Current general circulation climate models (GCM) to be used in the AR5 IPCC Report in 2013, fail to reconstruct observed climatic oscillations. The proposed empirical model outperforms the GCMs by better hind-casting the observed 1850-2012 climatic patterns. It is found that: about 50-60% of the warming observed since 1850 and since 1970 was induced by natural oscillations likely resulting from harmonic astronomical forcings that are not yet included in the GCMs. –Nicola Scafetta, Solar and planetary oscillation control on climate change.
The science journal Nature said only last week that the global temperature standstill “is one of the biggest mysteries in climate science.” Just like in Monty Python’s Spanish Inquisition nobody expected the current standstill in global surface temperature. –David Whitehouse, The Observatory, 19 July 2013
Thanks to The GWPF and Dr. Benny Peiser for this compilation.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Sure it will scare the wits out of me…. Less justification for climate change, more money spent, higher taxes, crazy ideas that will make the situation even worse. What’s to like?
The IPCC’s temperature predictions are interesting. Does the IPCC have any reason to suppose that they might also be accurate?
They trying to say that the science isn’t settled?
“scare the wits out of everyone” Not so! Climatologists don”t have/need wits,they have “religion” !!!
I used to argue with alarmists who used to trot out an EXACT figure for CO2 doubling to the tenth of a Watt per square foot. They had an EXACT to the tenth of a degree figure for temp rise for a doubling of co2. Turns out they were wrong.
People who have their wits about them may have been highly annoyed but never scared of IPCC reports. And those who get scared by them .. well you can work it out.
Ha, just can’t resist after reading the last bit coming from that guy 😉
Yet more extrapolation-science, and we get to pay for all the extrapolation-scientists…
“United Nations chief climate negotiator”
And what, pray, is a “climate negotiator” – chief or otherwise?
I always understood a ‘negotiator’ to be someone who ‘gives away what a salesman can’t sell’.
The new lower estimate of CS looks to be around 2.3 degrees per doubling (~285 “pre-industrial” to 570 ppm), yet instead of less warming from a second doubling, due to the logarithmic effect, the IPCC is now apparently forecasting at least the same level, if not more. The chart goes only to 1000 ppm, so can’t say precisely the effect from 570 to 1140, but greater than 4 degrees from around 1.8 at 500 ppm implies not much diminished warming effect, & possibly even accelerated.
The Catholic Church is reborn with environmental and climate wrapping?
tell a lie long enough and some of the people will start to believe it
That has been the entire POINT of every single report. anyway. That is what they are FOR, that is their PURPOSE. The idea is to scare people into accepting policy decisions that are extremely expensive and damage their standard of living by leading them to believe that their standard of living will be worse if they don’t. It is about scaring people to get them to accept unelected bureaucrats who aren’t answerable to the people making policy decisions that amount to global redistribution of wealth.
If the report DIDN’T scare the wits out of people, the IPCC wouldn’t be doing their job. That is their entire purpose. They need to find something scary no matter what else the entire exercise is futile. IPCC is basically an enabling mechanism for bureaucratic global control of the world economy by regulation of energy production with directly corresponds to economic activity.
Jon says:
July 19, 2013 at 9:46 am
The Catholic Church is reborn with environmental and climate wrapping?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Yes, Check out Maurice Strong and the Aspen Institute, Manitou Institute and Crestone/Baca. He is trying to come up with a World Religion.
I, for one have faith in IPCC’s abilities to make the report sound scarier than it is. Perhaps they can dress it up in red robes, have scary music, and burst through the door to present it, yelling “NOBODY expects the IPCC Transmogrification!”
In re the estimates of increased temps at 425-490 ppm, it would be interesting to see the increase in temps attributable to 1,200 – 1,500 ppm in commercial greenhouses. I’d be willing to bet it’s a lot less than the doomsayers claim for those lower concentrations.
The whole debate should be moot in any case because any effect of CO2 swill be utterly dwarfed by changes in solar behavior.
“That report is going to scare the wits out of everyone,” said Yvo de Boer
The man is facing into a strong wind and relieving himself. A first-grader knows better.
…he has to be talking about the chapter on mitigation………
If the CO2 level doubles that means only that it had absorbed all heat what it can, in 5 meters instead of 10 meters. CO2 absorption/emission factor in atmosphere temperatures is something like 0,002 at this partial pressure. You can check it from Hottel maybe alarmists don’t read that heat transfer handbook. It’s maximum abs/ems is somewhere 0,2, at CO2=12% in powerplant boilers at temperature 2000 K and beam lenght approx 1 feet .This is what boiler designers now and i think that same physical laws works in earths atmosphere. Below 800K there is practically no absorption or emission heat transfer in CO2 molecules. It simply doesn’t radiate or absorb energy.
And all heat transfer is based on that heat transfers only from hot to cold, so called “netto” is very often misunderstood, it is only way to calculate how much heat transfers from hot to cold, that is not so that something transfers from hot and something transfer from cold.
I thought the wavelengths that CO2 absorbs IR light in were already saturated at current levels. Yet their chart implies there is additional forcing to be gained from higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. Can anyone speak to this?
Pittzer says:
July 19, 2013 at 10:38 am
“I thought the wavelengths that CO2 absorbs IR light in were already saturated at current levels. Yet their chart implies there is additional forcing to be gained from higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. Can anyone speak to this?”
pressure broadening. When partial pressure rises, the edges of the absorption lines which are not completely saturated yet become a bit more saturated.
I’m quaking in my boots already.
Mama!
I wonder how life coped in the last Interglacial period, about 120,000 years ago, where global temperatures exceeded current temperatures by at least 3 C and hippopotami frolicked in the Thames River? If CO2 can raise the global temperature to allow hippopotami to frolick once again in European rivers, how bad can that be? We have a long way to go before that happens, eh? Increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide has disappointed me greatly in just not doing enough to raise global temperature.
Apparently not the only this exaggerated
http://www.thegwpf.org/ipcc-chairmans-fake-phd/