The IPCC has a real pack of trouble on its hands

By Paul C. “Chip” Knappenberger and Patrick J. Michaels

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is in the midst of finishing its Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) on the topic. Based on a series of content leaks, it seems as if the AR5 has so much internal inconsistency that releasing it in its current form will be a major fiasco.

The  central issue of climate change science is the earth’s equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS)—that is, how much the earth’s average surface temperature will increase as a result of a doubling the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration. New and mutually consistent re-assessments of this important parameter are appearing in the scientific literature faster than the slow and arduous IPCC assessment process can digest them (presuming it even wants to—given that they are making the current AR5 look pretty bad).

Further, even if the IPCC is able to do an adequate job of assimilating this evolving and quite convincing science, the vast majority of the rest of the IPCC’s report will also have to be changed as it is highly dependent on the magnitude of the climate sensitivity.

By now, though, it’s too late in the game (the final report is due out in early  2014)—the  cows have all left the IPCC’s barn on these subjects and it’s too late to round them all up and rebrand them.

The First Order Draft (FOD) of the IPCC’s AR5 was leaked/made public back in December 2012. In the FOD, the IPCC recognized the significance of the earth climate sensitivity, calling it:

[T]he single most important measure of climate response because the response of many other climate variables to an increase in CO2 scales with the increase in global-mean surface temperature.

The IPCC went on to assess the current scientific knowledge as to the magnitude of the climate sensitivity this way:

Despite considerable advances in climate models and in understanding and quantifying climate feedbacks, the assessed literature still supports the conclusion from AR4 [the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report published in 2007] that climate sensitivity is likely in the range 2–4.5°C, and very likely above 1.5°C. The most likely value remains near 3°C. An ECS greater than about 6–7°C is very unlikely, based on combination of multiple lines of evidence. [emphasis in original]

The IPCC’s “mostly likely value” in the FOD is 3.0°C. This is interesting in and of itself because according to the same First Order Draft the average climate sensitivity produced by the climate models used by the IPCC is 3.4°C, which is already some 13% higher than the IPCC’s 3.0 degrees.

If the IPCC thinks there was something systematically wrong with the models it was using, then it should just come out and say it. The fact that the IPCC (currently) will not do so does not exactly inspire confidence in its ability to stand up and criticize. In reality, the average climate sensitivity of a collection of results published within the past 2-3 years suggests that the value is closer to 2.0°C, and recent observations of the pace of global temperature rise hint at a value even a bit lower than that.

The IPCC has come under growing pressure from the scientific community—especially members of the commission directly involved in climate sensitivity research—to reflect these new, lower estimates.

There are some indications, though, that the IPCC times may be a–changing.

According to The Economist, which claims to have seen the most recent draft of the IPCC’s AR5, the IPCC’s assessment of climate sensitivity has now been altered. Here is how The Economist describes what is in the new IPCC draft concerning the equilibrium climate sensitivity:

Both the 2007 IPCC report and a previous draft of the new assessment reflected earlier views on the matter by saying that the standard measure of climate sensitivity (the likely rise in equilibrium temperature in response to a doubling of CO2 concentration) was between 2°C and 4.5°C, with 3°C the most probable figure. In the new draft, the lower end of the range has been reduced to 1.5°C and the “most likely” figure has been scrapped. That 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 is true, the combination of the IPCC lowering the low end of the range of possible climate sensitivity values and the IPCC deciding not to provide its assessment of the “most likely” value strongly suggests that the average climate model sensitivity of 3.4°C is even further removed from the science on the topic and less justifiable. Just how far removed the climate models really are is kept under wraps by the IPCC by its no longer supplying a “most likely” value. If the “most likely” value were to be assessed at 2.5°C, then the climate model average would be 36% too high compared to the science. If the “most likely” value were to be 2.0°C, then the model average climate sensitivity would be some 70% too high.

Because, as the IPCC admits, the change in many other climate variables “scales with the increase in global-mean surface temperature,” the climate impacts derived from the model projections (which essentially is what the IPCC is all about) are also (substantially) too high.

The  IPCC has three options:

  1. Round-file the entire AR5 as it now stands and start again.
  2. Release the current AR5 with a statement that indicates that all the climate change and impacts described within are likely overestimated by around 50%, or
  3. Do nothing and mislead policymakers and the rest of the world.

We’re betting on door number 3.

On a final note, the problem of large government climate change assessments being scientifically outdated even before they are released is not atypical of “group science,” which is hugely expensive, grossly inefficient, and often is designed to justify policy. We noted the same thing in our comments on the recent draft report of the U.S. effort at assessing climate change impacts, the “National Climate Assessment” (NCA), stating:

To the extent that the recent literature ultimately produces a more accurate estimate of the equilibrium climate sensitivity than does the climate model average, it means that, in general, all of the projections of future climate change given in the NCA are, by default, some 40% too large (too rapid) and the associated (and described) impacts are gross overestimates.

Our recommendation is that an alternative set of projections be developed for all topics discussed in the NCA, incorporating the latest scientific findings on the lowered value of equilibrium climate sensitivity. Without the addition of the new projections, the NCA will be obsolete on the day of its official release.

And to think, these national and international assessments are undertaken to justify policy actions.

Scary thought.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
GlynnMhor

Maybe (just maybe) the AR6 will have an update to these important issues, after another lustrum or two of no warming has had time to make its effects felt.

Green Sand

“GlynnMhor says:
July 26, 2013 at 4:38 pm
Maybe (just maybe) the AR6…”

IMVHO the chance of there being an AR6 is, at this time, best described as “very slim” if not anorexic!

Hoisted on their own petard. Sensitivity will be found to be even lower once the ocean cycles and solar variation effects are properly quantified and included.

GlynnMhor

I do hope you’re correct, Green Sand.
But I fear the parasitic paradigm will burden us for another decade before the reality becomes unmistakable.

Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7

If the “most likely” value were to be assessed at 2.5°C, then the climate model average would be 36% too high compared to the science. If the “most likely” value were to be 2.0°C, then the model average climate sensitivity would be some 70% too high.

I don’t think this can possibly be right. Did you reverse these two?

Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7

BTW & OT: I really enjoyed your Carbon Tax Temperature Savings Calculator, incorporated by reference herin
This is exactly the kind of effort needed to demonstrate the insanity of climate mitigation strategies. Lord Monckton does it with long (but eloquent) posts. Your approach is better IMHO.

Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7

BTW & OT, part 2. Thanks to Joanne Nova for the write-up and link to your calculator.

Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7

BTW & OT, part 1.5 (correction).
“herin” should be “herein”. [never post in haste, or after more than 2 glasses of wine].

DirkH

Gavin will fiddle up the temperature of the globe just in time to save the high estimates. Combined with a little cooling of the past.
Some history books will have to be corrected. The Dust Bowl was obviously just dusty, not hot. Unternehmen Barbarossa got stuck when liquid oxygen started raining down on the Wehrmacht. There, fixed that. BTW everyone was happy in those days of eternal frost. Nobody needed fridges. In fact, nobody had a fridge. Coincidence? There ain’t no such thing as coincidence.

milodonharlani

The Team engages in government-funded group grope “science”.

Get ready for the doomers to concede that the models are worthless. But they’ll say “so what? The ‘established physics’ still holds, and we’re still moving headlong toward doom.” Yeah, because the ocean has eaten the heat or something.
No, fact is the current 15 year temperature stall, and the current lack of any semblance of a connection between CO2 & temperatures… puts this “established physics” in question.
The climate is clearly not responding in the way that the “established physics” indicated it would. The “established physics” is incorrect, or something else about the warmists’ thesis is terribly wrong. Maybe “Gaia” is a homoeostatic system with lots of mechanisms to keep temperature within narrow limits. Much like the body of a mammal. Who knows? But one thing, I look at the temperature evidence, and I don’t see any major perturbation. Now we have a 15 year stall which is inconsistent with theory, and before that, for well over a century, we see the temperatures at low and higher CO2 times rising and falling at the virtually the same rate (so CO2 is having NO effect): http://www.c3headlines.com/2013/06/ipccs-gold-standard-hadcrut-confirms-co2s-impact-on-global-temps-statistically-immaterial-insignific.html

John West

@ Alan Watt
“more than 2 glasses of wine”
Well that explains it.
(3.4 – 2.5) / 2.5 * 100 = 36%
(3.4 – 2.0) / 2.0 * 100 = 70%

Konrad

4. Shred all copies, recycle and reissue as extra soft double ply tissue with perforations for the publics convenience.
“Climate sensitivity” to a doubling from fictitious “pre-industrial” levels would be around -0.00000001 C.
To arrive at this figure you of course have to ignore all the evidence that temperature drives atmospheric CO2 concentration at all time scales.
Next reduce those ludicrous figures for DWLWIR slowing the cooling of the earths surface by 71percent. LWIR doesn’t effect the cooling rate of water that is free to evaporativly cool.
Now as the troposperic lapse rate created by convective circulation is near the adiabatic limit, there is little need for ajustment here. However speed of convective circulation and mechanical energy transport from the surface should be increased for higher radiative gas concentrations.
The ERL argument can be safely ignored as it is junk science. In a moving atmosphere, warm air masses are transporting energy high above the level of maximum IR opacity, where they always radiate more than the air at the altitude they are rising through.
You should find that radiative gases act to cool the atmosphere at all concentrations above 0.0ppm.
The IPCC however should continue to do static atmosphere calculations and assume surface IR absorption based on emissivity. Otherwise they won’t get paid.

angech

ippc climate sensitivity = [agenda x income] -[regard for truth x ECS].
Dunno, maths seems perfect to me.
estimate 2.0 to 4.5

Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7

@John West
Thank you. I see now I did not read carefully enough. I took the phrase “the science” to mean measured temperatures and the sample ECS values to be plugged into the models.

Just using common sense (you know, that ability which is above all other areas), the predictions within a non-linear chaotic system, which by their nature become wider over time the further ahead you go, should be illegal as they are worse than astrology.
That said, there is a slightly linear element to the CO2/temperature relationship which does not exist in models but records, CO2 has risen by 50%, the temperature has risen 0.8C which is not all due to the CO2 officially. Therefore as we know no delay mechanism (what’s that Sooty, the deep oceans, come on, that’s a myth) then without a new law or two of physics to be discovered (like the ones in James Hansen’s mind) the sensitivity has pretty much been established around a level of 1, ie neutral. Expecting more than that actually dismisses the entire 1850-2013 data altogether, to quote Chris Folland of the Hadley Centre,
“The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models.”
QED

Jimmy Haigh

Here’s my recommendation. Scral the IPCC. Immediately.

Put yourself in their position. If you were on the IPCC gravy train would you rather:
(a) Keep taking the money for the next decade whilst looking foolish
(b) Become unemployed
The IPCC is a Watermelon organization and must be disbanded without delay.

johanna

Excellent, concise summary of where things are at re AR5 – and easily comprehended by those without degrees in physics or maths.
This is the kind of stuff that keeps me coming back here!

jorgekafkazar

The IPCC has three options:
1. Round-file the entire AR5 as it now stands and start again.
2. Release the current AR5 with a statement that indicates that all the climate change and impacts described within are likely overestimated by around 50%, or
3. Do nothing and mislead policymakers and the rest of the world.
4. “It’s worse than we thought. 98% of the scientists in our pocket agree. The oceans are becoming acidic or alkaline. We’re all gonna die! Think of the children! Gaia demands we act! We must employ the precautionary principle immediately.”

Brian H

Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7 says:
July 26, 2013 at 5:11 pm
BTW & OT: I really enjoyed your Carbon Tax Temperature Savings Calculator, incorporated by reference herin
This is exactly the kind of effort needed to demonstrate the insanity of climate mitigation strategies. Lord Monckton does it with long (but eloquent) posts. Your approach is better IMHO.

It is notable that none of the impacts are significantly different from 0. I.e., doing nothing.

Mike Smith

The IPCC should sequester AR5 in the deep ocean so it can be fully cooked by all the atmospheric heat that is hiding therein.

Onlooker from Troy

Well of course what should happen is that this political animal should be put out of our misery, having been totally discredited, finally and far overdue.
But we know that the real agenda still exists and won’t go down for the count so easily. So they’ll find a way to crank up the propaganda machine and fight desperately for the power they desire.

Paul Vaughan

The central issue of climate change science is the earth’s equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS)—that is, how much the earth’s average surface temperature will increase as a result of a doubling the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration.”
??? —- doesn’t even crack the top 10! (that’s a factorial)

William McClenney

Rodney Dangerfield moment.
The real question is how many late-Holocene hominids will even notice?

Clay Marley

I think the IPCC will have to get rid of the climate sensitivity value altogether. This number appears to me to be little more than the correlation between rising temps and rising CO2. As long as both were rising, the sensitivity appeared high. But when the earth quit warming, the sensitivity gets lower because the correlation gets worse. The longer the earth temps fail to rise the worse the correlation and the lower the sensitivity.
So the claim will have to be that it isn’t so important. Probably simple as removing a few paragraphs. then we’ll see a “new consensus” in the message that the heat is deep in the ocean, or that the problem now is acidification.
Anything to keep the CAGW message alive.

John Norris

regarding:
The IPCC has three options:
1. Round-file the entire AR5 as it now stands and start again.
2. Release the current AR5 with a statement that indicates that all the climate change and impacts described within are likely overestimated by around 50%, or
3. Do nothing and mislead policymakers and the rest of the world.
We’re betting on door number 3.
I’m betting on a 4th option; an AR5 that enables the IPCC Bureaucracy to survive. I went on record with it here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/19/newsbytes-the-economist-reveals-sensitive-ipcc-information/#comment-1367711

Werner Brozek

At the moment, RSS has a flat slope for 16 years and 7 months; Hadsst2 has been flat for 16 years and 4 months; and HadCRUT3 has been flat for 16 years and 2 months. It is quite possible that when the report is released in early 2014, all three will have flat periods of 17 years or be very close to it. The people who come up with the report need to keep this fact in the back of their minds if they do not want to appear too out of touch with reality.

JimS

We should keep the IPCC around for a bit to help us through the next 95,000 year period of glaciation. But their headquarters are in New York City, eh? Well that will have to be moved a bit further south.
http://sublimeobsessions.blogspot.ca/2013/07/an-inconvenient-fact-ice-age-in-which.html

Other_Andy

Werner Brozek says:
At the moment, RSS has a flat slope for 16 years and 7 months.
hasn’t the RSS been flat before for almost that long?
1979 till 1995, or 16 years.
What’s different now?

Pat Michaels

Angech–
You have a great model! We can test that.
But I don’t think the feds (or the IPCC) will fund our work!

Talent-Key-Hole Mole

I posit that Misters Knappenberger and Michaels are tools of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) engaging in a campaign of Fear Uncertainty and Doubt (FUD) in advance of the release of the Sixth Assessment Report (AR6).
The publication of the AR5 showed convincingly, with no uncertainty and without doubt the IPCC’s Director, staff, writers and reviewers deftness (subterfuge) for committing Fraud on a grand scale.
They did it! It is written. They own it.
It is written, “God Forgives.”
We humans, … are not God.
WE, do NOT forgive!
WE, do NOT forget!
May the headstones of the Gettysburg IPCC Director, Staff, Writers and Reviewers own these words … on their headstones.
QED

Ian W

Green Sand says:
July 26, 2013 at 4:51 pm
“GlynnMhor says:
July 26, 2013 at 4:38 pm
Maybe (just maybe) the AR6…”
IMVHO the chance of there being an AR6 is, at this time, best described as “very slim” if not anorexic!

I agree that there will almost certainly be no AR6, but that is nothing to do with science. The political position and activity has moved on from the ‘settled science’ and has no more need of the IPCC. Politically, proving the IPCC wrong is yesterday’s battle which the CAGW proponents feel they have won. All the ‘green taxes’, ‘environmental regulation’ and Common Purpose/Agenda 21 items will be in place. The only thing that can upset the progress is the actual climate; the concern the Earth may be getting colder accounts for the shrillness of the debate and the current efforts to finish getting all aspects of energy governance in place. What the climate ‘scientists’ do not appear to realize their gravy train is coming to an end – there is no need for more papers/research on ‘climate’ indeed by generating results they may be a threat to the political position, so expect funding for climate ‘science’ to collapse in the near future.

Eliza

The IPCC has a real pack of (sea ice) trouble etc You can say that again!
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php LOL

Talent-Key-Hole Mole

The IPCC HMS Titanic has struck an ‘iceberg’.

Jon

Maybe the socialists in Norway will try to truth stamp IPCC and Gore with another Nobels peace prize?

Mk Urbo

@ Brent Hargreaves says:
July 26, 2013 at 5:54 pm
“The IPCC is a Watermelon organization and must be disbanded without delay.”
Classic post !

Reblogged this on The GOLDEN RULE and commented:
Some people and organizations are starting to use their “little grey cells”!
An extract: “On a final note, the problem of large government climate change assessments being scientifically outdated even before they are released is not atypical of “group science,” which is hugely expensive, grossly inefficient, and often is designed to justify policy. We noted the same thing in our comments on the recent draft report of the U.S. effort at assessing climate change impacts, the “National Climate Assessment” (NCA), stating:
To the extent that the recent literature ultimately produces a more accurate estimate of the equilibrium climate sensitivity than does the climate model average, it means that, in general, all of the projections of future climate change given in the NCA are, by default, some 40% too large (too rapid) and the associated (and described) impacts are gross overestimates.
Our recommendation is that an alternative set of projections be developed for all topics discussed in the NCA, incorporating the latest scientific findings on the lowered value of equilibrium climate sensitivity. Without the addition of the new projections, the NCA will be obsolete on the day of its official release.
And to think, these national and international assessments are undertaken to justify policy actions.
Scary thought.”

RoHa

@ tallbloke
Pssst! The phrase coined by The Master is “hoist with his own petard”. A petard is a bomb, not something you hang on.

Reed Coray

JimS July 26, 2013 at 7:29 pm wrote
We should keep the IPCC around for a bit to help us through the next 95,000 year period of glaciation. But their headquarters are in New York City, eh? Well that will have to be moved a bit further south.

Or their headquarters building will have to be made higher–approximately four miles higher.

William McClenney

Channeling a bit here, obviously a bit outside of the IPCC’s charter, it seemed reasonable to ask the question:
“What were the ends of the last interglacials like?”
MIS-5e, the last interglacial back in the record was apparently quite the extreme little post-MPT interglacial. A detailed recounting may be found here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/16/the-end-holocene-or-how-to-make-out-like-a-madoff-climate-change-insurer/
Within that may also be found a discussion of MIS-11 and MIS-19. Post-MPT interglacials like MIS-1, the Holocene, which also occurred at an eccentricity minima.
This discussion yields 2 thermal pulses right at the very end of MIS-5e, one at the very end of MIS-11 and 3 at the very end of MIS-19.
Recently, a high resolution study of sediments from Lake El’gygytgyn refine the Holsteinian interglacial thusly:
“Here we present a detailed multi-proxy record of the climate and environmental evolution at Lake El’gygytgyn, Far East Russian Arctic during the period 430–395 ka covering the marine isotope stage (MIS) 12/11 transition and the thermal maximum of super interglacial MIS 11c. The MIS 12/11 transition at Lake El’gygytgyn is characterized by initial warming followed by a cold reversal implying similarities to the last deglaciation. The thermal maximum of MIS 11c is characterized by full and remarkably stable interglacial conditions with mean temperatures of the warmest month (MTWM) ranging between ca. 10–15 C; annual precipitation (PANN) ranging between ca. 300–600 mm; strong in-lake productivity coinciding with dark coniferous forests in the catchment; annual disintegration of the lake ice cover; and full mixis of the water column. Such conditions persisted, according to our age model, for ca. 27±8 kyr between ca. 425–398 ka. The Lake El’gygytgyn record closely resembles the climate pattern recorded in Lake Baikal (SE Siberia) sediments and Antarctic ice cores, implying interhemispheric climate connectivity during MIS 11c.
“Because of the similarity of the earth’s orbital parameters between the Holocene and MIS 11c, the latter is considered a close paleoclimatic analogue for the present interglacial (Loutre and Berger, 2000, 2003).
“Several so-called “super interglacials” have been identified in the Quaternary sediment record from Lake El’gygytgyn (Melles et al., 2012). Among these “super interglacials”, marine isotope stage (MIS) 11c and 31 appear to be the most outstanding in terms of their temperature, vegetation cover, in-lake productivity, and in the case of MIS 11c also duration(Melles et al., 2012). Quantitative climate reconstructions for MIS 11c and 31 at Lake El’gygytgyn imply that temperatures and annual precipitation values were up to ca. 5 C and ca. 300mm higher if compared to the Holocene (Melles et al., 2012).
“In close correspondence to the observed changes in in-lake productivity and vegetation, MTWM increases to ca. 15 C and PANN to >600mm (Melles et al., 2012; Fig. 3i, k), thus completing a coherent picture of a significant climate amelioration in a time span of only ca. 1 kyr at Lake El’gygytgyn. Following the climate amelioration between ca. 425–424 ka, a setback to a slightly less productive environment and a somewhat colder and drier climate between ca. 424–420 ka is indicated by a decrease in in-lake productivity indicators, spruce pollen contents, fluxes of terrestrial OM, MTWM, PANN, and an increase in the flux of allochthonous clastic matter (Fig. 3).
“A significant increase in in-lake productivity indicators, tree and shrub pollen contents, MTWM, and PANN at ca. 420–418.5 ka marks the beginning of relatively stable, long-lasting optimum climate conditions of MIS 11c at Lake El’gygytgyn, which lasted from ca. 418.5 to ca. 402 ka (Fig. 3).
“A remarkable feature during this phase is the concomitant occurrence of peak TOC and TOC/TN values centered at ca. 401 ka, reaching up to 3.4% and 25, respectively (Fig. 3b, c).
http://www.clim-past.net/9/1467/2013/cp-9-1467-2013.pdf
I can only hope that you are still with me here. The single rapid thermal excursion at the end-Holsteinian which was somewhere on the order of a thousand years or so.
The talking-point here is that the ends of even eccentricity minima post-MPT interglacials are populated with from 1 to 3 thermal excursions.
With 2 such thermal excursions known from the orbitally incorrect but nevertheless most recent post-MPT extreme interglacial, MIS-5e:
http://eg.igras.ru/files/f.2010.04.14.12.53.54..5.pdf
(You may have to copy the string above and open another tab to find)
“In terrestrial records from Central and Eastern Europe the end of the Last Interglacial seems to be characterized by evident climatic and environmental instabilities recorded by geochemical and vegetation indicators. The transition (MIS 5e/5d) from the Last Interglacial (Eemian, Mikulino) to the Early Last Glacial (Early Weichselian, Early Valdai) is marked by at least two warming events as observed in geochemical data on the lake sediment profiles of Central (Gröbern, Neumark–Nord, Klinge) and of Eastern Europe (Ples)
Within such a signal to noise climate environment one must consider the latest positive, and now negative, phases of the PDO, at the very least.
With the sun gone all quiet on us at the half-precession cycle old (and a few centuries change) Holocene, a wise hominid might also consider consideration of how many end-extreme-interglacial-thermal-pulses the Holocene might be due.
If only one, like MIS-11, is that what we just managed to live through?
If two, the second one yet to come, necessarily meaning that we might have two, like MIS-5e did, what is it, precisely, that you propose?
If there are to be three, like MIS-19 had, what can we do about the next two, assuming we just went through end-extreme interglacial thermal pulse (ala MIS-11) numero uno?
And then there is the most enigmatic question of all known hominid time. Assuming you could extend the presently half-precession cycle old Holocene what is it, exactly, that you would do? Regardless of whether or not the Holocene will span 1/2, 1, 1.5, or even 2 precession cycles, like MIS-11 might have……..
Why would this not be a fair question?

Chad Wozniak

@Ian W –
I wouldn’t be too sure that the worldwide focus is shifting away from CAGW, or that it will do so very soon. The alarmies are very creative at finding ways to extend their meme in the face of overwhelming evidence against it, the EU still hesitates to drop it, and you have der Fuehrer here in the US bulling right ahead with talk of “carbon pollution” and not-so-veiled threats against skeptics.
One may hope that the Liberal-National party in Australia wins the election there in September, and that when they do they do a thorough housecleaning of the alarmists from Australia’s bureaucracy, its universities, the CSIRO and other scientific institutions. If that happens it may be appropriate to take heart.
The IPCC is a joke – a laughable exercise in incompetence, bias and mean-spiritedness, and an utter waste of resources bestowed upon people who would be better suited to cleaning bus station rest rooms and hospital bedpans – but they still present a danger to science, to liberty and the world economy, zand will until they are put permanently out of business.

William Astley

Propaganda does not change reality. The IPCC is between a rock and hard place. The IPCC and I suppose many of us are assuming either a continuation of the plateau with no warming or slight warming, rather than significant cooling. The IPCC and I suppose many of us are ignoring the solar cycle 24 change and how the planet’s climate has changed in the past when there was a similar solar magnetic cycle change.
The planet’s sensitivity to a forcing change is a problem. It is most definitely too high in the general circulation models. There is no other explanation for a plateau of no warming for 16 years. The planet resists rather than amplifies forcing changes which is validated by Lindzen and Choi’s two papers that analyzed top of the atmosphere radiation changes vs ocean temperature changes to determine the planet’s sensitivity to a forcing change. That fact however has implications as to what caused past very strong cyclic climate change. i.e. A very strong cyclic forcing mechanism is required to produce cyclic abrupt climate change as the planet resists forcing changes. One of the arguments for high climate sensitivity given at Realclimate and parroted at Skeptical Science was if climate sensitivity is not high they cannot explain the glacial/interglacial cycle. Again the answer to what causes the glacial/interglacial cycle is a very strong cyclic forcing mechanism. No one looked for a strong forcing mechanism as everyone assumed the planet amplifies forcing changes which is not correct. Back to the solar magnetic cycle 24 change.
The second problem is what caused the warming in the last 70 years. The regions that warmed in the last 70 years are not the regions that were predicted to warm based on the general circulation models. The IPCC settled for any warming as good enough to keep pushing the political agenda. They ignored the scientific questions that should have been asked when the warming pattern obviously did not match the predicted pattern. The anomalous pattern of warming indicates there is one or more fundamental errors in the CO2 forcing mechanism beyond sensitivity and that some other mechanism caused the majority of the warming in the last 70 years. Rather than working to solve a scientific puzzle they worked to come up with a zillion reasons why any warming would be a bad thing.
It would appear the IPCC and many of us do not believe significant cooling is possible. It is difficult to imagine how the IPCC would respond to global cooling.
1) Sorry we were just kidding.
2) Were did that come from?
3) Should have listened to the deniers. Most of us were unaware planetary temperature (in the same regions that warmed in the last 70 years) has cyclically warmed and cooled correlating with solar magnetic cycle changes.
4) It appears based on the observed cooling, that the majority of the warming in the last 70 years was caused by solar magnetic cycle change modulation of planetary cloud cover, rather than the increase in atmospheric CO2. It appears there are multiple fundamental errors in the general circulation models. We are working away to find the errors.

StuartMcL

Eliza says:
July 26, 2013 at 8:10 pm
The IPCC has a real pack of (sea ice) trouble etc You can say that again!
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php LOL
The WUWT Sea Ice reference page still shows the old version. Can Anthony change the link to the updated version?

Marcel Crok

The Second Order Draft (SOD) was leaked, not the FOD

John F. Hultquist

Insofar as folks have introduced the topic of sea ice, see:
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/07/26/north-pole-now-lake/?intcmp=features
Then links to an old story about last summer (2012):
http://www.livescience.com/26789-arctic-cyclone-sea-ice-melt.html
I know nothing about the source (LiveScience) but they claim there is
An Arctic cyclone, which can rival a hurricane in strength, is forecast for this week, ..
WUWT?

Village Idiot

Chip and Paddy claim that the AR4 “has so much internal inconsistency”. Must of rubbed off those guys.
“…even if the IPCC is able to do an adequate job of assimilating this evolving and quite convincing science…..By now, though, it’s too late in the game..”
“There are some indications, though, that the IPCC times may be a–changing. According to The Economist, which claims to have seen the most recent draft of the IPCC’s AR5, the IPCC’s assessment of climate sensitivity has now been altered.”
Why not wait until it comes out, instead of speculating on a series of leaked drafts?
————————————————————
“..these national and international assessments are undertaken to justify policy actions.”
What policy actions? The world community has done basically nothing to reduce GHG emissions!
Now THAT’S scary.

1.Round-file the entire AR5 as it now stands and start again.
2.Release the current AR5 with a statement that indicates that all the climate change and impacts described within are likely overestimated by around 50%, or
3.Do nothing and mislead policymakers and the rest of the world.

4. Do nothing more, give the policy makers and rent seakers the current draft as they paid for, and mislead the taxpayers.
This essay makes the critical mistake that the IPCC actually wants something that resembles true scientific best information.
The Consensus will not define AR5,
AR5 will define the Concensus.
IPCC will shut down so there can be no corrections, no debate on corrections.
AR5 will be the Gospel, the Deuteronomy, the Revelation.
All Heretics will be exiled.
Gavel in the Inquisition! There is a World to be saved!

“/It isn’t about truth at all
/It’s about sounding plausible
/Hide the decline…

Jimbo

The leaks have had a great effect. It has forced them to look at issues pointed out by sceptics and probably will end up toning down their alarm. You see, if there were now leaks they would simply release and by the time sceptics pointed out problems it would have already been trumpeted by the media and things moved along.

In reality, the average climate sensitivity of a collection of results published within the past 2-3 years suggests that the value is closer to 2.0°C, and recent observations of the pace of global temperature rise hint at a value even a bit lower than that.

Observations trump theory hypothesis every time.

AndyG55

DirkH says:
“Gavin will fiddle up the temperature of the globe just in time to save the high estimates. Combined with a little cooling of the past.”
Already in hand , don’t worry about that..
http://suyts.wordpress.com/2013/07/23/really-giss-dishonesty-continues-in-post-hansen-era/#comment-84102
You will see that since February, the anomalies for 2002 up to 2012 have been shifted upwards by about 0.05C.
eg. the 2007 el nino anomaly has changed from about 0.88 to 0.93 and the rebound trough in 2008 has been changed from about 0.15 to about 0.23
Why? ???
How much have earlier records been pushed down I wonder ?