Update: the IPCC edifice is crumbling, see The state of climate science: ‘fluxed up’
See also Willis’ article One Step Forward, Two Steps Back, and Lomborg: climate models are running way too hot
This post will be a sticky for awhile, new posts will appear below it. – Anthony
Dialing Back the Alarm on Climate Change
A forthcoming report points lowers estimates on global warming
by Dr. Matt Ridley
Later this month, a long-awaited event that last happened in 2007 will recur. Like a returning comet, it will be taken to portend ominous happenings. I refer to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) “fifth assessment report,” part of which will be published on Sept. 27.
There have already been leaks from this 31-page document, which summarizes 1,914 pages of scientific discussion, but thanks to a senior climate scientist, I have had a glimpse of the key prediction at the heart of the document. The big news is that, for the first time since these reports started coming out in 1990, the new one dials back the alarm. It states that the temperature rise we can expect as a result of man-made emissions of carbon dioxide is lower than the IPPC thought in 2007.
Admittedly, the change is small, and because of changing definitions, it is not easy to compare the two reports, but retreat it is. It is significant because it points to the very real possibility that, over the next several generations, the overall effect of climate change will be positive for humankind and the planet.
Specifically, the draft report says that “equilibrium climate sensitivity” (ECS)—eventual warming induced by a doubling of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which takes hundreds of years to occur—is “extremely likely” to be above 1 degree Celsius (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit), “likely” to be above 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.4 degrees Fahrenheit) and “very likely” to be below 6 degrees Celsius (10.8 Fahrenheit). In 2007, the IPPC said it was “likely” to be above 2 degrees Celsius and “very likely” to be above 1.5 degrees, with no upper limit. Since “extremely” and “very” have specific and different statistical meanings here, comparison is difficult.
Still, the downward movement since 2007 is clear, especially at the bottom of the “likely” range. The most probable value (3 degrees Celsius last time) is for some reason not stated this time.
…
Most experts believe that warming of less than 2 degrees Celsius from preindustrial levels will result in no net economic and ecological damage. Therefore, the new report is effectively saying (based on the middle of the range of the IPCC’s emissions scenarios) that there is a better than 50-50 chance that by 2083, the benefits of climate change will still outweigh the harm.
==============================================================
Above are excerpts of an article Dr. Ridley has written for the Wall Street Journal, who kindly provided WUWT with a copy.
Read the entire story here
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Dodgy Geezer:
Thankyou for your post addressed to me at September 14, 2013 at 4:40 am.
Whatever P.G. Wodehouse said was “a good rule of life, when I know I have been wrong then I apologise and if I think I am right then I stand my ground. That has always provided clarity for others. And I think it is a “good rule” for actions on WUWT.
Richard
But skyrocket himself is still driving the EPA on a fools errand. We the taxpayers will continue to pay dearly for his killing prosperity by increasing energy costs.
What I find amazing is that there is any doubt that the planet is warming. You guys are saying that this proves that global warming is a hoax, but this report doesn’t come to that conclusion! In fact it doesn’t come anywhere close to saying that. What it says is that the warming isn’t as severe as was originally predicted. Now that’s nowhere near them saying, “The whole thing was a lie!”
Old soldiers never die they only fade away. This is the way the IPCC etc AGW will disappear over the next year or so. People need to live so getting them new jobs etc will take time. The only HUGE eye popping omission in above article is that it may COOL 1 to 4C in the coming decades so the whole concept of C02 having ANY effect whatsoever on earth atmospheric temperatures (due to overwhelming negative feedbacks) could be absolute HS.
@ur momisugly Eliza, The IPCC and AGW will NOT die over the next year or so because it(they) are a political construct hiding behind the still largely respected scientific establishment. That scientific establishment needs to find an emphatic and very public way of divorcing itself from this charade not only for it’s own sake but for the sake of us all. I believe it’s as simple as that.
Where do we get the refund of the trillions of dollars spent on the IPCC’s failed ideology and psychological cirrhosis placed on our children ?
Guilt by attrition!
Regarding annex a and b countries, I believe russia was classified as annex b
They would not sign treaty otherwise . Russian scientists knew agw was bs.
Please correct me if I am wrong.
Yeah but, no but yeah but I didn’t say that. Anyway Jimmy Hansen told me to say it.
(Britishers will get this 😉
Its a step in the right direction but I don’t believe it is nearly enough to justify the last 17 years or so. I’m fairly certain that it will be the Governments of the world that have the final say on the IPCC report and it will be interesting to see what happens later this month.
Also, I urge all Americans to write their Congressman and Senators about the EPA’s unbridled power to rule and regulate CO2, this is not how the country should be run. I have and do often.
I thought the science was settled?!?
Eliza and Ceetee. You have touched on the key issue for the scientific establishments. Sure, like old soldiers, the IPCC can just fade away. But what do all the leading scientific organizations, led by the Royal Society and the American Physical Society, do with their over-the-top, unscientific statements, supporting CAGW? These cannot just “fade away”.
I find it difficult to think how these organizations can get out of the mess that they are in, without a major climb done, and a mea maxima culpa. But who is going to lead the charge that forces this change on them in the near future?
At one time, the science was “unsettling.” Now, everything has changed just because of non-cooperating temperatures worldwide. Mother Nature just can not be bought – she is not a whore.
AR5’s words concerning CO2 sensitivity mean nothing by themselves. What do AR5’s prediction curves look like?
Jim Cripwell:
I am replying to your post at September 14, 2013 at 6:31 am. To save others needing to find it, I copy it here.
In my opinion, the three of you are discussing a very important point. As I said in my above post at September 14, 2013 at 2:33 am
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/14/breaking-ipcc-ar5-report-to-dial-back-climate-sensitivity/#comment-1416740
And the scare will ‘fade away’ and NOT “change” “in the near future”.
This is because the politicians cannot say they were wrong and reverse direction: that would be political suicide. Therefore, politicians will slowly withdraw from the AGW-scare and not rapidly reverse policy. It will take a decade for politicians to slowly alter their policies or to be replaced by politicians who have not been party to the scare.
As political interest in the scare assuages the interest of the media in the scare will reduce especially when output of the so-called ‘science’ of the scare will reduce as politicians progressively reduce funding for it.
Few among the public know of policy statements by scientific institutions so those institutions will progressively amend their statements until those statements are so bland as to be meaningless. And no “charge” can force “this change on them in the near future”. How could it and why would it?
A decade from now the AGW-scare will be over, and two decades from now few will remember it unless reminded of it (as few now remember the ‘acid rain’ scare unless reminded of it).
I say the AGW-scare is dead but the stench from its decaying corpse threatens imposition of bureacracies intended to make harm from the scare permanent. And we need to prevent establishment of those bureacracies.
Jim, you suggest that the corpse needs to be buried before the stench can cause the permanent affect, but I don’t think it can be buried.
Richard
They are getting closer but still about two times too high (or more). I think .6 – 1.0 C will turn out to be much closer.
The big question between now and 2015 is … will we see another El Niño. If we do this will be used to fuel the propaganda machine. In the meantime the propaganda machine will continue to highlight any and all bad weather events. OTOH, a major La Niña would help skeptics. Even though neither event would be meaningful in the long term, they could have a huge impact on public opinion.
Will John Cook of the oddly named Skeptical Science also dial back?
It’s so dominant that global temps rose in the last 16 years and a very slight cooling for around a decade. / sarc
SkS, it’s time to catch up with the IPCC
Very LIKELY.
So the IPCC is 95% certain they pretty much got the alarmism wrong?
Glad to see they’re certain about something.
This dial back is similar to the graph quietly released on Christmas Eve by the Met Office. I suspect the ‘great walkback’ started on that date and is gathering pace.
ohnny pics says:
September 14, 2013 at 6:07 am
Regarding annex a and b countries, I believe russia was classified as annex b
=============
The BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India, China) countries have and will continue to define what happens in the climate negotiations. They are more than happy to sign any treaty if it will hasten the transfer of industrial production from the west to BRIC countries.
The BRIC countries have no problem reducing pollution. If the bureaucracy is charged with reducing pollution 20%, the reports of current pollution will be reduced 20%, or past reports will be adjusted upwards 20%. Future reductions of 50% can be as easily achieved.
The BRIC countries know full well the ego of western politician in the media spotlight. They fully expect to receive trillions in economic consideration for a 2015 “Climate Deal for Our Time”. And like Chamberlain’s 1938 “Peace for Our Time”, it will all turn out to be a monstrous sham.
– – – – – – – –
Matt Ridley,
You make it seem that there is a real consensus about the 2 C and that it has some real meaningful scientific basis. And you appear to be using it as a substantial arguing point to support the moan thrust of your article.
Are you not skeptically critical of how that 2 C is being presented and the basis of determining it by those whom you call ‘most experts’?
Is there a shift in the previous profoundly skeptical Matt Ridley (who I admired) in the past year (or so) to less skepticism? If you have had shift in your skepticism then can you point to where you have explained why? Thank you.
Respectfully,
John
Oops.
Spelling alert in my comment ‘John Whitman on September 14, 2013 at 7:50 am’ to Matt Ridley.
main not moan . . .
Sorry.
John
REPLY: No, you had it right, there was moaning in the writing of the IPCC report – Anthony
Richard, you write “Jim, you suggest that the corpse needs to be buried before the stench can cause the permanent affect, but I don’t think it can be buried.”
I cannot disagree with what you write, but I have a nagging doubt that this can drag on for too long. Very briefly, the reason is the UK Climate Change Act. This, and similar measures in the EU are strangling the European economy. With fraking, shale oil and gas, the North American economy is starting to improve. Here in Canada, compared with Europe, we are doing really very well. Our Prime Minister is promising a debt to GDP ratio of 25% by 2020. This is not happening in Europe. And George Osborne knows this all too well. He needs to do something soon, and the longer he waits, the more urgent action becomes.
So, it may well be that some very important politicians suddenly WANT to believe the CAGW is a hoax, and a load of scientific nonsense. If that happens, and I am not saying that I think it is going to, but if it happens, then all bets are off.
Yes, even the IPCC starts to see that CO2 is much less powerful than the models assume.
This new sensitivity estimate is merely a minimum tweak to a hopelessly faulty process.The climate models are incorrectly structured because they are based on three irrational and false assumptions. First that CO2 is the main climate driver ,second that in calculating climate sensitivity the GHE due to water vapour should be added to that of CO2 as a feed back effect and third that the GHE of water vapour is always positive.As to the last point the feedbacks cannot be positive otherwise we wouldn’t be here to talk about it .
Temperature drives both CO2 and water vapour independently,. The whole CAGW – GHG scare is based on the obvious fallacy of putting the effect before the cause.As a simple (not exact) analogy controlling CO2 levels to control temperature is like trying to lower the temperature of an electric hot plate under a boiling pan of water by capturing and sequestering the steam coming off the top.A corollory to this idea is that the whole idea of a simple climate sensitivity to CO2 is nonsense and the sensitivity equation has no physical meaning unless you already know what the natural controls on energy inputs are already ie the extent of the natural variability.
Furthermore the modelling approach is inherently of no value for predicting future temperature with any calculable certainty because of the difficulty of specifying the initial conditions of a large number of variables with sufficient precision prior to multiple iterations. There is no way of knowing whether the outputs after the parameterisation of the multiple inputs merely hide compensating errors in the system as a whole.
In summary the projections of the IPCC – Met office models and all the impact studies(especially the Stern report) which derive from them are based on specifically structurally flawed and inherently useless models.They deserve no place in any serious discussion of future climate trends and represent an enormous waste of time and money.As a basis for public policy their forecasts are grossly in error and therefore worse than useless.For further discussion and an estimate of the coming cooling see
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com