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.
Jim Cripwell:
Thankyou for your thoughtful reply to me at September 14, 2013 at 7:57 am.
It concludes saying
On balance, I hope you are right because the AGW-scare is inflicting much harm on economic and energy policies in several countries. But I doubt that rapid collapse of the GW-scare can happen for the reasons I stated in my post you have replied.
And if – as I hope – you are right then I would be saddened because it would cause much damage to all science and not only to the pseudoscience of so-called ‘climate science’.
Thankyou for your thoughts.
Richard
Jim Cripwell says:
September 14, 2013 at 7:57 am
So, it may well be that some very important politicians suddenly WANT to believe the CAGW is a hoax
==========
The politicians wanted to believe in AGW because it promised significant tax revenues. However, these promises turned out to be hollow, because the revenues came at the expense of shrinking the tax base. In effect AGW delivers a larger share of a smaller pie, and with every bite the pie gets smaller still.
The politicians know full well from history that when the pie runs out, hungry people eat the politicians.
From above:
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.
_____
I reject the (alleged) IPCC estimates of ECS in AR5 as scientifically untenable.
Alternative A assumes that the conventional IPCC climate science hypo (that CO2 primarily drives temperature) is broadly valid:
Conclusion: These IPCC ECS estimates are “extremely likely” to be higher than reality.
Why?
An ECS of ~1C is the hypothetical equilibrium figure with no feedbacks.
An ECS greater than ~1C assumes positive feedbacks and an ECS less than ~1C assumes negative feedbacks.
Based on the evidence, the feedbacks are negative.
Therefore It is “extremely likely” that ECS will be less than ~1 degree C.
Alternative B assumes that net ECS is effectively near-zero or non-existent, because of clear evidence that CO2 lags temperature at all measured time scales.
Same conclusion: These IPCC ECS estimates are “extremely likely” to be higher than reality.
Why?
Because, it is “extremely likely” that the future cannot cause the past.
I further suggest that the IPCC’s estimates of ECS are more political than scientific in origin. This reduction in ECS from previous IPCC estimates is a structured political retreat from an untenable extremist position. The IPCC are now admitting that they were half-wrong. We will have to wait for AR6 for them to admit they were fully wrong.
How did we arrive at the 2C limit? I vaguely recall Dr. Phil Jones asking the same question in the leaked CRU emails. I can’t find it.
Dr Norman Page says: September 14, 2013 at 8:12 am
Allan MacRae says: September 14, 2013 at 8:20 am
Remarkable similarity – I read your post of 8 minutes earlier after posting mine.
Enjoy your day Dr. Page.
Regards, Allan
Corrected post ……
All such speculation is premature until the AR5 prediction curves are officially published and can be compared to the AR4 prediction curves.
As long as AR5 still makes the claim that most of the temperature increase in the last fifty years can be attributed to human causation, then the fine tuning of the words the IPCC needs to cover the possibility that temperatures remain flat between AR5 and AR6 won’t make any real difference to the Climate Science Industrial Complex.
Regardless of how the AR5′s wording concerning CO2 sensitivity is written, the IPCC policy recommendation will remain “full steam ahead” on reducing CO2 emissions.
Can’t wait to see Mosher’s next dry buzzkill remark.
I found it!
Modeled uncertainty (calculated from the range of the multiple model runs) under pre-industrial parameters (no anthropogenic parameter data included) is actually larger than the range in observations (IE modeled-natural appears to over estimate real-observations when hindcasting). Therefore the outer bands of the CO2 scenario projections are wide substantially because of this pre-industrial uncertainty. This is why climate scientists are worried. They can’t find the wriggle of anthropogenic CO2 warming in the observations to a significant degree because that wriggle hasn’t risen above natural variation. Which also means they can’t point to “it” in the projections. Not even in the lowest one.
So it appears that mathematically one can calculate the wriggle in anthropogenic warming, just like one can calculate the solar wriggle, but it is not significant enough to show in the noisy intrinsic observations.
It’s like people, grown adult people, are afraid of an imaginary boogy man and have decided to tax the rest of us because of it. The boogy man tax. I am paying for a &%$*@ur momisugly boogy man tax!
Two points:
1. [“(ECS)—eventual warming induced by a doubling of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which takes hundreds of years to occur…”]
Say what? So the Hockey Stick warming started more than one hundred years before the industrial revolution? So the current flattening is due to the reduction of the non-existent anthropogenic CO2 increase somewhere c1800?
2. The very idea of an ECS is a theoretical construct. There is absolutely NO evidence that doubling (or even increasing) CO2 makes ANY measurable difference to ‘real’ global temperature. As with all warmists, the IPCC argues from an assumption and doesn’t even make sense of that!
Pathetic.
For those interested in water vapor feedback numbers, here is the latest data up to August 2013.
The IPCC climate models are over-estimating water vapor by quite a bit so far. They have it an increase of 6.0% right now (and 22% by 2100) while last month, it was just 0.9% above average.
http://s23.postimg.org/qme9cxx4r/PCWV_IPCCAR5_Aug_2013.png
That is because (temps aren’t increasing as fast as predicted of course but also that) the ENSO is by far the biggest driver of water vapor levels. Water vapor lags 3 months behind the ENSO (like temperatures do which is not surprising).
http://s22.postimg.org/j48hjy7bl/ENSO_PCWV48_Aug_2013.png
But there is a well-known theory, Clausius-Clapeyron, that predicts a 7.0% increase in water vapor per 1.0C increase in temperatures and this is directly built into all the climate models. Clausius- Clapeyron is not entirely wrong, its just that the real Earth decides to use a slightly lower value of 4.6% instead (somehow tied in to the ENSO).
http://s22.postimg.org/exwtw3mhd/PCWV_vs_RSS_UAH_Temps_Aug_2013.png
This might say water vapor is indeed a positive feedback, but if you run the numbers at 4.6% rather than 7.0%, the CO2 doubling sensitivity falls to 2.0C per doubling (and then put clouds at zero net feedback rather than positive and the CO2 doubling sensitivity falls to 1.5C – that’s my number and it seems to pop out close to that number no matter how many different ways I look at it).
As it is likely that none of the models showing high CS show the possibility of a 15+ yr stall in temperature rise they all have been proven to be invalid. All of those models should be removed from use and “projections”. They still keep the invalidated models in the analysis because without the high end possibilities the whole scare (scam?) goes away. Actually, it is likely ALL of their models have been shown to be invalid because of too high a CS value, since none show the possibility of lack of warming for over 17+ years. The truth is more apt that the CS is extremely likely to be less than 2C and very likely less than 1.5C. Thus the CO2 addition has been net BENEFICIAL to mankind. Increased plant growth, fewer people freezing to death, larger areas for farming, higher yields per acre.
Time for congress to declare war on the EPA and disband all of the global warming and “CO2 is bad” regulations. My electricity bill here in southern CA is expected to go up another 40% by 2016 (18% this year alone) all in the name of fighting CO2. High energy costs leads to death and lower standards of living , loss of jobs, and the destruction of the lower and middle class. It is time to END this war on CO2.
And next report it will come down again, when it fails to warm and they still won’t admit the models are wrong.
Clueless and very poorly phrased twaddle, but let me help you out sonny.
No one on this site, or anywhere else doubts that the earth has warmed since the LIA – no one disputes that.
What we do dispute, is, mankind’s fingerprint in the warming signal, we do not dispute that CO2 is GHG and man adds CO2 to the atmosphere at ± 5-7%. A puny amount but which is neither here nor there and even if that footling amount did cause some negligible warming – would we ever be able to quantify it? Short answer to that is: no.
In conclusion, though the earths average temperature has been in stasis for the last 17 years – and CO2 atmospheric concentrations are ever rising why are the [IPCC] models wholly devoted to ‘proving’ the link between >CO2=>T’s. Why are the IPCC models, still predicting rises – when temperatures are dead flat?
Even, a junior grade student must begin to question the foundational premise of the IPCC – that of, anthropomorphic emissions of CO2 are causing runaway warming.
I’d go further, anecdotal evidence and recent temperature records in England and Germany highlight and clearly point to a decline in average temperatures – in total contradiction to posited rises in world Temperatures boldly predicted by IPCC models and thereby obliterating the fundamental raison d’etre of the IPCC.
So, the question is – why is the IPCC still spouting utter tripe about nebulous threats?
And the short answer to that is – jobs for civil servants, jobs for NGO’s around the world, jobs for academia [paid for by you] and a God send for the political classes of the western world, in that, they can promise everybody – “manna tomorrow”.
“Let’s hope the IPCC falls off this tight-rope and soon.”
Well I hope they fall with one leg either side of the rope!
” Therefore, the new report is effectively saying (based on the middle of the range of the IPCC’s emissions scenarios) that …”
so why are we talking about “middle of the range” here? Are we achieving that level of emissions cuts? I thought we were still on ” business as usual”.
I’m a little curious about the “sociology” of the science here. Assuming that this change in wording holds, and that it’s a precursor of more change to come, are we seeing scientists trying to protect their reputations as they beat a very slow retreat, or gradually accepting new research and observations, or are we merely seeing a glacial change in the field as the result of deaths and retirements. To me it’s fascinating because the warmists I know would never, ever, ever change their opinion.
However, I would not be surprised if opinion leaders among the climatologists are now trying to find a way to say that it’s not going to be too bad, and we knew it all along.
Allan MacRae:
Your post at September 14, 2013 at 8:35 am begins
Future Update!
BREAKING: IPCC AR6 report to dial up academia sensitivity.
Dialing up Academia on Lack of Climate Change
A forthcoming report points to lower hope for global warming
by Dr. Ratt Midley
Later this month, a long-awaited event that last happened in 2013 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) “sixth assessment report,” part of which will be published on Sept. 27.
There have already been leaks from this 4 page document, which summarizes 14 pages of scientific discussion, but thanks to a senior janitor, 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 up the anticipated reaction by academia. It states that the many PhDs and climate related researchers (who have been living precariously on the nostalgic memories of their heyday) can no longer endure the absence of climate catastrophe.
Admittedly, the absence of climate change is not easy to compare to the earlier predictions now being lampooned in every publication. Retreat has been painful for global warming missionaries in academia. Out in the public they often get the kind of reception once experienced by only the shadiest of societies characters.
“It been humiliating and now I just can;t take any more”, said Michael Mann as he rushed out of a restaurant full of people mocking him.
This is significant because it points to the very real possibility that, over the next several generations the overall effect of no climate change will be positive for the return of academia truthiness.
Global warming has happened since 1850. It is not a hoax. Some of the warming since 1950 is very likely to have been caused by man. My question to you is how much???
Global warming has however stopped. Here are many temperature standstill quotes from the likes of Dr. Paul Jones, Dr. James Hansen and other ‘climate scientists’. Some peer reviewed. Here is a small sample:
New study from whatsammata u ” wind farms blowing is causing planet to cool”
If one looks at all the temperature changes over the last 20000 years, one will see the current rise from the end of the Dalton to around 2002(when the temp. rise ended approx.) was very feeble in comparisome to other temperature rises following cold periods.
Look at the three Dryas periods, oldest,older and younger and the 8200 year cold snap as examples.
It is ridiculous to claim the global warming we had last century was somehow the first of it’s kind when in reality last century featured more or less very stable climatic conditions .
To add insult to injury to the IPCC, the temperature trend going forward will be down , the only question is how far down, due to prolonged solar minimum conditions..
I concur with DR. NORMAN PAGE. In addition the hockey stick created by Dr. Mann is not worth the paper it is written on.
Now for the headline I never thought I’d see:
IT’S BETTER THAN WE THOUGHT!