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
The question is: Do they still say that we must take immediate and crippling steps to reduce CO2 emissions?
All the evidence suggested increasing biological benefits. Its about time they admitted it. http://landscapesandcycles.net/less-arctic-ice-can-be-beneficial.html
@ur momisugly Baronstone.
You need to read this.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/11/rss-global-temperature-data-no-global-warming-at-all-for-202-months/#more-93635
richardscourtney says: September 14, 2013 at 9:47 am
Thank you Richard for pointing out this post.
I am mulling over an approach to climate science that we employ in certain sectors of geotechnical engineering called the Observational Approach or Observational Method, as enunciated by Karl Terzaghi.
“In both design and construction, it is advisable to be as adaptive and flexible as possible, which is the premise of the observational approach developed by Karl Terzaghi (e.g., Bjerrum et al., 1960) and Ralph Peck (e.g., Peck, 1962, 1969, 1980). This suggests that remediation systems should be designed and built per known and predicted future conditions, while at the same time anticipating plausible variations in site conditions and having contingency plans in place.”
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11146&page=329
The Observational Approach is most helpful in those areas of engineering where it is too difficult or too expensive to measure the key parameters that enable predictive skill, and/or where our models are inadequate and provide inadequate predictive capability. It is particularly useful where economics dictates that our “Factor of Safety” (or similar concept) is too close to unity (incipient instability) and yet we still need to function in a safe and reasonably predictable environment.
The Observational Approach typically involves detailed ongoing measurements of the parameters one is most interested in, and the ongoing adjustments of predicted outcomes (and predictive models) based on these detailed measurements.
I suppose it could be argued that this is in fact what the IPCC is doing, but if so, they are doing it very slowly and poorly and are not prepared to abandon their failed model hypotheses in spite of the apparent lack of predictive skill.
I suggest a more competent and timely use of the Observational Approach would have already led the IPCC climate science community to revise or abandon their current models and develop hypos and models that have much greater ability to accurately hindcast and forecast. This , I suggest, they have failed to do, apparently even in AR5.
Furthermore, in the event that Earth’s climate is not predictable within our current scientific capabilities, the Observational Approach can also be used as an empirical tool to assist our ability to adapt, even if we do not have adequate predictive skill.
Perhaps this is all obvious and is in fact a description of the approach that many parties, particularly climate skeptics, have been using for the past few decades.
Regards, Allan
Jordan says: September 14, 2013 at 2:40 am
CO2 induced climatastrophe will be left to wither on the vine, hopefully to eventually drop out of view. This way, nobody has to admit fault and nobody loses their jobs.
I agree. I also make a prediction. [Just so Nick Stokes doesn’t get confused. That’s a prediction not a projection.] If over the next five to ten years the Earth’s temperature stays flat or decreases, with the exception of the (C)AGW leaders finding one of the “97% scientists” will be harder than finding a hen’s tooth.
Jimbo says:
September 14, 2013 at 8:39 am
Jimbo says:
September 14, 2013 at 8:24 am
How did we arrive at the 2C limit?
====================
2010:
http://unfccc.int/essential_background/items/6031.php
In 2010, governments agreed that emissions need to be reduced so that global temperature increases are limited to below 2 degrees Celsius.
2008:
http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/international/negotiations/future/docs/brochure_2c_en.pdf
Summary
This paper outlines the scientific background for the EU climate protection target – the 2oC limit – established by the EU Governments in 1996 and reaffirmed since then by the Environment Council 2003, and European Council, 2005, 2007.
…
…the information provided in the IPCC’s Third Assessment Report (IPCC TAR, 2001a,b,c,d), and developments in the scientific literature and in peer reviewed publications such as “Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change” (Schellnhuber et al., 2005) supported and advanced the scientific basis for the assessment of impacts and risks that underpin the adoption of the 2oC target and confirms our view that 2oC is an appropriate target.
2005:
http://www.eeg.tuwien.ac.at/eeg.tuwien.ac.at_pages/publications/pdf/NAK_BOO_2006_01.pdf
“Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change” (Schellnhuber et al., 2005)
“The question is: Do they still say that we must take immediate and crippling steps to reduce CO2 emissions?”
Depends on what the meaning of “they” is (with acknowledgement to Slick Willy). The walk back may be beginning in some circles but I see no evidence of this in the political class, at least in the U.S.
@ur momisuglyAlecMM at 1:14am
Could you elaborate on that point a bit. I also do not believe the 33 deg K estimate from GHG warming and believe it to be as smaller number.
The way I see it is the 33 deg K difference comes from assertion that with out GHG’s and a 30% albedo, the average insolation is 240 W/m^2 giving the earth a surface temperature of 255 deg K. GHG’s ride to the rescue and raise the temp to 288 deg. K. But that argument treats the albedo as a one-way mirror, reflecting 30% of the energy from the sun, but reflecting none from the earth — except as a GHG effect. This is fundamentally wrong. The Albedo has Two Sides. (WUWT Perpetuum Mobile – Jan 21, 2011).
We can model the reflectivity off the top of the albedo as “A” and off the bottom as “a”. When we model the reverberating wave paths between ground and the albedo we get total Energy received by the earth’s surface as 342 W/m^2 * ( (1-A)/(1-a) ). If A=30% and a=0 (the Kiehl-Trenberth illustration) in a zero GHG scenario, you would get 240 W/m2. But where is the argument that a=0? If A=a, then the surface receives the full 342 W/m2. and is at 278 deg K for any value of “A”.
Tim Folkerts and I had an interesting dialog in “Perpetuum Mobile” from Feb 7, 2012 to >Feb 14 exploring how the albedo is a function of wavelength and therefore “a” doesn’t have to equal “A”, but neither does it equal zero.
Us “skeptics & deniers” who base our arguments on facts instead of sketchy computer modeling and half-cocked theories are still “wrong” … right?
Schellnhuber admitted he made it up, and that it was political.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/climate-catastrophe-a-superstorm-for-global-warming-research-a-686697-8.html
– – – – – – – –
Anthony,
Chuckle. : )
Sometimes misspellings appear to be some kind of a surprising karma. Right?
John
The IPCC is offically granted membership in the lukewarmer camp
steven
mosher
cmo lukewarmer r us
Sleepalot says:
September 14, 2013 at 11:55 am
====================
Thank you; illuminating article. The 2C “danger” limit has been politically established, obviously.
In the figure in this article below, 10 out of 17 recent climate sensitivity estimates are 2C or lower (3 IPCC estimates counted as 1):
http://www.cato.org/blog/current-wisdom-even-more-low-climate-sensitivity-estimates
I don’t care about consensus, but for what it’s worth: 10 out of 17 means a 59% consensus that climate sensitivity is likely to be 2C or lower and as such global warming is not dangerous according to UN politically agreed criteria.
In the same article:
The average value of the best estimate of the equilibrium climate sensitivity across all the new studies is about 2.0°C.
Frans Franken says: “In the same article:
The average value of the best estimate of the equilibrium climate sensitivity across all the new studies is about 2.0°C.”
Except of course that if you have several different answers, most of them are wrong,
and an average of many wrongs does not make a right.
Steven Mosher says:
September 14, 2013 at 12:32 pm
The IPCC is offically granted membership in the lukewarmer camp
Be sure and wake us when they enter the Reality camp.
So when do we finally get our rebates for being screwed over for so long?
Who would have thought (three weeks ago) that parliament would reject attacking syria.
Who would have thought (three weeks ago) that America and Russia would agree on anything.
Who would have thought (three weeks ago) that Syria would agree to scrap its chemical weapons.
Who would have thought (three weeks ago) that the IPCC would reduce climate sensitivity.
The world is a different place today than it was three weeks ago. In my opinion
A better place.
Former prime minister John Howard has been booked to deliver this year’s Global Warming Policy Foundation lecture in November. The title of his address: One Religion is Enough.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/opinion/carbon-tax-on-ice-climate-science-left-to-deal-with-pause-in-proceedings/story-e6frgd0x-1226718786991
Above article is paywalled so paste headline in Google News
Carbon tax on ice, climate science left to deal with pause in proceedings
pesadia says:
September 14, 2013 at 1:59 pm
Who would have thought…
All is not what it seems behind rose-coloured glasses
http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/and-now-for-som-1.html
lol
Clipe
Agreed but I am ever the optimist and should have included events in Australia
to the list.
It’s time to dial “climate sensitivity” down to zero (0).
What does the mismatch between rising greenhouse-gas emissions and 15+ years of not-rising temperatures mean? CO2 is not getting the “job” done. What does the near identical match between rates of temperature change in the first (low CO2) and second (higher CO2) halves of the 20th century mean? CO2 isn’t doing anything!!!! The evidence is stark and clear and a 6 year old would probably understand it better than these politically motivated activist scientists. Forget your “established physics” and unassailable theoretical model of the GHE, the empirical evidence does not support the GHE as posited. See what I mean: http://www.c3headlines.com/2013/06/ipccs-gold-standard-hadcrut-confirms-co2s-impact-on-global-temps-statistically-immaterial-insignific.html
My feeling, though, is we shouldn’t give these leftist activists (oh, excuse me, “scientists”) any credit. Unless they dial climate sensitivity down to zero. Because there’s no evidence that CO2 does squat. Let’s just get on with our lives, and forget this sorry episode where the leftist activists and leftist media and leftist scientific establishment have co-opted the institutions of govt and procured a huge huge level of funding in order to dupe the public into supporting their extreme leftist agenda.
” Let’s hope the IPCC falls off this tight-rope and soon. ”
A little grease (truth from the MSM) would help.
Turkeys don’t vote for Xmas, so this walk back by the IPCC is significant.
Lots of excellent posts in this thread.
If no one has pointed it out I think the world owes Anthony Watts and the internet (kudos, Al Gore, LOL) a huge thank you. WUWT is definitely influencing the trend to sanity.