New IPCC Climate Report Already Obsolete

Guest essay by Patrick J. Michaels and Paul C. “Chip” Knappenberger

WASHINGTON, DC – The U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) today released the Summary for Policymakers (SPM) of the physical science volume of its Fifth Assessment Report. The SPM is the most widely-read section of the IPCC reports and purports to summarize and highlight the contents of the thousand-odd pages of the full report. The SPM is agreed to word by word by the international attendees of the IPCC’s final editorial meeting which concluded as the SPM was released.

The Humpty Dumpty-esque report once claiming to represent the “consensus of scientists” has fallen from its exalted wall and cracked to pieces under the burdensome weight of its own cumbersome and self-serving processes, which is why all the governments’ scientists and all the governments’ men cannot put the IPCC report together again.

The pace of climate science far surpasses the glacial movements of large, cumbersome international efforts at consensus building, such as the IPCC, which is why the new report has experienced such a disastrous crack-up.

For example, just this past May, a blockbuster finding was published that the climate sensitivity—how much the earth’s average surface temperature increases as a response to increasing greenhouse gas concentrations—is some 40% less than the average value characteristic of the collection of climate models that the IPCC used to produce the projections of future climate change—projections which are at the heart of the IPCC reports. But by the time this paper was published (and several others with similar conclusions), it was far too late to go back and try to fix the climate models and then rerun the projections.

The  fact is that the IPCC’s climate models need fixing. Prima facie evidence is that they cannot even track the evolution of broadest measure of climate, the earth’s average temperature, for the last 10-20 years.  Despite this being widely obvious to everyone, it didn’t find its way into the scientific literature (although not without trying) until earlier this month.

As a result, the latest science on two key issues: how much the earth will warm as a result of human greenhouse gas emissions, and how well climate models perform in projecting the warming, are largely not incorporated in the new IPCC report.

Which renders the new IPCC report, and its “four years’ work by hundreds of experts” not only obsolete on its release, but completely useless as a basis to form opinions (or policy) related to human energy choices and their influence on the climate.

The IPCC report should be torn up and tossed out, and with it, the entire IPCC process which produced such a misleading (and potentially dangerous) document.

We review the problems with the new IPCC report and the political consequences of relying on it in a couple of recent op-eds, one in the National Review (“The IPCC Political Suicide Pill”) and the other planned for Fox News, as well as a myriad of blog posts.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
September 27, 2013 10:14 am

“The IPCC report should be torn up and tossed out, and with it, the entire IPCC process which produced such a misleading (and potentially dangerous) document.”
I concur 95%. Problem is,to many people have to much infested to admit they are wrong,no matter how may facts against cAGW are thrown at them.

September 27, 2013 10:28 am

The problem with a conclusion chasing data, is you miss the data that does not support the conclusion.

Peter Miller
September 27, 2013 10:37 am

Just looked at the BBC world news website – not a mention of the IPCC report anywhere.
I guess that says everything, a complete lack of public interest in new climate fantasy reports.
If you can’t find the IPCC report on the BBC, then it’s a bad day for bad science.

Janice Moore
September 27, 2013 10:40 am

Well said, Phil Jourdan!
And, Just Thinkin’, I agree — the IPCC is a disgusting global infestation of incompetence, half-truths, and bold-faced lies. #(:))

September 27, 2013 10:46 am

“The fact is that the IPCC’s climate models need fixing.”
Bar none, my favorite comment here was, in paraphrase: “These guys made the models that are really good at 5 day predictions.”
Well, yeh. I’m sure their climate models are really good at 5 day predictions also.

September 27, 2013 10:47 am

On the BBC News website the breathless reporting on the report only makes it to #5 in the most popular category. Steve Ballmer crying about leaving Microsoft got more readers.

September 27, 2013 10:51 am

As one individual suggested he had a solution to fix Global Warming – Stop funding the IPCC. There Tax scams fixed.

September 27, 2013 10:55 am

Peter Miller says:
September 27, 2013 at 10:37 am
Just looked at the BBC world news website – not a mention of the IPCC report anywhere…….

You need to go to BBC News (easier to find.) Still, only 3 pages that I can find.
Maybe by Monday it will all be over, I hope.

Brian H
September 27, 2013 10:59 am

Humpty Dumpty was not an egg, but a giant cannon, used in the English Civil war by the Loyalists to fend off a siege by the Roundheads. But the wall it sat on was hit by cannonades and collapsed, dumping Humpty uselessly on the ground. Loyalist cavalry were called in from the field to help resite it, but failed, and the city fell.
So Humpty never cracked. It was just Dumpty’d on the ground. 😉

September 27, 2013 11:16 am

I just did my bit by contributing a few words on BBC Local Radio Hereford and Worcester for Andrew Easton’s Show.
I was immediately preceded by someone from the Met Office who blatantly misrepresented reality in the same way as did the SPM.
So the two viewpoints were put up for discussion but I haven’t had a chance to listen to it yet.
We only have to wait a bit. The hyperbole can be dismantled piece by piece soon enough.
I liken the SPM to a pre election speech by the UK’s Neil Kinnock some years ago. It was full of similar bravado and fired up all the believers but was later described as ‘the longest suicide note in history’.

September 27, 2013 11:24 am

When we see the US TV networks start acting like whatever the IPCC says is the gospel truth, then we have made some progress.
[“Stop” or “start” acting? Mod]

September 27, 2013 11:26 am

Brian H says:
September 27, 2013 at 10:59 am
I hope you’re not serious, but just entering into the fictional, fantastic spirit of AR5:
I think you mean Royalist, BTW, not Loyalist.

Janice Moore
September 27, 2013 12:55 pm

Good for you, Stephen Wilde. If you are half as verbally articulate as you are bright (as evidenced by your WUWT posts), your “bit” will do a great deal of good for the cause of truth in science.
Let us know how it came out.

Janice Moore
September 27, 2013 1:04 pm

Thanks, Ric, for the reminder of A-th-y’s wise (albeit drastically curtailed) remarks (shared in full with us, though not with the readers of The Rolling Stoners).
D.O.A. for sure.
Q. Was Dr. Pachauri’s monster every really “alive?”

“…. It’s alive! Now I know what it feels like to be God!”

September 27, 2013 2:47 pm

I”m afraid the UK media blitz is co-ordinated and deep.
Geoffrey Lean at the Telegraph saying that the report is ‘mindbogglingly thorough AND CAUTIOUS’. Complete bollocks of course, but when did Lean ever tell one word of truth in this subject?? The man’s a hack, but he gets an article once a fortnight on this subject.
BBC’s flagship Newsnight programme opens up with ‘the science is settled’ and then was interviewing only the two pro-IPCC politicians Chris Huhne and Ed Davey.
The Guardian and the Independent are the same: the Independent claims that the report ‘silenced the skeptics’. Shame they didn’t ask them whether they were silenced or not…..
To say that this is not ethical journalism would be met with derision, since ethical journalism hasn’t existed in Britain for 20 years.
It is high time that a new code of ethics for Journalism were imposed on the industry, akin to the Hippocratic oath in medicine. Breaches lead to lifelong bans. That would rid us of all this lying, spinning and selling pages in newspapers for lying propaganda.
The next elections all over the world need politicians who expose IPCC 5 for what it is: a farce, lies and corrupt. It needs to be done through winning the scientific argument, allied to telling people the truth of temperature data for the past 20 years. Warmists trashing ‘deniers’ must be swatted without respect and put in their place for what they are: deluded hacks or apparatchiks incapable of mature analysis or carrying out proper due diligence. The IPCC must not be funded any more. You need to get Russia, the USA, the UK, Australia and others to simply not pay their dues. Trade Security Council reform for IPCC abolition: that’s the deal…….

james griffin
September 27, 2013 2:53 pm

Irony…the footprint of AGW should be “hot spots” in the Tropical Troposphere…but having found no evidence they are now looking at the bottom of the ocean….too funny for words.

September 27, 2013 7:07 pm

Since Flannery’s dismissal, they are now consorting to another ploy a privately funded commission on climate change. Media are reporting the IPCC have said 2 C increase by 2100 will be caused by human activity. Gee will they ever shut up?

Colorado Wellington
September 28, 2013 12:00 am

Kaboom says:
September 27, 2013 at 10:47 am
On the BBC News website the breathless reporting on the report only makes it to #5 in the most popular category. Steve Ballmer crying about leaving Microsoft got more readers.

That doesn’t mean anything. Dr. Pachauri will beat Ballmer’s ratings when he describes in his next novel his sobbing about leaving IPCC on the chest of a voluptuous contributing author (right after her meditation).

September 28, 2013 4:11 am

It is not just the IPCC that is self-serving, corrupt and inept. The entire fisaco known as the UN should be handed over to Madame Guillotine for 95% certainty of corrective action.

September 28, 2013 12:51 pm

philjourdan says:
September 27, 2013 at 10:28 am
Brian H says:
September 27, 2013 at 10:59 am
Fascinating. I never knew the provenance of that rhyme.
milodonharlani says:
September 27, 2013 at 11:26 am
You’re no fun.
Proving once again that history, as Henry Ford supposedly said, is bunk. Even in my lifetime, I have seen events re-characterized into something which bears little resemblance to what we experienced at the time. Selective evidence and suppression of countervailing narratives result in memes which maintain accuracy only in the broad outlines, if that. The inevitable conquest of entropy is assured. Sigh…

September 28, 2013 7:29 pm

Mod, I think Ron Scubadiver was just trying to reach a 100% consensus, characteristic of how the IPCC operates.

%d bloggers like this: