Reactions to IPCC AR5 Summary for Policy Makers

This is a bullet point collection of reactions as they come in, it will be updated throughout the day by adding new items to the list. It is also a sticky post – new stories will appear below this one.

My first reaction was: That IPCC had a golden opportunity, and blew it due to being unable to adapt to reality.

My second reaction was due to a tweet from the vice chair of the IPCC, who was so tired, he couldn’t even get the website right:

IPCC_vicechair_tired_tweet

There’s nothing like sleep deprived group think under deadline pressure to instill confidence, right?

My third reaction after reading the SPM is this:  Looking at claims, it strikes me that the damaged credibility of the IPCC remains intact.

When you still push increasing confidence in predictions while the IPCC referenced models fail to model reality, and this has been pointed out worldwide in media, it becomes a “jump the shark” moment where the advocacy speaks far louder than the science.

Here are other reactions:

================================================================

Marcel Crok: AR5 gives no best estimate for climate sensitivity; breaks with a long tradition; good news is hidden from policy makers

One of the most surprising things in the just released SPM is the absence of a best estimate for climate sensitivity. The SPM now says this:

The equilibrium climate sensitivity quantifies the response of the climate system to constant radiative forcing on multi-century time scales. It is defined as the change in global mean surface temperature at equilibrium that is caused by a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Equilibrium climate sensitivity is likely in the range 1.5°C to 4.5°C (high confidence), extremely unlikely less than 1°C (high confidence), and very unlikely greater than 6°C (medium confidence)16. The lower temperature limit of the assessed likely range is thus less than the 2°C in the AR4, but the upper limit is the same. This assessment reflects improved understanding, the extended temperature record in the atmosphere and ocean, and new estimates of radiative forcing. {TFE6.1, Figure 1; Box 12.2}

16 No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies.

So from a footnote we have to learn that no best estimate “can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies”. How strange this is. Climate sensitivity is one of the most important parameters. It determines largely how much warming we can expect. If there is lack of agreement between different methods/studies, we want to know all about it. However, apart from this footnote, the SPM is silent about it. Hopefully the full report, which will be released on Monday, will give all the details.

http://www.staatvanhetklimaat.nl/2013/09/27/ar5-gives-no-best-estimate-for-climate-sensitivity-breaks-with-a-long-tradition-good-news-is-hidden-from-policy-makers/

=============================================================

Andrew Montford at Bishop Hill:

Ducking, diving, bobbing and weaving are the general themes of the Summary for Policymakers, just released this morning.

You would imagine that the document would review what was said last time round and how things have changed since that time, but you’d be wrong. This is, after all, the bureaucracy at work: difficulties have to be brushed under carpets and stones left unturned.

…The general theme of obscurantism runs across the document. Whereas in previous years the temperature records have been shown unadulterated, now we have presentation of a single figure for each decade; surely an attempt to mislead rather than inform. And the pause is only addressed with handwaving arguments and vague allusions to ocean heat.

http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2013/9/27/thoughts-on-the-spm.html

=============================================================

Donna Laframboise:

9,000 Nobel Pretenders | NoFrakkingConsensus

The unadorned truth was door number one. Cringe-worthy exaggeration was door number two. The IPCC made the wrong call.

=============================================================

Bob Tisdale at WUWT:

Regarding the cause of the warming, still living in fantasy world, they write:

Greenhouse gases contributed a global mean surface warming likely to be in the range of 0.5°C to 1.3°C over the period 1951−2010, with the contributions from other anthropogenic forcings, including the cooling effect of aerosols, likely to be in the range of −0.6°C to 0.1°C. The contribution from natural forcings is likely to be in the range of −0.1°C to 0.1°C, and from internal variability is likely to be in the range of −0.1°C to 0.1°C. Together these assessed contributions are consistent with the observed warming of approximately 0.6°C to 0.7°C over this period. {10.3}

They’re still misleading the public. Everyone knows (well, many of us know) their models can’t simulate the natural processes that cause surface temperatures to warm over multidecadal timeframes, yet they insist on continuing this myth.

Sorry IPCC – How You Portrayed the Global Temperature Plateau is Comical at Best

=============================================================

Pointman says:

Apart from the usual climate-fixated organs of the MSM, it’s being barely reported. Looks like a dead cat bounce to me …

http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2013/09/20/armageddon-report-no-5/

==============================================================

Jimbo says:

September 27, 2013 at 4:31 am

We can’t explain the increase in Antarctic sea ice extent. We have improved models that predict a decrease in extent. We don’t really know why but we will simulate it and create a scary scenario anyway.

D.1 Evaluation of Climate Models

Climate models have improved since the AR4…………..

Most models simulate a small downward trend in Antarctic sea ice extent, albeit with large inter-model spread, in contrast to the small upward trend in observations……

—–

There is low confidence in the scientific understanding of the small observed increase in Antarctic sea ice extent due to the incomplete and competing scientific explanations for the causes of change and low confidence in estimates of internal variability in that region

http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGIAR5-SPM_Approved27Sep2013.pdf

Let’s all hope this is the last IPCC report. There is nothing useful here.

==============================================================

Dr. Judith Curry:

The IPCC has officially (and anti-climactically) issued the AR5 WG1 Summary for Policy Makers.  I haven’t had time to go through the report in detail, I mainly looked for these two statements.  Note the changes in these two statements from the final draft discussed last week:

“Models do not generally reproduce the observed reduction in surface warming trend over the last 10–15 years.”

“It is extremely likely that human influence on climate caused more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951−2010.”

These changes as a result of the ‘conclave’ this week totally dissonates my cognitives.  Well, IPCC has thrown down the gauntlet – if the pause continues beyond 15 years (well it already has), they are toast.  Even though they still use the word ‘most’ in the attribution statement, they go all out and pretty much say it is all AGW:  ”The best estimate of the human induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period.”

In case you haven’t been paying attention, ‘extremely likely‘  in the attribution statement implies 95% confidence.  Exactly what does 95% confidence mean in this context?

95% (?)

=============================================================

Douglas Fischer – The Daily Climate What we’re seeing now: Climate scientists get Swift-boated

Six years after the IPCC’s massive Fourth Assessment Report was excoriated for a handful of errors, four years after the uproar over leaked emails put scientists on the defensive, the climate denial camp still controls the message.

http://www.dailyclimate.org/tdc-newsroom/2013/09/swiftboating-climate-scientists

=============================================================

Patrick J. Michaels and Paul C. “Chip” Knappenberger – Band-aids Can’t Fix the New IPCC Report

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.

http://www.cato.org/blog/band-aids-cant-fix-new-ipcc-report

==============================================================

Climate panel: warming ‘extremely likely’ man-made

By KARL RITTER

Associated Press

STOCKHOLM (AP) — Scientists now believe it’s “extremely likely” that human activity is the dominant cause of global warming, a long-term trend that is clear despite a recent plateau in the temperatures, an international climate panel said Friday.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change used its strongest language yet in a report on the causes of climate change, prompting calls for global action to control emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases.

“If this isn’t an alarm bell, then I don’t know what one is. If ever there were an issue that demanded greater cooperation, partnership, and committed diplomacy, this is it,” said U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/E/EU_CLIMATE_CHANGE?SITE=VANOV&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

===============================================================

Models of misinformation — climate reports melt under scrutiny

A last-ditch effort to refute climate “skeptics”—people unconvinced that we need to spend trillions to reshape our economies to halt or slow  “climate change”– has failed.

Last week, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) published a study by 13 prestigious atmospheric scientists that supposedly provides “clear evidence for a discernible human influence on the thermal structure of the atmosphere.”

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/09/26/dont-be-fooled-latest-attempt-to-discredit-climate-skeptics-flops/

===============================================================

Stefan Rahmstorf – Man’s role in global warming is rock solid, and natural variability’s role is close to nil.

“Natural internal variability and natural external forcings (eg the sun) have contributed virtually nothing to the warming since 1950″

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/09/the-new-ipcc-climate-report/

================================================================

Simon Donner

“It is probably the largest, most comprehensive scientific assessment in history.  Not just of climate change, but of any scientific subject”

http://simondonner.blogspot.ca/2013/09/the-pause-in-public-understanding-of.html

================================================================

Brenda Ekwurzel, UCS

Warming has slowed in the last 15 years, but not stopped. (If the slow down in warming persists, it would suggest a problem with the models.)

“The global average surface temperature trend of late is like a speed bump, and we would expect the rate of temperature increase to speed up again just as most drivers do after clearing the speed bump.”

(Kenji asks: so, when then?)

http://blog.ucsusa.org/hot-topics-for-ipcc-release-surface-temperature-speed-bump-and-the-latest-on-extreme-events-253

=================================================================

Dr. Roy Spencer: IPCC: “We don’t need no stinking climate sensitivity!”

stinking-climate-sensitivitty

IPCC Chairman Pachauri: “We don’t need no stinking climate sensitivity.”

The newly-released Summary for Policymakers of the IPCC’s Working Group I for the AR5 report reveals a dogged attempt to salvage the IPCC’s credibility amidst mounting evidence that it has gone overboard in its attempts to scare the global public over the last quarter century.

The recent ~15 year lull in warming is hardly mentioned at all (nothing to see here, move along).

IPCC: “We don’t need no stinking climate sensitivity!”

================================================================

Pierre Gosselin – UN IPCC Exhumes, Brings Climate Catastrophe Back From The Grave…Politicians, Activists Dancing Like It’s 2007!

It’s been six long years of relentless torment inflicted by Neanderthal skeptics. Worse, the public was even starting to become hopeful about the future once again, and were becoming less afraid of climate. For the climate catastrophe everything had been looking so bleak as the pesky real observations kept glaringly contradicting the modeled catastrophes 15 years long.

But happy days are back again – the catastrophe is coming, the UN reassures the world. The 15 years of model failure are not significant after all. In fact the UN now says the models are better than ever and the climate scientists are now 95% confident that the climate catastrophe is coming and that our living standards are responsible for it. Never before have scientists been more confident.

UN IPCC Exhumes, Brings Climate Catastrophe Back From The Grave…Politicians, Activists Dancing Like It’s 2007!

================================================================

Time magazine: When it was warming, the reason was CO2 and climate was simple; now that it’s not warming, the reason isn’t known and climate is complex

Climate skeptics have seized on the fact that the rate of warming over the past decade or so has been less than climate scientists predicted given the continued increase in carbon emissions. The IPCC report address the warming “hiatus,” as it’s been called, raising a number of possible explanations—the ocean absorbing the warmth, changes in the solar cycle, volcanic eruptions that cause cooling—without pointing the finger at a single one. Which just underscores how complex the climate system remains, even as we keep experimenting on it. The scientists will keep working on those questions and others…

Climate Scientists Issue Their Report. Now It’s Our Turn | TIME.com

======================================================

MIT Climate Scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen Rips UN IPCC Report:

‘The latest IPCC report has truly sunk to level of hilarious incoherence’ — ‘It is quite amazing to see the contortions the IPCC has to go through in order to keep the international climate agenda going’

Updates will follow, readers are welcome to point out other reactions in comments.

0 0 vote
Article Rating
421 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
September 27, 2013 4:56 am

SPM AR4 says:
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf
“Antarctic sea ice extent continues to show interannual
variability and localised changes but no statistically
signifi cant average trends, consistent with the lack
of warming reflected in atmospheric temperatures
averaged across the region. ” (pg 9)
Cherry Picking? – SPM AR5 brings in graphics of Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice extent, but leave out Southern Hemisphere Sea Ice extent (Antarctica!)
Yet the recent Met Office report (July 2013), shows a trend in Antarctic sea Ice extent (upwards) (pg 18) which is missing from SPM AR5
http://realclimategate.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/met-office-sect-2-cryosphere-arctic-antarctic-graphic.jpg
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/e/f/Paper1_Observing_changes_in_the_climate_system.PDF
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/news/recent-pause-in-warming
You will recognise a lot of IPCC graphs from these Met Office reports.
So if the Met Office can report on Sea Ice extent from both hemispheres.
Why not the IPCC?

September 27, 2013 4:59 am

http://claesjohnson.blogspot.se/2013/09/ipcc-sinks-into-deep-ocean.html
“This was the reason he could not sleep, and why IPCC now will sink into the Deep Ocean”

Gary Dean
September 27, 2013 4:59 am

[More wasted effort by a banned commenter. Deleted. -mod]

September 27, 2013 5:01 am

The best synopsis goes to ” the advocacy speaks far louder than the science.”
it is what I was trying to say, but failed to find the right words. Thank you.

Jimmy Haigh.
September 27, 2013 5:03 am

As someone so rightly said once – I wish I could remember who – “Climate bollocks”.

The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley
September 27, 2013 5:07 am

Well I’m finding it really amusing. You see, if you are in a hole and you keep digging, then you are just going to bury yourself. If they were clever, then they would have admitted the ‘pause’, admitted the Antarctic, and admitted their models are useless. Instead, they have carried on as normal – digging. Now let us all sit back and watch the global temps dip. But I hope someone somewhere is taking the names of all these people. There may even be a charge of crimes against humanity!

MouruanH
September 27, 2013 5:09 am

Congratulations IPCC! With the release of your new Nonsensus Report you’ve miraculously managed to officially resurrect a state of knowledge eerily similar to that of the Dark Ages, which is doubly ironic since the keepers of knowledge on whose expertise you rely on have worked so hard to make any pesky evidence of medieval warming disappear from the records.
That was certainly no small feat. You fully deserve to take all the credit for this incredible accomplishment that will be given to you in the history books of the future.
Warmist regards, a fan
__________________________________________________
The biggest headline here in Germany is Sea Levels (we are of course beyond hope). Someone has suggested sponges.

M Courtney
September 27, 2013 5:19 am

Pointman’s comment was interesting.
I looked at the BBC News website for their post Most Popular news stories at 13:13 today.
The end of the world was only number 6.
1: Kanye West angry at Radio 1 parody
2: Goodbye, US passport
3: Two plead not guilty to Rigby murder
4: The man who may have saved the world
5: Cameron says no to Salmond TV debate
6: Global warming now ‘unequivocal’
7: Spain to consider time zone change
8: Quiz of the week’s news
9: Is Breaking Bad’s Walter White one of TV’s truly evil characters?
10: New Syria chemical attacks probed
No-one cares anymore…

Admin
September 27, 2013 5:23 am

Show me the warming… 🙂

son of mulder
September 27, 2013 5:25 am

Just heard Prof Bob Carter on BBC Radio4 World at One. Brilliant interview putting a sound sceptical perspective on the IPCC report. Well worth a listen again when it is available.

klem
September 27, 2013 5:25 am

I heard a report on Canadian CBC radio this morning regarding the Summary for Policy Makers. It was NOT the lead story as it was in 2007, and they did NOT trot out David Suzuki for his routine anti-corporate rant. Though they still managed to give it the usual CBC fear-bias, but they actually had some questions about the Summary this time around. They questioned it? How dare they.
I’d say the leftist CBC is not completely on board with the alarmists anymore, perhaps enough of their journalists have seen the light. This is a major improvement over the embarrassing journalistic orgy that accompanied the release of the 2007 AR4 SPM.

OssQss
September 27, 2013 5:32 am

I got a chuckle out of Jeff Masters comment this morning on the IPCC report and his action plan.
“We must elect new leaders and pressure our existing leaders to take the strong actions needed to advance us into a new, 21st century energy economy. You can all help make it so!”
Upon making a fortune selling his site to ” the weather channel”, he is not happy with Obama.
I normally would not link the absurd, but make an exception this time.
http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/article.html?entrynum=2535

September 27, 2013 5:32 am

SPM in a nutshell: Since we started in 1990 we were right about the Arctic, wrong about the Antarctic, wrong about the tropical troposphere, wrong about the surface, wrong about hurricanes, wrong about the Himalayas, wrong about sensitivity, clueless on clouds and useless on regional trends. And on that basis we’re 95% confident we’re right.

September 27, 2013 5:33 am

@M Courtney
On my computer at 13:28 UK time ‘Global warming now ‘unequivocal’ stands at number 8 out of 10, of the most read. (And what the hell, I thought it was ‘unequivocal’ ages ago, when the science was settled /sarc off).
I just checked Russain news site, and there is no mention of the report AT ALL. Not even in the small print. Top stories – Greenpeace gang getting punished, Syria, Kenian atrocity, and how much the prosecution office spent on buying new cars for themselves.

Bill Illis
September 27, 2013 5:35 am

We should just be pointing out the errors now. There is no point discussing the virtual world the IPCC is talking about – they are not talking about the real planet Earth, but some virtual world, planet Nibiru in a climate model.
———-
One major graphic is clearly wrong. The observed change in temperature from 1901 to 2012 – figure SPM.1 (b), particularly the Oceans part.
There has been no warming in the central Pacific but it is shown as +0.4C or so in the graphic (large parts of it not shown despite there being a large number of measurements in this region covering the whole period). There has been no warming in the far southern ocean (again it is missing despite a large number of ships being there over the whole period – including whaling ships in the early part of the 20th century). Other areas have no warming over this period yet the entire Ocean area is shown as having warmed. Clearly the Figure is meant to show warming everywhere yet that is not correct.
———–
The graphic showing observed change in temperature relative to the climate models shown in earlier drafts is not included in the report anymore.

thingadonta
September 27, 2013 5:35 am

“No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies.”
Lack of agreement??? What happened to the science is settled, with 97% consensus? Climate sensitivity is the CENTRAL issue.
What they are saying here is they don’t know how much it will warm, and by inference, they also don’t know who much of the warming that has already occurred has been caused by humans. If they know (with 95% certainty) that most warming since 1950 has been caused by humans, then they should also know how much warming will occur with doubling of C02. You cant know one without also having a very good idea of the other.
Still living in fantasyland.

September 27, 2013 5:35 am

In the MSM (BBC, CNN, etc) the IPCC report is being portrayed as the gospel truth on climate change. For example the CNN summary is “The world’s getting hotter, the sea’s rising and there’s increasing evidence neither are naturally occurring phenomena”. I think it’s fair to say that the MSM are onside with the warmists. The online debate is not reaching the consciousness of the general public.

Steve C
September 27, 2013 5:39 am

­The BBC are all over it today, of course. Fawning interviews with the IPCC crowd to spread their political message and – a new development! – the occasional few words from the likes of Bob Carter, now being allowed as the “minority view” to give the impression of balance. Overall, exactly as you’d expect from “The World’s Most Respected Broadcaster” (© BBC): junk reporting of junk politics.
I, meanwhile, remain unshaken and unstirred. Nobody has yet produced any evidence (that I’ve been able to find) to suggest that humanity has had any effect, still less a “catastrophic” one, on the world’s weather systems, therefore the null hypothesis holds. Still waiting, guys. Show me how evil we are, rather than how evil you are.

Manfred
September 27, 2013 5:43 am

“No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies.”
That statement may qualify as the new consensus.

Reed Coray
September 27, 2013 5:52 am

Ross McKitrick says: September 27, 2013 at 5:32 am
Thanks for the chuckle. It’s good to start the morning off with a laugh.

Paul Vaughan
September 27, 2013 6:07 am

“Climate sensitivity is one of the most important parameters.”
Only a dark agent of ignorance &/or deception would believe this.

SanityP
September 27, 2013 6:07 am

Wouldn’t now be an excellent time to release the CG III documents ?

Editor
September 27, 2013 6:07 am

According to the BBC
It adds that a pause in warming over the past 15 years is too short to reflect long-term trends
But apparently 1979-98 was long enough!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24292615

Larry Kirk
September 27, 2013 6:09 am

@ M Courtney, 5.19am
4. “The Man who may have Saved the World” was quite worth clicking on (BBC website). It kind of dovetailed rather nicely with recent “Americans dropped H bomb on the USA and it almost went off!” story we had last week.
Who writes this stuff, and why? It’s all very entertaining.
As for the IPCC, ho hum.. dull.

eco-geek
September 27, 2013 6:17 am

Climate sensitivity.
OK global warming is proportional to the climate sensitivity.
The document is the Summary for Policy Makers.
And the policy makers need to know what their policies should be.
So the policy makers need to know what the climate sensitivity is.
But the IPCC disagree amongst themselves as to what the climate sensitivity is.
So the IPCC cannot tell the policy makers what the climate sensitivity is.
So the IPCC issue a big expensive report to tell the policy makers they don’t know what the climate sensitivty is.
But at least they are able to tell the policy makers they don’t know what climate sensitivity is to a certainty of 95%.
At last they are making some progress!

Julian In Wales
September 27, 2013 6:18 am

Ross McKitrick says:
September 27, 2013 at 5:32 am
“SPM in a nutshell: Since we started in 1990 we were right about the Arctic, wrong about the Antarctic, wrong about the tropical troposphere, wrong about the surface, wrong about hurricanes, wrong about the Himalayas, wrong about sensitivity, clueless on clouds and useless on regional trends. And on that basis we’re 95% confident we’re right.”
Love it – will file and quote that when blogging on the Guardian website.

Solomon Green
September 27, 2013 6:20 am

I notice that IPCC 4 PR claimed 2,000 scientists contributed whereas IPCC 5 only claims 800. Is there any significance? Or are they now excluding railway engineers and Greenpeace lobbyists?

barrybrill
September 27, 2013 6:25 am

The SPM finds that contributions to the observed warming trend of 0.12°C over the period 2051-2010 were distributed as follows:
Greenhouse gases 0.5 – 1.3
Other anthropogenic forcing -0.6 – 0.1
Overall human-caused range -0.1 – 1.4
Natural variability -0.1 – 0.1
Natural forcing -0.1 – 0.1
Overall natural range -0.2 – 0.2
Anything within these swingeing ranges is acceptable. So what if total human-caused warming was -0.08 and natural was +0.2. How can that make it extremely likely that more than half (0.061°C) was attributable to human influences?
The lowest possible human contribution was 1.3 – 0.6 = 0.7°C. Subtract 0.2°C natural cooling and you’re left with 0.5°C net warming. But that is over 400% of the observed warming. A further 0.4°C reduction needs to come from somewhere and I nominate a sensitivity reduction.
[2051-2010 ? Mod]

Pittzer
September 27, 2013 6:37 am

And The Weather Channel slavishly picks up the ball and advances it. In typical fashion by showing a growing glacier cleaving icebergs into a sound. Idiots.

Bob Ryan
September 27, 2013 6:43 am

A new functional relationship:
Science + politics = IPCC^5

September 27, 2013 6:43 am

16 No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies.
============
Which means there must be reduced confidence in the role of CO2 in determining temperature.
The “unexplained warming” is like the “unexplained pause”. Since we don’t know the cause, it must be due to CO2.

cementafriend
September 27, 2013 6:44 am

post http://claesjohnson.blogspot.com.au/
fredagen den 27:e september 2013
IPCC Follows Warming into the Deep Ocean
Sweden’s Environment Minister Lena Ek and Thomas Stocker, a member of an United Nations (UN) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), attend an IPCC meeting in Stockholm September 23, 2013. REUTERS-Bertil Enevag Ericson-Scanpix
Swedish Minister of Climate Lena Ek assisting IPCC Co-chairman Thomas Stocker when presenting the Deep Ocean explanation of the non-existence of global warming.
Here is a summary the 2 hour IPCC webcast press conference presenting the Approved Summary for Policymakers concluding the yet unpublished IPCC 5th Asssessment Report Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis:
The key role is played by Thomas Stocker, Co-Chair of IPCC Working Group 1, who reports that he has only slept 6 hours the last 4 days, which is less than 2 hours per night, and thus is very tired.
What has kept him awake is to come up with a convincing explanation why climate models predicting steady warming, while observations show no warming at all over the last 17 years, still can be used for reliable predictions over periods longer than 17 years.
No wonder that Stocker is tired, because his task has not been easy and lack of sleep is not the best precondition for good scientific work. Accordingly his explanation that the warming, which should have been observed on the Earth surface but was not observed, has been transferrred into the Deep Ocean where it cannot be observed, because it is so deep, was not convincing to media allowed to pose questions at the press conference. Nor the alternative of putting the blame on volcanic eruptions. In the Summary this was phrased as follows:
The observed reduction in surface warming trend over the period 1998–2012 as compared to the period 1951–2012, is due in roughly equal measure to a reduced trend in radiative forcing and a cooling contribution from internal variability, which includes a possible redistribution of heat within the ocean (medium confidence).
The reduced trend in radiative forcing is primarily due to volcanic eruptions…
But Stocker did not mention during the press conference the third alternative presented in the Summary:
There may also be a contribution from forcing inadequacies and, in some models, an overestimate of the response to increasing greenhouse gas forcing.
This was the reason he could not sleep, and why IPCC now will sink into the Deep Ocean.
critical constructive inquiry
fredagen den 27:e september 2013
IPCC Follows Warming into the Deep Ocean
Sweden’s Environment Minister Lena Ek and Thomas Stocker, a member of an United Nations (UN) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), attend an IPCC meeting in Stockholm September 23, 2013. REUTERS-Bertil Enevag Ericson-Scanpix
A truck engine is tested for pollution exiting its exhaust pipe as California Air Resources field representatives (unseen) work a checkpoint set up to inspect heavy-duty trucks traveling near the Mexican-U.S. border in Otay Mesa, California September 10, 2013. REUTERS-Mike Blake
Swedish Minister of Climate Lena Ek assisting IPCC Co-chairman Thomas Stocker when presenting the Deep Ocean explanation of the non-existence of global warming.
Here is a summary the 2 hour IPCC webcast press conference presenting the Approved Summary for Policymakers concluding the yet unpublished IPCC 5th Asssessment Report Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis:
The key role is played by Thomas Stocker, Co-Chair of IPCC Working Group 1, who reports that he has only slept 6 hours the last 4 days, which is less than 2 hours per night, and thus is very tired.
What has kept him awake is to come up with a convincing explanation why climate models predicting steady warming, while observations show no warming at all over the last 17 years, still can be used for reliable predictions over periods longer than 17 years.
No wonder that Stocker is tired, because his task has not been easy and lack of sleep is not the best precondition for good scientific work. Accordingly his explanation that the warming, which should have been observed on the Earth surface but was not observed, has been transferrred into the Deep Ocean where it cannot be observed, because it is so deep, was not convincing to media allowed to pose questions at the press conference. Nor the alternative of putting the blame on volcanic eruptions. In the Summary this was phrased as follows:
The observed reduction in surface warming trend over the period 1998–2012 as compared to the period 1951–2012, is due in roughly equal measure to a reduced trend in radiative forcing and a cooling contribution from internal variability, which includes a possible redistribution of heat within the ocean (medium confidence).
The reduced trend in radiative forcing is primarily due to volcanic eruptions…
But Stocker did not mention during the press conference the third alternative presented in the Summary:
There may also be a contribution from forcing inadequacies and, in some models, an overestimate of the response to increasing greenhouse gas forcing.
This was the reason he could not sleep, and why IPCC now will sink into the Deep Ocean.

Auto
September 27, 2013 6:45 am

“Global-scale observations from the instrumental era began in the mid-19th century for temperature and other variables, with more comprehensive and diverse sets of observations available for the period 1950 onwards. Paleoclimate reconstructions extend some records back hundreds to millions of years. Together, they provide a comprehensive view of the variability and long-term changes in the atmosphere, the ocean, the cryosphere, and the land surface.”
(from pages 2-3.)
So sixty-three years, plus reconstructions, enables “a comprehensive view of the variability and long-term changes in the atmosphere, the ocean, the cryosphere, and the land surface”, does it?
And a fifteen year pause [up to twenty plus years on some data series] with no significant warming, is nothing to get worried about?
A quarter, even a third of the detailed records – perhaps one seventh or an eighth of the whole series from ‘mid-19th century’?
i’d like a glass or two of whatever they’re on!
Auto

Chris Nelli
September 27, 2013 6:46 am

Somewhere Dyson Freeman is laughing.

Sasha
September 27, 2013 6:47 am

Julian In Wales says:
September 27, 2013 at 6:18 am
Great post!

FrankK
September 27, 2013 6:48 am

IPCC Correction. Update
The IPCC is now confronted by 95% uncertainty that that humans are to blame for global warming given the more than 15 years of flat temperature trend and an underlying trend of only 0.25 C deg per century evident from the longest temperature record of over 350 years.
Ignoring this “stand-still” in temperature all that can be predicted is that the maximum temperature rise would be no more than 0.25C this century, a rise that that has been consistent in the long-term well before industrialisation and temperature recovery since the Little Ice Age .
There fixed it!

François GM
September 27, 2013 7:05 am

Ross McKitrick says:
September 27, 2013 at 5:32 am
“SPM in a nutshell: Since we started in 1990 we were right about the Arctic, wrong about the Antarctic, wrong about the tropical troposphere, wrong about the surface, wrong about hurricanes, wrong about the Himalayas, wrong about sensitivity, clueless on clouds and useless on regional trends. And on that basis we’re 95% confident we’re right.”
Yep, best summary yet.

Robert of Ottawa
September 27, 2013 7:06 am

How obviously a political document can be passed off as “science” is beyond me.

Resourceguy
September 27, 2013 7:08 am

The tipping point of credibility has been reached. Or call it Peak Obfuscation.

September 27, 2013 7:12 am

More MSM headlines:
Channel4 news, UK: “Scientists deliver a bleak vision of a future in which storms are more frequent and the sea has risen by up to 82cm, as they say they are more certain than ever that mankind drives global warming”
BBC news: “A landmark report says scientists are 95% certain that humans are the “dominant cause” of global warming since the 1950s”
Of course these are the warmist-friendly media, but they’re the ones most people listen to. I don’t agree with them; I just want to highlight the mountain we still have to climb before the general population start to hear reality from their chosen news channels.

Phil's Dad
September 27, 2013 7:13 am

Despite asking less than half as many scientists to contribute; there is now (even) less agreement on a best estimate for climate sensitivity (to CO2) than last time. I’d call that “unsettling”.

John Peter
September 27, 2013 7:17 am

Keenan writes to Sligo
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2013/9/27/keenan-writes-to-slingo.html
Doug Keenan has discovered a major problem in the fifth assessment report.
“Dear Julia,
The IPCC’s AR5 WGI Summary for Policymakers includes the following statement.
The globally averaged combined land and ocean surface temperature data as calculated by a linear trend, show a warming of 0.85 [0.65 to 1.06] °C, over the period 1880–2012….
(The numbers in brackets indicate 90%-confidence intervals.) The statement is near the beginning of the first section after the Introduction; as such, it is especially prominent.
The confidence intervals are derived from a statistical model that comprises a straight line with AR(1) noise. As per your paper “Statistical models and the global temperature record” (May 2013), that statistical model is insupportable, and the confidence intervals should be much wider—perhaps even wide enough to include 0°C.
It would seem to be an important part of the duty of the Chief Scientist of the Met Office to publicly inform UK policymakers that the statement is untenable and the truth is less alarming. I ask if you will be fulfilling that duty, and if not, why not.
Sincerely, Doug”
Amazing.

Mike Bromley the Kurd
September 27, 2013 7:17 am

They just keep running for the shelter of their old pal CO2. It’s tiresome.

Yet another Mike from the Carson Valley where we deal with cold a lot and heat
September 27, 2013 7:19 am

Its unequivocal all those that take these finding seriously should immediately stop all efforts at propagating and pursue the concept of self elimination with extreme prejudice and leave this world to the rest of us who don’t see any reason to join them in their purple shrouded exit.
Frost on the roof this morning, the cold is coming.

Dave in Canmore
September 27, 2013 7:22 am

They’re uncertain the response to CO2 but they’re certain it’s the cause of some warming last century but not recently. LMAO! Such a ridiculous departure from reality! BTW does the IPCC show their work anywhere regarding the calculation of their degree of certainties? That would be hilarious.

The Engineer
September 27, 2013 7:24 am

Judith asks:
“In case you haven’t been paying attention, ‘extremely likely‘ in the attribution statement implies 95% confidence. Exactly what does 95% confidence mean in this context?”.
The answer is; “exactly the same as 90% confidence, 51% confidence or 1% confidence – it means ‘we hav’nt got a f***ing clue !’.

September 27, 2013 7:27 am

Oh dear, now the Economist is getting into the act: “climate change has not stopped and man is the main cause”. It’s enough to make you weep.

September 27, 2013 7:29 am

yes!
the climate is changing
it will get drier and cooler at the higher latitudes and more wet at the lower latitudes.
read my lips;
it is COOLING
and it won’t stop
not for a long time….
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/04/29/the-climate-is-changing/

Bruce Cobb
September 27, 2013 7:30 am

I think the IPCC Climate Liar’s lies have reached a tipping point of no return. They even have to lie about their confidence level. My god, no wonder they’re tired. Lying is hard work.

Gran Habano
September 27, 2013 7:32 am

@chris nelli
Somewhere Dyson Freeman is laughing.
Or even Deeman Fryson.

Kev-in-Uk
September 27, 2013 7:33 am

Paul Homewood says:
September 27, 2013 at 6:07 am
Exactly Paul, – but like all LIARS, the web of deceit they weave will come back and bite them eventually!
I liked the graph in this piece (third one down IIRC)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24021772
as far as I can see this shows basically what we all keep saying -that earths temps go up and down and certainly over the last 100 years it doesn’t look like particular ominous warming!! And the graph is from the MetOffice too!

DDP
September 27, 2013 7:33 am

Twitter doesn’t care, no AR5, IPCC, climate change or whatever. At least it’s not trending Worldwide or in the US and UK anyway. I’m sure it’s trending somewhere. Maybe on a few Pacific islands needing some funds for completion on future building projects?

September 27, 2013 7:34 am

When the data is outside the 95% confidence bands of the models, shouldn’t you be saying something like “we are 5% confident….”

Go Home
September 27, 2013 7:36 am

On the date of the release, it is only fitting that the Atlantic is having a mild year. On this date, 2013 is the 5th lowest year since 1950 in ACE. Here are the top 10 years…
DATE 9/27/2013
1962 9.2925
1994 12.7625
1983 13.9575
1977 18.355
2013 23.055
1968 23.95
1970 25.335
1982 26.815
1959 26.9825
1991 27.2625
To go with the report findings: Increases in intense tropical cyclone activity – Assessment that changes occurred (typically since 1950 unless otherwise indicated):”Low confidence in long term (centennial) changes, Virtually certain in North Atlantic since 1970″.
Unless i read the chart wrong. It is not clear IMO what is this reports prediction.

September 27, 2013 7:41 am

\\ AR5 gives no best estimate for climate sensitivity //
When today’s best estimate is below the published minimum the the previous assessment, it tends to generate questions even from people not really paying attention.
“Hide the Decline” of the Best Estimate.

Warren in New Zealand
September 27, 2013 7:56 am

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=11131126
One of the most controversial subjects in the report was how to deal with a purported slowdown in warming in the past 15 years. Climate skeptics say this “hiatus” casts doubt on the scientific consensus on climate change.
Many governments had objections over how the issue was treated in earlier drafts and some had called for it to be deleted altogether.
In the end, the IPCC made only a brief mention of the issue in the summary for policymakers, stressing that short-term records are sensitive to natural variability and don’t in general reflect long-term trends.

About what I expect from the Herald here, it’s slightly biased

September 27, 2013 7:57 am

Reblogged this on CACA and commented:
So the “experts” in 2007 (AR4) were 90% sure human’s were causing climate change (aka global warming). Now with a further six years of zero surface warming totalling ~15 years, the “experts” are now 95% certain that human’s are causing climate change/global warming or whatever they now call it.
As well, IPCC now recognise (taboo) ‘natural variability’ as influencing the current 15 year warming ‘pause’, 98% of climate models failing to model observed reality and no confirmation on climate sensitivity ~ would have thought their confidence level would have dropped not increased.
i.e “we actually have no idea what’s going on.”
Realistically, they were never going to be ‘less’ confident. That wouldn’t fit the political MO of the IPCC, who’s job after all, is to find and prosecute only the human influence on climate.
Politics still far more important than the science for the United Nations’ IPCC bureaucrats.

Robert W Turner
September 27, 2013 8:06 am

The sad part is most of the policy makers that will read this are going to fall for it. How long can this lie last and will anyone be held accountable when the jig is up?

Jtom
September 27, 2013 8:06 am

Don’t know if it means anything, but the USAToday.com site has “UN: man to blame for climate change,” as a headline. Referring to the UN instead of the IPCC is a huge step down since the average person here would associate the IPCC with science geeks, and the UN with liars and politicians (sorry, redundant). Anything from the UN is something that can safely be ignored.

Phil's Dad
September 27, 2013 8:07 am

Note to fellow Policy Makers.
Ignore the summary and read the Science.

philincalifornia
September 27, 2013 8:11 am

Ross McKitrick says:
September 27, 2013 at 5:32 am
SPM in a nutshell: Since we started in 1990 we were right about the Arctic, wrong about the Antarctic, wrong about the tropical troposphere, wrong about the surface, wrong about hurricanes, wrong about the Himalayas, wrong about sensitivity, clueless on clouds and useless on regional trends. And on that basis we’re 95% confident we’re right.
===========================================
Brilliant – and the Arctic may not be cooperating soon either.
It still won’t stop the people with lame lives pretending to take carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere though. I wonder if they ever even look at the Keeling curve ?
I suppose the pay’s better these days though for digging ditches and filling them in.

JPS
September 27, 2013 8:12 am

Weather.com’s homepage has this in their rotation: “It’s Only Getting Worse” accompanied by various photos of melting ice, retreating glaciers, etc. Subheadlines offer Expert Analysis, etc.
I see this and think, if I were relying on this for information, I wouldn’t have a clue about the pause. I wouldn’t guess that the Arctic ice minimum area, while still rather low, is up 60% from last year. I would believe that having most of the ten warmest years on record recently somehow contradicts the assertion that temperatures have leveled off lately.
But I suppose that headline is a fair summary of the IPCC’s latest.

Brant Ra
September 27, 2013 8:13 am

The earth appears to be a self correcting system governed by energy transfers larger than the total human output… How do you determine human influence on a system like that without knowing all of the conservation factors?

Gilles
September 27, 2013 8:13 am

Look at Figure SPM .10 (last one of the SPM)
It displays the temperature anomaly as a function of cumulative CO2 emissions, with black points being “historical”. The black point “2010” shows an increase of around 100 GtC with respect to 2000 (which is correct) but also an increase of 0.3 °C with respect to 2000 … which is “technically” correct, but misleading : 2000 was a La Niña year after the strong 1998 El Niño , and 2010 was a rather strong El Niño year. Statistically speaking, we all know that there has been no significant warming for 15 years. Yet another “trick” ….. (had they taken the “*8” years the graph would have looked totally different of course).

JPS
September 27, 2013 8:15 am

philincalifornia:
“It still won’t stop the people with lame lives pretending to take carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere though.”
Heh. I do CO2 chemistry for a living – but I don’t fool myself that I’m going to have any significant effect on atmospheric CO2 levels, and I’ve never yet tried to sell it as offering hope in the crucial battle against CAGW.

September 27, 2013 8:18 am

The official mouthpiece of the warming craze–The Weather Channel–is all over it this morning. It’s all propaganda, all the time, in your face, in your homes! Tune in to have your brain pelted to mush with all the silliness. I’m 95% confident they are 100% full of it.

Downdraft
September 27, 2013 8:19 am

Summary of the summary:
Our models are correct. We can’t explain why the climate refuses to comply with them. The only logical course of action is to continue on the established path until the climate succumbs. Any deviation from this doctrine would be disastrous to our funding stream.

ColdinTN
September 27, 2013 8:28 am

“The religious analogy is appropriate because belief in global warming has taken on the trappings of traditional religion. Alarmists like to say the science is settled — which is nonsense, since science is a series of theories that can be tested by observations. When Einstein presented his theory of relativity, he showed how it could be tested during astronomical events in the next decade. The theory passed. Saying the science is settled is like demanding what religions demand — that you have faith.
Religion has ritual. Global-warming alarmism has recycling and Earth Day celebrations. Some religions persecute heretics. Some global-warming alarmists identify “denialists” and liken them to Holocaust deniers. Religions build grand places of worship. Global-warming alarmists promote the construction of windmills and solar farms that uneconomically produce intermittent electricity. Global-warming alarmism even has indulgences like the ones Martin Luther protested. You can buy carbon offsets to gain forgiveness for travel on carbon-emitting private jet aircraft.
Some religions ban vulgar pleasures, as the New England Puritan sumptuary laws did in banning luxuries. Some global-warming alarmists want to force most Americans out of big-lawn suburbs and into high-rise apartments clustered around mass-transit stations. This last element seems to be dominant among many global-warming alarmists. Stop the vulgar masses from living their tacky lifestyles of driving those horrid SUVs. They must be made to repent, conform, and then be saved.”
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/359641/great-global-warming-disappointment-michael-barone

Jimbo
September 27, 2013 8:30 am

Scenario:
A group of the world’s top butterfly experts project with a 90% confidence level that Bermuda will see an increase in the total number of butterflies over the next 15 years. Fifteen years later there is no increase. The butterfly group issues a report and says that they are 95% confident and it is unequivocal that there will be an increase in the number of butterflies in the next 15 years. It’s like a Zombie.
The jig is winding down, the fat lady wants to sing, the ref is putting the whistle to his lips, the game is into stoppage time, the parrot is almost dead.

Auto
September 27, 2013 8:38 am

Phil’s Dad says:
September 27, 2013 at 8:07 am
Note to fellow Policy Makers.
Ignore the summary and read the Science.
===
Where’s the science?
There are lots of models, some charts and graphs and things – all doubtless massaged to make the 1930’s look like a wet weekend in somewhere irredeemably dismal. Is that science?
Models [of the mathematical kid, not Airfix ones] re GIGO – especially if the model is a Mannian-type, that produces a hockey stick, even if a list of cricket scores is pushed through it.
And the model projections are that it may get a bit warmer – but ‘we’ don’t know what caused the current hiatus [over twenty years on some data sets], so ‘we’ are a bit vague on those cause thingies.
Ummm – yes, ‘we’ are 95% certain [although we were 100% certain] that the climate, it’ll change.
Auto

Eric
September 27, 2013 8:39 am

I have been watching something interesting happen all morning. Bloomberg posted the following article on their homepage this morning
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-09-27/global-warming-slowdown-seen-as-emissions-rise-to-record.html
The comments have been mainly pro-skeptic/anti-ipcc.
It was front and center with a picture to go along with it. About 20 minutes later I went back to the home page and it was now down toward the bottom of the page as the first link under “Sustainability”. 10 minutes later it was the third link. Now, an hour later it is gone off of the front page completely and can only be found after clicking on “More Sustainability” and looking under the “Energy” heading…
The front page now only contains the following links:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-09-26/climate-deniers-misinterpret-data-un-s-figueres-says.html
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-09-27/fossil-fuels-need-to-stay-unburned-to-meet-climate-target.html
Very interesting….

stan stendera
September 27, 2013 8:40 am

My bullet point on the IPCC report: They washed a very dirty hog (and didn’t get it clean) and are trying to sell the wash water as Champaign The usual suspects (BBC, CNN, etc..) are buying. I wonder how it’s going to taste..

Steve Oregon
September 27, 2013 8:43 am

Whoa, I searched BS for something apt and struck pay dirt.
It reads like a psychoanalysis of the alarmist.
http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/bullshit
“The contemporary proliferation of bullshit also has deeper sources, in various forms of skepticism which deny that we can have any reliable access to an objective reality and which therefore reject the possibility of knowing how things truly are. These “anti-realist” doctrines undermine confidence in the value of disinterested efforts to determine what is true and what is false, and even in the intelligibility of the notion of objective inquiry. One response to this loss of confidence has been a retreat from the discipline required by dedication to the ideal of correctness to a quite different sort of discipline, which is imposed by pursuit of an alternative ideal of sincerity. Rather than seeking primarily to arrive at accurate representations of a common world, the individual turns toward trying to provide honest representations of himself. Convinced that reality has no inherent nature, which he might hope to identify as the truth about things, he devotes himself to being true to his own nature. It is as though he decides that since it makes no sense to try to be true to the facts, he must therefore try instead to be true to himself.
But it is preposterous to imagine that we ourselves are determinate, and hence susceptible both to correct and to incorrect descriptions, while supposing that the ascription of determinacy to anything else has been exposed as a mistake. As conscious beings, we exist only in response to other things, and we cannot know ourselves at all without knowing them. Moreover, there is nothing in theory, and certainly nothing in experience, to support the extraordinary judgment that it is the truth about himself that is the easiest for a person to know. Facts about ourselves are not peculiarly solid and resistant to skeptical dissolution. Our natures are, indeed, elusively insubstantial — notoriously less stable and less inherent than the natures of other things. And insofar as this is the case, sincerity itself is bullshit.”
― Harry G. Frankfurt, On Bullshit

RC Saumarez
September 27, 2013 8:46 am

To all Brits and EU citizens.
In the UK the lights may well go out and electricity prices are going upwards fast.
The BBC and MSM will not be able to hide the pain of no electricity if the World doesn’t warm up soon because more and more people will notice that they undergoing hardship for no apparent reason.
I guess that the S”””storm that followed the last IPCC report wioll be nothing compared to what’s coming soon. I would like to see an investigation in the UK of the Met Office’s models, which are driving our energy policy and every UK contributor to the IPCC put under really hostile questioning.

Hot under the collar
September 27, 2013 8:47 am

The ‘Elephant in The Room’ is that the remit of the IPCC is limited to looking at ‘human induced’ climate change.
Maybe that’s why they were ‘up so late with only a few hours sleep’, because they were finding it difficult with their blinkers on trying to produce scientific evidence for the ‘anthropogenic’ element?

Eric
September 27, 2013 8:49 am

Just wondering if my earlier comment at 8:39 is still under moderation due to the 3 Bloomberg links? For future reference…

Joe Chang
September 27, 2013 8:50 am

The whole AGW argument requires that the nature climate be rock stable, so that CO2 provides the initial deviation, which is then amplified by feedback mechanism. This is necessary because CO2 (doubling from 280 to 560) alone does not have enough impact to be a cause of alarm. The feedback mechanism (clouds, water vapor, ice, insert your favorite) must normally be rock steady for the AGW argument because otherwise it would not be amplifying the effects of CO2, so that warming can be ultimately attributed to fossil fuels. This was why the MWP had to be banished.
Now that IPCC is acknowledging natural variability, the implication is that the (former) feedback mechanisms are no longer driven solely by CO2 induced warming. So the whole feedback-amplification argument goes down the drain. Now the only impact that can be attributed to CO2 is the direct 1.7W/m2, which should only contribute 1C, hence no alarm.

Sam The First
September 27, 2013 8:50 am

I’m trying to laugh at some of the sarky comments, which are well deserved, but like Peter Ward my prevailing response is despair at the inert and sycophantic response of the media, whether live or print, to this farrago of IPCC nonsense. Every newspaper website I’ve looked at for the UK MSM is leading with this doom-mongering report.
We are living in a parallel universe, where those of us who bother to do enough work to understand the science can see the obvious, but 95% of the world doesn’t bother – including those in the media paid well to write on climate and related matters. The politicians certainly can’t be bothered: they just lap up what they are told
Untill we can find some means of conveying the reality of the science to decisions-makers and educators, nothing is going to change. My one consolation is that Australia has shown us that common sense can prevail.

LucVC
September 27, 2013 8:51 am

In summary they wrote they are 95% sure that it is humans that caused it not to warm for 15 years… I dont see why anyone is upset.

G. Karst
September 27, 2013 8:53 am

Looks like the IPCC has decided that there is a reasonable chance of warming restarting soon. They only have to hold on until that blessed event transpires. Some scientific strategy!?
May Gaia help us if some sort of cooling does not become obvious soon. The public is ready to go all in, if warming becomes apparent again. We will race over the cliff of energy poverty faster than you can say “turn the lights off”. All of this… for a minor bump in temperatures. GK

William Astley
September 27, 2013 8:58 am

In reply to the IPCC’s Summary for Policy Makers (SPM), Fundamental issues not addressed, observations and analysis ignored that disprove SPM assertions. IPCC AR-5 SPM states:
“The net feedback from the combined effect of changes in water vapour, and differences between atmospheric and surface warming is extremely likely positive and therefore amplifies changes in climate. The net radiative feedback due to all cloud types combined is likely positive. Uncertainty in the sign and magnitude of the cloud feedback is due primarily to continuing uncertainty in the impact of warming on low clouds. {7.2} “ (William: After 20 years of research the IPCC is uncertain concerning the sign and magnitude of low level clouds in response to green gas forcing. Com’ on man. There has been 16 years of no warming. Why?)
William: Same old, same old. AR-5 is the same as AR-4 in that observations, analysis, and logic that disprove EAGW are ignored. The IPCC reports are a one sided scientific debate where there is no advocate for the counter position. For example (excerpt):
1. Analysis of top of the atmosphere radiation Vs short term changes in planetary temperature supports the assertion that planetary clouds in the tropics increase or decrease to resist forcing changes (by reflecting more or less sunlight into space, negative feedback) as opposed to the IPCC’s assumed amplification of forcing (positive feedback) due to increased water vapour in the troposphere with no increase or a reduction in low level clouds (depending on general circulation model). The GCM’s assumed increase in water vapour in the troposphere with no change or a reduction in low level clouds causes the amplification of the green gas forcing. If there is no amplification, the equilibrium response to a doubling of CO2 is roughly 1C. If the planet resists forcing changes rather than amplifies forcing changes the equilibrium response to a doubling of CO2 is less than 1C. How the heck can the IPCC be extremely certain the equilibrium response to a doubling of CO2 will be greater than 1C when the sign of the change in low level clouds in not known!
2. If there was an increased in water vapour in the troposphere as a result of AGW then there would be the predicted warming at roughly 8km in the tropical troposphere which in turn would cause increased warming in the tropics. That is not observed (warming in the tropics is three times less than that predicted by the general circulation models (GCM) and there is no tropospheric warming in the tropics at 8km which supports the assertion the planet resists (negative feedback) rather than amplifies (positive feedback) forcing changes.
3. The observed latitudinal pattern of warming in the last 150 years does not match the warming pattern predicted by the general circulation models based on AGW forcing being the cause of the warming. As CO2 is more or less eventually distributed in the atmosphere the potential for AGW forcing is more or less the same based on latitude. As the actual forcing due to greenhouse gas is also proportional to the long wave radiation that is emitted to space prior to the increase in greenhouse gas and the most amount of long wave radiation that is emitted to space occurs in the tropics, the GCM’s predicted the most amount of warming due to greenhouse gas increases should occur in the tropics.
4. There are cycles of warming and cooling (23 cycles have been found, 9 of which occur in the current interglacial period, with a mean period of 1500 years) in the paleo climatic record that have the same latitudinal pattern as the warming that occurred in the last 150 years. The past cycles of warming and cooling were not caused by CO2 forcing. The past warming and cooling periods correlate with solar magnetic cycle changes. The past cooling periods that following the past warming periods correlate with a Maunder like minimum in the solar magnetic cycle.
5. And so on.
William: The following is an excerpt of peer reviewed papers from so called climate ‘skeptical’ scientists that disprove EAGW.
Analysis of top of the Atmosphere Radiation Vs Planetary temperature change
http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/236-Lindzen-Choi-2011.pdf
“On the Observational Determination of Climate Sensitivity and Its Implications
We again find that the outgoing radiation resulting from SST fluctuations exceeds the zerofeedback response thus implying negative feedback. In contrast to this, the calculated TOA outgoing radiation fluxes from 11 atmospheric models forced by the observed SST are less than the zerofeedback response, consistent with the positive feedbacks that characterize these models. …. … However, warming from a doubling of CO2 would only be about 1C (based on simple calculations where the radiation altitude and the Planck temperature depend on wavelength in accordance with the attenuation coefficients of well mixed CO2 molecules; a doubling of any concentration in ppmv produces the same warming because of the logarithmic dependence of CO2’s absorption on the amount of CO2) (IPCC, 2007). This modest warming is much less than current climate models suggest for a doubling of CO2. Models predict warming of from 1.5C to 5C and even more for a doubling of CO2. Model predictions depend on the ‘feedback’ within models from the more important greenhouse substances, water vapor and clouds. Within all current climate models, water vapor increases with increasing temperature so as to further inhibit infrared cooling. Clouds also change so that their visible reflectivity decreases, causing increased solar absorption and warming of the earth. Cloud feedbacks are still considered to be highly uncertain (IPCC, 2007), but the fact that these feedbacks are strongly positive in most models is considered to be an indication that the result is basically correct. ….”
William: The observed warming pattern in the last 150 years does not match the warming pattern if CO2 or any other greenhouse gas was the cause. http://www.klimarealistene.com/Christy%20-%20tempereaturanalyser%20i%20regioner%20viser%20liten%20CO2%20effekt.pdf Limits on CO2 Climate Forcing from Recent Temperature Data of Earth
The global atmospheric temperature anomalies of Earth reached a maximum in 1998 which has not been exceeded during the subsequent 10 years (William: 16 years and counting). The global anomalies are calculated from the average of climate effects occurring in the tropical and the extratropical latitude bands. El Niño/La Niña effects in the tropical band are shown to explain the 1998 maximum while variations in the background of the global anomalies largely come from climate effects in the northern extratropics. These effects do not have the signature associated with CO2 climate forcing. (William: This observation indicates something is fundamental incorrect with the IPCC models, likely negative feedback in the tropics due to increased or decreased planetary cloud cover to resist forcing). However, the data show a small underlying positive trend that is consistent with CO2 climate forcing with no-feedback. (William: This indicates a significant portion of the 20th century warming has due to something rather than CO2 forcing.)
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/DOUGLASPAPER.pdf
A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions
We examine tropospheric temperature trends of 67 runs from 22 ‘Climate of the 20th Century’ model simulations and try to reconcile them with the best available updated observations (in the tropics during the satellite era). Model results and observed temperature trends are in disagreement in most of the tropical troposphere, being separated by more than twice the uncertainty of the model mean. In layers near 5 km, the modelled trend is 100 to 300% higher than observed, and, above 8 km, modelled and observed trends have opposite signs. These conclusions contrast strongly with those of recent publications based on essentially the same data.
New paper that again finds the upper tropical troposphere is not warming as predicted.
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/7/4/044018
Discrepancies in tropical upper tropospheric warming between atmospheric circulation models and satellites

September 27, 2013 8:59 am

Hot under the collar:
Your post at September 27, 2013 at 8:47 am says

The ‘Elephant in The Room’ is that the remit of the IPCC is limited to looking at ‘human induced’ climate change.
Maybe that’s why they were ‘up so late with only a few hours sleep’, because they were finding it difficult with their blinkers on trying to produce scientific evidence for the ‘anthropogenic’ element?

The biggest ‘Elephant in The Room’ is much bigger than that!
It seems I need to point out the following again.
The IPCC is only permitted to say AGW is a significant problem because they are tasked to accept that there is a “risk of human-induced climate change” which requires “options for adaptation and mitigation” that can be selected as political polices and the IPCC is tasked to provide those “options”.
This is clearly stated in the “Principles” which govern the work of the IPCC. These are stated at
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/ipcc-principles.pdf
Near its beginning that document says

ROLE
2. The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy, although they may need to deal objectively with scientific, technical and socio-economic factors relevant to the application of particular policies.

So, the IPCC does NOT exist to summarise climate science.
The IPCC exists to provide
(a) “information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change”
and
(b) “and options for adaptation and mitigation” which pertain to “the application of particular policies”.
Hence, its “Role” demands that the IPCC accepts as a given that there is a “risk of human-induced climate change” which requires “options for adaptation and mitigation” which pertain to “the application of particular policies”.
The IPCC is pure pseudoscience intended to provide information to justify political actions; i.e.Lysenkoism.
Richard
P.S. PHIL’S DAD, ARE YOU HEARING THIS?

Réaumur
September 27, 2013 9:09 am

Son of mulder says:
September 27, 2013 at 5:25 am
“Just heard Prof Bob Carter on BBC Radio4 World at One. Brilliant interview putting a sound sceptical perspective on the IPCC report. Well worth a listen again when it is available.”

====
For those who can hear it, it is at:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b03bg4vp/World_at_One_27_09_2013/
Prof. Carter is introduced at a time index of 08:46, but the whole item starts at 07:28.
At 08:12, just before we hear the professor, Ed Davey who is the UK government “Energy and Climate Change Secretary” says “This piece of evidence that we’re seeing from Stockholm is probably the most robust, rigorous, most peer-reviewed piece of science in human history. I think it’s put the question of whether climate change is happening beyond doubt. We’ve got to stop debating this issue as if we’re some members of the flat earth society and get on and act.”…

HorshamBren
September 27, 2013 9:10 am

The most significant emission from today’s IPCC press conference was from Michel Jarraud, Secretary-General of the WMO, who said:
‘ … But despite this really overwhelming scientific consensus around climate change, we need further assessment, we need further projection, in particular to downscale this information at the regional and more local level, so we should not stop our investment in that, this is essential investment for the future generations.’
This is newspeak for “Keep Giving Us Your Money”

Stuart B
September 27, 2013 9:11 am

I’m just getting so angry with these people – they had a chance to climb down gracefully, save their careers, and incidentally do the rest of the world a favour, and they blew it! So many really poor people are going to suffer if policies continue to be based on this nonsense. To gratuitously raise the price of energy and deliberately ration it by dismantling the infrastructure of civilization is going to kill more people than any of the usual tyrants. It’s a despicable crime against humanity which is being perpetrated by respected institutions and ‘democratic’ governments.
If none of these people will learn to respect everyone else, then how on earth do you work towards re-establishing rationality and in particular, breaking the noxious link between science and Macchiavellian politics? Not by arguing with them, apparently.

September 27, 2013 9:17 am

Richardscourtney
You quote the original IPCC objectives . However this was all changed in the SREX report in 2011. See my post at
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2011/11/comments-on-ipcc-srex-summary-for.html
Here are some quotes
“The importance of the new report is that finally the IPCC recognizes that the uncertainties of climate prediction are much greater than they previously acknowledged. They are now in the embarrassing position of having to acknowledge that the whole UN CO2 scare is built on very uncertain foundations and they somehow need to as quietly as possible change their position .The first thing they do is to change the definition of climate change (Global Warming no longer seems a convenient term to use) They say :
“several of the definitions used in this Special Report differ in breadth or focus from those used in the AR4 and other IPCC reports.]
Climate Change: A change in the state of the climate that can be identified (e.g., by using statistical tests) by changes in the mean and/or the variability of its properties and that persists for an extended period, typically decades or longer. Climate change may be due to natural internal processes or external forcings, or to persistent anthropogenic changes in the composition of the atmosphere or in land use.2[INSERT FOOTNOTE 2: This definition differs from that in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), where climate change is defined as: “a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods.” The UNFCCC thus makes a distinction between climate change attributable to human activities altering the atmospheric composition, and climate variability attributable to natural causes.]
In other words where previously climate change meant change due to human activity now it means change due to human and natural causes . As previously quoted in the original post they now say that they can’t distinguish these causes for the next 30 years. The rest of their predictions re extreme events are simply trivial and tautologous speculation – they simply say that if warming continues, certain extreme events are more likely to occur. If they don’t know what is happening in the next 30 years they certainly don’t know what will happen in the next hundred.

Larry in Texas
September 27, 2013 9:24 am

I’m still reeling from the observations made by Judith Curry and Bob Tisdale – if the IPCC is admitting, as Judith and Bob astutely point out, no way to provide an estimated equilibrium climate sensitivity, and no sufficient data (other than the lame statement: “models do not reproduce . . .” which essentially refutes their entire conclusion) on which to base a “95% confidence, extremely likely” statement, how do they justify their conclusions about what factors are causing how much increase in temperature? Just more incredible baloney. If I were a policy maker, I would throw this summary into the incinerator.

Bbould
September 27, 2013 9:25 am

The IPCC is always right until proven wrong. That is how thier climate science works, get with the program people.

Robert of Ottawa
September 27, 2013 9:32 am

The media message is, as presumed: “CO2 is causing heat, natural variation is causing cold”.
Of course, non of the media luminaries can figure out that surely natural variation would work both ways, otherwise it’s not natural variation.
This just in: Vikings still not farming Greenland.

Mike Smith
September 27, 2013 9:44 am

The globe is warming (except that it isn’t). Man-made CO2 is causing it (except that it isn’t). A 97% consensus (except that it’s closer to 0.3%) is 95% certain (fictional nonsense) of these facts.
What a load of bollocks. The IPCC and their report deserve to be laughed off the planet. Sadly, progressive journalists and politicians will embrace it wholeheartedly and use our dollars to implement their oh-so-worthy programs to line the pockets of their cronies. Something like half the population will swallow the bait hook, line, and sinker.
Things really are worse than we thought 🙁

September 27, 2013 9:44 am

Dr Norman Page:
Your post at September 27, 2013 at 9:17 am replies to mt post at September 27, 2013 at 8:59 am
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/27/reactions-to-ipcc-ar5-summary-for-policy-makers/#comment-1428543
Your reply begins by saying

Richardscourtney
You quote the original IPCC objectives . However this was all changed in the SREX report in 2011.

Sorry, but No! You are mistaken.
The link to the IPCC “Principles” which I quoted was in my post and I copy it to here. It is
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/ipcc-principles.pdf
If you use that link you will see the document begins saying

PRINCIPLES GOVERNING IPCC WORK
Approved at the Fourteenth Session (Vienna, 1-3 October 1998) on 1 October 1998,
amended at the Twenty-First Session (Vienna, 3 and 6-7 November 2003),
the Twenty-Fifth Session (Mauritius, 26-28 April 2006) and
the Thirty-Fifth Session (Geneva, 6-9 June 2012)

So, the “Role” stated near the start of that document has been repeatedly reviewed, amended and agreed. The most recent approval of it was in June 2012 (i.e. last year and a year after you claim it was changed).
The nature and purpose of the IPCC is as I quoted and explained in my post you have replied.
Richard

September 27, 2013 9:45 am

Astounding to me is the IPCC, after the global media event they created, released a DRAFT SPM report to the world… you have to go to the end of the doc just to find the graphs they talk about in the text.
It is a shabby, unpolished release they should have held onto until it was done!!!

Hugh Price
September 27, 2013 9:46 am

I wonder if Dr. Curry intended the pun on anti-climactically.

tony nordberg
September 27, 2013 9:48 am

This headline really freaked me, until I worked it out;
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/27/taser-victim-police-ipcc-justified

Richard Barnes
September 27, 2013 9:53 am

Richard North’s take:
http://www.eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=84359
Science has nothing to do with it.

milodonharlani
September 27, 2013 9:53 am

They’re playing for time, in the probably vain hope that global temperatures will turn upward again over the next five years. If not, the Sixth AR will have to admit defeat, ie it’s 95% certain that 95% of climate change is not man-made, & that all governmental attempts to ameliorate a non-existent problem have done nothing but impoverish humanity while harming its environment.
Or maybe they’ll just keep reiterating the same lies. We can only hope that their mendacity falls on even deafer ears in that case.

MJFriesen
September 27, 2013 9:56 am

for Ross McKitrick re: “right about the Arctic, wrong about the Antarctic, wrong about the tropical troposphere, wrong about the surface, wrong about hurricanes, wrong about the Himalayas, wrong about sensitivity, clueless on clouds and useless on regional trends”
Points taken. But for one additional item – what about sea level? I’ve noticed that their projected trends in sea level since 1990 are pretty close to what has transpired. Can credit be given for “right” about sea level in the same way as “right about the Arctic”?

milodonharlani
September 27, 2013 9:56 am

tony nordberg says:
September 27, 2013 at 9:48 am
Advocates of the UN’s IPCC would like to do worse than tasering skeptics who point out the scientific evidence that more CO2 is good for the planet.

Jimbo
September 27, 2013 9:57 am

AR5 Summary For Policymakers
(d) The frequency and intensity of drought has likely increased in the Mediterranean and West Africa and likely decreased in central North America and north-west Australia.

Have these people been reduced to guesswork? We have satellites, rain gauges, people on the ground etc. and all they can say is ‘likely’.
On the Sahel:

Greenness in semi-arid areas across the globe 1981–2007 — an Earth Observing Satellite based analysis of trends and drivers
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0034425712000545
——————————————————-
31 May, 2013
CO2 fertilisation has increased maximum foliage cover across the globe’s warm, arid environments
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50563/abstract

We didn’t cause this, did we?

2009
Atlantic Forcing of Persistent Drought in West Africa
…We find that intervals of severe drought lasting for periods ranging from decades to centuries are characteristic of the monsoon and are linked to natural variations in Atlantic temperatures. Thus the severe drought of recent decades is not anomalous in the context of the past three millennia,…..
doi: 10.1126/science.1166352

September 27, 2013 10:03 am

Richard Barnes:
Your post at September 27, 2013 at 9:53 am says

Richard North’s take:
http://www.eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=84359
Science has nothing to do with it.

Science certainly does NOT have anything to do with it.
This is not a matter of opinion: it is a result of the “Role” the IPCC has and is tasked to provide.
Please read my above post at at September 27, 2013 at 8:59 am
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/27/reactions-to-ipcc-ar5-summary-for-policy-makers/#comment-1428543
What amazes me is the reluctance of people to accept the specified function and purpose of the IPCC despite the function and purpose being published in the public domain by the IPCC itself.
Richard

Billy Liar
September 27, 2013 10:07 am

I predict that AR6 will find the IPCC, led by Professor John Cook, is 97% confident that climate change is caused by humans..

milodonharlani
September 27, 2013 10:08 am

Jimbo says:
September 27, 2013 at 9:57 am
A warmer world would mean a wetter Sahara, as during the Holocene Climatic Optimum (see below) & previous hot spells, such as the Eemian Interglacial:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neolithic_Subpluvial
Colder means dry, windy conditions, as shown by evidence supporting the Sahara Pump hypothesis.

Jimbo
September 27, 2013 10:17 am

Solomon Green says:
September 27, 2013 at 6:20 am
I notice that IPCC 4 PR claimed 2,000 scientists contributed whereas IPCC 5 only claims 800. Is there any significance?

Ar4 Summary for Policymakers = 18 pages
Ar5 Summary for Policymakers = 36 pages
How many pages until it stops being a summary

Paul Coppin
September 27, 2013 10:25 am

“The online debate is not reaching the consciousness of the general public.”
This comment by Peter Ward above is the only one here that counts. Every popular MSM is screaming the doomsday message, and its the only message people will hear. They won’t read the report, they won’t check out the debate, and they lack sufficient education to understand the discussion in any case. And they vote. Tony Abbott is a lonely man. None of his peers in the western world will do or think what Tony thinks – not Republicans, Democrats, Liberals, socialists or Conservatives. Welcome back to the future.

Average Person Not Buying The AGW Hysteria
September 27, 2013 10:31 am

Note to climate activists: please don’t call me a “denier”. I prefer the more politically correct nickname “non-alarmist”.

more soylent green!
September 27, 2013 10:34 am

I just love how they can release the summary before the report itself it released. Is somebody rewriting the body of the report to match the summary, or are they hoping nobody notices?

September 27, 2013 10:34 am

Today the IPCC Bureau issued the AR5 WG1 Summary for Policy Makers to a much more critically skeptical audience than the AR4 audience and a more scientifically prepared audience.
The IPCC Bureau has a obvious self-confidence crisis. It knows after >20 years and 5 assessment reports that hard physical science knowledge does not reasonably and unambiguously support their ‘a priori’ (posited before the the IPCC was chartered) premise of net harm to the Earth-Atmosphere System (EAS) from burning fossil fuels. They only have left a pseudo-scientific irrationalism in support of their premise. Their premise was not a guess in Feynman’s scientific process sense, instead their premise was a strategic tool for activism. They now know their premise can no longer serve to promote activism in any meaningful scientific context, this is their self-confidence crisis.
The IPCC Bureau has only one option to restore their self-confidence. The option is a new extremely over-the-top and radical MSM crusade on the Bureau’s behalf in support of their premise and activism. A new crusade that supports the IPCC at a much much higher capacity than it previously supported the them in the past >20 years.
So far the MSM hasn’t shown signs of willingness to do so. Oops.
Leading politicians are keen in their abilities to smell subtle shifts in politically useful winds. Downwind of the IPCC’s AR5 its smells of decayed political usefulness.
John

george e. smith
September 27, 2013 10:36 am

“”””””……..Equilibrium climate sensitivity is likely in the range 1.5°C to 4.5°C (high confidence), extremely unlikely less than 1°C (high confidence), and very unlikely greater than 6°C (medium confidence)16……..”””””””
Well with high confidence they admit they don’t know the “equilibrium climate sensitivity” to better than three to one, and it might be as much as a 6″1 unknown. But fear not, because they are able to break down the detail contributions to this Wild Arse Guess estimate into its constituent parts, but for the natural forcings and the internal variability they are 100% uncertain as to even the direction of the effect; they could be as big in one direction as in the opposite direction. Now that is real information you can bank on.
You can take a left turn or you can take a right turn and we are absolutely sure that the left turn choice is as likely to be as wrong as the right turn choice is.
And for sure, the weather is never going to be in equilibrium, since the earth rotates on its tilted axis, besides going around the sun in an elliptical orbit.
So just when was it the last time the earth’s climate was in equilibrium ??
And by the way, just what is it that the official definition of “Climate Sensitivity” is Today ?
Is it the “s” in any of these equations ??
1/……T1 – T2 = s. log2(CO2,1/CO2,2) Where Ti is mean global surface Temperature.
2/……Same as #1 where Ti is mean global lower tropospheric air Temperature (say 2m altitude)
3/…….CO2,1 – CO2,2 = s. log2(T1/T2) ; where Ti same as #1
4/…….Same as #3 where Ti same as #2
5/…….T1 – T2 = s. (CO2,1 – CO2,2)
6/……..CO2,1 – CO2,2 = s. (T1 – T2)
7/……..Your favorite math function; eg y = exp (-1/x^2)
Now remember we know that the “climate Sensitivity” is the “s” in one of these equations, and the data is good enough to confirm which one, yet we don’t know the value of “s” in that equation to better than 3:1 uncertainty, and maybe only 6:1
Yes this really is robust science we are talking here.
When NIST starts to publish the USA official Government approved value for “s” for all USA commerce to use, then I will start to believe they know what they are talking about.
Now I understand that these equations sometimes are translated into different languages, and CO2 translates into Watts per square meter; which really is a bizarre transformation; and for extra credit the student can determine whether these are the raw climate sensitivity numbers and formulas, or maybe they are the ones with water vapor feedback factored in; or not, or perhaps they have cloud feedback included.
There’s not a lot of real world experimental data, in existence, that was observed with water vapor, and or cloud feedback turned off while the data was gathered.
But we are confident that the science is quite robust; even unequivocal !

September 27, 2013 10:39 am

How many trees did they kill writing this thing up?

David L. Hagen
September 27, 2013 10:40 am

Bjorn Lomborg writes
Lower Temp on Climate Change Hype

The report ought to strengthen the pragmatic middle. .. .But it will not support the alarmist predictions of global temperature rises by the end of the century of up to 9 degrees Fahrenheit. Actual predictions will center around 1.8 F to 6.6 F. . . .panel estimates a much more manageable 1.5 feet to 2 feet (sea level rise) by the end of the century. . . .
The real problem for the climate panel is to explain why for the past 15 years to 20 years, while we have kept pumping out more CO2, thermometers have refused to budge. . . .
An analysis of the major economic climate models shows that the global benefits of temperature rises of up to 3 F to 4 F outweigh the costs. . . .Likewise, CO2 fertilizes crops and will increase production more in temperate countries than it will slow down crop increases in tropical countries.
The (EU plan) cost, as estimated by the average of the major macroeconomic models, is $250 billion annually, or $20 trillion across the century. Paying $20 trillion to barely help the world (0.1F) in 100 years is a steep price.
If we want to make a difference, we need instead to focus on research and development to drive down the price of the next generations of green energy.
We’ll never succeed in making fossil fuels so expensive that nobody wants them. But we could innovate green energy to become so cheap, everybody wants it.

george e. smith
September 27, 2013 10:49 am

“””””……Jimbo says:
September 27, 2013 at 8:30 am
Scenario:
A group of the world’s top butterfly experts project with a 90% confidence level that Bermuda will see an increase in the total number of butterflies over the next 15 years. Fifteen years later there is no increase. The butterfly group issues a report and says that they are 95% confident and it is unequivocal that there will be an increase in the number of butterflies in the next 15 years. It’s like a Zombie.
The jig is winding down, the fat lady wants to sing, the ref is putting the whistle to his lips, the game is into stoppage time, the parrot is almost dead…….””””””
May I remind you that when the fat lady finally does sing (for a whole 18 minutes non stop), it is the end of the twilight of the gods; and those scoundrels are finally sent to their well deserved destiny.
May the IPCC follow them to the ashes of Valhalla.

September 27, 2013 10:50 am

Do liepards change their spots?
If not, why is everyone so surprised that the political summary doesn’t relfect the report, the report doesn’t reflect the data, and the hope that something might change doesn’t reflect years of denialist experience.

September 27, 2013 10:52 am

william astley says
….supports the assertion that planetary clouds in the tropics increase or decrease to resist forcing changes (by reflecting more or less sunlight into space, negative feedback) as opposed to the
IPCC’s assumed amplification of forcing (positive feedback) due to increased water vapour in the troposphere with no increase or a reduction in low level clouds (depending on general circulation model).
Henry says
wake up
the climate IS changing
NATURALLY
just live with it
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/27/reactions-to-ipcc-ar5-summary-for-policy-makers/#comment-1428431

Silver Ralph
September 27, 2013 11:00 am

Just watched the BBC news. They said that Global Warming had now been proven, because snow and ice levels are decreasing, and droughts are increasing.
Err, did they ever look at the data?
Snow INCREASING:
http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/images/nhland_season1.gif
USA and world drought – no change or DECREASING:
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/images/indicator_figures/drought-figure1.gif
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v491/n7424/full/nature11575.html
Antarctic sea ice INCREASING:
http://suyts.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/image_thumb348.png?w=594&h=360
etc: etc: etc:

September 27, 2013 11:04 am

The IPCC is in the world of DENIAL. It is only going to get worse as this decade proceeds and the temperature trend takes on a definitive down trend, which is very likely to happen due to the prolonged solar minimum which is currently in progress ,along with all the secondary effects which will come about as a result.
I want the IPCC, to stick to their agenda ,so when the time really comes(very soon) they will fall even harder flat on their faces and people like myself and others will be able to say; I TOLD YOU SO.
The IPCC is clueless ,or are liars or both and future data is only going to serve to prove this beyond a shadow of a doubt.
LOOK FOR THESE SOLAR PARAMETER AVERAGES TO BECOME THE NORM AS THIS DECADE PROCEEDS AND WATCH THE TEMPERATURE TREND IN RESPONSE.
They are;
solar flux avg. sub 90.
cosmic ray count avg. north of 6500 per min.
solar irridiance avg. off .015% or more.
solar wind avg. 350 km/sec. or less.
ap index avg. 5.0 or lower 98+% of the time.
e10.7 flux avg. 100 units or less.
The above following a period of sub-solar activity in general which started in earnest in year 2005.

September 27, 2013 11:19 am

From my understanding of the work of Donna Laframboise, the IPCC:
1. Does not comply with its charter / framework basis.
2. Does not follow its own guidelines
3. States publicaly what is factually incorrect, including in its assessment reports.
4. Has significant staff that are activists and also, unjustifiably, significant staff that are low experience scientists.
Corollary=> Since it is a part of the UN, it is not what the UN says it is either.
John

Mac the Knife
September 27, 2013 11:49 am

And yet, for AGW and the UN-IPCC That Beat Goes On, And On, And On….
UPDATE 1-U.S. backs market scheme for aviation emissions from 2020
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/26/aviation-climate-idUSL2N0HM1ZF20130926

Joe Prins
September 27, 2013 11:49 am

If it is available, now might be a good time to release the final emails from Climategate 3. Perhaps someone from the Maldives is willing to stick out his neck?
Getting old, grey and decrepit, perhaps I should summarize my own thinking on this global warming stuff.
1) From available data, increase in world temperatures since 1850 is about, say .09 C;
2) Thanks to Hansen, New Zealand data, Iceland data, Columbia data, Darwin data etc. etc. etc. were “adjusted” to suit his purposes, therefore deduct .05;
3) Homogenization of the temperature records have had a lamentable tendency to “adjust” upward.
Being a nice fellow, deduct .05;
4) Taking a couple of thousand monitoring stations off-line to aide the global warming scare…..
still being nice, deduct .05;
5) Urban Heat Island effect: still being nice: 0.05
Doing the math on a calculator…………….I end up at .07 degrees increase over (say) 163 years, which is about 0.5 degrees per century.
Coming out of the LIA, where is the problem? It would take till 2250 for a 2 degree rise!

September 27, 2013 11:52 am

more soylent green! on September 27, 2013 at 10:34 am
I just love how they can release the summary before the report itself it released. Is somebody rewriting the body of the report to match the summary, or are they hoping nobody notices?

– – – – – – –
more soylent green!
Astute comment!
The WG1’s scientific leadership team could potentially face a supreme test of their integrity. Do they or do they not change the ‘science’ in the WG1 science report, if requested by the IPCC Bureau, to match the revisions made over the last 4 days in the draft SPM that became this final SPM for WG1?
I think the WG1 science leadership team was selected by the IPCC Bureau using a strictly confidential selection criteria ( see IAC report and Laframboise’s books). The WG1 team could have been selected on a basis of being supportive of changing science when needed for a greater social purpose.
Based on CG1 and CG2, if it occurs in the AR5 process, then it would not be entirely unprecedented.
John

DirkH
September 27, 2013 11:54 am

Pointman says:
“Apart from the usual climate-fixated organs of the MSM, it’s being barely reported. Looks like a dead cat bounce to me …”
Check google trends for “Global Warming”. There is indeed a very small bounce from a recent all time low in interest since 2005.
The public obviously has other problems.

johanna
September 27, 2013 11:59 am

But, what about the poley bears? I have looked in vain through the report for information about the fate of the poley bears. Yet, they have been the mascots of CAGW for years. Oh, well.
The SPM seems to be a damp squib. The inability to deal with sensitivity makes it look like a recommendation to go to war even though we don’t know whether the other party has any hostile intentions whatsoever. Policy analysts around the world who advise governments will not be slow to point this out.
To save face, there will still be huffing and puffing and rhetoric by politicians. But the rivers of cash will quite likely slow down to a trickle.

M Courtney
September 27, 2013 12:00 pm

Bbould says at September 27, 2013 at 9:25 am

The IPCC is always right until proven wrong. That is how their climate science works, get with the program people.

I wish.
They are proven wrong… for their previous predictions.
But I think it is worth looking at the lower limits of their current predictions for global temperature rise.
It looks like they are putting the sceptic (no discernible impact) scenario into the mainstream of climate science.
Therefore sceptics should be invited to every public debate on the science. That is an opportunity.

Mac the Knife
September 27, 2013 12:04 pm

Ross McKitrick says:
September 27, 2013 at 5:32 am
Perfect!

DirkH
September 27, 2013 12:07 pm

Stuart B says:
September 27, 2013 at 9:11 am
“I’m just getting so angry with these people – they had a chance to climb down gracefully, save their careers, and incidentally do the rest of the world a favour, and they blew it!”
They are very successful parasites leading very wealthy parasitic lifestyles. They blew nothing. They serve the system; the system rewards them for pretending to be objective scientists, when everyone who cares to look sees them for the fat leeches they are.
Let’s look where the next climate junket will lead them. Last one was in the Al Qaeda-funding slaveholder state of Qatar; .
Next one? In November in Warsaw.
Oy vey.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_United_Nations_Climate_Change_Conference
Let’s see how many screaming Greenshirts the EU carts there this time.

Pat Michaels
September 27, 2013 12:13 pm

The IPCC is behaving like a treed cat. Instead of doing the rational thing, scurrying down the trunk, it’s climbing onto ever higher and thinner branches, while yowling louder and louder.

September 27, 2013 12:23 pm

Why is it the BBC coverage, so far, of the ‘Janet and John’ version of the IPCC report – which as usual bears no relationship to any actual science – that of sycophants drooling over some golden tablet of revelation handed down by the gods (and goddesses I suppose in this PC world).
Suppose the ‘Summary for Policy makers’ had been issued, say, by the Tory Party Conference, the BBC would have been all over it, tearing it to shreds.
Yet the low grade bureaucrats and low grade scientists in many cases who run the IPCC (unemployable even within any ordinary country’s civil service) are treated as beyond criticism. Where is the investigative journalism needed here?
Do they even know how this SforPMs was created? The horsetrading that went on behind closed doors by people ignorant even of the basics of science and suffering sleep deprivation? No. Yet no one seems to want to investigate a document which, if foolishly pursued, will bankrupt the entire globe.
Why does the BBC news refer to a ‘slight slow down’ in global warming, when it has been in stasis for 15 years? ‘My car is slowing down. My car has stopped.’ There is a difference.

Ken Harvey
September 27, 2013 12:57 pm

I’ve been reading all day and I haven’t seen one single mention of the little baby polar bears.

FrankK
September 27, 2013 12:58 pm

I forgot to mention:
The IPCC report is busting at the seams with inconsistencies, contradictions and tongue-in-cheek assessments. A veritable dogs breakfast.
Without a doubt a far bigger and monumental worldwide hoax and joke than Piltdown Man.
http://www.nhm.ac.uk/nature-online/science-of-natural-history/the-scientific-process/piltdown-man-hoax/index.html
.

wayne
September 27, 2013 1:01 pm

Solomon Green says:
September 27, 2013 at 6:20 am
I notice that IPCC 4 PR claimed 2,000 scientists contributed whereas IPCC 5 only claims 800. Is there any significance? Or are they now excluding railway engineers and Greenpeace lobbyists?

No, seems they have excluded the 1200 of the 2000 scientists that have doubts and by that were even able to RAISE the percentage of agreement they now claim. It is a huge farce.

Reinder van Til
September 27, 2013 1:01 pm

Please people if you consider traveling the oceans. Here and there are monsters like Charybdis in the Odyssee who will suck all of you and all the warmth into the oceans!

Tom J
September 27, 2013 1:08 pm

C’mon folks, let’s quit being so cynical about the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Colossal ninCompoops). The following statement from the IPCC, as relayed by Judith Curry, is entirely correct:
‘“It is extremely likely that human influence on climate caused more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951−2010.”’
All one has to do is add the word ‘the’ (not to be confused with, ‘duh’) immediately in front of the word ‘climate’ and the word ‘record’ directly behind it. I think we can all agree that with that very small addition to the wording we acquire a forcing that changes the incorrect, thus delicate, balance of that IPCC statement to a correctly balanced one. Forcings can work both ways. Now let’s see if we can force those intergovernments to balance their taxpayer financed checkbooks.

KevinM
September 27, 2013 1:36 pm

Knowing what we seem to know about variability, and beiing humble enough not to try calling tops and bottoms to a noisy time series…
Are we not likely to see a good temperature spike in the next five years? If its down they’re toast, if its up we’re toast.
To say that the 1998 spike (aware of its purported causes, I read here too) is not repeatable by some other effect invites defeat.

eliza
September 27, 2013 1:38 pm

After all the handwaving this site will only do a small dent in the AGW.fraud. As I mentioned on this site many years ago the only thing that will eventually convince 100 percent of people is the climate itself which of course is now cooling and will continue to do so because of solar and cosmic ray activity. It took 100’s of years for communism to fall (the russians themselves had to do it) It will take many many yaers before this scam falls unfortunately. The IPCC and (climate establishment) are now entering the Hitler type dictartorship response.. beware. This will only fall soon after very very big money and legal action is taken, otherwise we will have to wait for. the climate effect to kick in which will takeanother 10 years or so sorry folks.

eliza
September 27, 2013 1:44 pm

It may not be an exaggeration to state that the next USA election will be fought over this theme as it has in Australia.It may be wise for the next GOP candidate to state without doubt his/her total denial of AGW (by then skepticism will not even be in vogue, lukewarmers will not even exist)

Keith Minto
September 27, 2013 1:46 pm

There’s nothing like sleep deprived group think under deadline pressure to instill confidence, right?

The occasional stumble caused by ‘fatigue’ seems to be part of this theatrical event to be soaked up by the media. I was impressed by the questions and the persistence of the questioners. The Economist kept coming back for clarification on the ‘pause’ and kept getting a no answer. If there is a change over time it is in the doubt being expressed by the media. Let’s hope it filters into their columns.

AllanJ
September 27, 2013 1:47 pm

The Collectivist/Authoritarians rode the horse of Communism until the Soviet Union failed and the Chinese adopted some market principles. Then they climbed onto the horse of Global Warming/Climate Change. I am wondering what the next horse will be if skeptics succeed in weakening the political power of AGW fear. Surely they will not go away or concede defeat.
Since WUWT is more than a climate site perhaps we aught to be looking for symptoms of the next great crusade and discussing them here.

eliza
September 27, 2013 1:55 pm

Just for fun my impression is that Pachauri doesnt give a damm anymore and wants out (from his body language at the IPCC conference). Smart man he is leaving because he knows it ain’t happening LOL

Lance Wallace
September 27, 2013 1:57 pm

As of (nearly) 2 PM in California, the NY Times article by Justin Gillis on the IPCC report did not make the top 10 articles viewed, emailed, or blogged by NYT readers.
Funny, you’d think the end of the world would attract more attention.

Scarface
September 27, 2013 1:59 pm

So, after climate change it is now time for regime change!
Austriala is leading the way, I hope the US and the EU will follow soon.

September 27, 2013 1:59 pm

If ever there was a one day wonder this is it. (And it is being largely ignored in the non-committed media.)
However, the fun begins Monday when the actual report is released. At that point we can see what, if any, references to the peer reviewed literature there are to support the ocean heat idea. And we will be able to see the sensitivity which has been left out of today’s summary. And we will be able to see the divergence problems with respect to the Antarctic and models vs observations.
We will also have the opportunity to do the detailed analysis of that the difference is between AR4’s “CO2 caused warming (90%)” and AR5’s “50% of warming caused by humans (95%)”: these are two very different claims. 50% of warming being caused by humans leaves 50% caused by other things….like what?
The fact that sensitivity has been left out of the SOP means that it is now, officially, impossible to determine what, if any, effect reducing CO2 emissions is likely to have. No longer can politicians tout “carbon taxes” or “cap and trade” as having any IPCC sanctioned effect on climate. [Of course, I suspect the sensitivity issue is in the full report but it must be really uncertain if it did not make it into the SOP.)
Finally, the IPCC seems to be of two minds in dealing with the pause. On the one hand they want to claim it takes 30 years to make a trend – which opens a lot of the prior science up to questions and every claim about extreme weather up to derision.) On the other, it is willing to entertain assorted, apparently non-peer reviewed, ideas as to where the heat may have gone. “Into the deep blue sea” is adorable but even the IPCC admits it lacks the data and the instruments to confirm this wild assed guess. Not to mention that there was no indication in the SOP as to when this convenient submersion began. There is much fun to be had here, especially if the pause continues.
Here’s the thing: tomorrow the committed media will have moved on. The public did not give a rats arse before the SOP and there is not the slightest indication that today’s sloppy, ill written, scientifically incoherent, bit of alarmist puffery will change that. And, for the first time, sceptical voices are being heard in the MSM.
There is still a fight ahead. However, that fight will be against a demoralized, confused and divided foe. The IPCC juggernaut has hit the reefs of reality. For the sceptical community the task ahead is to point to the mistakes, incoherence, illogic and lack of scientific rigor or principle which today’s report has exposed.
Should be fun!

Grey Oz
September 27, 2013 2:01 pm

[snip – don’t repost complete articles here – copyright violation, use excerpt and link – mod]

Hot under the collar
September 27, 2013 2:04 pm

@Philip Foster (Revd) says,
I wholeheartedly agree – the BBC over the top coverage and propaganda version of the IPCC report is an insult to the intelligence of its licence fee payer. It’s version of IPCC ‘Thermageddon’ is not even fit for the children’s channel.
And yes, a real investigative journalist (where have they all gone), would have a field day. The IPCC is pushing us all into fuel poverty with no real scientific evidence for climate sensitivity or appropriate consideration for natural variability.

Richard Barnes
September 27, 2013 2:08 pm

I’m sure richardscourtney has seen:
http://www.un-documents.net/k-002988.htm
and
https://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/2007/eirv34n23-20070608/50-55_723.pdf
Links from letmethink commenter on http://www.eureferendum.com
This morning’s pantomime in Stockholm and the reaction by the Lame Stream Media has been predictable but deeply disappointing.

Paul Robinson
September 27, 2013 2:11 pm

[snip – stupid, hateful comment – policy violation – mod]

gbaikie
September 27, 2013 2:13 pm

“These changes as a result of the ‘conclave’ this week totally dissonates my cognitives. Well, IPCC has thrown down the gauntlet – if the pause continues beyond 15 years (well it already has), they are toast.”
15 year is long time for the old guard to bitterly cling to it.
If everything was going well, they probably would not want to punch the clock this long.
Though it certainly a more miserable future for them- but they expecting a miserable future-
not a surprise.
So they will get older and cranker, and only the dumbest will consider starting a career there.
But for those there, it doesn’t appear to a bad deal to get more than decade with all it’s perks-
hence, the bed they choose.

phlogiston
September 27, 2013 2:16 pm

Paul Vaughan says:
September 27, 2013 at 6:07 am
“Climate sensitivity is one of the most important parameters.”
Only a dark agent of ignorance &/or deception would believe this.
I assume by this you mean anyone who works for the BBC or CNN.

Gunga Din
September 27, 2013 2:40 pm

My take. Politics as usual.
IPCC “science” gave politicians a lever to achieve their ends. The IPCC “science” is trying to keep the train on the tracks.
When has the UN ever been about anything but politics?

clipe
September 27, 2013 2:55 pm
Phil's Dad
September 27, 2013 3:00 pm

Auto says on September 27, 2013 at 8:38 am (in response to my earlier post)
“Where’s the science?”
Just for the avoidance of doubt when I say “read the science” I am not saying read the IPCC report.
richardscourtney says on September 27, 2013 at 8:59 am
“P.S. PHIL’S DAD, ARE YOU HEARING THIS?”
Every word sir, and I find nothing in what you say with which to disagree. I would go further and say the IPCC was set up initially to undermine the coal industry (no pun intended).

Martin 457
September 27, 2013 3:07 pm

No sensitivity estimate means that policy makers are supposed to do nothing?
I kinda like that.

Grey Oz
September 27, 2013 3:10 pm

A comparison of past IPCC predictions against 22 years of weather data and the latest climate science find that the IPCC has consistently underplayed the intensity of global warming in each of its four major reports released since 1990.
http://wwwp.dailyclimate.org/tdc-newsroom/2012/12/ipcc-climate-predictions
If we stay anywhere near our current emissions path, we face catastrophic levels of warming.
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/09/17/1892241/hansen-climate-sensitivity-uninhabitable/
Climate sensitivity, sea level and atmospheric carbon dioxide
http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/371/2001/20120294.full
We are forcing a planetary state-shift from an environment that is very friendly to life to a much hotter, totally inhospitable one:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v486/n7401/full/nature11018.html
We can power the world and its future energy needs with existing clean energy technologies for the same amount of money we currently spend on fossil fuels (not including their damages):
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=a-path-to-sustainable-energy-by-203
James Hansen, “Why I Must Speak Out About Climate Change”
http://www.ted.com/talks/james_hansen_why_i_must_speak_out_about_climate_change.html
Exceeding planetary boundaries
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_boundaries
Carbon and methane trapped in ice, permafrost, and ground stores to cause a significant increase in global warming not accounted for in most predictions
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/11/121127094250.htm

September 27, 2013 3:18 pm

Grey Oz,
Instead of parroting the nonsense you posted, try explaining in rational terms what you believe — and keep in mind that the planet is thoroughly deconstructing every alarmist claim.
Think for yourself for a change.

Magoo
September 27, 2013 3:19 pm

The likelihood of a bureaucratic department of a international socialist organisation producing a report on how it’s been wrong and why they aren’t needed anymore, with a summary worded by government climate change appointees instead of scientists. Was anyone really expecting anything else?

clipe
September 27, 2013 3:23 pm

Grey Oz must be new around here,

Stuart B
September 27, 2013 3:25 pm

No mention of the polar bears yet – maybe they’re all dying of obesity (apologies to More Seal and Groan, your contributions are far more worthy…). I’m sure I saw a pic of one, though, as a background to the BBC news at one point – must have been inadvertent, a slip, surely?
I also saw coverage of some people (I don’t *think* they were polar bears) trying to set fire to an iceberg, apparently – this is such an interesting and thought-provoking experiment it ought to be part of the national curriculum (UK). It would certainly help to silence the doubters… Hmm, Doubters, now there’s a possible alternative D-word.
To bed, I’m rambling.

September 27, 2013 3:30 pm

Off the subject but on Al Gore regarding his current state:
Took a break from moving hay around cause its going to rain. Happend to turn on C-Span and catch some of the Senate stuff, they were on a break. So seems C-Span just had to have Al on to voice his opinion of Ted Cruz and the Republicans.
Al Gore has lost the rest of his mind. He looks like a re-issued death mask. He talks like an insane street preacher on meth. I dislike this man,, a lot, but he is in such a state we need to pray for him cause he has gone around the bend now.
Someone should be able to find the vid and post it. Real sad. Little he understand how the demon of History deals with those who lie as vile as Al has.

James at 48
September 27, 2013 3:33 pm

If anyone had any doubts that the Age Of Exploration (and as its corrollary, Scientific Progress) was over, anyone who is truly sentient now has those doubt erased. Welcome to the Post-Scientific Age.

Grey Oz
September 27, 2013 3:36 pm

Here is the correct link.
We can power the world and its future energy needs with existing clean energy technologies for the same amount of money we currently spend on fossil fuels (not including their damages):
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=a-path-to-sustainable-energy-by-2030

milodonharlani
September 27, 2013 3:37 pm

“Sustainability” will be the replacement religion for CACA when it is finally flushed.

Steve from Rockwood
September 27, 2013 3:45 pm

At this rate the AR7 will be 109% confident that global warming is caused by humans.

HGW xx/7
September 27, 2013 3:53 pm

Grey Oz on September 27, 2013 at 3:36 pm says:
“Here is the correct link.”
Oh, thank goodness you ironed that wrinkle out! Without that correction, you would have looked like a spineless mouthpiece for the alarmists.
Clearly, that’s not the case. Whew! 🙂
/sarc

Grey Oz
September 27, 2013 3:59 pm

: Why are studies, papers, data, and articles by some of the world’s top planetary scientists “nonsense” and why is listening to experts on a subject not acceptable? Just because you disagree with them? And I don’t know where you are getting your data from (perhaps you are not accounting for the increase in temperature in the oceans), but temperature readings all around the world confirm that each decade is hotter than the last, and planetary data only confirms that greenhouse gasses building up in the atmosphere are warming the planet and forcing us into a much hotter and inhospitable climate. The North Pole, the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, and glaciers all around the world are melting at an unprecedented rate (the North Pole is half the size it was 35 years ago, which alone should tell you something is wrong). The temperature has been increasing for some time, and dramatically since the 1970s, with all ten of the warmest years on record occurring in the last twelve years. Sea levels are rising at a rate that is double last century’s average, and the oceans are increasing in acidity — 30% since the start of the industrial revolution — from carbon absorption, jeopardizing the world’s coral reefs and the food chain. And as we’ve seen again in the last year, droughts, wildfires, heatwaves, hurricanes, and other weather are steadily growing in both intensity and duration, costing increasingly more lives and money every year.

Grey Oz
September 27, 2013 4:03 pm

@ HGW xx/7: Maybe someone would actually want to read the Stanford study on how we can power the world and its future energy needs for the same amount we spend on fossil fuels without destroying our environment?

tonys
September 27, 2013 4:03 pm

greyoz..dead parrot squawking..greenhouse effect,the cornerstone of the IPCC’S CONJECTURE IS FICTION..as it violates 2 nd L.O.T….a cold upper atmosphere cannot transfer heat to a lower warmer one…also c02 is not pollution,,there is no problem to solve or money to spend
billions spent…nothing to show and you squawk about “doing something”
yet ,real people ,crying out for help with food/shelter/homes..
are bypassed and the money handed out for more research…more whatever
mindless ignorant..are you able to think for yourself?

September 27, 2013 4:10 pm

Oh, All, sorry to talk about you to your face did not know you used the handle OZ as well as your old nick OOZE, sorry if it hurt your feelers.
Welcome to Watts Up With That fact based blog.
How the windmill investments going?

Grey Oz
September 27, 2013 4:12 pm

Not aware of Ooze and no windmill investments, but my Tesla stock is going through the roof.

September 27, 2013 4:12 pm

Grey Oz:
There is so much wrong with your post at September 27, 2013 at 3:59 pm it would require writing a book to correct it all. So, in hope of getting you to think about the rubbish you are copying, I write to ask you gto explain the first assertion in your diatribe.
You say

: Why are studies, papers, data, and articles by some of the world’s top planetary scientists “nonsense” and why is listening to experts on a subject not acceptable? Just because you disagree with them? And I don’t know where you are getting your data from (perhaps you are not accounting for the increase in temperature in the oceans),

OK.
What magnitude is this “increase in temperature in the oceans”?
How was it measured and with what accuracy and precision?
Where in the oceans is this “increase in temperature”?
Which “top planetary scientists” did the measurements?
Where did these “top planetary scientists” publish there measurement results?
In other words, “I don’t know where you are getting your data from”. Do you?
Richard

September 27, 2013 4:18 pm

It is like the fight is over, the score card is on the net and the sports reporters are talking about how it was a knock out.
In comes Al Gores corner assistant and he starts wacking on the fight winner as the winner is doing TV interviews.
Grey Oz, your a bit off on your timeing guy.

September 27, 2013 4:20 pm

Grey Oz notwithstanding your Tesla stock is doing good with the use of my redistributed tax money my family made off the wheat crop that the CO2 did so good feeding.

Grey Oz
September 27, 2013 4:22 pm

Sure Richard, you can read the Hansen paper “Climate Sensitivity, Sea Level and Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide” published by the Royal Society, the Mathematical, Physical Sciences, and Engineering Journal, on the link at my post @ 3:10 the link, look at the “Approaching a State Shift in Earth’s Biosphere” study published by Nature, the International Weekly Journal of Science, in the same post, or view James Hansen’s talk, “Why I Must Speak Out About Climate Change,” at the Technology, Entertainment, and Design conference.

Bruce Cobb
September 27, 2013 4:22 pm

@GreyOz, You are simply mouthing the standard-issue Alarmist nonsense, all of which has been debunked countless times. Stick around, and you might actually learn something (though I doubt it, as your type generally don’t want to learn).
FYI, fossil fuels are the reason we have the standard of living we have today, and we’re going to continue to need them for a long time. Switching to “green” or “sustainable” or whatever the nom-de-jeur is for high-priced, unreliable energy is an insane idea put forth by those who understand nothing about economics.

Gunga Din
September 27, 2013 4:23 pm

Grey Oz says:
September 27, 2013 at 3:59 pm
: Why are studies, papers, data, and articles by some of the world’s top planetary scientists “nonsense” and why is listening to experts on a subject not acceptable?

======================================================================
Who says they are “the world’s top planetary scientists”? They do.
If they are “the world’s top planetary scientists” then why isn’t the planet doing what it said would?
OH! No need to answer. We know. They were wrong. Most people call what they failed to model “Nature”.
(PS Do you think Man is a part of “Nature”? If not then why do you think that what Man does is Supernatural?)

September 27, 2013 4:23 pm

Al Gore the ooze ( slow leak) under pressure has become much more than the drip he was prior.

September 27, 2013 4:23 pm

IPCC did not agree on a value for climate sensitivity!
Are they 97% confident there can be no agreement?

Grey Oz
September 27, 2013 4:31 pm

@ Bruce Cobb: So you have to insult people who don’t see things the way you do to make your point? And again, why are studies, papers, data, and articles by some of the world’s top planetary scientists “nonsense”? And if they have been debunked, why does 97% of the peer-reviewed science support this position?
Just because fossil fuels got us the standard living we have today does not mean they aren’t doing damage to the environment. If you actually read the Stanford Study, you’ll see that clean energy is not expensive anymore, and since it doesn’t damage the environment, is actually much cheaper than fossil fuels.

Aztecbill
September 27, 2013 4:33 pm

I was 90% sure the Padres would win the world series this year. Next year I am 95% sure.
Is your take:
1. I am a terrible prognosticator.
2. Confidence in the Padres more sure now than ever.

Robert of Ottawa
September 27, 2013 4:36 pm

Andrew Bolt, journalist down-under, has a cogent report in non-Warmista, but still hot, Australia.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/ipcc_report_very_confident_our_gasses_havent_been_that_bad/

Billy Liar
September 27, 2013 4:37 pm

Grey Oz says:
September 27, 2013 at 3:59 pm
I’m pretty sure you’re wrong about the North Pole being half the size it was. I think it’s always been about 6 feet tall:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-jHmljQu9Fr8/UQFbvuJZ0uI/AAAAAAAAAc4/zMc4FFrYYWs/s1600/8.c.++COB+&+North+Pole+(1).JPG

Grey Oz
September 27, 2013 4:37 pm

@ Gunga Din: 97% of the worlds scientists agree that the world is warming and that mankind is responsible for most of it. So, you really can’t say that the remaining 3% are the world’s top scientists. There is natural variability, but the world is warming far too fast and without anything else to account for it for that to be attributed to natural causes, whereas, we know these specific gasses in the atmosphere change the makeup of the atmosphere and trap heat. And I think man is part of nature, and I also think global warming is a natural outcome of what’s gone before, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t thwart it and stop the destruction of all life on Earth.

HGW xx/7
September 27, 2013 4:37 pm

Grey Oz on September 27, 2013 at 4:03 pm says:
Gotcha. I forgot how it works. You come and self-righteously post your articles without bothering to look at the plethora of data WUWT has that debunks practically every one of your (endlessly repeated) claims. Forgot that bit. Apologies.
I should listen to the experts more who tell me that hurricanes are increasing in number and intensity, even when the facts are quite the opposite. Perhaps you should go check the ACE figure and flip through a calendar to see the last time a major hurricane made landfall in the US. It would be the last day you marked with a big smiley face. (And please spare us the ‘fish storms’.)
It was smart of you, though, to leave ‘tornadoes’ off your shopping list (read: talking points) of horrors. Seems that gets left off a lot lately now that even the MSM has to admit their intensity and frequency has been in the basement for two years. But then again, models predicted that, right? Right? *wink wink*
And for the record, I’m a lukewarmer. I believe we are having some (to be determined) effect on temps. However, it’s carpetbaggers such as yourself that have shifted the environmental movement into a political one. It has been more counterproductive than you could ever imagine. We could be productive and clean rivers and tackle nuclear waste disposal but instead we’re scaring children to death. How wonderful.
Troll, smart stock-picker aside.

Robert of Ottawa
September 27, 2013 4:39 pm

Grey Oz is dillusional or a liar:
… clean energy is not expensive anymore, and since it doesn’t damage the environment, is actually much cheaper than fossil fuels

Mac the Knife
September 27, 2013 4:40 pm

Grey Oz,
Please respond with specifics to
richardscourtney says:
September 27, 2013 at 4:12 pm
Grey Oz:.
What magnitude is this “increase in temperature in the oceans”?
How was it measured and with what accuracy and precision?
Where in the oceans is this “increase in temperature”?
Which “top planetary scientists” did the measurements?
Where did these “top planetary scientists” publish there measurement results?

In other words, “I don’t know where you are getting your data from”. Do you?
Richard

aztecbill
September 27, 2013 4:41 pm

Mr. Oz, you wrote, “with all ten of the warmest years on record occurring in the last twelve years”.
(without conceding the basic point of that statement)
That would be great for your side if your side said, “temperatures will rise for a while and then very slowly cool again”. They didn’t. They said temperatures will continue to rise. They didn’t.

Grey Oz
September 27, 2013 4:42 pm

@ Billy Liar: On Sept.16, 2012, Arctic sea ice reached its smallest extent ever recorded by satellites at 1.32 million square miles (3.41 million square kilometers). That is about half the size of the average extent from 1979 to 2010.
http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/arctic-sea-ice-update-unlikely-to-break-records-but-continuing-downward-trend/#.UkYXFKywnTo

September 27, 2013 4:44 pm

From Colorado State University Forecast of Atlantic Hurricane Activity September 27-October 10, 2013 (.pdf, September 27 ’13):
We believe that the next two weeks will be characterized by activity at below-average levels (<70 percent of climatology). The average ACE accrued during the period from 1950-2010 from September 27-October 10 was 12 units, and consequently, our forecast for the next two weeks is for less than 8 ACE units to be generated.
The most recent seasonal forecast called for an above-average season. Obviously, at this point, we realize that the seasonal forecast was a significant over-prediction, and we therefore do not expect to see the levels of activity this year that we earlier anticipated.
See http://hurricane.atmos.colostate.edu/Includes/Documents/Two_Week_Forecasts/september_27_2013.pdf

Billy Liar
September 27, 2013 4:47 pm

Grey Oz says:
September 27, 2013 at 4:42 pm
I can tell you’re from the Warmish because you’ve got no sense of humor.
PS what was the minimum extent this year?

Steve from Rockwood
September 27, 2013 4:51 pm

Aztecbill says:
September 27, 2013 at 4:33 pm
———————————————
So what you’re saying is I should bet heavily on the Padres?

Grey Oz
September 27, 2013 4:55 pm

@ HGW xx/7: Why is posting articles that you disagree with self righteous? And if it’s so debunked, why aren’t the world’s scientists on it? Also, why do you have to insult me when discussing a subject we have different points of view on? And last, no one wants global warming, it’s a result of our technologies that no one could have foreseen enough to stop back then. But to ignore it now, that would be a crime, as we will make the planet inhospitble to life in a very, very short amount of time if we do.

Eugene WR Gallun
September 27, 2013 4:58 pm

i read somewhere that Pachauri will soon leave his position as head of the IPCC. Dishonest yes, but Pachauri is no fool. The jig is up and he knows it. He is looking for a soft landing.
To accomplish that, before he goes, he will have to set someone up as his “fall guy” — someone to take over as head of the IPCC who will be so loud mouthed and obtusely committed to ACGW (not to mention “serially dishonest”) that he will become the center of all attention and Pachauri can, like an old soldier, “just fade away”.
The ideal person who meets Pachauri’s needs comes to mind immediately — John Cook-The-Books of Skeptical Science. Can anyone think of a more appropriate person to head the IPCC than John Cook-The-Books? And dimwit that he is John Cook-The-Books will think he is being honored.
Eugene WR Gallun

Grey Oz
September 27, 2013 4:58 pm

@ Robert of Ottowa: “I’m a delusional liar,” is your case against clean energy? So, anyone who doesn’t agree with the point of view held by most at this site is insulted and dismissed as a liar?

Grey Oz
September 27, 2013 4:59 pm
Bill Illis
September 27, 2013 5:00 pm

Ocean Heat Content in the 0-2000 metre ocean is increasing by 0.002C/yr or 0.53 W/m2/yr. The climate models had forecast it would be rising at 0.005C/yr or 1.3 W/m2/yr.
Most of the energy forecast to be there/accumulating in the atmosphere and ocean is actually missing or not showing up.
http://s17.postimg.org/4ts1blb4v/2013_Missing_Energy.png
Oz can ask Hansen what he forecasted it would be. Surprise, Hansen had it at 2.5 times higher than is being measured (but nobody told Oz that because they would prefer he be misled and continue to be a follower).

Grey Oz
September 27, 2013 5:01 pm

@ aztecbill: Each decade is warmer than the last and when the arctic melts, the carbon and methane trapped in ice, permafrost, ground stores… will enter the atmosphere and double the amount of greenhouse gas concentration we currently have.

September 27, 2013 5:22 pm

We have a 70% chance for rain tomorrow, 90% Sat. nite and Sunday. So had to take off a few and get all the epuipment in out of the dreaded CO2 and acid rain that Al Gore makes when he sweats to much. Now that I am back and have reviewed Grey Oz’s post it seems he came here to get baned and make screen shots of said baning to use aginst this blog.
It can not be that any one is this uninformed. So be careful of this one.
Now if it is this dumb it may set a record for the Guinnes Book of dumb.

RACookPE1978
Editor
September 27, 2013 5:40 pm

Grey Oz says:
September 27, 2013 at 4:55 pm

…. And if it’s so debunked, why aren’t the world’s scientists on it?

Because the world’s climate so-called scientists are being paid billions of dollars to make CO2 and CAGW the propaganda campaign that it started as, stayed, and will likely remain until those so-called scientists stop denying the science and the measurements. Governments program their money to support the agencies and the scientists and the research that will provide those governments the answers they want and the taxes they are desperate for.

Also, why do you have to insult me when discussing a subject we have different points of view on?

It can be no insult if the statement is true. Show that any of your claims are valid. We do, however, sympathize at the effectiveness of your brainwashing.

And last, no one wants global warming, it’s a result of our technologies that no one could have foreseen enough to stop back then.

False. The current global warming is largely natural and cannot be stopped by denying men life, food, fuel, fodder, feed, and energy for safe water, clean air, and efficient farming. (Unless you, like many in the CAGW sphere DO want men to die a short life of pain, illness, starvation, thirst, and cold.) Global warming has been natural in the past, and was not affected by man either stopping nor starting. In the future, global warming will continue to be unaffected by man’s release of fertilizer for all plants and life on the planet.

But to ignore it now, that would be a crime, as we will make the planet [inhospitable] to life in a very, very short amount of time if we do.

And, by the way, the is no threat to life on this planet except from global cooling. There is NO HARM from global warming, but more bountiful life for all, and a more fruitful and productive life by using energy efficiently and effectively. Life on this planet will end when sun expands …. in about 2 billion years.

HGW xx/7
September 27, 2013 5:44 pm

Grey Oz said:
“…when the arctic melts, the carbon and methane…”
Awww man! 🙁 Don’t tell me the Omaha steaks I’m asking Santa to bring me for Christmas are gonna smell like butt! Bah! Christmas is ruined! D:<

Bill Illis
September 27, 2013 5:51 pm

Here’s another Ocean Heat Content energy accumulation chart going back to 1955 for Oz.
As stark as it can get that the theory is screwy.
http://s9.postimg.org/htjhqe98v/Accum_Heat_Content_vs_GHG_Forcing_Accum_Q2_2013.png

pat
September 27, 2013 5:55 pm

***backbone or political masters?
27 Sept: BBC: Matt McGrath: Climate pause takes a wallop as IPCC comes out swinging
Even in the final draft of this report, the IPCC was putting forward a number of theoretical ideas behind the fall-off in temperature rises over the last 15 years, and was sheepishly acknowledging that its models failed to predict the slow-down.
But over the four days of negotiations with governments here in the Swedish capital, the UN body discovered its backbone.***
So the pause was not ignored or buried, but was, in science terms, given a ferocious kicking…
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24308509

RACookPE1978
Editor
September 27, 2013 5:55 pm

Grey Oz says:
September 27, 2013 at 4:42 pm

On Sept.16, 2012, Arctic sea ice reached its smallest extent ever recorded by satellites at 1.32 million square miles (3.41 million square kilometers). That is about half the size of the average extent from 1979 to 2010.

1. So what? What is the problem if the Arctic sea ice continues to decline from its present levels, or from the 2012 levels, or from the 2012 levels?
2. At its present extents at the time of sea ice minimums in the Arctic, more energy is lost by increased evaporation, increased long wave radiation to space by radiation, increased heat loss to the air by convection, and increased heat loss by conduction from lower levels that is gained by solar radiation. Each km of extra ocean exposed cools the arctic even more.
3. Summer, melt season temperatures up where the ice actually is (per DMI 80 north latitude measured temperatures sine 1959) have not only not increased, but have been decreasing since 1998, and are decreasing now faster than recorded earlier.
4. Now, at the time of minimum sea ice extents, the Arctic sea ice is concentrated between 79 and 83 north latitudes. At those latitudes, the sun is not high enough to be absorbed to either the ice or the sea surface. But, the Antarctic sea ice IS at low enough latitudes to receive massively more energy, and the received that energy through thinner air masses and for longer periods of each day. Result?
the record-breaking EXTRA Antarctic sea ice is reflecting 4-8 times more solar energy than the small amounts of Arctic sea receive. But you don’t want to address the new records for south pole icepack and sea ice extents. Those records don’t fit your agenda and biases.

milodonharlani
September 27, 2013 5:56 pm

Grey Oz:
The Stanford “study” you cite is an article in Anti-Scientific Un-American magazine, too glossy to be of any use as a bird cage liner.
Every sentence of it is sadly, yet hilariously false. If wind & solar were as economical today as fossil fuels, why does China, the country that makes wind mills & solar panels & also has giant hydro projects, rely so heavily on coal & want to control South China Sea oil? Why does every other country heavily subsidize its everywhere failed wind & solar experiments?
The authors fail to include building electrical transmission lines in their alleged analysis. They blithely assume that hydro can back up wind & solar, without apparently ever having studied the place in the world where that hopeless system has been tried on the largest scale, ie the Pacific NW. Backing up wind there leads to generation of less hydro, waste of huge quantities of water & damages migrating fish & birds.
Maybe in their study they show their work, but the article is nothing but spew.
To mention just a few of your own many false assertions, Antarctica is not melting. Its ice mass is increasing, along with the sea ice extent around it, which reached a new “all-time” high this year. Many studies in recent years have found this to be the case, such as this one:
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20120013495_2012013235.pdf
By “all time” of course is meant since 1979, when satellite records of Arctic & Antarctic sea ice began, along with observations of the “temperature” of the atmosphere from space. So when you claim that the past ten years are the warmest decade ever, you’re talking about three decades. What you fail to understand is that 1) the surface temperature record is an “adjusted” fabrication, & 2) use of raw data show that the ~1920-40s were actually hotter than the recent warm spell of 1980-2000, roughly. The warming during that period also occurred at the same slope as the recently ended period, without benefit of increased CO2.
Since the depths of the Little Ice Age Cold Period c. AD 1700, the planet has warmed in 20-30 year spurts, then cooled a little for a similar time frame, as it has begun doing again now, then warmed for two or three decades, etc. But we seem to be peaking, since the 1930s & 1990s were globally about equally as warm.
The Arctic didn’t melt, as you fear, during the much longer & warmer previous interglacial, the Eemian, nor during the thousands of years in our current Holocene interglacial when it was warmer than now, as it was during Minoan Warm Period, the Roman WP & the Medieval WP, each hotter than its predecessor (as shown by proxy data from around the world), as the Medieval was than the Modern WP.
Arctic sea ice extent was similar to now during the 1930s, when the USSR used the ice free summers to steam the Siberian coast, again without benefit of elevated CO2 levels. Ocean heat content oscillates naturally on a multi-decadal basis, as was discovered in 1997 by a PNW fisheries researcher, not by the raving lunatic Hansen of GISS. The earth has enjoyed CO2 levels of 7000 ppm, not just 400 ppm, in the past 550 million years without turning into Venus, as that liar spouts.
It is also untrue that 97% of “scientists” sign on to Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Alarmism. The Cooked books claimed 97% of “active climate scientists”, a phony number arrived at by excluding all but 77 of the responses of a survey sent to about 10,000 scientists, then asking two question to which many skeptics might have answered yes. In the event, 75 of them did, hence the bogus number for which you’ve uncritically fallen hook, line & sinker. Were you a more frequent reader of this blog, you could have saved yourself that embarrassment.
There is no human fingerprint in unadjusted data & little even in the heavily adjusted fake data. In any case, CO2 is beneficial to life on earth. The planet has greened as a result of the gain since 1945.

Janice Moore
September 27, 2013 6:01 pm

Dear Grey Oz (re: 4:31pm, today),
1. Ignoring your first two questions to Mr. Cobb as not worth spending WUWT space on, re: #3 — 97% of peer-reviewed science does NOT support this position. For evidence, search WUWT using such terms as “Cook,” “consensus,” and “97% consensus.” You will discover what Bruce Cobb already knows: there is no evidence FOR the alleged 97% consensus, only MUCH EVIDENCE AGAINST it.
2. Re: the conjecture in your second paragraph:
1) There is no evidence that fossil fuels per se are causing “damage to the environment.”
2) Cite evidence from, not unsupported generalizations v. a v. “the Stanford Study,” all the evidence I have seen from reading excellent science papers and comments on WUWT supports the opposite conclusion: “clean energy,” not including hydropower, is still “expensive.”
3) Further, you have provided no evidence that “clean energy” causes less “damage”* to the environment than fossil fuels do.
*If by “damage” you mean CO2 emissions — CO2 causes NO DAMAGE TO THE ENVIRONMENT, it benefits it (do your own research). There is no evidence that human CO2 (or natural CO2) emissions damage the environment.
You provided no supporting documentation for your assertions and I am not going to do the research you could easily do to verify the truth for yourself, but here is a small sample for you re: wind power:
Windpower Is a Perpetual Negative ROI (Return on Investment) Scam
“… once allowance is made for the additional costs associated with wind-power, … For both near-term and medium-term projects, onshore wind ceases to be a competitive technology. … There is no economic case for wind-power. … .” Lea, Ruth, “Electricity Costs: The Folly of Windpower,” Civitas (January, 2012) at 19.
Link: http://www.civitas.org.uk/economy/electricitycosts2012.pdf
Wind Power Causes Net CO2 Increase
(not that this is a rational basis for concern; just to inform you of the facts)
“Moreover, there is not even a CO2-cutting case for wind-power.” Ibid.
“… wind-power is unreliable and intermittent and requires (a) conventional back-up plant to provide electricity when the wind is either blowing at very low speeds (or not at all) … CO2 emissions associated with using back-up capacity must be regarded as an intrinsic aspect of deploying wind turbines.” Ibid at 29.
“… (fossil-fuelled) capacity is placed under particular strains when working in this supporting role… Consequently, operating fossil capacity in this mode generates more CO2 per kWh generated than if operating normally.” … “…wind-power … not only fails to achieve the CO2 reductions required, but also causes (CO2) cost increases in back-up, maintenance and transmission, while at the same time discouraging investment in clean, firm generation..” Ibid at 29-30.
*****************************
If you are a sincere seeker of truth, I wish you well, Grey Oz. Ask genuine questions with a demonstrated desire to find out the truth and WUWT commenters will gladly answer (when they have the time). You may not have intended to do so, but the tone of your writing makes you come off as a mere disingenuous poseur.
Best wishes to you if you are on a true search for science truth,
Janice
P.S. Hybrid Cars cause net CO2 increase (given that you think this is a problem).
(you can do the research for that one yourself)

September 27, 2013 6:04 pm

Was enjoying a beverage this afternoon at a rather liberal watering hole when ABC news came on. The IPCC report was, surprisingly, not the top story. When the subject came up, about six or eight minutes into the broadcast, there was not much interest, and one person was basically calling bs – said the videos and graphics were scaremongering. I was pleased. Of course, this was being viewed within ten miles of UAH, so maybe Spencer and Christy are making some gains…

milodonharlani
September 27, 2013 6:08 pm

PS: The East Antarctic Ice Sheet, which contains most of the land ice on earth, quit melting about 6000 years ago. I had previously read that soil at its edge was radionuclide-dated to 3000 years ago (end of the Minoan Warm Period), but this more recent study moves the end of its post-glacial phase melt to the middle of the Holocene Climatic Optimum:
http://phys.org/news/2012-06-cosmic-rays-radionuclides-contribution-east.html

Latitude
September 27, 2013 6:12 pm

Grey Oz says:
September 27, 2013 at 5:01 pm
Each decade is warmer than the last..
===
uh no, can you read a NOAA ice core graph?
http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/histo4.png
Oz, why is it that at the one point that CO2 levels should have had the most effect…
…temperatures went down?

Irradiance
September 27, 2013 6:17 pm

“No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies.”
That’s pretty much the climate debate in a nutshell.

rogerknights
September 27, 2013 6:24 pm

Paul Murphy says:
September 27, 2013 at 10:50 am
Do liepards change their spots?

According to Al Gore, a leopard cannot change its stripes.

Bob
September 27, 2013 6:36 pm

If it is already posted, I apologize. The gang that shoot straight in the Vomitorium.

Anthony Violi
September 27, 2013 6:39 pm

Bill Illis says:
September 27, 2013 at 5:51 pm
Here’s another Ocean Heat Content energy accumulation chart going back to 1955 for Oz.
As stark as it can get that the theory is screwy.
http://s9.postimg.org/htjhqe98v/Accum_Heat_Content_vs_GHG_Forcing_Accum_Q2_2013.png
I think its obvious Bill that the IPCC are no longer stretching the truth or distorting it.
They are now flat out lying and cheating, Hansen is still adjusting and cant get GISS to hit Scenario C.

Gunga Din
September 27, 2013 6:56 pm

Grey Oz says:
September 27, 2013 at 4:37 pm
@ Gunga Din: 97% of the worlds scientists agree that the world is warming and that mankind is responsible for most of it. So, you really can’t say that the remaining 3% are the world’s top scientists.

…etc.
====================================================================
Grey Ooze, you know, kool-aid isn’t good for you. It can rot more than your teeth.

philincalifornia
September 27, 2013 6:56 pm

Everyone ease up on Grey Oz, please. He’s just looking for the Wizard:
I could wile away the hours
Conferrin’ with the flowers
Consultin’ with the rain
And my head I’d be scratchin’
While my thoughts were busy hatchin’
If I only had a brain
I’d unravel any riddle
For any individ’le
In trouble or in pain
Oh, I would tell you why
The ocean’s near the shore
I could think of things I never thunk before
And then I’d sit and think some more
I would not be just a nuffin’
My head all full of stuffin’
My heart all full of pain
I would dance and be merry
Life would be a ding-a-derry
If I only had a brain

philincalifornia
September 27, 2013 7:12 pm

Anthony Violi says:
September 27, 2013 at 6:39 pm
Bill Illis says:
September 27, 2013 at 5:51 pm
Here’s another Ocean Heat Content energy accumulation chart going back to 1955 for Oz.
As stark as it can get that the theory is screwy.
http://s9.postimg.org/htjhqe98v/Accum_Heat_Content_vs_GHG_Forcing_Accum_Q2_2013.png
—————————————————-
Nice graph Sir, thanks.
I think, however, that you meant “conjecture” not “theory”. Whatever it was, it had little chance of trumping the Second Law of Thermodynamics, right from the get-go.

bushbunny
September 27, 2013 7:13 pm

Australian media are saying by 2100 the world will be 2 C warmer than today due to human activity. Well that won’t be too bad, if it gets colder in the mean time.

basby76
September 27, 2013 7:15 pm

I work in the mines here in Australia, so I always set my TV to turn on in the morning for my alarm. I always have Sky News as the channel I watch as I like to see what’s happened in the world overnight. The first leading story at 5:30 this morning was “Scientists are in ‘no doubt’ that man is heating the climate” then almost in the presenters next breath she mentioned the 95% concencus. I’m sorry but if there is no doubt, that 95% should have been 100%! Sure enough I tweeted to @SkyNewsAust asking them should that be right, then sure enough the next half hour bulletin there was no mention of the ‘no doubt’! Sky News is just another media network wanting to keep the climate change dream alive!

Bob K.
September 27, 2013 7:16 pm

It’s confusing. I distinctly remember that at least one of the previous Assessment Reports essentially ruled out that changes in Solar radiation could possibly have any impact on Earth temperature. It was soooo small that it just couldn’t. Now, suddenly, one reason for the pause is “…the recent solar minimum (a period of low solar activity)”, according to Andy Pitman here: http://theconversation.com/is-global-warming-in-a-hiatus-18367. How could it cause a pause if it doesn’t have any impact? And if it does have an impact, could it have raised temperatures in the past?
As for the heat hiding in oceans: Where did the heat go 18 years ago, before the pause started? Why, and when, did it suddenly developed urges to hide in deep ocean? And how does it get there without warming ocean’s upper layers – Harry Potter’s heat transfer?

bushbunny
September 27, 2013 7:20 pm

Climate changes due to human activity is good media hype, particularly as the new government is halting one wind farm due in Glen Innes and Inverell areas. 189 wind mills. I hope we don’t hear their noise by near by residents will soon get annoyed, hoping that the 15 k a year rental will keep them wealthy farmers.

basby76
September 27, 2013 7:26 pm

Grey Oz says:
September 27, 2013 at 4:37 pm
@ Gunga Din: 97% of the worlds scientists agree that the world is warming and that mankind is responsible for most of it
You must be a troll. that 97% line has been debunked a long time ago, why are you still clinging to that lie?

September 27, 2013 7:32 pm

Bob,
Thanks for the vid, notwithstanding it making the hair stand up on the back of my neck.
Watching this very cult like operation drives it home that in fact we are dealing with people who are in fact “zombies” now so deep is the control they have lost over their minds. Not sure they gave into greed or the lies. Does not matter, scary as can be. I my former line of work I was able to ambush the bad guys and deal with them direct. These ones are defenseless and not worthy of an ambush plan or even a jury trial. They have managed to bring us Oz as evidence of the power of the cults lies and fraud. The real evil is not these poor usefull fools zombie talking the script they were handed, the real evil is the ones in Washington D.C. and other places of power who fool the Oz’s into giveing up life and liberty for a redistribution of wealth con job.
Thanks any how.

pat
September 27, 2013 7:40 pm

let’s face it, they were never going to admit they were wrong. the public might ask for some accountability!
27 Sept: ABC: Ursula Malone: New South Wales desalination plant deal to cost consumers $10 billion over 50 years
Sydney’s privatised desalination plant, which is costing residents more than $500,000 a day to keep on standby, will not be needed for at least another four or five years.
The sale of the plant last year to a private company for $2.3 billion means residents are locked into paying about $10 billion in fees for the next 50 years, whether the plant is operating or not.
Not one drop of water has come out of the Kurnell facility since it stopped operating more than a year ago.
With dam levels at 93.4 per cent, the plant has been placed into “water security” mode, a long-term shutdown which is likely to continue for some time…
The buyer was a consortium split 50-50 between Hastings Funds Management and the Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan, based in Canada.
Between now and 2062 they are guaranteed inflation-linked payments of about $10 billion from Sydney Water…
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-27/nsw-desalination-plant-deal-costing-customers-10-billion/4985168

Grey Oz
September 27, 2013 7:47 pm

@ fobdangerclose: People should only come here if they agree with your point of view? And why do you have to insult me for disagreeing with your point of view?

pat
September 27, 2013 7:49 pm

for Australians, another waste of money & an eyesore to boot:
25 Sept: Gold Coast Bulletin: Andrew Potts: Tate desal plan rejected
A GRAND plan to convert the mothballed Tugun desalination plant into a tourism facility has been labelled “unrealistic” by stunned civic leaders.
The $1.2 billion “white elephant” facility, which has been used only twice since it was completed more than three years ago, is under the microscope as part of the Newman Government’s review of its manufactured water assets, which may look at decommissioning the plant…
Among the possible tourism ventures proposed were the conversation(sic) of its outlet pipes to become an offshore dive site and creating a bungee-jumping attraction…
http://www.goldcoast.com.au/article/2013/09/25/458795_gold-coast-news.html
——————————————————————————–

Martin 457
September 27, 2013 8:04 pm

I just checked back in and Grey Oz is getting stuffed. Duh.
But no, GO, what about the birds and bats being killed by windfarms?
How are we supposed to kill them?
Where is the trumpeting of hydro-power? The only clean form of energy there is?
Can’t do that, makes too much sense.
Solar power creates too much shade in the desert for some kind of beetle.
I’m not picking on you, I just wish that someone would come up with a viable in-expensive alternative that doesn’t do more harm than good.

Grey Oz
September 27, 2013 8:05 pm

@ RACookPE1978:
“Because the world’s climate so-called scientists are being paid billions of dollars to make CO2 and CAGW the propaganda campaign that it started as, stayed, and will likely remain until those so-called scientists stop denying the science and the measurements. Governments program their money to support the agencies and the scientists and the research that will provide those governments the answers they want and the taxes they are desperate for.”
So, dozens of governments are paying scientists all over the world to falsify results, and scientists are risking their careers to do this? Sounds like conspiracy theory to me. Isn’t it more likely oil and gas companies are waging a massive disinformation campaign to protect their industry, as they don’t want to transition to other energy sources?
“It can be no insult if the statement is true.”
It’s not what one says, it’s how they say it.
“Show that any of your claims are valid. We do, however, sympathize at the effectiveness of your brainwashing.”
So, now I’m brainwashed because I don’t agree with your point of view and all the peer-reviewed science is falsified?
“False. The current global warming is largely natural and cannot be stopped by denying men life, food, fuel, fodder, feed, and energy for safe water, clean air, and efficient farming.”
How come there is no cause for this “natural global warming”? In the past, we see super volcanoes, asteroid impacts, and other events that cause global warming. What is it that is causing this “natural global warming?” We are in a solar minimum currently. Also, warming is accelerating and measurable over decades instead of centuries. What is causing that? And no one wants to deny anyone life, food, fodder, feed, energy, safe water, clean air, or efficient farming; they want to transition these activities to be powered by energy sources that don’t dump greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere on a massive scale daily.
“And, by the way, the is no threat to life on this planet except from global cooling. There is NO HARM from global warming”
Once we hit a two degree increase in temperature (measured from before the industrial revolution), carbon and methane frozen in ice, permafrost, and ground stores will melt and enter the atmosphere, and more than double the amount of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere currently. This will accelerate warming and put us well above a six degree increase (more if we continue with our current rate of emissions), which will be catastrophic to civilization. This will also likely lead to “runaway global warming, which will make the planet inhospitable to life [Hansen].

OssQss
September 27, 2013 8:09 pm

Some must resist the urge to attend to the paid posters.
They are actually paid by the responses.. Don’t forget that part of the equation.
I must say, upon watching my limited exposure to today’s support for the IPCC’s output, it is not only well organized, it is unpresidented. File that!
Remember that …….
Share links to the info you deem appropriate. They do, no matter how much resistance they find at the destination.
I have always believed in working smart!
Video redacted to help with distractions.

TalentKeyHole Mole
September 27, 2013 8:16 pm

Oh Dear,
The IP-CCCP have painted themselves into a ‘Check’, ‘Mate’ and ‘Match.’
And all by themselves! By their own hands.
Astonishing.
That “Principle #2” also a curious creature to me since the ’90s. It reads as if “Climate Change”, “Global Warming” or even “Climate” ARE the artifacts of human activity! Did not the Earth exist 4.8 billion years ago; which by simple quotient would show how insignificant human beings are to the Earth as a ratio of years present.
Oh well. SETI@Home has yet to identify intelligent life on Earth and NSA@Home will suffer likewise with their presumptions of “Terrorists” in the “internet” and telephone networks and ATM networks and such; perhaps THEIR “Terrorists” are the shadows lurking in THEIR bathroom mirror in the mornings.
Religion
Ah! Religion has been always keen to find human beings guilty of all sorts of misbehavior throughout human history, thou significantly insignificant that history is. The Roman Catholic Church on 22 June 1633 (Solstice) found Galileo was “vehemently suspect of heresy,” was sentenced to formal imprisonment at the pleasure of the Inquisition and the following day was commuted to house arrest, and his treatise “Dialogue” among others was banned and publication of any of his works forbidden including any that he might write in the future from that day on.
How wonderful it is that universities world wide teach the Heliocentric theory as a cornerstone of modern astronomy in their astronomy classes. Galileo WON!
Strange the IP-CCCP. Humans, to them, ARE the cause of Climate, Climate Change and Global Warming. Using their logic, for world Government, i.e. the UN, to eliminate Global Warming, the UN must sanction the mass slaughter of … [Drum Roll] … Human Beings! This is because the most illustrious Beloved Academia, the IP-CCCP, foretell that Human Beings are “very likely” GUILTY though evidence is not in their hands nor need be for such is divined by faith and a Religious Proclamation ordained.
QED

Grey Oz
September 27, 2013 8:23 pm

@ RACookPE1978: “1. So what? What is the problem if the Arctic sea ice continues to decline from its present levels, or from the 2012 levels, or from the 2012 levels?”
Because all the ice will melt, the planet will heat, and become inhospitable to life. And all that carbon and methane trapped in the ice and ground will rise up and help the planet heat much faster. Finally, when you change the temperature of anything, you change it’s behavior. And it’s in the best interest of life on Earth to keep the behavior of Earth stable.
“2. At its present extents at the time of sea ice minimums in the Arctic, more energy is lost by increased evaporation, increased long wave radiation to space by radiation, increased heat loss to the air by convection, and increased heat loss by conduction from lower levels that is gained by solar radiation. Each km of extra ocean exposed cools the arctic even more.”
Not enough to stop warming. Also, loss of ice reflectivity warms the planet more.
“3. Summer, melt season temperatures up where the ice actually is (per DMI 80 north latitude measured temperatures sine 1959) have not only not increased, but have been decreasing since 1998, and are decreasing now faster than recorded earlier.”
According to NASA, the rapid warming trend in the Arctic over the last 25 years has dramatically reduced the region’s sea ice extent.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/ArcticIce/arctic_ice3.php
http://climate.nasa.gov/news/927
“4. Now, at the time of minimum sea ice extents, the Arctic sea ice is concentrated between 79 and 83 north latitudes. At those latitudes, the sun is not high enough to be absorbed to either the ice or the sea surface. But, the Antarctic sea ice IS at low enough latitudes to receive massively more energy, and the received that energy through thinner air masses and for longer periods of each day. Result?”
Antarctica is warming:
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/feature/id/351507/description/Taking_Antarcticas_temperature

bushbunny
September 27, 2013 8:42 pm

It all sounds like middle ages superstitions, blame the witches (or wise women and men) for environmental abnormalities, burn them at the stake. Our new government has just stopped a scheduled wind farm near me on the Northern Tablelands, for more information. Land owners won’t be pleased as they are paid $15 k rental per year per turbine, and there are 189 planned. Of course this new government will come under fire, especially from the Flannery group, who are now setting up their private funded climate change commission to be manned by volunteers? I bet they won’t be receiving expenses?
I just think alarmists are panicking because their predictions based on false data will be found out. I just hope that something will be done and the UNCCFund dismantled as a result. For those who genuinely have been believers in AGW must feel let down but we all knew the lies the IPCC were telling years ago, and really little humans can do to change climate variations, but they can clean up pollution especially in third world countries. Electric cars need electricity to keep them on the road, so where are they going to get that from? Solar? Wind? I don’t think so.

September 27, 2013 8:46 pm

Grey Oz,
If you stick around here you are certain to get slaughtered by the facts. Your appeals to bought-and-paid-for ‘authorities’ is über-lame, because Planet Earth disagrees with them. You opine:
“Each decade is warmer than the last and when the arctic melts… &etc.”
Arctic ice has melted before, and it will melt again. When it happened in the past it was not due to human activity, and it will not be due to human activity when it happens again. CO2 has nothing to do with it, either: on net balance, CO2 is harmless, and beneficial to the biosphere. Falsify that testable hypothesis — if you can.
Global temperatures have been extremely, unusually mild for the past century and a half, yet you find ways to scare yourself.
The periodic step changes in global temperature are completely natural, and they occur regularly — as admitted by arch-alarmist Phil Jones. Note that the same warming has taken place repeatedly, and during times when CO2 was very low. Where is your god now?
How far do you want to go back? Hundreds of years? OK, you can see that there is nothing unusual or unprecedented happening. Current temperatures are routine, and lower than in recent past decades.
The reality is that you have been fed nonsense. Planet Earth — the ultimate Authority — is busy debunking your self-serving ‘experts’, who couldn’t predict their way out of a wet paper bag if their grants depended on it.
Everything observed today is fully explained by natural climate variability. The Null Hypothesis has never been falsified — unlike your catastrophic AGW nonsense.

Jon
September 27, 2013 9:06 pm

What’s the Sensitivity, Kenneth?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWkMhCLkVOg

Grey Oz
September 27, 2013 9:08 pm

@ milodonharlani: “The Stanford “study” you cite is an article in Anti-Scientific Un-American magazine, too glossy to be of any use as a bird cage liner.”
You can find the studies referred to in that article here:
http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/
“If wind & solar were as economical today as fossil fuels, why does China, the country that makes wind mills & solar panels & also has giant hydro projects, rely so heavily on coal & want to control South China Sea oil?”
Because technological advances have only recently brought cost down.
“Why does every other country heavily subsidize its everywhere failed wind & solar experiments?”
Why do we heavily subsidize the oil and gas industry? In the case of wind and solar, it’s to speed up transition to clean energy. Most major industries have developed with government aid, e.g., oil and gas, railroads, computers…
“The authors fail to include building electrical transmission lines in their alleged analysis. They blithely assume that hydro can back up wind & solar, without apparently ever having studied the place in the world where that hopeless system has been tried on the largest scale, ie the Pacific NW.”
What about the Hoover damn? Wind and solar can account for something around 95-98% of energy. According to this study, hydro and other clean energy technologies are only meant to help during slow times for wind.
“Backing up wind there leads to generation of less hydro, waste of huge quantities of water & damages migrating fish & birds.”
There will be much more available clean water if we move off fossil fuels. Offshore and high altitude wind farms will mitigate damage to wildlife. Also, we only need an area the size of Manhattan to power the world, so we’ll get around the wildlife problem.
“Maybe in their study they show their work, but the article is nothing but spew.”
Greensburg, Kansas is using 100% renewable energy, and they did this very inexpensively. We can do it too.
http://www.go100percent.org/cms/index.php?id=70&tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=59
http://www.greensburgks.org/
Many towns are also going massively solar, like Lancaster, California.
“To mention just a few of your own many false assertions, Antarctica is not melting. Its ice mass is increasing, along with the sea ice extent around it, which reached a new “all-time” high this year. Many studies in recent years have found this to be the case, such as this one:
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20120013495_2012013235.pdf
Latest news form NASA is not so good, “But in a number of places around Antarctica, ice shelves are melting too fast, and a consequence of that is glaciers and the entire continent are changing as well.”
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/earth20130613.html#.UkZPxLw1Zcw
“By “all time” of course is meant since 1979, when satellite records of Arctic & Antarctic sea ice began, along with observations of the “temperature” of the atmosphere from space. So when you claim that the past ten years are the warmest decade ever, you’re talking about three decades. What you fail to understand is that 1) the surface temperature record is an “adjusted” fabrication, & 2) use of raw data show that the ~1920-40s were actually hotter than the recent warm spell of 1980-2000, roughly. The warming during that period also occurred at the same slope as the recently ended period, without benefit of increased CO2.”
No, last decade is the warmest since at least 1850, when we started keeping records. Anomalies have been adjusted for.
http://treealerts.org/topic/climate-science/2013/07/meteorologists-say-last-decade-was-hottest-ever-measured/
“The Arctic didn’t melt, as you fear, during the much longer & warmer previous interglacial, the Eemian, nor during the thousands of years in our current Holocene interglacial when it was warmer than now, as it was during Minoan Warm Period, the Roman WP & the Medieval WP, each hotter than its predecessor (as shown by proxy data from around the world), as the Medieval was than the Modern WP.”
So, it can’t possibly melt now?
“The earth has enjoyed CO2 levels of 7000 ppm, not just 400 ppm, in the past 550 million years without turning into Venus, as that liar spouts.”
Unfortunately, life cannot survive with 10-20 degree increase. The planet can.
“It is also untrue that 97% of “scientists” sign on to Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Alarmism.”
People should be alarmed! It’s the greatest challenge civilization will likely face until the sun burns out. 97% of climate scientists do agree and virtually every major scientific institution around the world agrees to:
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
http://www.ucsusa.org/ssi/climate-change/scientific-consensus-on.html
http://theconsensusproject.com/
“In any case, CO2 is beneficial to life on earth. The planet has greened as a result of the gain since 1945.”
It’s the increasing heat that the Co2 traps that is damaging to life on Earth. Life can only survive in a very narrow temperature range and we’re going to bust that range if we continue to change the composition of our atmosphere.

September 27, 2013 9:13 pm

Grey Oz says:
“…all the ice will melt, the planet will heat, and become inhospitable to life.”
OK, you’ve convinced me: you are completely nuts.
You assert that the Antarctic is heating up? As if. You can’t come here spouting easily disproved nonsense that you get from your alarmist propaganda blogs. Here, it’s put up or shut up. And so far you haven’t put up anything but baseless assertions, misinformation, and pal-reviewed papers. All of them are flatly contradicted by empirical [real world] evidence.
Run anlong now back to whatever blog you get your flat wrong talking points from. The ones you’re posting here have been deconstructed too many times to bother with again.

bushbunny
September 27, 2013 9:14 pm

The last mini ice age, was caused primarily in the Northern Hemisphere, it last for approximate from the 14th century until around 1850. Grapes were grown in UK, but most grapes were then only grown in greenhouses. But the human populations in Northern Europe perished, not only from the black death either. The original wine presses were adapted for the first printing presses. That is fact. Ice fairs were held on the Thames in London in the 19th Century. Even in 1963 a cold winter caused the Thames to freeze near Windsor. There seems no logic to explain why this happened at the time other than the cold weather was not just in UK, it was everywhere in the Northern Hemisphere. We have to assume from palaeoclimatology that our planet did not favor the increase of agriculture or human expansion until 10,000 years ago, when the climate was entering into a warmer phase. But the majority of the last 100,000 years at least we have experienced very cold weather, especially in the Northern Hemisphere, so we are more an ice planet than a warm tropical one.
If we are going to retreat into a cold phase again, it will affect our ability to grow crops and the worlds population will be greatly affected. What Australia should be concentrating on is maintaining soil fertility and providing food just not for us alone. Now don’t you think UNIPCC would be taking more care in predicting what could happen if the planet cools greatly. Because I know what cold can do at least we can cool down if it gets too hot. Anyway, good luck with your arguments, and the UN should be ashamed of themselves. 2 CC by 2100 is nickles and dimes, particularly after 90 years of fluctuating temperatures that favor colder temps.

William Astley
September 27, 2013 9:30 pm

Alas, we are watching the end of the great and powerful IPCC.
The IPCC gig continues unabated in zombie mode. Will there be an AR-6? Is there a backup plan to address planetary cooling? (There is a rumor of up to 0.3C of cooling. Where did that come from?)

The BCC nightly news summary, US addition, had more time allocated for an update of the Kenya massacre than the AR-5 summary for policy makers.
What is there to report? Planet has stopped warming, IPCC not sure why. Perhaps the IPCC could explain why AR-4 stated that an increase in hurricanes was likely yet there has been a hiatus in hurricanes also. Curious the sudden cooling in the Arctic and record sea ice in the Antarctic. What has changed? Hint solar magnetic cycle.

September 27, 2013 9:31 pm

There’s nothing like sleep deprived group think under deadline pressure to instill confidence, right?

I LOLd.

Grey Oz
September 27, 2013 9:37 pm

@ Janice Moore: “There is no evidence that fossil fuels per se are causing “damage to the environment.”
Burning fossil fuels creates C02. Increasing C02 in an atmosphere traps in heat. No scientists dispute this. It is the increasing heat, i.e., temperature, that will make the environment inhospitable to life on Earth. See the “Approaching a State Shift in Earth’s Biosphere” study:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v486/n7401/full/nature11018.html
I answered your 2nd point above.
“Further, you have provided no evidence that “clean energy” causes less “damage”* to the environment than fossil fuels do.”
Solar and wind power, which can account for 95-98% of our power, will not wipe out life on Earth.
“… wind-power is unreliable and intermittent and requires (a) conventional back-up plant to provide electricity when the wind is either blowing at very low speeds (or not at all) … ”
Wind power is clean energy. You can read about it in the “Energy resources and effects on the atmosphere” section of Stanford researcher Mark Jacobson here:
http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/
Hybrid cars are… hybrids. Electric cars (and planes) powered by solar and wind will be eco-friendly.

GK
September 27, 2013 9:44 pm

So in effect they are 95% certain that their wording is agreed to ensure policy makers keep paying their nice salaries until their retirement. In effect never has anyone created a job for themselves and kept it until their retirement by fearmongering, except “climate scientist” at the IPCC

bushbunny
September 27, 2013 10:08 pm

Grey Oz, my dear friend, how can you get electric cars powered by solar and wind? They would have to store the electricity in the vehicle? By batteries. Petrol is burned and does not create CO2 it creates poisonous carbon monoxide. I know my son killed himself using this method. There is some objections with solar thermal, that I feel could be productive in the future, and geothermal both have safety factors involved and storing electricity using methane at night. But solar panels and wind turbines have been proven not to be the end all for electricity production, it hasn’t cut carbon emissions in the EU and is very expensive for the consumers while it is subsidized. Solar panels do not create much electricity in winter, when energy is required, particularly in the higher altitudes of Australia, where winters are very cold. Wind turbines freeze up too, and don’t work in high wind areas even break down. The sounds emitted can unbalance the inner ear, we can’t pick them up, but people have claimed they can experience symptoms like meniers disease. So unfortunately to spend money into clean energy on the basis, Co2 causes global warming if not cut down, is a poor excuse, when it is not true, and other than saying it is the oil industries etc., is it not the ones who want to invest in so called clean energy who see their investments being curtailed.

Other_Andy
September 27, 2013 10:16 pm

“Burning fossil fuels creates C02. Increasing C02 in an atmosphere traps in heat. No scientists dispute this. It is the increasing heat, i.e., temperature that will make the environment inhospitable to life on Earth.”
And that’s why planet Earth burned to a crisp during the Late Ordovician Period when CO2 concentrations were nearly 12 times higher than today.
We are now living in Oz’ alternate universe.

Grey Oz
September 27, 2013 10:18 pm

Comment held in moderation after Jon 9:07 has a reply.

mike
September 27, 2013 10:23 pm

Despite the end of world catastrophe pronouncements, the main stream media realise climate change has become very toxic to their readership base. As one commentator said the latest IPCC report a bit of a dead man bounce, the MSM are starting to be really over the climate change astrology.
In the end crying wolf for decades falls on deaf ears.

Jtom
September 27, 2013 10:26 pm

Grey Oz: the last 17 years have demonstrated that CO2 in the atmosphere is NOT [the] main driver if climate. Despite continued increases on carbon dioxide [emissions], temperatures have not gone up over this time period. I can only assume you are a denier of reality, since acknowledging the decrease in droughts, hurricanes, and tornadoes, thirty years of decreasing temps and increasing ice in Antarctica, this year’s increase in Arctic ice that we have seen in recent years [would] undermine your religion. It is clear by your regurgitation of the bogus 97% consensus that you, unlike virtually all on this board, do not or cannot research issues yourself to deter the validity of what others claim.
What you fail to understand is that a great many on this board are scientists. We can read and interpret research papers. We can recognize when claims are made that are not backed up by actual research results. We don’t get our information from science magazines or [newspaper]; we read the actual research. We see the disconnect between research results and current theory.
If you are interested in learning about this issue, I suggest you lurk and learn. You are not contributing anything by posting links to old articles – they have been discussed and evaluated here years ago when they were [first] published, and many of them have been shown to be in error by actual events since their time of publication. You are certainly not going to change any minds and will only annoy quite a few. You are entitled to your opinions, but don’t expect anyone to consider them if you do not justify them with real-world data.
Finally, if new green clean energy is feasible and economical, there is nothing more to do or discuss; free markets and capitalism will make them realities. If that DOESN’T happen, then they are not feasible or economical. Also, if you are correct on this, then you need not be concerned about future global warming; we will no longer be burning fossil fuels. So if you have faith in what you say, why make an issue of anything? Just sit back and wait for that cheaper, greener, cleaner electric vehicle to be delivered.

Jtom
September 27, 2013 10:29 pm

Sorry for all the typos above. Still not use to inputting via my iPad, and trying to edit something is a nightmare. I’ll try to do better in the future.

bushbunny
September 27, 2013 10:31 pm

Other Andy, then how do you explain how the planet froze over for centuries, until volcanic eruptions warmed the atmosphere up? Your palaeoclimatic theories are Hollywood inspired. This earth was very hot and molten at one stage, but when there were no plants or living organisms around to suffer. Plants created oxygen, and rocks created water. This was over billions of years.
Plus the fact of meteor and asteroid strikes, that messed up things.

Blackbird
September 27, 2013 10:38 pm

Here are the facts:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-27/steffen-ipcc-report/4984656
The Earth has warmed significantly over the last century, and particularly strongly since 1970 up to the present. The global average air temperature has risen by 0.89 degrees Celsius over the 1901-2012 period, and the decade 2001-2010 was the warmest on record.
But global average air temperature is only a very small part of the warming story, as the atmosphere absorbs only 3 per cent of the additional heat trapped by the increasing concentration of greenhouse gases. By far the biggest player in the climate system is the ocean.
Over 90 per cent of the warming since the mid-20th century has occurred in the ocean, and the heat content of the ocean has risen steadily since about 1970 with no pause or slowing of the rate over the past 15 years. That is really the “smoking gun” of warming. But there is even more evidence of a strongly warming Earth.
The ice cover over the Arctic Ocean is decreasing rapidly, at a rate of about 4 per cent per decade since 1979. Such rapid ice loss is unprecedented in the last 2,000 years.
Sea level has risen by 19 cm over the 1900-2010 period. This observed rate of rise over the past century is unusually high in the context of the last 2,000 years.
Glaciers and ice sheets around the world are shrinking and losing mass. The combined rate of mass loss from the large polar ice sheets on Greenland and Antarctica was about 350 billion tonnes per year for the period 2002-2011, and is accelerating.
It is even more telling that the rate of sea-level rise, the rate of decrease of Arctic sea ice extent, and the rate of mass loss from Greenland and Antarctica have all increased in the period from the 1990s to the present, compared to earlier periods. This is exactly the opposite of what one would expect if warming of the Earth is slowing or has stopped.
All of this evidence points to the continued strong warming of the Earth since the mid-20th century up to the present, in stark contrast to the erroneous reports purported to be based on leaked drafts of the IPCC assessment.

bushbunny
September 27, 2013 10:44 pm

“What’s the frequency, Kenneth?” I couldn’t understand a word of it, what is the message?

Jon
September 27, 2013 10:55 pm

“Sweden’s Environment Minister Lena Ek and Thomas Stocker, a member of an United Nations (UN) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), attend an IPCC meeting in Stockholm September 23, 2013. REUTERS-Bertil Enevag ”
So the full report and the summary for policy makers has been made by Environment Ministers and their representatives indirectly or directly. In other words its been “made” by policy makers them self?
Ideology triumphs reality?

Adrian O
September 27, 2013 11:03 pm

WE NEED MORE SUCH PANELS or
HUMANITY’S ADDICTION
We need an IPWC, International Panel on Walking Change,
it could issue reports like:
In spite of thousands of years in which it could have changed,
Humanity continues its historical addiction to walking of feet.
Instead of on hands.
A small but growing number of people, in the sports and entertainment industry so far, are showing us the way.
The handywalking science scientists are consensually unanimous.
(even though they never discuss it in public, since only other handywalking scientists are sufficiently qualified)
The foot walking addiction is fed by propaganda from the shoe industry. And by the nefarious Shoemaker brothers, goes without saying.
We need to enlighten the people.
Let us support and subsidize the progressive glove industry.

September 27, 2013 11:12 pm

The CorbettReport – Episode 282 – The IPCC Exposed

More International Frauds and Bogus Enterprises,
Many of them about “Climate Change”, at the
website linked to my name. Hundreds of full
feature length videos like the one above.
Do research what Corbett Says, and look
out for his “new series on the IPCC” !
We will post a link at our site as soon as
Corbett’s new videos are available, and
we have posted a Corbett Report Player
on our Alternative News Page.
Please do pay us a visit, and I thank
you for your time in reading thus far

Other_Andy
September 27, 2013 11:39 pm

bushbunny says:
“Other Andy, then how do you explain how the planet froze over for centuries, until volcanic eruptions warmed the atmosphere up? Your palaeoclimatic theories are Hollywood inspired. This earth was very hot and molten at one stage, but when there were no plants or living organisms around to suffer. Plants created oxygen, and rocks created water. This was over billions of years.
Plus the fact of meteor and asteroid strikes, that messed up things.”
First of all I had my tongue firmly in my cheek.
While CO2 levels were about 12 times higher in the late Ordovian, it was also an ice age. I was wondering if Oz could explain that since he believes that CO2 is the-a main driver of global temperature.
And, I have no idea what you think my palaeoclimatic theories are.
Do I really need to use a \sarc tag?

September 27, 2013 11:40 pm

Grey Oz:
I asked you to justify one of your plain wrong – and daft – assertions. You replied with evasion, so others asked you to answer my questions and you “forgot” to answer them.
Meanwhile, you have repeatedly complained that people are being rude by pointing out the idiocy of your assertions. NO! They are flattering you by assuming you have sufficient brain power to understand their answers when all your posts indicate you don’t.
For example, you wrote this at September 27, 2013 at 9:37 pm

Burning fossil fuels creates C02. Increasing C02 in an atmosphere traps in heat.

CO2 “traps heat”? How does one “trap” a concept; bury it in books?
Atmospheric CO2 absorbs infra red (IR) radiation in the 15 micron and 4 micron spectral bands. Little IR is absorbed in the 4 micron band and the center of the 15 micron band is saturated so the band only absorbs by band broadening: this is why the increase to the absorbtion declines in logarithmic relationship to increase of the atmospheric CO2 concentration. The absorbtion raises a CO2 molecule to an excited state by providing it with vibrational or rotational energy. De-excitation is either by collision or discharge of a photon.
I trust that is clear, Grey Oz. If not then get back to me and I will provide more detail. But please do not publish any more of your rubbish that pretends you know what you are talking about when your every statement proclaims that you don’t have a clue.
Oh, and this morning the BBC is reporting about companies having been fined for employing trolls to post to blogs and web sites. Please say if you are employed by one of the fined companies or a different one.
Richard

TimB
September 28, 2013 12:28 am

What am I missing? 3 decades of record warmth, 15 years of pause. Isn’t that the last half of the record warming has done nothing? I hate it when tipping points and talking points collide.
Each of the last three decades has been successively warmer at the Earth’s surface than any
preceding decade since 1850 (see Figure SPM.1). In the Northern Hemisphere, 1983–2012 was
likely the warmest 30-year period of the last 1400 years (medium confidence). {2.4, 5.3}

Other_Andy
September 28, 2013 12:50 am

“What am I missing? ”
A proper timescale?
Over the past 10,000 years the current Holocene epoch has been progressively cooling since the early “climate optimum”. Overall in the 10,000 years the world has cooled gradually by about 1.0 °C. There were however well documented temperature high points during the period, including the Minoan, Roman and Medieval warm periods.
The most recent period of 1000 – 2000 AD is the coolest millennium of the whole epoch
As for this (short) 30-yr period, the Earth experienced it’s 2nd and 3rd strongest solar cycles since 1715, marked the end of the strongest 63-yr string of solar cycles in 11,400 years, FIVE El Nino events including the largest Super El Nino ever recorded, a 30-year PDO warming cycle and the start of a 30-yr AMO warming period….
And the CAGW ‘scientists also want us forget that there hasn’t been ANY statistically significant global warming trend since 1995, despite 1/3rd of ALL CO2 emissions since 1750 were made since 1995….

Patrick
September 28, 2013 12:57 am

I just read a comment on the SMH website on an article about the SPM. The person claims that warming from CO2 is caused by emissions from developed countries. The person then went on to say that emissions of CO2 from developing countries, such as China and India, haven’t taken effect yet. I nearly chocked on my cranberry juice!
Many of the commenters are reading the announcement and publishing of the SPM as the actual IPCC report.

Patrick
September 28, 2013 1:05 am

“bushbunny says:
September 27, 2013 at 10:31 pm”
I think you will find it was stromatolites, about 3.5 billon years ago via photosynthesis that kicked off “oxygenation” of the planet. Which caused the shallow iron rich water they lived in to “rust”, depositing it in the crust eventually forming iron ore.

Jimbo
September 28, 2013 1:14 am

Anthony,
Matt Ridley responds.

Time – Sept. 27, 2013
What the Climate Report Concedes
…….The report, in many ways, is a bit of a strange document. Its authors say they are more certain than they were in their last report, issued in 2007, that climate change is (and will be) slower and less severe than previously thought. They also say they are more certain of greater uncertainty about how much climate change will occur. Got that?
In all sorts of ways, the report climbs down from what was said six years ago, yet like any bureaucratic committee, it does its utmost to disguise these retreats……….
http://ideas.time.com/2013/09/27/what-the-climate-report-concedes/

Murf Oscar
September 28, 2013 1:20 am

Not a scientist, but definitely a long term observer over my 75 years.
Was at Balmoral Beach on Sydney Harbour this morning. Lovely warm sunny day, water calm and crystal clear. Happy to report that the water level is unchanged since the days of my boyhood.
My take on the IPPC and its reports?
Pfft!

September 28, 2013 1:20 am

James at 48 on September 27, 2013 at 3:33 pm
If anyone had any doubts that the Age Of Exploration (and as its corrollary, Scientific Progress) was over, anyone who is truly sentient now has those doubt erased. Welcome to the Post-Scientific Age.

– – – – – – – –
James at 48,
Thank you for looking at the historical perspective on where our culture may be.
If the IPCC’s fate is the litmus test of your thought then I think we will know if you are right within a couple of years.
My ‘glass-is-half-full-view’ is that the last ~4 years it has not been looking good for the anti-science irrationalists of the IPCC Bureau and their ‘pseudo-scientific’processes. So I think science is a still a major player in our culture, but vigilance is needed more than ever to keep it that way.
John

Patrick
September 28, 2013 1:21 am

Grey Oz, seems to me you have fallen for the catastrophic climate change driven by emissions of CO2 from human activities (That’s annually estimated, and accepted by the IPCC and scientific community, to be ~3% of 400ppm/v) and ONLY those emissions making life on this rock impossible boondoggle hook, line and sinker. Well, got news for you. The ONLY thing (Excluding asteroids, mega volcanoes etc) in this solar system that has the power to do that is the Sun. By the time the Sun has consumed all it’s fuel, it will have swollen to a red giant and have consumed all or most of he inner planets. Before that however, it would have burnt off ALL life on the ENTIRE surface of this rock effectively returning the Earth to a state similar to a time before an atmosphere formed. Sterile! This is not a question of hypotheses or theories or If’s, it’s a question of when.
In the meantime I suggest you throw another shrimp on the barby and crack open a few tubes of the amber nectar and enjoy your life and what fossil fuels brought you while you can.

rogerknights
September 28, 2013 1:33 am

Grey Oz says:
September 27, 2013 at 8:05 pm
@ RACookPE1978:
Isn’t it more likely oil and gas companies are waging a massive disinformation campaign to protect their industry, as they don’t want to transition to other energy sources?

Unlikely. See my guest thread here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/16/notes-from-skull-island-why-skeptics-arent-well-funded-and-well-organized/

rogerknights
September 28, 2013 1:48 am

Grey Oz says:
September 27, 2013 at 3:59 pm
“the oceans are increasing in acidity — 30% since the start of the industrial revolution —”

That’s a suggesto falsi you’ve been fed. It suggests, falsely, that a further 70% increase would neutralize the oceans. In truth, it would take an over-10,000% increase in acidification measured by that method (number of a certain molecule, IIRC) to neutralize the ocean. The “30%” figure barely moves the needle on the PH scale.

Take Off Your Shoes & Feel the Global Warming
September 28, 2013 2:00 am

Please don’t scare Grey Oz off. This has been the funniest reading I’ve done for a while. I get all these arguments from my friends who, like Grey Oz, have fallen hook, line and sinker for the alarmist lies. Your succinct answers, I’m filing away to bring out when I next get into an argument with them.

Patrick
September 28, 2013 2:19 am

“bushbunny says:
September 27, 2013 at 10:08 pm
Petrol is burned and does not create CO2 it creates poisonous carbon monoxide.”
I think you will find petrol, refined from oil, is a fossil fuel and requires AIR at ~21% O2 to burn oxidising the carbon (Because petrol is a hydrocarbon fossil fuel) forming CO2, as well as, CO and other toxic gases like NOX and SOX.
In any case it is rather sad to learn you lost your son this way.

Patrick
September 28, 2013 2:32 am

“Grey Oz says:
September 27, 2013 at 9:37 pm
…(and planes) powered by solar and wind will be eco-friendly.”
How would that work on a commercial scale and at night with solar? I can understand how solar panels can be applied to the air surfaces of an aircraft which many would not be fully exposed to the sun all the time, but not sure how you’d attach a suitably powerful wind turbine given their limited operation capability is high wind speeds. What about storage when there is no sun/wind? What’s the take off speed of a commercial sized aircraft and how would that work with a wind turbine fitted? Remember the Spruce Goose? It’s was a poor design, made of wood, which flew only once and when it did was barely able to manage a few meters (Ignoring some of the useful technology that was installed).
Really turned into an entertaining Saturday night!

September 28, 2013 2:38 am

Blackbird says:
“All of this evidence points to the continued strong warming of the Earth…”
You are as nuts as Grey Oz:
http://suyts.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/image266.png
If it was possible for either one of you to think for yourselves, it would be obvious to you that there is nothing either unusual or unprecedented happening with current global temperatures. Everything observed now has happened before, repeatedly, and at times when CO2 was much lower. What does that tell you? THINK!!
But you cannot think for yourself. The IPCC is your religion. It fills a hole in your otherwise meaningless lives, so you cling to their pseudo-scientific nonsense like a drowning man clings to a stick. Pathetic.
If you could only think for yourself, the scales would fall from your eyes. But religious Belief is so much easier than thinking…

Patrick
September 28, 2013 2:50 am

“Grey Oz says:
September 27, 2013 at 8:05 pm
So, dozens of governments are paying scientists all over the world to falsify results, and scientists are risking their careers to do this?”
Here’s an analogy I like to use to describe Govn’t “scientists” of the climate type.
“Govn’t “scientists” are like consultants. You hire a consultant to tell you the time. They ask to borrow your watch. You hand it over. They read and tell you the time (Accurate? Well you didn’t ask for an ACCURATE time did you?). They keep the watch. A few days later, you receive an invoice for services rendered.”
I am not going to make any more posts in reply to Grey Oz because s/he is just TOO FUNNY! I hope you don’t live anywhere near a library because you will find plenty of books that will deflate/disprove every single one of your points, statements, questions and arguments.

Other_Andy
September 28, 2013 2:58 am

“Grey Oz says:
September 27, 2013 at 8:05 pm
So, dozens of governments are paying scientists all over the world to falsify results, and scientists are risking their careers to do this?”
Unfortunately, scientists who don’t [toe] the line are risking their careers.
Google Lysenko or Lysenkoism.
Peter Ferrara writes in Forbes about the similarities between Lysenkoism and Global Warming.