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:
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
=============================================================
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:
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?
=============================================================
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!”
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).
================================================================
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.
================================================================
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.
Would an ice age soak up the remaining CO2?
Latitude says:
September 28, 2013 at 4:52 pm
CO2 levels get close to starvation levels for C3 plants (~150 ppm) during the glacial phases of ice ages, as has happened about every 100,000 years for the past 2.4 million years, but not for C4 & CAM plants, which evolved to deal with the lower CO2 levels of the Cenozoic.
But who knows? The next glaciation could be super bad & drop CO2 below the concentration needed for C3 plants, leaving the earth without trees. Hard to imagine CO2 ever getting below the low, low level needed for C4, however. It might be possible to transplant C4 genes into C3 plants.
“When you still push increasing confidence in predictions while…”
— What are the alternatives that they see? If they say “We are equally confident” then it sounds like the data doesn’t matter to them. And they certainly don’t want to express LESS confidence. A scientist would not be afraid to change his conclusion. Only a politician or someone with an agenda would need to be MORE confident.
The late, great Crichton on past doomsayers pronouncements on unprecedented threats & totalitarian solutions for non-problems:
milodonharlani says:
September 28, 2013 at 5:08 pm
“But who knows? The next glaciation could be super bad & drop CO2 below the concentration needed for C3 plants, leaving the earth without trees. Hard to imagine CO2 ever getting below the low, low level needed for C4, however. It might be possible to transplant C4 genes into C3 plants.”
==============
Yep, my pizza is warmed up now, I think I’ll eat it.
Despite any C4’s, or C3’s.
I’ve looked into the matter at some length and calculated that in fact we could spend the entirety of national savings for the next twenty years and still not produce enough energy from “renewables” to heat, cool and light our homes and businesses reliably. Freeze to death in the dark with no savings to boot.
I’m puzzled. In his 1988 testimony Hansen claimed 99% confidence, but now we are only at 95%. Was there a moderation in confidence that I missed at some point?
u.k.(us) says:
September 28, 2013 at 6:18 pm
Your pizza crust is C3, unless it’s made with corn (maize) instead of wheat, so enjoy it while it lasts.
The C3 plants & I thank you for the extra CO2 from the power to run your microwave, although if you’re in the UK, it might not have been generated by releasing more beneficial CO2.
Given the twin facts that most of the warming can be attributed to the EPA’s Clean Air Act clean up the atmosphere and Svensmark’s proving that supernovas cause long term climate change, whom should we lynch? Gina McCarthy?
with new graph:
28 Sept: UK Daily Mail: David Rose: Met Office proof that global warming is still ‘on pause’ as climate summit confirms global temperature has stopped rising
IPCC report confirms no significant rise in global temperature since 1997
IPCC accused of sinking to ‘hilarious level of incoherence’
But the IPCC insists 2016-2035 will be 0.3-0.7C hotter than 1986-2005
The global warming ‘pause’ has now lasted for almost 17 years and shows no sign of ending – despite the unexplained failure of climate scientists’ computer models to predict it.
The Mail on Sunday has also learnt that because 2013 has been relatively cool, it is very likely that by the end of this year, world average temperatures will have crashed below the ‘90 per cent probability’ range projected by the models…
***The graph above covers the period June 1997 to July 2013. It was drawn using the official Met Office ‘HadCRUT4’ monthly data for world average temperatures, and shows the lack of a warming trend…
A footnote in the new report also confirms there has been no statistically significant increase since 1997.
Last night independent climate scientist Nic Lewis – an accredited IPCC reviewer and co-author of peer-reviewed papers – pointed out that taking start years of 2001, 2002 or 2003 would suggest a cooling trend of 0.02-0.05C per decade, though this would not be statistically significant…
Piers Forster, Leeds University’s Professor of Physical Climate Change, told The Mail on Sunday: ‘If it does get beyond 20 years, that would get very interesting.
‘We would have to revisit the models. As it goes on, it would get more and more peculiar.’
He added: ‘We are right on the edge of the probability distribution now. We have to accept that if we are going to come up with projections, they have to be correct.’…
However, not only does the report deny the importance of the pause, it makes a firm, short-term forecast that it is about to end – claiming that the period 2016-2035 will, on average, be 0.3-0.7C hotter than 1986-2005.
That, said Prof Judith Curry, head of climate science at the Georgia Institute of Technology, is a high-risk strategy: ‘The IPCC has thrown down the gauntlet.’
Should the pause continue, she said, ‘they are toast’.
She was critical about the report’s statement that confidence humans had caused most of the warming of the 20th Century had increased from 90 per cent in the last IPCC report in 2007 to 95 per cent.
‘How they can justify this is beyond me.’ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2436710/Met-office-proof-global-warming-pause-climate-summit-confirms-global-temperature-stopped-rising.html
Gary Dean says: September 27, 2013 at 4:59 am
My reaction is it’s all very depressing. By that I mean mankind’s inability to collectively face such important issues.
I agree Gary. It’s momumentally depressing that a bureaucratic catastrophising collective abuses its position to impose policies leading to servitude and primitivisation on wider humanity in the name of saving us from ourselves. It’s been tried before, it’s being tried now. The tragedy is that modern politicians have failed to learn from the lessons of history.
milodonharlani says:
September 28, 2013 at 6:42 pm
“The C3 plants & I thank you for the extra CO2 from the power to run your microwave, although if you’re in the UK, it might not have been generated by releasing more beneficial CO2.”
==============
Actually it was heated in the oven, and not in the U.K.
No plants (that didn’t need to be) were harmed to sustain my caloric intake.
Those that did, enabled this comment.
It’s proven that 95% of Climate Scientists give the other 5% a bad name.
u.k.(us) says:
September 28, 2013 at 7:43 pm
Those plants probably had it coming, & in any case they were harvested, milled & baked in a good cause, ie enabling you to produce more CO2.
The IPCC appears incapable of admitting that past reports were incorrect. Regardless of the fact that observations and analysis supports lukewarm AGW (around 1C for a doubling of atmospheric CO2) those pushing EAGW continue as if they are playing a game where the objective is at all costs to push their agenda, to win the game. The BCC for example compares the preparation and release of the IPCC AR-5 summary for policy makers to a boxing match and notes their side is going to fight harder to defeat the so called ‘skeptics’.
The IPCC and their supporters have no realistic estimate of the costs to fight the war on ‘climate change’ and the consequences of tripling and quadrupling energy costs. 2 trillion dollars has been spent on green scams. What is the result? How much more is required to be spent to fight the war on weather and natural climate change? $100 trillion? $800 trillion? How will we know when the war on ‘climate change’ has been won?
The fact that there has been no increase in planetary temperature for the last 17 years and the fact that has been almost no warming in the tropics supports the assertion that there is no EAGW problem to solve. The planet resists forcing changes (negative feedback) by increasing or decreasing low level cloud in the tropics rather than amplifies forcing changes (positive feedback). Lindzen and Choi’s two peer reviewed papers supports the assertion the planet resists forcing changes (negative feedback) as does the fact that there has been almost no warming in the last 30 years in tropics and the predicted tropical tropospheric warming – which would occur if there was increased water vapour in tropical troposphere which would in turn if there was no increase in low level clouds cause amplification – warming did not occur. What is missing is the water vapor amplification is predicted to occur immediately, not in 10 or 20 years.
The fact that there was almost no warming in tropics in the last 30 years is only possible if planetary cloud cover increased in the tropics to resist the CO2 forcing. The warming that did occur in the high Arctic and over the Greenland Ice sheet was not predicted (the high northern latitude warming that did occur is significantly greater than the CO2 forcing mechanism is capable of causing) and appears to be caused by a temporary reduction in low level clouds caused by solar magnetic cycle changes.
The developing countries have run out of deficit dollars to spend, yet they continue to have increasing lists of entitlements and new programs to spend on. The US accumulated deficit is the highest since the second world war 96.5% of GDP as compared to 46% during Nixon administration. The UK accumulated federal deficit is 91% of GDP. Economists in the past stated that the maximum accumulated debit a country could carry without dire consequences was 60% to 70% of GDP. The policies developed to fight the artificially created climate change crisis is connected to the lack of economic grow and high unemployment. Regardless of the enthusiasm of their supporters the developing countries do not have sufficient funds to fight a war on climate.
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. ….
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/25/yet-another-study-shows-lower-climate-sensitivity/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/17/temperature-models-vs-temperature-reality-in-the-lower-troposphere/
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/interview-hans-von-storch-on-problems-with-climate-change-models-a-906721.html
Roy Spencer: Ocean surface temperature is not warming in the tropics.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/TMI-SST-MEI-adj-vs-CMIP5-20N-20S-thru-2015.png
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/02/tropical-ssts-since-1998-latest-climate-models-warm-3x-too-fast/
There is no tropical tropospheric hot spot, Douglas and Christy paper.
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/DOUGLASPAPER.pdf
http://typhoon.atmos.colostate.edu/Includes/Documents/Publications/gray2012.pdf
The Physical Flaws of the Global Warming Theory and Deep Ocean Circulation Changes as the Primary Climate Driver
Those in attendance at the SFP meeting are not primarily politicians, but emissaries of the Environmental departments of their governments. As such, they are full-fledged alarmists. That is why the final SFP is more alarmist than the draft versions, and omits the embarrassing charts in the earlier drafts.
Philip Foster (Revd) says:
September 28, 2013 at 12:03 pm
“We are now down to CO2 at 0.04% @ur momisugly 1bar. We are near borderline extinction, such that life on earth will not survive the next big Ice Age as there will be no more CO2 left to sustain life.”
—
Possibly, if the likes of molten salt reactors are ever developed that are able reach extremely high temperatures necessary, mankind may be able to revert some of the carbonate rock back into CO2 and ensure man’s life on into the far future. If not, you are spot on in the long run.
Josh should make a Cartoon with the IPCC talking out of both sides of its mouth.
On one side, “We are more certain than ever, 95%!”, and out of the other “Our Models are less certain than Ever! Less than 95%”.
We all seem optimistic and rather wishful that the near future will give us global cooling to finally destroy the IPCC. The Irony is that a cooling planet is our nemesis and has the potential to create the environment for a economic collapse not seen since the 14th century and will with out a doubt eventually swing into a full blown ice age. To me it is obvious that we now need to use the most advanced power systems available to boost our economies to thwart this and this will soon come to be realized by the status quo. I think that Man is about to embark on a new age of progress that will allow the biosphere to no longer adhere to the whims of solar cycles. Maybe this is our purpose for being here, after all we are a product of nature and life on this planet has been constantly improving itself since it began on this planet.
the Australian papers believe http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/bondi-under-siege-as-swelling-ocean-seeps-into-suburbs-20130928-2ul6l.html in the IPCC report or fraud.
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/bondi-under-siege-as-swelling-ocean-seeps-into-suburbs-20130928-2ul6l.html
Bishop Hill had an interesting encounter on Radio Scotland yesterday (Saturday) with the director of FoE Scotland, one Richard Dixon, whose pinnacle of appalling debate, among too many others to quote, was to say to the BIshop: ” I have a PhD in Astrophysics which is better than your chemistry degree. ” This was included among the usual litany of “you are a holocaust denier, chaser of unicorns, flat- earther, sceptics are a tiny minority, ill-informed, the debate is over, the tobacco analogy, only a few scientists in the pay of the fossil fuel industry, discredited, BBC Scotland shouldn’t be putting the other side on the radio when the debate is over .”
The Bishop stoically tried to keep the level of debate civil and suggested a future debate with Dixon-
no reply forthcoming as yet.
Ihttp://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03bq64x
Link to post at 1hr.07mins in.-
Direct link also at Bishop Hill. http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2013/9/27/ar5-press-cuttings.html
Imagine all the people believing the climate of planet of Earth is not their fault?
bushbunny says:
September 27, 2013 at 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.
———————————————————————————————–
To bad bushbunny that they missed out on the decimal point in front of the 2. The media especially the ABC is getting outdated data and alarmist propaganda from the usual suspects here in Oz. Its pathetic !
“tango says:
September 29, 2013 at 12:05 am”
I had to laugh at that. But just two weeks or so ago the SMH published an article that was “puzzling” scientists, including Karoly, where they claim GLOBAL sea levels had fallen due to the big wet in Aus in 2010/2011. This ~3% of ~400ppm/v CO2 is remarkable stuff. What can’t it do? Is it the duct tape of gases?