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.
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?
Just wondering if my earlier comment at 8:39 is still under moderation due to the 3 Bloomberg links? For future reference…
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.
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.
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.
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
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
Hot under the collar:
Your post at September 27, 2013 at 8:47 am says
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
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?
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.”…
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”
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.
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.
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.
The IPCC is always right until proven wrong. That is how thier climate science works, get with the program people.
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.
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 🙁
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
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
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
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!!!
I wonder if Dr. Curry intended the pun on anti-climactically.
This headline really freaked me, until I worked it out;
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/27/taser-victim-police-ipcc-justified
Richard North’s take:
http://www.eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=84359
Science has nothing to do with it.
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.
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”?
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.
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:
We didn’t cause this, did we?