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 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.
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.
I’ve been reading all day and I haven’t seen one single mention of the little baby polar bears.
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
.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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!
[snip – don’t repost complete articles here – copyright violation, use excerpt and link – mod]
@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.
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.
[snip – stupid, hateful comment – policy violation – mod]
“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.
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.
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?
Time to end the climate of fear
http://www.torontosun.com/2013/09/26/time-to-end-the-climate-of-fear
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).