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.
No sensitivity estimate means that policy makers are supposed to do nothing?
I kinda like that.
A comparison of past IPCC predictions against 22 years of weather data and the latest climate science find that the IPCC has consistently underplayed the intensity of global warming in each of its four major reports released since 1990.
http://wwwp.dailyclimate.org/tdc-newsroom/2012/12/ipcc-climate-predictions
If we stay anywhere near our current emissions path, we face catastrophic levels of warming.
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/09/17/1892241/hansen-climate-sensitivity-uninhabitable/
Climate sensitivity, sea level and atmospheric carbon dioxide
http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/371/2001/20120294.full
We are forcing a planetary state-shift from an environment that is very friendly to life to a much hotter, totally inhospitable one:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v486/n7401/full/nature11018.html
We can power the world and its future energy needs with existing clean energy technologies for the same amount of money we currently spend on fossil fuels (not including their damages):
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=a-path-to-sustainable-energy-by-203
James Hansen, “Why I Must Speak Out About Climate Change”
http://www.ted.com/talks/james_hansen_why_i_must_speak_out_about_climate_change.html
Exceeding planetary boundaries
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_boundaries
Carbon and methane trapped in ice, permafrost, and ground stores to cause a significant increase in global warming not accounted for in most predictions
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/11/121127094250.htm
Grey Oz,
Instead of parroting the nonsense you posted, try explaining in rational terms what you believe — and keep in mind that the planet is thoroughly deconstructing every alarmist claim.
Think for yourself for a change.
The likelihood of a bureaucratic department of a international socialist organisation producing a report on how it’s been wrong and why they aren’t needed anymore, with a summary worded by government climate change appointees instead of scientists. Was anyone really expecting anything else?
Grey Oz must be new around here,
No mention of the polar bears yet – maybe they’re all dying of obesity (apologies to More Seal and Groan, your contributions are far more worthy…). I’m sure I saw a pic of one, though, as a background to the BBC news at one point – must have been inadvertent, a slip, surely?
I also saw coverage of some people (I don’t *think* they were polar bears) trying to set fire to an iceberg, apparently – this is such an interesting and thought-provoking experiment it ought to be part of the national curriculum (UK). It would certainly help to silence the doubters… Hmm, Doubters, now there’s a possible alternative D-word.
To bed, I’m rambling.
Off the subject but on Al Gore regarding his current state:
Took a break from moving hay around cause its going to rain. Happend to turn on C-Span and catch some of the Senate stuff, they were on a break. So seems C-Span just had to have Al on to voice his opinion of Ted Cruz and the Republicans.
Al Gore has lost the rest of his mind. He looks like a re-issued death mask. He talks like an insane street preacher on meth. I dislike this man,, a lot, but he is in such a state we need to pray for him cause he has gone around the bend now.
Someone should be able to find the vid and post it. Real sad. Little he understand how the demon of History deals with those who lie as vile as Al has.
If anyone had any doubts that the Age Of Exploration (and as its corrollary, Scientific Progress) was over, anyone who is truly sentient now has those doubt erased. Welcome to the Post-Scientific Age.
Here is the correct link.
We can power the world and its future energy needs with existing clean energy technologies for the same amount of money we currently spend on fossil fuels (not including their damages):
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=a-path-to-sustainable-energy-by-2030
“Sustainability” will be the replacement religion for CACA when it is finally flushed.
At this rate the AR7 will be 109% confident that global warming is caused by humans.
Grey Oz on September 27, 2013 at 3:36 pm says:
“Here is the correct link.”
Oh, thank goodness you ironed that wrinkle out! Without that correction, you would have looked like a spineless mouthpiece for the alarmists.
Clearly, that’s not the case. Whew! 🙂
/sarc
@dbstealey: Why are studies, papers, data, and articles by some of the world’s top planetary scientists “nonsense” and why is listening to experts on a subject not acceptable? Just because you disagree with them? And I don’t know where you are getting your data from (perhaps you are not accounting for the increase in temperature in the oceans), but temperature readings all around the world confirm that each decade is hotter than the last, and planetary data only confirms that greenhouse gasses building up in the atmosphere are warming the planet and forcing us into a much hotter and inhospitable climate. The North Pole, the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, and glaciers all around the world are melting at an unprecedented rate (the North Pole is half the size it was 35 years ago, which alone should tell you something is wrong). The temperature has been increasing for some time, and dramatically since the 1970s, with all ten of the warmest years on record occurring in the last twelve years. Sea levels are rising at a rate that is double last century’s average, and the oceans are increasing in acidity — 30% since the start of the industrial revolution — from carbon absorption, jeopardizing the world’s coral reefs and the food chain. And as we’ve seen again in the last year, droughts, wildfires, heatwaves, hurricanes, and other weather are steadily growing in both intensity and duration, costing increasingly more lives and money every year.
@ur momisugly HGW xx/7: Maybe someone would actually want to read the Stanford study on how we can power the world and its future energy needs for the same amount we spend on fossil fuels without destroying our environment?
greyoz..dead parrot squawking..greenhouse effect,the cornerstone of the IPCC’S CONJECTURE IS FICTION..as it violates 2 nd L.O.T….a cold upper atmosphere cannot transfer heat to a lower warmer one…also c02 is not pollution,,there is no problem to solve or money to spend
billions spent…nothing to show and you squawk about “doing something”
yet ,real people ,crying out for help with food/shelter/homes..
are bypassed and the money handed out for more research…more whatever
mindless ignorant..are you able to think for yourself?
Oh, All, sorry to talk about you to your face did not know you used the handle OZ as well as your old nick OOZE, sorry if it hurt your feelers.
Welcome to Watts Up With That fact based blog.
How the windmill investments going?
Not aware of Ooze and no windmill investments, but my Tesla stock is going through the roof.
Grey Oz:
There is so much wrong with your post at September 27, 2013 at 3:59 pm it would require writing a book to correct it all. So, in hope of getting you to think about the rubbish you are copying, I write to ask you gto explain the first assertion in your diatribe.
You say
OK.
What magnitude is this “increase in temperature in the oceans”?
How was it measured and with what accuracy and precision?
Where in the oceans is this “increase in temperature”?
Which “top planetary scientists” did the measurements?
Where did these “top planetary scientists” publish there measurement results?
In other words, “I don’t know where you are getting your data from”. Do you?
Richard
It is like the fight is over, the score card is on the net and the sports reporters are talking about how it was a knock out.
In comes Al Gores corner assistant and he starts wacking on the fight winner as the winner is doing TV interviews.
Grey Oz, your a bit off on your timeing guy.
Grey Oz notwithstanding your Tesla stock is doing good with the use of my redistributed tax money my family made off the wheat crop that the CO2 did so good feeding.
Sure Richard, you can read the Hansen paper “Climate Sensitivity, Sea Level and Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide” published by the Royal Society, the Mathematical, Physical Sciences, and Engineering Journal, on the link at my post @ur momisugly 3:10 the link, look at the “Approaching a State Shift in Earth’s Biosphere” study published by Nature, the International Weekly Journal of Science, in the same post, or view James Hansen’s talk, “Why I Must Speak Out About Climate Change,” at the Technology, Entertainment, and Design conference.
@GreyOz, You are simply mouthing the standard-issue Alarmist nonsense, all of which has been debunked countless times. Stick around, and you might actually learn something (though I doubt it, as your type generally don’t want to learn).
FYI, fossil fuels are the reason we have the standard of living we have today, and we’re going to continue to need them for a long time. Switching to “green” or “sustainable” or whatever the nom-de-jeur is for high-priced, unreliable energy is an insane idea put forth by those who understand nothing about economics.
======================================================================
Who says they are “the world’s top planetary scientists”? They do.
If they are “the world’s top planetary scientists” then why isn’t the planet doing what it said would?
OH! No need to answer. We know. They were wrong. Most people call what they failed to model “Nature”.
(PS Do you think Man is a part of “Nature”? If not then why do you think that what Man does is Supernatural?)
Al Gore the ooze ( slow leak) under pressure has become much more than the drip he was prior.
IPCC did not agree on a value for climate sensitivity!
Are they 97% confident there can be no agreement?