NOTE: Please see the 2 updates at the end of the post.
# # #
The IPCC released their “approved” Summary for Policymakers for their 5th Assessment Report early this morning (eastern U.S. time), still in draft form. As far as I can tell, there are two paragraphs that discuss the recent global temperature plateau.
Note: I haven’t yet crosschecked between the draft and the approved versions to see if they’ve made any significant changes, so the following may be old hat.
From page 3:
In addition to robust multi-decadal warming, global mean surface temperature exhibits substantial decadal and interannual variability (see Figure SPM.1). Due to natural variability, trends based on short records are very sensitive to the beginning and end dates and do not in general reflect long-term climate trends. As one example, the rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998–2012; 0.05 [–0.05 to +0.15] °C per decade), which begins with a strong El Niño, is smaller than the rate calculated since 1951 (1951–2012; 0.12 [0.08 to 0.14] °C per decade).
And from page 12:
The observed reduction in surface warming trend over the period 1998–2012 as compared to the period 1951–2012, is due in roughly equal measure to a reduced trend in radiative forcing and a cooling contribution from internal variability, which includes a possible redistribution of heat within the ocean (medium confidence). The reduced trend in radiative forcing is primarily due to volcanic eruptions and the timing of the downward phase of the 11-year solar cycle. However, there is low confidence in quantifying the role of changes in radiative forcing in causing the reduced warming trend. There is medium confidence that internal decadal variability causes to a substantial degree the difference between observations and the simulations; the latter are not expected to reproduce the timing of internal variability. There may also be a contribution from forcing inadequacies and, in some models, an overestimate of the response to increasing greenhouse gas and other anthropogenic forcing (dominated by the effects of aerosols). {9.4, Box 9.2, 10.3, Box 10.2, 11.3}
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.
Judith Curry wrote in her recent blog post Can science fix climate change?:
JC message to IPCC: Once you sort out the uncertainty in climate sensitivity estimates and fix your climate models, let us know. Then please do the hard work of understanding regional vulnerability to climate variability and change before you tell us what constitutes ’dangerous’ climate change. And let us know if you come up with any solutions to this ‘problem’ that aren’t worse than the potential problem itself.
And as I concluded my new book Climate Models Fail:
The primary obstacles for the climate science community in the years and decades to come are: (1) the expectations of government funding agencies, which are obviously tied to political agendas; and (2) the anchoring effect of the fanatical beliefs of those members whose careers and funding skyrocketed as a result of their drum beating for the IPCC.
The people of the world rely on the findings of the climate science community, and in order for climate science to move forward, that community will have to be honest within itself and with the public. Hopefully, that will occur in my lifetime, but I’m not holding my breath.
It appears the climate science community, under the direction of the IPCC, is still not interested in being honest within itself or with the public. What a shame!
# # #
Also see my brand new video Climate Models Used by the IPCC Are…</a
# # #
Update 1: The IPCC press release for the AR5 Summary for Policymakers is titled Human influence on climate clear, IPCC report says. (Why didn’t they just copy and paste the AR4 SPM onto AR5 letterhead and save the world 10s of billions of dollars?)
UPDATE 2: I just created a Side-By-Side Comparison of Draft and Final IPCC AR5 SPM on Warming Plateau and Attribution from the final draft (7Jun2013) and the approved final version (27Sep2013) of the IPCC’s AR5 Summary for Policymakers. Looks like the politicians deleted the attribution discussion for the warming plateau.
The way the mainstream models solar forcing catastrophically fails simple diagnostics, so it’s not at all clear how they arrived at the notion that it’s the right way to model solar forcing — probably they just made assumptions and never bothered to run diagnostics on real observations. Also, it can be geometrically proven that their “internal” variations narrative is total BS. The resistance to this geometric proof is taking the insanity of the solar/climate discussion to whole new levels of backwards evolution, possibly ensuring that we’ll soon reach the level of monkeys.
Herkimer, good spot.
You inspired me to try and put this on Guardian website but I doubt they’ll allow it through:
—
“Global surface temperature change for the end of the 21st century is projected to be likely to exceed 1.5C relative to 1850 to 1900 in all but the lowest scenario considered, and likely to exceed 2C for the two high scenarios.”
Note the change in starting point: 1850-1900 – not from now.
This is important as the world has been warming quite well before the industrialisation of the latter part of the twentieth century. In fact we have had 0.7°C already.
So the IPCC now says a further 0.8°C by the end of the century – about the same as last century at about the same rate – except in the most extreme scenarios.
And as the models all overestimate the warming the higher range scenarios are most improbable.
The IPCC is coming down to the sceptical position; it’s nice to be proven right.
Now let’s deal with the real problems in the world; poverty, fragility of infrastructure, poor medicine and sanitation – the things that cheap energy can help with.
News flash! I’ve managed to locate some exclusive footage taken during an interview of a prospective IPCC staffer:
ANTHONY HOLMES (September 27, 2013 at 3:37 am) wrote:
“Just imagine the new size of ‘troughs’ that will have to be ordered to hold the monumental amounts of taxpayers cash all governments are now going to have to spend counteracting dangerous global warming . Get your snouts in guys – if you cant beat em join em !! ( sarc off )”
Anthony intended this sarcastically, but some recent egregiously dark narrative developments within the “skeptic community” have convinced me that without a major internal shake-up, it’s an absolute guarantee that the skeptical “side” of the “debate” will lose no matter what the climate does moving forward. For the first time since I’ve been involved with the solar/climate discussion, I’m considering switching “sides” for strictly practical reasons.
Friends:
Most attention is likely to be focused on IPCC AR5 statements about the “hiatus”.
Some may notice the fall-back from the previous assertion of 2°C maximum permissible global warming to now being 2.5°C and the new obfuscation of the start date of that warming.
But, in my opinion, by far the most egregious IPCC AR5 statement is the change to 30-year periods for climate assessment. This is Orwellian historical revision which hides the decline in model credibility, evades the issue of the “hiatus”, and – very, very importantly – it hides the demonstrable fact IPCC understanding of climate change in its previous (i.e. AR4) Report is plain wrong.
The adoption of the 30-year period is a severe change by the IPCC; for example, in 1994 the IPCC used 4-year periods to compare changes in hurricane frequency.
Very importantly, the AR4 made a 20-year prediction (n.b. PREDICTION and not a projection) based on its understanding of existing heat in the climate system. This prediction was that global temperature would rise at an average rate of “0.2°C per decade” over the first two decades of this century with half of this rise being due to atmospheric GHG emissions which were already in the system.
This goes to the heart of the IPCC understandings of climate, the “hiatus”, and the performance of the models because NONE of that “committed warming” has happened although it was stated as being confidently predicted for the 20-year period from 2000 to 2020.
By adopting the 30-year period for climate assessment the IPCC is saying its understandings as stated in its previous Report (AR4) are plain wrong. And if those errors of understanding are not explicitly corrected in the AR5 then there is reason to accept that the IPCC’s understanding of climate are still plain wrong.
The pertinent passage in the AR4 is in IPCC AR4 (2007) Chapter 10.7 which can be read at
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch10s10-7.html
It says there
Richard
M.COURTNEY
Here is the mean hadcrut 3gl global temperature 1850-1900
http://www.woodfortrees.org/data/hadcrut3gl/from:1850/to:1900/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1850/to:1900/trend
The mean temperature was -0.338C for this period . Today the last hadcrut 3gl for 2013 accumalative is 0,406C
So we have risen 0.744 C since the 1850-1900 period leavIng 0.756 C to go to 2100. Like you say identical to our past 100 year trend . They are not forecasting unprecedented warming at all
The IPCC is a bunch of clowns, but every circus needs clowns.
MCOURTNEY
IPCC used the terms temperature rise by 2100 is “to exceed 1.5C” and “exceed 2 C” relative to 1859-1900 base. This means that the temperatures are predicted to exceed 1.5-0.744=.756 C or exceed 2-.0.744= 1.256C during the remaining part of this century . This is a far cry from the 3-6 C rise that they used to predict. These forecasts do not seem to reflect any typical past 30 year pauses of which there were two since 1850 . So even this latest prediction is very likely high as we are already heading into the first pasue that could last 30 years and another before 2100 is also possible in my opinion
The Award for the Best Comical Portrayal of the Global Temperature Plateau goes to…
Steve Mosher! (applause) quote:
“if you read here long enough you will hear people say.. Its the sun! C02 isnt everything!
well, there is some truth in that.
The temperature we see is the result of MANY forcings. c02 represents less than 50% of all forcings.
You will also hear people say what about the negative forcings?
they are important too.
You will hear people say ..what about sunshine!.. well yes, things that block sunshine are important.
Since 1998 the authors sum up the pluses and the minuses.
1. Sun: suns gone quiet. We all agree the sun matters. So do the scientists! and they put a number on it.
2. Air pollution! yes, particles that block the sun are important! so they look at sulfur.
3. Natural variability! yes, they look at that too.
When it’s all said and done, the net forcing over this short term has been negative.
C02 isnt everything. over the short term, the short termed additional positve forcing from C02
(.13w) can be Offset by all those other factors that people have pointed at.
It didnt warm because C02 is NOT the only forcing. In fact its less than 50% of all forcings.
It can be overwhelmed in the short term by other forcings.. like a quiet sun, or like more sulfur in the air. Those observations confirm the theory. they confirm the theory because the theory says the final temp is a function of ALL the forcings.”
July 2011
🙂
International Promulgators of Climate Crap.
The ocean covers 3/4 of the earths surface but the models are all wrong because they didn’t consider that the ocean covers 3/4 of the earth’s surface and might just influence temperatures a wee bit?
Bawahahahahahahahaa! REALLY!
sounds like what we call an ID10T error in software development.
So they think the Sun does make a contribution to Global Cooling but not Global Warming? Who knows WTF hey do mean?
When you are reporting findings with degrees of confidence, you aren’t reporting findings. You’re reporting possible explanations from a particular point of view. More like interpreting polling results for an organization promoting a viewpoint than empiricism. No – exactly like when you consider the data isn’t unadulterated to start with – the data itself is an opinion.
Once again, the IPCC comes out with a load of baloney, and once again, the media sycophants (e.g. BBC) are out in force to try to bolster a completely unsustainable set of conclusions. IPCC needs not only to be defunded by the United States government, it needs to be abolished by the UN. But power seeks its own levels of incompetence.
philjourdan says:
September 27, 2013 at 4:29 am
“@DirkH – the ads are targeted by individual so each person sees something different. He may see books. I see airlines.”
🙂 Gotcha!
I couldnt stop laughing reading this. They did worse then I thought they would, trying to make the data fit their agenda. The charade is dying slowly before our eyes. In the last report they outright listed all factors except co2 a having low consensus and understanding. Yet they listed the values for these in the quoted text. Also listed the claimed values for co2. Except the “inconvenient truth” is that we would still be warming if the natural shifts were as weak as they claim and co2 is as strong as claimed at driving temps. The theory now relies on the general publics inability to do basic math and the fact so many view “science” as infallible?
They are digging their own grave and making the fact there is indeed agenda here clearer all the time. A bit of honesty, while explaining they still expect for the missing heat to show up somewhere (LOL) might have left them more of the cliff to stand on.
Apparently the theory now relies 100% on people not looking at the data, or even basic claims. Only look at scary news headlines!!! and cagw slips further toward being a actual religion.
BE AFRAID AND REMEMBER DO NOT EAT THE FRUIT OF THE TREE OF KNOWLEDGE!!!
“Prediction is very difficult, especially if it’s about the future.”
Niels Bohr
=========
Sorry, couldn’t resist.
Evan as a an 8th grader, I knew that the temps above the school parking lot were much higher than the temps above the football field.
If we keep taking data from areas where there is more concrete/asphalt/and buildings, we are always going to see higher temps.
Also, there is a lot of SPIN in those words. Perhaps that’s where this years’ hurricane season went. it was consumed by this document.
Doug Keenan has drawn attention the following sentence in the IPCC’s AR5 summary:
“The globally averaged combined land and ocean surface temperature data as calculated by a linear trend, show a warming of 0.85 [0.65 to 1.06] °C, over the period 1880–2012, when multiple independently produced datasets exist. The total increase between the average of the 1850–1900 period and the 2003–2012 period is 0.78 [0.72 to 0.85] °C, based on the single longest dataset available.”
Bob Tisdale has pointed us to another paragraph:
“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”.
If both these statements are correct there are several possible logical conclusions but one that stands out is that whereas the observed warming between 1951 and 2010 was 0.60 to 0.70 the total average global warming over the period 1880-2012 was only 0.850. So between 1880 and 1950 the global mean surface temperature only rose by between 0.150 and 0.250.
But how can this be? Billions for Calamatological liars, a few million for sceptical climate scientists and zero for climate bloggers. Maybe truth is not expensive but propaganda is.
“Why didn’t they just copy and paste the AR4 SPM onto AR5 letterhead and save the world 10s of billions of dollars?”
Perhaps collecting those billions of dollars is the whole point.
Thank you and thank you for the reminder about your book.
I just ordered it.
Just a usage note: cog dis is not an act, or an error. It is the discomfort and mental disruption caused by making observations that contradict strong opinions. It is not something you can commit, or be “guilty” of, any more than you can be guilty of a stomach-ache.
I see no ads as I use AdBlock, but I understand they are personalized, reflecting prior purchase patterns. Others probably don’t share those particular ones. ;P
(:{}
herkimer says:
September 27, 2013 at 4:25 am
They have moved the goal posts again . Now they are stating that the global surface temperatures are going to increase by 1.5 C relative to 1850 to 1900 not relative to 1990 as they used to state. Since temperatures have already gone up by about 0.7 C , is their new projection from now to 2100 only o.8C?
Bullseye!