Scientific Critique of IPCC’s 2013 ‘Summary for Policymakers’

(PDF of this report also available below)

by Craig D. Idso, Robert M. Carter, S. Fred Singer, and Willie Soon*

Introduction

The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released a final version of the Summary for Policymakers (SPM) of its Fifth Assessment Report on September 27, 2013. It differs in important ways from a draft SPM dated June 2013 that circulated widely in the preceding months.

As discussed below, the new SPM reveals the IPCC has retreated from at least 11 alarmist claims promulgated in its previous reports or by scientists prominently associated with the IPCC. The SPM also contains at least 13 misleading or untrue statements, and 11 further statements that are phrased in such a way that they mislead readers or misrepresent important aspects of the science.

Two weeks before the IPCC released its report, an alternative perspective was presented by a different group of scientists, the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) (Idso et al., 2013). Unlike the IPCC, NIPCC’s charter is to investigate the causes and consequences of climate change “in the round,” or from all perspectives, rather than to search only for evidence of a human impact on climate. The NIPCC report, titled Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science contradicts many of the IPCC’s findings.

The IPCC has retreated from at least 11 alarmist claims promulgated in its previous reports or by scientists prominently associated with the IPCC. The SPM also contains at least 13 misleading or untrue statements, and 11 further statements that are phrased in such a way that they mislead readers or misrepresent important aspects of the science.

In the discussion that follows, IPCC quotations are identified by their page number in the SPM using the same numbering method (e.g., SPM-3) used in the SPM itself. Chapters in the NIPCC report providing evidence contrary to the IPCC’s claims are referenced as “NIPCC, Chapter X.” The NIPCC report and its Summary for Policymakers are available online at www.climatechangereconsidered.org.

=================================
* Drs. Craig Idso, Robert Carter, S. Fred Singer, and Willie Soon are scientists and lead authors or chapter lead authors of Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science, a comprehensive review of the peer- reviewed literature on climate change released in September 2013 by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC). Their biographies appear on pages 16-17.

© 2013 NIPCC. Nothing in this report should be construed as supporting or opposing any proposed or pending legislation, or as necessarily reflecting the views of NIPCC or its sponsors.

1. IPCC Retreats

Eleven statements made in the 2013 SPM apparently retreat from more alarmist positions struck in earlier Assessment Reports or in related research literature. These repositionings are to be welcomed when they move the IPCC’s commentary closer to scientific reality.

1. “The rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998-2012; 0.05 deg. C/decade) is smaller than the trend since 1951 (1951-2012; 0.12 deg. C/decade)” (SPM-3).

The IPCC concedes for the first time that a 15 year-long period of insignificant warming has occurred since 1998 despite a 7% rise in carbon dioxide.

The IPCC concedes for the first time that a 15 year-long period of no significant warming occurred since 1998 despite a 7% rise in carbon dioxide (CO2). It also acknowledges that on a longer (more climatic) time scale the rate of global warming has decelerated since 1951, despite an accompanying 80 ppm or 26% increase in carbon dioxide (312 to 392 ppm).

The statement represents a significant revision in IPCC thinking, because their concern about dangerous warming rests upon the assumption that temperature increases will proceed in parallel fashion with CO2 increases, and not just sometimes or in a stepped fashion. NIPCC, in contrast, has documented that temperatures in the geologic time scale, the twentieth century, and the early twenty-first centuries have not changed in parallel with CO2 levels (NIPCC, Chapter 4).

2. “Continental-scale surface temperature reconstructions show, with high confidence, multi-decadal intervals during the Medieval Climate Anomaly (950-1250) that were in some regions as warm as in the late 20th century” (SPM-4).

IPCC-related scientists have previously argued that the magnitude of the late twentieth century global warming exceeded that of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP). The notorious “hockey stick” featured in the IPCC’s Third Assessment Report, and still visible in the Fourth Assessment Report, appeared to erase the MWP from the historical temperature record by showing little temperature change for thousands of years followed by a sharp rise in the twentieth century.

From an independent survey of paleoclimatic data records, NIPCC found the MWP to have been of near-global extent, and that the magnitude of warming was often similar to or exceeded that observed for the twentieth century from thermometer data (NIPCC, Chapter 4).

3. “It is very likely that the annual mean Antarctic sea ice extent increased … (by) 1.2-1.8% per decade between 1979 and 2012” (SPM-6).

IPCC-related scientists have repeatedly argued that greenhouse gas forcing would cause surface warming and ice melting in both north and south polar regions. There is no a priori reason to suggest that increasing atmospheric CO2 would cause Antarctic sea ice extent to increase, and in fact, this circumstance contradicts the IPCC’s climate model projections. It is a welcome advance that the IPCC now acknowledges the facts relevant to this matter (NIPCC, Chapter 5).

4. The June draft of the SPM contained the statement that “Models do not generally reproduce the observed reduction in surface warming trend over the last 10-15 years” (Section D-1, Draft SPM-10).

Though this statement was removed from the final, published version of the SPM, it remains patently true, as does the fact that IPCC’s climate models have failed to project the lack of warming over the last 15 (now 17) years.

The termination of the late-twentieth century warming phase has two alternative explanations, both of which are referred to on page SPM-10. These are that the now prolonged period of temperature stasis reflects a statistical fluctuation; or, alternatively, that the cessation of warming has been caused by the accumulation of heat in the deep ocean. The IPCC clearly remains ambivalent about which, if either, of these two explanations is correct, and fails to explain how heat can be transferred to the deep ocean without first passing through the shallow ocean, which has not warmed since at least 2003 (Pielke, 2008).

The IPCC fails to explain how heat can be transferred to the deep ocean without first passing through the shallow ocean, which has not warmed since at least 2003.

These confusions aside, IPCC-related scientists have hitherto argued consistently that their computer models provide realistic estimates of future temperature with a reliability that is adequate for use in policy formulation. This is clearly not the case (NIPCC, Chapter 1).

5. “There are … differences between simulated and observed trends over periods as short as 10 to 15 years (e.g., 1998 to 2012)” (SPM-10); “there remains low confidence in the representation and quantification of [cloud and aerosol) processes in models” (SPM-11); and “most models simulate a small downward trend in Antarctic sea ice extent, albeit with larger inter-model spread, in contrast to the small upward trend in observations” (SPM-11).

These statements, which appear in the published version of the SPM, indirectly point to the same conclusion reached under 4 above, i.e., that the IPCC’s models are inadequate to simulate many aspects of the climate system, not just temperature. The IPCC relies heavily on modeling to lend theoretical support to its hypothesis of dangerous CO2-forced warming. The statements listed above represent a significant reduction in confidence of IPCC model projections.

In contrast, NIPCC scientists have consistently been critical of the presumption that climate models are adequate for use in serious forecasting exercises, while at the same time recognizing their undoubted heuristic value.

6. “The reduced trend in radiative forcing (between 1998 and 2012) is primarily due to volcanic eruptions and the timing of the downward phase of the 11-year solar cycle” (SPM-10).

This statement marks the first time the IPCC has acknowledged that solar factors may play a determinative role in short-term climate variability.

This is a critically important concession to the views of the many independent scientists who have concluded that solar effects play a bigger role in controlling climate than does CO2 (NIPCC, Chapter 3).

7. “Equilibrium climate sensitivity** is likely in the range 1.5 deg. C to 4.5 deg. C …” (SPM-11) and “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” (SPM-11, fn 16).

The IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report allocated a range of 2.0 deg. C to 4.5 deg. C for ECS. By now reducing the ECS lower limit to 1.5 deg. C, the IPCC has conceded that less certainty exists than in 2007. Indeed, the climate sensitivity of atmospheric CO2 is now as uncertain as it was in 1979 when a National Academy of Sciences report first established the same range of 1.5 to 4.5 deg. C (Charney et al., 1979). In other words, no refinement has been made in 34 years in determining how much warming is likely to result from a doubling of atmospheric CO2.

In other words, no refinement has been made in 34 years in determining how much warming is likely to result from a doubling of atmospheric CO2.

The decision not to designate a “best estimate” for ECS is unique in IPCC’s history, and a further indication of growing uncertainty. It probably reflects the publication of a number of recent papers (e.g., Aldrin et al., 2012; Ring et al., 2012; Lewis, 2013) in which sensitivity has been estimated from observations to be between 1.2 and 2.0 deg. C, a range that extends below IPCC’s newest estimates.

8. “The transient climate response*** is likely in the range of 1.0 deg. C to 2.5 deg. C … and extremely unlikely greater than 3 deg. C” (SPM-12).

By reducing the bottom of the range of TCR to 1.0 deg. C, the IPCC’s estimate of human-caused warming for the rest of the twenty-first century now overlaps with those many independent scientists who put the response in the range of 0.3 to 1.2 deg. C. (NIPCC, Chapter 1, Section 1.1.5). In setting the top of the range at 3.0 deg. C, the IPCC’s estimate now falls within the range of natural climate variation over the last 6 million years. Because it falls within the warm natural temperature limit that planet Earth has attained recently, any such change (should it actually happen) is unlikely to be “dangerous” (NIPCC, Chapter 1).

==========================
** Equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) is the amount of warming expected to result from a doubling of atmospheric CO2 as the climate system tends towards equilibrium (>1,000 years).
*** Transient climate response (TCR) is the amount of warming expected to result from a doubling of atmospheric CO2 after 70 years, given a rate of CO2 increase of 1% per year.

9. “It is very unlikely the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation will undergo an abrupt transition or collapse in the 21st century for the scenarios considered” (SPM-17).

The IPCC also indicated in its 2007 report that it was unlikely that the AMOC would collapse because of fresh water input to the ocean from melting ice. However, this did not prevent IPCC-related scientists and environmental lobbyists from arguing in the interim that increasing greenhouse gases might cause major and deleterious changes in ocean circulation. The reiteration of IPCC’s view of low risk, and its agreement in that regard with NIPCC (NIPCC, Chapter 9), is therefore both welcome and important.

10. “Global mean sea level rise for 2081-2100 will likely be in the ranges of 0.26 to 0.55 m for RCP2.6, 0.32 to 0.63 m for RCP4.5, 0.33 to 0.63 m for RCP6.0 and 0.45-0.82 m for RCP8.5” (SPM-18).

The lowest estimate of a 26 cm rise by 2100 is significantly above the 18 cm rise suggested by many independent scientists (based upon an extrapolation of the last century rate of increase as measured by tide gauges). However, the highest estimate of 82 cm by 2100 falls well below the 1.4 m promulgated by IPCC-related scientists like Rahmstorf (2007) and others.

By admitting it has “low confidence” in predictions of more frequent or more extreme droughts and tropical cyclones, IPCC is specifically revoking its previous more alarmist claims.

Overall, these sea-level projections are still high when compared to currently observed trends and the best estimates reported by NIPCC (NIPCC, Chapter 6); at the same time, they are lower than the alarmist forecasts often cited by reporters and environmental advocacy groups.

11. “Low confidence” that damaging increases will occur in either drought or tropical cyclone activity (SPM-23, Table SPM.1).

Many papers by IPCC-related scientists, and also previous Assessment Reports, argued that carbon dioxide forcing would result in dangerous increases in the magnitude or frequency of extreme climatic events including cyclones and droughts. By admitting it has “low confidence” in predictions of more frequent or more extreme droughts and tropical cyclones, IPCC is specifically revoking its previous more alarmist claims.

NIPCC presents extensive evidence that extreme weather events have not become more frequent or intense in the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries, and also summarizes the theoretical reasons as to why dangerous weather events should actually be less frequent or intense in a modestly warmer world (NIPCC, Chapter 7).

2. Misleading or Untrue Statements

The following 13 statements by the IPCC are written in such a way that although they may be technically true, or nearly true, they are misleading of the actual state of affairs.

1. “Probabilistic estimates of quantified measures of uncertainty in a finding are based on statistical analysis of observations or model results, or both, and expert judgment” (SPM-2).

The IPCC’s use of numeric percentage confidence limits has been widely criticized, as outlined further below. Regarding the “statistical analysis of … model results” we make the following comments.

Weather forecasting methods make successful use of probabilistic ensemble averaging to provide a numerical range of uncertainties for individual forecasts. IPCC’s climate models, however, are not run in this mode, and their ensemble averages are based upon a statistically inadequate and inconsistent number of runs, generally less than five. As discussed by Singer (2013), the chaoticity of modeling can only be overcome by using a large number of runs.

It is obvious also that different climate models in CMIP5 use different parameterizations and adopted forcings in calculating both the present and future climate. No meaningful statistical probability can be derived by averaging such an inhomogeneous set of model outputs, not only in a statistical sampling sense but also from the structural and methodological point of view.

2. “Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s many of the observed changes are unprecedented” (SPM-3).

This statement is doubly untrue.

The post-1950 warming shown by the Hadley record is of about the same magnitude and rate as the known natural warming between 1910 and 1940, and is therefore not unprecedented.

Though the IPCC’s favored temperature record (HadCRUT) depicts a rise of 0.4 deg. C since 1950, other temperature records show little or no warming at all in the second half of the twentieth century. These records include the US GISS land surface record, Hadley NMAT SST, sea surface temperature, Hadley radiosonde, satellite MSU and land surface temperature proxies (NIPCC SPM, Figure 4, and NIPCC, Chapter 4).

It is likely that the HadCRUT temperature record underestimates the impact of urban heat islands on surface temperature records, so no other human component (or specifically, greenhouse gas emissions) can be isolated as a cause of this warming. The post-1950 warming shown by the Hadley record is of about the same magnitude and rate as the known natural warming between 1910 and 1940, and is therefore not unprecedented.

3. “It is virtually certain that the upper ocean (0-700m) has warmed from 1971-2010” (SPM-4) and “It is very likely that anthropogenic forcings have made a substantial contribution to global upper ocean heat content (above 700m) observed since the 1970s” (SPM-13).

Published estimates of ocean temperature or ocean heat through the twentieth century are based upon biased data, two major reasons being inadequate geographic coverage and instrumental inaccuracy. The claimed average ocean temperature rise of 0.15 deg. C is therefore actually below our ability to measure over that period.

Accurate measures of ocean heat have only been available since the deployment of the Argo buoy network in 2003. For the 10 years 2003-2012, the Argo-measured upper ocean heat curve shows no statistically significant trend, remaining flat despite a 5% rise in atmospheric CO2.

Importantly, the uptake of ocean heat assumed by the IPCC is model driven, not measured. Real measurement would require that changes in ocean surface radiation, sensible heat and latent energy exchanges all be known with a high degree of precision, which is not the case with current instrumentation (NIPCC, Chapter 6).

4. “Emissions of carbon monoxide are virtually certain to have induced a positive radiative forcing” (SPM-9).

Carbon monoxide is a highly reactive gas without significant radiative trapping properties. It has fast chemical interactions with the hydroxyl radical which also oxidizes methane within about two months of its appearance in the atmosphere. It is therefore responsible for only a negligible amount of direct and sustainable heat forcing.

Claiming a significant radiative forcing for carbon monoxide on the global climate system is contradicted by comments made by IPCC authors themselves: “Emissions of highly reactive, non-greenhouse species (i.e., SO2, NH3, NOx, CO, NMVOC) control much of the atmospheric chemistry, viz., tropospheric O3, aerosols, global air quality, and indirectly the abundances of CH4 and HFCs. The emissions are difficult to quantify or project ...” (Chapter 11 of AR5 WG I Second Order Draft, emphasis added).

Claiming a significant radiative forcing for carbon monoxide on the global climate system is contradicted by comments made by IPCC authors themselves.

5. “Satellite observation of total solar radiation changes from 1978-2011 indicate that the last solar minimum was lower than the previous two. This results in a RF of -0.04 W/m2(SPM-9).

This particular outcome derives from a paper by Frohlich (2009) from the World Radiation Center, whereas two other surveys by ACRIM (Active Cavity Radiometer Irradiance Monitor) and RMIB (Royal Meteorological Institute of Belgium) that were based upon similar measurements but different data reduction techniques, do not find this decrease.

The NIPCC report devotes considerable attention to solar effects on climate and extensively summarizes the latest research available on the mechanisms that affect solar forcing of climate (NIPCC, Chapter 3).

6. “The reduced trend in radiative forcing (1998-2012) is primarily due to volcanic eruptions”

(SPM-10).

No volcanic eruptions with significant global impact occurred during the period 1998-2012.

7. “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” (SPM-11).

These two sentences are contradictory.

If the sign and amplitude of low cloud feedback are uncertain, then it is impossible to be sure that the net radiative feedback due to all clouds is positive.

If the sign and amplitude of low cloud feedback are uncertain, then it is impossible to be sure that the net radiative feedback due to all clouds is positive. This is especially so because of the very dominant effects of low clouds in controlling the near-surface energy imbalances between the ocean and atmosphere.

8. “Greenhouse gases contributed a global mean surface warming likely to be in the range of 0.5-1.3 deg. C over the period 1951-2010 with the contribution from other anthropogenic forcing, including the cooling effect of aerosols, likely to be in the range of -0.6 to +0.1 deg. C.

… Together these assessed contributions are consistent with the observed warming of approximately 0.6 to 0.7 deg. C over this period” (SPM-12).

The estimated range of 0.5-1.3 deg. C of warming from greenhouse gases well exceeds the 0.6 deg. C report by HadCRUT, presumably because too much forcing is being assumed in the models. The reduction in that warming by 0.6 deg .C is an arbitrary outcome based upon a subjective choice of estimates of aerosol counter-forcing. This approaches “tweaking” models in order to fit their output to a predetermined conclusion.

The effects of aerosols should be considered in both a temporal and spatial framework, which current generation models do not provide. Overall, the effects of aerosols are highly complex and uncertain, and IPCC only considers a few out of a total of more than 50 types of aerosols (NIPCC, Chapter 2).

9. “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. The best estimate of the human-induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period” (SPM-12) and “Human influence has been detected in warming of the atmosphere and the ocean, in changes in the global water cycle, in reductions in snow and ice, in global mean sea level rise, and in changes in some climate extremes. This evidence for human influence has grown since AR4. It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century” (SPM-12, boxed text).

There is fundamental confusion in the first two quoted sentences, which conflict with each other. Is the human influence “more than half” or does it comprise the total “observed warming”?

Second, these assertions are based upon Fig. SPM.6, which presents a comparison of empirical data and model projections for the named factors, and also for a global average. It is claimed that only if human greenhouse gas forcing is included do the computer projections match the

empirical data. The underlying assumption is that the models contain a perfect representation of the physics of the climate system and so can account accurately for all different forcings. This is a false assumption because our knowledge is much less than complete. For example, models fail to account for known and important natural forcings like solar magnetic activity, and individual models differ from each other in their choice of parametric values, particularly those related to cloud microphysics (CR-II, Chapter 1).

10. “For surface temperature, the blue shaded band is based on 52 simulations from 17 climate models using only natural forcing, while the red shaded band is based on 147 simulations from 44 climate models using natural and anthropogenic forcings. For ocean heat content, 10 simulations from 10 models, and 10 simulations from 13 models were used respectively. For sea ice extent, a subset of models are considered that simulate the mean and seasonal cycle of the sea ice extent within 20% of the observed sea-ice climatology for the period 1981-2005 (Arctic: 24 simulations from 11 models for both red and blue shaded bands, Antarctic: 21 simulations from 6 models for both red and blue shaded bands)” (Draft SPM, June 2013, Fig. SPM.6 caption).

The underlying assumption is that the models contain a perfect representation of the physics of the climate system and so can account accurately for all different forcings. This is a false assumption because our knowledge is much less than complete.

Though removed from the final SPM, this paragraph was provided in the June draft as an explanation of the procedures followed in preparing Figure SPM.6, which is retained in the published SPM.

The explanation does not describe a rigorous averaging process. Such a process requires the consideration of a homogeneous set of samples and an unbiased presentation of all model output simulations, not a comparison of selectively assembled model projections from which a desired outcome is then favored. In essence, rigorous averaging should not involve cherry picking (NIPCC, Chapter 1).

11. “Human influence on the climate system is clear. This is evident from the increasing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere, positive radiation forcing, observed warming, and understanding of the climate system (SPM-10).

This claim is a strong overstatement.

The increasing greenhouse gas concentrations will indeed produce prima facie warming, but depending upon the climate sensitivity of the gases involved (itself a highly disputed matter), and the nature and magnitude of various feedback loops, whether any human-related warming will be of measurable magnitude remains an open question. Furthermore, the comment about radiative forcing is redundant, because obviously that is what greenhouse gases do.

How much warming has occurred since the mid-20th century is also a strongly disputed matter in itself, depending upon the data set used and the corrections made or not for the urban heat island effect (NIPCC, Chapter 4, Section 4.2.2, and see also point 2 above).

12. “It is very likely that there is a substantial anthropogenic contribution to the global mean sea level rise since the 1970s. This is based on the high confidence in an anthropogenic influence on the two largest contributions to sea level rise, that is thermal expansion and glacier mass loss” (SPM-13).

Since sea level rise has been occurring since long before the human era, and at rates higher than those observed in human history, there is no observational basis for this claim.

No empirical evidence exists in support of this statement. The references to an anthropogenic influence on sea level via thermal expansion and ice loss are assertions or claims based only on unproven assumptions and outputs of climate models. Since sea level rise has been occurring since long before the human era, and at rates higher than those observed in human history, there is no observational basis for this claim (NIPCC, Chapter 6).

13. “For RCP8.5, the (sea level) rise by the year 2100 is 0.52 to 0.98 m, with a rate during 2081-2100 of 8 to 16 mm/yr” (SPM-18).

This is not a fact but a projection based on one highly unrealistic scenario.

The scenario chosen (RCP8.5) is the most extreme of four (i.e., has the strongest greenhouse gas forcing), and sets the total greenhouse gas forcing as 8.5 W/m2 or the equivalent of a 1313 ppm CO2 concentration by the year 2100. Very few scientists believe this to be a realistic scenario.

These extremely rapid rates of sea level rise do not apply under the other three scenarios considered in the Fifth Assessment Report.

3. Deceptive Language that Misrepresents the Science

The following 11 statements by the IPCC create an unjustifiable impression of either scientific certainty or false alarm, or appear to have been chosen to evade conclusions that run counter to the IPCC’s belief in dangerous human-caused warming.

1. “… the following terms have been used to indicate the assessed likelihood of an outcome or a result: virtually certain 99-100% probability, very likely 90-100%, likely 66-100%, about as likely as not 33-66%, unlikely 0-33%, very unlikely 0-10%, exceptionally unlikely 0-1%. Additional terms (extremely likely: 95-100%, more likely than not >50-100%, and extremely unlikely 0-5%) may also be used when appropriate” (SPM-2).

This terminology is unscientific. It has been used improperly to create a false impression of increasing statistical certainty through the most recent IPCC assessment reports.

Use of the listed terms is not based on rigorous statistical trials or numerical analysis, as normally used to derive statistically meaningful confidence intervals. Instead, IPCC’s quasi-numeric confidence statements represent considered “expert opinion,” reflecting a process not very different from a show of hands around a discussion table. The terminology confers an impression of scientific rectitude onto a process that is inescapably subjective and has been widely criticized as misleading (e.g., Interacademy Council, 2010, Chapter 3).

2. “Each of the last three decades has been successively warmer at the Earth’s surface than any preceding decade since 1850” (SPM-3).

The statement is trivially true but meaningless as an analysis of climate change. In context, this warming represents recovery from the Little Ice Age, and there is no evidence that it was forced by CO2. One might as well write of the Northern Hemisphere summer that “each of the three months April, May and June has been warmer than all preceding months since November, and July was the warmest”.

All climate records are non-stationary and contain rhythmic fluctuations on scales that include several years, multi-decades, centennial and millennial. No assessment can be made of the significance of a short term cooling or warming trend over a few decades except within the framework and understanding of all longer scales of rhythmicity.

3. “The globally averaged combined land and ocean surface temperature data as calculated by a linear trend, show a warming of 0.85 deg. C, over the period 1880-2012 …” (SPM-3).

The period 1880-2012 has no particular significance from the viewpoint of testing the hypothesis of dangerous global warming, for it was only during the second half of the twentieth century that human greenhouse emissions became voluminous enough to possibly exert a measurable effect on climate.

This is a cherry-picked interval in order to give the impression of a large amount of warming, and fails to clearly distinguish temperature trend from temperature level.

This is a cherry-picked interval in order to give the impression of a large amount of warming and fails to clearly distinguish temperature trend from temperature level.

4. “In the Northern Hemisphere, 1983-2012 was likely the warmest 30-year period of the last 1400 years” (SPM-3).

The subject under discussion is global climate, not Northern Hemisphere climate. If hemispheric climate change is to be discussed, then it should also have been noted that satellite measurements reveal that little or no warming has occurred in the Southern Hemisphere since 1979; and also that in the US temperature record the conspicuous warming and heat waves of the 1930s exceeded the warmth of the late twentieth century.

In any case, the same objections apply to this statement as to the second statement in this section. For the statement to have significance, even were it to be both global and true, it must be considered within longer-term climatic context.

5. “It is virtually certain that globally the troposphere has warmed since the mid-20th century”

(SPM-4).

The statement fails to acknowledge that there has been effectively no warming in the tropical troposphere as universally projected by models (the “missing hotspot”).

This is another scientifically trivial statement, which fails to reflect the fact that the temperature increase was too small to justify concern and just as likely as not to have been the result of natural causes. Furthermore, the statement fails to acknowledge that there has been effectively no warming in the tropical troposphere as universally projected by models (the “missing hotspot”). The contextual implication of human causation is unjustified.

6. “Continental-scale surface temperature reconstructions show, with high confidence, multi-decadal periods during the Medieval Climate Anomaly …” (SPM-4).

The “Medieval Climate Anomaly” is a new phrase coined a few years ago and now deployed by the IPCC in order to avoid acknowledging that temperatures at that time were likely warmer than during the late twentieth century.

The term Medieval Warm Period has historical scholarly precedence, and is also a more accurate descriptor. Thousands of peer-reviewed publications concerned with the MWP fail to provide any evidence that the warmer temperatures and weather during that period were “anomalous,” as opposed to being of natural causation (NIPCC, Chapter 4).

7. “There is very high confidence that these losses (of ice) are mainly from the northern Antarctic Peninsula and the Amundsen Sea sector of West Antarctica” (SPM-5).

This is deception by omission. Left unsaid is that it is only the Antarctic Peninsula region, which contains just 11% of Antarctic ice volume, that is undergoing warming and melting of ice, and that this is due to regional factors and not rising CO2 concentrations.

Also to the point is that temperatures have fallen since 1950 in the interior of the dominant East Antarctic Ice Sheet, the volume of which is either stable or growing slightly, as is the extent of peripheral Antarctic sea ice (NIPCC, Chapters 4 and 5).

8. The June draft of the SPM contained the statement “It is virtually certain that the rate of global mean sea level rise has accelerated during the last two centuries” (Draft SPM-5). This statement was removed from the final published version.

The period “last two centuries” is a range that carefully evades the embarrassing fact that over the last 50 years of increasing human-related CO2 emissions, the rate of average global sea-level rise appears to have decelerated (NIPCC, Section 6.2.1.5, p. 787; e.g., Watson, 2011).

9. “There is very high confidence that the maximum global mean sea level during the last interglacial period … was at least 5 m higher than present…..” (SPM-7).

The obvious intent of this statement is to imply that warmer temperatures in the current era could lead to a similarly large increase in sea level.

Sea-level was indeed higher during the Eemian interglacial than it was during the Holocene. The major reason for this is that orbital eccentricity then was much greater than in the Holocene, causing large semi-annual insolation changes and more summer insolation in the high northern latitudes at which major ice sheets melt and grow. The amplitude of Eemian seasonal solar radiation was about 230 W/m2 compared to 90 W/m2 at the present Earth-Sun orbital configuration (e.g., Laskar et al., 2011). Accordingly, drawing a comparison between sea level during the Eemian and the Holocene is misleading.

Drawing a comparison between sea level during the Eemian and the Holocene is misleading.

10. “The ocean has absorbed about 30% of the emitted anthropogenic carbon dioxide, causing ocean acidification” (SPM-7).

This is alarmist and scientifically pernicious terminology. What is being described is actually the uncertain occurrence of a small decrease in the average alkalinity of the ocean.

The IPCC assesses the likelihood of future pH change using unvalidated computer modeling that is known to be unreliable. Second, and should the modeled change occur despite the massive buffering capabilities of the ocean, it would still only result in a slight lessening of alkalinity by 0.1-0.2 pH units under, for example, the CO2 scenario of RCP2.6. Such a change, should it occur, is not necessarily harmful to life in the oceans.

11. “The total natural RF from solar irradiance changes and stratospheric volcanic aerosols made only a small contribution to the net radiative forcing throughout the last century, except for brief periods after large volcanic eruptions” (SPM-10).

Another statement that is trivially true and at the same time profoundly misleading.

The Sun’s effect on Earth’s climate extends far beyond simple variations in total solar insolation (TSI), and importantly includes magnetic and solar wind particle streams and their modulating effect on galactic cosmic rays. These effects are largely ignored by the IPCC.

Regarding the climatic effect of recent volcanic eruptions, the pattern of eruptions through time is both spasmodic and unpredictable on many scales. Therefore, any volcanic forcing observed over a short and arbitrary period cannot be taken as “typical” or “predictive” of what will occur over the next similar length period.

4. Advice for Policymakers

Between 1988 and 2001 (the span of preparation of its first three Assessment Reports), the United Nation’s IPCC was the sole international body able to provide advice to governments on the global warming issue. With the formation of the Nongovernmental Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) in 2003, a second and independent team of scientific assessors began to emerge.

NIPCC scientists find no hard evidence for a dangerous human- caused warming.

Now, with the release of new 2013 reports by both the IPCC and NIPCC, due-diligence analysis, such as that contained in this briefing paper, is finally possible. The IPCC’s “Green Team” scientific advice can now be weighed against the views of a “Red Team” of independent scholars.

With the same set of peer-reviewed scientific papers available to them, the scientists of the IPCC and NIPCC have come to diametrically opposing conclusions. IPCC scientists remain alarmist about the threat of human-caused global warming, even while they admit observations increasingly invalidate their model-based predictions. They are reluctant to acknowledge past errors and new research that challenge their hypothesis of human-caused dangerous climate change.

In stark contrast, NIPCC scientists find no hard evidence for a dangerous human-caused warming. They find the null hypothesis – that observed changes in climate are due to natural causes only – cannot be rejected. NIPCC scientists remain open to new discoveries and further debate.

In 2013, any engaged policymaker or commentator has a responsibility to be fully familiar with the arguments and conclusions adduced by both of these teams of climate advisors. Towards this end, we present the primary conclusions of NIPCC’s latest report as they are stated in its Summary for Policymakers:

1. We conclude neither the rate nor the magnitude of the reported late twentieth century surface warming (1979-2000) lay outside normal natural variability, nor was it in any way unusual compared to earlier episodes in Earth’s climatic history. Furthermore, solar forcings of temperature change are likely more important than is currently recognized, and evidence is lacking that a 2/ C increase in temperature (of whatever cause) would be globally harmful.

2. We conclude no unambiguous evidence exists for adverse changes to the global environment caused by human-related CO2 emissions. In particular, the cryosphere is not melting at an enhanced rate; sea-level rise is not accelerating; no systematic changes have been documented in evaporation or rainfall or in the magnitude or intensity of extreme meteorological events; and an increased release of methane into the atmosphere from permafrost or sub-seabed gas hydrates is unlikely.

3. We conclude the current generation of global climate models are unable to make accurate projections of climate even 10 years ahead, let alone the 100 year period that has been adopted by policy planners. The output of such models should therefore not be used to guide public policy formulation until they have been validated and shown to have predictive value.

###

References

Aldrin, M. et al. 2012. Bayesian estimation of climate sensitivity based on a simple climate model fitted to observations of hemispheric temperature and global ocean heat content.

Environmetrics, doi: 10.1002/env.2140.

Charney, J.G., et al. 1979. Climate Dioxide and Climate: A Scientific Assessment. National Academy of Sciences. Washington, DC.

Frohlich C. 2009. Evidence of a long-term trend in total solar irradiance. Astronomy and Astrophysics 501: L27-L30.

Humlum, O., Stordahl, J. and Solheim, J. 2012. The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature. Global and Planetary Change 100: 51-69. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloplacha.2012.08.008.

Idso, C.D., Carter, R.M., Singer, S.F. 2013. Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science. The Heartland Institute. Chicago, IL.

Interacademy Council. 2010. Climate Change Assessments, Review of the Processes & Procedures of the IPCC. http://reviewipcc.interacademycouncil.net/report.html.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2013. Summary for Policymakers, September 27, 2013, http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment_report/ar4/wg1/ar4_wg1_spm.pdf

Laskar, J., Fienga, A., Gastineau, M. and Manche, H. 2011. La2010: A new orbital solution for the long-term motion of the Earth. Astronomy and Astrophysics 532: A89.

Lewis, N. 2013. An objective Bayesian, improved approach for applying optimal fingerprint techniques to estimate climate sensitivity. Journal of Climate, doi: 10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00473.1.

Pielke Sr., R.A. 2008. A broader view of the role of humans in the climate system. Physics Today 61: 54-55.

Rahmstorf, S. 2007. A semi-empirical approach to projecting future sea level rise. Science 315: 368-370.

Ring, M.J. et al. 2012. Causes of the global warming observed since the 19th century.

Atmospheric and Climate Sciences 2: 401-415, doi: 10.4236/acs.2012.24035.

Singer, S. F. 2013. Overcoming chaotic behaviour of general circulation models (GCMS).

Energy and Environment 24: 397-403.

Watson, P.J. 2011. Is there evidence yet of acceleration in mean sea-level rise around mainland Australia? Journal of Coastal Research 27: 368-377.

About the Authors

Dr. Craig D. Idso, a climatologist and agronomist, is the founder, former president, and currently chairman of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change. The Center was founded in 1998 as a non-profit public charity dedicated to discovering and disseminating scientific information pertaining to the effects of atmospheric carbon dioxide enrichment on climate and the biosphere. The Center produces a weekly online newsletter, CO2 Science, and maintains a massive online collection of editorials on and reviews of peer-reviewed scientific journal articles relating to global climate change.

Dr. Idso’s research has appeared many times in peer-reviewed journals, including Geophysical Research Letters, Energy & Environment, Atmospheric Environment, Technology, The Quarterly Review of Biology, Journal of Climate, Environmental and Experimental Botany, Physical Geography, and the Journal of the Arizona-Nevada Academy of Science.

Dr. Idso received a B.S. in Geography from Arizona State University, an M.S. in Agronomy from the University of Nebraska – Lincoln, and a Ph.D. in Geography from Arizona State University, where he also studied as one of a small group of University Graduate Scholars. He was a faculty researcher in the Office of Climatology at Arizona State University and has lectured in Meteorology at Arizona State University.

Robert M. Carter, Ph.D., is a palaeontologist, stratigrapher, marine geologist and environmental scientist with more than 30 years professional experience, and holds degrees from the University of Otago (New Zealand) and the University of Cambridge (England). He has held tenured academic staff positions at the University of Otago (Dunedin) and James Cook University (Townsville), where he was Professor and Head of School of Earth Sciences between 1981 and 1999.

Dr. Carter has served as Chair of the Earth Sciences Discipline Panel of the Australian Research Council, Chair of the national Marine Science and Technologies Committee, Director of the Australian Office of the Ocean Drilling Program, and Co-Chief Scientist on ODP Leg 181 (Southwest Pacific Gateways).

Dr. Carter contributes regularly to public education and debate on scientific issues which relate to his areas of knowledge. His public commentaries draw on his knowledge of the scientific literature and a personal publication list of more than 100 papers in international science journals. His current research on climate change, sea-level change and stratigraphy is based on field studies of Cenozoic sediments (last 65 million years) from the Southwest Pacific region, especially the Great Barrier Reef and New Zealand.

S. Fred Singer, Ph.D., an atmospheric and space physicist, is one of the world’s most respected and widely published experts on climate. He is professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia. He directs the nonprofit Science and Environmental Policy Project, which he founded in 1990 and incorporated in 1992.

Dr. Singer served as professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia,

Charlottesville, VA (1971-94); distinguished research professor at the Institute for Space Science and Technology, Gainesville, FL, where he was principal investigator for the Cosmic Dust/Orbital Debris Project (1989-94); chief scientist, U.S. Department of Transportation (1987- 89); vice chairman of the National Advisory Committee for Oceans and Atmosphere (NACOA) (1981-86); deputy assistant administrator for policy, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1970-71); deputy assistant secretary for water quality and research, U.S. Department of the Interior (1967- 70); founding dean of the School of Environmental and Planetary Sciences,

University of Miami (1964-67); first director of the National Weather Satellite Service (1962-64); and director of the Center for Atmospheric and Space Physics, University of Maryland (1953-62).

Dr. Singer did his undergraduate work in electrical engineering at Ohio State University and holds a Ph.D. in physics from Princeton University.

Willie H. Soon, Ph.D., is an astrophysicist and geoscientist. Since 1992, Dr. Soon has been an astronomer at the Mount Wilson Observatory. He is also receiving editor in the area of solar and stellar physics for New Astronomy. He writes and lectures both professionally and publicly on important issues related to the sun, other stars, and the Earth, as well as general science topics in astronomy and physics.

Dr. Soon’s honors include a 1989 IEEE Nuclear and Plasma Sciences Society Graduate Scholastic Award and a Rockwell Dennis Hunt Scholastic Award from the University of Southern California for “the most representative Ph.D. research thesis” of 1991. In 2003, he was invited to testify to the U.S. Senate.

Dr. Soon is the author of The Maunder Minimum and the Variable Sun-Earth Connection (World Scientific Publishing Company 2004). His research has appeared many times in peer-reviewed journals, including Climate Research, Geophysical Research Letters, Energy & Environment, Eos, and Journal of Climate.

Dr. Soon earned his bachelor’s and master’s degrees in science from the University of Southern California and his Ph.D. in aerospace engineering from the University of Southern California.

About NIPCC

The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, or NIPCC, is an international panel of scientists and scholars who came together to understand the causes and consequences of climate change. NIPCC has no formal attachment to or sponsorship from any government or governmental agency. It is wholly independent of political pressures and influences and therefore is not predisposed to produce politically motivated conclusions or policy recommendations.

NIPCC traces its beginnings to an informal meeting held in Milan, Italy in 2003 organized by Dr. S. Fred Singer and the Science & Environmental Policy Project (SEPP). The purpose was to produce an independent evaluation of the available scientific evidence on the subject of carbon

dioxide-induced global warming in anticipation of the release of the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report (AR4). NIPCC scientists concluded the IPCC was biased with respect to making future projections of climate change, discerning a significant human-induced influence on current and past climatic trends, and evaluating the impacts of potential carbon dioxide-induced environmental changes on Earth’s biosphere.

To highlight such deficiencies in the IPCC’s AR4, in 2008 SEPP partnered with The Heartland Institute to produce Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate, a summary of research for policymakers that has been widely distributed and translated into six languages. In 2009, the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change joined the original two sponsors to help produce Climate Change Reconsidered: The 2009 Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), the first comprehensive alternative to the alarmist reports of the IPCC.

In 2010, a Web site (www.nipccreport.org) was created to highlight scientific studies NIPCC scientists believed would likely be downplayed or ignored by the IPCC during preparation of its next assessment report. In 2011, the three sponsoring organizations produced Climate Change Reconsidered: The 2011 Interim Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), a review and analysis of new research released since the 2009 report or overlooked by the authors of that report.

In 2013, the Information Center for Global Change Studies, a division of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, translated and published an abridged edition of the 2009 and 2011 NIPCC reports in a single volume. On June 15, the Chinese Academy of Sciences organized a NIPCC Workshop in Beijing to allow the NIPCC principal authors to present summaries of their conclusions.

In September 2013, NIPCC released Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science, the first of two volumes bringing the original 2009 report up-to-date with research from the 2011 Interim Report plus research as current as the third quarter of 2013. A new Web site was created (www.ClimateChangeReconsidered.org) to feature the new report and news about its release. A second volume, Climate Change Reconsidered II : Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability, is planned for release in 2014.

For more info about NIPCC, visit www.climatechangereconsidered.org or www.nipccreport.org.

=============================================================

This report is available as a PDF here: Critique of IPCC SPM AR5 (1)

The IPCC SPM is available here: approved final version (27Sep2013)

Advertisements

83 thoughts on “Scientific Critique of IPCC’s 2013 ‘Summary for Policymakers’

  1. A bit of proof reading & editting needed, some of the italicised/emboldened sections are repeated in the main body and/or incomplete.
    Other than that, an interesting summary.

  2. Section titles:
    1. IPCC Retreats
    2. Misleading or Untrue Statements
    3. Deceptive Language that Misrepresents the Science
    4. Advice for Policymakers
    >>>>>>>>>
    I’m just loving it….

  3. The SPM also contains at least 13 misleading or untrue statements, and 11 further statements that are phrased in such a way that they mislead readers or misrepresent important aspects of the science.

    I’m shocked! SHOCKED!! to discover rampant dishonesty at the IPCC gambling going on at Rick’s Cafe! (here)

  4. Seems to be a lot of “misleading” or “of little scientific value” or “Significantly overstated” going on.. Well it does say its for policy makers. They need lots of ambiguous terms and wiggle room to keep the agenda afloat…

  5. No amount of facts, even from prominent scientists such as the authors of this critique, is really going to have any impact on what our leaders do unless the Mainstream Media decide to pick up the story and push it to the public. The chances of that happening in the foreseeable future are slim to none. Maybe after the next ice age hits, but not before.

  6. Outstanding work!

    Going thru this entire report and identifying the many changes as well as misleading and in some cases untrue statements provides a comprehensive and complete overview that would be almost impossible to get otherwise.

    It would be nice if the dividends for this were in the form of opening the eyes of those that treat the IPCC reports as Gospel. However, when the eyes and mind are closed, as in most politically polarized realms, especially this one, information that contradicts assumptions is often met with a powerful cognitive bias.

    http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases

  7. MinB, I love the “Modern Climate Anomaly”! You have a seconder.

    Even the worrywart crowd should like it – they’re always trying to persuade us how unusual (= anomalous) everything is. :-)

  8. To celebrate the last hurrah of the IPCC, the Los Angeles Times has announced it will no longer print letters from dissidents (i.e., deniers). Well good for them. Others merely practice that suppression but do not announce it.

  9. A good summary, badly edited. Please get a competent editor in on this, and then make it widely available to Ridley, Lawton, Delingpole, and the rest.

  10. “It also acknowledges that on a longer (more climatic) time scale the rate of global warming has decelerated since 1951, despite an accompanying 80 ppm or 26% increase in..”

    Shouldn’t we have direct quote, showing the actual language stating this in the IPCC report (unless I missed it).

  11. Excellent dissection of the bigoted, unscientific ramblings of the IPCC!
    I always thought science was about formulating a hypothesis based on observation and then subjecting that hypothesis to experiment to see if it can then become a theory? Seems I was wrong; what modern science is all about is to ignore any experimental and observational evidence that disproves the hypothesis, but create computer models with biased parameters that prove the hypothesis, then sit back and watch the £’s & $’s roll in.
    In my view, the point at which the subterfuge and lies of the IPCC was revealed was, when after 17 years of no warming, with CO2 levels climbing higher; the statement, “The missing heat has gone into the oceans” was made. To me this statement is not only unscientific, it defies common sense, but it also defines the type of people who made it!

  12. Agree with the suggestion that this could be written better.

    Perhaps a “bullet point” summary for the layman could be followed by a more detailed explanation for the more scientifically literate.

    An attempt to address both audiences in one go is likely to satisfy neither.

    This is not a criticism of the content or the concept – both are excellent.

  13. YOU GO, NIPCC!!! and Drs. Idso, Carter, Singer and Soon! Yes, you ARE heroes! Warning to mainstream media: you ignore this at your peril!

  14. I’m thinking this won’t make it into the LA times.

    http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/10/18/la-times-bans-letters-from-climate-skeptics/

    Paul Thornton, editor of the paper’s letters section, recently wrote a letter of his own, stating flatly that he won’t publish some letters from those skeptical of man’s role in our planet’s warming climate. In Thornton’s eyes, those people are often wrong — and he doesn’t print obviously wrong statements.

  15. “Doug Ferguson says:
    October 19, 2013 at 10:01 am
    No amount of facts, even from prominent scientists such as the authors of this critique, is really going to have any impact on what our leaders do unless the Mainstream Media decide to pick up the story and push it to the public. The chances of that happening in the foreseeable future are slim to none. Maybe after the next ice age hits, but not before.”

    Fraid you are right. One story on PBS, NPR or in SciAm, etc. far outweighs this sort of paper. But don’t stop trying!

  16. With chips on their shoulders, holes in their heads and sticks up their rear, AGW enthusiasts now must don dunce hats for a decade or real scientists will themselves lose their voice over policy matters as a jaded generation becomes the next chattering class who have no more faith in the character of those academics who remained terribly silent as a junk science theory played out right in front of them.

  17. I didn’t find that many editing errors in it. The most noticeable for me is the format of the one shown below (showing the gap in the paragraph that breaks a sentence in half).

    [Quote]

    Second, these assertions are based upon Fig. SPM.6, which presents a comparison of empirical data and model projections for the named factors, and also for a global average. It is claimed that only if human greenhouse gas forcing is included do the computer projections match the

    empirical data…

    [End quote]

    I found the report very easy to read and extremely interesting. I’m not a scientist and I read this at 4:00 in the morning (couldn’t sleep – thought I’d do a little light reading – HA!).

    Brilliantly done.

    I know that things would move a lot faster if the media was fully behind it, but reports like this and papers that refute the findings of the IPCC are indeed making an impact. Without such commitment, the IPCC would never have backed down on the level of its alarmism, as it has here, and we’d still be hearing extensive exaggeration of impending doom. The bottom line is, genuine science is making its mark, the dodgers and weavers are being haunted by thorough scientific research and are unable to escape it.

    Every one of you who has put together a paper or a post has aided in forcing the unscrupulous to show themselves up, to retreat, to paint themselves into a corner and – occasionally – to confess. Every one of you have worked tirelessly and unceasingly, most of you unpaid, and you are going to win through. A free world in the future will owe that freedom to you.

    I wish I knew how to say thank you properly.

  18. Doug Ferguson says:

    October 19, 2013 at 10:01 am

    No amount of facts, even from prominent scientists such as the authors of this critique, is really going to have any impact on what our leaders do unless the Mainstream Media decide to pick up the story and push it to the public. The chances of that happening in the foreseeable future are slim to none. Maybe after the next ice age hits, but not before.

    @@@@@

    I would add that it is not only the media that needs to pick up this issue. I suspect it is also essential that the learned scientific societies, led by the Royal Society and the American Physical Society, also need to take serious note of this sort of analysis. That is simply not going to happen in the foreseeable future. The skeptics need at least one learned society to change it’s mind if there is going to be any hope of our politicians abandoning CAGW

  19. What “hockey stick”? I became curious as to what the temperature graphs would look like if you merely remove the general adjustments made to all of the familiar datasets. So I investigated and found the mean rate since 1940 to be right at +0.75°C/century applied to all datasets.

    My daughter who knows very limited science became quite intrigued by that plot. She is correct, that is what you expect to see (well, very close anyway).

  20. Political Junkie @11.09

    Absolutely agree!

    This is an EXTREMELY important analysis and its authors have my grateful thanks for one, for so clearly exposing the fault lines in the IPCC’s work. It needs the widest circulation, but only after the ragged editing has been corrected. An hour spent honing the document will greatly enhance it’s impact.

  21. “Paul Thornton, editor of the paper’s letters section, recently wrote a letter of his own, stating flatly that he won’t publish some letters from those skeptical of man’s role in our planet’s warming climate. In Thornton’s eyes, those people are often wrong — and he doesn’t print obviously wrong statements.”

    Lysenko and his toadies, full of hubris and political correctness, prevented Vavilov and others from being heard. It was eventually clear to the entire world that Lysenko’s “science” was politically driven offal. Now Paul Thornton has joined the Lysenkoists in spirit. The LA Times, a major outlet for leftist drivel, hasn’t been suitable for anything but bird cage lining for the past 50 years or more.

  22. Thanks Wayne @ 12.32

    If your graph is correct this is what I have been looking for and all future references to the temperature record should reflect the unadjusted temp data.

    I would love to see Scafetta’s and others analysis using the unadjusted data set I bet their conclusions would be different.

    Excellent post by the way from the NIPCC.

    When you tell lies you weave a tangled web IPCC, that usually just tangles the weaver.

  23. 2. “Continental-scale surface temperature reconstructions show, with high confidence, multi-decadal intervals during the Medieval Climate Anomaly (950-1250) that were in some regions as warm as in the late 20th century” (SPM-4).

    Where are those “some regions as warm as in the late 20th century”? Could some regions have been warmer during the Medieval Warm Period that the lat 20th century? I don’t know but I know a Mann who does. Olives and figs in Germany, grapes grown in England well north of their current limits etc., but rest assured that the Medieval Warm Period colder than today. It was freezing in fact.

    Medieval Climatic Optimum
    Michael E Mann – University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA

    It is evident that Europe experienced, on the whole, relatively mild climate conditions during the earliest centuries of the second millennium (i.e., the early Medieval period). Agriculture was possible at higher latitudes (and higher elevations in the mountains) than is currently possible in many regions, and there are numerous anecdotal reports of especially bountiful harvests (e.g., documented yields of grain) throughout Europe during this interval of time. Grapes were grown in England several hundred kilometers north of their current limits of growth, and subtropical flora such as fig trees and olive trees grew in regions of Europe (northern Italy and parts of Germany) well north of their current range. Geological evidence indicates that mountain glaciers throughout Europe retreated substantially at this time, relative to the glacial advances of later centuries (Grove and Switsur, 1994). A host of historical documentary proxy information such as records of frost dates, freezing of water bodies, duration of snowcover, and phenological evidence (e.g., the dates of flowering of plants) indicates that severe winters were less frequent and less extreme at times during the period from about 900 – 1300 AD in central Europe……………..
    http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/shared/articles/medclimopt.pdf

  24. Thank you Scott @ October 19, 2013 at 2:03 pm, that graph is incredibly easy to make. You should replicate it. Go to WoodForTrees.org site download the hadCrut4 NH&SH “raw” data. That is not really raw but already has NCDC’s(?) adjustments applied underneath. Average the NH and SH. Now just start in January 1940 and subtract the +0.75/century from that point forward. The monthly rate is of course -0.75/100 years/12 months = -0.000625°C/month added to NH+SH average to remove the mean slope of the “adjustments”. Nothing fancy so that is a rough view but the signature is the same. Smooth as desired. The +0.75 comes from various graphs showing the adjustments.

    Here is what it looks like if you just use a 13 month (six mo. before, six after) centered average window: http://i44.tinypic.com/29axhua.png

    Makes you wonder about what exactly are the “adjustments”, where they came from, and are they real additional energy implied as positive mean temperature adjustments, by merely adjusting! You can almost see a slight upward slope over that limited time span but it isn’t very much.

  25. 1330 ppm CO2 by 2100?!?

    And what exactly will be burned to generate that much CO2?

    The possibility of reaching 550 is approximately zero even if we burn all known fossils fuels and find as much more as is currently known. The carbon fuels simply don’t exist to double the concentration – as far as we know. The extraction rate and the ocean’s response plus the effect on plants is too large to drive it above 540 ppm.

  26. pokerguy says:
    October 19, 2013 at 10:56 am
    “It also acknowledges that on a longer (more climatic) time scale the rate of global warming has decelerated since 1951, despite an accompanying 80 ppm or 26% increase in..”

    Shouldn’t we have direct quote, showing the actual language stating this in the IPCC report (unless I missed it).
    ###############

    the scholarship of this whole piece is substandard. Not up to the accuracy that one sees from Mcintyre, Anthony, or Willis. Put another way, Idso, Singer, Soon etc need to take some lessons from Mcintyre. Their claims are mostly wrong, sometimes laughably so and they dont know how to make a case like Mcintyre or even Willis does. You see both Mc and willis would Pay close attention to the actual words used. They would cite. they would not go a bridge to far. In short, when alarmists use hyperbole, and you want to correct it. You need to cite. and then you need to avoid making mistakes yourself.

    Look at point 1 on their list. two seconds of thought should show you why its wrong

  27. The scenario chosen (RCP8.5) is the most extreme of four (i.e., has the strongest greenhouse gas forcing), and sets the total greenhouse gas forcing as 8.5 W/m2 or the equivalent of a 1313 ppm CO2 concentration by the year 2100. Very few scientists believe this to be a realistic scenario.

    Phew. We will be OK then. Why? Because even bacteria know this is complete crap. This really is the finest comedy ever known. Good work.

  28. And Crispin Crispian shall ne’er go by,
    From this day to the ending of the world,
    But we in it shall be remember’d;
    We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
    For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
    Shall be my brother; be he ne’er so vile,
    This day shall gentle his condition:
    And gentlemen in England now a-bed
    Shall think themselves accursed they were not here,
    And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
    That fought with us upon Saint Crispin’s day”

  29. If I were underwriting insurance, which assessment would I base policy fees on and which assessment would I base expected claims on?

  30. Lindzen 2001:
    http://eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/OpEds/LindzenWSJ.pdf

    The full IPCC report is an admirable description of research activities in climate science, but it is not specifically directed at policy. The Summary for Policymakers is, but it is also a very different document. It represents a consensus of government representatives (many of whom are also their nations’ Kyoto representatives), rather than of scientists. The resulting document has a strong tendency to disguise uncertainty, and conjures up some scary scenarios for which there is no evidence.

    Science, in the public arena, is commonly used as a source of authority with which to bludgeon political opponents and propagandize uninformed citizens. This is what has been done with both the reports of the IPCC and the NAS. It is a reprehensible practice that corrodes our ability to make rational decisions. A fairer view of the science will show that there is still a vast amount of uncertainty — far more than advocates of Kyoto would like to acknowledge — and that the NAS report has hardly ended the debate. Nor was it meant to.

  31. How can you claim that ice-melt and sea-level rise has not accelerated?
    The data in the report tells another story:

    Ice-loss Greenland [90-100% confidence]
    -34 [+6 to -74] Gt/yr 1992-2001
    -212 [-157 to -274] Gt/yr 2002-2011
    Antarctica: [66-100% confidence]
    -30 [+37 to -97] Gt/yr 1992-2001
    -147 [-72 to -221] Gt/yr 2002-2011

    Sea-level rise in the last 110 years [90-100% confidence]:
    + 1.7 mm/yr 1901-2010 average
    + 3.2 mm/yr 1993-2010 average

    The rate of sea-level rise and ice-melt has increased significantly, especially for Greenland and Antarctica with a 6-fold increase 1990s to 2000s. That is a significant acceleration, is it not?

  32. Unfortunately I think the climate deniers will ignore the science for atleast another few years, perhaps a decade or more. I find that those I know personally who believe the mythology of Cagw have very little awareness of the mis representations OR various sets of data that rip holes through the mythology. They are also unaware of the IPCCs shifting position on topics like what the dangers will be and others. Somehow the media and politically created “reality” that the “science” is settled despite almost every claim having vast holes is believed by many. The ones I know personally literally REFUSE to look at ANY data that contradicts the mythology. I know this only speaks of the ones I know personally, but looking around the net I suspect it is common. Somehow the myth has grown to include the idea that anything that contradicts the FEAR and DANGER is not to be believed even if it is pure data. As someone who truly cares and studied this originally as a believer It is amazingly bizarre to watch. Heck even pointing out that the IPCC lists a low level of understanding and consensus on virtually all drivers BUT co2, while essentially making up values for a range of variables they still think the idea co2 WILL warmth planet in dangerous ways is set in stone. Even though such a conclusion is literally impossible to make since we cant say we understand all or most of the climates systems variables, and the equally large red flag that it simply is NOT happening as it would have to be to be dangerous. Somehow this seems like science to them. How much data can be ignored while even very intelligent people can pretend it is science to ignore everything that doesnt fit the theory??/ Many are simply faithfool but I know many more then capable of understanding once they objectively look at the data, and they would if they realized there was such a contradiction. The lie can only live so long.

    Looking at the data myself I find it unlikely co2 is a major driver of climate if it has a measurable effect at all, but its rather obvious at worst we can expect a much slower and benign rise with many flat to falling temp periods in the middle. You have to really ignore many things to find something extreme here, yet the myth remains strong and “undeniable” despite all of it. With that said I expect the pushers and believers of Cagw (capitol C) will be studied in coming decades from many angles. Hopefully we learn our lesson this time? Naw what am I saying, this is the story of human civilization. LOL.

  33. “The decision not to designate a “best estimate” for ECS is unique in IPCC’s history, and a further indication of growing uncertainty”.

    This to me is key. How can they be more certain about AGW since 1950 when there is growing uncertainty on such a key issue.

  34. The IPCC’s / Mann’s Hockey Stick is likely to go down in history as the second great scientific fraud of the 20th century along with that of the Piltdown Man of 1912.
    Both occurred at an early stage in their particular science disciplines.
    Both were highly controversial and went against the developing memes of their disciplines. Evolution in the case of the Piltdown Man and the effects of increasing CO2 on the supposed warming of the global atmosphere in the case of the Hockey Stick.
    It took 40 years to expose the Piltdown Man hoax but only a decade to expose Mann’s trickery and hoax. Or perhaps it was nothing more than abject incompetence in the statistical field backed by a hubris and ego of pathological proportions on Mann’s part
    Take your choice in Mann’s case,

    Regardless of the circumstances it is a major fraud and hoax still being perpetuated by Mann and his cohort of science and alarmist believers and until this latest IPCC report, by the very scientific body, the IPCC, that claims to be analysing and explaining the supposed trends in the global climate for the politicians, the public and for the making of global climate policy.

    The speed of exposure in Mann’s hoax was due entirely to the internet and for that we are very fortunate.
    In the times of the Piltdown Man hoax, it was letter writing / snail mail and later the telephone and teletype.

    The Piltdown Man and it’s apparent impact on the theory of evolution created great controversy in science and religious circles but barely affected the public at large.

    Mann’s hockey stick on the other hand and it’s promotion by the IPCC will most likely go down in history as the greatest fraud of the 20th century, perhaps even the greatest and most destructive fraud of all time due to it’s catastrophgic flow on effects in society,

    It’s legacy is catastrophic increases in energy prices in many countries and consequently on the poor, the old and the lonely in our societies and on the industry and commerce that is the backbone of any modern society.
    It created through it’s advocacy of a catastrophic climatic future the destruction of economies through the raising of energy prices and the imposition of nefarious taxes by governments supposedly to force the populace to use less energy so as to reduce CO2 emissions and thereby according to the theory behind the Hockey Stick hoax, to keep global temperatures down.
    An aim and concept that has completely failed in it’s entirety.

    The Hockey Stick hoax’s main contribution and almost only one has been to create enormous societal and scientific dissension which has had no perceivable benefit of any sort to our humanity, our global society, the environment or our culture.
    It has caused tens of thousands of needless deaths of the old, poor and lonely as governments in response to the predictions of catastrophic warming due to increasing CO2 as depicted by Mann’s Hockey Stick graph, forced the price of energy up to where it became a case of heat or eat but not both for so many of the poor, old and lonely across our western societies.

    it’s promotion by the IPCC has led to the complete destruction of hundreds of billions of dollars. and euros worth of public wealth which have been totally destroyed by governments implementing policies on the so called and falsely so, renewable energy systems of wind and solar all in the name of preventing the catastrophic rise in global temperatures as depicted by the Hockey Stick.

    The great wheel of time and history roll on and the next generation knowing that the science of the climate is far more complex and vastly different and thereby knowing that Mann’s portrayal of the past climate as being fraudulent in the extreme will begin to both judge and then cast Mann and his adherents such as Briffa, Santer, Jones ,Pauchari and numerous others as perpetrating one of the most destructive and most nefarious and ultimately evil frauds ever seen in human history.

    Mann and his Hockey Stick and the IPCC may well go down in history as an example of how science can be totally prostituted and totally corrupted all to achieve fame and fortune for a very small group of self promoting egoistic scientists intent on their own self promotion and their own brand of a cult like ideology at the expense of the rest of humanity.

    With justice Mann, Pauchari of the IPCC and other Hockey Stick promoters, advocates and adherents will be allowed to live long enough to see themselves become the pariahs of the world of science and of men.

  35. “The reduced trend in radiative forcing (1998-2012) is primarily due to volcanic eruptions”

    (SPM-10).

    No volcanic eruptions with significant global impact occurred during the period 1998-2012.

    I think they are reaching in the dark for something that isn’t there here. Shouldn’t this be easy to refute, and so aren’t they digging a hole for themselves here?

  36. “Human influence has been detected in warming of the atmosphere and the oceans…”. But they make no reference here to where this has been shown to be true.

    This is very sloppy and typical. It is the kind of statement which is key to the whole purpose of the IPCC report, but which hasn’t been shown to be true anywhere, but is nevertheless repeatedly stated to back up the more fundamental claims of the report. It’s like everyone in a court situation saying ‘someone else saw it’, but when you then ask each in turn, actually nobody did, they just all assume somebody else did.

  37. thingadonta says:
    October 19, 2013 at 5:12 pm

    “The reduced trend in radiative forcing (1998-2012) is primarily due to volcanic eruptions”

    (SPM-10).

    No volcanic eruptions with significant global impact occurred during the period 1998-2012.

    Shouldn’t this be easy to refute ?

    Look at the WUWT Solar Page: It is easy to see the three “actual” volcanic eruptions that DID affect atmospheric transparency: Look towards the bottom of the linked page (below) and you can two distinct dips, and one earlier (less clear) drop.

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/solar/

    But since 1998? NOTHING!

  38. RACookPE1978 says:
    October 19, 2013 at 6:00 pm

    Effects of Agung, El Chichon, Pinatubo & other eruptions are plain, but you are right that nothing comparable to the three largest ones has happened for 20 years now.

    http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/publications/annrpt23/chapter3_2.htm

    Their outrageously false claim yet again shows that IPeCaC’s CACA scam perpetrators are shameless liars, cheats, frauds, hucksters, hoaxers, charlatans & thieves.

  39. Steven Mosher says:
    October 19, 2013 at 3:56 pm

    the scholarship of this whole piece is substandard. Not up to the accuracy that one sees from Mcintyre, Anthony, or Willis. Put another way, Idso, Singer, Soon etc need to take some lessons from Mcintyre. Their claims are mostly wrong, sometimes laughably so and they dont know how to make a case like Mcintyre or even Willis does. You see both Mc and willis would Pay close attention to the actual words used. They would cite. they would not go a bridge to far. In short, when alarmists use hyperbole, and you want to correct it. You need to cite. and then you need to avoid making mistakes yourself.

    Look at point 1 on their list. two seconds of thought should show you why its wrong
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    Well, Steven is back (sigh)…complaining about improper use of cites (sigh)…in a post discussing 35 separate IPCC statements, most of which are cited as contradicting previous IPCC statements.

    Then Steven caps this off with his one and only one actual attempt at a cite: “Look at point 1 on their list. two seconds of thought should show you why its wrong”.

    Jeez!

  40. Hey Steve Mosher, where are the effectively signficant ‘volcanic eruptions’ which have ‘reduced the trend in radiative forcing’, so scholarly claimed by the IPCC from 1998-2012, as compared to previously? They have invented these out out thin air (no pun intended).

  41. NIPCC posits that for many datasets there has been no warming since ~1950, contradicting the IPCC to the opposite.

    How do they calculate this?

    The difference in surface temperatures between 1942–1995 and 1979–97, as registered by datasets that represent land, oceanic, and atmospheric locations.

    So they completely ignore the last 15 years, and their analysis ‘compares’ two periods which overlap eachother by 16 years (1979 – 1995)

    For all the data sets the full period trend within the lat 50 years (satellites only start from 1979, for example) is positive and statistically significant.

    GISS land only data from 1950 through 2012 shows warming at a rate of 0.167/decade, which amounts to a total warming of 1C. That’s not ‘zero’.

    It is amazing that NIPCC so boldly use only 19 years of the full 34-year satellite record in order to promulgate their claims. I trust readers at WUWT will call out this ignoring 44% of the satellite data. It’s, well, a ‘Mannian’ fudge, isn’t it?

    If that’s not bad enough, radisonde data spans 45 years – (1958 – 2012+). How much of that do NIPCC analyse? 19 years (1979 – 1997). They assess only 42% of the total data available since 1950. A mainstream analysis doing this – and without giving reasons – would be howled down by skeptics. Rightly so.

    (Full disclosure: I saw Tamino’s post on this particular item and checked to see whether WUWT had published on it. Tamino’s post goes into more and better detail on this extraordinary example of cherry-picking by the NIPCC.

    http://tamino.wordpress.com/2013/10/19/the-icp-report/)

    If this is the kind of ‘analysis’ pushed by the NIPCC, the rest of the document is not worth reading.

  42. barry says:

    “… they completely ignore the last 15 years…”

    The alarmist crowd is responsible for that truncated dataset. They are the ones [led by Phil Jones] who designated that shorter time period as a test to determine if global warming has stopped.

    Your alarmist pals set the rules — but now they are squealing because their own rules debunk their beliefs.

    You argue anything and everything. But the planet itself is falsifying your own belief system.

    You could be a class act, barry, and admit that your conjecture has been falsified by the Scientific Method. Or, you can fall back on the tired old “say anything” response, never admitting that your conjecture has been falsified.

  43. The article states
    “4. “Emissions of carbon monoxide are virtually certain to have induced a positive radiative forcing” (SPM-9).

    Carbon monoxide is a highly reactive gas without significant radiative trapping properties. It has fast chemical interactions with the hydroxyl radical which also oxidizes methane within about two months of its appearance in the atmosphere.”

    The statement about methane oxidising is not true. If it was then it would not be possible to detect methane in the atmosphere. The amount of methane in the atmosphere is about 1.7 ppm and has been growing very slightly due to leakage from increasing natural gas pipelines and increasing number of gas extraction wells.
    Methane and oxygen do not react at normal temperatures. For a gas/air mixture to burn it is necessary that there is sufficient gas present (lower limit is 5%) and that gas mixture is subjected and sustained at an ignition temperature of 650C (rounded) Neither of these conditions applies to the normal atmosphere. Methane does not react with hydroxyl radicals in fact the reaction is the reverse -hydroxyl radicals are a product of methane oxidation. When lightning occurs there are localised high temperatures and ozone is produced. The ozone can react with methane to give methanol which is highly soluble in water -(including rain drops) and this is part of the mechanism of the normal natural cycle for methane which includes emissions from degradation of plants (in swamps etc and burning vegetation ie bushfires etc) and uptake by plants on land and in the sea.

    I respect the authors of this article but including incorrect statements detracts from their message.
    The alarmists every now and then try to push the methane barrow as something important. However, the push is based on misconceptions and out right lies. Methane’s influence on atmospheric changes is very much less than carbon dioxide which is itself so small to be unmeasurable. Methane as carbon dioxide does help plants grow in a greenhouse structure but even at concentration levels close to the lower flammability limit (5%) it has no effect on temperatures. At 1.7pmm the effect of methane is zero.

  44. Seaching under ‘Mann hockey stick’ I came across this on Wikipedia:

    I do believe now that dashed green line is just the “adjustments” themselves to the temperature records that I removed from the HadCRUT4 dataset in a comment near the top of this thread. Almost a perfect match of slope since 1940. Did all of this fiasco really stem from Callender;s paper in 1938? That was the same period where warming over their “last thirty years” seemed unstoppable. But it did, really stop, and returned to the more frigid 70’s.
    See: http://www.rmets.org/sites/default/files/qjcallender38.pdf
    Can’t help but to see the many parallels between then and now after reading that paper.

  45. “10. “For surface temperature, the blue shaded band is based on 52 simulations from 17 climate models using only natural forcing, while the red shaded band is based on 147 simulations from 44 climate models using natural and anthropogenic forcings. For ocean heat content, 10 simulations from 10 models, and 10 simulations from 13 models were used respectively. For sea ice extent, a subset of models are considered that simulate the mean and seasonal cycle of the sea ice extent within 20% of the observed sea-ice climatology for the period 1981-2005 (Arctic: 24 simulations from 11 models for both red and blue shaded bands, Antarctic: 21 simulations from 6 models for both red and blue shaded bands)” (Draft SPM, June 2013, Fig. SPM.6 caption).”

    To paraphrase Einstein, if they were correct, one would suffice.

  46. 6. “The reduced trend in radiative forcing (1998-2012) is primarily due to volcanic eruptions”

    NASA publishes satellite data that show a large reduction in the amount of volcanic aerosols during the recent period. Blogger Lucia Liljegren reports that the average forcing from the lack of volcanic eruption during 1998 to 2012 is 0.28 W/m2 more than the period 1951 to 2012.
    (For comparison, the carbon dioxide (CO2) forcing increase during the period 1998 to 2012 was 0.43 W/m2.) There were no volcanoes since 1992 that could have caused a cooling effect. The IPCC SPM statement on the lack of warming since 1998 is discussed in my Science New of our September newsletter:
    http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=691#SN

  47. Two faces of the IPPC
    The Chinese and Indian governments can take great comfort from the IPPC report and crack on building coal fired power stations. On the other hand the US, Europe et al can take great comfort from the Summary for Policy Makers and crack on building wind turbines and stopping coal fired plants being built.
    How political is that and how unscientific and how well we do to remember it.

  48. Mr. Mosher, you left your last sentence open without a dot, so I assume your citation of the wrong words you claim being there got lost or snipped silently by the mods?

  49. So let me get this straight:

    The UN has funded the IPCC for 20+ years, during which time it has behaved like a Holy Catholic Church with an infallible Pope. It has burned heretics at the professional stake, eliminated gospels not worthy of being incorporated into the Bible at each revision, ostracised criticism as the work of witches, druids and atheists and is now, finally, having to acknowledge that many of the criticisms of the atheists, druids, witches and heretics are, in fact true, inasmuch as their previous Ten Commandments are no longer able to be held up as the Word of God (in fact, they may have been the words of Lucifer designed to tempt mankind into silly cup-de-sacs).

    Perhaps the key questions for policymakers should be these:

    1. Why are we still funding these happy clappys?
    2. Should we fund the heretics whose work has proven to be correct, rather than the Priests, whose work has proven to be wrong?
    3. Do we need some Climate Trials in Nuremberg to clear the augean stables of shit-spreading, muck-raking charlatans??
    4. Do we need a fundamental recalibration of how we define ‘scientific funding’, requiring all grants to include mechanisms to test experimentally either hypotheses derived empirically or arrived at through the use of computer modelling?
    5. Should testimony before Parliaments of the World which is now agreed to be based on false evidence now be stamped with the label ‘this is bollocks, which was swallowed for xxx years by credulous lawmakers’ in all official recordings of minutes??

  50. congrats to Idso, Carter, Singer and Soon. you have done a great job here exposing the IPCC lies. you can always tell a good post by the screams of the CAGW zealots. the louder the screams, the more it has hit home.

    There is clearly a disconnect from reality going on with the believers, I mean there are just too many simple things like the uncertainty of sensitivity being 3deg (1.5c-4.5c) being twice the claimed warming. that just shows that there is absolutely NO understanding of the climate system in the models. to believe the models must be right about anything is nonsense.

    so what if there is a physical basis for the 1 deg warming from the radiative effect, it means nothing on its own, and the IPCC understand this, they nominate feedbacks and rates, and these are what have been proven to be incorrect. so incorrect in fact, they could be of the wrong sign. recent warming may have been in fact a completely natural event. the IPCC have no right to say otherwise if they claim an uncertainty of 3deg or +/-1.5deg in their models.

    of course, the main disconnect is history itself! it just blows me away that there are so called logical/thinking people out there that believe that uncovering the vikings settlements or forests in areas dominated by ice for hundreds of years mean nothing. retreating glaciers that start retreating BEFORE any possible influence by humans, shrinking ice caps on mars!!, temps preceding CO2, the bulk load of peer review literature that shows warming in northern hem and southern during the medieval warming period, the GISP2 ice core data that shows clearly it was warmer 1000 years ago and on and on. in nearly every metric we have available, data shows we are not in an unprecedented warming period, and we are not experiencing erratic weather, yet we are forced to listen to the fantasy these people invent daily in the news because they have sold their story to the gullible who cant be bothered to open their minds to a bit of study on the subject.

  51. “We conclude no unambiguous evidence exists for adverse changes to the global environment caused by human-related CO2 emissions.”

    I have also looked now for four years and can find no such evidence either, quite to the contrary. Thank you gentlemen, Drs Singer, Idso, Soon and Carter for a fine summary of IPCC’s many failings in their dire extrapolations pointed at all of humanity. Good read. It will take some time to read your entire N.I.P.C.C. report I now have it all downloaded and ready to go!

  52. We will never be adequately able to fight the distortions and poor science in the IPCC until we know the actual names of individuals who make specific claims. As long as they can hide behind a smoke screen of not being identified, there will be no accountability. Put a name to someone, and they suddenly become most cautious with what they say.
    Bravo to these present authors.

  53. rtj1211 says:
    October 20, 2013 at 3:56 am
    So let me get this straight:

    “The UN has funded the IPCC for 20+ years, during which time it has behaved like a Holy Catholic Church with an infallible Pope.”

    More like what Moses said to God, “So let me get this straight, you want us to cut off the end of our penis?”

  54. Absolutely wonderful article. Kudos to the authors, especially for the hard work that must have gone into this lengthy and detailed document.

  55. ““It is virtually certain that globally the troposphere has warmed since the mid-20th century” (SPM-4).

    The statement fails to acknowledge that there has been effectively no warming in the tropical troposphere as universally projected by models (the “missing hotspot”).

    This is another scientifically trivial statement, which fails to reflect the fact that the temperature increase was too small to justify concern and just as likely as not to have been the result of natural causes. Furthermore, the statement fails to acknowledge that there has been effectively no warming in the tropical troposphere as universally projected by models (the “missing hotspot”).”

    Actually, things are worse than that. AR5 is effectively silent on temperature trends in the upper troposphere. The best the SPM can say is:
    “There is medium confidence in the rate of warming and its vertical structure in the Northern Hemisphere extra-tropical troposphere and low confidence elsewhere.” so suddenly the data are wrong.

    Section 2.4.4 says:
    “In summary, assessment of the large body of studies comparing various long-term radiosonde and MSU products since AR4 is hampered by dataset version changes, and inherent data uncertainties.” Sorry – the data are uncertain.

    There is a Table 2.8 headed:
    “Trend estimates and 90% confidence intervals (Box 2.2) for radiosonde and MSU dataset global average
    values over the radiosonde (1958–2012) and satellite periods (1979–2012). LT indicates Lower Troposphere, MT indicates Mid Troposphere and LS indicates Lower Stratosphere” Notice that? No Upper Troposphere.

    So all the joyous predictions of a hotspot, confidently predicted in AR4, (see Figure 10.7) have come to naught, and can be forgotten, as can papers questioning the hotspot such as Douglass, D. H., Christy, J. R., Pearson, B. D. and Singer, S. F. (2008), A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions. Int. J. Climatol., 28: 1693–1701. doi: 10.1002/joc.1651 (which is not referenced in AR5 – weren’t they supposed to be reviewing the literature?)

    So the IPCC’s sins now include those of omission as well as commission.

  56. Good analysis Anthony! Was a good read. Glad to see such succinct and eloquent explanations of some of the more important points.

  57. Steven Mosher says:

    the scholarship of this whole piece is substandard. Not up to the accuracy that one sees from Mcintyre, Anthony, or Willis. Put another way, Idso, Singer, Soon etc need to take some lessons from Mcintyre. Their claims are mostly wrong, sometimes laughably so and they dont know how to make a case like Mcintyre or even Willis does. You see both Mc and willis would Pay close attention to the actual words used. They would cite. they would not go a bridge to far. In short, when alarmists use hyperbole, and you want to correct it. You need to cite. and then you need to avoid making mistakes yourself.

    Look at point 1 on their list. two seconds of thought should show you why its wrong

    (bold mine)

    Your post is somewhat laughable.

    You make the point about the importance of providing a cite while attacking the “men”, and then you state a problem with Point 1 on their list without providing a cite or clue as to what you think is wrong with it.

    Then you recommend two seconds of thought, but do not provide any math basis – would two second be Tmin or Tmax ?

    (T=Thought)

    Just making an observation.

  58. Late as usual. The period of the great climate scare or warming hoax could easily be renamed “The time the Fourth Estate was found wanting” for it is the lack of questioning by lazy and ignorant journalists that have led to this waste of resources. The same reporters were like blowflies on a carcass at Fukashima quoting well known alarmists and questioning the experts. The MSM is writing it’s own epitaph as ex readers search the web for facts.

  59. Time Capsule below from New Scientist 2011, which I thought was interesting – from once-upon-a-time when we were still called “deniers”.

    *****************

    Politically, the global warming “worm turns” as we speak, but ever so slowly – let’s call this political sea change “global worming”. :-}

    I suggest that some time soon, when there is yet another very cold winter in Europe, the European public will turn en masse, and their politicians will really feel the heat.

    The Euro “brain trust” fully embraced the fraud of global warming hysteria and then crippled their energy systems with nonsensical wind and solar power schemes, such that many European people can no longer afford to heat their homes in winter. http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/216765/Weather-35-000-deaths-fear-in-new-Arctic-blizzards

    This degree of energy stupidity is rare in human history. In simpler times, our leaders were not such simpletons. They understood that cheap abundant energy was essential for human survival.

    I spent my mid-career in the Canadian oilsands, and understand that business quite well. Occasionally, I encounter climate-imbeciles who chastise me for my alleged sins against “the environment”. I point out to them that people like me keep their families from freezing and starving to death. In the absence of cheap abundant energy, life is brutal and short.

    Apologies for the bluntness of this missive, but world leaders, especially those in Europe, have been so utterly incompetent and foolish that they need and deserve this rude awakening. The Euro brain trust have been misled by scoundrels and have acted like imbeciles and it is long past time for them to wake up and smarten up.

    Regards to all, Allan

    *******************

    Fred Pearce: Climate Sceptics And Scientists Attempt Peace Deal

    New Scientist, 2 February 2011

    Climate sceptics offer a peace deal. Well, no it wasn’t quite like that. But in Lisbon, Portugal, last week, I joined a group of 28 climate scientists, bloggers and professional contrarians who spent three days discussing how to encourage reconciliation in the increasing fractious debate about the science of climate change.

    The meeting was the brainchild of University of Oxford science philosopher Jerry Ravetz, an 81-year-old Greenpeace member who fears Al Gore may have done as much damage to environmentalism as Joseph Stalin did to socialism. Post-Climategate, he found climate science characterised by “a poisoned atmosphere” in which “each side accuses the other of being corrupt”. Mainstream researchers were labelled “ideologues on the gravy train”, while sceptics were denigrated as “prostitutes and cranks”.

    His dream of an instant rapprochement in Lisbon didn’t come off. The eventual make-up of the workshop, paid for by the European Commission, was too lopsided in favour of the sceptical camp.

    Those making the trip included heroes of the sceptics such as statistician Steve McIntyre and economist Ross McKitrick, plus writers and bloggers such as Steve Mosher, the man who broke the Climategate story, and “heretical” scientists such as Georgia Tech’s Judy Curry and Peter Webster.

    Avowed non-sceptics included Hans von Storch, a lead author for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and James Risbey of CSIRO. But the leaders of mainstream climate science turned down the gig, including NASA’s Gavin Schmidt, who said the science was settled so there was nothing to discuss.

    Across the spectrum, participants were mostly united in disagreeing with Schmidt. Climate science, they said, is much less certain than the IPCC mainstreamers say, and peace can be found only if all accept what they dubbed “the uncertainty monster”.

    Leaving out the cranks, what’s to be resolved? Few at the meeting doubted that climate change was a real issue that the world had to address, but they said the science had been corrupted. They agreed with von Storch, who told a public meeting after the workshop that “too much climate science is done not out of curiosity but to support a preconceived agenda”.

    The biggest, most totemic, issue remains the IPCC’s adoption of the “hockey stick” narrative, which holds that 20th-century warming is unique over the past millennium. Most in Lisbon saw this as a scandalous example of IPCC editors taking sides in an unresolved debate, and of how “scientific findings were judged according to their political utility”.

    Equally contentious is the charge – the pet subject of several in Lisbon – that the IPCC is “in denial” about whether ocean oscillations, which can absorb and release heat from the atmosphere but are not well represented in climate models, could explain the global warming of the past 40 years.

    Third, most agreed that there was no scientific basis for the world adopting a target to prevent global warming going above 2 °C. It was “arbitrary”, they said, and cooked up by climate scientists with a political agenda.

    Much time at the meeting was taken up bitching rather than conciliating. Several complained about how hard it was to get papers published if they ran counter to climate-change orthodoxy. They agreed with von Storch that peer review was riven with conflicts of interest.

    And they felt this was most pronounced in the IPCC itself, where reports assessing climate science were routinely written by people sitting in judgement on their own research and that of their critics.

    Public trust in climate science had collapsed and had to be rebuilt through reconciliation, they said. Of course, mainstreamers would claim it is hypocrisy for “sceptics” to lash out at mainstream climate science and then invoke the resulting public confusion to demand a seat at the table. But have they a better idea?

    New Scientist, 2 February 2011

  60. In this thread there is a solid and interesting debate of the work of Craig D. Idso, Robert M. Carter, S. Fred Singer, and Willie Soon in their Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC). It would be highly educational and helpful to us all if the authors would respond to the critics and the questions raised. Please give us your comments, gentlemen.

  61. Mosher wrote: “The scholarship of this whole piece is substandard. Not up to the accuracy that one sees from Mcintyre, Anthony, or Willis. Put another way, Idso, Singer, Soon etc need to take some lessons from Mcintyre. Their claims are mostly wrong, sometimes laughably so and they dont know how to make a case like Mcintyre or even Willis does. You see both Mc and willis would Pay close attention to the actual words used. They would cite. they would not go a bridge to far. In short, when alarmists use hyperbole, and you want to correct it. You need to cite. and then you need to avoid making mistakes yourself.”

    The NIPCC rebuttal discusses 35 different statements from the IPCC SPM. If you or the other bloggers you cite discussed these statements, each one might take at least one blog post to discuss completely. For example, consider Lucia’s posts on whether the IPCC predictions are statistically incompatible with observations. The NIPCC rebuttal is clearly a rush job intended to counter the publicity that the AR5 SPM is generating.

    What we really need is a person or a group of people willing to deal with these 35 points of controversy (and perhaps another 15-35? that were missed and are being discussed at other skeptical sites) plus the re-rebuttals that are appearing and discuss them to your standards.

  62. Uhmm, barry,

    You need to read the post more carefully. The post stated that there was
    no increase in “… the US GISS land surface record…”. You then produce
    a WFT plot using the GLOBAL GISS record and go all ballistic, calling
    this worthy of Mann.

    Read more carefully.

  63. Allan MacRae says: October 21, 2013 at 2:37 am

    Time Capsule below from New Scientist 2011, which I thought was interesting – from once-upon-a-time when we were still called “deniers”.

    […]

    But the leaders of mainstream climate science turned down the gig, including NASA’s Gavin Schmidt, who said the science was settled so there was nothing to discuss.

    Careful, Allan … Schmidt (and Keith Kloor) made a terrible fuss about this when Pearce first published his article on Revetz’s Lisbon gathering, as I had noted at the time (Pls. see The ineffable meaning of “conflicts” in climate science )

    Of course, this somewhat pales in comparison to Schmidt’s more recent childish refusal to sit at the same table as Roy Spencer during a TV broadcast (Pls. see: Stossel Show Video: Schmidt vs. Spencer )

  64. Do you guys actually read this guff and then compare with the original? Just look at point number one…

    The ‘NIPCC’ quote (aka twisted quote mine) from the IPCC SPM…
    The rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998-2012; 0.05 deg. C/decade) is smaller than the trend since 1951

    The complete sentence from the actual IPCC SPM…
    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)

    Oh dear. It would appear that the NIPCC snipped out the bit they didn’t like. They didn’t even have the honesty to replace it with ‘…’.

    You do know that NIPCC is out of Heartland? Previously exponents that 2nd hand smoke is harmless, ozone not depleting etc. Look at the science, not the Gish Gallop propaganda these guys churn out.

    [And yet despite your pointless protestations over how much of the sentence they used there’s nothing untrue in the statement “The rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998-2012; 0.05 deg. C/decade) is smaller than the trend since 1951”. We get it, you can’t look past who the source is and can’t grasp what it being said because you are too focused on finding small fry. – mod]

  65. Interesting references Hilary, thank you.

    At first I wondered why you said “Careful, Allan” as if perhaps I had indirectly wronged Gavin Schmidt by citing Pearce’s article.

    After reading your reference and viewing the video, I can see that was not the case. If anything, Gavin has injured himself.

    At that time, Gavin was apparently still affecting the “false outrage” tactic made famous by Michael Mann, of Mann-made global warming “hokey stick” fame.

    Schmidt and Mann not only sound the same, they even look the same! Reminds me of that Spy Magazine feature “Separated at birth?”. :-}

    You wrote in 2011 of Gavin’s position:
    IOW, “I didn’t say the science is settled, but the science is settled and if we’re not going to talk about policy, then I don’t want to play.”

    OK then. Very clear. And I do understand that if one ruffles Gavin’s delicate feathers, they tend to stay ruffled. Be very afraid!

    Let’s talk about the science for a minute – I mean, why not – it’s the subject of this website and all.

    And as a society, we’ve squandered over a trillion dollars of scarce global resources on global warming alarmism, and have severely compromised the energy systems of entire countries with nonsensical grid-connected wind and solar power schemes. Innocent people are dying and will continue to die as a result of these egregious errors of policy. For evidence, I will watch the “Excess Winter Mortality” rates in the UK in coming years.

    This deplorable state of affairs was not only predictable, it was predicted. It is probably tiresome of me to repeat this, but it is very frustrating to see this green energy debacle slowly unfolding when it was all foreseen.

    Best regards, Allan

    ****************

    2002
    [PEGG, reprinted at their request by several other professional journals , the Globe and Mail and la Presse in translation]
    http://www.apegga.org/Members/Publications/peggs/WEB11_02/kyoto_pt.htm

    On global warming:

    “Climate science does not support the theory of catastrophic human-made global warming – the alleged warming crisis does not exist.”

    On green energy:

    “The ultimate agenda of pro-Kyoto advocates is to eliminate fossil fuels, but this would result in a catastrophic shortfall in global energy supply – the wasteful, inefficient energy solutions proposed by Kyoto advocates simply cannot replace fossil fuels.”

    2002
    [Calgary Herald, September 1, 2002, based on a phone conversation with Paleoclimatologist Dr. Tim Patterson]

    On global cooling:

    “If (as I believe) solar activity is the main driver of surface temperature rather than CO2, we should begin the next cooling period by 2020 to 2030.”

    2008
    http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/carbon_dioxide_in_not_the_primary_cause_of_global_warming_the_future_can_no/

    On falsifying the CAGW hypothesis:

    The rate of change dCO2/dt varies ~contemporaneously with temperature.

    Atmospheric CO2 lags temperature at all measured time scales. CO2 does not drive temperature; temperature drives CO2.

    ****************

Comments are closed.