Guest essay by Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
Unnoticed, the IPCC has slashed its global-warming predictions, implicitly rejecting the models on which it once so heavily and imprudently relied. In the second draft of the Fifth Assessment Report it had broadly agreed with the models that the world will warm by 0.4 to 1.0 Cº from 2016-2035 against 1986-2005. But in the final draft it quietly cut the 30-year projection to 0.3-0.7 Cº, saying the warming is more likely to be at the lower end of the range [equivalent to about 0.4 Cº over 30 years]. If that rate continued till 2100, global warming this century could be as little as 1.3 Cº.
Official projections of global warming have plummeted since Dr. James Hansen of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies told the U.S. Congress in June 1988 the world would warm by 1 Cº every 20 years till 2050 (Fig. 1), implying 6 Cº to 2100.
Figure 1. Projected global warming from 1988-2019 on three scenarios (above), and from 1988-2060 on scenario A only (below), based on Hansen (1988), who testified before the U.S. Congress that June that scenario A was his business-as-usual case. The trend from 1988-2050 on that scenario (arrowed) is approximately 0.5 Cº/decade.
IPCC (1990: p. xi) projected warming of 0.2-0.5 Cº/decade to 2100. IPCC (1995: p. 6) projected 0.1-0.35 Cº/decade. IPCC (2001: p. 8) projected 0.13-0.43 Cº/decade to 2050. IPCC (2007: p. 13, table SPM.3) projected 0.11-0.64 Cº/decade to 2100.
Figure 2. Near-term warming projections (2005-2050) relative to 1986-2005, based on 42 models (colors) against observations (black). The second-order draft of IPCC (2013) projected global warming at 0.4-1.0 Cº over 30 years (red arrows), equivalent to 0.13-0.33 Cº/decade. The final draft projected warming at 0.4-0.7 Cº over 30 years (green arrows), equivalent to just 0.10-0.23 Cº/decade. Diagram based on IPCC (2013, Fig. 11.25a).
The second-order draft of IPCC (2013: fig. 11.33) had projected 0.13-0.33 Cº/decade to 2050. However, the final draft slashed this projection to 0.10-0.23 Cº/decade (Fig. 2), the IPCC’s best guess being closer to the lower than to the upper bound of the revised range.
The projected range in the second-order draft had been consistent with the models, but the revised range in the final draft was at the low end of models’ projections (Fig. 3). Implicitly, the IPCC no longer accepts that models accurately project warming.
The IPCC says:
“Overall, in the absence of major volcanic eruptions – which would cause significant but temporary cooling – and, assuming no significant future long term changes in solar irradiance, it is likely (>66% probability) that the GMST [global mean surface temperature] anomaly for the period 2016–2035, relative to the reference period of 1986–2005, will be in the range 0.3°C–0.7°C (expert assessment, to one significant figure; medium confidence).” (IPCC, 2013, p. 11-52).
Figure 3. Above: Models’ global warming projections, 2016-2035 vs. 1986-2005, against the IPCC’s projected interval of 0.4-1.0 K over 30 years, equivalent to 0.13-0.33 K decade–1 (between the gray dotted lines, based on IPCC 2013, 2nd draft, fig. 11.33c). Below: Final draft’s revised interval of 0.3-0.7 K over 30 years or 0.10-2.33 K decade–1, visibly at the low end of models’ projections (based on IPCC, 2013, fig. 11.25c). This implicit rejection of the models’ forecasting skill has passed unnoticed until now. Reviewers of the second draft were not consulted about the change in the IPCC’s key near-term projections, though many had argued for it.
The IPCC’s explicit reliance on its own “expert assessment” rather than upon the models’ projections is a significant climbdown. However, even its reduced best estimate of 0.13 Cº/decade may still be on the high side. Observed outturn since 1950 has been below 0.11 Cº/decade (HadCRUT4, 2013: Fig. 4).
Figure 4. Global mean surface temperature anomalies and 0.11 Cº/decade least-squares trend, January 1950 to November 2013 (from HadCRUT4 data).
That is not all. Despite record increases in CO2 concentration, there has been no global warming for almost 13 years (mean of GISS, HadCRUT4, NCDC, RSS, & UAH temperature data: Fig. 5), or, by satellite measurements, for more than 17 years (RSS, 2013: Fig. 6), and no warming distinguishable from the combined measurement, coverage, and bias uncertainties for 18 years (HadCRUT4, 2013: Fig. 7).
Figure 5. Monthly global mean surface or lower-troposphere anomalies (dark blue) and least-squares linear-regression trend (bright blue: mean of GISS, HadCRUT4, NCDC, RSS, and UAH data), January 2001 to November 2013, showing no global warming for almost 13 years notwithstanding continuing rapid increases in atmospheric CO2 concentration (gray).
Figure 6. Despite a near-linear increase of 2 μatm/year in CO2 concentration (NOAA, 2013, gray), the least-squares linear-regression trend (bright blue) on the RSS satellite monthly global mean lower-troposphere anomalies (dark blue) has been zero for 17 years 3 months (207 months).
Figure 7. HadCRUT4 monthly global mean surface temperature anomalies and trend, February 1996 to November 2013, showing a linear trend entirely within and hence indistinguishable from the combined measurement, coverage, and bias uncertainties.
In the light of the growing divergence between projection and observation, a direct comparison between the IPCC’s now-reduced near-term global warming projections and observed temperature change since 2005 is of value as a performance indicator for the models’ global-warming projections.
Fig. 8 shows such a comparison, based on the downgraded projections in IPCC (2013, fig. 11.25a: see Fig. 2 above). In the nine years since 2005, a divergence of 0.15 Cº has occurred.
Figure 8. Orange region: Models’ projections of global warming, January 2005 to November 2013, on the interval 1.33 [1.0, 2.33] Cº/century (from IPCC, 2013, fig. 11.25a). The second draft’s mid-range estimate is the final draft’s high-end estimate; the former low-end estimate is now the central estimate. Thick red trend-line: central projection of 0.12 K warming over the 107-month period, equivalent to 1.33 Cº/century. Gray curve and trend-line: monthly CO2 concentration anomalies (NOAA, 2013) and 18 μatm (198 μatm/century) trend, which caused 0.24 W m–2 forcing (or 0.35 W m–2 including other anthropogenic forcings). Of the 0.21 Cº warming projected to arise from this forcing, almost half was previously committed. Thick bright blue trend-line: Global cooling of 0.03 Cº (0.30 Cº/century: mean of five datasets). Over the period, the models over-predicted global warming by 0.15 Cº (1.6 Cº/century).
Multiple lines of evidence now confirm that the models and consequently the IPCC have overestimated global warming. Yet neither that misconceived organization nor any of its host of unthinking devotees has displayed any remorse. Instead, they persist in maintaining that the warming is temporarily paused, though they cannot really explain why; or they blame particulate aerosols, their get-out-of-jail-free fudge-factor; or they pretend warming is really continuing unabated, saying it has gone into hiding deep in the oceans where, conveniently, we cannot measure it, or that the Earth-atmosphere system has a fever driven by four atom-bombs’-worth of heat content increase every second.
What they are not prepared to countenance, notwithstanding the real-world, measured evidence, is the growing probability that they and their precious models have so badly misunderstood the climate, or so well understood it and so badly misrepresented it, that global warming is simply not going to occur at anything like any of the exaggerated rates that they had until now so confidently over-predicted.
Do not underestimate the importance of the IPCC’s climbdown, albeit that it is furtive and that there is not a hint of it in the Summary for Policymakers – the only part of the latest assessment that lazy politicians and incurious journalists may ever get around to reading.
Figure 9. Five projections of global warming, 1990-2050, compared with the linear trends on two observed datasets. IPCC projections are mid-range estimates. The trend (green) on the HadCRUt4 monthly global mean surface temperature anomalies reflects the warming at 0.11 K decade–1 observed since 1950. The trend (dark green) on the RSS satellite data reflects the zero trend that has now persisted for more than 17 years. Both observed trends are extrapolated to 2050.
If anyone ever again tries to tell you The Science Is Settled, as the now-axed Klimate Kommissariat in Australia is still trying to do in its latest taxpayer-funded propaganda sheet, point to Fig. 9 and ask two questions.
First, point to the red zone marked Projections and ask which of the very wide range of official projections The Science has Settled upon.
Secondly, point to the green zone marked Observations and ask why the real climate has so persistently failed to pay any attention to the Settled Science.
Then sit back and listen to the increasingly demoralized and disjointed flannel. As the nonsense runs down, the game is up.
===============================================================
References
GISS, 2013, Monthly global mean surface temperature anomalies, 1880-2013, from http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt.
HadCRUT4, 2013, Monthly global mean surface temperature anomalies, from www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut4/data/current/time_series/HadCRUT.4.2.0.0.monthly_ns_avg.txt.
Hansen, J., I., Fung, A. Lacis, D. Rind, S. Lebedeff, R. Ruedy, and G. Russell, 1988, Global climate changes as forecast by Goddard Institute for Space Studies Three-Dimensional Model. J. Geophys. Res. 93 (D8): 9341-9364.
IPCC, 1990, Climate Change – The IPCC Assessment (1990): Report prepared for Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change by Working Group I, J.T. Houghton, G.J. Jenkins and J.J. Ephraums (eds.), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, Great Britain, New York, NY, USA and Melbourne, Australia, 410 pp.
IPCC, 1995, Climate Change 1995 – The Science of Climate Change: Contribution of WG1 to the Second Assessment Report, J.T. Houghton, L.G. Meira Filho, B.A. Callander, N. Harris, A. Kattenberg, and K. Maskell (eds.), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, Great Britain, New York, NY, USA and Melbourne, Australia.
IPCC, 2001, Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Houghton, J.T., Y. Ding, D.J. Griggs, M. Noguer, P.J. van der Linden, X. Dai, K. Maskell and C.A. Johnson (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom, and New York, NY, USA, 881 pp.
IPCC, 2007, Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007 [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Avery, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)], Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom, and New York, NY, USA.
IPCC, 2013, Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex, and P.M. Midgley (eds.)], Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom, and New York, NY, USA.
NCDC, 2013, Monthly global mean surface temperature anomalies, 1880-2013, from ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov
/pub/data/anomalies/monthly.land_ocean.90S.90N.df_1901-2000mean.dat.
NOAA, 2013, Monthly mean atmospheric CO2 concentration anomalies, 1958-2013, from ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_mm_mlo.txt.
RSS, Inc., 2013, Global mean lower-troposphere temperature anomalies, 1979-2013, remss.com/data/msu/monthly_time_series/RSS_Monthly_MSU_AMSU_Channel_TLT_Anomalies_Land_and_Ocean_v03_3.txt.
UAH, 2013, Satellite MSU monthly global mean lower-troposphere temperature anomalies: vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt.
@Mib8, no for “warming” to be occurring, the anomaly would have to be getting bigger. Unfortunately for the warmies, the anomaly has been falling this century, indicating 21st century cooling.
Billmelater says:
January 1, 2014 at 6:07 pm
Does Christopher think that everything in a draft document should appear in the final report?
Like the minute of your business meetings, council meetings, etc The IPCC summary for Pols MUST reflect precisely the document, meeting, as written. It should not be almost the exact opposite. This is a legal requirement in all speres of public business.
Billmelater says
‘at the Pink Roadhouse in Oodnadatta, owner Adriana Jacob said her personal weather gauge showed temperatures had soared to as high as 54C ‘’
Oh we have a new member of he august society of misplaced thermometers.
Great work, Christopher – a promising start to 2014.
The following is an extract from my written evidence to the UK Select Committee Inquiry into AR5
http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/WrittenEvidence.svc/EvidenceHtml/4013
“SPM.2 (Note (c)) reveals that the “assessed range for near-term (2016-2035) temperature change” (ie final projections) “is lower than the 5-95% model range”. This obscure comment is the sole SPM disclosure that all of the CMIP5 near-term projections were downscaled by an arbitrary 20% at the Stockholm meeting. This was necessary to belatedly recognise that many of the models are “running hot”[8] and are wholly incompatible with temperature realities.
This band-aid was neither scientific nor rational. When certain models are wildly astray, the only acceptable procedure is to isolate all ensembles affected by their outputs and to require the culprits to be adjusted. If they remain unable to hindcast ‘the real world’, they must obviously be set aside.
A last-minute curve-correcting discount of all model outputs for a limited and arbitrary period inevitably smacks of panic. The unapologetic ad hockery of this intervention undermines the plausibilty of all AR5 projections.
The sudden necessity of a 20% discount seriously impeaches the SPM assertion that past attribution certainty has increased to a 95% level.
Such alleged certainty contrasts with confidence in the mid-term (2046-65) future projections being marked down to “medium” – meaning about a 50:50 chance of being correct, or ‘as likely as not’ to be wrong. This is markedly lower than any previous IPCC projections.
The confidence markdown was made because there is “insufficient scientific understanding” whether “the factors” that caused the 20% discount of near-term projections, might also apply to the mid-term [9].
50:50 estimates of discredited models using obsolete postulants and ‘insufficient understanding’, cannot hope to provide an adequate basis for worldwide epoch-changing policy decisions.”
About the silence in Norwegian media:
First they put our former prime minister Stoltenberg in charge of climate change at the UN: http://www.tu.no/klima/2013/12/23/stoltenberg-blir-klima-utsending-for-fn
Then our newly elected prime minister Solberg avoids mentioning climate change in her New Year’s Speech on nationwide TV, to the dismay of Stoltenberg: http://www.dagbladet.no/2014/01/01/nyheter/erna_solberg/politikk/innenriks/jens_stoltenberg/31075636/
“ROSES and REACTS: Former prime minister Jens Stoltenberg reacts when prime minister Erna Solberg chose not to mention environmental and climate politics in her first new year’s speech.
– It almost begins to form a pattern
Jens reacted to Erna dropping the climate question – once again.”
Stoltenberg got the UN top job which we have foreseen for years, as he has given away Norwegian money to all kinds of UN projects and initiatives. It must be mentioned that he is still in a full job as an elected representative in the Norwegian government, but that does obviously not hinder him in doing another full-time job for the UN. Luckily for us, it means that he will probably perform two jobs badly instead of one of them well.
Patrick says: @ur momisugly January 1, 2014 at 10:30 pm
There is absolutely nothing unusual happening with regards to temperatures in northern SA….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Yes, I am sure records are the same: Australian temperature records shoddy, inaccurate, unreliable.
(Sorry, I couldn’t resist)
mib8 says:
January 1, 2014 at 10:42 pm
….So, why do all of the graphs seem to show some global warming over the last 17-18 years, when several postings have said that the data show no global warming over that period? I’m not trying to be annoying; I just don’t understand.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I will try to answer.
First there are several different data sets.
Second it is all about the statements made by Warmists.
1. Prof. Phil Jones saying in the Climategate emails – “Bottom line: the “no upward trend” has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried.” Also see: interview with Judith Curry and Phil Jones
2. Ben Santer in a 2011 paper “Our results show that temperature records of at least 17 years in length are required for identifying human effects on global-mean tropospheric temperature.” link
3. The NOAA falsification criterion is on page S23 of its 2008 report titled The State Of The Climate
4. we are looking at no changes in temperature over a period longer than the 10 years that James Hansen once said would show the models wrong;
So the falsification criteria is 15 years to 17 years. That is why we start at the present and count backwards. Once we hit 17 years The Goose is Cooked. Unfortunately the Goose seems to be a zombie and keeps rising from the dead.
Do not forget this is “Statistically Significant” warming. The discernment has to be a trend different from zero at 95% confidence because that is the confidence level used by ‘climate science’.
All the available time series of global temperature show no discernible global warming or show global cooling at 95% confidence for at least 17 years. RSS shows no discernible global warming or global cooling at 95% confidence for 22 years.
Any other statement (except to query the validity of global temperature data compilations) is spin
If this is just the “final draft” it will be interesting to see what the actual report says when it is finally published.
Don’t hold your breath for the MSM to report anything, though.
A number of posters have been having a go at me about the high temperature in South Australia. I did so in response to another poster. Surely that is ok isn’t it?
Roy of uk, I mentioned South Australia being very hot (not unprecedented as some one claimed). You make a charge that I am hijacking the thread. Yet when tuer mentioned ice in Antarctica to which I was responding, you don’t say anything. Why is that? Anything cool is ok, anything hot not?
Remember this is a science blog, and discussion of ideas is paramount. Abuse and attempts to censure posters should not be tolerated. Then again if it is a blog of vindictIve know nothings that cannot stand other people expressing a view, then keep up the good work.
Christoph Dollis says: @ur momisugly January 1, 2014 at 11:39 pm
Martine Atherton of Brisbane promises a thorough debunking. I’ll be sure to pass it along here when she gets around to it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You forgot the rest of it.
I agree with John Leon… A Library Technician (for politicians) recommends a KNOWN propaganda site? ROTFLMAO
Gail, that report you referred to was for measurement taken before 1972. I was referring to a reading of 54 degrees taken recently. But although it is hot, I won’t verify the accuracy as it was a private thermometer. The point I was making that referring to ice in Antarctica is nonsensical to indicate the Earth is cooling.
Got an infra red thermometer for Christmas. Global Warming solved.- It’s all down to cloud height.
The temperature reflected back from clouds depends on their height.
Like the minute of your business meetings, council meetings, etc The IPCC summary for Pols MUST reflect precisely the document, meeting, as written. It should not be almost the exact opposite. This is a legal requirement in all speres of public business.
Minutes of meetings etc are different from draft reports. If the final report had to reflect the draft exactly, then the draft is the final report. You know it makes sense!
“Quotes Supplied by Eric Simpson at 9:30pm, today”: most of all quotes are misrepresentations and do not Apply to climat change see http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=201005290337
William McClenney says: @ur momisugly January 1, 2014 at 11:51 pm
The problem here, of course, is that no one, not even one climate cognoscenti, provides even a single nod that, as of today, the Holocene interglacial is now 11,717 years old…..
That’s two centuries or so beyond half the present precession cycle…
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Yes, it is the pronounced climate and environment instability during the interglacial/glacial transition that has me worried.
If Dr. Brown (Duke Univ.) is correct and the climate is chaotic with two strange attractors, Warm and Cold, then the Holocene is sitting on the edge of the transition between them and it may not even matter if we do not go into glaciation. The wild ride as the climate becomes unstable will be bad enough.
That is the big question of course. What is the threshold conditions needed to push us into the next glaciation or climate instability? Catastrophic Global Warming is completely off the table for the next 4,000 years even in the best case scenario, “..Insolation will remain at this level slightly above the inception for the next 4,000 years before it then increases again.” except as spikes caused by the chaotic climate’s instability.
Billmelots says:
January 2, 2014 at 2:15 am
Hot, Cold, Ice, Floods, famine, pestilence, plague and even Zits have been blamed on Global warming. So I don’t care about you being off track again. Try answer the question or at least post something to do with the Main article.
So I will try again Bill. What do you think about the IPCC issuing a draft report and untold press releases telling us what a huge and devastating problem global warming is. And then changing the draft a few months later, with no press releases, so its not actually “worse than we thought.”.
Come on now I am sure I have put it quite simply for you so an answer would be appreciated.
Lies, damned lies and the IPCC
Roy UK, fair question. My position that if anyone deliberately misleads the public with false or distorted data or interpretation of same should be treated with the full force of the law and given the maximum sentences possible. This is a crime against humanity.
Misleading the public has real financial consequences. For instance, my insurance premiums have gone up by 25% two years ago and another 20% last year. When I inquired as to why, the insurance company responded that it was due to high number of claims made due to climate related damage to property.
If the IPCC have conclude that the climate is changing they should be using every means that their disposal to get the message out so that action can commence to lessen the impact. If their analysis shows there is no change in climate expected then they are acting appropriately and the insurance companies are ripping people off.
Figure 9 completely falsifies the CAGW hypthesis by itself.
Models are NOT experiment, nor do they create real experimental data. They are only a model of a variant of the hypothesis and NOT models of the real actual climate. ALL they can do is create projected data of what the hypothesis predicts. This then must be compared to the real, observed, empirically measured data. Figure 9 clearly shows that the prediction of the hypothesis is NOT supported by the observation and so….
Science 101 dictates that the hypothesis be rejected or amended until it can match observed reality.
All that can be stated for certain at this stage is that there has been approximately 1 3rd of the predicted warming occur. NOTHING MORE. We do not know why there has been less warming than predicted, and many of the alarmists refuse to even countenance that reality at all, so until they do accept that and research why, there is no way to know if ANY of the warming is man-made or not, or if we really should have had more warming or if we should have had less.
ALL we know for certain is that the there has been 1 3rd of the predicted warming and that the models are wrong and we don’t know jack about what will REALLY happen to the climate in the future. Every other assertion is nothing more than unvalidated hypothesis at this point.
to compensate for the AAE Antarctic fiasco, which Australian media virtually ignored, & never explained when they did mentiion it, our media have been on a binge of HOT stories.
Oodnadatta is in the State of South Australia:
(one hour ago) 2 Jan: SBS: Near record temperatures in inland Australia
Bureau of Meteorology climatologist Blair Trewin: “The highest temperature we’ve seen so far in this event is 49.3 at Moomba in the far north east of South Australia on Thursday – that’s just short of their record. They had a 49.6 last year – and the overall picture’s been a lot of places have just missed records by one tenth of a degree – Alice Springs is another one where that’s happened.”
He says South Australia appears to have passed the worst of its hot weather…
http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2014/01/02/near-record-temperatures-inland-australia
but there’s no doubting Adriana is hot to trot with the aussie media, including Murdoch’s Adelaide Advertiser:
2 Jan: ABC Breakfast: Central Australia headed for temperature record
Guest:
Adriana Jacob
Owner, Pink Roadhouse, Oodnadatta
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/central-australia-headed-for-temperature-record/5181660
2 Jan: Adelaide Advertiser: Katrina Stokes: South Australia sizzles and drizzles into the New Year with rain in Adelaide and searing heat in Outback
The heat stayed on in the north, though. At the Pink Roadhouse in Oodnadatta, owner Adriana Jacob said her personal weather gauge showed temperatures had soared to as high as 54C as a front associated with ex-tropical cyclone Christine sweeps across Central Australia…
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/south-australia-sizzles-and-drizzles-into-the-new-year-with-rain-in-adelaide-and-searing-heat-in-outback/story-fni6uo1m-1226792975000
ABC’s Tony Eastley searching for the hotspot near Oodnadatta where the talk is of 80 degrees centigrade in the sun:
2 Jan: ABC AM: Australia braces for scorching 49 degrees (audio 3 minutes)
http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2013/s3919569.htm
@Billmelater: “Misleading the public has real financial consequences. For instance, my insurance premiums have gone up by 25% two years ago and another 20% last year. When I inquired as to why, the insurance company responded that it was due to high number of claims made due to climate related damage to property.”
Are the insurance companies actually having an increase in claims due to weather related damage? In which case they need to alter their actuaries and determine the actual level of risk associated with increased weather damage, whether this is caused by human induced, or entirely natural climate change, is irrelevant. The fact is the climate changes all the time, weather changes all the time. there are weather related claims being made all the time and the insurance companies base financial risk on reality, not on hypotheticals.
I do not believe that insurance companies are basing risk on the IPCC report, but are basing it on what actually happens in the real world. There has been a large increase in flooding through 2012 as the excessively wet conditions, allied with poor flood defences in some locations, increased building on flood plains and poorly maintained drainage ditches all combined to increase the number of floods and losses associated therein. Then in early 2013 there was record snowfall in some areas. Insurance companies are recouping their losses based on actual claims made.
There is no doubt that there has been an increase in weather related claims. This proves nothing about man-made climate change however, but it does allow insurance companies to use the fact of increased claims, alongside the PR (propaganda) of climate alarm, to sell the increase in premiums to a largely mislead (by the mainstream media and especially the BBC) public.
my comment re australian media in hot pursuit of hotspots (compensating for the AAE Antarctic fiasco) is in moderation, but this is the 80 degree excerpt i meant to include with this link.
2 Jan: ABC: Australia braces for scorching 49 degrees
Phil Turner: You can imagine what, if it’s 49 degrees in the shade, we’re talking 77, 78, 80 degrees out in the sun, which is, I mean, you’re running rubber on it; tyres just can’t cope with that sort of condition…
http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2013/s3919569.htm
How can something be “quietly cut” when it was only a draft in the first place?
Monckton makes it sound like the IPCC noisily made some predictions, and then secretly changed them afterwards, but this is the exact opposite of what really happened. The Second Order Draft was, as the name suggests, a draft. The IPCC specifically says that the earlier drafts are just preliminary, not the final conclusions, and indeed it asked authors and reviewers not to circulate the drafts specifically because it didn’t want people thinking that the draft conclusions were the final ones.
The drafts will be officially published later as a matter of public record, along with the review comments and author responses, so the evolution of the report will be clear.
This is a totally manufactured criticism.
Richard Betts, I politely disagree.
For sure, drafts are drafts and it is not surprising that they change before final publication. And of course the trend in expected impact of CO2 will be downwards, ever downwards, as the planet continues to ignore the rise in CO2. I do agree that there is nothing to criticise there. That is what is happening, the drafts should change with more observations.
But do you honestly think that the constant revisions away from alarmist rhetoric and towards observations are given the same publicity as “We’re all doomed!”
They aren’t.
The constant crushing of alarmism by the relentless hammer of reality is not publicised. It ought to be the headline of the SFPM. It ought to have an IPCC press conference. It ought to be in school curriculums as an example of the scientific process.
But no; drafts just eke out, one by one, shaving a bit off here, a bit off there and is no-one meant to notice?
If Rodin did this with his sculpting the Thinker would be transgendered by now.
Billmelater says: @ur momisugly January 2, 2014 at 2:25 am
…The point I was making that referring to ice in Antarctica is nonsensical to indicate the Earth is cooling.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Alright I will be more serious. The accuracy of the Australia and New Zealand temp record has been under fire for a while. There are several threads on the subject at various blogs like The Goat Ate the Data and Announcing a formal request for the Auditor General to audit the Australian BOM for example.
Jo Nova has a list of her threads on Australian temperature measurement HERE
….
Why the Cold Antarctic matters:
As William McClenney and I keep pointing out we are just beyond half the present precession cycle and that may indicate the end of this interglacial. The latest paper, that William discussed here on WUWT was Can we predict the duration of an interglacial?
The take home from that paper are:
1. “…the first major reactivation of the bipolar seesaw would probably constitute an indication that the transition to a glacial state had already taken place.”
2. “..Comparison with MIS 19c, a close astronomical analogue characterized by an equally weak summer insolation minimum (474Wm−2) and a smaller overall decrease from maximum summer solstice insolation values, suggests that glacial inception is possible despite the subdued insolation forcing, if CO2 concentrations were 240±5 ppmv… “
So what is this critical bipolar seesaw?
WHY is it critical?
Luckily one of the engineers here on WUWT just answered that question:
link
As an engineer he goes into the mechanics of what is happening (2 pages) So again the take home:
So whether sea ice prevents heat loss or causes solar energy reflection for a NET ENERGY LOSS is completely dependent on the angle of the sun which is quite different for the Arctic Sea vs the Antarctic Continent and surrounding sea ice.
This is why what is happening in the Antarctic is so critical. There is also Drakes Passage. See Effect of Drake Passage on the global thermohaline circulation and think about what ice blocking or restricting the area would mean….
If Antarctic sea ice continues to grow at the present rate we may find out exactly what it means the hard way.
OH, and speaking of weather, we broke records for low temperatures in my area BRRrrr.
Billmelater says: @ur momisugly January 2, 2014 at 2:29 am
…Minutes of meetings etc are different from draft reports. If the final report had to reflect the draft exactly, then the draft is the final report. You know it makes sense!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You are completely missing the point.
The Draft report was the FINAL report from the SCIENTISTS. The Summary for Policy Makers(SPM) is the results of a meeting from a bunch of POLITICIANS and BUREAUCRATS. The report from the scientists is then twisted until it supports The Summary for Policy Makers and becomes the Final Report.
An analogy:
I, as lab manager compile the testing results from various technicians in my quality lab on a product about to be shipped. This is the ‘Draft Report” Then the plant , sales, production and shipping managers hold a meeting and since we are shipping under “Just-in-time” the test results showing contamination above allowable limits are reduced by 20%. This is the Summary for Policy Makers. The Certificate of Analysis is then adjusted to meet the Summary for Policy Makers. The fraudulant Certificate of Analysis is your ‘Final Report’
(In real life the tweaking was done by the lab tech who attended the meetings I was not invited to and the result was three planes crashed.)