The IPCC WGII report is out – now the screaming begins anew

Links to documents follow.

Not so much fanfare now, since leaks pretty much revealed earlier that it’s alarmism on steroids. The always dependably worrisome Seth Borenstein, AP’s science reporter, sums up the alarmism quite well with this tweet:

I note Dr. Richard Tol’s name is not on it, as he said it was too alarmist.

The Working Group II contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report considers the vulnerability and exposure of human and natural systems, the observed impacts and future risks of climate change, and the potential for and limits to adaptation. The chapters of the report assess risks and opportunities for societies, economies, and ecosystems around the world.

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

Headline Statements from the Summary for Policymakers *

Observed Changes in the Climate System

clip_image005

Each of the last three decades has been successively warmer at the Earth’s surface than any preceding decade since 1850. In the Northern Hemisphere, 1983–2012 was likely the warmest 30-year period of the last 1400 years (medium confidence).

Ocean warming dominates the increase in energy stored in the climate system, accounting for more than 90% of the energy accumulated between 1971 and 2010 (high confidence). It is virtually certain that the upper ocean (0–700 m) warmed from 1971 to 2010, and it likely warmed between the 1870s and 1971.

Over the last two decades, the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have been losing mass, glaciers have continued to shrink almost worldwide, and Arctic sea ice and Northern Hemisphere spring snow cover have continued to decrease in extent (high confidence).

The rate of sea level rise since the mid-19th century has been larger than the mean rate during the previous two millennia

(high confidence). Over the period 1901 to 2010, global mean sea level rose by 0.19 [0.17 to 0.21] m.

The atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide have increased to levels unprecedented in at least the last 800,000 years. Carbon dioxide concentrations have increased by 40% since pre-industrial times, primarily from fossil fuel emissions and secondarily from net land use change emissions. The ocean has absorbed about 30% of the emitted anthropogenic carbon dioxide, causing ocean acidification.

Drivers of Climate Change

clip_image007

Understanding the Climate System and its Recent Changes

clip_image014

Climate models have improved since the AR4. Models reproduce observed continental-scale surface temperature patterns and trends over many decades, including the more rapid warming since the mid-20th century and the cooling immediately following large volcanic eruptions (very high confidence).

Observational and model studies of temperature change, climate feedbacks and changes in the Earth’s energy budget together provide confidence in the magnitude of global warming in response to past and future forcing.

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.

Future Global and Regional Climate Change

clip_image016

Global surface temperature change for the end of the 21st century is likely to exceed 1.5°C relative to 1850 to 1900 for all RCP scenarios except RCP2.6. It is likely to exceed 2°C for RCP6.0 and RCP8.5, and more likely than not to exceed 2°C for RCP4.5. Warming will continue beyond 2100 under all RCP scenarios except RCP2.6. Warming will continue to exhibit interannual-to-decadal variability and will not be regionally uniform.

Changes in the global water cycle in response to the warming over the 21st century will not be uniform. The contrast in precipitation between wet and dry regions and between wet and dry seasons will increase, although there may be regional exceptions.

The global ocean will continue to warm during the 21st century. Heat will penetrate from the surface to the deep ocean and affect ocean circulation.

It is very likely that the Arctic sea ice cover will continue to shrink and thin and that Northern Hemisphere spring snow cover will decrease during the 21st century as global mean surface temperature rises. Global glacier volume will further decrease.

Global mean sea level will continue to rise during the 21st century. Under all RCP scenarios, the rate of sea level rise will very likely exceed that observed during 1971 to 2010 due to increased ocean warming and increased loss of mass from glaciers and ice sheets.

Climate change will affect carbon cycle processes in a way that will exacerbate the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere (high confidence). Further uptake of carbon by the ocean will increase ocean acidification.

Cumulative emissions of CO2 largely determine global mean surface warming by the late 21st century and beyond. Most aspects of climate change will persist for many centuries even if emissions of CO2 are stopped. This represents a substantial multi-century climate change commitment created by past, present and future emissions of CO2.

clip_image017

* Headline statements are the overarching highlighted conclusions of the approved Summary for Policymakers which, taken together, provide a concise narrative. The four statements in boxes here are those summarizing the assessment in the Summary for Policymakers, sections B-E.

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

The Summary for Policymakers is available here and the unedited accepted Final Draft Report is available here.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of

Lies, lies and more lies. These people are experts at avoiding the facts.

Gerard Harbison

That headache you feel is either bits of the sky falling on your head, or a reaction to the overweening stupidity.

john robertson

Borestein, personal gullibility dialled up to all time high.
Seth is a shoe-in for dissinformer of the year.

PaulH

The IPCC simply cannot abandon their most cherished delusions.

bushbunny

Don’t they sound like some fake clairvoyant and astrologist. It has nothing but predictions like some Old Moore’s Almanack. Reduce their funding for not doing their jobs properly.

Richdo

“We’re sitting ducks”
– was that a quack I heard?

Jim Cripwell

From the report ” It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.”
This is, of course, the key issue. If you believe that this has been shown, then the rest of the report may be valid. However, since climate sensitivity has never been measured, CAGW remains an uncorroborated hypothesis. And it is wrong to base such conclusions on the basis of only a hypothesis.

TomRude

When less is more, always more, more than more…

Chuck L

This reeks of desperation as all their apocalyptic predictions have failed thus far.

Ken L.

And yet, the actual report is to contain more cautious assessments of climate change impact (per Matt Ridley’s article)? They broadcast scary propaganda and then dial back the hype with the science, figuring the public will never see that information. I get it.

Steve in Seattle

Let’s find out much more about everyone of the USA Authors. I am going to be busy the next few hours doing some internet research.

ralfellis

Northern Hemisphere SPRING snow cover has continued to DECREASE in extent (high confidence).
_____________________________
Yeah, but Northern Hemisphere WINTER snow cover has continued to INCREASE in extent (high confidence). Giving only half the data and half the story, is the same as lying.
This was the kind of USSR PRAVDA misinformation that we in the West used to laugh at in the 1980s, and now we have the same half-truth lies distributed by every media outlet in the West. What ever happened to truth, honesty and integrity? Whatever happened to the moral compass of the ‘enlightened’ West?
Ralph

Fabi

Were they able to quantify the energy released from constantly moving the goalposts?

The answer is here – NIPCC Climate Change Reconsidered II: Biological Impacts (1062 pgs)
http://climatechangereconsidered.org/

NIPCC Climate Change Reconsidered II: Biological Impacts – Summary for Policy Makers
http://heartland.org/media-library/pdfs/CCR-IIb/Summary-for-Policymakers.pdf
The human impact on global climate is small, and any warming that may occur as a result of human carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gas emissions is likely to have little effect on global temperatures, the cryosphere (ice-covered areas), hydrosphere (oceans, lakes, and rivers), or weather.
Climate Change Reconsidered II: Biological Impacts, the subject of this Summary for Policymakers, examines the scientific research on the impacts of rising temperatures and atmospheric CO2 levels on the biological world. It finds no net harm to the global environment or to human health and often finds the opposite: net benefits to plants, including important food crops, and to animals and human health.

bw

The Northern Hemisphere is not the globe.
CO2 follows temperature.
Anthropogenic CO2 flux is 3 percent of natural CO2 flux.
CO2 never accumulates in the atmosphere, any more than water accumulates in a river.
Antarctica is gaining ice mass recently.
2014 global temperature (measured by satellite) is within 0.2 degrees of the 1980 value.
Adding CO2 to the atmosphere benefits plant/crop growth.
Global sea level is rising at about 1mm per year using all modern technology.
Sea level is about the same as 2000 years ago by historical accounts.
Current sea level is lower than 6000 years ago.
Arctic ice melt (if any) will not raise sea level.

They write what the policy makers want to see and expect that is all they will see. Feed their agenda, not facts.

bushbunny

Crystal ball gazers, the lot. Watch your deciduous trees, when they start to bud that will herald warmer weather as their sap starts to move upwards and the soil heats up. If it doesn’t then crops will suffer of course and there maybe not enough spring rain. Either way they think they will be proven correct. Gosh what a load of dispensable eunichs

Neville

But why didn’t they also inform their readers that there is nothing humans can do to mitigate CAGW for thousands of years?
This is the finding from the latest,joint RS and NAS report . Bloody eco-loons and numbskulls the lot of them..

tango

I am hiding under the bed

DMA

“Carbon dioxide concentrations have increased by 40% since pre-industrial times, primarily from fossil fuel emissions and secondarily from net land use change emissions. The ocean has absorbed about 30% of the emitted anthropogenic carbon dioxide, causing ocean acidification.”
If the total CO2 concentration displays no correlation to anthropogenic emission rates how can anyone say they are the cause of the increase?
“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.”
I have not seen any credible data supporting any of this statement. These are all likely effected by human activity but the effects have not been measured or even proved to my knowledge.
“Changes in the global water cycle in response to the warming over the 21st century will not be uniform. The contrast in precipitation between wet and dry regions and between wet and dry seasons will increase, although there may be regional exceptions.”
I think this says ‘Some things will change and some won’t.’ but it sounds ominous.

Magma

My, what fast readers commenters here are. I’d be impressed, if I actually thought many of you had bothered read a single page…
[criticism is easy, anyone can do it. How many did you read in the same amount of time, anonymous person? – mod]

On the bright side, I realized that here in the US, I didn’t hear a single thing about “earth hour”. None of the papers I read mentioned it, none of the local news talked about it, it was a non event.
I don’t think anyone is paying attention to any of this nonsense anymore, except for a handful of increasingly shrill ideologues.

Fabi

Look at Figure SPM.4.(B) on page 38. Global temperatures look very flat to me. I guess that’s why this pretty picture is rendered small and buried in the back of the report…

Looking forward to Anthony and the WUWT expert contributors ripping into this.
I could almost fill the above summary with a red highlighter for lies and a green one for the unproved claims. Not much white except for the spaces.
On the other hand there are plenty of “likely”‘s and a “virtually certain” which provide some sort of backside protection when they are positively and transparently shown to be wrong.
Talk about “cognitive dissonance”!

“The rate of sea level rise since the mid-19th century has been larger than the mean rate during the previous two millennia” IPCC SPM
Since sea level was about a foot higher during the Medieval Warm Period, and eight inches lower during the Little Ice Age, the average during the previous millennia is meaningless, and as a result of Roman warm period and Dark Ages cooling, the average sea level change during the past two millennia tends to zero. However, the Holocene Highstand 7,000 to 4,000 years ago was up to two meters (roughly six feet) higher than now.
“Over the period 1901 to 2010, global mean sea level rose by 0.19 [0.17 to 0.21] m.” IPCC SPM
That’s about the same rate as 1801 to 1900. Prior to 1800, sea levels fell during the Little Ice Age, and atmospheric CO2 levels were the same throughout the period starting with the Medieval Warm Period 1350AD through the Little Ice Age and up to 1900. What tortured logic is in play here to build a theory that turns off and on the influence of atmospheric CO2 as the need for explanation of observations requires? Warming and cooling, sea levels rising and falling, atmospheric CO2 steady – the IPCC ignores. 20 years of the past 114 that warming coincided with increasing CO2 – damned for all time. And the longer the pause, and the greater the divergence of global climate models with observations, the higher the certainty of human cause. If the pause continues much longer, IPCC certainty will break the 100% barrier.

Dr Burns

Plenty of ranting and screaming on the “The Conversation” forum “Climate change and health: IPCC reports emerging risks, emerging consensus” I’ve been banned from yet another alarmists’ group, simply for asking climate scammers’ most embarrassing question:
“In your own words, what is the EVIDENCE that man’s CO2 has caused any of the warming since the Little Ice Age ?”
—————————————————-
Your comment on ‘Climate change and health: IPCC reports emerging risks, emerging consensus ‘ has been removed.
There are several reasons why this may have occurred:
1) Your comment may have breached our community standards. For example it may have been a personal attack, or you might not have used your real name.
2) Your comment may have been entirely blameless but part of a thread that was removed because another comment had to be removed.
3) It might have been removed for another editorial reason, for example to avoid repetition or keep the conversation on topic.
For practical reasons we reserve the right to remove any comment and all decisions must be final, but please don’t take it personally.
If you’re playing by the rules it’s unlikely to happen again, so feel free to continue to post new comments and engage in polite and respectful discussion.
For your reference, the removed comment was:
Answer the most basic question:
In your own words, what is the EVIDENCE that man’s CO2 has caused any of the warming since the Little Ice Age ?

p.s. pretty funny to see that magma made his whiny comment directly beneath someone who is quoting word for word from the IPCC report.
p.p.s. TO DMA: I think that last quote you provided says “things will continue to change for the worse, except when they don’t.” Hard to argue with that one, really.
Rain will continue to fall, except when its dry.
Wind will continue to blow, except when it stops.
And the Earth will abide.

@Magma
“My, what fast readers commenters here are. I’d be impressed, if I actually thought many of you had bothered read a single page…”
When the Summary for Policy Makers is compared to the details of the report, it is obvious that the IPCC writers of the Summary didn’t read their own report. But rest assured, the details in the body of the report have been public knowledge for quite a while, and we read them even though the IPCC Summary writers didn’t.

Bill Illis

Nothing can stop the destruction of the universe now.
We must pray.
And people should be required to pay a tithe to the church of warming and apocalypsial consequences and equality distribution (WAC’ED).

charles nelson

As an ex ad-man I was always aware of the brilliant media synchronisation employed by the Alarmists; the timing of events, press releases, linked articles and editorials has always been handled most professionally. The main drive of the campaign was always in Spring (N/H) and alarmist stories were always planted during a spell of warm or even hot weather.
You can see it happening again today, Earth Hour, IPCC report, squealing alarmists and the slightly less shrill voices of their allies in the MSM all in chorus…all singing from the same hymnal…or maybe not so much any more. There are dissonances Richard Tol, James Lovelock are sounding distinctly out of tune.
But what fascinates me is the idea that in spite of all this PR talent, the Alarmist’s momentum is fading. Facts are getting in the way, the public perceptions are changing. Like all fashions and trends Global Warming has a course course to run and to use the river analogy it is now meandering through the flood plain on its way to the delta. Or to put it another way, CAGW is a tired product which cannot be rebranded. You can’t scare people twice with the same old nonsense.
So let them howl…we know who they are now, (Seth) and we know that deep down they understand that no one is listening. (Except us ironically!)
As someone once said with regard to promotional activity…’you can’t push on a piece of string.’

DDP

IPPC find 11 on the speaker, news at at the top of the hour…

Steve Oregon

I’m convinced. Now I feel afraid and guilty.
Is there anything I can do to make up for my previous problem?
What would Joe or Gavin suggest?
I’m afraid to ask them. What to do?
What I ask them and they tell me to hurt myself?
Oh gosh………..
I was better off being a skeptic.

Mkelley

And here in Montana, it keeps snowing and snowing and snowing…

I can say, more likely than not, that it is very likely that, the latest IPCC report will very likely exceed the level of stupidity observed in all previous IPCC reports. I can say this with high confidence as the error bars are so large and getting larger.
The lies and half truths in the IPCC report remind me of the Pravda and Izvestia of the former USSR. The out-of-work architects of their daily misinformation have now taken up work at the IPCC and its affiliates.

I can say, more likely than not, that it is very likely that, the latest IPCC report will very likely exceed the level of stupidity observed in all previous IPCC reports. I can say this with high confidence as the error bars are so large and getting larger.
The lies and half truths in the IPCC report remind me of the Pravda and Izvestia of the former USSR. The out-of-work architects of their daily misinformation have now taken up work at the IPCC and its affiliates.

heysuess

The more alarmist it is, the more it will be ignored by the reasonable majority.

We’re sure lucky.
Imagine how ballistic the IPCC would have been were there actual global warming going on. Whew!!!

Jim Clarke

The Earth has been warming for nearly 250 years. The IPCC does not know why, but has very high confidence that the last 60 years were do to humanity releasing CO2 back into the atmosphere from whence it came. They know that whatever was causing the warming before 1950 stopped, because….well, they couldn’t blame humanity if it didn’t. It is not a very scientific reason, but it is sufficient for a crusade.
Secondly, they proclaim that most of the warming of the atmosphere didn’t actually warm the atmosphere but mysteriously warmed the oceans instead. Which is kind of like turning on your oven in the kitchen which fails to warm up, but the bath tub water magically get hotter in the bathroom. Also, not a scientific analysis, but possibly sufficient to maintain the crusade.
For 25 years skeptics have been ridiculed for making the outrageous claim that the natural warming over the last several centuries was simply continuing in the late 20th Century, with CO2 increases having only minor effects. This idea was ridiculed because the skeptics did not have a specific theory (model) for such natural variability. Now the warmists cannot ‘model’ the cessation of warming! Scientists would have to ridicule their own theory or acknowledge that the skeptical argument is every bit as valid as their own. Crusaders, however, are under no such rational constrictions.

Notice how all the predictions used to be ten years, twenty years and so on for disaster. Now, since they were stone cold wrong, they make them “the end of the century”. Plenty of time to create panic without the pesky observation details getting in the way of the magical computer models.

thisisnotgoodtogo

Fake Nobelist lead author Dr Saleemul Huk
http://www.bcas.net/director-details.php?id=1&&name=Dr.%20Saleemul%20Huq
“In 2007, he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize”

lee

thisisnotgoodtogo says:
March 30, 2014 at 7:56 pm
Michael Mann’s teammate.

” This is the way we are setting the scene for mankind’s encounter with the planet. The opposition between the two ideologies that have dominated the 20th century has collapsed, forming their own vacuum and leaving nothing but crass materialism.
It is a law of Nature that any vacuum will be filled and therefore eliminated unless this is physically prevented. “Nature,” as the saying goes, “abhors a vacuum.” And people, as children of Nature, can only feel uncomfortable, even though they may not recognize that they are living in a vacuum. How then is the vacuum to be eliminated?
It would seem that humans need a common motivation, namely a common adversary, to organize and act together in the vacuum; such a motivation must be found to bring the divided nations together to face an outside enemy,
either a real one or else one invented for the purpose.
In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill.
All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself. The old democracies have functioned reasonably well over the last 200 years, but they appear now to be in a phase of complacent stagnation with little evidence of real leadership and innovation.”
The First Global Revolution
Club of Rome report 1991

Teddi

They keep going down this path and there will be no return to credibility…

asybot

“The rich are going to have to think about climate change, we’re seeing that in the UK, with the floods we had a few months ago, and the storms we had in the US and the drought in California,” said Dr Huq.
“These are multibillion dollar events that the rich are going to have to pay for, and there’s a limit to what they can pay”.
Climate impacts”Overwhelming”-UN, BBC march 30 2014, 20.20 pm ET,
I guess somebody better phone Al Gore for his contribution!

Eve

The real problem is that the public is too stupid to understand any of this. Our governments know that the public is too stupid too understand. MSN knows the public is too stupid too understand. So it continues….

bushbunny

The Sydney Morning Herald, had the warnings on the front page, and the On line ABC news had maps etc., bit of a turn around regarding Stern, eh?

John

Here comes the final bait and switch. It’s manmade climate change now, carbon dioxide isn’t necessary anymore. All the warming went in the deep ocean (where we can’t measure it) but trust us it’s there. If the planet runs hot or cold, rain or shine, stormy or calm the climate now needs to be regulated. The science is settled and the politicians don’t need the scientists anymore.

Michael D

BBC http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-26810559 leads with the following headline:
Climate impacts ‘overwhelming’ – UN
The word “carbon” does not occur in this summary article.