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:
IPCC report: Warming harms dialed up to new level as world in for wild climate ride, 'we're sitting ducks'; http://t.co/KRIgBFqRGT
— @borenbears (@borenbears) March 31, 2014
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
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
Understanding the Climate System and its Recent Changes
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
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.
* 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.
“Climate models have improved since the AR4.”
At what? Not at prediction. Not at simulation of important phenomena such as ENSO. These people are shameless.
I had forgotten “Earth hour,” too, until Anthony mentioned it. I thought about turning on all the lights in the evening, as I had last year, but then got busy with something else and forgot all about it. As you say, there was no jabber in the media to remind me, either.
But if no ordinary folk are paying attention to the Climatists, the political class certainly are, and not just those in the Federal government. In our town there’s a motion before Town Meeting to divest from “fossil fuel companies.” All but one of the candidates for Selectman (i.e. the liberals in this left-wing region) are falling all over themselves to support the idea, in order to show how “green” they are and how opposed to “climate change.”
The hysterical reports in the press by the likes of the AP’s Seth Borenstein will only serve to validate the Climatist ideology and reinforce the desire of the faithful to pay obeisance to the Litany by proclaiming their devotion to politically correct, “Sustainable” policies, and fighting the nasty evil “carbon polluters.” In a state like ours (Massachusetts) these people control the political process, and all levels of town and state government, not to mention who goes to Washington, and they don’t read WUWT.
/Mr Lynn
drumphil says:March 31, 2014 at 6:10 am
Admin Said:
[criticism is easy, anyone can do it. How many did you read in the same amount of time, anonymous person? – mod]
He isn’t telling everyone what he thinks about the new report without having read it properly. If he was, then you might have a point, but as it is, his point still stands.
Writing off a report you haven’t read is not a good example of scientific thinking.
Except when it is the same drivel presented for a couple of decades with ever increasing confidence diametrically opposed to observations.
magma
there is a divergence between the evidence meetings where the caveats are mentioned and the final report for public consumption. If u been following the evidence reports then u know whats in the report. Also the chairman said in 2009 before the staff were appointed what was going to be in the report in 2014.So it was known back in 2009 it would be a show trial.
frankly sustainability and social ecology is not about any kind of climate evidence. its about social ecology and creating ‘a new man’ and new ecology based on eco centrism.
bbc have some some reactions to the report.these were the people they asked to give reaction.
Prof Corinne Le Quere, director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research
Connie Hedegaard, EU Commissioner for Climate Action
John Kerry, US Secretary of State
Prof Nicholas Stern, chair of the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy
Prof Sir Andy Haines, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine
Dr Rachel Warren, Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research at the University of East Anglia
Ed Davey, Energy and Climate Change Secretary
Sir Mark Walport, the Government’s chief scientific adviser
Caroline Flint, Labour’s Shadow Energy and Climate Change Secretary
Al Gore, 45th US Vice-President
Prof Sam Fankhauser, contributing author to the UN’s climate report (AR5) and co-director of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment
Andy Atkins, Friends of the Earth executive director
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-26814737
Think there is something missing?
Yes you’ve guessed -there is an unequal gender balance 🙂
If the current period is indeed warmer then anything of the last 1400 years as suggested per above then how come we can’t farm yet in Greenland which was well within that time frame?
Or did the Vikings have fossil fuel driven, CO2 belching, regional warmers with them. (In that case what did they do in England to get grapes to grow).
A bit further back to the RWP and Hannibal would still be stranded in what is now France as the glaciers would be blocking his path, I know that is further back so anything goes, it is fine if the temp was higher then, we only go back 1400 years (in this essay).
Perhaps someone can let me know which species became extinct during the MWP due to this warming, if it is going to happen now surely it must have happened then, that period lasted about 400 years not the 30 odd we are talking about so far.
There must have been some irreversible something that happened then.
From all I can gather the weather during both the RWP and the MWP was a lot less extreme leading to bigger crop yields, population explosion and one of the reasons for some of the great migrations taking place during these periods, in what one can now only describe as near shore vessels, and being successful.
In terms of the climate, if the past gives us a view of the future it looks pretty good.
One thing seems pretty certain though, the “warmers” will get their wish. In 150 years or so no one will be using fossil fuels any longer.
Sad that we need scare stories like these types of “scientific” reports, put together according to the time table of a model railway line, to justify funding the development of viable alternative energy sources.
Just for the record, Drudge has been headlining an AP story as…
Ladies hemlines have gone up substantially over the periods observed ( thank you very much ladies ) to the point where some skirts look more like a belt. I would, therefore, hypothicate that the true causal variable at work here in pushing temperatures up ( well, mine, at any rate ) is the length of women’s skirts. This would be a good data set for someone to statistically sledgehammer upon for a while. Graphs, running averages, smoothed, masticated, and regurgitated with confidence intervals, sigmas, R squared’s. Willis?
twojay54 says:
March 31, 2014 at 1:35 am
How much ocean warming would be needed to create the Keeling curve?
1°C gives about 17 ppmv extra in equilibrium between seawater and the atmosphere, but as vegetation in general acts opposite for CO2 with increasing temperature, the overall result is between 5 ppmv/°C (seasons to interannual) to 8 ppmv/°C (over the past 800,000 years). Thus the 80 ppmv over the past 55 years needed at least 10°C increase of the global ocean’s temperature if they were the cause of the increase… Seems that humans had somewhat more contribution to the increase…
Jimbo says:
March 31, 2014 at 5:57 am
The IPCC needs to urgently get in touch with the authors of the following paper to correct their graphic which shows co2 at ~425 ppm around 12,750 years ago.
Unfortunately stomata data are not that reliable: they are taken from leaves which grow by definition on land. As CO2 levels over land are positively biased compared to “background” CO2 levels, they are calibrated against direct measurements, firn and ice cores over the past century. But there is no knowledge how much the local/regional bias changed over previous centuries by land (use) changes over previous centuries, including rising/dropping seas, marsh forming, drying out, temperature, vegetation changes,… in the main wind direction. Even the main wind direction may have changed in certain periods.
Stomata data have the advantage of showing a higher resolution than ice core data. Ice core CO2 data are averaged over one decade (for the past 150 years) to 560 years (for the past 800 kyear). But an average isn’t changed by the averaging. If the stomata data show a different average over the same period of time, then the stomata data are certainly wrong. Which is the case for the ~425 ppmv around 12,750 years ago…
No doubt the IPCC is wrong in their projections. But, hypothetically, if they were right, and all that they project comes to pass, Mankind and Life Itself will benefit from a warmer planet.
But but but the seas will rise an astounding 2 mm per year! Well, that’s better than the alternative, which is that sea levels fall because of neo-glaciation and the return of continental ice sheets.
But but but it might rain more! Yes, well, that would be a good thing.
Etc. etc. Every dire prediction seems to be chock full of beneficial outcomes.
Warmer Is Better.
If burning fossil fuels fails to warm the planet, then we need to devise some other way to achieve that. For 99% of the last 250,000,000 years the Earth has been warmer than now. We don’t want it any colder than it is today, please.
Here is the reaction of some eminent, world renown CAGW scientists to the IPCC’s latest report:
“What The IPCC means is Old Testament, real wrath of God type stuff”. – Dr Ray Stantz
“Exactly” – Dr. Peter Venkman
“Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies! Rivers and seas boiling!” – Dr Ray Stantz
“Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes” – Dr. Egon Spengler
“The dead rising from the grave!” Winston Zeddemore
“Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together… mass hysteria!” – Dr. Peter Venkman
This stuff sounds so much like what I have read w/r/t the population bomb movement of the 60s and 70s – which has never really gone away. It’s just morphed into the global/cooling/global warming/climate/change movement – strip off the outer layer of the onion (and keep stripping off the layers and you’ll find the value – nothing) and there is no real difference. Just political activism disguised as real science, with the same misanthropic ideals behind all of these “scientific” movements. And for those that are waiting with glee for everything to be exposed – I’m afraid you’ll be very disappointed. Has Ehrlich ever been called to account for his idiocy? Nope. The politicians/media/entertainers/etc will cover for them all. If the earth starts slightly warming again, they will claim they were right all along. If the earth starts cooling a bit, they will claim that they were the ones responsible for it! And before you say – “but all the real scientific evidence will refute that ridiculous assertion” – well, so what?. Hasn’t stopped them before, has it?
Great site., I am learning quite a bit, thanks all.
Hope I am not violating any rules for posting some youtube embeds/links…
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=onkbubwAqRQ?feature=player_detailpage&w=640&h=360%5D
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWyCCJ6B2WE?feature=player_detailpage&w=640&h=360%5D
Here’s how it played out on the RTE (Irish) evening news, complete with Polar Bear balanced on an ice cube. http://www.rte.ie/player/gb/show/10268488/
If anyone is interested in watching this, the bulletin leads off with the IPCC report, then you might want to skip forward to 24.00 where it returns to it again.
Very frustrating , but I’m sure this is typical of the nonsense that has been broadcast all over the world today. Problem is, even if the whole IPCC report was retracted with apologies and confessions to the lies, it would go unreported by the MSM who are either gullible, corrupt or deluded. Maybe even all three.
The reporter in the bulletin is a guy called George Lee. He is a failed economist, failed politician and now it looks like his career into the politics of Climate Change will come up to his usual standard.
They often have issues discussed on the evening news here, but usually they have balanced views with both sides represented. So I will ask why the Sceptics’ side of things were not represented in this bulletin, or if they intend to have the alternative view aired unchallenged in a subsequent broadcast this week. If I get a reply, I’ll post it here.
This has been up for a while, has nobody noticed that these are quotes from the WGI SPM and not the WGII SPM?
Hemlines, I remember ‘when’ we wore short hemlines, and had to be careful how we bent over. Yes you squatted and didn’t bend over. Those were the days my friend, and how we ridiculed heavy gals who insisted on showing off their large legs. High stilletto heels, and how I sprained and tore an ankle ligament while attempting a Scottish dance in them. How they were banned in some homes and buildings as they left dents in the flooring. Made a good weapon though in extreme circumstances. Anyone that didn’t turn up with stockings and makeup was sent home at my place a private employment service. Oh they were the days. Although a feminist liberal, I never threw my bra away, I was too big to not wear one. LOL I was continually sexually harassed, and one learned how to handle these idiots. I only hit two from what I remember in response, a man and would you believe a woman! She grabbed my boobs and I pushed her away, and she fell off her bar stool. I didn’t call the cops though. I went on ‘Reclaim the night’ protests, years ago. But that hasn’t helped women walking alone at night. Human nature doesn’t change. Oh I learned self defense, by an RAF officer who said, ‘Whatever you do don’t throw a guy with a judo throw. He’ll get up punching…” Oh those were the days gals, and guys. In someways I am more worried about my bag being snatched than being raped.
I’m sure the IPCC is correct and I am getting very depressed. These comments are adding to my frustration of getting my 4X4 dually farm truck stuck in my driveway in a white drift of frozen Climate Change; then feeding my horses knee deep in (not BS). So to make myself feel better, I am going to the mountains tomorrow to ski in a smattering of fresh Climate Change that I was told was going to be “a thing of the past”. (83 cm in the last week in Fernie) Whose past? After reading the whole of the last IPCC report, I think I will go skiing instead.
http://www.skifernie.com
Huffington Post, ruefully, sees some handwriting on the wall…
It’s a wild ride and we’re sitting ducks on the dotted line getting ready for the big sleep in this brave new world where we warm the bench just hoping for our boat to come in while we’re flying high on the gravy train.
[mixed metaphor alert]
Reblogged this on The GOLDEN RULE and commented:
Time to air my concerns over this IPCC “Headline Statements from the Summary for Policy Makers. Nearly every point categorized as “likely”, virtually certain”, “extremely likely” or whatever “statistical” probability they ignore, can be seriously challenged as unscientific and probably incorrect.
For example : “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.” I suggest reading the following relevant and scientific article published by “Chiefio” and reblogged here.
Then there is “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.” This is clearly absurd because even if CO2 reduced the salinity of the ocean it certainly cannot increase acidity that doesn’t exist. Reference:
Technically, this report, if truly represented here, is basically a load of readily challenged, meaningless garbage.
@ur momisugly Jim G says: March 31, 2014 at 10:45 am
Ladies hemlines have gone up substantially over the periods observed
That has already been studied … http://geology.campus.ad.csulb.edu/people/bperry/Geol303photos/global%20warming/ProofOfGlobalWarming.jpg … but without the statistical analysis.
That’s one idiot grin that I’m really getting tired of seeing.
Plot idea: 97% of the world’s scientists contrive an environmental crisis, but are exposed by a plucky band of billionaires & oil companies.
These are the backgrounds of the first 5 contributors from the US to the recent IPCC report. Impressive credentials don’t you think (go on, tie yourself into knots on this)
Christopher Field:
Director of the Carnegie Institution’s Department of Global Ecology and Professor by Courtesy in the Department of Biological Sciences at Stanford University. Trained as an ecologist, Chris has conducted environmental research from tropical rainforests to deserts to alpine tundra. He is a specialist in global-change research. An author or more than 100 scientific papers, Chris is a member of the US National Academy of Sciences and a leader in several national and international efforts to provide the scientific foundation for a sustainable future. He is active in developing the international community of global change researchers, with involvement in organizations like SCOPE, IGBP, and the Global Carbon Project.
Michael D. Mastrandrea
an Assistant Consulting Professor at the Woods Institute for the Environment at Stanford University.
Katharine Mach
Scientist, Department of Global Ecology, Carnegie Institution for Science, Stanford University
See publications at http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=HJxEu3cAAAAJ&hl=en
Doug Arent:
Executive Director of the Joint Institute for Strategic Energy Analysis at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory . He is also a Senior Visiting Fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
Virginia Burkett:
Virginia Burkett serves as Chief Scientist for Climate and Land Use Change at the U.S. Geological Survey. She was formerly Chief of the Forest Ecology Branch at the USGS National Wetlands Re- search Center in Lafayette, Louisiana. Burkett has also served as Secretary/Director of the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, Director of the Louisiana Coastal Zone Management Program, and Assistant Director of the Louisiana Geological Survey. Burkett has published extensively on the topics of global change and low lying coastal zones
Since all of the “certainty” levels are reached by polling their in-house experts (as opposed to using, like accepted validation tests), I anticipate Loondumsky will succeed Choo-Choo as chief spokesperson and President shortly. (His grey literature and Himalayan melt-down initiatives seem to have come a cropper).