Guest Post by Bob Tisdale
The IPCC press release IPCC takes decisions on future work dated 17 February 2015 begins:
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has taken a series of decisions to make its reports more accessible and involve developing countries more closely in its work.
The decisions, following a review of the future work of the IPCC over the past year and a half, pave the way for the IPCC to prepare its next cycle of reports, which will be initiated by elections for a new Bureau and Chair in October 2015.
“We have taken stock of our future. We have been through a detailed process to examine how to continually improve our work, to make it as relevant and useful as possible, not only for government policymakers but for society at large,” said Acting Chair Ismail El Gizouli.
Further along they write:
It also decided to continue preparing comprehensive assessment reports every five to seven years, which also cover regional aspects of climate change, taking into account the work of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in determining its future reports and their timing.
Let me make a couple of predictions about the content of the 6th Assessment Report (AR6). If emissions of greenhouse gases continue to increase as expected, the IPCC will basically tell us once again:
- Global surface temperatures will rise
- So will sea levels
- Droughts will occur in some places and floods in others, but they’re not sure where
- Climate will change
And there will continue to be few to no changes in the wide uncertainty ranges.
What an incredible waste of money!!! We got the message after the first report. Assuming those continuously unchanging predictions are correct, those tens of billions of research dollars would be better spent on adaptation.
Having been employed in the Research Labs of a former large US multi-national corporation (in the top 20 on the Forbes list in the 1990’s, now bankrupt and not even in the top 500) I Once remarked that we would all be better served to “pile all the research dollars in the parking lot and ignite them, since we would all get a nice warm feeling, and the end result would be the same”.
Of course, my career “trajectory” at that employer suddenly experienced a “downward acceleration, aka it crashed and burned”. I found a “life boat” in a spin-off and exited “stage left” a decade or so before they declared bankruptcy.
Sure, let’s burn through a couple billion more dollars on the IPCC, heck, there just has to be a rabbit down in the bottom of that hole, it JUST HAS TO BE THERE, let’s keep digging….. Oh, wait a second, I think I see a big floppy rabbit ear, DIG FASTER EVERYBODY, we almost have it…….. Oh wait, it’s just an old rotten tree root….
Cheers, KevinK.
When will we see the millions of climate refugees?
When polar bears fly?
When Canada becomes inhospitable due to growth of an ice sheet. I give it about 250 years +/- 3,000yrs.
IPCC is the ultimate bureaucracy – thousands of office workers, all beavering away. An humourist (Parkinson was his name, I think) once stated that, given enough funds, “work will expand to cover the time and availability of workers”. Let us keep on laughing – it is actually funny.
Is that not the principle upon which the state sector/public sector relies upon.
Most of what the state/public service does is unnecessary. All governments are way too big and bloated, but this is a way of providing employment but unfortunately at the expense of those who in the private sector generate real money, and real wealth creating moeny is foreign revenues.
If they wanted to improve their work they could have implemented all the recommendations of the IAC review. You know, like the one that recommended they sack Pachauri.
Pachauri needs more time to spend with his families.
The IPCC will develop regional climate projections?
Bizarre as it gets.
What are you talking about? AR6 is already written: “We are Double-Secret-Probation sure that humans are destroying their grandchildren’s Earth!”
The temperature measurements can be adjusted. The decline can be hided. The averaged temperature in range of 0.5C can be manipulated by choosing other measurement set (choosing stations). I am not sure how mach of manipulation potential already is used and where is manipulation upper limit.
Therefore if in next years there will be not significant cooling, then agony if AGW hystery and discrediting of true/real science will continue.
Come the year 2100, “science” will make the amazing discovery that water actually freezes at 2 deg C.
“… involve developing countries more closely in its work.”
What does this mean? More focus on blackmailing developed countries to pay “guilt money” to doubtful regimes? Has the IPCC realized that their glory is somewhat faded in the western world, and wants to drum up fresh support from the third world, maybe in exchange for more influence in the UN system as a whole?
With a former leader like that, who knows what extra-scientific subjects might be the subjects of the next twenty COP meeetings?
Got it in one.
IPCC? or, are they just words from the the ‘combo’, the
Northern Pondia alliance of Socialist America-western communist blocWashington – EU bureaucracy/corporate hospitality and hotel industry?My prediction for AR6
‘Natural variation dominates the climate cycle with a man induced element approximating to .5c per century’
summary for policy makers – ‘The Oceans will boil’
Well, you know….some technological realities come into play here. Just like any juggernaut (or even a mighty ocean liner) it takes time to turn it around, let alone stop it. But turning off the money supply that fuels it would speed things up.
Angela Merkel, POTUS, David Cameron, Tony Abbott: are you listening?
AR6 will also give them the opportunity to move up a level from “high confidence” in their predictions to “awfully high confidence”.
When “The science is settled”, why IPCC waste public money? First let IPCC accept the fact that “The science is not settled” to proceed further and apologize to the public on this. If IPCC stick to their “The Science is settles”, then close the office of IPCC and divert the money for upliftment of the global poor.
Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
The temperature records and charts, regional weather, etc are like a mirror. They reflect the person back looking at them.
A skeptic will look and see many possibilities, many questions but no certainties. A bureaucrat will see a good way to make a living, a politician will see a way to harvest votes, a scientist their next grant, a warmest will see a misguided humanity despoiling, plundering, pillaging, ravaging, and ransacking the planet.
Temperature records, the perfect mirror.
UN bodies , of which the IPCC is one, have two main aims . Keep themselves in business and grow .
So I have no issue with believing ‘There Are Plans for a 6th Assessment Report’
No AGW , no IPCC it really is that simply .
In other news Turkeys publish research ‘proving ‘ eating poultry will kill you.
Here is what the UN really wants: Execution of Agenda 21, read http://green-agenda.com
Yes, and they have openly announced that it’s not about temperature but about wealth redistribution. I don’t see how they can pull it off though.Why would any large democratic industrial country think they could get away with taxing their citizens for being successful and give the money to the UN to distribute to underdeveloped countries in the guise of reparations? Right now average Joe citizen in the US has been led to believe this is a conspiracy theory even though it’s now being advertised by the UN and the current administration in the US. I don’t even understand how the US gets away with the carbon tax. Was there a vote that I missed?
From today’s Daily Mail.
“Into the deep: The optical illusion in the seas off Mauritius that appears to show Indian Ocean vanishing in an ‘underwater vortex’
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2978568/Into-deep-Stunning-pictures-taken-Mauritius-create-underwater-vortex-optical-illusion-Indian-Ocean.html#ixzz3TPuQ8v9y
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
How long before this is used as a proof that the “excess heat from global warming” is disappearing to the bottom of the ocean?
Adaption? Education seems more appropriate. Now that meaningfully accurate climate simulations can be dome on a pocket calculator we can avoid the big computers.
Also common sense is more available in developing countries so involving them more will help everyone.
If they’re “finding” nothing new (and they won’t) then the IPCC 6th assessment is a complete waste of money, Brandon. ANY use of the money is better, and that includes adaptation should it become necessary.
Sure, the nuts and bolts of the paper may include references to a couple of new studies, but ultimately the Summary for Policymakers is going to read exactly the same as it always has.
@ConTrari
…“… involve developing countries more closely in its work.”
What does this mean? More focus on blackmailing developed countries to pay “guilt money” to doubtful regimes?…
No. It means MORE trips to the Maldives, the Bahamas, Bali etc…
Translation: We’re on the gravy train and we’re gonna ride it to the end of the line.
So I guess now anyone who does not agree with dealing with climate by using adaption instead of pretending we can manipulate global climate we can call an evolution denier.
Hi Bob! I agree there will be “few to no changes in the wide uncertainty ranges” , they will be more certain than ever that it is all man’s fault and they need to have control of every aspect of a person’s life to be able to save said person. Oh and everyone must send all their money to the UN and the UN will give each person back what “they need.” …. let the counting begin..”one for you, ten for me..oops us, one for you ten for….” with their methods everyone being equal means they and their ilk are more “equal” than all others.
Cheers!
Joe
As long as there are taxpayers and ratepayers to plunder via the Global Warming scarecrow, there will be IPCC reports. They’re cheap to produce, they have a giant profit margin. There will be enough “scientists” willing to make more of them – most of the work is done by Greenpeace and student grunts anyway.
(tr.) “We are assessing the damage.”
(tr.) We’ve not been sufficiently successful at holding the world spellbound, so we’re going to turn up the propaganda. On your dime, of course.
Sounds to me like it will be written to rope in more developing nations in order to put pressure on developing nations should they want to opt out. Nothing but maintaining a power play position in the face of no evidence that CO2 is causing us problems.