IPCC to release “October surprise” on climate change

With all the crazy talk about “Russian meddling” in the 2016 Presidential election, one wonders if the same sort of crazy talk might be applied to the release of a special climate report just weeks before the U.S. mid-term elections. Given the timing, you can be sure that whatever is in the report will be front page news and used by the left as a political tool. Here is a press release from the IPCC, h/t to Dr. Willie Soon


Save the Date: IPCC Special Report Global Warming of 1.5ºC

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will meet in Incheon, Republic of Korea, on 1-5 October 2018, to consider the Special Report Global Warming of 1.5ºC. Subject to approval, the Summary for Policymakers will be released on Monday 8 October with a live-streamed press conference.

The press conference, addressed by the IPCC Chair and Co-Chairs from the three IPCC Working Groups, will be open to registered media, and take place at 10:00 local time (KST), 03:00 CEST, 02:00 BST, 01:00 GMT and 21:00 (Sunday 7 October) EDT.

Registered media will also be able to access the Summary for Policymakers and press release under embargo, once they are available. They will also be able to attend the opening session of the meeting at 10:00-11:00 on Monday 1 October. All other sessions of the IPCC meeting are closed to the public and to media.

The opening session of the meeting will include statements by the Chair of the IPCC, senior officials the IPCC’s two parent bodies World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and United Nations Environment Programme (UN Environment) and of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), and senior officials of the Republic of Korea.

The IPCC meetings and the press conference will take place at Songdo Convensia in Incheon.

Arrangements for media registration, submitting questions remotely, booking interviews, and broadcast facilities will be communicated in the coming weeks.

The report, whose full name is Global Warming of 1.5°C, an IPCC special report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty, is being prepared under the scientific leadership of all three IPCC Working Groups.

Formally, the meeting will start with the 48th Session of the IPCC. Next a joint session of the three Working Groups chaired by their Co-Chairs will consider the Summary for Policymakers line by line for approval. Then the 48th Session of the IPCC will resume to accept the Summary for Policymakers and overall report.

The IPCC decided to prepare the report, in response to an invitation from the UNFCCC Conference of the Parties at its 21st meeting in December 2015 when the Paris Agreement was signed.

Source: http://www.ipcc.ch/news_and_events/ma-p48.shtml

Advertisements

127 thoughts on “IPCC to release “October surprise” on climate change

  1. This will be the announcement that as none of the catastrophic climate predictions made over the last 40 years have materialised, the IPCC is giving up the futile struggle to convince people of the lie they have perpetuated and will disband forthwith.

    • “Rise in CO2 is now the leading cause of parasitic hypocrites scourging and crucifying scientists.” – UN IPCC

  2. They’ll get a surprise, but not one they are looking for!!!

    At the Climate Conference just held at the University of Porto in Portugal, the major flaw in satellite altimeter readings was revealed. Reported Sea Level Rise by the University of Colorado is actually less than half of the 3.3mm/yr. that they have been reporting for a quarter-century.

    The culprit was shown to be coding error, and not NASA’s altimeter instrumentation!!!

    Stay tuned!!!

    • Do you have a citation or reference? I have puzzled over the discrepancy between the gauges and the satellite record each time the issue comes up.

    • I took the liberty of forwarding your message but not your name to an MP of the Opposition in New Zealand. Our local MP is in charge of Climate Warming matters for the LabourGovernment.
      Our PM is now in New York and is not persuadable anyway.

      • M E
        September 24, 2018 at 1:37 pm

        Oh great…James Shaw is your MP…bad luck!
        Which National MP did you forward the information too…is there one who understands the issue? Ours in the Coromandel is Scott Simpson and I’m not sure he really gets it. It’s much easier for these guys to go with the flow.

    • tomwys
      September 24, 2018 at 12:14 pm

      Yes Tom, as I said to you at the conference your paper was the best and potentially the most important. If you can get access to the data you require the game is over for the warmists. Good luck…please keep us all posted here.

  3. They just wear you down with the propaganda. Mencken made many great points over his life. Two of the keenest observations were:

    “Freedom of press is limited to those who own one.”
    In essence he who controls the peer review process hence the message boards controls the message.

    “The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false face for the urge to rule it.” All the manufactured hobgoblins are created to extort the public’s money and liberty through bureaucratic regulation our saviors desire to rule us.

    This Progressive movement is as relentless as the tides that carve the cliffs out of the rocky shoreline

      • Two more quotes on education by Mencken:

        The effects of such education are already distressingly visible in the Republic. Americans in the days when their education stopped with the three R’s, were a self-reliant, cynical, liberty-loving and extremely rambunctious people. Today, with pedagogy standardized and school-houses everywhere, they are the herd of sheep (Ovis aries).

        All that is taught to the end of grammar school could be imparted to an intelligent child, by genuinely scientific methods, in two years and without any cruelty worse than that involved in pulling a tooth. But now it takes nine years, 

    • Wikiquotes says:
      “Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one. A. J. Liebling, in “Do you belong in journalism?”, The New Yorker (14 May 1960); sometimes paraphrased : “Freedom of press is limited to those who own one”; sometimes misattributed to H. L. Mencken.”

      • It appears the point is such a good one that it gets passed along. Who knows, maybe Liebling plagiarized Mencken, who died in 1956. After all Mencken was a pioneer in early 20th century journalism. Or maybe he attributed to Mencken in his book. In addition to Wiki, did you read Liebling’s book? I choose to not reference open sourced wiki, as so much is misattributed often by government paid propagandists but that takes us off the point of the Climate flim flam.
        I do however, keep Mencken in mind, when considering what comes out of the Bureaucratic Government Propaganda Ministry, better known and the Mainstream Press, when it comes to this boogie man known as Global Warm….ahhhh we really meant Climate Change all along.
        “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed — and hence clamorous to be led to safety — by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”

      • Gary Pearse more than once said about the First Amendment: “Freedom of the press to do what exactly?” In more moral times it didn’t need to be spelled out.

  4. “… in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty …”

    Are the latter two attempts at tautologies?
    – If you argue against ‘sustainable development’ you must be in favor of Unsustainable development
    – if you argue against ‘eradicating poverty’, you must be n favor of continuing poverty

    Naturally, these two are lumped in to form the same type of argument for “strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change”. Except in this case, if you argue against “CO2 = pollution”, you’ve got science on your side.

    • Both require the same answer to the question “when did you stop beating your wife?”.
      The answer must be a restatement of the position, not a yes/no.

      My favorite response to questions like that is to answer “you’re an idiot”. That throws them sufficiently that you can make a clean getaway 🙂

    • Thomas…well said! I am surprised they didn’t tack on ‘children, baby seals, polar pairs and otters holding hands!’

      Everything the IPCC proposes, almost by definition, increases poverty. The IPCC was created to demonize affordable energy, which plays into the cost of all goods and services. Increase the cost of energy and all goods and services become more expensive. For the IPCC to spin anything that they do as associated with efforts to eradicate poverty is like your stove proclaiming that it will no be making ice cubes. It ain’t gonna happen.

      The phrase ‘sustainable development’ is one of those phrases that everyone thinks they understand, until you ask them what it is. Then they realize that it doesn’t mean anything. But that is not the worse part of the phrase. While it may have no real meaning, it implies that something akin to ‘development nirvana’ may actually exist, or that you can design something that never requires adaptation or redesigning. That is a very dangerous notion to put in the minds of people.

      Adaptability is probably the greatest asset of the human race, and the one the IPCC has worked hard to deny. If we acknowledge human adaptability, the threat of a few degrees of warming becomes a joke, and the IPCC looses all of its power and reason for existing.

    • To date, every attempt to create “sustainable development” has resulted in increasing levels of global poverty.
      By design.

  5. Instead of just saying IPCC, I think it’s time to start referencing the names of those that worked on the report. They need to take ownership of this report.

  6. 1.5 degrees?
    Something odd is happening. As evidence for high sensitivity continues to not materialize, they appear to be moving a different set of goal posts.

    It wasn’t long ago that the goal was no more than 2.0 degrees, and we should aim for 1.5. Now it seems all we hear about is 1.5. So 2.0 has turned into 1.5. My recollection going back to AR3 or something like that was a lot of wailing and hand ringing over 3.0!

    So, as evidence for low sensitivity keeps on piling up, they instead reduce the amount of warming to consider dangerous. LOL. One can only wonder how low they can go before someone wakes up and says…but that’s below where we are now.

    • davidmhoffer

      The claim will be that with all the efforts put into renewables there is a demonstrable success, so we must allow governments to spend even more on renewables!

      Seriously, just wait, it’s coming.

        • I’m pretty sure that isn’t true. The oxidation rate increases linearly with temperature. What happens is that at a certain temperature the rate of oxidation (and hence energy release) passes the amount of energy needed to maintain that elevated rate of oxidation.

          ~¿~

    • The origins of 2 degrees go back to 1975 and was first mentioned by economist William Nordhaus in 1975:

      CAN WE CONTROL CARBON DIOXIDE? William D. Nordhaus June 1975 http://pure.iiasa.ac.at/365/1/WP-75-063.pdf

      (A working paper for IIASA) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Institute_for_Applied_Systems_Analysis

      “As a first approximation, it seems reasonable to argue that the climatic effects of carbon dioxide should be kept well within the normal range of long-term climatic variation. According to most sources the range of variation between climatic (sic) is in the order of ± 5 °C., and at the present time the global climate is at the high end of this range.

      If there were global temperatures more than 2 or 3°C. above the current average temperature, this would take the climate outside of the range of observations which have been made over the last several hundred thousand years.

      Within a stable climatic regime, the range of variation of ± l °C is the normal variation: thus in the last 100 years a range of mean temperature has been 0.7°C.”

      We are told that current “warming” since pre-1850 is l °C, so we are within the range of natural variation, according to Nordhaus in 1975, yet we are told that this is all due to anthropogenic emissions of CO2.

      In 1977, Nordhaus expanded on his theme in Discussion paper 443 for the Cowles Foundation at Yale:

      “Strategies for the Control of Carbon Dioxide” http://cowles.yale.edu/sites/default/files/files/pub/d04/d0443.pdf

      In this paper he repeated a lot of his IIASA paper, including the seminal paragraph: “If there were global temperatures more than 2 or 3°C. above the current average temperature, this would take the climate outside of the range of observations which have been made over the last several hundred thousand years.”

      However, he changed his figure for the range of variation within a stable climatic regime “such as the current interglacial”, from l°C, to 2°C and said that in the last 100 years a range of mean temperature had been 0.6°C, rather than his earlier 0.7.

      In 1990, the UN AGGG (United Nations Advisory Group on Greenhouse Gases), was asking for no more than a 1 degree rise in global temperature. That in turn traces back to the Villach Conference of 1986, and the subsequent Bellagio Conference in 1987, when some of the main proponents of the AGW meme were present, and have been driving it ever since. That then morphed into 1.5 degrees and again into 2 degrees. After Paris, 1.5 degrees is the new mantra for the activists.

      In 1995, John Schellnhuber, Director of the Potsdam Institute (and Climate Advisor to the Pope), promoted 2 degrees via the German Advisory Council on Global Climate Change, of which he has been alternatively Chairman and Vice-Chairman for many years. He has claimed 2°C as “his” ever since. It was essentially based on the simplistic logic of Nordhaus and in 1996, it was adopted by the EU.

      The WBGU’s recommendation: A maximum of 2°C warming is acceptable. The WBGU reaffirms its conviction that in order to avert dangerous climatic changes, it is essential to comply with a ‘climate guard rail’ defined by a maximum warming of 2°C relative to pre-industrial values. As the global mean temperature has already risen by 0.6°C since the onset of industrialization, only a further warming by 1.4°C is tolerable. A global mean long-term warming rate of at most 0.2°C per decade should not be exceeded. This climate window should be agreed as a global objective within the context of the UNFCCC process. The European Union should seek to adopt a leading role on this matter.”

      Richard Tol also examined the 2 degree target in 2005, here: “Europe’s Long Term Climate Target: A Critical Evaluation”
      http://www.fnu.zmaw.de/fileadmin/fnu-files/publication/working-papers/twodegreeswp.pdf, with a later version in 2007:
      https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/enepol/v35y2007i1p424-432.html

      His conclusion was, “This target is supported by rather thin arguments, based on inadequate methods, sloppy reasoning, and selective citation. Overall, the 2°C target of the EU seems unfounded.”

      The EU’s own defence of it in 2008, is here: http://www.climateemergencyinstitute.com/uploads/2C_EU.pdf. Full of quotes from AR4 and modelling projections.

      “This paper outlines the scientific background for the EU climate protection target – the 2oC limit – established by the EU Governments in 1996 and reaffirmed since then by the Environment Council 2003, and European Council, 2005, 2007. The paper also identifies how this target may be achieved through global action.”

      • The issue that is being hidden is 2 deg above what?

        The 1975 paper was 2 to 3 deg above current (i.e. 1975) average temperatures. Now it is 1.5 to 2 deg above pre-industrial temperature, and nobody has a definite value for pre-industrial temperature. Most estimates I have seen suggest we are now about 1.2 deg above pre-industrial temperature, so all this alarm is about a temperature rise of about 0.3 deg above current termerature.

    • IIRC in early 00’s they advocated for less than 3C warming from that point onward, although it might have just been poor reporting from media at the time.

  7. Wonder how many private jets will be parked for this event. Even better how many souls will be on board each private jet and what will the carbon dioxide to humans mix will be.

  8. The IPPC is about to announce a new high range equilibrium climate sensitivity figure for a 2 x CO2 scenario – 0.5C to 1.5C.

    LOL

  9. The only way the IPCC could surprise anyone would be to come out and state – “Global climate change is not a threat.”

  10. An October Surprise? Given the level of interest in climate change in the US coupled with the American’s propensity to elect politicians who focus on immediate problems rather than long term problems, a lot of noise from the IPCC would likely motivate the “wrong” voters.

  11. I think the announcement is about an Angry Birds tool that lets signatories aim and shoot for various CO2 outcomes depending on their skill and commitment level (and budget need). /sarc

  12. Next a joint session of the three Working Groups chaired by their Co-Chairs will consider the Summary for Policymakers line by line for approval.

    Given how past SPMs have deviated from what was in the Working Group reports, do you think they might actually correct the SPM where it deviates?

    Nah!

  13. Wait – what?
    1.5 Celsiue is 34.7Fahrenheit. Do these silly people expect me to believe that the entire planet has warmed up by nearly 35 degrees Fahrenheit? That would make my Autumn temperature closer to 90F than the current and very normal 62F.

    Do they have even a tiny clue to how silly they are? No?

    I didn’t think so. Just asking.

    You know, if I want baloney, I can get it for a lot less effort at the local grocery store. Just sayin’…. Moving on.

    • an increase and a temperature are not the same thing:
      a 1.5 C increase is the same as 2.7 F increase.
      a temperature of 1.5 C = a temperature of 34.7 F

      therefore if you had a temp of 1.5 C (34.7 F) and increased it by 1.5 C the resultant temp (1.5 + 1.5 = 3 C) would be:
      a) 37.4 F (34.7 + 2.7)
      or
      b) 69.4 F (34.7 + 34.7)

      Answer is a) 37.4 F

      Though judging from your post Sara, you seem to wrongly think the answer is b) 69.4 F

  14. “an IPCC special report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels”
    That is a loaded sentence in an attempt to link warming with industry.
    It should more fairly say above little ice-age levels.

  15. Amazing how the IPCC doesn’t manage to get anything much right and seeks to justify its latest shuffle of its Tarot card prognostications by claiming unless we believe everything they say the fight against poverty will be set back.

    Funny that, the fight against poverty is actually progressing well. Actually it would have probably have succeeded by now if the IPCC and its supporters hadn’t diverted trillions of dollars and other resources into the pockets of unscrupulous politicians, greens, empire building academics, renewable energy magnates and other chancers.

    • Mankind was doing a marvelous job of eliminating poverty.
      Then government got involved and progress all but stopped.

  16. The fight against poverty would have probably have succeeded by now , if 50 years ago the investments had gone to schools with high academic standards in the inner cities.

    The pre-1955 Dunbar High School (previously M Street School) in Washington DC is a prime example. Thomas Sowell summarizes its history in his “Wealth, Poverty, and Politics.”

    It opened with high academic standards. Its student body was all African American. It was over-crowded. But teachers and students were dedicated. From about 1916 through 1955, its students ranked with the best in the state, comparing favorably to the top three academic high schools in DC.

    Dunbar graduates were high achievers. Several achieved serious prominence in their fields. Thomas Sowell has an essay here, with this summary, “Over the years from 1892 to 1954, thirty-four of the graduates from the M Street School and Dunbar went on to Amherst.

    Of these, 74 percent graduated from Amherst and 28 percent of these graduates were Phi Beta Kappas. Other graduates from M Street High School and Dunbar became Phi Beta Kappas at Harvard, Yale, Dartmouth and other elite institutions….

    Sowell goes on, “ No systematic study has been made of the later careers of the graduates of this school. However, when the late black educator Horace Mann Bond studied the backgrounds of blacks with Ph.D.s, he discovered that more of them had graduated from M Street-Dunbar than from any other black high school in the country.

    ” The first blacks to graduate from West Point and Annapolis also came from this school. So did the first black full professor at a major university (Allison Davis at the University of Chicago). So did the first black federal judge, the first black general, the first black Cabinet member, the first black elected to the United States Senate since Reconstruction, and the discoverer of a method for storing blood plasma. During World War II, when black military officers were rare, there were more than two dozen graduates of M Street or Dunbar High School holding ranks ranging from major to brigadier general.

    But all that ended in 1955. Dunbar High is now a local school, with all the usual problems. But the example remains. There is no substitute for standards, rigor, and integrity.

    The Progressive gifts of eschewing the ‘cis-hetero-normative dead white male patriarchy’ and imposing so-called equity, inclusion, and diversity have achieved worse than nothing.

    • Fascinating but a shame you posted this here rather than someplace topical.

      I wish you only the best of success in making this topic known among the appropriate comment areas.

      • It was topical to the fact that whenever a Leftist mentions fighting poverty it is inevitably followed by a plan that is guaranteed to increase poverty.

        ~¿~

    • “The Progressive gifts … have achieved worse than nothing.”

      Which is exactly what they want. After all, if the objects of their charity achieved self-sufficiency and success, they would no longer need the “Progressives”. Now would they?

  17. Well, if the report title and the release date doesn’t scream “politics all the way down” then nothing does.
    And for bonus points, now we get sustainable development and poverty relief thrown into the mandate.

  18. > Registered media will also be able to access the Summary for Policymakers and press release under embargo, once they are available. They will also be able to attend the opening session of the meeting at 10:00-11:00 on Monday 1 October. All other sessions of the IPCC meeting are closed to the public and to media.

    Spot the bezzle. No public and only one media accessible event.

    Don’t get me started on the “location” and “season. Incheon will be 72/64°F for the entire time and a honking huge airplane flight for the supermajority of all attendees.

  19. It appears that only the SPM is going to be released. When will the full report, with its incredibly long title, be released?

  20. Might be an idea for the US contribution to the UN coffers be reduced by the amount being spent by the IPCC and the UNFCCC.

  21. The IPCC’s October Surprise will be completely ignored.

    The real October surprise will be Robert Muller’s report outlining the grounds for the impeachment of Donald Trump. It will be released during the last week of October.

    Bank on it.

    • He will be violating long-held DOJ policies if he does release such a report before the mid-terms. Not that that would be unexpected for someone who is desperately trying to salvage his legacy from his past buffoonery and screw-ups. If one actually objectively scrutinizes Mueller’s past, he comes up as bozo.
      Mueller totally ruined his reputation on the 2001-2002 anthrax investigation. And even earlier Mueller had totally destroyed his integrity on the Whitey Bulger mess in Boston.
      If anyone is curious and deosn’t know of what I write, just Google it all.

    • There are no grounds for impeaching President Trump.

      Mueller looks to me like he is part of the Obama plan to undermine the Trump administration. Mueller has a lot of questions to answer, like: Why didn’t you recuse yourself from this matter since you have multiple conficts of interests with Trump and the Trump administration?

      Another question Mueller should be asked is why did you allow Hillary Clinton to sell 20 percent of U.S. uranium to Russian front companies. Mueller just happened to be FBI Director at the time and knew all about the fraud being perpetrated by Hillary Clinton and others in the Obama administration (he had an informant right in the middle of all these goings on), yet he allowed the sale to go through without protest. So he must have been onboard with this action. Why?

      I hear Attorney General Sessions is afraid to go after anyone who is connected with the Clinton’s. He declined to investigate one of Clinton’s cronies recently saying they were too close to Clinton. Sessions actions since being appointed Attorney General have caused me to wonder if maybe someone isn’t blackmailing him into inaction and silence. What else would explain his failure to take action when it is obvious that action needs to be taken by the Attorney General?

  22. The IPCC started out with a 3-6 deg C existential calamity by 2100 claim based on 1950 temp baseline.

    They are down now carnival barking about 1.5 deg C calamity based on 1850 (pre-industrial) starting temp.

    Pretty much a sad, dishonest lot the IPCC is when you realize how much they had had to move the goalposts for their alarmism.

    • ..And now they prepare to move the goalposts once more. If it weren’t for the support of post-reality academia, this bureaucratic burden based on BS would have broken its back.

  23. 48th Session of the IPCC !
    they certainly clock up the air miles there , but I suppose when all the job you have is jetting aroudn the world having meetings then to keep the money rolling it you are going to keep doing just that .

  24. QUESTION: How many words does it take to explain bull shit? ANSWER: Two.

    Yet, the IPCC seems to require 800 pages.

    IPCC = Incompetent Politically Correct Corruption

    2 degrees was ridiculous enough. Now 1.5 degrees. Do I hear 1 ? How soon before they go below the margin of error?

    800 pages to justify concern for 1.5 degrees. I don’t think that I could come up with 800 words to explain how stupid this is.

  25. This special report can only mean one thing. I know this surprising revelation will shock you but…

    The IPCC, the UN and their friends are running low on money. They need more money and specifically, your money.

  26. “…and eradicate poverty”!!!! Well they do read WUWT after all. They’ve been badly stung by posts that point out the idiocy of a policy that’s to save unborn grandchildren of Champagne Soshulists and impoverish and kill the ones we already have. I trust its the old the chestnut- booming green industry that will eradicate poverty. You can be sure that this surprise was wrought because of Trump and will be no surprise at all.

    Ive posted on the topic that even with all stops pulled out, we just couldn’t get to 2C by 2100. It used to be 3-5C with 95% certainty above 1950 temps, then they stretched it back to 1850 when projected proved to be 300% greater rise than observed. Lingering doubts and a steady decline in estinates of ECS brought forth 1.5C as dangerous.

  27. Were we not informed that Pre-Industrial temperatures were low because of Dalton Minimum, from which we have slowly climbed back? So what will IPCC prove except that i can alarm the Guardian?

  28. The only surprise would be if the protagonists of climactic doom actually admit, “Meh, we were wrong.”

  29. With all the crazy talk about “Russian meddling” in the 2016 Presidential election, one wonders if the same sort of crazy talk might be applied to the release of a special climate report just weeks before the U.S. mid-term elections. Given the timing, you can be sure that whatever is in the report will be front page news and used by the left as a political tool. 
    ___________________________________________________

    Already happening :

    https://www.google.at/search?ie=UTF-8&client=ms-android-samsung&source=android-browser&q=pussy+riots+Aktivist+poisoned+excessive+police+power

  30. Australia is a large Island Continent. The Capital of Tasmania in the South Hob art has snow in the winter, the capital of the Northern Terrotory is Darwin, which is close to the Equator so if
    a person were to fly from Hobart to Darwin in our winter, the degrees warmer would be considerable, yet people do it with no ill effects.

    So what is all this nonsense of 1.5 C being considered dangerous.

    Human beings came from tropical Africa, but to live in most other parts of the world we need to wear clothing to survive, and yet we are told to panic at the thought of a difference or increase of 1.5 C from about 1800, the time of the bulk of the industrial revolution.

    MJE

Comments are closed.