IPCC AR5 Conclusion : Views Of Sceptics Now Accepted As Raising Legitimate Questions

The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations
on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models
.”
– Prof. Chris Folland,
Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research

The models are convenient fictions
that provide something very useful
.”
– Dr David Frame,
climate modeler, Oxford University

We need to get some broad based support,
to capture the public’s imagination…
So we have to offer up scary scenarios,
make simplified, dramatic statements
and make little mention of any doubts…
Each of us has to decide what the right balance
is between being effective and being honest.

– Prof. Stephen Schneider,
Stanford Professor of Climatology,
lead author of many IPCC reports

•••

Following friday’s release of the IPCC‘s Fifth Assessment Report (AR5), further commentary from Des Moore, principle of the Institute for Private Enterprise and contributing writer to Quadrant Online  :

Below are selected articles from today’s press on the (incomplete) IPCC Summary published last Friday. I have also included an extract from the US SEPP sceptical organisation, which includes a comment by US expert and sceptic Prof Richard Lindzen suggesting the IPCC analysis is “hilarious”. Unfortunately I was unable to download the excellent critique by Andrew Bolt in the Herald Sun.

As expected, Fairfax’s The Age is fully supportive of the IPCC but this does not carry through to the AFR editorial. That carries a number of questions/doubts as do all the others. Bolt aside, none of the articles adopt the view that the IPCC thesis is wrong. But, by contrast with the reactions to the 2007 IPCC report, the views of sceptics can now be said to have been accepted as raising legitimate questions. The heading to the main article in The Australian – A Climate of Contention – captures the general sentiment.

I suspect that once a closer examination is made of the IPCC report, many deficiencies will emerge in public – not least the attempt to explain away the failure of the heat emanating from CO2 concentrations to increase temperatures over the last 15 years by (largely) burying it in the oceans!

It is difficult to see how the report could be portrayed by governments as strengthening the case for action to reduce usage of fossil fuels. However, the uncertainties emerging from the report do strengthen the case for an independent review of the so-called science.

Des

•••

Alarmism has failed the planet

Editorial, AFR, 30 Sep 2013

Over-hyping the risks of climate change has not convinced most of the world’s politicians and voters of the need for quick and radical action. Photo: Getty Images

The fifth assessment of global climate from the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change confirms that countries such as Australia should take a deliberate but cautious approach to reducing the emission of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.

The 36-page summary of a detailed IPCC report by hundreds of scientists expresses unequivocal confidence that human activity is heating up the planet. But it also reduces the likelihood of catastrophic climate change, suggesting that the temperature above the earth’s surface may rise by between 1 and 3.7 degrees Celsius by the end of the century.

It suggests the sensitivity of the atmosphere to increased concentrations of greenhouse gases may not be as high as previously feared. And it does not convincingly explain the stalling over the past 15 years of the trend of rising temperatures. Some of the warming may instead have been diverted into the oceans. Or it may just reflect inexplicable natural variation, or something else again.

Continue reading (paywalled) »

•••

Extract from SEPP, 28 September 2013

IPCC: On Friday, the IPCC released its Summary for Policymakers. The report was not yet complete, it referenced graphs that were not presented and will have to be inserted. Therefore, a side-by-side comparison of the NIPCC and the IPCC reports is premature. However, there are some disturbing omissions. As Roy Spencer points out, estimates of the sensitivity of the climate to increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) are missing. Yet, this is the entire political issue. Is the climate sensitive to human emissions of CO2 or not? Does an increase in the molecules of CO2 from 3 to 4 per 10,000 parts of air make a difference in climate?

Further, the report glosses over the fact that there has been no statistically significant rise in surface temperatures for over 16 years. Instead, it asserts a greater certainty in its work than prior reports. It reduced the uncertainty from 10% to 5%, with no empirical basis.

Richard Lindzen writes “The latest IPCC report has truly sunk to level of hilarious incoherence – It is quite amazing to see the contortions the IPCC has to go through in order to keep the international climate agenda going.”

Prior to issuance of the approved report, Steve McIntyre presented an overview on how the IPCC put itself in a mess, rather than properly addressing the hiatus in warming and the associated discrepancy between model projections and observations. He writes: “One cannot help but wonder whether WG1 [the physical science section] Chair Thomas Stocker might not have served the policy community better by spending more time ensuring that the discrepancy between models and observations was properly addressed in the IPCC draft reports, perhaps even highlighting research problems while there was time in the process, than figuring out how IPCC could evade FOI [Freedom of Information] requests.

The purpose of a physical science is to describe nature, and to understand how it works. It is becoming increasingly evident that IPCC science does not describe nature. Yet, the IPCC intensifies its certainty in its work? For these and other comments see Climategate Continued, IPCC Report, and
http://www.climatechange2013.org/im…

•••

Emissions targets to stay, says Greg Hunt

The Australian, 30 September, Graham Lloyd, Environment Editor

THE Abbott government remains committed to the bipartisan target of 5 per cent for Australia’s carbon emissions cuts, despite the latest IPCC report saying drastic measures are needed to keep global temperature rises below 2C.

Environment Minister Greg Hunt said the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s fifth assessment report — the executive summary of which was released on Friday — reinforced the government’s support for the science and targets set for emissions reductions.

“The Coalition is committed to the 5 per cent emissions reduction target and to the conditions for any further change.

“This has been our position for over three years now and remains unchanged from opposition to government,” Mr Hunt said.

But Greens leader Christine Milne said the 5 per cent target was not enough and the report — which will be released in full today in Stockholm — should be a priority for the new parliament.

“I will move for an urgent debate into the IPCC’s confirmation that we need to drastically reduce emissions and flick the switch to renewables to have any hope of constraining warming to 2C,” Senator Milne said.

The IPCC report set out a range of future temperature and sea-level scenarios, depending on the level of future human carbon dioxide emissions.

CSIRO research scientist and IPCC lead author Pep Canadell said new ways to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere would be needed to keep future global temperature rises below the critical 2C. Most climate models showed cutting human carbon dioxide emissions completely would not be enough.

The latest IPCC report outlines a range of options to help meet the 2C target but predicts global average temperatures will rise between 1.5C and 4.5C by 2100.

The full report sets out a carbon budget linking temperature rises to increases in carbon in the atmosphere.

The summary report said Australia’s temperature outlook would mirror the global average. There would be more heatwaves and less rainfall in the south and southwest of the continent but heavier rainfall in the north.

Sea levels in northern Australia were expected to continue to rise at about three times the rate of the international average.

The report predicted sea-level rises of between 26cm and 82cm by the end of the century, depending on future emissions.

Mr Hunt said the Bureau of Meteorology had advised that in 2011 Australia’s average temperature was 0.13C below the 1961 to 1990 average.

Last year the average temperature was 0.11C above the 1961 to 1990 average.

This year was on track to be the second-hottest or hottest year since 1910.

•••

A climate of contention

Graham Lloyd, Environment Editor, The Australian, 30 Sept 2013

HAVING strengthened its conviction to 95 per cent certainty that human activity is responsible for changing the Earth’s climate, scientists have delivered politicians a “carbon budget” road map on what to do about it.

To limit global temperature growth to below 2C – the level considered the best-case scenario and safest outcome – by the second half of the century human activity must be carbon negative.

Rather than the 10 billion tonnes of carbon human activity is pumping into the Earth’s atmosphere every year, and rising, humans will have to find ways to pull it out.

For some this means devising new methods of bio-engineering to suck carbon dioxide from the air. For others it means boosting the natural order. Protecting the lungs of the Earth – forests – and making them work harder.

Senior CSIRO research scientist Pep Canadell, a lead author on the latest IPCC report, sees the future in bio-energy.

“We ran 10 models and six of the models said that by the second half of the century you actually have to have negative emissions,” Canadell says.

Continue reading »

•••

And to finish, some classic climate alarmism out of the Melbourne Age :

Reality of global warming is screaming at us

The Age, September 30 2013, Geoffrey Lean

But there’s still not enough action from governments.

The latest giant climate report was met with a dance and a scream.

The dance came when the governments and scientists of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change finally put the finishing touches to the most important analysis yet of its kind after a series of sessions that allowed them only six hours’ sleep in the last 52. The conference manager, Francis Hayes – a former British Met Office scientist – donned a Russian hat and performed a Cossack caper in celebration.

The mass scream was part of a demonstration outside the former Stockholm brewery in which they had convened by protesters venting their frustration that governments have largely failed to act on previous warnings. They hope that will change. For this is the first in a year-long series of giant IPCC reports to prepare the ground for an attempt to forge an international agreement on tackling global warming in Paris in December 2015.

Mind you, there are those who say the IPCC has long been leading the world a merry dance. As some extreme sceptics see it, a small clique of scientists has been concocting, against all the evidence, one of history’s greatest hoaxes, bamboozling governments into addressing a problem that doesn’t actually exist. But the conspiracy theory fails at the briefest reality check.

Continue reading »

•••

Climatism Links :



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.