IPCC Officially Kills Off Catastrophic Climate Fears

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

We’ve got to ride this global warming issue.
Even if the theory of global warming is wrong,
we will be doing the right thing in terms of
economic and environmental policy.

– Timothy Wirth,
President of the UN Foundation

•••

The IPCC is the United Nations’ body most responsible for spreading panic about global warming and the body with a strong vested interest in keeping that panic alive.

According to findings from their latest climate report AR5, no longer can eco-catastrophists and climate alarmists casually link extreme weather with man-made greenhouse gas emissions or catastrophic climate events with ‘global warming‘.

•••

CATASTROPHIC CLIMATE EVENTS :

via Herald Sun

IPCC not so confident we’re about to face catastrophes

Andrew Bolt | Herald Sun

The latest IPPC report dials down the alarm on so many scares that the likes of Al Gore and Tim Flannery peddled:

image

Note the first item on the list – the scare about the shut-down of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation. This is the warming scare that inspired one of the most notorious eco-catastrophy movies:

(Thanks to reader the Original Observer.)

•••

EXTREME WEATHER EVENTS :

via Wattsupwiththat

Pielke Jr. Agrees – ‘Extreme weather to climate connection’ is a dead issue

Posted on October 3, 2013 by 

I wrote the day after IPCC AR5 SPM was released in Thoughts on IPCC AR5 SPM – discussion thread:

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

extreme_weather_dead_jim

On the plus side, contrary to ongoing claims from that alarmist media mill side there are no mentions of tornadoes and hurricanes in the extreme weather events section. They give low confidence to tropical storm activity being connected to climate change, and don’t mention mesoscale events like tornadoes and thunderstorms at all. Similarly, they give low confidence to drought and flood attribution.

They’ve only talked about heat waves and precipitation events and being connected. From Page 4 of the SPM:

ipcc_ar5_spm_extreme

ipcc_ar5_spm_table1

This is consistent with what was reported last year in the IPCC SREX report ( IPCC Special Report on Extremes PDF)

From Chapter 4 of the SREX:

  • “There is medium evidence and high agreement that long-term trends in normalized losses have not been attributed to natural or anthropogenic climate change”
  • “The statement about the absence of trends in impacts attributable to natural or anthropogenic climate change holds for tropical and extra-tropical storms and tornados”
  • “The absence of an attributable climate change signal in losses also holds for flood losses”

Let’s hope this lack of attribution of severe storms to “man made climate change” in AR5 finally nails the lid shut on the claims of Hurricane Sandy, tornado outbreaks, and other favorite “lets not let a good crisis go to waste” media bleatings about climate change.

Now with two IPCC reports making no connection, and with Nature’s editorial last year dashing alarmist hopes of linking extreme weather events to global warming saying:

Better models are needed before exceptional events can be reliably linked to global warming.

…we can finally call it a dead issue.

Continue Reading »

•••

UPDATE

via WattsUpWithThat

IPCC Calls Off Planetary Emergency?

Posted on October 4, 2013 by 

Guest essay by Marlo Lewis

Okay, they don’t do so in as many words. But in addition to being more confident than ever (despite a 16-year pause in warming and the growing mismatch between model projections and observations) that man-made climate change is real, they are also more confident nothing really bad is going to happen during the 21st Century.

The scariest parts of the “planetary emergency” narrative popularized by Al Gore and other pundits are Atlantic Ocean circulation shutdown (implausibly plunging Europe into a mini-ice age), ice sheet disintegration raising sea levels 20 feet, and runaway warming from melting frozen methane deposits.

As BishopHill and Judith Curry report on their separate blogs, IPCC now believes that in the 21st Century, Atlantic Ocean circulation collapse is “very unlikely,” ice sheet collapse is “exceptionally unlikely,” and catastrophic release of methane hydrates from melting permafrost is “very unlikely.” You can read it for yourself in Chapter 12 Table 12.4 of the IPCC’s forthcoming Fifth Assessment Report.

But these doomsday scenarios have always been way more fiction than science. For some time now, extreme weather has been the only card left in the climate alarm deck. Climate activists repeatedly assert that severe droughts, floods, and storms (Hurricane Sandy is their current poster child) are now the “new normal,” and they blame fossil fuels. Continue Reading »

•••

UPDATE

State Of The Climate Report :

What more is required of mother nature to prove that humans 3% contribution to atmospheric CO2 (versus her 97%) is having no impact whatsoever on our climate? In fact, in most cases, the *opposite* is happening, to what the global warming alarmists, fear mongers, climate profiteers and complicit media have been preaching to us daily.

•••

Related Articles :

Climatism Links :

 


Marx on Monday: IPCC

The IPCC spend billions of dollars of other people’s money drawing together 30 pages of conclusions in “Summary For Policymakers” to pressure policy makers, with a 95% certainty, to go and spend $95 billion more dollars, of other people’s money, to try and stop a planet warming that hasn’t warmed in 17 years.

 

For a lot less money and only 5 minutes of their precious time, they could just as easily read this divine piece from the Marxist, for the same effect….only this time get the painful truth! ;p

 

I’m lovin :

  • “Rajendra thinks that Hitler is still alive and living in a condo in Palm Springs with Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden – where they are planning to destroy the world by burning fossil fuels around the clock”
  •  “It’s a storm in a tea cup Kevin,” Rajendra replied, “or it would be – if there were any storms.”

Gold.

 

Great read Kevin, TQ.

Bogpaper.com

Last week when parts of the IPCC’s much heralded “Climate Change Report” were leaked to the press I, as much as any liberal, found myself despairing at some of its findings. No global warming for 16 years; record levels of sea ice; so many polar bears that the UN was proposing a humane cull to limit their numbers; no extreme weather conditions like hurricanes and typhoons – and – worst of all – the computer forecasts were wrong and there was no global warming! I felt like I did when as a child I found out that there was no Santa Claus!

Thank goodness, therefore, for the IPCC – the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. When I was a young boy I remember going to the theatre to see Peter Pan. I, along with the rest of the children, became very upset when Tinkerbell was dying, but Peter Pan saved…

View original post 1,846 more words


CLIMATE Money: Monopoly Science

62228379-AC75-4AD5-8DAE-BC969C8B73EA

No matter if the science of global warming is all phony…
climate change provides the greatest opportunity to
bring about justice and equality in the world
.”
– Christine Stewart,
former Canadian Minister of the Environment

We’ve got to ride this global warming issue.
Even if the theory of global warming is wrong,
we will be doing the right thing in terms of
economic and environmental policy.

– Timothy Wirth,
President of the UN Foundation

 •••

A valuable post from Joanne Nova investigating the ‘monopolistic’ funding of research into the science of man-made global warming, versus the non-existent resources directed toward the study of natural climate change.

This imbalance of government funding skews and distorts the science that is output, and as Nova notes, a “lack of funding for alternatives leaves a vacuum and creates a systemic failure. The force of monopolistic funding works like a ratchet mechanism on science. Results can move in both directions, but the funding means that only results from one side of the equation get “traction.”

The systemic failure self-perpetuates :

  • Where’s the motivation in proving anthropogenic global warming wrong?
  • How serious are they about getting the data right? Or are they only serious about getting the “right” data?
  • “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.” – Upton Sinclair, 1935

The oneway-traffic flow of government funding leads not only to an unhealthy distortion of science, but also to an unhealthy bias in the scientific and media reporting we receive on climate change.

•••

via JoanneNova.com.au

Climate money: Monopoly science

The scientific process has become distorted. One side of a theory receives billions, but the other side is so poorly funded that auditing of that research is left as a community service project for people with expert skills, a thick skin and a passionate interest. A kind of “Adopt an Error” approach.

Can science survive the vice-like grip of politics and finance?

Despite the billions of dollars in funding, outrageous mistakes have been made. One howler in particular, rewrote history and then persisted for years before one dedicated fact checker, working for free, exposed the fraud about the Hockey Stick Graph. Meanwhile agencies like the Goddard Institute of Space Studies, can’t afford to install temperature sensors to meet its own guidelines, because the workers are poorly trained and equipped to dig trenches only with garden trowels and shovels. NOAA “adjust” the data after the fact—apparently to compensate for sensors which are too close to air conditioners or car parks, yet it begs the question: If the climate is the biggest problem we face; if billions of dollars are needed, why can’t we install thermometers properly?

Screen Shot 2013-09-25 at , September 25, 12.30.46 AM

How serious are they about getting the data right? Or are they only serious about getting the “right” data?

The real total of vested interests in climate-change science is far larger than just scientists doing pure research. The $30 billion in funding to the CCSP (graphed above) does not include work on green technologies like improving solar cells, or storing a harmless gas underground. Funding for climate technologies literally doubles the amount of money involved, and provides a much larger pool of respectable-looking people with impressive scientific cachet to issue more press releases—most of which have little to do with basic atmospheric physics, but almost all of which repeat the assumption that the climate will warm due to human emissions. In other words: a 30-billion-dollar cheer squad.

Lots of one-sided honest research does not make for fair debate

The scientists funded by governments don’t need to be dishonest for science to become distorted. They just need to do their jobs. If we ask 100 people to look for lizards in the jungle, would anyone be surprised if no one sees the elephant on the plain? Few people are paid or rewarded for auditing the IPCC and associated organizations. Where is the Department of Solar Influence or the Institute of Natural Climate Change?

Thousands of scientists have been funded to find a connection between human carbon emissions and the climate. Hardly any have been funded to find the opposite. Throw 30 billion dollars at one question and how could bright, dedicated people not find 800 pages worth of connections, links, predictions, projections and scenarios? (What’s amazing is what they haven’t found: empirical evidence.)

And scientists are human, they have mortgages and kids. If Exxon money has any pulling power, government money must also “pull”.

I can’t say it better than Al Gore in An Inconvenient Truth:

It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it. – Upton Sinclair, 1935

Ironically it was Al Gore himself who helped ensure there was copious funding for the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) from 1993-2000. We’ve poured billions into focusing bright brains on one angle, one topic, one cause. That’s a lot of salaries.

The monopolistic funding “ratchet”

There doesn’t necessarily need to be a conspiracy. It doesn’t require any centrally coordinated deceit or covert instructions to operate. Instead it’s the lack of funding for the alternatives that leaves a vacuum and creates a systemic failure. The force of monopolistic funding works like a ratchet mechanism on science. Results can move in both directions, but the funding means that only results from one side of the equation get “traction.”
Ideas that question the role of carbon in the climate are attacked with a fine-tooth comb by large teams of paid researchers. If real flaws are found they are announced loudly and repeatedly, and if there are imagined or irrelevant flaws, these too are announced and sometimes with even more fanfare. But ideas that support the role of carbon in the climate are subject to a very different analysis. Those on Team-AGW check to see if they have underestimated the impact of carbon, or made an error so obvious it would embarrass “the Team.” Since there are few paid supporters of natural causes, or people who benefit from defending non-carbon impacts, there is no one with an a priori motive to dig deep for non-obvious mistakes. So the pro-AGW ideas may only be scrutinized briefly, and by unpaid retirees, bloggers running on donations, or government scientists working in other fields—like geologists, who have reason to be skeptical, but who are not necessarily trained in, say, atmospheric physics.

Screen Shot 2013-09-25 at , September 25, 12.40.08 AM

Normally this might not be such a problem, because the lure of fame and fortune by categorically “busting” a well-accepted idea would attract some people. In most scientific fields, if someone debunks a big Nature or Science paper, they are suddenly cited more often; are the next in line for a promotion and find it easier to get grants. They attract better PhD students to help, are invited to speak at more conferences, and placed higher in the program. Instead in climate science, the reward is the notoriety of a personal attack page on Desmog1ExxonSecrets2 or Sourcewatch3, dedicated to listing every mistake on any topic you may have made, any connection you may have had with the fossil fuel industry, no matter how long ago or how tenuous. The attack-dog sites will also attack your religious beliefs if you have any. Roy Spencer, for example, has been repeatedly attacked for being Christian (though no one has yet come up with any reason why that could affect his satellite data).

Ironically, the “activist” websites use paid bloggers. DeSmog is a funded wing of a professional PR group Hoggan4 and Associates (who are paid to promote clients5 like David Suzuki Foundation, ethical funds, and companies that sell alternative energy sources like hydro power, hydrogen and fuel cells.) ExxonSecrets is funded by Greenpeace6 (who live off donations to “save” the planet, and presumably do better when the planet appears to need saving).

Most scientific fields are looking for answers, not looking to prove only one side of a hypothesis. There are a few researchers who are paid to disprove the hypothesis of Global Warming, and most of them are investigated and pilloried as if they were a politician running for office. This is not how science works, by ad hominem attack. The intimidation, disrespect and ostracism leveled at people who ask awkward questions acts like a form of censorship. Not many fields of science have dedicated smear sites for scientists. Money talks.

Respected MIT climatologist Richard Lindzen7 has spoken out against the pressure to conform and laments the loss of good researchers:

Sadly, this is only the tip of a non-melting iceberg. In Europe, Henk Tennekes was dismissed as research director of the Royal Dutch Meteorological Society after questioning the scientific underpinnings of global warming. Aksel Winn-Nielsen, former director of the U.N.’s World Meteorological Organization, was tarred by Bert Bolin, first head of the IPCC, as a tool of the coal industry for questioning climate alarmism. Respected Italian professors Alfonso Sutera and Antonio Speranza disappeared from the debate in 1991, apparently losing climate-research funding for raising questions.

The combination of no financial reward, plus guaranteed hostile scrutiny, and threats of losing employment would be enough to discourage many from entering the contentious side of the field or speaking their mind if they question the “faith.”

Continue Reading »

•••

UPDATE

Salient words and a brutally honest appraisal from Climatologist Judith Curry on the institutionalised and defunct IPCC ~ Suffering, more than anything, from the monopolistic funding syndrome discussed above …

via Joannenova.com.au

Kill the IPCC says Judith Curry. After decades and billions there is nothing to show for it.

And the public conversation finally starts to move on to discussing not whether the IPCC is wrong, but why it was wrong, and what we need to do about it. Credit to Judith Curry and the Financial Post. I’ve posted a few paragraphs here. The whole story is in the link at the top. – Jo

Judith A. Curry, Special to Financial Post

Kill the IPCC: After decades and billions spent, the climate body still fails to prove humans behind warming

 The IPCC is in a state of permanent paradigm paralysis. It is the problem, not the solution

The IPCC has given us a diagnosis of a planetary fever and a prescription for planet Earth. In this article, I provide a diagnosis and prescription for the IPCC: paradigm paralysis, caused by motivated reasoning, oversimplification, and consensus seeking; worsened and made permanent by a vicious positive feedback effect at the climate science-policy interface.

In its latest report released Friday, after several decades and expenditures in the bazillions, the IPCC still has not provided a convincing argument for how much warming in the 20th century has been caused by humans.

We tried a simple solution for a wicked problem:

We have wrongly defined the problem of climate change, relying on strategies that worked previously with ozone, sulphur emissions and nuclear bombs. While these issues may share some superficial similarities with the climate change problems, they are “tame” problems (complicated, but with defined and achievable end-states), whereas climate change is “wicked” (comprising open, complex and imperfectly understood systems). For wicked problems, effective policy requires profound integration of technical knowledge with understanding of social and natural systems. In a wicked problem, there is no end to causal chains in interacting open systems, and every wicked problem can be considered as a symptom of another problem; if we attempt to simplify the problem, we risk becoming prisoners of our own assumptions.

As I’ve been saying, monopolistic funding doesn’t work in science any more than it works in business:

The large investment in climate modeling, both in the U.S. and internationally, has been made with the expectation that climate models will support decision making on both mitigation and adaptation responses to climate change. So, are these complex global climate models especially useful for decision makers? The hope, and the potential, of climate models for providing credible regional climate change scenarios have not been realized.

With the failure of climate models to simulate the pause and regional climate variability, we have arguably reached the point of diminishing returns from this particular path of climate modeling – not just for decision support but also for scientific understanding of the climate system. In pursuit of this climate modeling path, the climate modeling community — and the funding agencies and the policy makers — have locked themselves into a single climate modeling framework with a focus on production runs for the IPCC, which has been very expensive in terms of funding and personnel. An unintended consequence of this strategy is that there has been very little left over for true climate modeling innovations and fundamental research into climate dynamics and theory — such research would not only support amelioration of deficiencies and failures in the current climate modeling systems, but would also lay the foundations for disruptive advances in our understanding of the climate system and our ability to predict emergent phenomena such as abrupt climate change.

As a result, we’ve lost a generation of climate dynamicists. We have been focused on climate models rather than on climate dynamics and theory that is needed to understand the effects of the sun on climate, the network of natural internal variability on multiple time scales, the mathematics of extreme events, and the predictability of a complex system characterized by spatio-temporal chaos.

Judith A. Curry is Chair and Professor, School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology.

•••

UPDATE

via Real Science

Shock News : Big Government Money Is Corrupting Climate Science

Posted on September 30, 2013

“I’m not happy with the IPCC,” she told Fox News. “I think it has torqued the science in an unfortunate direction.”

That torquing, she suggests, is because the money in climate science (the funding, that is) is tied to embellishing the IPCC narrative, especially the impacts of global warming. She is critical of the IPCC’s leadership as well, in particular its chairman, Rajendra Pachauri.

“They have explicit policy agendas,” Curry told Fox News. “Their proclamations are very alarmist and very imperative as to what we should be doing. And this does not inspire confidence in the final product.”

UN’s massive new climate report adds little explanation for ‘pause’ in warming | Fox News

•••

Climatism Links:


Shock News : Big Government Money Is Corrupting Climate Science

Real Science

Judith Curry, chair of the School of Earth And Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Tech, says the IPCC is taking a huge credibility hit over the hiatus – and its pronouncement that it is 95 percent certain that human activity is responsible for most global warming.

“I’m not happy with the IPCC,” she told Fox News. “I think it has torqued the science in an unfortunate direction.”

That torquing, she suggests, is because the money in climate science (the funding, that is) is tied to embellishing the IPCC narrative, especially the impacts of global warming. She is critical of the IPCC’s leadership as well, in particular its chairman, Rajendra Pachauri.

“They have explicit policy agendas,” Curry told Fox News. “Their proclamations are very alarmist and very imperative as to what we should be doing. And this does not inspire confidence in the final product.”

UN’s massive new climate report adds little explanation…

View original post 7 more words


Open Letter to the Honorable John Kerry U.S. Secretary of State

Climatism comment : Well said Bob Tisdale.
Though unfortunately Kerry, Obama, IPCC, EU, UN, EPA et al. are not interested in the real ‘science’ of climate change, they are only interested in extending the arm of Government even further into people’s lives in order to control.
CO² is the life-blood of every society, thus the carbon dioxide molecule “has a kind of fundamental attractiveness to bureaucratic mentality.”
Control CO² (energy) and you control everything.

Watts Up With That?

September 30, 2013

The Honorable John Kerry
Secretary of State
Washington D.C. 20520

Dear Mr. Secretary:

Your press release dated September 27, 2013 Release of the Fifth Assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change clearly expresses your beliefs about climate science. It included:

This isn’t a run of the mill report to be dumped in a filing cabinet. This isn’t a political document produced by politicians.

It’s science.

View original post 1,216 more words


No steel roof required: IPCC dials back the fear of extreme weather

We’ve got to ride this global warming issue.
Even if the theory of global warming is wrong,
we will be doing the right thing in terms of
economic and environmental policy.

– Timothy Wirth,
President of the UN Foundation

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

“Given that human actions are increasingly interfering with the delicate balance of nature, natural disasters such as floods, earthquakes and tsunamis will occur more frequently” – Dr Rajendra K Pachauri, IPCC Chief

ipcc_titanic

The IPCC have today released their full AR5 climate report after friday’s release of  the “The Summary For Policy Makers“.

The reports conclusions for extreme weather; droughts, floods, hurricanes, tornadoes etc remain basically unchanged from previous findings that were released last year in the IPCC’s SREX report (Special Report on Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters). Todays AR5 reports a level of “low confidence” that human greenhouse gas emissions have had any effect on extreme weather events.

Official IPCC Words from SREX report released 2012 : “We Do Not Know If The Climate Is Becoming More Extreme

The IPCC is the United Nations body most responsible for spreading panic about global warming and the body with a strong vested interest in keeping that panic alive. So given the “low confidence” finding between climate extremes and human gases is coming directly from them, indicates just how much the perceived ‘problem’ of climate change has been grossly overstated.

The backflip on extreme weather reaffirms again how misleading the global warming cabal has been with regard to its alarmist fear-mongering and baseless climate alarmism. All the while, society gulled into spending trillions of dollars on junk sciencemothballed desal plants, draconian carbon taxes and useless green energy schemes for literally nothing.

See also : Roger Pielke Jr.’s Blog: Coverage of Extreme Events in the IPCC AR5

•••

IPCC AR5 analysis via Herald Sun :

No steel roof required: IPCC dials back the fear of extreme weather

October 1, 2012

Global warming – dud predictionsGlobal warming – general

image

Professor Ross Garnaut in 2007, the very peak of global warming hysteria, told his local council he had to build a steel roof on his Melbourne home.

Garnaut, who wrote massive reports on global warming policy for the Rudd Government, argued he needed protection from the extreme weather he was sure we’d get from the change in the climate.

“Severe and more frequent hailstorms will be a feature of this change,” he wrote to the City of Yarra Council, explaining why he had to be excused from the council’s heritage overlay, which required slate roofs.

If I were Garnaut, it would not now read the full report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released yesterday. Reading it would be mortifying. The report is like watching global warming alarmists swallow a chill pill.

It’s important to recall the context for this latest IPCC report – how global warming alarmists have for a decade warned of all kinds of extreme weather events that would smash our cities, kill our citizens and turn farmland into desert. Indeed, the iconic image of global warming was this poster, from Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth, exploiting the Hurricane Katrina catastrophe to whip up fear:

image

Read The Inconvenient Truth Here.

How many warming scaremongers whipped up the fear of mega droughts and savage storms?



Now for the chill pill.

It was embarrassing enough for the IPCC in the summary released last Friday to admit there has been a 15-year pause or dramatic slowdown in global warming, and that its climate models didn’t predict that or the increase in Antarctic sea ice.

But now the IPCC can’t be sure at all we’re suffering from many extreme weather events, either. It even admits its past warnings of more droughts were “overstated”.

On the hail that frightened Garnaut into demanding a steel roof:

In summary, there is low confidence in observed trends in small-scale severe weather phenomena such as hail and thunderstorms because of historical data inhomogeneities and inadequacies in monitoring systems.

On droughts:

In summary, the current assessment concludes that there is not enough evidence at present to suggest more than low confidence in a global-scale observed trend in drought or dryness (lack of rainfall) since the middle of the 20th century, due to lack of direct observations, geographical inconsistencies in the trends, and dependencies of inferred trends on the index choice. Based on updated studies, AR4 conclusions regarding global increasing trends in drought since the 1970s were probably overstated. However, it is likely that the frequency and intensity of drought has increased in the Mediterranean and West Africa and decreased in central North America and north-west Australia since 1950.

On heatwaves:


Table 2.13 shows that there has been a likely increasing trend in the frequency of heatwaves since the middle of the 20th century in Europe and Australia and across much of Asia where there are sufficient data. However confidence on a global scale is medium due to lack of studies over Africa and South America but also in part due to differences in trends depending on how heatwaves are defined (Perkins et al., 2012).

This combined with issues with defining events, leads to the assessment thatthere is medium confidence that globally the length and frequency of warm spells, including heat waves, has increased since the middle of the 20th century although it is likely that heatwave frequency has increased during this period in large parts of Europe, Asia and Australia.

On heavy rain events:

In summary, there continues to be a lack of evidence and thus low confidence regarding the sign of trend in the magnitude and/or frequency of floods on a global scale.

On cyclones and storms:

In summary, this assessment does not revise the SREX conclusion of low confidence that any reported long-term (centennial) increases in tropical cyclone activity are robust, after accounting for past changes in observing capabilities…

In summary, confidence in large scale changes in the intensity of extreme extratropical cyclones since 1900 is low. There is also low confidence for a clear trend in storminess proxies over the last century due to inconsistencies between studies or lack of long-term data in some parts of the world (particularly in the SH).  Likewise, confidence in trends in extreme winds is low, due to quality and consistency issues with analysed data…

Over periods of a century or more, evidence suggests slight decreases in the frequency of tropical cyclones making landfall in the North Atlantic and the South Pacific, once uncertainties in observing methods have been considered. Little evidence exists of any longer-term trend in other ocean basins… Several studies suggest an increase in intensity, but data sampling issues hamper these assessments…

Callaghan and Power (2011) find a statistically significant decrease in Eastern Australia land-falling tropical cyclones since the late 19th century although including 2010/2011 season data this trend becomes non-significant (i.e., a trend of zero lies just inside the 90% confidence interval).

On the trouble with detecting trends in extreme weather events:

Changes in extremes for other climate variables are generally less coherent than those observed for temperature, due to data limitations and inconsistencies between studies, regions and/or seasons. However, increases in precipitation extremes, for example, are consistent with a warmer climate. Analyses of land areas with sufficient data indicate increases in the frequency and intensity of extreme precipitation events in recent decades, but results vary strongly between regions and seasons. For instance, evidence is most compelling for increases in heavy precipitation in North America, Central America and Europe, but in some other regions—such as southern Australia and western Asia—there is evidence of decreases. Likewise, drought studies do not agree on the sign of the global trend, with regional inconsistencies in trends also dependent on how droughts are defined. However, indications exist that droughts have increased in some regions (e.g., the Mediterranean) and decreased in others
(e.g., central North America) since the middle of the 20th century.

Remember, all these quotes come not from sceptics but from the IPCC, the United Nations body most responsible for spreading panic about global warming – and the body with a strong vested interest in keeping that panic alive.

This report should have had the words “Sorry we scared you” printed in big letters on the cover.  No steel roofs are required, after all. The future is not catastrophic. The fear-mongers must now be held to account.

UPDATE

The full IPCC report also makes much clearer than did the sanitised summary released on Friday that the computer models used to predict our climate are so flawed that they couldn’t even predict the last 15 years of essentially no warming. The IPCC admits they probably exaggerated the effect of man’s emissions on temperatures.

So why on earth should we trust them?

UPDATE

A separate posting on one of the IPCC authors, written by a reader, has been deleted. Several readers thought it unfair, and on reflection I am not sure it isn’t.

From the report:

(c) Model Response Error

The discrepancy between simulated and observed GMST trends during 1998–2012 could be explained in part by a tendency for some CMIP5 models to simulate stronger warming in response to increases in greenhouse-gas concentration than is consistent with observations… This finding provides evidence that some CMIP5 models show a larger response to greenhouse gases and other anthropogenic factors (dominated by the effects of aerosols) than the real world (medium confidence). As a consequence, it is argued in Chapter 11 that near-term model projections of GMST increase should be scaled down by about 10% (Section 11.3.6.3). This downward scaling is, however, not sufficient to explain the model-mean overestimate of GMST trend over the hiatus period.

Another possible source of model error is the poor representation of water vapour in the upper atmosphere… However, this effect is assessed here to be small, because there was a recovery in stratospheric water vapour after 2005…

In summary, the observed recent warming hiatus, defined as the reduction in GMST trend during 1998–2012 as compared to the trend during 1951–2012, is attributable in roughly equal measure to a cooling contribution from internal variability and a reduced trend in external forcing (expert judgment, medium confidence). The forcing trend reduction is primarily due to a negative forcing trend from both volcanic eruptions and the downward phase of the solar cycle. However, there is low confidence in quantifying the role of forcing trend in causing the hiatus, because of uncertainty in the magnitude of the volcanic forcing trend and low confidence in the aerosol forcing trend.

Almost all CMIP5 historical simulations do not reproduce the observed recent warming hiatus.

(My emboldening throughout.)

•••

To finish, this comment from Ross McKitrick (environmental economist who famously debunked the infamous hockey-stick graph that catapulted the ‘Global Warming’ scare onto the world stage) sums up nicely the IPCC’s latest junk science report :

Posted on : Reactions to IPCC AR5 Summary for Policy Makers | Watts Up With That?

Ross McKitrick says:

SPM in a nutshell: Since we started in 1990 we were right about the Arctic, wrong about the Antarctic, wrong about the tropical troposphere, wrong about the surface, wrong about hurricanes, wrong about the Himalayas, wrong about sensitivity, clueless on clouds and useless on regional trends. And on that basis we’re 95% confident we’re right.

•••

UPDATE

via Real Science

Shock News : Big Government Money Is Corrupting Climate Science

Judith Curry, chair of the School of Earth And Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Tech, says the IPCC is taking a huge credibility hit over the hiatus – and its pronouncement that it is 95 percent certain that human activity is responsible for most global warming.

“I’m not happy with the IPCC,” she told Fox News. “I think it has torqued the science in an unfortunate direction.”

That torquing, she suggests, is because the money in climate science (the funding, that is) is tied to embellishing the IPCC narrative, especially the impacts of global warming. She is critical of the IPCC’s leadership as well, in particular its chairman, Rajendra Pachauri.

“They have explicit policy agendas,” Curry told Fox News. “Their proclamations are very alarmist and very imperative as to what we should be doing. And this does not inspire confidence in the final product.”

UN’s massive new climate report adds little explanation for ‘pause’ in warming | Fox News

•••

Related Articles :

Climatism Links :


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 :


IPCC Summary Report – Higher Certainty Suggests Cover Up

We’ve got to ride this global warming issue.
Even if the theory of global warming is wrong,
we will be doing the right thing in terms of
economic and environmental policy.

– Timothy Wirth,
President of the UN Foundation

No matter if the science of global warming is all phony…
climate change provides the greatest opportunity to
bring about justice and equality in the world
.”
– Christine Stewart,
former Canadian Minister of the Environment

•••

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

•••

Why has IPCC V claimed greater certainty than in IPCC IV about the human contribution to global warming when the uncertainty has clearly  increased? One answer may be  that it is necessary for the credibility of  IPCCs and associated scientists that greater certainty be claimed in order  to provide a cover for the increased doubts about numerous aspects of the dangerous warming thesis since IPCC IV in 2007. These doubts will be increased by the attempt in IPCC V to explain the pause as being due to more than 90 per cent of the extra heat generated between 1971 and 2010 from the increase in CO2 being absorbed in the ocean instead of causing temperatures to increase. But the sea surface temperature is in equilibrium with the air surface temperature so where or how is the heat hiding? And when will the absorption (and pause) stop?

I have not yet read the report but below is a selection of articles on it from today’s press. I have not copied in any of the programs shown on ABC or SBS TV as they appear to have been a repeat of advice supplied to them by warmist scientists or extracted from IPCC handouts. In short these taxpayer funded organisations continue to be a disgrace and, if they had had shareholders, would have long since been wound up or sold.

By comparison one of the articles below published in the AFR actually included an extract from an interview I had with Gemma Daley. Incidentally, I am told that a lead author at the AFR on climate change (and an aggressive warmist) is no longer working at that organisation. Some other articles include the occasional query or reflect a modicum of scepticism. I have highlighted in red some of these.

Regrettably, the new Minister for the Environment* has stated that the government accepts “the science and the targets set for emissions reductions”. Perhaps he will be able to say which of the IPCC’s four alternative warming scenarios from 2000 to 2100 the government accepts. The fact that such alternatives are offered by the IPCC suggests uncertainty there about the extent of the alleged threat.

Note that only 110 of the 195 “eligible” (whoever they are) countries attended the Stockholm meeting which drafted the IPCC Summary for Policy Makers. One could argue that a large proportion of countries have not approved the Summary. Note also that there are more reports to be published.

Des Moore

*Climatism Link

•••

Related press :

Hunt claims vindication on carbon tax

AFR 28 Sep 2013

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change on Friday night said there was a 95 per cent probability humans are contributing climate change. Photo: Rob Homer

Gemma Daley and James Massola

Australia is on track for its hottest year on record in 2013 and the past decade was the globe’s warmest, according to an international report based on the best scientific understanding of climate change.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change on Friday night said there was a 95 per cent probability humans are contributing climate change, confirming a report in Friday’s The Australian Financial Review, and that temperatures could rise by from 0.9 degrees Celsius at the bottom of a low-emissions scenario to 5.4 degrees Celsius at the top of a high-emissions scenario by the end of the century.

Keep Reading (paywalled) »

•••

Why the pause? IPCC report is unconvincing

AFR 28 Sep 2013, Comment, Mark Lawson

The oceans are absorbing increases in global warming, the report claims. Photo: Glenn Campbell

Well before the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released the summary of its latest assessment of the physical science of global warming on Friday, experts worldwide were dealing with the fallout of the report.

That included explaining just why average global temperatures have done little in the past 15 years or so when they should have been increasing.

The IPCC, the peak body for the global warming industry, sets out what amounts to the agreed case for global warming in major reports issued every seven years.

These reports underpin a now vast industry in research grants, environment lobby firms and advisory businesses of all types.

The reports also provide the basis for billions of dollars in trading climate credits, many thousands of well-paid government jobs in climate bureaucracies, and an enormous green energy industry.

Keep Reading (paywalled) »

•••

Science solid on global warming, IPCC declares

Graham Lloyd, Environment Editor |

The Australian,  September 28, 2013

THE case for a global agreement to limit carbon-dioxide emissions has been bolstered after the world’s top climate scientists increased their level of confidence that humans are changing the climate.

Despite predicting a range of possible temperatures over the century – an increase of 0.3C to 4.8C by 2100 – the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s fifth report for policy-makers warns of serious consequences if no action is taken.

“We need to seize the opportunities of a low-carbon future,” UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said last night. “The heat is on, now we must act.”

As expected, the fifth assessment report by the UN body said warming of the climate system was “unequivocal” and there was now a 95 per cent probability that humans were contributing to climate change, up from 90 per cent in the 2007 report.

The IPCC said that since the 1950s many of the observed changes were “unprecedented over decades to millennia”.

“The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, sea level has risen, and the concentrations of greenhouse gases has increased,” said the report, released last night. The report said each of the past three decades had been warmer at the Earth’s surface than any preceding decade since 1850. The IPCC report conceded the so-called “pause” in average surface temperatures over the past 15 years, but said it was not significant.

“Due to natural variability, trends based on short records are very sensitive to the beginning and end dates and do not in general reflect long-term climate trends,” the report said.

It said “internal variability” – including volcanic eruptions, reduced solar activity and a possible redistribution of heat within the ocean – could explain the observed reduction in surface warming from 1998 to 2012 as compared with 1951-2012.

It conceded there may also be “an overestimate of the response to increasing greenhouse gas and other anthropogenic forcing”.

The report said there were more hot days and fewer cold ones; heat waves had increased in large parts of Europe, Asia and Australia and rainfall had increased in some areas.

As atmospheric carbon dioxide continued to increase, there was rising concern about increasing acidification of the ocean.

The report said continued emissions of greenhouse gases would cause further warming and changes in all components of the climate system. “Limiting climate change will require substantial and sustained reductions of greenhouse gas emissions,” it said.

Environment Minister Greg Hunt said the report’s findings reinforced the government’s “bipartisan support for the science and the targets set for emissions reductions”.

Greens leader Christine Milne said the report confirmed urgent and deep emission cuts globally were needed. She said the government had “no option but to abandon” its direct-action approach and take “urgent and serious measures immediately”.

The director of the Britain-based Global Warming Policy Foundation, Benny Peiser, was critical of the report’s handling of the pause.

“It has not only decided to discount the global warming standstill since 1997 as irrelevant, but has also deleted from its draft document its original acknowledgement that climate models failed to ‘reproduce the observed reduction in surface warming trend over the last 10-15 years’,” Dr Peiser said.

IPCC working groups co-chairman Thomas Stocker said last night the rise in global surface temperatures by the end of the 21st century was likely to exceed 1.5C relative to 1850 to 1900 under all future carbon emissions scenarios.

The most optimistic of four scenarios for warming forecasts an average temperature rise of 1C by 2100 over 2000 levels, ranging from 0.3C to 1.7C.

The highest IPCC scenario has an average additional warming this century of 3.7C, ranging from 2.6C to 4.8C.

Unlike the previous report in 2007, which forecast a range of temperature increases from 0.3C to 6.4C by 2100, the fifth update did not nominate a most likely temperature rise figure.

The likely range for Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (how much average global temperature is expected to rise after a doubling of atmospheric carbon-dioxide concentrations) was now deemed to be 1.5C to 4.5C, a revision from the Fourth Assessment Report, which provided a range of 2C to 4.5C.

By the end of the century, sea levels were projected to rise between 26cm and 55cm under the best-case scenario to 45cm to 82cm under the worst case. In 2007, the rise was projected in a range from 18cm to 59cm.

Andy Pitman, director of the ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science at the University of NSW, said the report “finally puts to rest the role humans play in causing global warming”.

“The good news is it highlights we can still avoid two degrees of warming if we deeply and rapidly cut emissions of greenhouse gases,” Professor Pitman said.

CSIRO fellow and IPCC lead author Steve Rintoul said there was “even greater confidence that climate is changing, (that) humans are largely responsible for the warming observed over the last 50 years, and that substantial and sustained reductions in greenhouse gas emissions will be needed to avoid the worst consequences of climate change”.

The IPCC report was approved at 5.30am after a marathon session at the Stockholm gathering of scientists and officials from more than 110 of the 195 eligible countries.

The IPCC document will play a key role in negotiations for a global agreement to cut global carbon-dioxide emissions which includes China, the US and India.

The UN has set a target to reach agreement in 2015 for a plan to take effect from 2020.

IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri said he believed a market mechanism was the key to reducing carbon-dioxide emissions. “We have to put a price on carbon,” Dr Pachauri said. “In the ultimate analysis it is only through the market we might be able to get a large enough and rapid enough response,” he said.

•••

Alarm on global warming

The Age, September 28 2013,
Nick Miller Stockholm and Tom Arup

It is more certain than ever that human civilisation is the main cause of global warming, putting the world on track for dangerous temperature rises, a United Nations panel says.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says it is “extremely likely” that humans are the dominant cause of warming since the mid-20th century, with carbon dioxide emissions the main factor.

If emissions remain high, by 2100 temperatures are likely to rise by more than 2 degrees – and up to 4.8 degrees – breaching a threshold agreed by governments as limiting the worst impacts of climate change.

Heatwaves will be more frequent and last longer, the report says. Most wet regions will get more rainfall, and most dry regions less.

Glaciers and ice sheets will continue to shrink, and sea levels will rise more quickly.

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said political commitment was needed to keep global temperature rise below the 2 degrees threshold.

”The heat is on, now we must act,” he said.

On Friday in Stockholm, the IPCC released a summary of its fifth major assessment of climate science after a week of debate, and years of work.

“The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amount of snow and ice has diminished, the global mean sea level has risen and the concentrations of greenhouse gases have increased,” said Qin Dahe, co-chair of the IPCC working group that compiled the report.

The findings were based on multiple lines of independent evidence, he said, much of it new since the IPCC’s previous report in 2007.

His co-chair, Thomas Stocker, said “substantial and sustained” reductions of greenhouse gas emissions would be necessary to prevent further warming and climate change.

The report found that:

■Each of the past three decades has been warmer than any preceding decade since 1850, and the past 30 years have been the warmest since AD600. Combined land and ocean temperatures rose 0.85 degrees on average since 1880.

■From 1901 to 2010, the sea level rose 19 centimetres, more quickly than the average for the last 2000 years. It is very likely to rise even more quickly during the 21st century.

■Greenhouse gases have reached levels unseen in at least 800,000 years, from fossil fuel emissions and land use. Oceans have absorbed a third of the extra carbon dioxide, making them more acidic.

■It is very likely that Arctic sea cover will continue to shrink and thin, and spring snow cover will continue to decrease through the 21st century.

■It is more likely than not that there will be more intense tropical cyclones.

Evidence for human influence in climate change has grown in the past five years, the report says.

Last night the federal government said it would push ahead with plans to dismantle Australia’s carbon tax. Environment Minister Greg Hunt said the government would repeal the market-based carbon-pricing mechanism set up by the former Labor government and that electricity prices and emissions have risen under the carbon tax.

The coalition would endeavour to reduce carbon emissions by 5 per cent by 2020 with a capped $3.2 billion fund on activities that cut greenhouse gas emissions like revegetation and improving soil carbon, he said.

The report has been six years in the making and has involved over 800 scientists from around the world.

The panel was established by the UN to provide scientific assessments of climate change to governments, who get the final sign off on its reports.

The working group went right down to the wire, finishing the substantive parts of the report only hours ahead of its planned release after an all-night debate.

The group has been wrestling with figures that showed a slower rise in global temperatures than expected in the past decade.

The report concludes “with high confidence” that more than 90 per cent of the extra heat generated in between 1971 and 2010 has been stored in the world’s oceans.

Commenting on the report, United States Secretary of State John Kerry said: ”This is yet another wake-up call. Those who deny the science or choose excuses over action are playing with fire.

”This is science, these are facts, and action is our only option,” Senator Kerry said.

”If this isn’t an alarm bell, then I don’t know what one is. If ever there were an issue that demanded greater cooperation, partnership, and committed diplomacy, this is it.”

Asked if the report meant the world could not burn its fossil fuel reserves, IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri said pricing carbon would an effective way to tackle emissions.

”It’s only through the market that we could get a large enough and rapid enough response,” he said.

Australian Academy of Science president Suzanne Cory said the world could be more certain than ever that human-induced climate change was real and a serious threat to the planet.

The 36-page ”summary for policymakers” released on Friday covers the first part of its assessment looking at the physical science, with the full version to be released on Monday.

It is based on 9200 scientific studies, more than three quarters of which were published since 2007.

Two more reports – looking at impacts and mitigation of climate change- will be released next year.

•••

Like the atmosphere the plot thickens yet again

The Age, Tom Arup, Environment Editor

So what now? Like its previous assessment six years ago, and those before it, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has warned that the planet is warming dangerously and humans are the dominant cause.

In their more reflective moments, the scientists will tell you they wish they were wrong and that the Andrew Bolts of the world were right.

That global warming was not occurring. That warming had stopped. That it was not really that dangerous. That it was all due to natural variation. That it was one big conspiracy.

After all, who would really want to be right about such an enormous, transformative threat? Those working on climate science, of course, do not believe they have erred. The latest IPCC report has lifted the confidence of scientists and governments that humans have caused warming to an almost complete certainty.

Yes, warming has slowed in the past 15 years to below the long-term average. And no, scientists do not have a lot of confidence in explaining exactly why (it is probably a mix of ocean heat shifts, volcanos, aerosols and solar variations).

But nor has it got any cooler. Each of the past three decades was warmer than any preceding decade since records began.

This is a cautious, and largely technical report. Yet the IPCC still sets out strengthened evidence across all elements of the climate system.

The oceans, the ice sheets, extreme events of weather are all changing at an accelerated rate. These are significant warning signs of what is to come.

There are only so many times this message can be delivered to world governments before the reluctance to act conjures the words ”willful ignorance”. The last legally binding treaty on climate change to be drawn up was the Kyoto Protocol in 1997, covering developed countries.

Since then the world has tried and failed to hammer out a stronger, more encompassing treaty. Famously, the 2009 Copenhagen talks ended in disaster, stuck in self-interest and mistrust.

But self-interest will only go so far. That nagging science does not seem to be going away. And in the end, the atmosphere will not discriminate.

There have been some encouraging signs in recent years, particularly out of the US and China, which are making tentative steps to get their mammoth emissions under control. And the world will have another go at signing a full climate treaty at negotiations in Paris in 2015.

But we are cutting it fine to get our act together and begin making the changes needed: the reduction and end to conventional fossil fuel use and a halt to widespread clearing of forests.

•••

Good policy cuts out the climate extremists

AFR, 28 Sep 2013, Warwick McKibbin

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report by Working Group 1 which forms part of the Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) will be much discussed in coming days.

The final AR5 Report is not expected to be finalised until October 2014 but the ideological and political noise from all sides surrounding the release of the latest report has been and will be deafening.

Some people will argue it supports the view that a climate crisis is approaching and a major restructuring of the global economy at whatever cost should be undertaken. Other equally intelligent and passionate people will argue the report is finally a recognition of the failure of climate models to predict a levelling of temperature changes that is currently being observed, and thus proving the entire body of climate science wrong.

Keep Reading (paywalled) »

•••

 

Climate Depot Round Up: UN IPCC Exhumes, Brings Climate Catastrophe Back From The Grave…Politicians, Activists Dancing Like It’s 2007!

Climate Depot Report on Reaction to New IPCC Report

Marc Morano Statement: “It appears the UN IPCC rejected advice from many to deal with discrepancies between man-made global warming claims and climate reality. The UN chose to double down and act as though Climategate never happened or the global temperature standstill for 15 or more years does not exist. The UN IPCC has stuck to the same old script. However, less and less people are now willing to buy what they are selling. Global warming skeptics have thus far prevailed in this debate by relying on science, data, and healthy doses of skepticism. The UN IPCC — steeped in politics — appears incapable of producing a report that would challenge its government mandated narrative claiming man-made global warming is a  threat.” For an alternative to UN claims, see: CLIMATE STUDY COUNTERS UN IPCC: EVIDENCE LEANS AGAINST HUMAN-CAUSED GLOBAL WARMING — Group of 50 international scientists releases comprehensive new 1200-page report #

•••

Climatism Links :


IPCC Chief Says That Humans Cause Earthquakes And Tsunamis

The United Nations’ IPCC is definitely not an agenda driven, alarmist, ideological (inter-government-al) organisation.

Real Science

John Kerry says that the IPCC is very conservative

Given that human actions are increasingly interfering with the delicate balance of nature, natural disasters such as floods, earthquakes and tsunamis will occur more frequently, said Dr Rajendra K Pachauri, .

http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/

View original post


As Temperatures Have Declined, The IPCC Has Gained Confidence In Catastrophic Warming

Real Science

With each successive decline in temperature, the IPCC has gained confidence that their exponentially increasing warming models are correct.

ScreenHunter_1013 Sep. 28 00.13

Note that the linear decline seen since TAR in 2001 is almost a perfect fit for the exponential increase of 0.4ºC predicted by Hansen during that interval.

ScreenHunter_968 Sep. 26 16.46

The next graph is a closeup showing actual temperatures since 2001, overlaid on Hansen’s forecasts.

ScreenHunter_1019 Sep. 28 07.14

Bottom line is that you would have to have the IQ of a turnip to believe any of the spectacularly transparent lies being spewed by the IPCC this week.

View original post