Posts Tagged ‘AR5’

IPCC: the best headlines

September 28, 2013

I particularly liked the headline in Andrew Orlowski’s article in The Register!

IPCC: Yes, humans are definitely behind all this global warming we aren’t having

Some other winners:

IPCC report: Britain could cool if Gulf Stream slows 

THE DISCLAIMER THAT SHOULD BE ADDED AT THE TOP OF EACH IPCC REPORT

Band-aids Can’t Fix the New IPCC Report

IPCC AR5 Press Release: Oceans Ate “More Than 90% Of The Energy Accumulated Between 1971 And 2010″! 

and of course my own:

IPCC = International Promotion of Global Warming

IPCC will ignore hiatus in global warming until it has gone on for 30 years!

September 27, 2013

I have been watching the IPCC press conference and it seems to me that they were very much on the defensive:

  1. they felt that had no option but to mention the hiatus in global warming,
  2. they decided to underplay its significance along a number of fronts
    • the period was too short
    • hiatus was not significant untill it had existed for 30 years
    • 1998 was a very special El Nino year
    • the intervening period had other factors (volcanic activity for example) which could have contributed to cooling
  3. they have rejected the very high sea level rise scenarios but assign no probability because there is no consensus
  4. they are following the line that “it is not important to know where we are now because we are certain about where we will end up in 20 or 30 years”
  5. sensitivities is an emerging subject and there is no consensus
  6. it is still correct to follow the one dimensional greenhouse gas view of global warming.

All in all a rather predictable performance  with a clear task of “protecting the models”.

IPCC still cooking it’s books to cover-up the inconvenient truths

September 27, 2013

The 95% probability/certainty of global warming being due to human activity is based on a show of hands and not on any evidence or statistical analysis of data. What it actually says is that 95% of all global warming believers, believe.

Late last night the IPCC delegates in Stockholm were still messing around preparing their 30 page political summary of their AR5 report to be released today.

The political summary of AR5 is primarily a CYA effort to protect the posteriors of the policy makers (mainly political figures, bureaucrats and activists) in the face of a long row of broken models and broken hypotheses. The IPCC has forgotten that natural variability is a euphemism for unknown mechanisms which cannot be calculated or predicted. It is going to be interesting to see just how the summary report will cover-up, deny or ignore the long string of inconvenient facts:

  • Global temperatures have not risen for 17-18 years while CO2 has kept on increasing. 
  • Global temperatures have been declining for the last 11 years. 
  • None of the IPCC’s computer models have predicted the warming hiatus or the cooling over the last decade.
  • Global wildfires are lower than normal. 
  • Rainfall patterns (and the Indian monsoon) continue within the bounds of known natural variability. 
  • Food and grain production is at an all-time high. 
  • Flood frequency and flood levels have not been at unprecedented levels. Just more people live in flood-plains today than before. 
  • CO2 in the atmosphere reached the magic level of 400 ppm (albeit for just a few hours) and nothing happened.
  • How much of the CO2 concentration increase is due to carbon dioxide from fossil fuel. combustion is unclear but fossil fuel emissions are only 5% of global carbon dioxide emissions. 
  • The absorption and release of carbon dioxide by the oceans is unknown and the error margin is greater than the total amount released by fossil fuels.
  • CO2 absorption mechanisms do not care where the CO2 being absorbed came from.
  • The sensitivity of global temperature to CO2 concentration has been grossly exaggerated by the computer models.
  • Carbon dioxide concentration is more likely to follow global temperature (due to subsequent changes in emission and absorption rates) than to lead it.
  • Sea ice levels are increasing at both poles with the Antarctic at record high levels.
  • Polar bear populations are thriving and increasing.
  • Sea levels are continuing to rise at just the historical levels due to the recovery from the last glacial and are not accelerating due to industrialisation or the use of fossil fuels.
  • Oceans are still strongly alkaline and any increase in acidity is within known natural variability.
  • Coral reefs have shown themselves to be self-healing when damaged and are not showing any signs of ocean acidification.
  • Climate models have grossly underestimated solar effects because the mechanisms are unknown.
  • Sunspot activity in SC24 is well down from SC 23 and is not unlike the period of the dalton minimum during SC5 and SC6.
  • Clouds and moisture in the atmosphere have a much bigger impact on global warming and cooling than CO2 in the atmosphere.
  • Cloud formation is linked to sunspot activity and cosmic rays.
  • Global warming and cooling follow solar effects via the oceans in long decadal cycles.
  • The number of hurricanes and tornadoes are at historically low levels.
  • Heat released from the earth’s interior by tectonic and volcanic activity is not known.
  • A Little Ice Age is more likely than further Global Warming and a global cooling cycle lasting 20-30 years may have begun.
  • This interglacial is due (within c. 1000 years) to come to an end.

There is more we don’t know that we don’t know about the climate than the IPCC would like to admit. And for policy makers, activists and bureaucrats who have followed misguided policies for the last 25 years it is no longer possible to admit that they have been making “certain” predictions in an ocean of uncertainty. They have replaced scientific objectivity by “consensus science” where the validity of a hypothesis is based on how many believe and not on evidence. The 95% probability/certainty of global warming being due to human activity being touted by the IPCC is based on a show of hands of believers, and not on any evidence or statistical analysis of data.

Leaked IPCC draft report shows that global warming models are codswallop

December 15, 2012

The draft IPCC AR5 report has been leaked and is available on the net.

IPCC AR5 draft leaked, contains game-changing admission of enhanced solar forcing – as well as a lack of warming to match model projections, and reversal on ‘extreme weather’ 

Of course this is only the draft report and AR5 is not due to be final till the end of 2013. The political summaries are not yet finalised and there is still plenty of time for data to be cherry-picked to support the conclusions to be drawn. But what is clear is that climate models are a load of old codswallop!

Observations just do not support the alarmist global warming models. The impact of solar forcings are beginning to be acknowledged. The role of carbon dioxide emissions is nothing but conjecture.

One picture tells the tale.

Model predictions versus observations

Model predictions versus observations

Here is the caption for this figure from the AR5 draft:

Estimated changes in the observed globally and annually averaged surface temperature (in °C) since 1990 compared with the range of projections from the previous IPCC assessments. Values are aligned to match the average observed value at 1990. Observed global annual temperature change, relative to 1961–1990, is shown as black squares  (NASA (updated from Hansen et al., 2010; data available athttp://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/); NOAA (updated from  Smith et al., 2008; data available at http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cmb-faq/anomalies.html#grid); and the UK Hadley  Centre (Morice et al., 2012; data available at http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut4/) reanalyses). Whiskers  indicate the 90% uncertainty range of the Morice et al. (2012) dataset from measurement and sampling, bias and coverage (see Appendix for methods). The coloured shading shows the projected range of global annual mean near surface temperature change from 1990 to 2015 for models used in FAR (Scenario D and business-as-usual), SAR (IS92c/1.5 and IS92e/4.5), TAR (full range of TAR Figure 9.13(b) based on the GFDL_R15_a and DOE PCM parameter settings), and AR4 (A1B and A1T). The 90% uncertainty estimate due to observational uncertainty and  internal variability based on the HadCRUT4 temperature data for 1951-1980 is depicted by the grey shading. Moreover, the publication years of the assessment reports and the scenario design are shown.


%d bloggers like this: