Doubts over IPCC’s global warming rates – Doubts over the IPCC’s validity.

Items of importance – Proof that the IPCC “science” is not settled, and signs that the mainstream media are prepared to report the situation a little more openly and honestly. 

Thirdly, how very strange that the IPCC can spin this scientific fact into “The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says there is now a 95 per cent probability that humans are responsible for global warming.”

From Graham Lloyd, ‘The Australian’, “News”:

THE Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s latest assessment reportedly revises down the speed at which climate change is happening.

And according to reports in British and US media, the draft report appears to suggest global temperatures are less sensitive to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide than was previously thought.

The IPCC’s 2007 assessment report said the planet warmed at a rate of 0.2C a decade in the previous 15 years, but according to Britain’s The Mail on Sunday the draft update report says the figure for the 60 years since 1951 has been 0.12C a decade. The equivalent long-range figure for the 2007 report was 0.13C a decade.

Last week, the IPCC was forced to deny it was locked in crisis talks as reports intensified that scientists were preparing to revise down the speed at which climate change is happening and its likely impact.

It is believed the IPCC draft report will still conclude there is now greater confidence that climate change is real, humans are having a major impact and that the world will continue to warm catastrophically unless drastic action is taken to curb greenhouse gas emissions.

The impacts would include big rises in the sea level, floods, droughts and the disappearance of the Arctic icecap.

But claimed contradictions in the report have led to calls for the IPCC report process to be scrapped.

Professor Judith Curry, head of climate science at the Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta, told The Daily Mail the leaked summary showed “the science is clearly not settled, and is in a state of flux”.

The Wall Street Journal said the updated report, due out on September 27, would show “the temperature rise we can expect as a result of manmade emissions of carbon dioxide is lower than the IPCC thought in 2007”.

The WSJ report said the change was small but “it is significant because it points to the very real possibility that, over the next several generations, the overall effect of climate change will be positive for humankind and the planet”.

After several leaks and reports on how climate scientists would deal with a slowdown in the rate of average global surface temperatures over the past decade, the IPCC was last week forced to deny it had called for crisis talks.

“Contrary to the articles the IPCC is not holding any crisis meeting,” it said in a statement.

The IPCC said more than 1800 comments had been received on the final draft of the “summary for policymakers” to be considered at a meeting in Stockholm before the release of the final report. It did not comment on the latest report, which said scientists accepted their forecast computers may have exaggerated the effect of increased carbon emissions on world temperatures and not taken enough notice of natural variability.

According to The Daily Mail, the draft report recognised the global warming “pause”, with average temperatures not showing any statistically significant increase since 1997.

Scientists admitted large parts of the world had been as warm as they were now for decades at a time between 950 and 1250, centuries before the Industrial Revolution.

And, The Daily Mail said, a forecast in the 2007 report that hurricanes would become more intense had been dropped.

Writing in The Wall Street Journal, Matt Ridley said the draft report had revised downwards the “equilibrium climate sensitivity”, a measure of eventual warming induced by a doubling of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. It had also revised down the Transient Climate Response, the actual climate change expected from a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide about 70 years from now.

Ridley said most experts believed that warming of less than 2C from pre-industrial levels would result in no net economic and ecological damage. “Therefore, the new report is effectively saying (based on the middle of the range of the IPCC’s emissions scenarios) that there is a better than 50-50 chance that by 2083 the benefits of climate change will still outweigh the harm,” he said.

Read the ‘Australian’s’ article here.

Then we come to Mark Moran, (‘Climate Depot’), reporting a reputable scientific article, clearly refuting the IPCC conclusions as being incoherent.

MIT Climate Scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen Rips UN IPCC Report: ‘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’

Former UN IPCC Lead Author Richard Lindzen: ‘In attributing warming to man, they fail to point out that the warming has been small, and totally consistent with there being nothing to be alarmed about’

By: Climate Depot   Climate Depot Exclusive

MIT Climate Scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen told Climate Depot on September 27, 2013:

I think that the latest IPCC report has truly sunk to level of hilarious incoherence.  They are proclaiming increased confidence in their models as the discrepancies between their models and observations increase.

Their excuse for the absence of warming over the past 17 years is that the heat is hiding in the deep ocean.  However, this is simply an admission that the models fail to simulate the exchanges of heat between the surface layers and the deeper oceans.  However, it is this heat transport that plays a major role in natural internal variability of climate, and the IPCC assertions that observed warming can be attributed to man depend crucially on their assertion that these models accurately simulate natural internal variability.  Thus, they now, somewhat obscurely, admit that their crucial assumption was totally unjustified.

Finally, in attributing warming to man, they fail to point out that the warming has been small, and totally consistent with there being nothing to be alarmed about.  It is quite amazing to see the contortions the IPCC has to go through in order to keep the international climate agenda going.

End Lindzen statement

Lindzen is an emeritus Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at MIT.

Lindzen has published more than 200 scientific papers and books. He was a lead author of Chapter 7, ‘Physical Climate Processes and Feedbacks,’ of the IPCC Third Assessment Report on climate change.

Read the complete article here.

Perhaps fair to suggest that the Emperor is in the process of being exposed as not really being  clothed in stunning robes after all!

One report is scientifically sound. The other blatantly ignoring the facts and spewing deliberate misinformation. The public has difficulty in discerning which is accurate. Politicians too, although our expectations about that are not high, from sad experience.

My God!, they are still claiming that the hockey stick global temperature trend was/is factual.

Only this week I learned that smaller country schools are sometimes unable to teach Year 12 Physics because of insufficient students being interested. In my day, Physics was a compulsory subject.  Not an encouraging situation for the future.

About Ken McMurtrie

Retired Electronics Engineer, most recently installing and maintaining medical X-Ray equipment. A mature age "student" of Life and Nature, an advocate of Truth, Justice and Humanity, promoting awareness of the injustices in the world.
This entry was posted in AGW, AUSTRALIA, carbon tax, climate change, ENVIRONMENT and tagged , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Doubts over IPCC’s global warming rates – Doubts over the IPCC’s validity.

  1. Dr. Lindzen is one of the best-known of the so-called “deniers”, which I term “realists”, or “non–warmers”. It’s about time that someone gave the other camp a chance to be hear! The IPCC is finally having to admit that things won’t be so bad after all, in fact, we’ll hardly notice it, after the Ice Age hits, and we wish for more warming!

    • Thanks Richard!
      Not enough individuals, politicians or organization leaders have realized the truths.
      The propaganda and its machines are very strong.
      Yet to you and me and an increasing number of others, the situation is so clear as to make me wonder how it is not even causing a glimmer of realization.
      The use of the word “denier” is perhaps used in the wrong camp.
      When it is applied to non-CAGW persons, the warmists do not even get it right – we may be denying any significant man-made warming, especially because of CO2 levels. But they claim we are denying climate change, which is absurd.
      They are denying reality and are locked into a belief system that is devoid of science and/or logic.
      Regards, Ken.

Leave a Reply

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

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s