IPCC AR5 climate report may be dead on arrival

The hallowed Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a political organization pretending to do science, has issued its latest science fiction novel, the Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) and the gullible press is agog.

The main problem is that the climate model speculations have diverged from reality (see: “More evidence that climate models are wrong“).  There has not been any statistically significant warming since 1998 even though carbon dioxide emissions keep rising at a greater rate. The models cannot explain this, nor can the IPCC. In spite of model failures, the IPCC is now 95% confident that human carbon dioxide emissions are responsible for the majority of global warming since 1950.    The lack of any physical evidence to support that contention does not deter them.

The problem is shown in the graph below.

CMIP5-73-models-vs-obs-20N-20S-MT-5-yr-means1

Early drafts of AR5 show graphs similar to the one above, but the final version “disappears” the divergence.  Dr. Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit, shows how the IPCC performed this vanishing act, see “IPCC: Fixing the Facts.”

Some other opinions from the blogsphere and press:

Dr. Richard Lindzen, emeritus Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at MIT, had this to say about the IPCC report:

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.

Patrick J. Michaels and Paul C. “Chip” Knappenberger:

The  fact is that the IPCC’s climate models need fixing. Prima facie evidence is that they cannot even track the evolution of broadest measure of climate, the earth’s average temperature, for the last 10-20 years.  Despite this being widely obvious to everyone, it didn’t find its way into the scientific literature (although not without trying) until earlier this month.

As a result, the latest science on two key issues: how much the earth will warm as a result of human greenhouse gas emissions, and how well climate models perform in projecting the warming, are largely not incorporated in the new IPCC report.

Which renders the new IPCC report, and its “four years’ work by hundreds of experts” not only obsolete on its release, but completely useless as a basis to form opinions (or policy) related to human energy choices and their influence on the climate.

Paul Homewood on Antarctic ice:

Their models forecast less ice, and they cannot explain why there is instead more ice. The fact that area is increasing even faster would suggest that the increase in extent is not due to winds spreading the ice out.

Joseph Bast, Heartland Institute:

The IPCC study…is produced by a government agency, part of the United Nations. That agency’s mission is to find a human impact on climate. Its SPM [Summary for Policy Makers] does not accurately reflect the contents of the complete study, which hasn’t even been completed. Over the history of the IPCC, each report has expressed a higher level of alarmism and a higher level of confidence in its certainty that man-made global warming will be harmful.

Dr. David Deming:

A group of people offered billions of dollars to investigate climate change is unlikely to conclude that it is a benign, natural process unworthy of further attention.

Dr. Roy Spencer:

The recent ~15 year lull in warming is hardly mentioned at all (nothing to see here, move along).

A best estimate for climate sensitivity — unarguably THE most important climate change variable — is no longer provided, due to mounting contradictory evidence on whether the climate system really cares very much about whether there are 2, or 3, or 4, parts of CO2 per 10,000 parts atmosphere.

And probably the biggest omission of the report continues to be the almost total neglect of natural forcing mechanisms of climate change. The climate system is likely at least a little chaotic, with natural variations due to inherent system nonlinearities and time lags (courtesy of the ocean). As I keep harping on, the observed increase in ocean heat content over the last 60 years (if we can believe hundredths of a degree warming is accurate) equates to a global energy imbalance of only 1 part in 1,000. To believe that Mother Nature is incapable of causing such small imbalances, as the IPCC implicitly believes, is not based upon observations but upon assumptions.

What this means is that, without knowing just how much of recent warming is natural, there is no way to know how much is anthropogenic *nor* how sensitive the climate system is. This is a glaring source of uncertainty that the IPCC continues to gloss over, sweep under the rug.

Dr. Judith Curry, chair of the School of Earth And Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Tech:

Message to IPCC: Once you sort out the uncertainty in climate sensitivity estimates and fix your climate models, let us know.  Then please do the hard work of understanding regional vulnerability to climate variability and change before you tell us what constitutes  ’dangerous’ climate change.  And let us know if you come up with any solutions to this ‘problem’ that aren’t worse than the potential problem itself.

Dr. Tim Ball:

Instead of acknowledging the hypothesis is wrong, as science requires, the defenders advance bizarre explanations none of which bear examination. According to the IPCC what is happening can’t happen. They were over 90 percent certainty of their results and planned to increase that certitude to 95 percent in their next Report (AR5).

Defenders are making ludicrous and contradictory claims to explain what is happening. They said they were 90+ percent certain warming since 1950 was due to human CO2 with natural causes of little or no consequence. Now they‘re saying the lack of warming of the last 17 years is because of natural variability and decreasing solar activity.

The sad thing is leaked emails revealed they knew all along that the evidence doesn’t support what they were saying.

Dr. Don J. Easterbrook, Professor of Geology, Western Washington University:

Mark Twain popularized the saying “There are liars, damn liars, and statisticians.” After reading the recently-released IPPC report, we can now add, ‘there are liars, damn liars, and IPCC.” When compared to the also recently published NIPCC (Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change) 1000+-page volume of data on climate change with thousands of peer-reviewed references, the inescapable conclusion is that the IPCC report must be considered the grossest misrepresentation of data ever published.

Advertisements

14 comments

  1. We can be 95% confident that 95% of the IPCC report is as trustworthy and scientific as their 95% claim that 95% of humans are responsible for 95% of CO2 which is causing 95% of everything that is wrong with the world.

  2. Yes, as Art Horn puts it:

    Ipcc Is Very Confident That They Are Not Sure

    http://www.thegwpf.org/art-horn-ipcc-confident/

    The new report states clearly that with 95% confidence, humans are the “dominant cause” of global warming. The only difference in the percent of confidence from the previous reports is that the 95% figure is higher than all the other reports. This higher level of confidence is rather odd since they state that the climate systems sensitivity to forcing from greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide is unknown! The report states that “No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies”. Without a solid understanding of what the climate sensitivity to carbon dioxide and other forcings is, the whole “dominant cause” statement has no meaning. It’s a statement designed to inspire confidence in what they admittedly don’t understand.

    What they are saying is that they are 95% sure that humans are the dominant cause of global warming but that they are so unsure of how the climate system reacts to increases in carbon dioxide, they can’t give us an “estimate” of how much global warming it causes.

  3. Lets face it, when 97% of the worlds top climate scientists and scholars
    are 95% certain that burning fossil fuels is moving us toward a +2 degree
    tipping point in climate change, its a good bet that we have a serious problem.
    Lets get past the fossil fuel funded talking points and discuss what policies
    will best insure that our children have a hospitable climate in which to raise
    their children. We owe them that regardless of our political differences.

    1. Let’s face it, when 97% of the world’s top climate scientists and scholars have seen 95% of their climatic predictions fail over the past two decades, it’s a good bet that their predictions were seriously wrong and based on flawed data. Let’s get past apocalyptic histrionics and come up with policies that reflect reality-we owe ourselves that regardless of our cherished biases.

      1. Actually they were about 10% off in their predictions.
        We have just had the hottest decade on record but not as hot as the worst case scenerio. Not everyone who smokes dies of lung cancer. Would you like a smoke ?

      2. We just had the hottest decade on record….for the past century or so that we’ve kept records. According to the geological records, our planet has been hotter than this at various points in its history, no industrial age required. Since the IPCC chose to exclude those numbers from its reporting and computer modeling, they are able to convince the uneducated like yourself that the sky is falling and that a global system of taxation will magically arrest the planet’s weather processes.

        Not everyone who reads understands what they read. Would you like a book?

    2. The 2 degree C “tipping point” is just another climate myth. It has no physical importance. The number was plucked out of thin air, as the University of East Anglia’s Phil Jones inadvertently admitted in Climategate 2.0

      1. Are you more than 95% sure that you are correct and the peer reviewed science is wrong? Climategate was a myth created to discredit legitimate science in favor of fossil fuel funded talking points. But, of course, data will not change your mind. There is a vast conspiriacy dedicated to destroying the US economy – it is called the Republican party. 🙂

      2. Maybe you can point us to the statistical science utilized to arrive at ‘90%’ and then ‘95%’. I can’t find it in AR4, and not in AR5.
        And no, ‘It’s an IPCC document’, isn’t good enough.

      3. Are you familiar with the “null hypothesis”? The chances that a coin is flipped heads 10 times in a row is 1/1024. That is exactly the same odds that the last 10 years would be above the 20 century average in temperature. It is unlikely but there is a 1/1024 chance it was purely random – hence you can be 999/1024 that it did not occur by chance. Confidence levels are basic statistics 101. Why do you ask? Are you betting your childrens future that the null hypothesis explains global temperatures?

      4. 1) The 10 coldest years occurred at the peak of the LIA. All ‘bets’ were that it would continue
        2) The option to ‘bet your children’s future’ doesn’t exist, because non of the ‘fixes’ for global warming have a snowball’s-chance-in-hell of making a significant difference.
        3) So it doesn’t matter whether you flip or not.

  4. On page 75 of the Club of Rome’s 1990 publication entitled The First Global Revolution, the organization outlined how they would manufacture ecological scares in order to manipulate the public into accepting the imposition of a dictatorial world government run by them. “In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill…. All these dangers are caused by human intervention… The real enemy, then, is humanity itself,” states the report. You can find it on scribd and read it for yourself.

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

    “We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have…each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.” – Stephen H. Schneider, Discover Magazine (October, 1989, p. 45-48)

    “I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are,” Gore said in the May 9, 2006 Grist Magazine.”… it is all right and even necessary for scientists to exaggerate…´Wolves deceive their prey, don´t they?´ one said to me recently.”

    Sir John Houghton, the first chairman of the IPCC, wrote in 1994 that “Unless we announce disasters, no one will listen.”

    “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, said Christine Stewart, former Canadian Minister of the Environment. (Stewart, Christine. Calgary Herald, December 14, 1998)

  5. IPCC’s AR5 states clearly with 95% confidence, humans are the “dominant cause” of global warming. The only difference in the percent of confidence from the previous reports is that the 95% figure is higher than all the other reports. This higher level of confidence is rather odd since they state that the climate systems sensitivity to forcing from greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide is unknown! The report states that

    “No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies”.

    Without a solid understanding of what the climate sensitivity to carbon dioxide and other forcings is, the whole “dominant cause” statement has no meaning. It’s a statement designed to inspire confidence in what they admittedly don’t understand.

    What they are saying is that they are 95% sure that humans are the dominant cause of global warming but that they are so unsure of how the climate system reacts to increases in carbon dioxide, they can’t give us an “estimate” of how much global warming it causes.

    Yeah, that inspires confidence for sure.

Comments are closed.