Advertisements

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 :

Advertisements

Report gives the truth about climate at last

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

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 only way to get our society to truly change is to
frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe
.”
– emeritus professor Daniel Botkin

•••

With the release of the IPCC’s fifth climate assessment report AR5 due for release today, it’s important the reports findings are taken within the context of who the United Nations’ IPCC really are.

The IPCC is a ‘political’ (Intergovernmental) organisation masquerading as the science arm of the UN. They are charged with assessing the latest climate science and putting what they think is applicable into their report.

The most anticipated chapter is the “Summary For Policymakers,” about 30 pages long and is widely read and commented upon by politicians, bureaucrats and the media. This chapter is a summary of thousands of pages of scientific reports and is not compiled by scientists, but rather by the IPCC committee members themselves.

Their Chairman Rajendra Pachauri is the ultimate arbiter of what is released to politicians, bureaucrats and the media.

In his spare time, Pachauri writes forewords for Greenpeace publications and recently accepted an International Advertising Association “green crusader” award. He is an aggressive advocate for emissions reduction and carbon taxes.

•••

The IPCC has been widely criticised for the political nature of its organisation and its affiliations with activist groups Greenpeace and World Wildlife Fund (WWF).

Canadian investigative journalist and author Donna Laframboise identifies a conflict of interest :

“Since agendas and science don’t mix, environmentalists should keep their distance from activities that are supposed to be scientific. Their mere presence undermines the integrity of the research. It casts a shadow over the data and calls into question the conclusions.”

Enter NIPCC :

In 2004, after a United Nations climate conference in Milan, the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) was set up. NIPCC organised an international climate workshop in Vienna in April 2007, to provide an independent examination of the evidence for climate change.

Bob Carter is a former research professor at James Cook University, Queensland, Australia. He was head of the university’s School of Earth Sciences between 1981 and 1999 and then held adjunct professorial positions. In January 2013 the university allowed his adjunct status to lapse, citing ‘lack of input’ into the university. Carter was clearly blackballed for having a scientifically sceptical view on climate change, although JCU denies this. Academia at JCU more akin to life in Stalingrad than Australia.

Carter is a marine geologist, environmental scientist and a lead author of the NIPCC.

•••

via The Daily Telegraph

Report gives the truth about climate at last

BOB CARTER
THE DAILY TELEGRAPH
SEPTEMBER 17, 2013 12:00AM

THE issue under public discussion is that human-related carbon dioxide emissions are causing, or will cause, dangerous global warming.

The issue is not “is climate change happening”, for it always is and always has. Nor is it about whether carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas or not, because all scientists agree that it is.

Rather, the key question concerns the magnitude of warming caused by the rather small 7 billion tonnes of industrial carbon dioxide that enter the atmosphere each year, compared with the natural flows from land and sea of over 200 billion tonnes.

Despite well over twenty years of study by thousands of scientists, and the expenditure of more than $100 billion in research money, an accurate quantitative answer to this question remains unknown.

Scientists who advise the United Nations (UN) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) worry that a doubling of carbon dioxide over pre-industrial levels will cause warming of between 3 and 6 deg. Celsius, whereas independent scientists calculate that the warming for a doubling will be much less – somewhere between about 0.3 and 1.2 deg. Celsius.

Meanwhile, the scientific evidence now overwhelmingly indicates that any human warming effect is deeply submerged within planet Earth’s natural variations of temperature.

Importantly, no global warming has now occurred since 1997, despite an increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide of 8%, which in turn represents 34% of all the extra human-related carbon dioxide contributed since the industrial revolution.

Few of these facts are new, yet until recently the public have been relentlessly misinformed that human-caused global warming was causing polar bears to die out, more and more intense storms, droughts and floods to occur, the monsoons to fail, sea-level rise to accelerate, ice to melt at unnatural rates, that late 20th century temperature was warmer than ever before and that speculative computer models could predict the temperature accurately one hundred years into the future.

It now turns out that not one of these assertions is true. So who has been telling us these scientific whoppers?

The United Nations, that’s who; which is not surprising given that global warming long ago gained a life of its own as a mainstream political issue, quite divorced from empirical science – politics, of course, being what the UN is all about.

The IPCC has been charged with providing advice about global warming since 1988, publishing four major summaries of the scientific literature in 1990, 1995, 2001 and 2007 and with a 5th Assessment Report due on September 27th. Press coverage indicates that this report will concede that many of the environmental threats attributed to global warming by the IPCC have hitherto been exaggerated.

Meanwhile, and starting in 2003, a new independent team of scientists has been on the climate job, drawn from universities and institutes around the world and called the Non-governmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC).

In classic Green Team: Red Team tactical management style, the NIPCC has the role of providing an alternative Red Team view of the science of global warming, acting as a sort of “defense counsel” to verify and counter the arguments mounted for climate alarm by the IPCC’s Green Team prosecution.

NIPCC’s next report – entitled “Climate Change Reconsidered. II Physical Science”, will be released on September 18th.

The report summarises many of the thousands of scientific papers that contain evidence conflicting with the idea of dangerous human-caused warming. Considered collectively, the research literature summarised by the NIPCC shows that modern climate is jogging along well within the bounds of previous natural variation.

Faced with this reality check, it is not surprising that the UN apparently intends to tone down some of its earlier over-alarmist rhetoric.

Nonetheless, it remains the case that extreme natural climate events can cause great damage to both human communities and the environment. The task ahead, therefore, is to fashion a national climate policy that prepares for and adapts to all dangerous climate events, whenever they occur and of whatever origin.

Professor Bob Carter is an Emeritus Fellow of the Institute of Public Affairs and author of the book Taxing Air

•••

Related Articles :

Carter Links :

Climatism Links :

H/t to Morrie Meerkat ‏@Climate_con


IPCC SHOCK NEWS : Himalayan glaciers to melt (again) by 2035

The common enemy of humanity is man.
In searching for a new enemy to unite us, 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, and it is only through
changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome.
The real enemy then, is humanity itself
.
– Club of Rome,
premier environmental think-tank,
consultants to the United Nations (IPCC)

The Earth has cancer
and the cancer is Man
.”
– Club of Rome,
consultants to the United Nations (IPCC)

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

•••

Oh Dear. The United Nations’ IPCC are back with another dose of fear-mongering and climate alarmism. The new statement comes after a highly embarrassing, since-retracted claim, that global warming could cause the Himalayan glaciers to disappear by 2035. The claim which featured in the IPCC’s 2007 assessment report (AR4) was sourced from a 2005 World Wildlife Fund publication.

Their latest statement, on the eve of the release of the newest edition of the ‘climate bible’, is of truly Himalayan proportions.

•••

In 2010 The Australian reported :

THE peak UN body on climate change has been dealt another humiliating blow to its credibility after it was revealed a central claim of one of its benchmark reports – that most of the Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035 because of global warming – was based on a “speculative” claim by an obscure Indian scientist. Continue Reading »

United Nations’ blunder on glaciers exposed | The Australian

Warmist CNN carried an apology from the IPCC chiefs in January 2010:

Screen Shot 2013-09-26 at , September 26, 9.14.14 PM

(CNN) — The U.N.’s leading panel on climate change has apologized for misleading data published in a 2007 report that warned Himalayan glaciers could melt by 2035.

In a statement released Wednesday, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said estimates relating to the rate of recession of the Himalayan glaciers in its Fourth Assessment Report were “poorly substantiated” adding that “well-established standards of evidence were not applied properly.” Continue Reading »

U.N. climate chiefs apologize for glacier error – CNN.com January 20, 2010

•••

Fast forward to 2013, on the eve of AR5’s release, and the IPCC Himalayan alarmists return!

Screen Shot 2013-09-26 at , September 26, 4.43.55 PM

Global Warming About to Claim Three Quarters of a Billion People

25 September 2013

The IPCC – the international body of scientists analyzing global climate change – is releasing its new report in stages over the next week and this early piece was reported on by the Financial Times on Monday. Under the headline “Climate Change Chief Sounds Alert on Himalayan Glaciers,” the opening sentence of the article by Pilita Clark summarizes a very tightly:

“The glaciers of the Himalayas are melting so fast they will affect the water supplies of a population twice that of the US within 22 years, the head of the world’s leading authority on climate change has warned.”

Diehard ‘Truthout’ climate alarmism :

It means that hundreds of millions of people will be displaced, will starve, and will die. It means wars. It means famines. It means raging forest fires and the death of grasslands. It means the acidification of our oceans and the destruction of our ocean ecosystems. It means that we stand on the edge of tipping points that hurtle humanity toward extinction.

Yes, extinction.

Global Warming About to Claim Three Quarters of a Billion People – Truthout 25 September, 2013

•••

Does the IPCC have no shame? Have they not learnt from past mistakes? Or are there simply no limits to climate alarmism and fear-mongering when it’s all for a good cause?

If we take the words of Prof. Stephen Schneider, lead author of many IPCC reports, this latest Himalayan scare is nothing out of the ordinary and is really, par for the course :

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

•••

Steven Goddard of Real Science comments:

“Apparently Pauchuri doesn’t think that he did enough damage to the reputation of the IPCC the last time round, and is going for a repeat performance.”

Hot Off The Press : Global Warming To Kill 750 Million People By 2035 | Real Science

•••

Himalaya Studies :

IPCC AR4 Error related :

Related Articles :

Climatism Links :

h/t to Real Science