IPCC AR5 climate report may be dead on arrivalby Jonathan DuHamel on Oct. 01, 2013, under Climate change
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
* * *
For some real science, see the link in my post “Climate Change Reconsidered II.”