The IPCC’s Upcoming Report Is Mann-Made Cluelessness

The IPCC’s Upcoming Report Is Mann-Made Cluelessness

Steel yourself. A work of epic and apocalyptic proportions is soon to dominate your evening viewing. Not Russell Crowe’s upcoming portrayal of Noah as (laughably) “the world’s first environmentalist”. But an epic set to regale us with dark tales of coastal cities and islands submerging beneath the waves; of entire species, including mankind, coming under threat; of polar bears without ice floes to play on, whilst they too face extinction.

And it is all due to Mann-made – that’s Dr Michael Mann, by the way – global warming. Even though the globe has singularly failed to experience any warming for 16 years now; a singularly pivotal fact that the upcoming report is at a loss to explain.

So expect graphic images of belching smoke-stacks, even though carbon dioxide is a colourless, odourless trace gas; enormous chunks of ice falling into the sea (as they have always done in summer); and let’s not forget that hardy perennial: the floating polar bear (always a tear-jerker). Fortunately, it will be – almost exclusively – a work of imaginative fiction.

So buy your soda and popcorn, sit back and enjoy the fifth UNIPCC climate report show! Roll the tape…

Various draft ‘trailers’ of the latest UN IPCC report have leaked to the media. But the report won’t actually be published until after a final closed-door “negotiating session” in Stockholm in late September. That’s UNIPCC-speak for it is yet to be finally ‘sexed up’. Much as the language of the first report in 1996 notoriously was after most scientists had gone home.

First up is the central IPCC can say with “near certainty” they believe human activity to be the chief cause of recent global warming. That’s up five percent from the equal “near certainty” it believed was the case in 2007. On the extent of a global average temperature rise, however, the report actually retreats from its 2007 position. Instead of ruling out any rise of less than 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit as they did in 2007, the new report reduces the prospective new lower limit to a mere 2.7 degrees. So much for the prevailing “science consensus” between 1996 and 2007.

However, the report does stick with the view expressed in 2007, that a doubling of carbon dioxide levels could mean a scorching increase in temperature of up to 7 degrees. In doing so the report passes off the current decade and a half flat-lining of the global average temperature concluding it may be due to cooling in the Pacific Ocean.  Such caveats are, yet again, the recurring feature of an IPCC report. Yet on these speculative ‘faith’ claims, the entire litany of global dire prognostications depends. This includes:

  • The recent increase in CO2, methane et al. is “unprecedented in the last 22,000 years” – no explanation, however, of how in the Medieval Warming Period temperatures were even higher, or how CO2 levels have peaked beyond those of today in the nineteenth century.
  • The Greenland ice sheet lost mass 6 times faster between 2002-2011 compared to 1992-2001 – fair enough, but how is it that the Arctic’s north-west passage has regularly opened up to shipping when today it is still iced up?
  • The Antarctic  ice sheet lost mass nearly five times faster between 2002-2011 compared to 1992-2001 – indeed in its Western ‘finger’ it did lose mass but all told the Antarctic ice mass – much larger than the much-talked about Arctic – has considerably thickened and grown in recent decades.

I could go on. But let me come to one final key claim: sea level rises. Ever since the last ice age, of course, sea levels have risen. It is a fact of nature. That’s not the issue. The issue is the entirely speculative one of: by how much? While the report implicitly disses Al Gore’s hysterical “20 feet rise”, it claims a ‘best-case scenario’ of a rise of 10 inches by the end of the century (not much more than the 8 inch rise in the 20th century) and a ‘worst-case scenario’ of 21 inches by 2100 that could still see thousands of coastal cities sunk beneath the waterline.

Unfortunately, just as the IPCC is batting around its considered language, the US National Science Foundation – no sceptic organisation – is about to publish a study showing that for an 18-month period beginning in 2010, the world’s oceans mysteriously dropped by about seven millimetres. According to the NSF, the fall was down to an array of climate factors but principally the Australian flooding of 2010 and 2011, courtesy of the La Nina effect, which shows “just how complicated our climate system is”. In layman’s terms: one country’s ‘excess of precipitation’ is an occasional climate ‘corrective’ preventing other countries from receiving a surfeit. More pertinently, the NSF effectively consider what they perceive partly as a ‘man-induced’ climate events in 2010-11 as a good thing, not least in ‘holding back the waters’.

Not exactly the message the IPCC is about to/wants to give the world, is it?

Equally, it will be interesting to see the prominence with which hurricane events are claimed, in the report, to be caused by human-induced carbon emissions given the dramatic drop in hurricane activity hitting the Americas. As one commentator wryly observed, while 26 hurricanes made landfall during Grover Cleveland’s administration (1893-97) a mere 3 have made landfall during Obama’s.

Intriguingly, the IPCC report openly admits that governments will not be able to translate its global ‘ballpark’ projections into local situations. And that leaves governments in a quandary. How on earth are they to act on the IPCC-claimed climate effects in terms of strategic and economically viable policies?

Meanwhile, a team of prominent German scientists has teamed up with Canada’s Friends of Science group of scientists to roundly condemn the IPCC reliance on computer models. The Friends maintain a “98 percent likelihood” that the warming effect of CO2 emissions has been overestimated.  Notably they claim “modelled warming trend since 1979 … is four times greater than measurements” and fails to allow for “significant margins of error” in calculations. Friends of Science director, Ken Gregory, states: “Governments have wasted over $1.6 trillion of taxpayer money worldwide in a futile attempt to reduce carbon dioxide and ‘stop global warming’ thanks to these faulty predictions”. He adds “Global warming stopped all by itself, but now there is a multi-trillion dollar ‘low carbon’ global industry on life support needing to ‘scare up’ money.”

And what will the fifth UNIPCC report achieve? Well chiefly a new push with gullible politicians who will fall over themselves to pour yet more billions of taxpayer cash into a Black Hole of subsidy-reliant green energy industries and on decarbonisation projects aimed at preventing New York, Miami, London et al from becoming underwater attractions.

Personally, I have more faith in the durability of our coastal cities than the prophetic quicksand that underpins IPCC pseudo-science.   But then I have invested in a pair of swimming trunks – based on the Precautionary Principle, naturally.

Add Comment

By posting your comment, you agree to abide by our Posting rules

Text

Comments (16)

  • John Richardson September 3, 2013 at 12:09 pm

    The telling point in the Global Warming debate is the way the question is phrased. The usual inquiry is “Do you BELIEVE in global warming”, not “Have you reviewed the scientific evidence and what conclusions do you draw?. The real core issue that most people overlook is that Global Warming is a RELIGION, not a science. It’s like creationism, or Tinkerbell. It only exists if you BELIEVE that it exists. For years, the worshippers of the earth-deity gaeia have had trouble getting skeptics to be willing to shut down human civilization as an act of obeisance to appease their “goddess” and atone for the harm that the human virus is doing to her planet. But now, they have copied a page from the fundamentalist playbook, they have invented a “hell” to frighten unbelievers with. In the Christian faith, if you don’t accept Jesus, you go to hell. In the gaiea-ian faith, if you don’t worship the goddess you’ll burn in Global Warming! So the next time some aging hippy asks you if you “BELIEVE” in global warming, CALL THEM OUT! Don’t get sucked into some nonsensical debate about why global warming is real even though there is no scientific evidence. Go right for the REAL issue. Say, “NO, I don’t believe in global warming because I don’t believe in gaeia. There is no earth-goddess, the earth is just a ball of dirt, and the only thing special about it is that I live here. Which I will keep doing just to spite you tree-hugging hippy weirdos!”

    Reply
  • Jeremy Mcleod September 3, 2013 at 12:32 pm

    This article is so full of misleading or completely innacurate statements that I felt I had to point at least some of them out.

    “But the report won’t actually be published until after a final closed-door ‘negotiating session’ in Stockholm in late September. That’s UNIPCC-speak for it is yet to be finally ‘sexed up’.”

    Actually, it’s the exact opposite of that. The negotiating session is held with members of various governments in an effort to help shape the recommendations of the report to be as realistic and reasonable as possible. It’s a chance for different governments to say “we can’t do that,” or “that won’t be possible,” to give the UNIPCC a chance to examine the recommendations and make any changes they can to make things easier for government and industry to actually meet the goals set forth.

    “So much for the prevailing ‘science consensus’ between 1996 and 2007.”

    Yeah, welcome to the world of science, buddy. That’s what happens when you actually pay attention to the data and make your models more accurate – the outcome changes. The accuracy and detail of weather modeled via supercomputer has increased greatly since 2007, and the newer models have slightly different outcomes. Just because the concensus has changed doesn’t mean that the concensus wasn’t as accurate as it was possible to be at the time between 1996 and 2007.

    “In doing so the report passes off the current decade and a half flat-lining of the global average temperature concluding it may be due to cooling in the Pacific Ocean. Such caveats are, yet again, the recurring feature of an IPCC report. Yet on these speculative ‘faith’ claims, the entire litany of global dire prognostications depends.”

    What you and so many others fail to grasp is that global warming is NOT the same thing as “atmospheric warming.” The average temperature of the GLOBE – including air, land, and water – has risen by several degrees in the last decade. Your characterization of the recent studies as “faith” claims is also quite disingenuous, as these studies have actual DATA backing them up, which is the exact OPPOSITE of faith, which is dependant on having no evidence at all.

    As far as the ocean levels dropping by A WHOLE SEVEN MILLIMETERS, let me just point out how much more incliment weather has been occurring around the globe in the past several years. That water that falls out of the sky? It mostly comes from the oceans, genius. When water comes OUT of the ocean, that means the water level will DROP. You continue to make the mistake of isolating different systems – atmospheric, oceanic, and geothermic – and treating them as independent systems rather than interdependent.

    Finally, your “team of prominent German scientists” is just the latest in a long trend of appeals to authority totally lacking credibility as can be easily demonstrated by their partnership with “Friends of Science” – an organization that’s already been tied closely to the petroleum industry. The money funding these scientists comes directly from organizations and corporations with a direct interest in denying global warming, as does this very site. Meanwhile, 98% of climate scientists GLOBALLY disagree with their assessments. Why should we listen to your biased “team of prominent German scientists” (who you totally fail to name or describe why they’re so “prominent”) over the other tens of thousands of scientists who believe otherwise?

    Reply
  • Geoff B September 3, 2013 at 12:46 pm

    It frightens me that people can read an article like this and believe what they are reading. I see someone else already did a fine job running through a few of the many issues with this article. I’d like to add just one more

    “indeed in its Western ‘finger’ it did lose mass but all told the Antarctic ice mass – much larger than the much-talked about Arctic – has considerably thickened and grown in recent decades.”

    Did you even read the article you linked to? It clearly makes the point that on the whole, the Antarctic ice mass is shrinking year-over-year. The snippet you seem to be referring to is an acknowledgement that snow falls and adds to the mass, but the amount that is melting is greater than the amount of new mass being added – thus, you have a net LOSS of ice mass.

    This statement from the same page you were trying to use to back your statement is a great summary of what is actually happening with the ice mass balancing act: “All of the available estimates, however, show that the loss of mass in West Antarctica is greater than any added mass in East Antarctica.”

    Reply
  • Matt Piney September 3, 2013 at 1:01 pm

    How is this article even considered “science” by Google?

    Reply
  • Matthew Bergin September 3, 2013 at 1:04 pm

    Geoff B you should check some of your “facts”. Antarctic ice is at the highest levels ever recorded. The atmosphere hasn’t had any significant warming in 17 years. North America hasn’t had a major hurricane category 3 and above hit the continental US in over 8 years. Even the people looking for an ice free arctic are having a rough time, 22 of them are trapped in this non-existent ice.

    Reply
  • Geoff B September 3, 2013 at 1:44 pm

    Matt Bergin: My point was simply that the page this Peter Glover clown linked to didn’t support his statement like he claimed. I think you are also confusing “Antarctic Sea Ice Extent” with “Antarctic Sea Ice Mass.” Reading material for you: http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice.htm
    I refuse to get into a debate with you over how ridiculous your claims are regarding a lack of atmospheric warming (you’re just simply wrong, why argue?). Category 3 or higher hurricanes hitting the continental US have never been a measure of what the climate is doing – causation and correlation are very different animals. And finally… NOBODY predicted the arctic would be ice free on September 3, 2013.

    You simply can’t argue with certain things. There is more CO2 being released than ever in human history. CO2 is a known greenhouse gas. The temperature of the planet (including ocean, land, and air) is increasing. The acidity of the ocean is increasing. Is there some sort of magical carbon dioxide fairy that is using pixie dust to turn the excess CO2 into unicorns? Barring that, I’d say this is a problem we should be dealing with.

    Reply
  • Matthew Bergin September 3, 2013 at 7:11 pm

    Geoff if I were you I wouldn’t waste too much of your time at Skeptical Science. They do a lot of yakking there but very little of it is science. I heard about the lack of warming from both the British Met office and the head of the IPCC said it during a press conference I was watching. Common sense would tell you that if the seas all around the Antarctic are cold enough to generate the highest sea ice levels ever seen that maybe the Continent itself might be a little colder as well. Ocean acidification is a joke. There are shell fish living today in the ocean that developed when the CO2 content was 20 times higher than it is now. The fish in my own fish tanks go through a PH change of nearly a full point ( from 7.6 to 6.8 every day 10 times the measured change in the ocean PH ) when I add CO2 to the water for the plants that are in the tanks. The plants grow really well and my fish shrimp and snails are also very healthy. CO2 is plant food the world will be a happier greener place with more of it around. Oh and by the way there hasn’t been any Hurricanes this year in the Atlantic so far and only 4 tropical storms.

    Reply
  • Bill Butler September 3, 2013 at 7:56 pm

    The number of hurricanes hitting the U.S. as per reported in the story is not accurate. There appear to be only 12 storms of minimal hurricane strength or greater that affected the U.S. mainland during Cleveland’s administration from 1893 to 1896. And some of these did not make a landfall. (His term had expired for the 1897 season.)

    The following table is from Appendix A of Gordon E. Dunn’s book “Atlantic Hurricanes”. Gordon E. Dunn was a former Director of the National Hurricane Center.

    Aug. 23, 1893 Cape Hatteras, NC, Minimal hurricane
    Aug. 23-24, 1893, Coast NJ, NY, same storm as above
    Aug. 24, 1893, Western New England, Minimal hurricane strength, Same storm as above
    Aug. 27-28, 1893, SC, NC, Extreme hurricane
    Aug. 28-29, 1893, Mid-Atlantic states, Tropical storm force winds, Same storm as above
    Aug. 29, 1893, Western New England, Tropical storm force winds, Same storm as above
    Sept. 7-8, 1893 Louisiana, Minimal hurricane
    Oct. 1-2, 1893 Louisiana coastal areas, Extreme hurricane
    Oct 2-3, 1893 Pensacola, FL, Tropical storm force, Same storm as above
    Oct 6, 1893 Texas lower coast – Tropical storm
    Oct. 11-13, 1893 Florida, Major hurricane
    Oct. 13, 1893, Carolinas, Major hurricane, same storm as above
    Oct. 13, 1893, Mid-Atlantic states, Minimal hurricane strength, Same storm as above
    Oct. 21, 1893 Florida extreme south, Tropical storm
    Oct. 22, 1893 NC, Tropical storm, Same storm as above
    Aug. 6-7, 1894, Louisiana coastal areas, Tropical storm
    Sept. 25, 1894 Florida southwest coast, Major hurricane
    Sept. 27, 1894, Costal Southeastern U. S., Tropical storm strength, Same storm as above
    Oct. 8, 1894 Apalachicola, FL, Minimal hurricane
    Oct. 9, 1894, Southeast U.S., Tropical storm strength, Same storm as above
    Oct. 9-10, 1894, Mid-Atlantic states, Tropical storm strength. Same storm as above
    Aug 16, 1895, Mobile Al., Tropical storm
    Aug 16, 1895 Pensacola, FL, Tropical storm, Same storm as above
    Aug 29, 1895 Texas lower coast, Tropical storm
    Oct. 1-2, 1895, Florida southeast coast, Tropical storm
    Oct 16, 1895, Florida southeast coast Tropical storm
    Oct. 21-22, 1895 Florida southeast coast, Minimal hurricane
    July 7, 1896 Pensacola, FL, Major Hurricane
    Sept. 10, 1896, Eastern New England, Minimal hurricane RI to Maine
    Sept. 28-29, 1896 Cedar Keys, FL, Major hurricane
    Sept. 29, 1896, GA, SC, Minimal hurricane strength, same storm as above
    Sept. 29-30, 1896, Mid Atlantic states, Major hurricane strength, Same storm as above
    Oct. 8, 1896 Ft. Myers, Minimal hurricane, center stayed off coast
    Oct. 10-11, 1896 Va. Capes, Minimal hurricane, Same storm as above
    Oct. 12-13, 1896, Coastal RI & MA, Minimal hurricane, Same storm as above

    Reply
  • David Appell September 3, 2013 at 10:11 pm

    Actually the globe has seen a lot of warming in the last 16 years, mostly in the ocean. The 0-700 m region has warmed 40% more in the last 16 years than in the 16 years before that. That doesn’t happen without a planetary energy imbalance, and that is (still) being caused by greenhouse gases.

    Reply
  • David Appell September 3, 2013 at 10:17 pm

    This is, as another commenter noted, a truly terrible article by Peter C Glover, full of scientific inaccuracies and misleading claims. I would expect the editor of a technical publication to be better informed.

    Reply
  • Joe Gor September 4, 2013 at 2:56 am

    The “Precautionary Principle” is neither precautionary nor a principle. It is risk aversion by the uncoupled and childless.

    One would think the idea of hazard would NOT in itself justify ANY action, regardless of the hazard, but that proposed cures would have to plausibly be less damaging than the alleged problem, which so far they are not.

    Reply
  • Sam Pyeatte September 4, 2013 at 10:49 am

    It seems the IPCC goes out of its way to discredit itself.

    Reply
  • Lorraine Reich September 4, 2013 at 12:56 pm

    The earth has NOT been warming for the past several decades. If it has at all, the vast majoirty of it is due to the sun. The IPCC models have been abject failures. Even “Nature” magazine says that “better models are needed to attribute weather to climate change”. The IPCC in its own SREX report said that you cannot correlate severe weather to man-made climate change – there is no scientific connection there. A group of government scientifsts concluded that last year’s drought had nothing to do with global warming. 2013 ytd has had only about 620 recorded tornados vs the normal 1200 at this time of year. Every measure of severe weather from NOAA shows no increase in extreme weather and even there was, the cause would not just be man-made CO2. As Duke Prof Robert Brown writes, “…climate is nonlinear, non-Markovian, chaotic, and is apparently influenced in nontrivial ways by a world-sized bucket of competing,occasionally cancelling, poorly understood factors. Soot. Aerosols. GHGs.Clouds. Ice. Decadal oscillations. Defects spun off from the chaotic process that cause global, persistent changes in atmospheric circulation on a local basis (e.g. blocking highs that sit out on the Atlantic for half a year) that have a huge impact on annual or monthly temperatures and rainfall and so on.Orbital factors. Solar factors. Changes in the composition of the troposphere, the stratosphere, the thermosphere. Volcanoes. Land use changes. Algae blooms.”

    Reply
  • Lorraine Reich September 4, 2013 at 1:03 pm

    Mr. Richardson – I agree with your conclusion but your characterization of Christians is off base. Consider the early scientists. Many were Christians – Faraday, Robert Boyle, James Clerc Maxwell. Many gifted scientists working in this field such as Dr. John Christy are Christians. One of the arguments against AGW from a Christian perspective is that God would not have created man in his image to exhale a pollutant. Yes, AGW is a religion, but the evidence for gaeia and for tinkeball are substantially less than the man born in Bethlehem who, like those of us who deny that man-made CO2 is the cause of “climate change” got reality correct.

    Reply
  • GoogleUser1 September 4, 2013 at 1:20 pm

    “That doesn’t happen without a planetary energy imbalance, and that is (still) being caused by greenhouse gases.”

    So the global warming propagandist say. You parroted their claim very well. The facts are they don’t know what is causing the warming, and in fact are completely in denial that there could be other reasons. But liberals and leftsts and socialists are bent on blaming people for the cause so they can attack freedom and grow the power of government. That is what it is all about. You STILL can’t deny that it was warmer during the Medieval Warming Period, when there was ZERO man-caused CO2, which goes to the WHOLE HOAX of a NATURALLY OCCURRING GAS that PLANTS REQUIRE TO KEEP FROM SUFFOCATING, is causing global warming. But the socialist or useful idiots who don’t like this article will cling to their RELIGION that people are evil and must be kept under control by the government to prevent them from destroying the world. Which reminds me of a line from The Matrix, where Cipher asked Neo, “So you’re here to SAVE THE WORLD? Sheesh. What a mind job.” Geoff, David and Matthew believe they (or the socialists at the U.N. and Al Gore) can SAVE THE WORLD (they say “save the planet”, but what’s the difference?). Sheesh, what a “mind job”!

    Reply
  • david mccallum September 20, 2013 at 2:45 pm

    Man made warming when we face much more than another maunder minimum ? Try an ice age. The energetic region of space returns the planet to an ancient cycle of events that alter civilization. The IPCC is on the other hand, interested only in bringing in the new world order under UN control.Readers can find links to documents on my blog, like Agenda 21, Owning the weather by 2025, Codex Alimentarius, All wars are bankers wars.

    Reply

© 2013 Energy Tribune

Scroll to top