Buy

Books
Click images for more details

Twitter
Support

 

Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing
Links

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace
« Shale "a game changer": official | Main | Chalk up another for low climate sensitivity »
Thursday
Jul182013

Did the IPCC just blink?

The wave of new evidence of low climate sensitivity, the existence of which is denied by the CCC's David Kennedy and downplayed by Julia Slingo, has presented the IPCC with a dilemma. They could try to bluff it out, an approach that could be terminal given the widespread reporting of the new science in the media. Alternatively they could 'fess up. This too could be extremely damaging, but perhaps might not be the end of them.

Being good bureaucrats they have gone for the option that is most likely to lead to their survival. At least that is what I surmise from a posting at the Economist, which has managed to get its hands on a table from the IPCC's Fifth Assessment Report. According to the article, a draft of the WG3 report reveals that

at CO2 concentrations of between 425 parts per million and 485 ppm, temperatures in 2100 would be 1.3-1.7°C above their pre-industrial levels. That seems lower than the IPCC’s previous assessment, made in 2007. Then, it thought concentrations of 445-490 ppm were likely to result in a rise in temperature of 2.0-2.4°C.

Now of course, it's draft and its WG3, not WG1, so we have to be cautious. But there is at least a possibility that they are going turn down the alarm somewhat.

 

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

References (1)

References allow you to track sources for this article, as well as articles that were written in response to this article.
  • Response
    - Bishop Hill blog - Did the IPCC just blink?

Reader Comments (51)

Survival buys time whilst the search for "the missing" continues:-

"DEEP-C project"

The Diagnosing Earth's Energy Pathways in the Climate system (DEEP-C) consortium is a 4-year project that is tackling the questions:

(1) What mechanisms explain the reduced global surface warming rate since around 2000
(2) Where is the excess energy due to rising greenhouse gas concentrations currently accumulating in the climate system?

We are using satellite observations, measurements below the sea surface (including the deep ocean) and detailed simulations of the atmosphere and ocean, combining expertise from the University of Reading, the National Oceanography Centre (NOC) ¬ Southampton and the Met Office........

http://www.met.reading.ac.uk/~sgs02rpa/research/DEEP-C.html
----------------------------------
Where? Is "DEEP-C" a possible clue to where they think it is? I have no doubt that in 4 years time they will have found something! But the real interesting bit will surely be why the "mechanisms" chose "around 2000" to kick in. The outcome will be interesting!

Jul 18, 2013 at 9:55 PM | Registered CommenterGreen Sand

My null hypothesis is now that this is all BS, and nobody knows. The very idea of missing heat when you are not accurately measuring input or output or the temperature change in the system and do not completely understand the mechanisms, well, it's a travesty.

Jul 18, 2013 at 10:01 PM | Unregistered Commenterrhoda

Rhoda, come on now, have a bit of self-control. This, if confirmed, could spell the end of alarmism. Who cares at that juncture about any of the finer points of how rock-solid or paper-thin the concept of climate sensitivity will turn out to be for future, much more competent climate scientists. This is the IPCC in an unprecedented, dignified retreat. At least that's how I read it. It is only rumours about a draft but it is The Economist, a rag not widely known for rash reporting.

Jul 18, 2013 at 10:12 PM | Registered CommenterRichard Drake

Well, I agree with rhoda, it's all bollocks. If the inconsistencies and contradictions within the nonsense bring it all to an end, hooray. So much the better.

I'm all for pointing out that nonsense is nonsense. What else should we do?

Jul 18, 2013 at 11:00 PM | Registered CommenterMartin A

They will never 'fess up', that is beyoned their remit. Forget that.

Get real about this, if we don't know what's going on right now then we're sunk without trace.

Forget the political intrigue and the wayward protagonists, it's seeded confusion, get down to the facts and the facts are that we are being bullshitted at warp factor 9 by people in power and it extends to the institutions and media. This is not an accident nor is it a social phenomena. It is a directive from an unseen power, no matter what rosette the government wears nothing will change in our western civilization. We have no power and they are well funded, what are we going to do about it?

Answers on a postcard please.

Jul 18, 2013 at 11:35 PM | Unregistered CommenterTim Spence

Richard, I'm not on about CS this time. Just about the sheer hubris of anyone claiming that they know Earth's energy input, or it's output, or the bit that gets left in between. Do you know those things to within 1%? No. Do you know anybody who does? No. But you know people who make that claim. Maybe they are deluded. Maybe they are liars. Maybe they are even right. But their claims are unjustified. And we should call them on it, every time. If they can show us the measurements, fine. If they waffle about models, we should call them on it.

And from a scientific POV, I don't care what the IPCC puts in its reports. That would be a political discussion. It ain't science as we Oxfordshire housewives understand it.

Jul 18, 2013 at 11:43 PM | Unregistered Commenterrhoda

Less than 12 months ago, DECC's website was scaremongering that temperatures could increase by "up to 6C by 2100".

Jul 18, 2013 at 11:46 PM | Unregistered CommenterJoe Public

rhoda

It has always intrigued me why we are given energy input/output in w/m2 at the TOA.

It is my understanding that the altitude of TOA is constantly changing thus the m2 is a variable not a constant. I am sure it is not that simple but I wonder why w/m2 at TOA? Or am I mistaken and it really is w/m2 relative to the planet surface?

Jul 18, 2013 at 11:56 PM | Registered CommenterGreen Sand

Rhoda

I am now your number one fan, just keep on saying it like it is.

Richard

Sorry mate but like TinyCO2 earlier you are proposing that we say things for effect even if we do not believe they are true, I can not agree to that.

Bish

Your book HSI was truly brilliant, it was written by a true storyteller but it was 100% factual. Now you are pushing Climate Sensitivity and the new science which is producing lower figures for CS. However it is not new science it is the old science but with a different result, it is models yet again and not facts.

Jul 19, 2013 at 12:29 AM | Registered CommenterDung

Notice how they say they are going to find out "where the excess energy..... is currently accumulating in the climate system"?

The more likely answer is that the excess energy is not in the climate system at all, but has radiated away into space. (But DEEP - C certainly wont want be studying that possibility).

Jul 19, 2013 at 12:57 AM | Unregistered CommenterBill

1.3 - 2.7 from the pre-Industrial age. That is, from the end of the LIA.

We've had 0.8C to-date, maybe more if the warmists have their choice. So the IPCC is saying that all the CO2 from this point on to 2100 will give us a further warming of 0.5 - 1.9C.

0.5C, considering the vast amounts of CO2 to be put into the air in the next 87 years, sounds as if the sensitivity to CO2 is practically nil.

If 1.9C is the 95% certainty maximum, and 0.5, the minimum, then the middle ground or "best estimate" of the IPCC is about half way between, or 1.2C rise in the next 87 years.

2 ppm/yr increase in CO2 takes us up 174 ppm CO2, to 569 ppm, a 0.44% increase to account for a 1.2C rise in temps, for a 2X CO2 forcing of 2.7C. To date, if we use the pre-industrial to present change in CO2 of 115 ppm CO2 for a 0.8C rise, the 2X forcing of CO2 would be 1.95C.

The first forcing gives us 2.0C for doubling of CO2, but the next doubling gives us 2.7C.

See the bust? The sensitivity INCREASES while we know the sensitivity is logarithmic and actually decreases. However, we can retain the sensitivity of old if we increase the ppm CO2 at the end of 2100.

If we maintain a 2X sensitivity from pre-industrial to today, of 2.0C per doubling of CO2, AND we retain the IPCC middle-ground value of +1.9C by 2100, we must conclude that the IPCC model has our CO2 level increasing by 375 ppm, to a total of 770 ppm. CO2 values will then have risen an average of 4.3 ppm/yr, meaning that by 2050 they will be rising in the order of 6 ppm/yr.

So, summarizing:

The IPCC say that temps will rise another 0.5 - 2.7C, with a middle-ground (taken to be the middle) of 1.9C by 2100.

For 1.9C of rise of temperature, if CO2 rises as it has historically at 2 ppm/yr, CO2 will be at 569 ppm, but this CO2 will have a radiative temperature forcing of 2.7/2XCO2.

For 1.9C of rise of temperature, but with a radiative forcing as to-date of 2.0C/2XCO2, in 2100 CO2 will be at 770 ppm, for an average rise of 4.3 ppm/yr, with a mid-century rise of >6 ppm.

Seems a wide range for such a certainty of outcome, and one that makes you question the "settled" value of at least the radiative forcing of CO2.

BTW, this position also implicitly says that our rise out of the LIA was ALL anthropogenic CO2 based. Any pre-1975 contribution from the sun means that either the radiative forcing in use is higher than even 2.7/2XCO2, or our rate of CO2 increase is going to be 10 ppm/yr.

Check the math, please. But I think I see not just weaseling but flip-flopping on settled and certain positions.

Jul 19, 2013 at 1:29 AM | Unregistered CommenterDoug Proctor

If the heat from human generated CO2 suddenly went from heating the atmosphere (as we were told) to heating the oceans, it will have been the most momentous 'natural' event since Moses parted the Red Sea.

Jul 19, 2013 at 1:43 AM | Unregistered CommentereSmiff

They won't "fess up." They can't. At most there will be a widening of the band of uncertainty to the low side to reflect "increasing uncertainty." They may also lower the high end now extending to 4.5 deg for doubling, for which there is no evidence whatsoever. The most probable value is apt to stay around 3 deg for doubling. This will be rationalized by requiring more aerosol cooling, the favorite swing variable of the IPCC.

You heard it here first.

Jul 19, 2013 at 2:10 AM | Unregistered CommenterNoblesse Oblige

Oh, good. The science that was settled (not) is settled again! Not.

"If the heat from human generated CO2 suddenly went from heating the atmosphere (as we were told) to heating the oceans, it will have been the most momentous 'natural' event since Moses parted the Red Sea." --Smiff

Something Red is definitely involved.

"This is the IPCC in an unprecedented, dignified retreat. At least that's how I read it. It is only rumours about a draft but it is The Economist, a rag not widely known for rash reporting." --Richard Drake "

The high priesthood of the IPCC both giveth and taketh away. They may have snatched the incense from before Seotu, god of warming, but they're quietly placing it on the altar of Otusi, god of acidification. See their hands wave! Hear them chant! "Mumbo-jumbo, god of the Quango..."

Jul 19, 2013 at 2:26 AM | Unregistered Commenterjorgekafkazar

The CO2 increase since 1958 fits a simple exponential curve extraordinarily closely:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/75831381/CO2%20to%202100.jpg

Assuming business as usual, the doubling point of 560 ppm will be reached in 2060. According to the Economist table, the associated temperature increase from pre-industrial times will be 2.0-2.4 C, a good bit below the "best estimate" of all previous IPCC reports of 3 C. So yes this would indicate a considerable pulling back from the previous position.

Jul 19, 2013 at 5:18 AM | Unregistered CommenterLance Wallace

Man of 12:29 AM: I'm sure that when the history of the global warming scare is written your criticism of Andrew Montford here will be the most insignificant footnote in a non-existent chapter. It seems there is something of great import happening at last. As Ross McKitrick put it on CA on Tuesday, this is going to be good.

Jul 19, 2013 at 7:28 AM | Registered CommenterRichard Drake

The deep ocean escape route may turn into a trap for alarmists. If it turns out that it is much easier than previously thought for heat to be absorbed there, then the human-relevant part of the earth may be sitting on a giant, cold heat sink. There would be no way for the heat to "reemerge" given the huge volume of cold water we're talking about, so sensitivity estimates would have to be lower than previously thought.

Jul 19, 2013 at 7:33 AM | Unregistered Commentersrp

Dung "Sorry mate but like TinyCO2 earlier you are proposing that we say things for effect even if we do not believe they are true, I can not agree to that."

It's not about saying things for effect, it's about not saying things (in all circles) until you know that your theory is any better than anyone else's. The AGW proponents demand, that sceptics come up with an alternative climate model, is a Heffalump trap. Their mistake has been to trumpet their theories long before they had enough data to justify them and now they look like they don't know what they're talking about. Why should we make the same mistakes?

For all our sakes we need TPTB to take their foot off the CO2 reduction accelerator pedal and ideally put the brake on. It doesn't matter if they do it because they become unsure of consensus climate theory or because some bright sceptic comes up with the perfect model for climate that proves that climate sensitivity at this level is zero. The latter would be nice but is unlikely.

If you try too hard, the people you want to convince will stop listening and not even accept that climate science has dialled the catastrophic predictions back. Like Lewandowski they will assume moderating voices are all rogue, unqualified sceptics even when they come from the Met Office.

While not ideal, a few steps in the right direction (like a lower range for climate sensitivity) should always be welcome.

Jul 19, 2013 at 9:06 AM | Unregistered CommenterTinyCO2

We don't need a competing theory. We don't need to act in concert. I have a null hypothesis, but it need not be the same as yours, because it is the nature of the null that it serves as a comparison with the proposed hypothesis. It doesn't matter what it is. My null is that the other side have no grounds for the degree of certainty they pretend to. That's all. In this case, are they certain they have the in/out/retained energy within 1%? If by modelling, do they have the measurements to back it up? No? (And the answer MUST be no). Well the null wins. We do not have to acknowledge the possibility that the Emperor might have some clothes, we can altogether see that he does not.

Jul 19, 2013 at 9:54 AM | Unregistered Commenterrhoda

On the absence of the emperor's clothes we are agreed.

Jul 19, 2013 at 10:09 AM | Registered CommenterRichard Drake

Climatology is way too big to fail -- if they want missing heat, they'll find it.

Too much money involved, too much vanity, too many 'scientific careers, NGO careers, political careers at stake for failure to be even contemplated.

Jul 19, 2013 at 10:41 AM | Unregistered CommenterRick Bradford

Some of the comments on the 'Economist' site are very, very cross! (to be expected, no doubt...)

Long live Rhoda's Null Hypothesis!

Jul 19, 2013 at 11:14 AM | Unregistered Commenterosseo

rhoda
Agreed — on all your points. The metaphor of the emperor's clothes came to my mind over a decade ago and, like many another of my views on global warming, I have seen no compelling reason to change my mind since.
On the subject of "missing heat" and climate sensitivity, while I may not go all the way with AlecM's theories of radiative physics (and I'm glad to see that at last something may be going to appear to justify his hypotheses) there seems little doubt that somebody somewhere has either misunderstood basic physics or has been so caught up in the global warming mantra that they cannot see straight.
The ~60-year temperature cycle which the warmists prefer to pretend doesn't exist is a perfectly adequate explanation for the layman for the levelling off of temperatures from about 1999. I haven't, for example, found any published material that suggests that heat went and hid in the deep ocean at this stage of the last cycle in the 1940s or previously in the 1880s.
As to why there appears to be this 60-year cycle, that might be a fruitful area for research but has precious little to do with what is going to happen to the weather over the next 60 years. (Hint: it will get colder on average until about 2025 and then will get warmer again unless we are really heading into another LIA in which it case it won't. If I'm still around in 2040 you can give me a Nobel prize then!)

Jul 19, 2013 at 11:20 AM | Registered CommenterMike Jackson

Missing heat, missing sink, missing humility.

Jul 19, 2013 at 12:41 PM | Unregistered CommenterJamesG

I don't think anything has changed

Looking at the leaked table 535-585 ppm CO2 (roughly a doubling from pre-industrial levels) gives a temperature rise of 2.0-2.4 deg C -and this is defined as the temperature at 2100, not the equilibrium level, so I think this will be based on a equilibrium climate sensitivity of 3 Deg C

One thing that is hard to contest is that the recent set of lower climate sensitivities based on recent observations effectively rules out very high climate sensitivities (> 4.5 Deg C). This have a very marked effect on the economics - the damage function is not linear, so a small chance of high sensitivities has a large cost.

I would like the methodology used in these recent lower estimates to be performed against the output from individual climate model runs (of know model sensitivity) to see how sensitive they are to the natural variation within model runs.

I think there has been at least some change in AR5 - see http://julesandjames.blogspot.jp/2013/02/a-sensitive-matter.html

According to IPCC policy, my comments will all be available in the fullness of time, but I have also criticised this delayed release so in the spirit of openness here is one comment I made about their discussion of sensitivity in Chapter 12 (p55 in the first order draft):
It seems very odd to portray our work as an outlier here. Sokolov et al 2009, Urban and Keller 2010, Olson et al (in press JGR) have also recently presented similar results (and there may be more as yet unpublished, eg Aldrin at the INI meeting back in 2010). Such "observationally constrained pdfs" were all the rage a few years ago and featured heavily in the last IPCC report, there is no clear explanation for your sudden dismissal of them in favour of what seems to be a small private opinion poll. A more balanced presentation could be: "Annan and Hargreaves (2011a) criticize the use of uniform priors and argue that sensitivities above 4.5°C are extremely unlikely (less than 5%). Similar results have been obtained by a number of other researchers [add citations from the above]."

Note for the avoidance of any doubt I am not quoting directly from the unquotable IPCC draft, but only repeating my own comment on it. However, those who have read the second draft of Chapter 12 will realise why I previously said I thought the report was improved :-) Of course there is no guarantee as to what will remain in the final report, which for all the talk of extensive reviews, is not even seen by the proletariat, let alone opened to their comments, prior to its final publication. The paper I refer to as a "small private opinion poll" is of course the Zickfeld et al PNAS paper. The list of pollees in the Zickfeld paper are largely the self-same people responsible for the largely bogus analyses that I've criticised over recent years, and which even if they were valid then, are certainly outdated now. Interestingly, one of them stated quite openly in a meeting I attended a few years ago that he deliberately lied in these sort of elicitation exercises (i.e. exaggerating the probability of high sensitivity) in order to help motivate political action. Of course, there may be others who lie in the other direction, which is why it seems bizarre that the IPCC appeared to rely so heavily on this paper to justify their choice, rather than relying on published quantitative analyses of observational data. Since the IPCC can no longer defend their old analyses in any meaningful manner, it seems they have to resort to an unsupported "this is what we think, because we asked our pals". It's essentially the Lindzen strategy in reverse: having firmly wedded themselves to their politically convenient long tail of high values, their response to new evidence is little more than sticking their fingers in their ears and singing "la la la I can't hear you".

Jul 19, 2013 at 1:12 PM | Unregistered CommenterPeteB

TinyCO2

You and I are united by our aims but not at all together on the route we need to take ^.^
Your strategy is political not scientific, it is the same strategy that got us into this mess in the first place.
The team had an aim just like we do and they decided that in order to achieve it everybody had to stay on message. What was said and published had to be controlled to make sure the aim was achieved I did not agree with their aims and I did not agree with their methods.
Our side has spent many years condemning models for all the right reasons, they contain assumptions and they do not include all the relevant facts about how climate works.
To be jumping for joy and supporting a model just because it says what we want is to me, the height of hypocrisy.

Jul 19, 2013 at 3:15 PM | Registered CommenterDung

Well said Rhoda, I am your number two fan then!

The embarrassing yet Pythonesque phrase of "statin the bleeding obvious", the previous 4 inter-glacials dating back 500,000 years were all warmer than today by anything between 3-5°C, something the warmistas refuse to accept or acknowledge, & they cannot put forward a logical reasoned argument for why the rate of warming is no faster then in previous inter-glacials! The Wet Office scientists just keep referring to models & "what they tell us", using their mealy mouthed wishy-washy language of "representations", "simulations", & last but by no means least, "sophisticated", in their efforts to describe them! Really poor choice of words as far as my 1925 POED is concerned!

Jul 19, 2013 at 5:35 PM | Unregistered CommenterAlan the Brit

"But there is at least a possibility that they are going turn down the alarm somewhat".

Yeah sure Bish its a possibility but how long have you been following these people?
It will end up with something alarming, as it always does.

Oh bye the way did the Met Office ever re-examine 150 years of temperature data as promised in the wake of the Climategate scandal. Should be due any day now.

Jul 19, 2013 at 5:39 PM | Unregistered CommenterMartyn

One could just note that this is standard and utterly ordinary for the frontier of science.
One could even praise and encourage it. Look, if the publication of new science leads folks to revise their position, what is achieved by punishing folks for doing the correct thing.

Jul 19, 2013 at 5:59 PM | Unregistered Commentersteven mosher

'Oh bye the way did the Met Office ever re-examine 150 years of temperature data as promised in the wake of the Climategate scandal. Should be due any day now."

The project is coming along nicely and the data has been available for sometime, but its not exclusively a MET project

Jul 19, 2013 at 6:01 PM | Unregistered Commentersteven mosher

lets hope such an attempt to save face and arse is a total fail
when they fall they totally deserve to fail hard and fast with a messy end

Jul 19, 2013 at 6:50 PM | Unregistered CommenterKNR

Jul 19, 2013 at 5:59 PM | Unregistered Commentersteven mosher

Of course what you say is correct. The "but" is that the IPCC has never before stepped down their claim for climate sensitivity. If they are backing down in the face of evidence then they are doing something they have never before done. What is more interesting is that they must explain the change. They must explain some relationship between model and data that required modification of the model. Now that would be real science, the sort of thing that your comment anticipates. But they have never done that. If they are doing it now then they are giving scientists an opening to criticize their models, something they have never done.

Jul 19, 2013 at 9:02 PM | Unregistered CommenterTheo Goodwin

Steven I'm glad to hear the reassessment project by a group of international experts is "coming along nicely" but I was expecting a little more by now. Perhaps its another episode swept under the carpet, or perhaps I have missed something one Christmas eve.

Jul 19, 2013 at 9:26 PM | Unregistered CommenterMartyn

"The CO2 increase since 1958 fits a simple exponential curve extraordinarily closely..." --Lance Wallace

Note that since 1994, the curve fit is no different from linear.

Jul 19, 2013 at 9:35 PM | Unregistered Commenterjorgekafkazar

And in other news of the IPCC's slowly shifting sands ...

I'm sure there may well have been quite a flurry of activity on the heels of this apparent "blink". Much, if not most, falling on the shoulders of Jonathan Lynn (IPCC Head, Communications and Media Relations) during the course of his participation in the WGII Lead Authors' meeting. This activity seems to have resulted in a Press Release - the first since April 14 in which one found the following declaration:

IPCC will continue not to comment on the contents of the draft reports

In contrast, today's Press Release begins:

IPCC STATEMENT

19 July 2013

Report on the draft of the Working Group III contribution to the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report

GENEVA, 19 July - The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) notes that an article has been published in The Economist citing a table that appears in the second order draft of the IPCC Working Group III contribution to the IPCC's Fifth Assessment Report.

This draft, like any IPCC draft, is the result of the IPCC's iterative process of writing and review process and thus a work in progress. The text is likely to change [...]

But, wait! There's more!

As busy as I imagine Lynn must have been this week, he did take the time to communicate with little old me. Promptly, cordially and helpfully - in order to address an open letter I had sent to the IPCC Secretariat on July 12. And earlier today, everything was in place, publicly on the IPCC site, so that I could get the answers I was seeking [For details, pls. see Change of communication tune at the IPCC?]

Certainly nothing earth-shattering in either of these two items. But they do suggest possible signs of learning progress; as I believe John Shade would say, "Inch by inch, row by row ... "

Jul 20, 2013 at 3:10 AM | Registered CommenterHilary Ostrov

Pre-session documentation will not be distributed on paper. The IPCC papersmart system will allow registered participants to access session documents in electronic format during the meeting on a dedicated web portal via individual credentials linked to their registration. [...]


Pre-session documentation......
allow registered participants to access session documents in electronic format during the meeting......

Doesn't sound very Pre-session or post-session open to the public to me Hilary.

Jul 20, 2013 at 7:12 AM | Unregistered CommenterMartyn

Please remember that all this IPCC/Hadley etc. was set up to find ways in which the effects of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) could be ameliorated, not to forecast (or 'project') its progress (or otherwise). The axiom was that emissions of carbon etc. were the cause of the alarm and the science was to advise politicians (world over) what should be done about it. Our politicians jumped the gun and legislated to reduce emissions, trade carbon and all that, while the science galloped off to hunt for causes and make projections - and to earn a lot of cash on the process.
Even if all the science evaporated tomorrow, the emissions policies would remain in place costing us the earth and lining the pockets of politicians and windmillars and so on for a generation.
That to me is the real problem- not just changing minds but changing the laws.

Jul 20, 2013 at 8:39 AM | Unregistered Commentermitigated sceptic

Jul 20, 2013 at 7:12 AM | Unregistered Commenter Martyn

Doesn't sound very Pre-session or post-session open to the public to me Hilary

Martin, I agree. As I had noted in my post:.

One would hope that this does not mean that such session documents may not be available to the public. No doubt, time will tell!

That being said, considering that documentation for previous IPCC Session Agenda items has been made available to all (at least since I've been following their proceedings), it would definitely be a giant credibility-damaging step back from the "open and transparent" front, if they were to discontinue this practice.

As you may have gathered from comments I've made here and/or in posts on my own blog, I've never been what one might call a "fan" of the IPCC. Nonetheless, it's possible that this text (which I have seen before, btw) is boilerplate** copied from one of any number of the UNEP's acronymic offspring's meeting sites - many of which, during the past twelve months (give or take a month or so) have also made the switch to "papersmart" - even to the extent of providing (a limited number of) laptops (or perhaps iPads - offhand, I can't recall which) for delegates who may not have their own cyber-equipment.

** Bear in mind that the page on which the information I had requested has now been posted did not even exist a week ago! Another "innovation" I noticed on the Provisional Annotated Agenda, was an upfront notice which indicated that:

The web version of this document will be updated with links to new documents as they become available

Actual links to arcanely named documents in an IPCC pdf is, well, quite a radical improvement, IMHO; the first instance of which (as far as I have been able to ascertain) was implemented at the 35th Session in June of last year.

Jul 20, 2013 at 9:06 AM | Registered CommenterHilary Ostrov

Hillary you have obviously been following the IPCC and probably the whole AGW debate far closer than me but in my opinion this inch by inch so called progress is just playing for time until something they class as alarming comes along and can be jumped on with a told you so statement.

As mitigated sceptic says above it's the policy changes than we need not this drip feed of meaningless conciliatory gestures that seem to be placating a lot of sceptics.

I have no trust in any authority involved with global warming. Terminate the lot and start again I say.

Now I must settle in the chair for two days of ashes.

Jul 20, 2013 at 11:06 AM | Unregistered CommenterMartyn

JamesG:

Missing heat, missing sink, missing humility.

Very good. A reason for critics such as ourselves never to miss the humility factor.

steven mosher:

One could just note that this is standard and utterly ordinary for the frontier of science.
One could even praise and encourage it. Look, if the publication of new science leads folks to revise their position, what is achieved by punishing folks for doing the correct thing.

Answer came there none. Till now. Completely agree Steve.

Hilary Ostrov:

And in other news of the IPCC's slowly shifting sands ...

Really fascinating stuff Hilary.

I don't know if what I now write can gain agreement from you and Mosh at the same time, let alone anyone else, but isn't it fair to say that both pessimists and optimists are now likely to be right about the IPCC and that could apply for some time? Because there are some bad people and some good people involved in the organisation and there is bound to be a struggle going on between them, however polite they are forced to be about each other in public.

This level of detail is your forte and we are much more likely to sound the right notes in our responses as a result of having you around. Thank you.

Jul 20, 2013 at 12:16 PM | Registered CommenterRichard Drake

Please notice too that the rhetoric has changed again from AGW to Climate Change and now to reduced energy consumption (warmer homes at reduced costs!). Ashdown even defended shale gas/oil extraction at yesterday's Question Time on grounds of expediency, qualified of course by a remark to the effect that this would not have been needed if only 'they' had followed his advice years ago!

I apologise for breaking into the debate about the science to draw attention to the necessity of arresting the political policies that are leading inexorably to astronomical energy costs, high levels of outage risk and the migration of what is left of manufacturing industry; not to mention the spread of fuel poverty that could ruin millions.

If there is to ba any alarmist talk - IMHO - that is what it should be about.

Jul 20, 2013 at 7:41 PM | Unregistered Commentermitigated sceptic

Richard Drake

Not exactly true old friend:
S Mosher's post was not a stand alone statement it was a response to a number of posts by Rhoda, myself and others.
Basically you and Mosher are agreed that anything you say is justified if it leads to our shared goals. I disagree and say that by doing that you betray all skeptics and encourage them not to care about truth but about results. That opinion destroys any credibility you had RIchard.

Jul 20, 2013 at 8:20 PM | Registered CommenterDung

The Economist compared apples with pears.

"at CO2 concentrations of between 425 parts per million and 485 ppm, temperatures in 2100 would be 1.3-1.7°C above their pre-industrial levels."

That refers to temperature in 87 years time, while the effects of 485ppm CO2 are still working through the system.

"That seems lower than the IPCC’s previous assessment, made in 2007. Then, it thought concentrations of 445-490 ppm were likely to result in a rise in temperature of 2.0-2.4°C."

This refers to equilibrium temperatures in the long term, assuming that CO2 levels stopped rising at 490ppm.

That's not IPCC changing, though new evidence since 2007 may well moderate their worst case position in AR5.
That was crap journalism.


.

Jul 20, 2013 at 8:22 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic Man

I can't find words to describe how much the contribution at 8:20 PM wrongly characterises my point of view. Rather than go down that rabbit-hole I'd ask long-term BH readers to judge if I care about truth. (Not if you agree with me, on everything or anything, but do I care about the principle?) Steve Mosher can of course speak for himself but for me his point here was completely about the WG3 writers expressing truth about, and taking seriously, changes in scholarly papers on climate sensitivity and then proposing the radical view that we might even express our appreciation for them doing so. With our host on exactly the same page, without reading too far between the lines.

Attempts to divide people using lies I admit I dislike. There are only a few BH names that I would associate with such behaviour.

Jul 20, 2013 at 8:48 PM | Registered CommenterRichard Drake

Richard

By your standards I assume the MBH Hockey Stick paper was scholarly?
I also assume that you accuse me of using lies ^.^

Jul 20, 2013 at 9:09 PM | Registered CommenterDung

According to a blog in NoTricksZone about the Economist leak,

http://notrickszone.com/2013/07/19/economist-ipcc-concedes-far-lower-co2-climate-sensitivity-5ar-is-the-ipccs-last-chance/

NoTrickZone speculates...'It’ll be interesting to see if they disappear the following graphic, which appeared in a leaked draft late last year':- (shows a graphic illustrating actual temp anomalies against models purportedly in an IPCC draft), and concludes 'My bet is that it will not see the light of day in the final report. The 5th assessment report will be the IPCC’s last chance.'

Jul 20, 2013 at 10:49 PM | Registered CommenterPharos

If NoTricksZone has it right that the actuals v models figure was in a 5th assessment draft, it really does provide a litmus test for IPCC probity. I think they'll flunk it.

Jul 20, 2013 at 11:13 PM | Registered CommenterPharos

rhoda

The null hypothesis is an assumption, a statistical convention. It is not a real position. You are betting the future of civilization on an abstraction for which you have no evidence.

Jul 20, 2013 at 11:15 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic Man

While some look for the missing heat in the oceans ignoring the fact that it has gone to deep space and western pollies desperately look for justification for their policies based on scientific ignorance the 6 billion, 84% majority, of Earth's inhabitants couldn't care less. Their aim is to attain some of the benefits of cheap and abundant energy that so far has eluded them. Lead by the Chinese and Indians and joined by the Brazilians and Indonesians the third world is on the rise and crazy scientists and looney leftists should just stand aside. The inane utterances of Obama, Cameron and Gillard (now Rudd) about CO2 and wind energy must give the emerging nations great heart that the West is in decay and soon will no longer dictate how things should be.

Jul 21, 2013 at 12:14 AM | Unregistered CommenterLawrie Ayres

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>