Monday, November 14, 2011 ... Deutsch/Español/Related posts from blogosphere

IPCC on extreme weather: no climate change for next 20-30 years

New IPCC report is going to say that science doesn't know whether CO2 has an effect on most climatic observables

Roger Pielke Jr, Richard Black of BBC, The GWPF, Tom Nelson, Marc Morano, and others celebrate a draft of a new report by the IPCC which should be publicly released on Friday.

Before I corrected this article, I called the report "a draft of the Fifth Assessment Report". Ross McKitrick told me it wasn't right: it's just a special report on extreme weather. Thanks to him.

It has apparently diverged from the environmentalist propaganda and got much closer to the actual climate science.

Fred Singer, a new honorary chairman of the (N)IPCC, to be named on Friday.

It says that we don't know whether the climate will be warming or cooling in the next 20-30 years because the man-made signal is negligible relatively to the natural variability and that we only have low or medium confidence on whether or not the frequency of extreme events is changing and whether or not the greenhouse gases are behind these changes if any.

In other words, science doesn't know. The highest rating attributed to a hypothetical measurable effect of man-made activity is "likely" (associated with a hypothetical change that isn't harmful in any way) which means 66% or more according to the IPCC confidence level codes.

So the IPCC seems to be in the process of rolling these numbers from the vicinity of 100%, required by ecoterrorist organizations and prominent criminals associated with the so-called green economy, to the vicinity of 0%, implied by the actual scientific research.

Two sentences are probably most eye-catching:

Climate change signals are expected to be relatively small compared to natural climate variability over the coming two to three decades. The IPCC authoritatively encourages former U.S. vice-president Al Gore, blogger Joseph Romm, and similar unhinged warmist crooks to eat their personal piles of feces and avoid the further presentation of this discredited material in the public.
Well, the second sentence hasn't been approved yet but the first one is already in the draft. ;-)

It's not just the weakening of claims that were treated as indisputable just a few years ago. In some respects, the IPCC has gone into reverse (more precisely, from the reverse, they returned to the motion forward) and adopted the NIPCC position:
Long-term trends in normalized economic disaster losses cannot be reliably attributed to natural or anthropogenic climate change.
If you realize that this is a sentence in the newest out-of-schedule IPCC report which may be copied to the future assessment report as well, it's quite a sentence! Needless to say, it directly contradicts pretty much everything that the warmist propagandists have presented as the tenets of their beliefs in recent years.

If you want some more details about the IPCC's explanation that there's no agreement about the existence of the purported anthropogenic influences, note that "low/medium/high confidence" refers to the degrees of academic consensus. However, another page translates "low confidence" etc. into probabilities: for example, "low confidence" means 20%. Imagine that: the IPCC gives only 20% probability to various typical AGW-like claims. The IPCC members say that there is:
  1. "low confidence" that tropical cyclones have become more frequent,
  2. "limited-to-medium evidence available" to assess whether climatic factors have changed the frequency of floods, and 
  3. "low confidence" on a global scale even on whether the frequency has risen or fallen.
In terms of attribution of trends to rising greenhouse gas concentrations, the uncertainties continue.

While it is
  1. "likely" that anthropogenic influences are behind the changes in cold days and warm days
there is only "medium confidence" that they are behind changes in extreme rainfall events, and "low confidence" in attributing any changes in tropical cyclone activity to greenhouse gas emissions or anything else humanity has done.

(Again, these terms have specific meanings in IPCC-speak, with "very likely" meaning 90-100% and "likely" 66-100%, for example. See the left column of this page.)

And for the future, the draft gives even less succour to those seeking here a new mandate for urgent action on greenhouse gas emissions, declaring:
"Uncertainty in the sign of projected changes in climate extremes over the coming two to three decades is relatively large because climate change signals are expected to be relatively small compared to natural climate variability".
It's also explicit in laying out that the rise in impacts we've seen from extreme weather events cannot be laid at the door of greenhouse gas emissions. As I already said:
"Increasing exposure of people and economic assets is the major cause of the long-term changes in economic disaster losses (high confidence)."
We shouldn't be excessively optimistic because all those things may deteriorate again: by Friday, Michaels Menn and similar scum may find a way to blackmail the IPCC and return the U.N. climate body back to the ideologically driven good old Stalinist times. Moreover, the "IPCC extreme weather" report to be released soon also contains some hype about the extreme weather, despite the admission of the lack of evidence that those things are affected by CO2 or whether or not they are getting worse.

However, there's some modest reason for optimism. I have always thought that the complete mess in climate science that was caused by the IPCC (and others) has to be fixed by a similar institution, optimally by an institution with the same name (while some other skeptics preferred a disollution of the IPCC without any replacement and a jump straight to anarchy). Let's hope that the future improvements of the atmosphere within the IPCC will show us that I have been right all along.

Imagine how those chronic liars that have been spreading – and some of them are still spreading (incredible for the year is 2011) – the climate hysteria for years must feel if they observe that they are gradually losing a big ally, the IPCC. They must feel like Nicolae Ceaușescu in 1989, when he realized that he was losing all alies in Eastern Europe, perhaps including the Soviet Union itself. Let me wish them that they will feel much more relieved soon, like the Romanian president did on Christmas 1989.

Explosion in Iran

Completely off-topic: don't you think that the huge Saturday explosion of the Iranian ammo – which has killed the Iranian missile development boss, among dozens of others – was prepared by Israel or the U.S.? I think that smart kids at a U.S. basic school got a homework to solve the Iranian crisis. The first one wanted to shine lasers from the satellites upon the moving ammo. However, another one had a better idea: there's not enough energy in the satellites. He only used the geostationary satellites (to minimize the relative motion) to provide us with mirrors. And the lasers in a U.S. national lab just shone the light that was reflected by mirrors carried by the satellites to Tehran.

Next week, the homework for the third-graders will be to neutralize the rest of the Iranian military. ;-) The surviving leaders of Iran will say it will have been an accident because they won't be willing to admit that a couple of third-graders in America are smarter and more skillful than Ahmadinejad, late Khomeini, Khamenei, and Allah combined. ;-)

Add to Digg this Add to reddit

snail feedback (2) :

reader Anonymous said...

Now they tell us! Do you think they might postpone the UK Climate Change Act for 20 years?

No I thought not. Still it was never about global warming was it.

reader Anonymous said...

The conclusion by IPCC Working group I that the confidence interval on the equilbrium climate sensitivity (TECS) lies within stated bounds rests upon misuse of the word "confidence." The probability values at the two bounds (e.g. 5% and 95%) are limiting relative frequencies but as the equilibrium temperature is not an observable neither is TECS. It follows that the probability values at the two bounds do not exist at concepts.

It appears to me that Working Group I has confused the Baysean definition of "probability" with the frequentist definition. It is the latter definition (probability is limiting relative frequency) that plays a role in the idea of a "confidence interval."

(function(i,s,o,g,r,a,m){i['GoogleAnalyticsObject']=r;i[r]=i[r]||function(){ (i[r].q=i[r].q||[]).push(arguments)},i[r].l=1*new Date();a=s.createElement(o), m=s.getElementsByTagName(o)[0];a.async=1;a.src=g;m.parentNode.insertBefore(a,m) })(window,document,'script','//','ga'); ga('create', 'UA-1828728-1', 'auto'); ga('send', 'pageview');