Tuesday, September 24, 2013 ... Deutsch/Español/Related posts from blogosphere

Leaked IPCC report, summary, June 2013 version

The summary for policymakers will be officially out on Friday but the nearly final version completed in June 2013 had been leaked – some people say that it was leaked deliberately to prepare the obedient alarmist inkspillers in the media to make their hype easier.

Long after these journalists, we could finally obtain the document, too. I have to start with the usual disclaimer before I give you the link:

Disclaimer: All events, data, and mechanisms appearing in this work are fictitious. Any resemblance to real events, past or future, is purely coincidental.

Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis: Summary for Policymakers (PDF via WUWT)

Update: Final version of the summary is here.
As previously announced, the summary's PDF file has 31 pages.

My understanding is that the mostly political folks who gathered in Stockholm and who were requested to read and discuss every word in the document may still change anything in the summary during the following three days.

Your comments will be appreciated, especially if you have read the document which is something I have to do soon because of an article I should submit.

After the first quick reading, I have seen lots of technical claims about the past observations and model predictions. They're usually classified according to the degree of confidence, agreement etc. None of them looked dangerous to me, some of them were admitting the variability. Still, the important observations tended to be hidden and masked – like the absence of warming since 1998 and the "low confidence" in any explanation of this absence. It's there but sloppy readers won't notice. You even notice that they admit that many places tended to be warmer between 950 and 1250 AD although they immediately add that it couldn't have been global and all-seasonal (the same is true for the recent changes, however).

Much like the Fifth Symphony, the Fifth Assessment Report wants to be all about the fate motif. But to a rational fan of arts and the atmosphere, it's just a wonderfully sustainable piece of music you could play again and again.

On page 10, they also discuss the "transient climate response" – the climate sensitivity without some slower equilibrium-seeking feedbacks. They say that for a doubling of CO2, TCR is likely between 1 °C and 2.5 °C and it is extremely unlikely that it exceeds 3 °C. These are very low figures from a practical viewpoint. The full climate sensitivity is about equally likely to be greater than TCR as it is to be lower than TCR – in fact, negative feedbacks generally dominate among the slower ones.

It seems clear to me that the "new people" who were writing this summary are far less radical and committed to "the cause" than their counterparts in the previous IPCC reports. David Suzuki said that the writers were "ultra conservative" which is an insane exaggeration by this Level 10 Maggot but the core of the claim is true. The summary has always been the more concentrated, more activist screed. But correct me if I am wrong, this summary is weaker than tea and shows absolutely nothing that should be a reason for concern even if you trust everything written in it.

Today, BBC is also telling us – we can no longer be surprised – that the global warming hasn't slowed down acccording to the IPCC chief Pachauri. Meanwhile, everyone in Germany knows that it did and its influential researchers are participating in a civil war about the question what is the best way to mask it. The German ministry of environment and research – which is endorsed by the Green Party and probably mostly controlled by Herr Schellnhuber's group in Potsdam – claims that any change that is visible in intervals shorter than 30 years may be neglected and ignored because it is not relevant. (Hermann Ott of the Green Party openly says that the climate policy depends on the element of fear.)

However, there exists a physicist in Germany who is the top-ranking German climate researcher at the same moment. At least in some cases, such a combination may be pretty dangerous for religious dogmas and this is an example. Spiegel writes:
Germany's highest-ranking climate researcher, physicist Jochem Marotzke, director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, in Hamburg, is fighting back against this refusal to face facts. Marotzke, who is also president of the German Climate Consortium and Germany's top scientific representative in Stockholm, promises, "We will address this subject head-on." The IPCC, he says, must engage in discussion about the standstill in temperature rise.

Marotzke calls the claim that a temperature plateau isn't significant until it has lasted for over 30 years unscientific. "Thirty years is an arbitrarily selected number," he says. "Some climate phenomena occur on a shorter timescale, some on a longer one." Climate researchers, Marotzke adds, have an obligation not to environmental policy but to the truth. "That obligates us to clearly state the uncertainties in our predictions as well," he says.
He discusses some scenarios under which the climate alarm may last and under which it may not. I guess that porn writer Rajendra Pachauri doesn't like what the German top climate researcher blasphemously suggests. ;-)

Meanwhile, a paper by James Hansen et al. has calculated that once we burn all the fossil fuels, the temperature over land will jump by 20 °C, near poles by 30 °C, averaging 16 °C over the globe. That will happen, according to Alexander Ač's calculations of the remaining fossil fuel reserves, by next Christmas. Time for your pills, Gentlemen.

Spiked published an essay by its deputy editor about the politicization of science by the IPCC which is discussed in most of the text. There's a twist at the end, however, that the real problem is that the debate about the kind of society we want to have is not political enough. I completely agree with that.

Add to del.icio.us Digg this Add to reddit

snail feedback (1) :

reader jitter said...

I have always been taught that heat rises. What is this new mechanism that the IPCC has discovered that makes heat sink in oceans?

(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','//www.google-analytics.com/analytics.js','ga'); ga('create', 'UA-1828728-1', 'auto'); ga('send', 'pageview');