The IPCC has issued the 2013 report on global Climate change. The skeptic community has effectively challenged the IPCC primary positions. This post will provide a broad selection of those challenges for the reader to examine. Each of the 18 entries will give you the title, a brief synopsis, and the link to that document.
The IPCC failed on two major issues. Their failed to explain why global temperatures have not increased in the past 16 years despite a continued growth of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2). The second issue is that of climate sensitivity. They did say that in the past, they had overestimated climate sensitivity but did not tell us what they now believe it to be. This posting will also cover climate model performance and should the IPCC be discontinued.
IPCC “We don’t need no stinking climate sensitivity!”
Dr Roy Spencer says:
The newly-released Summary for Policymakers of the IPCC’s Working Group I for the AR5 report reveals a dogged attempt to salvage the IPCC’s credibility amidst mounting evidence that it has gone overboard in its attempts to scare the global public over the last quarter century. CLICK HERE FOR FULL REPORT.
Climate change is on ice: UN scientists reveal the world’s barely got any hotter in the last 15 years – but say they are now 95% certain man is to blame for global warming
- Report compiled by over 800 scientists and used 9,000 scientific studies
- But conceded that world temperatures have barely risen in past 15 years
- This is despite more greenhouse gases being pumped into atmosphere
- Critics say this shows carbon dioxide isn’t as damaging as was claimed
- Report said CO2 has reached levels unprecedented in at least 80,000 years
- Britain will experience COOLING of about 1°C, disrupting weather patterns
- Previous criticism suggested large parts of IPCC reports were compiled with input from organisations such as WWF and Greenpeace
How the IPCC forgot to mention the pause
Dr Judith Curry says:
But don’t the IPCC authors ever read the newspaper or blogs or anything? How did they miss the fact that the pause is the most important issue in the public debate on climate science, for well over a year now? All this is written for the policy makers, n’est pas? Well of course they might have spotted this in the peer reviewed literature if they hadn’t been so busy with that gate keeping thing.
Climate of Uncertainty
A U.N. report can’t explain the hiatus in global warming.
Wall Street Journal: Since 2007, IPCC leading scientists exposed as bullies and eye-catching predictions debunked
Between 1998 and 2012 the global economy more than doubled in size—to some $71 trillion in GDP from $30 trillion. That’s the good news. Over the same period the world pumped more than 100 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. That is supposedly the bad news. Yet global surface temperatures have remained essentially flat. That’s the mystery: If emitting CO2 into the atmosphere causes global warming, why hasn’t the globe been warming?
IPCC: Fixing the Facts
Steve McIntyre says:
Figure 1.4 of the Second Order Draft clearly showed the discrepancy between models and observations, though IPCC’s covering text reported otherwise. I discussed this in a post leading up to the IPCC Report, citing Ross McKitrick’s article in National Post and Reiner Grundmann’s post at Klimazweiberl. Needless to say, this diagram did not survive. Instead, IPCC replaced the damning (but accurate) diagram with a new diagram in which the inconsistency has been disappeared.
Paul Homewood says:
In an attempt to downplay the recent halt in global warming, the IPCC have claimed in their Summary for Policymakers that:
As one example, the rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998–2012; 0.05 °C per decade), which begins with a strong El Niño, is smaller than the rate calculated since 1951 (1951–2012; 0.12 °C per decade.)
Simply translated, this means that warming has slowed down to just under half what it was before. This message has been quickly picked up by the media, which, of course, was the main intention.
Barry Brill says:
Under pressure at a media conference following release of its Summary for Policymakers, AR5 WG1 Co-Chair Thomas Stocker is reported to have said that “climate trends should not be considered for periods less than 30 years”.
Some have seen this as the beginning of an IPCC ploy to continue ignoring the 16-year-old temperature standstill for many years into the future. But even the IPCC must know that any such red herring is dead in the water:
Climate Scientist: 73 UN Climate Models Wrong, No Global Warming in 17 Years –
Global temperatures collected in five official databases confirm that there has been no statistically significant global warming for the past 17 years, according to Dr. John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama Huntsville (UAH).
Bob Tisdale says:
Climate models simulate naturally occurring and naturally fueled coupled ocean-atmosphere processes so poorly that it appears the modelers to have to “fudge” how land surface temperatures respond to the warming of ocean surfaces.
Ocean heat content: relentless but negligible increase 0.065 °C in 45 years.
Lubos Motl says:
In the last 45 years, the average temperature of that layer of the ocean increased by 0.065 Celsius degrees only! That would give you 0.14 °C per century, about 20 times smaller temperature difference than the changes of the global mean temperature predicted for the surface.
THE IPCC REPORT
Top Scientists Slam and Ridicule UN IPCC Climate Report
Moments after the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (UN IPCC) released a summary of its latest global-warming report on September 27, top climate scientists and experts were already reading through it and trashing the methods, findings, claims, and more. In fact, based on leaked drafts of the controversial report, critics had been debunking and ridiculing the UN’s climate claims for weeks prior to the official release. Once the summary report was officially released in Stockholm, the deluge of criticism accelerated, with more than a few top scientists calling for the UN IPCC to be disbanded entirely.
Doomed Planet :Why the IPCC should never be taken seriously
Des Moore says:
In summary, many uncertainties emerge from a careful assessment of claims that a danger exists of ever increasing temperatures. No substance can be established for that claim because no definitive causal correlation can be established between past changes in temperatures and in atmospheric concentrations of CO2. Some past temperature increases are clearly due to natural causes and new research shows published temperatures have a significant upward bias. New research also suggests that, as the extent of CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere is much smaller than previously thought, any danger from rising temperatures is much diminished. Once account is taken of naturally caused increases, of the much smaller CO2 concentrations, and of the upward bias, the need for action to reduce fossil fuel emissions disappears.
IN THE AFTERMATH OF AR5.
Pointman says: AR5 or the fifth Assessment Report on global warming was published last week, amid a fair amount of fanfare but nothing compared to what it would have been like in the glory years of climate alarmism. Everyone has had their say on it by now but I thought it worth adding my own thoughts.
What was actually published was a summary of the underlying science papers for policymakers. Those underlying papers are yet to be published but in the meantime we can still evaluate AR5 from a science viewpoint. It essentially glossed over or ignored a number of fundamental problems with the science driving the conclusions in the report. There’s a lot of very informed commentary out there in the skeptic community, which I’d encourage you to read, so I’ll just highlight the major areas of concern.
IPCC diagnosis – permanent paradigm paralysis
Judith Curry says:
The diagnosis of paradigm paralysis seems fatal in the case of the IPCC, given the widespread nature of the infection and intrinsic motivated reasoning. We need to put down the IPCC as soon as possible – not to protect the patient who seems to be thriving in its own little cocoon, but for the sake of the rest of us whom it is trying to infect with its disease. Fortunately much of the population seems to be immune, but some governments seem highly susceptible to the disease. However, the precautionary principle demands that we not take any risks here, and hence the IPCC should be put down.
Bob Tisdale writes to Secretary Kerry: The Honorable John Kerry Secretary of State Washington D.C. 20520
Dear Mr. Secretary:
The people of the United States should be receiving honest appraisals of human-induced and naturally occurring global warming and climate change, not politically motivated conjecture.
The Political Science of Global Warming
The U.N.’s latest climate-change report should be its last.
This is a glaring discrepancy. How can the IPCC be more confident that more than half the temperature rise since the mid-20th century is caused by greenhouse-gas emissions when it is less sure of the climatic impact of carbon dioxide?
In the scare dynamic, the one thing you are not allowed to do – according to the rules of the game – is talk down the consequences of whatever it is has been selected as the crise du jour.