IPCC AR5 summary

September 28th, 2013 at 9:54 am by David Farrar

The IPCC’s AR5 summary is here, for those who want to actually read the details.

They look at four scenarios called RCP2.6, RCP4,5, RCP 6.0 and RCP 8.5. Basically the higher the number, the higher the level of greenhouse gas emissions over the next 85 years. The two middle scenarios are probably the most realistic as 2.6 assumes a very significant change in energy production and the like and 85 seems to assume no change at all. The scenarios are about more than just the level of emissions, so I am simplifying.

So what is the average temperature change projected under the two middle scenarios:

  • RCP 4.5 – 1.4c by 2055 and 1.8c by 2090
  • RCP 6.0 – 1.3c by 2055 and 2.2c by 2090

This is compared to 1986 – 2005.

And the sea level change:

  • RCP 4.5 – 26cm by 2055 and 47 cm by 2090
  • RCP 6.0 – 25cm by 2055 and 48 cm by 2090

The upper end of the worst case scenario (RCP 8.5) for sea level rise is 82 cm by 2090. That would post significant challenges for many countries – but is nothing like the nonsense some talk about of metres and metres of sea level rise.

Tags:

86 Responses to “IPCC AR5 summary”

  1. Viking2 (10,702 comments) says:

    More false prophecies.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 22 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Longknives (4,039 comments) says:

    Only 82cm by 2090?
    Hollywood lied to us !

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. fishe (142 comments) says:

    Nice brief article on how to read an IPCC Report: http://theconversation.com/explainer-how-to-read-an-ipcc-report-18520

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. liarbors a joke (1,069 comments) says:

    I smell more taxes…

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 22 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Jimbob (639 comments) says:

    If someone tells you they can predict the future, hold on to your wallet and run.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 25 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Don the Kiwi (1,316 comments) says:

    I still reckon its mainly bullshit.
    Sure, its inevitable that man will have some affect, but maybe 5% – 10% of what is claimed by the IPCC

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 24 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Tom Barker (92 comments) says:

    I live on the coast, and I am selling my house and moving to higher ground before property prices drop.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Yoza (1,348 comments) says:

    Jimbob (631) Says:
    September 28th, 2013 at 10:10 am

    If someone tells you they can predict the future, hold on to your wallet and run.

    …’no brainers’ and ‘win, win situations’ also.

    If, however, thousands of scientists working in their respective fields tell you they have made similar observations and these observations indicate a threat to the survival of the species you sit up and listen.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 18 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Redbaiter (6,464 comments) says:

    Tom- You’ll be selling to a buyer far wiser than yourself.

    Vote: Thumb up 20 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Ross12 (927 comments) says:

    I’m pleased see this on a political blog because that is what this has come to now –all politics and money. All those who think science has something to with it are deluded.

    Vote: Thumb up 21 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Griff (6,263 comments) says:

    The impact of sandy on new york was a graphic illustration of the effect of small changes in sea level having significant impact on infrastructure.
    We build infrastructure to have a fifty year life
    The cost of rebuilding infrastructure before its desighn life expires will impact on the resources available for mitigation.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 4 Thumb down 22 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. The Scorned (719 comments) says:

    Yoza….”If, however, thousands of scientists working in their respective fields tell you they have made similar observations and these observations indicate a threat to the survival of the species you sit up and listen.”

    Please provide the details of said ‘scientists”…

    lol….(please let him say “97% of scientists polled agree…….)

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Steve (North Shore) (4,317 comments) says:

    I have mentioned the cure for rising sea levels before.

    Soon there will be more than 7.5 billion people. Every person should take two 2L milk containers to the beach and fill them with sea water. Take them home and store them in the kitchen cupboard. That takes the water out of the cycle and lowers the sea level.
    How hard can it be to understand that?

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. RightNow (6,337 comments) says:

    No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Scott Chris (5,675 comments) says:

    but is nothing like the nonsense some talk about of metres and metres of sea level rise.

    ~Yeah, anything past a hundred years into the future we needn’t worry about. That world will be full of complete strangers so who cares.~

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. bringbackdemocracy (350 comments) says:

    The little boy told a lie.
    His mother said “stop doing that or you will grow up and become a weatherman”

    Can they predict the weather tomorrow? Most of the time.
    Can they predict the weather next week? Some of the time
    Can they predict the weather next month? Maybe
    Can they predict the weather next century? NO

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. db.. (78 comments) says:

    DPF: You continue to dissapoint. Think non uniform Sigmoid, tending and trending erratically with a rate of progression invisably slow. db..

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Redbaiter (6,464 comments) says:

    “Every person should take two 2L milk containers to the beach and fill them with sea water.”

    There is a flaw in that plan.

    Eventually the containers will disintegrate and then we will really be in the shit.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. flipper (3,268 comments) says:

    All self-serving, bureaucrat-driven, bullshit.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. hj (5,674 comments) says:

    Back when the middle eastern oil feilds had their genisis CO2 was it’s highest ever and the oceans became anoxic. Doesn’t sound healthy does it?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. hj (5,674 comments) says:

    The whole point is that we can do someting about it but we need to face the fact that it isn’t just consumption; population matters. The left blunt the message.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Scott Chris (5,675 comments) says:

    How hard can it be to understand that?

    I assume you’re joking. Still, what you propose would lower the sea level by 0.000000000001 meters by removing an imaginary cube of water 115 meters deep, wide and high.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. davidp (3,319 comments) says:

    James Delingpole’s column is worth a read…

    “Already we have had a taste of the nonsense to come: a pre-announcement to the effect that “climate scientists” are now “95 per cent certain” that humans are to blame for climate change; an evidence-free declaration by the economist who wrote the discredited Stern Report that the computer models cited by the IPCC “substantially underestimate” the scale of the problem; a statement by the panel’s chairman, Dr Rajendra Pachauri, that “the scientific evidence of… climate change has strengthened year after year”. As an exercise in bravura spin, these claims are up there with Churchill’s attempts to reinvent the British Expeditionary Force’s humiliating retreat from Dunkirk as a victory. In truth, though, the new report offers scant consolation to those many alarmists whose careers depend on talking up the threat. It says not that they are winning the war to persuade the world of the case for catastrophic anthropogenic climate change – but that the battle is all but lost.”

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100238047/global-warming-believers-are-feeling-the-heat/

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. cha (3,528 comments) says:

    Bizarre sea level factoid.

    http://news.sciencemag.org/earth/2013/08/scienceshot-why-did-sea-level-drop-2010

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Steve (North Shore) (4,317 comments) says:

    You give up so easily Red. Will you be around when the containers disintegrate?
    Thanks for the thumbs up

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Griff (6,263 comments) says:

    Yes flips
    The IPCC is bureaucratic bullshit.
    The actual science is far more significant than the IPCC summery reports content. This says business as usual will result in severe impacts on the planets ability to support human civilization.
    The governments of the world have agreed that the maximum acceptable warming is 2c.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Scott Chris (5,675 comments) says:

    RightNow (5,747) Says:
    September 28th, 2013 at 10:49 am
    No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies.

    Yeah, let’s just wait and see what happens, then do something about it.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. RightNow (6,337 comments) says:

    “Yeah, let’s just wait and see what happens, then do something about it.”

    Exactly:

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Scott Chris (5,675 comments) says:

    James Delingpole’s column is worth a read…

    No it isn’t.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 16 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Urban Redneck (234 comments) says:

    All self-serving, bureaucrat-driven, bullshit.

    From davidp’s link:

    From grant-hungry science institutions and environmentalist pressure groups to carbon traders, EU commissars, and big businesses with their snouts in the subsidies trough, many vested interests have much to lose should the global warming gravy train be derailed.

    A transnational left-wing political agenda, corporate cronyism and snouts in troughs. That’s global warming.

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. OneTrack (1,957 comments) says:

    And still no warming for 17? years.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Scott Chris (5,675 comments) says:

    Exactly:

    So you claim we should do nothing about climate change because the science is unproven, and yet your contingency plan relies upon unproven technology.

    Way to be selective about where to place one’s faith.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. tvb (3,938 comments) says:

    There is still a long way to go before we have to have full state control over the economy which is what the Greens want to solve this issue.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Steve (North Shore) (4,317 comments) says:

    So my idea is irrelevant Scott Chris?

    Irrelevant like all of the Global Warming/ Climate Change/ Weather bullshit?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Griff (6,263 comments) says:

    Actually Scott c its worth a read because it illustrates the stupidity of those in denial.
    I have had a good laugh reading up on the climate change news this morning in particular the comments sections.
    Nuttery is always so funny to read.
    As soon as you see it has not warmed for x years you Know its aimed at idiots :lol: How wingnuts manage to ignore the .4C warming of the preceding X-three years is funny as

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Scott Chris (5,675 comments) says:

    And still no warming for 17? years.

    Theoretical science says there has been an accumulation of surface heat content in the past 17 years to a high level of probability. The scientists simply haven’t been able to measure and model exactly where that heat is yet.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. gazzmaniac (2,266 comments) says:

    cha @ 11:04 – it amazes me that an average change of 7 mm on a surface that moves by metres every few seconds can be reliably calculated from a piece of equipment several thousand kilometres away.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. gazzmaniac (2,266 comments) says:

    Scott Chris – I read that they’re saying the heat went to the deep ocean. Which is quite amusing, since there is no easy or cheap way to monitor the temperature of the deep ocean, and we don’t have background readings anyway, so it will never be provable.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Fletch (5,719 comments) says:

    Here’s a telling phrase from the new report –

    “It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together.

    So, they’ve downgraded the human element of what causes climate change to HALF of what they said it was. They’re also dating from 1951 because they know damn well that no climate change has happened in the last 17 years at all. The Earth has the same temperature now as it did in 1997.

    It’s all spin, spin, spin. They don’t want to just come out and say “we were wrong – humans aren’t changing the climate”, because they have too much money invested in it.

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. fishe (142 comments) says:

    If you guys want to seriously discredit climate change research do the following:

    – finish ~9 years of higher level study in a relevant scientific field
    – dedicate another 10-20 years of your life to original research in the field

    Then you’ll be around the level where you can have deep personal understanding of the issues. Deep enough to criticise them properly. However, even then though you won’t know enough about all the other relevant fields, so you’ll have to work with many other similar experts in their respective fields, in an organisation (e.g. the IPCC).

    This is the reality of most complex scientific topics these days. Not to say you can’t have an informed opinion as a layperson, as long as you don’t confuse that lay opinion with informed knowledge/expertise. Saying blanket statements like “it’s all bullshit!” is doing exactly that. Realise the limits of your knowledge.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. flipper (3,268 comments) says:

    Yoza said
    **** If, however, thousands of scientists working in their respective fields tell you they have made similar observations and these observations indicate a threat to the survival of the species you sit up and listen….***

    Thousands…more like less than 100, and not a scientific luminary among them. It seems that a railroad engineer (Pacahauri) is to be regarded as the gold standard.

    Davidp’s reference to Dellingpole’s excellent analysis is more accurate.

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100238047/global-warming-believers-are-feeling-the-heat/

    As said in an email to several folk (DPF included) early today:

    **** “With all the media hype emanating this weekend from Stockholm, driven in by “environment” reporters suborned by free travel and “research” grants, and reiterating the BS allegations about “consensus science” DAGW”, under-pinned” by (proven false and inept) computer modelling, the following is worth reading. Have fun. :) ” ****

    http://joannenova.com.au/2013/09/michael-brown-astronomer-says-science-is-not-about-debate-the-people-are-too-stupid/#more-30907

    There have been quite rational discussions here during the absence of the silly serial liar. Go away again, Griff …….

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. flipper (3,268 comments) says:

    fishe (130) Says:
    September 28th, 2013 at 11:30 am
    If you guys want to seriously discredit climate change
    **********

    More self-serving bullshit.
    No sensible person disputes the fact that the climate has, is, and will change. It is why, you fool
    Read the rocks…. it is all in the rocks ….and not those in your head, you arrogant fool.

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Griff (6,263 comments) says:

    Spazz
    fuckwit we have proxys that mimic ocean heat content going back 500 plus years.
    go actually read science not wingnuttery .
    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/09/what-ocean-heating-reveals-about-global-warming/

    The amount of heat stored in the oceans is one of the most important diagnostics for global warming, because about 90% of the additional heat is stored there . The atmosphere stores only about 2% because of its small heat capacity. The surface (including the continental ice masses) can only absorb heat slowly because it is a poor heat conductor. Thus, heat absorbed by the oceans accounts for almost all of the planet’s radiative imbalance.

    you ignorance is astounding
    the phase “it is a travesty” may stick a memory
    we fixed that travesty with the argo network
    This network says the heat content of the worlds oceans is increasing .

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. projectman (190 comments) says:

    Jimbob (631) Says:

    “If, however, thousands of scientists working in their respective fields tell you they have made similar observations and these observations indicate a threat to the survival of the species you sit up and listen.”

    Actually, Jimbob, the observations do not predict threat to survival of the species (in this regard). It is the models that do that, and they are undoubtedly full of assumptions that are not disclosed – and they don’t fit the real data other than by “sleight of hand”.

    I put my trust in the scientists making the observations, not the modelists. In the real scientific world, if you formulate a hypothesis and then measurement/experiment does not support that, you scrap it and start again with a new hypothesis. This is what should be happening.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Chicken Little (793 comments) says:

    lol – who are the real deniers??

    The models are wrong – the theory is wrong – I am 97% certain that the IPCC is wrong.

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Griff (6,263 comments) says:

    Back with the bullshit flipper
    you are an idiot .
    I am busy with work for the next month then I will return to taut you constantly because you are such a fuck wit it is funny.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. cha (3,528 comments) says:

    #gazzmaniac

    http://www.psmsl.org/train_and_info/training/reading/geodesy.php

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. gump (1,228 comments) says:

    @fishe

    If people understood the limits of their knowledge and understanding, very few would ever post replies on Kiwiblog.

    Kiwiblog discussion threads are talkback radio for people with computers.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. JC (838 comments) says:

    Gazza,

    So how did this slippery heat manage to migrate to the deep ocean and the thousands of Argo buoys not pick it up on its way down from the surface? Thats the problem for the warmers.

    Meanwhile, enjoy this from comment from Ross McKittrick (of Hockey Stick demolition fame) on the summary:

    “SPM in a nutshell: Since we started in 1990 we were right about the Arctic, wrong about the Antarctic, wrong about the tropical troposphere, wrong about the surface, wrong about hurricanes, wrong about the Himalayas, wrong about sensitivity, clueless on clouds and useless on regional trends. And on that basis we’re 95% confident we’re right.”

    JC

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. fishe (142 comments) says:

    flipper – I was using “climate change” as a name for research into the whole topic, including the reasons why, which is very much a scientific question.

    And I can’t see how my comment is self-serving. I’m not a scientist in one of the relevant fields. And I’m not an ocean either, or a CO2 molecule.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. fishe (142 comments) says:

    gump – so true, I know. Still good to point these things out :)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. UglyTruth (3,002 comments) says:

    Kiwiblog discussion threads are talkback radio for people with computers.

    But there are less ads on KB!

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. thor42 (764 comments) says:

    @JC – with the ice in the Arctic having increased by 60% in the last year, they were wrong about that too…… :D

    Oh – and the polar bears. Don’t forget the polar bears – there are more of them now than there were 40 years ago. They were supposed to be dropping off the melting ice-floes and drowning. Pfffffffft……

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Griff (6,263 comments) says:

    The Ipcc was far more incorrect about the arctic than any thing else they massively underestimated how much the ice has melted
    It has been known that the antarctic will not be as effected by climate change for decades.
    wrong about the tropical troposphere, point to the science proven wrong.
    The himilays is one mistake in one paragraph in a 2000 page report .Glacial and ice cap melt is faster than predicted.
    And so it goes endless stupid often debunked taking points repeated gormless idiots who ignore reality to keep their profligate lifestyle in a finite world.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. Redbaiter (6,464 comments) says:

    “gump – so true, I know. Still good to point these things out”

    How smug and arrogant can some people be?

    Here’s some news for you.

    Gump in an insufferable smug fool who has made about 850 comments on Kiwiblog and has been wrong on all but one occasion, and that was when he once apologised for being wrong.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Ross12 (927 comments) says:

    fishe

    If it is all about well trained, dedicated scientists coming up with answers , why has there been the big get together in Stockholm over past few weeks where they put up the draft of the SPM report on a screen and then proceed to go through line by line on the words used and negotiate the changes required ? Thats what I call propoganda production. Nothing to do with science.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Yoza (1,348 comments) says:

    thor42 (530) Says:
    September 28th, 2013 at 12:00 pm

    @JC – with the ice in the Arctic having increased by 60% in the last year, they were wrong about that too…

    2013 Arctic Ice Extent Was The Sixth Lowest On Record:

    The extent of the melting of Arctic Sea ice has reached its peak for 2013, and the ice is now growing again as the seasons change into Fall and Winter, say scientists at the National Snow and Ice Data Center. Although the ice did not melt as much as it did in 2012, when Arctic sea ice reached record lows,…

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Yoza (1,348 comments) says:

    Ross12 (628) Says:
    September 28th, 2013 at 12:08 pm

    fishe

    If it is all about well trained, dedicated scientists coming up with answers , why has there been the big get together in Stockholm over past few weeks where they put up the draft of the SPM report on a screen and then proceed to go through line by line on the words used and negotiate the changes required ? Thats what I call propoganda production. Nothing to do with science.

    Governments have been watering down IPCC reports as the findings have been politically and economically unpalatable. The scientific data is being filtered through corporate agendas which see policies capable of mitigating the worst effects as a threat to their profit margins.

    In all probability the reality is far worse than any establishment institutions would be prepared to admit.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. fishe (142 comments) says:

    Ross – I don’t know the details of that, but from what you described it seems like a perfectly normal way to come up with a combined document. Words are important, they need to convey the most accurate meaning possible.

    And the data is still there. You can go through and read all the original research the words as based on. Although, going back to my prior point, that requires a boatload of knowledge about the scientific fields. This is why we have experts…

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. Redbaiter (6,464 comments) says:

    Everyone who reads this blog knows Yoza is an extreme leftist as are most of those supporting the theory of AGW.

    ..and really that should be enough for anyone rational to come to a decision on its authenticity.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. fishe (142 comments) says:

    Red – I didn’t mean to be smug/arrogant. This is all a bit like talkback radio isn’t it? It’s not inherently a bad thing, I just wish people would hold their tongue a bit before making absolutist statements about complex issues that they very likely know little about (incl. myself).

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. fishe (142 comments) says:

    Red – what does left/right orientation have to do with the evidence of climate change? I’d say little/none, or at least it shouldn’t.

    It does however probably have a lot to do with what our response to the evidence should be. Agree? That’s very much a political issue that quickly gets away from the science/evidence.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Yoza (1,348 comments) says:

    flipper (2,485) Says:
    September 28th, 2013 at 11:31 am

    Yoza said
    **** If, however, thousands of scientists working in their respective fields tell you they have made similar observations and these observations indicate a threat to the survival of the species you sit up and listen….***

    Thousands…more like less than 100, and not a scientific luminary among them. It seems that a railroad engineer (Pacahauri) is to be regarded as the gold standard.

    The IPCC is not a very large organisation most of the time, its main job is collecting and collating scientific data and presenting it in a coherent fashion. The IPCC does briefly expand in size whenever these reports are being prepared, but the scientists that prepare the reports number in the thousands.

    Only a fool would atttempt to fob off the reports presented to the IPCC as the work of less than a 100 people.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. Dave Mann (1,125 comments) says:

    @fishe: left/right orientation is to do with how much or how little people want to interfere and meddle in others’ lives under some invented pretext or another. All this ‘Climate Change’ bullshit is driven by busybody meddlers who are not satisfied until they can control society along their own lines. Hope this answers your question.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. Redbaiter (6,464 comments) says:

    “Red – what does left/right orientation have to do with the evidence of climate change? I’d say little/none, or at least it shouldn’t.”

    Y’know such obvious obfuscation does nothing for the credibility you claim to possess in spades.

    For one thing, without a massive state apparatus, thousands of regulations and millions of dollars stolen from the productive sector there is no means of dealing with the claimed/ perceived problem.

    Of course its just a coincidence that this all dovetails so nicely with left wing plans for bigger and bigger government, massive control over the population, interminable regulations, higher taxes on the rich, redistribution of wealth and one world socialist government.

    As I said above, and it seems to just wash right by you- just look at he politics of the people who are pushing it.

    Fuck me, and they call us the denialists.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. David Garrett (5,120 comments) says:

    Climate change…formerly global waming (until it wasn’t) and before that ….40 years ago…”The Coming Ice age”

    I guess it beats David Bloody Bain!!

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. Kea (10,451 comments) says:

    The impact of sandy on new york was a graphic illustration of the effect of small changes in sea levelweather having significant impact on infrastructure.

    Weather events are not climate Griff. Remember ?

    The only thing agreed on is that the “climate scientists” can not make reliable predictions. Yet they continue to be taken seriously by the alarmists. Why ?, given their record of total failure.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. Paulus (2,292 comments) says:

    If only somebody could stop those bloody volcanoes from emitting more gas in an hour than many countries do in a year.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. Yoza (1,348 comments) says:

    Redbaiter (5,166) Says:
    September 28th, 2013 at 12:42 pm

    Of course its just a coincidence that this all dovetails so nicely with left wing plans for bigger and bigger government, massive control over the population, interminable regulations, higher taxes on the rich, redistribution of wealth and one world socialist government.

    I hear the Truth and Retribution gulags will have individual units for privacy, if that’s any consolation.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. fishe (142 comments) says:

    Red – but I’m saying that the political views of individual scientists is unlikely to have an effect on the data itself. The interpretations and response to the data sure, but not the evidence itself. That’s one of the fundamental benefits of good science.

    And this can be tested! Why don’t we get a large number of scientists with sufficient expertise to look over the data and come to a consensus. This is the IPCC report…

    Now if you think that the IPCC is not conducting “good science” but instead there is a vast conspiracy involving thousands of professionals to lie about the data…well, there’s no point in arguing with that. I’d say you should prove the conspiracy by producing your own contra report with original data.

    Do you also have suspicions of a conspiracy about the recent evidence of water on Mars? Or the higgs boson discovery at CERN? These are both large scale, multi-disciplinary scientific endeavours – the same as climate work compiled by the IPCC. And they are carrying out the same basic scientific processes to reach the best conclusions we can with the available data.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. Yoza (1,348 comments) says:

    Kea (7,888) Says:
    September 28th, 2013 at 1:05 pm

    The only thing agreed on is that the “climate scientists” can not make reliable predictions.

    Where was this ‘agreement’? Scientists present models that project potential outcomes based on probabilities extrapolated from known facts. Could you link to a ‘prediction’ made by a climate scientist that states as a certainty a particular event will definitely occur?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. wiseowl (571 comments) says:

    Fishe @ 11.30.
    it’s all bullshit.
    I have worked with the climate for many years. If you feel it and live it you get a handle on it .Its always changing and always will but this latest claim and even New Zealand scientists preaching doom and gloom droughts and storms , is appalling scare tactics and intimidation .
    It will cost us all for no reason.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. Yoza (1,348 comments) says:

    Do you also have suspicions of a conspiracy about the recent evidence of water on Mars? Or the higgs boson discovery at CERN?

    You do know it is called the Red Planet and red is the colour of socialism!

    The Higgs-Boson a.k.a. the ‘God’ particle! Only godless commies would conspire to undermine the authourity of the church with such brazen acts of heresy.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. Redbaiter (6,464 comments) says:

    “And this can be tested! Why don’t we get a large number of scientists with sufficient expertise to look over the data and come to a consensus. This is the IPCC report…”

    Completely incorrect. The IPCC report is a political document authored to support a predetermined conclusion and it is not a consensus.

    Look. The AGW mission is over. Its finished. That is why I seldom bother with it anymore. It is a discredited shambolic attempt to impose global socialism and it has been wrecked on the rocks of rationality and reason.

    If you want to spend yourself fighting some imaginary dragon then go for it, I wouldn’t give a damn except for one salient point and that is that you are asking me to pay for it. And weird guy that I am, I resent having my earnings stolen from me to pay for some looney leftist fantasy.

    I’m surprised you don’t get the message. Environmentalists only just scrape home ahead of feminists as the most hated social grouping. That’s because they have too often been exposed as liars cheats and romancers.

    Get over it. Any group has only got a finite degree of credibility and as far as the pro AGW crowd goes it was all used up ten years ago.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. KevOB (262 comments) says:

    Been looking forward to this. The draft was pushed in the media over the past month and the truth has been suppressed. Somehow heat has got in the deep ocean, where it can’t be measured, and bypassed the upper layer in a way no physicist can explain. it’s going to be all bells and whistles with the climate with every cloud or iceberg signifying global catastrophe.
    The report would not stack up in court: there are enough competent scientific witnesses to show it as fraudulent if only through gross abandonment of a duty of care. Consensus does not make science.

    There is no explanation of why the data shows no actual warming for nearly 20 years. If, as many concerned scientists who follow the data believe, we have slipped into a cooling phase, the report could be criminal in its preference for advocacy over duty. We will know in a few years. See:
    http://wp.me/p2EPg0-Wa
    http://wp.me/p2EPg0-NB
    http://wp.me/p2EPg0-Wz
    http://wp.me/p2EPg0-Ng

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. Dennis Horne (2,059 comments) says:

    @KevOB, aka Kevin O’Brien

    The third site (http://wp.me/p2EPg0-Wz) is
    http://revfelicity.org/2013/09/17/god-in-climate-change/

    God in climate change. Posted on September 17, 2013
    Guest post by Kevin O’Brien

    Christians worry too much, relying on their own understandings and accepting the misinformation barrage.God has a simple logical proof as well as his word that disproves the reality of the whole of the climate alarmism.

    God has his answers:
    Firstly for us to try to reduce the global temperature by only 1/20 of a degree would cost 4/5ths of the worlds productive output. What sort of God do we have that would put us in that position?

    What sort of god indeed. It’s a perfect world. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. Ross12 (927 comments) says:

    fishe @12.23

    “Ross – I don’t know the details of that, but from what you described it seems like a perfectly normal way to come up with a combined document. Words are important, they need to convey the most accurate meaning possible. ”

    fishe — the people involved in the Stockholm process are mainly bureaucrats along with some scientists. In some cases they get their instructions before they go to these “propoganda production meetings”

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2425775/Climate-scientists-told-cover-fact-Earths-temperature-risen-15-years.html#ixzz2fRV1sXeS

    The summary doc is the important one because that is the one politicians will read ( if they read anything). So you are right in saying the words are important –they have to convey the right political message !!

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. KevOB (262 comments) says:

    http://junkscience.com/2013/09/24/lord-monckton-devastates-ap-reporter-on-ipcc-95-confidence-claim/

    “There is a huge and fascinating story behind the loutish distortions of scientific, mathematical, physical, and statistical method that have led today’s scientifically-illiterate classe politique to place their faith in propositions – such as the “95% confidence” proposition – that are obvious nonsense. Surely it would be better to start asking real questions than merely to parrot uncritically the innumerate absurdities of a politicized clique of profiteers of doom in the scientific establishment. Time to raise your game. This once-fashionable scare is going down and you don’t want to be dragged down with it. Global warming is no longer cool. It is no longer a happening thing. Indeed, it is no longer happening. – Monckton of Brenchley”

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. Johnboy (13,342 comments) says:

    I’m felling my Gopherwood trees as you lot debate! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. Ed Snack (1,535 comments) says:

    One of the problems I this is that the IPCC are liars and deliberately lie in this report. In the summary they report that the temperature increase to date since 1880 is 0.85 degrees C with an uncertainty of 0.65 to 1.06 at the 90% level. But they use an invalid statistical model for that confidence level. They model the temperature series as a straight line with AR1 noise. And yet it is very well known, demonstrated several times, that AR1 is an inadequate description and leads to far too narrow limits. Surely this collection of “the best science” could get this accurate, although I suppose it’s not in their interests to be accurate when it doesn’t suit the narrative.

    Interesting too that with all the talk of extreme weather they seem totally unwilling to discuss their own predictions from previous reports. More hurricanes? Wrong. Tropical troposphere, Wrong, Antarctic, wrong, surface trends, Wrong, clouds, Clueless, etc etc &etc(from Ross Mckitterick’s blog) . Oh, and the Arctic, may have got that one right so we’ll only talk about that.

    There is little science in this report, and a lot of “progressive” politics.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. thor42 (764 comments) says:

    Question for the IPCC –

    You say we have “30 years until disaster”.

    Does that guess (and it IS a “guess”) rely on the SAME models that *grossly* overestimated the rate of warming so far (and failed to foresee the 17-years-so-far pause)?

    If the answer is “yes”, then that means that your “30 years until disaster” guess is as useless as those models are.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. thor42 (764 comments) says:

    A good skeptical view of the IPCC can be seen here –
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323981304579079030750537994.html?mod=hp_opinion

    Quote – “Rajendra Pachauri, the IPCC’s chairman since 2002, has repeatedly said that the IPCC bases its conclusions solely on peer-reviewed source material. Yet many of the sources cited by the 3,000-page 2007 IPCC report were press releases, news clippings, discussion papers and unpublished master’s and doctoral-degree theses. The IPCC’s highly embarrassing, since-retracted claim that the Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035 came from a 2005 World Wildlife Fund publication.”

    “The U.N. has charged the IPCC with weighing the evidence on climate change in an objective manner. The problem is that numerous IPCC personnel have ties to environmental groups, many of which raise funds by hyping the alleged dangers of climate change. This relationship raises a legitimate question about their objectivity. “

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. Bogusnews (425 comments) says:

    An important milestone passed earlier this month. In 2007 there were breathless claims that “by 2013 there would be no ice left in the Antarctic!”

    Why oh why do people still listen to their chicken little, sky is falling nonsense.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. wiseowl (571 comments) says:

    These latest claims are so serious that these people involved in the IPCC should be held to account.
    If disaster does not occur in the next thirty years then they should be held libel.
    When is some leader going to stand up to this UN sponsored scaremongering?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. Steve (North Shore) (4,317 comments) says:

    Gopherwood trees – right.
    Building a boat, BBQ fuel, or next winters heating

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. Griff (6,263 comments) says:

    same old shit repeated endlessly by those in denial
    unfortuantly no amount of wishful thinking is going to change the effects of burning millions of years of sequestered hydrocarbons in a century.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.