Sorry IPCC – How You Portrayed the Global Temperature Plateau is Comical at Best

Update:  The IPCC press release for the AR5 Summary for Policymakers is titled Human influence on climate clear, IPCC report says.  (Why didn’t they just copy and paste the AR4 SPM onto AR5 letterhead and save the world 10s of billions of dollars?)

# # #

The IPCC released their “approved” Summary for Policymakers for their 5th Assessment Report early this morning (eastern U.S. time), still in draft form. As far as I can tell, there are two paragraphs that discuss the recent global temperature plateau.

Note:  I haven’t yet crosschecked between the draft and the approved versions to see if they’ve made any significant changes, so the following may be old hat.

From page 3:

In addition to robust multi-decadal warming, global mean surface temperature exhibits substantial decadal and interannual variability (see Figure SPM.1). Due to natural variability, trends based on short records are very sensitive to the beginning and end dates and do not in general reflect long-term climate trends. As one example, the rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998–2012; 0.05 [–0.05 to +0.15] °C per decade), which begins with a strong El Niño, is smaller than the rate calculated since 1951 (1951–2012; 0.12 [0.08 to 0.14] °C per decade).

And from page 12:

The observed reduction in surface warming trend over the period 1998–2012 as compared to the period 1951–2012, is due in roughly equal measure to a reduced trend in radiative forcing and a cooling contribution from internal variability, which includes a possible redistribution of heat within the ocean (medium confidence). The reduced trend in radiative forcing is primarily due to volcanic eruptions and the timing of the downward phase of the 11-year solar cycle. However, there is low confidence in quantifying the role of changes in radiative forcing in causing the reduced warming trend. There is medium confidence that internal decadal variability causes to a substantial degree the difference between observations and the simulations; the latter are not expected to reproduce the timing of internal variability. There may also be a contribution from forcing inadequacies and, in some models, an overestimate of the response to increasing greenhouse gas and other anthropogenic forcing (dominated by the effects of aerosols). {9.4, Box 9.2, 10.3, Box 10.2, 11.3}

Regarding the cause of the warming, still living in fantasy world, they write:

Greenhouse gases contributed a global mean surface warming likely to be in the range of 0.5°C to 1.3°C over the period 1951−2010, with the contributions from other anthropogenic forcings, including the cooling effect of aerosols, likely to be in the range of −0.6°C to 0.1°C. The contribution from natural forcings is likely to be in the range of −0.1°C to 0.1°C, and from internal variability is likely to be in the range of −0.1°C to 0.1°C. Together these assessed contributions are consistent with the observed warming of approximately 0.6°C to 0.7°C over this period. {10.3}

They’re still misleading the public.  Everyone knows (well, many of us know) their models can’t simulate the natural processes that cause surface temperatures to warm over multidecadal timeframes, yet they insist on continuing this myth.

Judith Curry wrote in her recent blog post Can science fix climate change?:

JC message to IPCC:  Once you sort out the uncertainty in climate sensitivity estimates and fix your climate models, let us know.  Then please do the hard work of understanding regional vulnerability to climate variability and change before you tell us what constitutes  ’dangerous’ climate change.  And let us know if you come up with any solutions to this ‘problem’ that aren’t worse than the potential problem itself.

And as I concluded my new book Climate Models Fail:

 The primary obstacles for the climate science community in the years and decades to come are: (1) the expectations of government funding agencies, which are obviously tied to political agendas; and (2) the anchoring effect of the fanatical beliefs of those members whose careers and funding skyrocketed as a result of their drum beating for the IPCC.

The people of the world rely on the findings of the climate science community, and in order for climate science to move forward, that community will have to be honest within itself and with the public. Hopefully, that will occur in my lifetime, but I’m not holding my breath.

It appears the climate science community, under the direction of the IPCC, is still not interested in being honest within itself or with the public.  What a shame!

# # #

Also see my brand new video Climate Models Used by the IPCC Are…

Advertisements

About Bob Tisdale

Research interest: the long-term aftereffects of El Niño and La Nina events on global sea surface temperature and ocean heat content. Author of the ebook Who Turned on the Heat? and regular contributor at WattsUpWithThat.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Sorry IPCC – How You Portrayed the Global Temperature Plateau is Comical at Best

  1. Pingback: Sorry IPCC – How You Portrayed the Global Temperature Plateau is Comical at Best | Bob Tisdale – Climate Observations | Cranky Old Crow

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s