Finding Figures Quoted in Media in IPCC Report Released Today

WORKING Group II, of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), published their contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report earlier today. The summary document begins by explaining that human interference with the climate system is occurring and climate change poses risks for humans and natural systems. The report goes on to assess the impacts, how we can adapt and why we are vulnerable.

Within an hour of the reports release the Australian Broadcasting Corporation had an article quoting CSIRO’s Dr Mark Howden…

“The world’s leading climate science organisation – the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) – has released its fifth report and warns the world is ill-prepared for risks from a changing climate.

The CSIRO’s Dr Mark Howden, who was lead author on the chapter addressing food production and food security, says the report predicts a rainfall reduction of 20 to 40 per cent in parts of southern Australia in coming decades, while rainfall will be more variable in the north.”

I need to file my The Land column this evening and I would like to put the 20 to 40 percent reduction in some context relative to the rest of the report. But I can’t find these figures in the report.

It’s a long report with many components. Can someone help me…

http://ipcc-wg2.gov/AR5/report/final-drafts/

In particular where does it say rainfall will reduce by 20 to 40 percent in southern Australia?

29 Responses to Finding Figures Quoted in Media in IPCC Report Released Today

  1. PeteFromHayNSW March 31, 2014 at 3:40 pm #

    25.5.2 in the Section on Australasia I think is what your looking for – based on 2C rise if I’ m reading it right

  2. Johnathan Wilkes March 31, 2014 at 3:55 pm #

    The regional climate is changing (very high confidence). The region continues to demonstrate long term trends
    toward higher surface air and sea-surface temperatures, more hot extremes and fewer cold extremes, and changed
    rainfall patterns. Over the past 50 years, increasing greenhouse gas concentrations have contributed to rising average
    temperature in Australia (high confidence) and New Zealand (medium confidence) and decreasing rainfall in southwestern
    Australia (high confidence). [25.2, Table 25-1]

    It’s in chapter 25 regional chapters Australasia
    busy here at the moment Jennifer

  3. bazza March 31, 2014 at 4:13 pm #

    The scenarios are p7 ch 25 ( I hope the lucky readers of The Land get an unbiased comment but I wont bet on it)
    Ch 25 p7
    This pattern of projected rainfall change is reflected in annual average CMIP5 model results (Figure 25-1), but with
    important additional dimensions relating to seasonal changes and spread across models (see also WGI Atlas, AI.70-
    71). Examples of the magnitude of projected annual change from 1990 to 2090 (percent model mean change +/-
    intermodel standard deviation) under RCP8.5 from CMIP5 are -20±13% in south-western Australia, -2±21% in the
    Murray Darling Basin, and -5±22% in southeast Queensland (Irving et al., 2012). Projected changes during winter
    and spring are more pronounced and/or consistent across models than the annual changes, e.g. drying in southwestern
    Australia (-32±11%, June to August), the Murray Darling Basin (-16±22%, June to August), and southeast
    Queensland (-15±26%, September to November), whereas there are increases of 15% or more in the west and south
    of the South Island of New Zealand (Irving et al., 2012). Downscaled CMIP3 model projections for New Zealand
    indicate a stronger drying pattern in the south-east of the South Island and eastern and northern regions of the North
    Island in winter and spring (Reisinger et al., 2010) than seen in the raw CMIP5 data; based on similar broader scale
    changes this pattern is expected to hold once CMIP5 data are also downscaled (Irving et al., 2012).

  4. Robert March 31, 2014 at 4:33 pm #

    Ah, lots of stuff-which-hasn’t-happened-yet from the people who seem in complete darkness about stuff that has actually happened (like those sea level rises starting in the 1700s which did indeed slow about a hundred years before Obama was born).

    Imagine the guffaws and satirical sketches in 2090 when someone uncovers this trash and reads it? Literal-minded, mechanistic, egghead junk from cover to cover. I admire the patience of those who could be bothered, knowing the authorship. God, what an embarrassment to science and what’s left of Enlightenment values.

    Flush it, guys. Just flush it and get on with your lives.

  5. Neville March 31, 2014 at 8:52 pm #

    Well it seems that the IPCC donkeys NOW agree that all countries should use adaptation as a response to their CAGW.

    http://www.thegwpf.org/world-must-adapt-to-unknown-climate-future-says-ipcc/

    What a surprise NOT, because sceptics have been delivering this message for decades. What a mob of lard heads and fools we’ve had to put up with since Gore and Hansen hijacked this debate????????? in 1988.
    And 100s of billions $ flushed down the drain for zero change to climate and temp for thousands of years.

  6. jennifer March 31, 2014 at 10:24 pm #

    Much thanks to those who put me onto chapter 25, I had been reading through chapters 3 and 7. Column now filed.

    I see that the minus 2% change in annual average rainfall, plus or minus 21 percent, corresponds to the values in the Irving et al. study (Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Journal, vol 61, pages 211-225) published in 2012, which relied on output from about 27 different General Circulation Models that gave widely different results.

    We discussed the paper here… http://jennifermarohasy.com/2013/10/the-nature-of-inclusive-climate-science/ .

  7. Ian Thomson April 1, 2014 at 6:14 am #

    Hi bazza
    Everything seems pretty normal in those figures, all plus or minus 20 something percent ?
    Will the Darling now be dry one year and flooded the next ? I hope the birds learn to fly somewhere , or they may face extinction.

    On a serious note I see that the South and West of NZ’s South Island face similar troubles.
    As I have mentioned here before, most of the locally milled Totara trees in Southland and Otago , (which in the 1950s held up most of the houses and fences ) were over a hundred years old at that time.
    The reason was that the South had become too cold for them to germinate since then.
    The people will be shaking in their shoes in some of those West Coast towns at the thought of their annual rainfall dropping below 2 meters.

    You are doubtful of Jennifer writing an unbiased critique of the report. The report itself (or its published conclusions), is biased.

    Here’s another denialist for you to hate-

    http://pickeringpost.com/story/the-ipcc-scamsters-are-at-it-again-/3030

  8. Neville April 1, 2014 at 7:57 am #

    Here are some of the people who contributed to the IPCC WG 2 report. Fair dinkum you just have to keep pinching yourself when you read some of their garbage. Just a problem about 2 similar pre 1950 warming trends from 1860 to 1880 and 1910 to 1945. Just ask Phil Jones.

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/booga_booga/#commentsmore

    This would be a hoot if we weren’t wasting billions $ for a zero return on this ludicrous investment. But if you believe these fools the human race could soon face extinction, so Lukey won’t have anything more to worry about.

  9. Debbie April 1, 2014 at 8:39 am #

    I have a question.
    We are very busy here at the moment as we have started rice harvest and therefore I have not had time to read the IPCC report and have only been informed via the media (primarily ABC radio while driving machinery and a little bit of late news bulletins on the television).
    The main concern of alarm according to what I have heard over the last couple of days is centred around the fact that species on land and in the ocean are moving into higher latitudes.
    I note that I didn’t hear anything about them disappearing from their present locations. . .just that they are being found in higher latitudes. . .and that it’s extremely alarming.
    My question is. . . . and I may have to say like Larry does sometimes. . . .it could be a stooooopid question.
    Why is that extremely alarming?

  10. Neville April 1, 2014 at 8:54 am #

    Debbie I don’t know why that’s extremely alarming either. BTW Jo Nova is covering that human extinction nonsense and the OTHER recent warming trends as well.

    http://joannenova.com.au/2014/04/climate-change-could-make-humans-extinct-says-expert/#comments

  11. Neville April 1, 2014 at 9:35 am #

    A new poll shows that Aussies are not buying the CAGW garbage from the IPCC and other clueless extremists.

    http://www.heraldsun.com.au/business/public-not-buying-a-climate-apocalypse/story-fni0d8gi-1226870210323

  12. marc April 1, 2014 at 9:50 am #

    Very easy to attack science and scientists when ones own philosophical position is in opposition, un-objective and unscientific; Isn’t it?!

  13. Neville April 1, 2014 at 10:01 am #

    Well please Marc tell us how we’re unscientific? But please give us the facts, not more silly BS.
    Looks like Gergis, Karoly etc are having a second attempt at SH paleo temps.

    http://climateaudit.org/2014/03/31/neukom-and-gergis-serve-cold-screened-spaghetti/#more-19082

    Steve and Ross are ready to swoop when they recieve the proper data, but they’ve already mangaged to pull apart this new??????? study anyway.
    Fair dinkum you couldn’t make this stuff up. BTW Steve has already found some upside down problems with the Pages 2K study as well.

  14. handjive of climatefraud.inc April 1, 2014 at 10:11 am #

    Don’t have any numbers for you, but they have used the colour purple.

    You know things are alarming when they wheel out the colour purple:

    “The problems have gotten so bad that the panel had to add a new and dangerous level of risks.
    In 2007, the biggest risk level in one key summary graphic was “high” and colored blazing red.
    The latest report adds a new level, “very high,” and colors it deep purple.”

    “Things are worse than we had predicted” in 2007 …”
    http://bigstory.ap.org/article/global-warming-dials-our-risks-un-report-says
    ~ ~ ~
    I call “Climate Alarmist Bingo”!

    http://unfrozencavemanmd.blogspot.com.au/2013/09/climate-alarmist-bingo.html

  15. marc April 1, 2014 at 10:13 am #

    Neville, and others, why the hostility, upset and aggression? Are or have you been personally aggrieved by the science or the response. Is there not at least a risk management requirement attached to the science and the response for the good of humanity?

  16. Ian Thomson April 1, 2014 at 10:18 am #

    Science vs Philosophy ?
    Scientifically measure and record the forces of nature .
    Take these measurements and records , feed them into a computer and look for some trends.
    Find that all the results are varied and unreliable.
    Edit out the annoying anomalies to find the right trend.
    Make loud constant announcements that you were right all along .

    See, science and philosophy can work hand in hand and you get the result you wanted.
    ( If you don’t get stranded in the ice proving the conclusion that you began with. )

  17. Ian Thomson April 1, 2014 at 10:24 am #

    Handjive,
    Given the alarming trends , next year we will have, oh no, BLACK.
    What will be the new black the following year ? Or is that it , the end of the world as we know it ?

  18. Robert April 1, 2014 at 10:49 am #

    Marc…science?

    My reasons for ignoring the IPCC are much the same as my reasons for ignoring a Nigerian email scam.

    Just to round out my comments with some justified “hostility, upset and aggression”, I really object to having a railway engineer who writes dirty books and charters private jets between NY and India for cricket practise lecture me about the “science” of climate. I know it’s an ad hom…but Pachauri is seriously, seriously creepy. Marc, you need to do something about that weirdo if you want to nudge your climate scam along a bit longer.

  19. Neville April 1, 2014 at 11:30 am #

    Marc what science are you talking about? And yes I’m very annoyed because we’ve wasted tens of billions $ for nothing.
    Labor and the Greens want us to keep wasting tens of billions $ forever and all for a zero return. So yes I’m very bloody annoyed, but I suppose you think it’s okay to waste billions every year buying corrupt co2 certificates for zip change to the climate or co2 or temp for thousands of years? Sorry I don’t understand your argument. But please give us some science for a change.

  20. Neville April 1, 2014 at 2:36 pm #

    Bob Tisdale shows the IPCC model mean since 1979 to 2014 is 2.72 times too high for OZ recorded temp observations and CSIRO latest model is 2.33 times too high for the same period.

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/a_change_in_the_intellectural_climate_and_not_the_real_one/

    Remember this period is over a third of a century. Anyone trust climate models now?

  21. bazza April 1, 2014 at 3:09 pm #

    How much confidence should I have in Jens Land article on IPCC?
    Will she declare a conflict of interest?
    Will she get it right on how you adapt in the face of a high level of uncertainty for the regional rainfall scenarios in parts of southern Australia?
    Will she remind us how her back yard unable-to-be-replicated neural net seasonal forecast alledgedly beat POAMA and yes, without recourse to an independent statistician?
    Will she remind her readers of the IPCC temperature scenarios and their high level of confidence?
    Maybe she too like the PM will use Mackellar to reassure her readers and ignore the increased severity and frequency of extremes.
    Maybe she will update Dorothy.

    “A land of drought and flooding rains
    But coming now too hard too fast.”

  22. Robert April 1, 2014 at 3:47 pm #

    “A land of drought and flooding rains
    But coming now too hard too fast.”

    Like drought in 1902? Like flooding in 1956? Or like both through the 1890s? I hate that.

    As for “a high level of uncertainty for the regional rainfall scenarios in parts of southern Australia”…You mean we’ll only have that problem “in parts” now? Well, some things get better, it seems, but I’d need to see that improvement to believe it.

    Seriously, bazza, what are we to do about a country where, in the late 1830s the Murrumbidgee dried up to a few pools…then in 1841 the drought ended with flooding which caused the Bremer to rise 70 feet? What about a country where you have the world’s greatest know wildfire in 1851…then Gundagai gets swept away – just swept away! – by flood the following year?

    I know you hate me talking about all this stuff, bazza. But I’m such a tease and it’s as easy as shooting fish in a barrel. Hard to resist when Dorothy has been proven so completely right, time and time again.

  23. hunter April 2, 2014 at 1:31 am #

    If only bazza and his pals had put as much effort into policing the AGW promoters, and held them to any sort of standard at all (besides those of rent seeking and moral hazard).
    Instead we see post hoc arm waving, conflicting WG reports, deception, distraction, etc. by the AGW climatocrats.
    And of course outrage that people actually want the actual data to be checked.

  24. Neville April 2, 2014 at 6:37 am #

    More lies and deception from the MSM. But don’t worry the true religious fanatics will still hold the faith with even more vigour.
    The truth and facts mean zip to these true believers. Models are hopeless, f iddling with temp records doesn’t matter, earlier similar warm periods don’t count, SLR is decelerating in recent studies, polar bears show a 400 to 500% increase in sixty years, precipitation over Greenland has increased since the 1890s and Antarctica is colder than earlier periods etc etc.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/01/la-times-tony-barboza-gets-gaught-fear-mongering-the-ipcc-report-becomes-first-victim-of-facts-that-dont-agree-with-claims/#more-106782

  25. Neville April 2, 2014 at 7:54 am #

    It’s been a while, but AGAIN I’ll ask the only question that matters. If OZ followed Garnaut and the CC Authority’s advice and increased the co2 tax to 15%, THEN by how much would it lower temp or co2 or change the climate by 2100?

    At least Luke thought we could build A new Nuke, but Christy showed that even a thousand new nukles wouldn’t make a scrap of difference.
    But bazza will argue until he drops about the consequences of CAGW but has got the guts to offer a solution. Of course we all know why don’t we? THERE ISN”T ONE, you see NATURE just doesn’t care at all.

  26. Neville April 2, 2014 at 7:58 am #

    Sorry should read hasn’t got the guts above. Too much to do this morning, so written in a big hurry.

  27. Neville April 2, 2014 at 9:08 am #

    ZIP warming so far this century, but do the extremists really care? Certainly not Garnaut or the CC Authority or the BOM or CSIRO or Greens or Labor or C Council or Fairfax or their ABC etc. They all just hear nothing and see nothing and ignore simple maths or simple logic and reason.

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/wheres_the_warming/#commentsmore

  28. Neville April 2, 2014 at 12:49 pm #

    Chicago has just experienced the coldest 4 months on record.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/01/its-official-chicago-experienced-the-coldest-four-months-ever/#more-106800

  29. Neville April 3, 2014 at 6:34 am #

    The Bolter has some fun at the expense of the warming hysterics. One of his best columns.

    http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/opinion/caravan-of-gloom-slowing-down/story-fni0ffxg-1226872710791

Website by 46digital