Jennifer Marohasy

a forum for the discussion of issues concerning the natural environment

Part 2 of IPCC Fifth Assessment Report

By

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) is being released in four parts with Working Group II due to officially release their contribution on “Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability” in Yokohama, Japan, on Monday 31 March.

Comments on the IPCC report, and pre-release publicity, are welcome in the following thread.

For an alternative perspective on climate change the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) will be posting their second report in the next week or so. In the meantime their March 2014 Archive of Scientific Literature Reviews can be accessed here http://www.nipccreport.org/issues/2014/mar.html

Reader Interactions

Comments

  1. Spangled Drongo says

    Great weeping, wailing and wetting of beds at our ABC tonight…

    Coral just won’t handle 2c of warming and the MDB is DOOMED, I tell ya:

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-03-23/ipcc-working-group-ii-report-climate-change-australia/5339654

    And there I was thinking they might have mentioned a couple of expert IPCC reviewers who recently reported on the climate being less sensitive to CO2.

    http://judithcurry.com/2014/03/05/lewis-and-crok-climate-less-sensitive-to-co2-than-models-suggest/#more-14838

  2. Neville says

    Of course the iconography of AGW all show there is zip to be concerned about. Like SLR, no hot spot, polar bears pop up 400 to 500% since 1960, little evidence for more extreme weather events according to the IPCC, ZIP warming since the latest PDO shift, ( Spencer’s warming attribution of 75% to PDO seems about right) all warming periods the same since 1860 according to Phil Jones and the RS and NAS report tells us we can’t change co2 levels for thousands of years anyway. Here’s the Royal Society quote from their press release about a month ago——

    Even if greenhouse gas emissions were to suddenly stop, it would take thousands of years for atmospheric CO2 to return to its levels before the industrial era. If emissions continue unabated, future climate changes will substantially exceed those that have occurred so far, the publication says.

    So now we know that everything we have been told for the last 30 years is a load of old fanny. The evidence proves it and the latest science report proves that reducing human co2 emissions to zero today wouldn’t change a thing for thousands of years. As I’ve said for years the mitigation of AGW is the greatest con and fraud for the last 100 years. Much bigger than all the corrupt ponzi schemes combined.

  4. handjive of climatefraud.inc says

    Climate Catastrophe: The Invention of the 2 Degree Target

    Two degrees is not a magical limit — it’s clearly a political goal,” says Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK).
    Schellnhuber ought to know. He is the father of the two-degree target.
    “Yes, I plead guilty,” he says, smiling.

    http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/climate-catastrophe-a-superstorm-for-global-warming-research-a-686697-8.html

    Climategate 2.0: Jones says 2-degree C limit ‘plucked out of thin air’
    If you’ve been wondering where the official 2o C ceiling on temperture increase came from, Phil Jones enlightens us.

    http://junkscience.com/2011/11/23/climategate-2-0-jones-says-2o-limit-plucked-out-of-thin-air/

    Hans von Storch “Fears Science Taking Role In Political Decision Processes” … German Expert Panel Rejects 2°C Target
    – See more at: http://notrickszone.com/2014/03/20/hans-von-storch-fears-science-taking-role-in-political-decision-processes-german-expert-panel-rejects-2c-target/#sthash.1MzQ2Cp9.dpuf
    . . . .
    Just know the 2°C is not ‘scientific’ as you read this UN-IPCC report.

    And, know the UN-IPCC is about wealth re-distribution:
    *Quote: “But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this.
    One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.”
    *Ottmar Edenhofer was appointed as joint chair of Working Group 3 at the Twenty-Ninth Session of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)

    http://www.thegwpf.org/ipcc-official-climate-policy-is-redistributing-the-worlds-wealth/

  6. hunter says

    This report is in conflict with the scientific assessment which found low probablity of bad things, and no likely attribution to CO2 in atmosphere, not to mention less sensitivity.
    It seems like the AGW hype industry is not able to handle up to date news and information very well.

  10. Neville says

    Amazing new study shows that the super expensive, totally inefficient solar industry is a bigger emitter of co2 emissions than coal generated energy.

    http://notrickszone.com/2014/03/25/analysis-shows-solar-modules-cause-more-greenhouse-gas-emissions-than-modern-coal-power-plants/

    When one thinks about poor people battling to pay their ever increasing energy bills this is just more proof that we should scrap all solar and wind subsidies immediately. If you believe the CAGW mitigation nonsense then why should we support this delusional stupidity.

  11. Neville says

    How much longer can pollies, scientists and the MSM be excused for telling lies about CAGW? We know with 100% certainty that so called modern warming is not unprecedented at all.

    To prove this we only need to look at Phil Jones’s admissions to the BBC and the ice core records from Antarctica and Greenland.
    Jones gave the warming from 1860 to 1880 as 0.163c per decade, the warming from 1910 to 1940 as 0.150 per decade and the warming from 1975 to 1998 as 0.166c per decade.

    The difference between the earliest to the latest is just 0.003 or an umeasurable three thousandths of a degree and the difference between the 1910 to 1940 to 1975 to 1998 periods is just 0.016c decade or an unmeasurable 2 hundredths of a degree C. What a fraud and con.

    But Phil Jones further told the BBC that if there was evidence that the MedWP was global then he would have to admit that the current temp was not unprecedented at all.
    Well we now know that the Pages study shows that the 20th century was the coldest period for Antarctica in the last 1873 years and many other PR SH studies show a warm MedWP as well.

    So according to Phil Jones our so called modern warming is not unprecedented at all and the other recent warm periods in the record show zip difference to 1975— 1998.
    Therefore the whole CAGW scam is easily proven to be a 100% fraud and con. Just simple maths, simple logic and reason.

  12. bazza says

    Thanks Nev for your quote from the Royal Society as above at 9:07am on 23rd:
    “Here’s the Royal Society quote from their press release about a month ago——

    Even if greenhouse gas emissions were to suddenly stop, it would take thousands of years for atmospheric CO2 to return to its levels before the industrial era. If emissions continue unabated, future climate changes will substantially exceed those that have occurred so far, the publication says.”
    Nev, mate, your contributions to climate science and to royalism are right in line with those of our pommy PM so you could well be a candidate for Sir Nev down the track.
    You never did get the counterfactual, did you. Hard to juggle two balls when one is a problem.

  13. Neville says

    Geeezzz bazza do you ever get anything right? The report is a joint effort between the UK RS and the USA NAS.
    So using your definition I must be a republican as well? And yes they do tell us that there is zero we can do to change co2 levels for thousands of years. Even if we wake up tomorrow and find some new wonder source of energy and impliment it 100% immediately we still won’t make a scrap of difference for thousands of years. GET IT YET?

  14. Glen Michel says

    OK Bazza the counter-factual then.Is Jones not telling it right? Yep a con and a fraud from the start and a dismal portrayal of science which is doing its best to brainwash the ignorant and to give succour to the social engineers.”No science is immune to the infection of politics and the corruption of power”Jacob Bronowski.

  16. Minister for Common Sense says

    http://joannenova.com.au/2014/03/science-buried-in-bureucracy-and-corruption-office-of-research-integrity-director-quits-in-disgust/#more-34441

    Having been on the receiving end of idiot abuse from your friend and mine, its comforting to come yet even more evidence as to what a compete crock is peer review and scientific integrity in general.

    Again I say current PR processes are an unsafe and inefficient way of assessing and ranking millions of dollars spent on so called research.

    Will the Governments/AG’s/ONA’s do something about it …probably not…its all too hard for the poor dears.

  17. Robert says

    “The unequivocal detection of the enhanced greenhouse effect is not likely for a decade or more.” Do we really think there is any chance McGyver won’t escape and Kojak will get shot? The first IPCC report showed early that it was all about the script.

    Then the second report concluded that “climate is expected to continue to change in the future”. Would an ensuing report conclude that the next Melbourne Cup (in the future!) will be won by an animal with more than three and less than five legs?

    By the third report they’d gone all Ivory Tower and Bayesian, but would this haughty confidence in our ability to be duped and bilked by junk numbers have been possible without the softening-up of the earlier populist reports?

    You know, my biggest objection to the IPCC is not that they are so completely political and manipulative, but that they are such slobs about it.

  18. Neville says

    A very recent debate between John Christy and Kerry Emanuel just proves how little hard info there is to back up the extremists point of view.

    http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2014/03/john_christy_an.html# Both of these men agree that we should use more nuclear power to supply our future energy but that doesn’t mean it will change the climate or temp for thousands of years. Of course it won’t change anything at all.

    But at least Emanuel seems to be one of the saner scientists from the other side. And Christy is about as good as you could get.