New IPCC report to retreat on global-warming claims

posted at 2:41 pm on September 16, 2013 by Ed Morrissey

At least according to the Daily Mail, which heralds the final draft report as a major step back for global-warming advocates. The soon-to-be-released paper from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will admit that the warming rate measured over the last several years is less than half of what had been earlier claimed, and that their models “may have exaggerated” the effects of carbon emissions in impacting climate:

The Mail on Sunday has obtained the final draft of a report to be published later this month by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the ultimate watchdog whose massive, six-yearly ‘assessments’ are accepted by environmentalists, politicians and experts as the gospel of climate science. 

They are cited worldwide to justify swingeing fossil fuel taxes and subsidies for ‘renewable’ energy.

Yet the leaked report makes the extraordinary concession that the world has been warming at only just over half the rate claimed by the IPCC in its last assessment,  published in 2007. 

Back then, it said that the planet was warming at a rate of 0.2C every decade – a figure it claimed was in line with the forecasts made by computer climate models.

But the new report says the true figure since 1951 has been only 0.12C per decade – a rate far below even the lowest computer prediction.

It has essentially flat-lined over the last 15 years, and the new low figure calls into question whether the overall impact might just be statistical noise than a real trend.  Nor is this the only concession in the final-draft version of the report:

  • They recognise the global warming ‘pause’ first reported by The Mail on Sunday last year is real – and concede that their computer models did not predict it. But they cannot explain why world average temperatures have not shown any statistically significant increase since 1997.
  • They admit large parts of the world were as warm as they are now for decades at a time between 950 and 1250 AD – centuries before the Industrial Revolution, and when the population and CO2 levels were both much lower.
  • The IPCC admits that while computer models forecast a decline in Antarctic sea ice, it has actually grown to a new record high. Again, the IPCC cannot say why.
  • A forecast in the 2007 report that hurricanes would become more intense has simply been dropped, without mention.

This comes just after the report that Arctic ice expanded dramatically over the past year, in defiance of projections that it would disappear altogether in 2013.  The underwater shelf has not grown significantly, though, which means that the ice shelf is still at risk, but it’s clearly not disappearing at the moment.

Even with all of these retreats, however, the IPCC actually increased its confidence level in its climate-change hypotheses, even though it now admits that the Earth is no warmer than it has been in pre-Industrial Age eras and that continued carbon emissions seem to have had no impact for more than 15 years.  One leading American climate researcher, Dr. Judith Curry at Georgia Tech, called this “incomprehensible”:

She said  it therefore made no sense that the IPCC was claiming that its confidence in its forecasts and conclusions has increased.

For example, in the new report, the IPCC says it is ‘extremely likely’ – 95 per cent certain – that human  influence caused more than half  the temperature rises from 1951 to 2010, up from ‘very confident’ –  90 per cent certain – in 2007.

Prof Curry said: ‘This is incomprehensible to me’ – adding that the IPCC projections are ‘overconfident’, especially given the report’s admitted areas of doubt.

This sounds more like a confidence game, both literally and figuratively.  The only way to keep momentum from slipping away from the alarmists is to proclaim in ever-louder voices the “confidence” the IPCC has in its hypotheses and models that have failed to predict climate change in just about every context alarmists have used over the last 20 years.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Love that pic.

:)

mankai on September 16, 2013 at 2:43 PM

They have cost us billions if not trillions with their stupid lies and misrepresentations. People really need to go to prison.

Blake on September 16, 2013 at 2:44 PM

Jesus, er obama, embarrassed…not

Schadenfreude on September 16, 2013 at 2:44 PM

So do they get to keep their Nobel Prize ?

burrata on September 16, 2013 at 2:45 PM

Denying AGW is like denying the holocaust or something /. Oh what a fun ride this has been.

jhffmn on September 16, 2013 at 2:47 PM

Just become there is no proof or evidence doesn’t mean it’s not happening. Also, if it gets colder that’s global warming too. /s

Oil Can on September 16, 2013 at 2:47 PM

Double down on stupid. That works every time. /

nobar on September 16, 2013 at 2:49 PM

Obama promised the earth would cool and the seas subside. . .

See how easy it was? Now, don’t over do it or its gonna get real cold!

Wander on September 16, 2013 at 2:49 PM

Bad news for Michael Mann’s suit against Steyn / NRO?

Tacitus on September 16, 2013 at 2:50 PM

It’s really hard to find any parallels with liberalism here. Except for the absolute trust in theory and as much ignorance as possible on the reality.

gwelf on September 16, 2013 at 2:52 PM

Maybe there is hope climate science will someday achieve legitimacy.

MTF on September 16, 2013 at 2:52 PM

The only way to keep momentum from slipping away from the alarmists is to proclaim in ever-louder voices the “confidence” the IPCC has in its hypotheses and models that have failed to predict climate change in just about every context alarmists have used over the last 20 years.

“The science is settled”!!!!!!

-Gang-Green

Sticks fingers in ears………lalalalaalalalalalala

antipc on September 16, 2013 at 2:54 PM

Bill Nye blames religion or something.

mankai on September 16, 2013 at 2:54 PM

Already debunked. Rose is, as usual, cherry-picking, misquoting and comparing two completely difference pieces of information. The last IPCC report claimed 0.13 degrees per decade.

And his “sea ice recovery” claim was garbage too. That’s because sea ice levels have gotten so low that the natural year-to-year variation is comparatively large. Current sea ice is 1/3 the area and 1/5 the volume it was for most of the 20th century.

Hal_10000 on September 16, 2013 at 2:55 PM

Maybe there is hope climate science will someday achieve legitimacy.

MTF on September 16, 2013 at 2:52 PM

I’ve got my unicorn ranch up for sale. Are you interested?

oldleprechaun on September 16, 2013 at 2:55 PM

But the ecofreaks,lefties,MSM and democrats will be like this,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxwVcGXhi0o

docflash on September 16, 2013 at 3:00 PM

The hoax of global warming is dead… The liberals can talk about it all day long but it is actually dead…

mnjg on September 16, 2013 at 3:02 PM

Hal_10000 on September 16, 2013 at 2:55 PM

Either you forgot the sark tag, or you may be delusional.

Mimzey on September 16, 2013 at 3:03 PM

The underwater shelf has not grown significantly, though, which means that the ice shelf is still at risk…

WTH does that mean? That ships are at risk of potentially navigating the Arctic like they have in the past? I think the word risk here is misapplied. The Arctic ice has always been rather fluid and unpredictable. A growing or shrinking “shelf” is not a good or bad thing in the short term, and only maybe a bad thing in the long term if the shelf grows uncontrollably.

NotCoach on September 16, 2013 at 3:05 PM

Hal_10000 on September 16, 2013 at 2:55 PM

Maybe you could flip that eight-ball over again and get a more coherent answer next time.

whbates on September 16, 2013 at 3:08 PM

NotCoach on September 16, 2013 at 3:05 PM

Yeah, that whole inland passage thing was just a figment of the navigators imaginations.

antipc on September 16, 2013 at 3:09 PM

The underwater shelf has not grown significantly, though, which means that the ice shelf is still at risk, but it’s clearly not disappearing at the moment.

So it’s “still at risk” even though it’s not growing or shrinking? “Still at risk” like we are still at risk of the SMOD, or an alien invasion?

slickwillie2001 on September 16, 2013 at 3:09 PM

MTF on September 16, 2013 at 2:52 PM

Let’s hope it doesn’t take as long as the transition from alchemy to chemistry.

chemman on September 16, 2013 at 3:09 PM

So it’s “still at risk” even though it’s not growing or shrinking? “Still at risk” like we are still at risk of the SMOD, or an alien invasion?

slickwillie2001 on September 16, 2013 at 3:09 PM

There is still a risk of being at risk. So in order to mitigate the possibility of the risk of being at risk we must act now!

NotCoach on September 16, 2013 at 3:11 PM

The IPCC has one goal, get their political agenda through. This “retreat” is calculated. The IPCC is not about truth, they and the warmists have explicitly encouraged dishonesty in order to the dupe the public into accepting their de-development / anti-energy objectives. Some quotes:
“A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the United States… [we] must design a stable, low-consumption economy.” -John Holdren (1973), Obama’s Science Czar
“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?” -Maurice Strong, ex UNEP Director
“Unless we announce disasters no one will listen.” -Sir John Houghton, first chairman of the ipcc
“It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.” -Paul Watson, Greenpeace
“The only way to get our society to truly change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe.” -Daniel Botkin, ex Chair of Environmental Studies, UCSB
“I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of .. how dangerous it is.” -Al Gore
“We have to offer up scary scenarios… each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective [dishonest] and being honest [ineffective].” -Stephen Schneider, lead ipcc author, 1989
“It is clear that 1998 did not match the record warmth of 1934.” -James Hansen, NASA

anotherJoe on September 16, 2013 at 3:13 PM

Current sea ice is 1/3 the area and 1/5 the volume it was for most of the 20th century.

Hal_10000 on September 16, 2013 at 2:55 PM

While that sounds serious the 20th century is a minor amount of time compared to the age of the earth. We only have reasonable data for less than half the 20th century. So we really know next to nothing about Arctic and Antarctic ice. To make predictions based on such paltry evidence isn’t science it is politics and fear mongering.

chemman on September 16, 2013 at 3:14 PM

The real tragedy is that the Global Warming hysteria is sucking massive resources away from actual environmental problems. Overfishing, anybody…? Fukushima…? Hello…? (crickets…)

But of course the “environmentalists” have always been big on drama and small on actually, rationally, helping the environment.

ZenDraken on September 16, 2013 at 3:15 PM

Hide The Decline.

John the Libertarian on September 16, 2013 at 3:19 PM

next thing you know they’ll tell me there’s no actual proof I’m a racist

and maybe they’ll admit I’m not actually involved in a war on wimmin

nor do I hate immigrants

Let’s face it, if they’ll lie about weather they’ll lie about anything.

DanMan on September 16, 2013 at 3:21 PM

Where’s Oakland to confirm that this just confirms that the AGW “scientists” have been right all along?

Monkeytoe on September 16, 2013 at 3:22 PM

The price of skittles has fallen dramatically in the world wide market.

Kissmygrits on September 16, 2013 at 3:28 PM

And his “sea ice recovery” claim was garbage too. That’s because sea ice levels have gotten so low that the natural year-to-year variation is comparatively large. Current sea ice is 1/3 the area and 1/5 the volume it was for most of the 20th century.

Hal_10000 on September 16, 2013 at 2:55 PM

I would like to see where you are getting your data from for this claim. Below is a link showing the sea ice extent going back to 1979. That is when we started monitoring the sea ice extent with satellites. The graph shows minimal change since 1979. And the extent receded enough in the 1950s for ships to be able to navigate the Arctic Circle. So when, exactly, was the sea ice 5 times its current volume, and 3 times its extent? The last ice age?

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg

NotCoach on September 16, 2013 at 3:30 PM

So, Hal, are you claiming that the IPCC’s new report doesn’t say those quotes? That everything is all hunky dory in the land of the limber lost known as AGW promotion?

Vanceone on September 16, 2013 at 3:30 PM

Hal_10000 on September 16, 2013 at 2:55 PM

The article you link to has the crazy claim about heat lurking in the deep ocean. Wow, that heat is tricky. Deep ocean temperature measurement were remarkably sparse and used vastly differing methods prior to 2007, when the Argo network was fully deployed. Not a lot of time to come to any conclusions about the deep ocean.

Fantastic pseudo-science claims will not restore the credibility of the Cult of Thermageddon.

theCork on September 16, 2013 at 3:31 PM

So, Hal, are you claiming that the IPCC’s new report doesn’t say those quotes? That everything is all hunky dory in the land of the limber lost known as AGW promotion?

Vanceone on September 16, 2013 at 3:30 PM

I think Hal is a hit and run poster. Kind of stupid because such tactics do nothing but help us reinforce our own position. No response or debate means loser whiffing.

NotCoach on September 16, 2013 at 3:32 PM

Prison time.

John the Libertarian on September 16, 2013 at 3:32 PM

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg

NotCoach on September 16, 2013 at 3:30 PM

You seriously have to stop letting supporting documentation get in the way of making your point sir :P

/s

Defenestratus on September 16, 2013 at 3:34 PM

I really like how, in this Daily Mail article, these two Arctic photos from August of last year & then this year.. strongly make our case: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2415191/Global-cooling-Arctic-ice-caps-grows-60-global-warming-predictions.html

Note that these two Arctic photos were also used as the centerpiece of the British UKIP member Nigel Farage’s presentation to the Euro Parliament trashing the weeny warmists of Europe: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-Rojgu6E1U

anotherJoe on September 16, 2013 at 3:35 PM

So does this mean they’re deniers of climate change?

phatfawzi on September 16, 2013 at 3:38 PM

So does this mean they’re deniers of climate change?

well there’s deniers and there’s those that that deny the deniers but what we have here is denier deniers, not double deniers but deniers squared. One of the more complex type of individuals known to have the ability to communicate without having anything to actually say.

DanMan on September 16, 2013 at 3:45 PM

Science is binary. Science is demonstrable, and repeatable. There’s no room for beliefs. It either is or it isn’t. There is either proof, or there’s no proof. Its time these “scientists” remembered that.

Iblis on September 16, 2013 at 3:46 PM

Again, the IPCC cannot say why.

Try, “Because we were wrong.” That should work.

The Rogue Tomato on September 16, 2013 at 3:49 PM

Hide The Decline.

John the Libertarian on September 16, 2013 at 3:19 PM

Of course, Hide the Decline was made famous by Phil Jones’ 1999 (private but leaked in Climategate) email to hockey stick inventor Michael Mann, where Phil wrote: “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.”

Here’s Minnesotans For Global Warming’s satirical and fun to watch music video Hide the Decline: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMqc7PCJ-nc

anotherJoe on September 16, 2013 at 3:50 PM

Waaaaay past timeto get the U.S. out of the UN, and the UN out of the U.S..

M240H on September 16, 2013 at 3:50 PM

Just like Peak Oil, Global Warming has run it’s sad pathetic course. It was pretty much the same thing. They both just wanted to make a fortune and have 75% of the people on the planet die to get to a “sustainable population level.”

Bring back the Acid Rain scare!

Save the Killer Bees!

etc……..

Johnnyreb on September 16, 2013 at 3:57 PM

Where’s Oakland to confirm that this just confirms that the AGW “scientists” have been right all along?

Monkeytoe on September 16, 2013 at 3:22 PM

Okie is a one-issue poster, so it takes a while for him to get the Google alert that there’s an AGW headline at HA.

slickwillie2001 on September 16, 2013 at 4:01 PM

The Catastrophic, Anthropogenic, Global Warming hypothesis has been falsified on its own terms. In real science, that takes us back to the null hypothesis ie. square one. But the warmists are frauds, and will double-down while denouncing the rules of scientific inquiry as ‘anti-science.’

RadClown on September 16, 2013 at 4:03 PM

Hide. The. Decline.

Kafir on September 16, 2013 at 4:12 PM

What will the wannabe totalitarians do if they can’t use Gorebull Warming any longer?

petefrt on September 16, 2013 at 4:25 PM

The comments on that Arctic Ice story are kinda sad. Lots global warming zealots reduced to saying Al Gore isn’t an expert, and that skeptics are using him as a straw man.

hawksruleva on September 16, 2013 at 4:29 PM

Maybe in the next report they can put up actual climate numbers showing that the globe has been cooling the last decade.

Boy, won’t that be fun?

Global Warming is causing Global Cooling!

Climate Change!

Ignoring the fact the climate has always been changing, and I do hope that we aren’t on the null hypothesis timeline, because if we are, we have seen the last of the good old warm years…

ajacksonian on September 16, 2013 at 4:29 PM

What will the wannabe totalitarians do if they can’t use Gorebull Warming any longer?

petefrt on September 16, 2013 at 4:25 PM

Hopefully they won’t decide to just disband Congress and stop holding elections. Because right now, Uncle Sam could be a really good dictator if takes a liking to it.

hawksruleva on September 16, 2013 at 4:31 PM

I’m going to set the thermostat on 72deg today just to celebrate.

slickwillie2001 on September 16, 2013 at 4:45 PM

Can we stop throwing money away by subsidizing the sale of certain cars with our tax money yet?

slickwillie2001 on September 16, 2013 at 4:48 PM

Current sea ice is 1/3 the area and 1/5 the volume it was for most of the 20th century.

Hal_10000

And yet,somehow, life as we know it continues on just fine.

xblade on September 16, 2013 at 5:02 PM

Retreat?

Never. They will spin, obfuscate, bloviate, and continue to push an ideological driven solution to redistribute wealth with a fabricated and overhyped ‘problem’ with its foundation on ‘consensus’ among other ethically questionable scientists’. Key in the spin – the move from the ‘hockey stick’ to the jai-lai cesta.

Athos on September 16, 2013 at 5:16 PM

No reason to be alarmed. It’s just the science settling….

Axeman on September 16, 2013 at 6:19 PM

AGW is not “science”. It’s a faith-based religion. All the ‘we don’t knows, we can’t proves’ must be accepted on faith alone.

GarandFan on September 16, 2013 at 6:34 PM

Next Panic Meme:

Climate Stasis!

Lack of Change is even more dangerous than [the mythical] Change was!

profitsbeard on September 16, 2013 at 6:37 PM

So HAL -1000 lays his egg and runs.

Big surprise./

that their models “may have exaggerated” the effects of carbon emissions in impacting climate:

Yeh. What we said.

CW on September 16, 2013 at 6:57 PM

Hal tell me about those Hurricanes ….and no not the college football team.

CW on September 16, 2013 at 6:58 PM

So can we get rid of those ridiculous “rules” on carbon dioxide emissions from power plants, and start building some new plants before the lights go out?

Steve Z on September 16, 2013 at 7:31 PM

I think Hal is a hit and run poster. Kind of stupid because such tactics do nothing but help us reinforce our own position. No response or debate means loser whiffing.

NotCoach on September 16, 2013 at 3:32 PM

He was last seen alone aboard a spacecraft flying past Jupiter, fighting with a 1970′s vintage computer. He will be reincarnated as a star-child in 2101: A Space Odessey, when the rest of us will be fleeing advancing glaciers.

Steve Z on September 16, 2013 at 7:40 PM

I wonder if and how this will affect ALGORE and his fellow travelers?
I’m expecting he’ll be looking for a moneymaking angle regardless of the truth.

Missilengr on September 16, 2013 at 8:19 PM

Can we stop throwing money away by subsidizing the sale of certain cars with our tax money yet?

slickwillie2001 on September 16, 2013 at 4:48 PM

Speaking of electric cars, a study finds the driving of e-cars creates more pollution (and CO2?) than the driving of gas cars, and this doesn’t even consider the high carbon cost of battery manufacture and disposal, yet the hockeyschtick article notes another study: “Anders Hammer Strømman and his colleagues at NTNU have, for example, discovered that the building of an electric car causes about twice as much greenhouse gases to be emitted as during the construction of a petrol- or diesel-powered vehicle.” It’s just insane that we are paying huge subsidies to produce these vehicles… that pollute more? It’s lunacy: http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/09/new-study-finds-electric-vehicles-are.html

anotherJoe on September 16, 2013 at 8:24 PM

Totally confident in their methods, projections, and report validity.

Except for the stuff that was unsound. And untrue. And didn’t happen. And was totally wrong.

Other than that…Republicans TOTALLY cause kittens to die. By increasing the CO2 levels of the planet. By…their evil-ness.

…& stuff.

a5minmajor on September 16, 2013 at 8:34 PM

Fantastic pseudo-science claims will not restore the credibility of the Cult of Thermageddon.

theCork on September 16, 2013 at 3:31 PM

If you hated the News Release, you’ll love the book.

From one of the reviews:

Getting through the author’s activism style of writing that seemed to border on fanaticism was admittedly difficult, especially the proliferation of terms and phrases used against oil and the two Bush Administrations, little of which helped establish the book’s credibility to me, the layperson. However, there is definitely a message and something to learn. After all, legions of people, especially so many scientists, just can’t be suffering from some kind of mass delusion that leads them to believe that the earth is in danger. And after all, it’s oil interests, whether American or global, that has the most to lose from ecological policy changes.

Cult.

More “fun facts”.

Thermageddon? Postponed!
It might get chilly for a bit
By Andrew Orlowski, 9th September 2009
Last week a UK tribunal ruled that belief in manmade global warming had the same status as a religious conviction, such as transubstantiation. True believers in the hypothesis will need mountains of faith in the years ahead.

The New Scientist has given weight to the prediction that the planet is in for a cool 20 years – defying the computer models and contemporary climate theory. It’s “bad timing”, admits the magazine’s environmental correspondent, Fred Pearce.

Third time makes the charm:

In 2000, Time magazine named Robert Hunter one of the 10 eco-heroes of the 20th century, recognizing him–along with the likes of Rachel Carson and Jacques Cousteau–as a pioneer in ecological activism and a cofounder of Greenpeace. In this book, Hunter draws on the experience of a lifetime to argue that time is running out for the Earth. He and many respected scientists believe that all environmental lines will be crossed around the year 2030, when climate change will be so extreme as to be irreversible and Thermageddon may ensue. Reviewing the evidence amassed by scientists around the world and cogently analyzing the politics surrounding the issue of climate change, Hunter also underscores the role each of us plays …

Well, I don’t know about Cousteau, but Carson was lying, so I guess they are alike!

(over-the-quota link: href=”http://www.forbes.com/sites/henrymiller/2012/09/05/rachel-carsons-deadly-fantasies/”)

Carson’s proselytizing and advocacy raised substantial anxiety about DDT and led to bans in most of the world and to restrictions on other chemical pesticides. But the fears she raised were based on gross misrepresentations and scholarship so atrocious that, if Carson were an academic, she would be guilty of egregious academic misconduct. Her observations about DDT have been condemned by many scientists. In the words of Professor Robert H. White-Stevens, an agriculturist and biology professor at Rutgers University, “If man were to follow the teachings of Miss Carson, we would return to the Dark Ages, and the insects and diseases and vermin would once again inherit the earth.”…A basic principle of toxicology is that the dose makes the poison, and with modern regimens both environmental and human exposures would be very low. But “Silent Spring” condemned essentially all use of chemical insecticides and rejected the firmly established principle that products with known but small risks can offset far larger risks and provide a net safety benefit.

AesopFan on September 17, 2013 at 12:11 AM

anotherJoe on September 16, 2013 at 8:24 PM

Electric cars allow one thing petrol cars don’t. When all your carbon sources come from a single spigot, it’s easier for the government to measure and control the flow.

As dirty as they may be, electric cars allow one source to more efficiently calculate your “carbon footprint”. Being a hypocrite for the cause and lying to us dupes is actually a beatitude to progressives.

Western Civilization now battles with two forces that can lie with impunity, Muslims under Taqiyya, and Progressives under Everything-for-the-Cause.

Axeman on September 17, 2013 at 8:40 AM

David. Please shut Hal down again before you leave the ship.

BruceB on September 17, 2013 at 9:47 AM