IPCC AR5: Summary for Policymakers here! Ocean warming; glaciers shrinking; sea level rise highest in 2000 years

Well it’s here!

I’ve downloaded it here: WGIAR5-SPM_Approved27Sep2013.

Highlights I can see:

1/ Ocean warming dominates – “Ocean warming dominates the increase in energy stored in the climate system, accounting for more than 90% of the energy accumulated between 1971 and 2010..” page SPM-4

2/ Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets losing mass, glaciers continuing to shrink [page SPM-5].

3/ Rate of sea level rise since mid-19th century larger than the mean rate during the previous two millenia [page SPM-6]

4/ Atmospheric concentrations of CO2, methane and nitrous oxide have increased to levels unprecedented in the last 800,00 years [page SPM-7]

 

34 thoughts on “IPCC AR5: Summary for Policymakers here! Ocean warming; glaciers shrinking; sea level rise highest in 2000 years

  1. john byatt says:

    but but but wasn’t it only from models?

    The Working Group I contribution to the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) considers new
    evidence of climate change based on many independent scientific analyses from observations of
    the climate system, paleoclimate archives, theoretical studies of climate processes and simulations using climate models

    • Bill Jamison says:

      Mostly from the models not only from the models. Projections of future warming are only from models.

      • john byatt says:

        You have this arse about the projections come from paleoclimate data,physics and others mentioned, these all confirm the amount of warming within the confidence levels

        We know the amount of warming we are in for from those studies

        the models only try to capture the rate of warming including natural variability

        is there anything about this you have actually read ?

        • john byatt says:

          @RC

          This all makes sense, but will the IPCC report, which influences investment and policy decisions, reflect your statement that the reasons for mismatch between modeling and observation is an active research question? Will it retain the high degree of confidence regarding catastrophic anthropogenic global warming without clear answers for the responsibility of the mismatch?

          [Response: You are not following the argument. That models and observations do not match in all respects is normal and expected. It was true for TAR, AR4 and will be for AR5. There is nothing new in this general issue. If you think that policies are being made based on exact numbers coming from a climate model, I’d have to ask for some evidence. Polices are being made (or at least considered) on the strongly evidence based premise that climate sensitivity is non-negligible, but that conclusion doesn’t depend on models as much as paleo-climate and so is unlikely to change. PS. I have no idea what you mean by “high confidence” in “catastrophic anthropogenic global warming”. – gavin]

      • Bill Jamison says:

        No we don’t know the amount of warming we’re in for from paleo studies. All we can do is use models to estimate the warming but that’s assuming the models are based on valid estimates and that assumptions are also valid.

        If we understood the climate system well enough to model it accurately then we wouldn’t need 20+ different climate models to create an ensemble mean. Climate scientists can’t even agree on the climate sensitivity to use in models.

        • zoot says:

          Now you’re just babbling.

        • Bill Jamison says:

          Then zoot please explain why we need 20+ climate models. This should be interesting.

        • john byatt says:

          more nonsense from bill

          correct model predictions
          That the globe would warm, and about how fast, and about how much.
          That the troposphere would warm and the stratosphere would cool.
          That nighttime temperatures would increase more than daytime temperatures.
          That winter temperatures would increase more than summer temperatures.

          Polar amplification (greater temperature increase as you move toward the poles).
          That the Arctic would warm faster than the Antarctic.
          The magnitude (0.3 K) and duration (two years) of the cooling from the Mt. Pinatubo eruption.
          They made a retrodiction for Last Glacial Maximum sea surface temperatures which was inconsistent with the paleo evidence, and better paleo evidence showed the models were right.

          They predicted a trend significantly different and differently signed from UAH satellite temperatures, and then a bug was found in the satellite data.
          The amount of water vapor feedback due to ENSO.
          The response of southern ocean winds to the ozone hole.
          The expansion of the Hadley cells.

          The poleward movement of storm tracks.
          The rising of the tropopause and the effective radiating altitude.
          The clear sky super greenhouse effect from increased water vapor in the tropics.
          The near constancy of relative humidity on global average.
          That coastal upwelling of ocean water would increase.

  2. 2012 and all that says:

    It’s all lies designed to destroy western capitalism. This proves nothing but their Communism !!!!!!

    Now we have that out of the way, this is scary and I cannot believe with these conclusions in mind that there will still be deniers one month from now.

  3. john byatt says:

    Climate council working on sum,mary

    One hour ago, the IPCC-Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has published the first part of its 5th assessment report – presenting the most exhaustive and authoritative state of climate science to date: http://www.ipcc.ch

    We are busily summarising it for you into a short report and graphics for the coming days. However, the key messages are:

    1) Our understanding of the climate system has only continued to strengthen.

    2) Scientists are more certain than ever that the warming since 1950 has been caused primarily by human activities.

    3) A warming climate is increasing the frequency and severity of many extreme weather events creating risks for human well-being.

    4) Stabilising the climate system will require substantial and sustained reductions of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions.

    You might have a sense of deja vu? Yes, scientists have been telling us this information for many years. However, the risks are clearer than ever. Scientists are more certain that climate change is caused by humans, than that smoking causes lung cancer.

  4. john byatt says:

    The planet is not self regulating for temperature
    IPCC
    The net feedback from the combined effect of changes in water vapour, and differences
    between atmospheric and surface warming is extremely likely positive and therefore amplifies
    changes in climate. The net radiative feedback due to all cloud types combined is likely
    positive. Uncertainty in the sign and magnitude of the cloud feedback is due primarily to
    continuing uncertainty in the impact of warming on low clouds. {7.2}
    • The equilibrium climate sensitivity quantifies the response of the climate system to constant
    radiative forcing on multi-century time scales. It is defined as the change in global mean
    surface temperature at equilibrium that is caused by a doubling of the atmospheric CO2
    concentration. Equilibrium climate sensitivity is likely in the range 1.5°C to 4.5°C (high
    confidence), extremely unlikely less than 1°C (high confidence), and very unlikely greater than
    6°C (medium confidence)
    16. The lower temperature limit of the assessed likely range is thus
    less than the 2°C in the AR4, but the upper limit is the same. This assessment reflects
    improved understanding, the extended temperature record in the atmosphere and ocean, and
    new estimates of radiative forcing. {TFE6.1, Figure 1; Box 12.2}
    • The rate and magnitude of global climate change is determined by radiative forcing, climate
    feedbacks and the storage of energy by the climate system. Estimates of these quantities for
    recent decades are consistent with the assessed likely range of the equilibrium climate

  5. john byatt says:

    @RC

    Conclusion

    The new IPCC report gives no reason for complacency – even if politically motivated “climate skeptics” have tried to give this impression ahead of its release with frantic PR activities. Many wrong things have been written which now collapse in the light of the actual report.

    The opposite is true. Many developments are now considered to be more urgent than in the fourth IPCC report, released in 2007. That the IPCC often needs to correct itself “upward” is an illustration of the fact that it tends to produce very cautious and conservative statements, due to its consensus structure – the IPCC statements form a kind of lowest common denominator on which many researchers can agree. The New York Times has given some examples for the IPCC “bending over backward to be scientifically conservative”. Despite or perhaps even because of this conservatism, IPCC reports are extremely valuable – as long as one is aware of it.

  6. Bill Jamison says:

    You guys seem to think this new report is somehow important as if the world is suddenly going to wake up and reduce emissions. Well I got news for you – it ain’t gonna happen. China and India aren’t going to reduce emissions they are going to continue to expand their economies and continue to build coal fired power plants. Emissions WILL continue to increase for the immediate future.

    Maybe things will start to change in 20 or 30 years or maybe not. Nothing is going to change in the short term that is certain.

    • zoot says:

      Sounding a bit desperate there, William.

      • Bill Jamison says:

        Desperate? Why would I be desperate? I understand climate change and I understand the costs to reducing emissions. I also understand the political issues preventing anything substantial from being done. Sheesh all you have to do is look at the most recent election in Australia to see the issue for yourselves.

        At least Nick gets it. As he put it “the die is cast”.

        • zoot says:

          Delusional as well.
          “I understand climate change”??? Sunshine, you don’t understand a thing.
          You’re working from ideology, not reality. Understanding is not a feature of your universe.

          … And you still haven’t told us who dresses you in the morning.

    • Nick says:

      No it ain’t gonna happen fast enough, the die is cast, and the dominant energy bloc still directs global energy policies its way. That is nothing to celebrate. In fact it’s testimony to the triumph of greed over good sense. However the report provides more pressure, and local movements are gaining strength because new coal proposals increasingly threaten community autonomy and health. And it’s happening in China, too.

      China will wind back on coal, because it faces many more pressures from local pollution than Australia: it is massively polluted and facing increasing internal pressure from its huge population to do something about it. As well, they have no desire to become massive coal importers: the infrastructure is already clogged, and they do not want a massive import bill. They have binned many coal power projects.

      Australia is likely to be caught out with too many coal projects on the go..hopefully before the idiocy in the Galilee Basin gets too far. There is a great clamor to get going on these projects with the arrival of the new idiocracy in Canberra, but they may be launched into a glutted market with declining prices.

      • J Giddeon says:

        “No it ain’t gonna happen fast enough,”

        Or at all. The cost of “doing something” is too high if that ‘something’ is going to be even vaguely effective. A recent OECD report, done in conjunction with Aust Treasury, opined that a tax that would achieve the 5% reduction would have needed to be somewhere between $20 and $75/tonne depending on the parameters attached ie the policy advanced by the ALP last month would not have gone within cooee of achieving its aims and yet even that was unaccepted to the Aust electorate.

        http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2013/9/17/policy-politics/well-be-ruined-says-oecd-or-do-they

        Nowhere is there the stomach or will to risk economic growth to achieve nebulous reductions in CO2e when the benefits are so far off and so uncertain. The IPCC, the hockey team and all the other catastrophists can come up with all the “scary scenarios” they like but this basic truism won’t change.

        That’s why AR5, like all its predecessors, is an exercise in futility.

  7. J Giddeon says:

    The most concise appraisal of AR5 SPM I’ve seen to date:

    “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.”

    Prof. Ross McKitrick

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

%d bloggers like this: