New IPCC findings a 'rebuff to alarmists'

[mellie]

THE "sensible" and "moderate" predictions expected to be made in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's fifth update report tomorrow would open the way for more constructive discussions on how best to combat climate change, according to Bjorn Lomborg, author of The Skeptical Environmentalist

Dr Lomborg, adjunct professor at the Copenhagen Business School, said the anticipated temperature and sea-level rise in the new report did not support earlier "alarmist predictions".

"This is a chance to steer the climate conversation in a more realistic and constructive direction."

He said the report's June draft showed similar temperature rises to earlier reports, at about 1C to 3.7C by the end of the century.

For sea-level rise, the IPCC had added 3cm to 20cm to the projections to take into account melted ice from glaciers, leading to a higher total estimate of 40cm to 62cm by the end of the century.

"This shows that the IPCC's predictions do not support alarmist predictions of global temperature rise that are often in the order of 5C and 1m to 2m of sea-level rise," Dr Lomborg said in a statement. "These sensible and moderate findings contradict the alarmist rhetoric.

"Since 1980, the models have overestimated actual temperature rise by 71 to 159 per cent. This does not mean there is no global warming. It just makes the alarmist scenarios ever more implausible."

The new report was a chance to change the climate conversation from being "dominated by end-of-the-world thinking" to focusing on global warming being a problem.

"While panic is a great way to raise awareness and to win votes, it is a terrible starting point for making smart policies," he said.

Rather than continuing their focus on carbon taxes and subsidies for renewables, political decision-makers should pursue a new approach. "What we need is investment in research and development to reduce green energy's cost and boost its scale," he said.

Continues....




http://climatechangedispatch.com/11650- ... mists.html

[Bart]

but but but but
aparrently it is trendy to be a flat earth global warming believer


Bet they also believe in marvel heroes, the tooth fairy and santa and pigs flying!

[Super Nova]

but but but but
aparrently it is trendy to be a flat earth global warming believer


Bet they also believe in marvel heroes, the tooth fairy and santa and pigs flying!

There's no Santa?

[Super Nova]

Do you know what I hate the most here at PA?

Do you?

Admitting to RS and IQ they were right and I was wrong............ hate that.

This is a real concern.

"Which leaves the IPCC in a dilemma: does it ’fess up and effectively put itself out of business? Or does it brazen it out for a few more years, in the hope that a compliant media and an eco-brainwashed populace will be too stupid to notice? So far, it looks as if it prefers the second option – a high-risk strategy"

To a few distinguished scientists, this will hardly come as news. For years they have insisted that “sensitivity” – the degree to which the climate responds to increases in atmospheric CO₂ – is far lower than the computer models imagined. In the past, their voices have been suppressed by the bluster and skulduggery we saw exposed in the Climategate emails. From grant-hungry science institutions and environmentalist pressure groups to carbon traders, EU commissars, and big businesses with their snouts in the subsidies trough, many vested interests have much to lose should the global warming gravy train be derailed.

This is why the latest Assessment Report is proving such a headache to the IPCC. It’s the first in its history to admit what its critics have said for years: global warming did “pause” unexpectedly in 1998 and shows no sign of resuming. And, other than an ad hoc new theory about the missing heat having been absorbed by the deep ocean, it cannot come up with a convincing explanation why. Coming from a sceptical blog none of this would be surprising. But from the IPCC, it’s dynamite: the equivalent of the Soviet politburo announcing that command economies may not after all be the most efficient way of allocating resources.

Which leaves the IPCC in a dilemma: does it ’fess up and effectively put itself out of business? Or does it brazen it out for a few more years, in the hope that a compliant media and an eco-brainwashed populace will be too stupid to notice? So far, it looks as if it prefers the second option – a high-risk strategy. Gone are the days when all anybody read of its Assessment Reports were the sexed-up “Summary for Policymakers”. Today, thanks to the internet, sceptical inquirers such as Donna Laframboise (who revealed that some 40 per cent of the IPCC’s papers came not from peer-reviewed journals but from Greenpeace and WWF propaganda) will be going through every chapter with a fine toothcomb.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/james ... -the-heat/

[Super Nova]

So I will not admit that.... got you.

Here is an article from a SciAm and I guess we should wait for the report on Monday.

The key message is:
"The good news is that extreme global warming by century's end, anything above 3 degrees C or more, seems "extremely unlikely," in the words of the IPCC."

It is real, it is not the end of the worlds as first thought however we need to do something about it.

Global Warming Is Real IPCC Repeats, Now Can We Do Something about It?

The IPCC notes again that climate change is unequivocal so the question becomes what will be done to restrain its impacts.

Global warming is "unequivocal." Sea levels are creeping up at the fastest rate in 2,000 years. Concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere have reached "levels unprecedented in at least the last 800,000 years" (or before modern humans evolved). Most importantly "human influence on the climate system is clear" and "continued emissions of greenhouse gases will cause further warming." Those are some of the key messages in the "Summary for Policymakers" of the physical science of global warming from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released on September 27.

"The planet is red" in a global map of the change in average surface temperatures, noted Swiss climate scientist Thomas Stocker, co-chair of IPCC Working Group I responsible for this summary at a press conference. "The world is warming."

In the time since the 2007 version of this report, the human effect on the climate has grown more than 40 percent stronger, thanks to continued emissions of greenhouse gases and more precision in measurements, with carbon dioxide leading the charge. That molecule—released by the gigaton from human activities like fossil fuel burning and clearing forests—causes the bulk of global warming. The good news is that extreme global warming by century's end, anything above 3 degrees C or more, seems "extremely unlikely," in the words of the IPCC.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... ng-is-real

[IQS.RLOW]

You mean we don't have to spend multi trillions of dollars on a non-existent problem?

Did you just try to sell an insurance policy that was worth fuck all? I'm sure there must be some rules about that somewhere...imagine if you had been successful?

What sort of damage can action on a non-problem do?
What are the consequences of action that aren't needed?
What are the consequences of diverting money that can be used to save lives rather than prop up AGW organisations?

It seems that the precautionary principle only works in one direction and should be scrapped as being dangerous to humanity.

[Super Nova]

You mean we don't have to spend multi trillions of dollars on a non-existent problem?

The problem exists it is just the rate of change is not as forecast. We need to act but we can do so in a more controlled and impactful way. we don't have to destroy our economies to do so which is your biggest concern.

we will need to change our behaviours, we have some time to do this but we need to plan now and start to act.

Did you just try to sell an insurance policy that was worth fuck all? I'm sure there must be some rules about that somewhere...imagine if you had been successful?

It was a risk mitigation strategy, not an insurance policy.

The risk are there just the risk in the shorter term has been revised. that means we could have a different approach to the mitigation give we have a little more time.

What sort of damage can action on a non-problem do?

There is a problem. The urgency has changed.

What are the consequences of action that aren't needed?

Waste of money.

What are the consequences of diverting money that can be used to save lives rather than prop up AGW organisations?

Saving money.

You were advocating a do nothing policy and adaption only. We will need to mitigate the risks so the planet doesn't end up uninhabitable. That is the real issue.

It seems that the precautionary principle only works in one direction and should be scrapped as being dangerous to humanity.

No. We would need to apply this principle to your world view.

[Rorschach]

Do you know what I hate the most here at PA?

Do you?

Admitting to RS and IQ they were right and I was wrong............ hate that.

This is a real concern.

"Which leaves the IPCC in a dilemma: does it ’fess up and effectively put itself out of business? Or does it brazen it out for a few more years, in the hope that a compliant media and an eco-brainwashed populace will be too stupid to notice? So far, it looks as if it prefers the second option – a high-risk strategy"

To a few distinguished scientists, this will hardly come as news. For years they have insisted that “sensitivity” – the degree to which the climate responds to increases in atmospheric CO₂ – is far lower than the computer models imagined. In the past, their voices have been suppressed by the bluster and skulduggery we saw exposed in the Climategate emails. From grant-hungry science institutions and environmentalist pressure groups to carbon traders, EU commissars, and big businesses with their snouts in the subsidies trough, many vested interests have much to lose should the global warming gravy train be derailed.

This is why the latest Assessment Report is proving such a headache to the IPCC. It’s the first in its history to admit what its critics have said for years: global warming did “pause” unexpectedly in 1998 and shows no sign of resuming. And, other than an ad hoc new theory about the missing heat having been absorbed by the deep ocean, it cannot come up with a convincing explanation why. Coming from a sceptical blog none of this would be surprising. But from the IPCC, it’s dynamite: the equivalent of the Soviet politburo announcing that command economies may not after all be the most efficient way of allocating resources.

Which leaves the IPCC in a dilemma: does it ’fess up and effectively put itself out of business? Or does it brazen it out for a few more years, in the hope that a compliant media and an eco-brainwashed populace will be too stupid to notice? So far, it looks as if it prefers the second option – a high-risk strategy. Gone are the days when all anybody read of its Assessment Reports were the sexed-up “Summary for Policymakers”. Today, thanks to the internet, sceptical inquirers such as Donna Laframboise (who revealed that some 40 per cent of the IPCC’s papers came not from peer-reviewed journals but from Greenpeace and WWF propaganda) will be going through every chapter with a fine toothcomb.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/james ... -the-heat/

I think you should stick with this assessment and not backslide SN.