More IPCC report reactions

http://climateaudit.org/2013/09/30/marotzkes-broken-promise/
http://climateaudit.org/2013/09/30/ipcc-disappears-the-discrepancy/
http://judithcurry.com/2013/09/28/ipcc-diagnosis-permanent-paradigm-paralysis/
http://judithcurry.com/2013/09/29/how-the-ipcc-forgot-to-mention-the-pause/
http://judithcurry.com/2013/09/30/ipccs-pause-logic/
http://judithcurry.com/2013/10/01/ipcc-solar-variations-dont-matter/
http://judithcurry.com/2013/10/01/negotiating-the-ipcc-spm/
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/09/27/kelly-mcparland-the-uns-latest-climate-change-report-could-serve-to-close-the-door-on-windbaggery/
http://opinion.financialpost.com/2013/09/30/ipcc-climate-global-warming/
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/09/ipcc-we-dont-need-no-stinking-climate-sensitivity/
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/09/the-global-warming-they-fear-is-not-based-upon-physical-first-principles/
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.ca/2013/09/five-points-on-ipcc-report-wonky-long.html

From the last article:
"5. There is not a strong scientific basis for claiming a discernible effect of human-caused climate change on hurricanes, floods, tornadoes or drought."

What's left for CAGW?  Maybe only the AGW part, in part....

New Summary for Policy Makers (SPM) from the IPCC

With the MSM falling over themselves to proclaim how certain scientists are that man is causing global warming...

Some reactions:
http://judithcurry.com/2013/09/27/95/
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2013/09/27/9000-nobel-pretenders/
http://www.staatvanhetklimaat.nl/2013/09/27/ar5-gives-no-best-estimate-for-climate-sensitivity-breaks-with-a-long-tradition-good-news-is-hidden-from-policy-makers/
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2013/9/27/thoughts-on-the-spm.html
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2013/09/27/side-by-side-comparison-of-draft-and-final-ipcc-ar5-spm-on-warming-plateau-and-attribution/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/27/ipcc-fails-to-come-clean-over-global-temperature-standstill/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/27/new-ipcc-climate-report-already-obsolete-2/

I think it also helpful to note that there is a much less emphasis on GHG (greenhouse gases) such as CO2, but also on "other" anthroprogenic changes.  As touched on by Judy Curry post, what will the IPCC say when the current 10 year negative trend (not pause) extends out to 15 or 20 years (as I think it will)?  Will they admit that they were wrong?...not bloody likely.

As I comment in the national post article: This report is out of date already, stillborn, as recent studies that didn't make the deadline for incorporation into this report ARE cast doubt on the severity of AGW. The only way that the IPCC can raise their certainty is by being more certain about a more vague criteria...

But one of my favourite reaction is Ross McKitrick's comment here:

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.

Questions for the IPCC

Marcel Krok, a Dutch scientist and blogger has an interesting post where he lists five questions he would put to the IPCC.  There are probably many a skeptic would like to see definitive answers to these questions.

Dr. Curry has a cross post where she adds one more...

Next IPCC report

Most of you are probably not aware of this, but the UN organization for Climate Change, the IPCC,  is shortly issuing their next report (done every four years), AR5, supposedly showing the current state of climate science.   As you might expect, there is a lot of controversy about it with various "leaks" coming out.   If you're interested, here are some articles about it:

http://opinion.financialpost.com/2013/09/16/ipcc-models-getting-mushy/
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/09/16/matt-gurney-climate-scientists-it-wont-matter-if-youre-right-in-the-end-if-no-one-believes-you/
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324549004579067532485712464.html?mod=WSJEurope_hps_MIDDLE_Video_second
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/17/ridleys-riposte-to-john-abraham/
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.ca/2013/09/global-temperature-trends-and-ipcc.html
http://judithcurry.com/2013/09/17/consensus-denialism/
http://judithcurry.com/2013/09/15/leaked-ipcc-report-discussed-in-the-msm/
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/09/a-turning-point-for-the-ipcc-and-humanity/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/15/the-state-of-climate-science-fluxed-up/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/15/one-step-forward-two-steps-back/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/16/lomborg-climate-models-are-running-way-too-hot/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/16/what-people-will-read-and-see-with-the-ipccs-lead-off-illustration-from-the-ar5-spm/

That's for starters...

Land cover/use change

Above is a graphical representation of how land masses have had their cover type and uses changed over the course of the last few hundred years, especially in the last one hundred years. 

At this time, I will remind readers that the only reasons CO2 is being blamed for AGW is that
- it is known to be a "greenhouse" gas,
- it has been increasing in the atmosphere, especially in the last 100 years and
- there has been a global temperature (GMST) increase of less than two degrees in that time period as well. 

So there is a moderate (not a strong) co-relation between atmospheric CO2 levels and GMST, plus the "greenhouse" theory plus model outputs and there's your Global Warming scaremongering about the CO2 strawman.  

Many alarmist climate "scientists" think CO2 is the single most important forcing that's causes global warming/climate change/climate disruption/whatever have you.  But there is growing contingent of science that think that Land cover/use change has as large or larger impact on the climate as CO2 (RPS has been banging this drum forever with little impact).  It has effects on albedo, wind patterns, boundry layers, carbon sink/source values, etc. and etc.   Definitely not an insignificant role.

Extreme weather

You may have seen news articles about an IPCC report regarding extreme weather.    Most news articles I've seen put a Catastrophic AGW spin on it, i.e. we're all going drown/bake/die of thirst etc etc etc.   However, that isn't really in the report.

First a preface.  Extreme weather happens all the time.  It has been part of the climate since it was created. Increasing extreme weather only exists in the Global Climate Models (GCMs).  Actual observations have not shown any increasing global trends that co-relate with increasing global temperatures.   I have shown this for floods, droughts, tropical storms, heat waves, etc.

Here is a couple comments regarding this new report:
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2011/11/leaked-text-of-ipcc-extreme-report.html
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/18/climate-panel-issues-report-on-extreme-weather-and-climate-change/
http://www.thegwpf.org/science-news/4369-natural-variability-to-dominate-weather-events-over-coming-20-30-years.html