Climate Change – How The IPCC Hid The Good News

Posted on Mon 06/23/2014 by


Bolt New 01By Andrew Bolt ~

UNIPCCLogoLargeClimate scientist Nic Lewis and science writer Marcel Crok, both expert reviewers on the latest IPCC report, have written A SENSITIVE MATTER How the IPCC buried evidence showing good news about global warming, a paper endorsed by Professor Judith Curry.

Some highlights:

The scientific part (WGI) of the fifth IPCC assessment report (AR5), published in final form in January 2014, contains some really encouraging information.

The best observational evidence indicates our climate is considerably less sensitive to greenhouse gases than climate scientists had previously thought. The clues and the relevant scientific papers re all mentioned in the full IPCC report. However, this important conclusion is not drawn in the full report – it is only mentioned as a possibility – and is ignored in the Summary for Policy makers (SPM).

Until AR5, for 30 years the scientific establishment’s best estimate and their uncertainty range for climate sensitivity had hardly changed. The best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) started and ended at 3C and the uncertainty range generally had a lower bound of 1.5C and an upper bound of 4.5C.

However, several recent studies give best estimates of between 1.5C and 2C, substantially lower than most earlier studies indicated…

Since the last IPCC report was prepared greenhouse gas concentrations have continued to increase, yet global temperatures have not risen; more importantly, estimates of the cooling efficacy of aerosol pollution have been cut. This combination of factors is indicative of the climate system being less sensitive to greenhouse gases than previously appeared to be the case. But the new evidence about aerosol cooling is not reflected in the computer climate models.

In our view, the IPCC WGI scientists were saddled with a dilemma. How should they deal with the discrepancy between climate sensitivity estimates based on models and sound observational estimates that are consistent with the new evidence about aerosol cooling? In conjunction with governments who have the last say on the wording of the SPM – they appear to have decided to resolve this dilemma in the following way. First, they changed the ‘likely’ range for climate sensitivity slightly. It was 2–4.5C in AR4 in 2007. They have now reduced the lower bound to 1.5C, making the range 1.5–4.5C. ..

They also decided not to give a best estimate for climate sensitivity…

In this report we suggest that the new observationally-based ‘likely’ range could be1.25–3.0C,with a best estimate of 1.75C.

If the IPCC had made that change – which would have been in line with the best quality scientific evidence available – it would have been picked up by all the major news outlets in the world as one of the major, if not the major, outcomes of the report. And rightly so.

Is that why the IPCC refused to be frank? Because the media coverage would rightly focus on a near halving of the predictions of a temperature rise?

Because the coverage would have then noted that the climate models used to predict a hot future couldn’t even correctly model the past?

So models overestimate the warming of the real climate in the last 35 years by 50%. 


Maurice Newman says there are many signs the global warming alarmism was built on dodgy evidence, now being exposed:

…the world is wearying of catastrophism and is noticing the mounting contrary evidence. Not least, it has observed there has been no global warming since September 1996…

Slowly, but surely, the truth comes out. The Stern review of the economics of climate change, promoted globally in 2006 to boost action on climate change, has been found to have grossly under­estimated the cost of reducing greenhouse gases.

We learn from a voluntary independent auditor, Ken Stewart, that after analysing 84 out of 104 Bureau of Meteorology sites, the effect of adjustments made to create the official Australian temper­ature record is an increase in the warming trend for minima of 66.6 per cent and 13 per cent for maxima. This revelation is consistent with the leaked Climategate programmer’s log, which read: “Getting seriously fed-up with the state of the Australian data, so many false references, so many changes … bewildering.”…

The same bias is found in the computer models that are the bedrock of climate change. Roy Spencer, a climatologist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, updated comparisons of 90 computer models and found 95 per cent of them had over-forecast the warming trend since 1979.

Andrew Bolt is a journalist and columnist writing for The Herald Sun in Melbourne Victoria Australia.

Andrew Bolt’s columns appear in Melbourne’s Herald Sun, Sydney’s Daily Telegraph and Adelaide’s Advertiser. He runs the most-read political blog in Australia and hosts Channel 10’s The Bolt Report each Sunday at 10am. He is also heard from Monday to Friday at 8am on the breakfast show of radio station MTR 1377, and his book  Still Not Sorry remains very widely read.

Read more excellent articles from Andrew Bolt’s Blog .