Seven years after its last report in 2014 on the state of climate science (AR5) the Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change (IPCC) will publish a report on Monday, updating the global public on the latest data, observations, and predictions about climate change.
But will it acknowledge reality?
Monday’s report is part of the final Sixth Assessment Report, or AR6, to be released in 2022. Two other chapters are due – on climate change impacts on communities, societies, and economies and how they might adapt to cope, and another one on ways of curbing emissions and mitigating climate change.
The report is highly anticipated, particularly after being delayed for months because of the COVID pandemic.
It is widely expected to say that “temperatures are rising more quickly than we thought” as the average global temperature has only continued to climb.
As a result of this increase, there has already been more deadly and disastrous weather around the world.
The world’s glaciers are melting faster than ever and hurricanes are stronger. There have been unprecedented rains in Asia and Europe, as well as wildfires almost everywhere.
While AR5 said it was “extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century,” the new report will use stronger language.
Corinne Le Quéré from the University of East Anglia has been reported as saying, “Obviously, it is going to be stronger than what we had in the past because of the growing warming of the planet.”
As we anticipate dramatic headlines let’s just consider one small problem – global warming has not been accelerating since the last IPCC report. Quite the opposite.
Whatever else is said, asserted, or implied, the basic annual average global temperature data is the bedrock upon which much of the IPCC assessment and its predictions should rest. The question is whether or not it will be represented accurately and fairly.
Consider the HadCRUT5 global temperature database maintained by the UK Met Office.
The data for this century shows several features: a long hiatus (2002 – 2014) that was acknowledged by the IPCC (but later denied by some scientists), an intense multi-phased El Nino event and its aftermath (2015 -2020), and now a recent decline to levels where they were when the IPCC published its last report.
Unequivocal is not a word to describe this data.
2021
After six months, 2021 looks set to be the coldest year since 2014 and possibly colder than 2010 and 2005.
This year might be somewhere between the fifth and eighth warmest. Consider that against the claim that “global temperatures have never risen faster” meme.
It’s true that global temperatures have been depressed this year by a La Nina event, but between 2015 – 2020 the global temperatures were considerably boosted by the warmth of a record-setting El Nino event.
The heatwave in late June in the northwest Pacific was exceptional with Portland setting a record of 47 degrees, surpassing its previous record by 5 degrees.
Some scientists said it was “virtually impossible” at the 1-in-150,000 chance of it happening.
Without global warming it would have happened once in a thousand years, they said, but in the future when the globe has warmed 2 degrees C above preindustrial levels it could occur as often as once every 5 years.
I’m reminded that the chances of anything coming from Mars are a million to one, they said.
In all the global temperature databases for the first six months of 2021, no individual month has been the warmest on record and although July seems to be warm globally it may well remain that way for the rest of the year.
So when you read the new IPCC report and take in the alarmist headlines it will undoubtedly generate, bear in mind that since its previous report in 2014 global temperatures have barely changed, and have declined from their El Nino-inspired peak of a few years ago.
Read more at The GWPF
I just love how completely devoid of reality these these tabloid articles are that Climate Dispatch continually post.
“The temperature hiatus” from 2002 to 2014 for example. EVERY ONE of those years is one of the warmest 25 years on record.
Are you saying that the article
https://climatechangedispatch.com/fact-checking-the-most-common-climate-alarmist-claims/
is completely devoid of reality and tabloid like?
For the “EVERY ONE of those years is one of the warmest 25 years on record” I would put more weight on eliminating weather stations in rural and higher altitude locations than what is really happening in the world.
Though true my response above was not the best. Climate alarmists claim temperatures from 2002 to 2014 were the hottest ever and climate realists talk about the hiatus. Both can be correct if we ignore that 1998 was probably the hottest year. The earth has been naturally warming since the end of the mini ice age so it is reasonable the recent temperatures would be warmer. However, if the increase in temperature from one year to the next is not nearly as great as in the previous decade, we can also have a hiatus. Even the alarmists have acknowledged the hiatus. They gave 68 excuses for its existence including the ocean ate the global warming. If there was no hiatus why did all of these alarmists make excuses for it? Unfortunately I can’t find my link showing the excuses but the following article shows that many alarmist researchers acknowledged the existence of the hiatus. One quote from the article sighting those who recognized it is here, “it includes most of the top alarmists themselves, including individual scientists, institutions, and organizations.” Here is the link to the full article.
https://thenewamerican.com/hiding-the-hiatus-global-warming-on-pause/
The years 2002 to 2014 may have one of the warmest, but in the United States, the mid 1930’s was very hot. This was before the most alarmists believe that man’s emissions to had a significant impact on the climate.
The continental US is less than 2% of the world’s surface area. Sibereria is bigger – their hottest years are in the last 5.
Actually, there is a subset of pristine temperature stations that are in rural areas, unmoved and not upgraded for their entire lifespan. Surprisingly, this subset shows a GREATER temperature rise that the rest.
Anthony Watts of WUWT raked in a ton of donations to conduct his Surface Station Study about 10 years ago to show that the temperature rise was due to poorly positioned recording stations. All he ended up doing was to BOLSTER the main steam science observations.
Chagrined by his own results, he decided to do more fundraising and this time he “was going to put the final nail in the global warming hoax”. Strangely that 2nd study was submitted to peer review and then “poof” it disappeared. To this day, Watts refuses to answer questions about it.
Good scam while it lasted though.
I don’t know if you are still monitoring this. Anytime a climate alarmist uses the word “subset” it is a big red flag. They are always using subsets of data to make a point that isn’t supported by the entire data set. So, what does the entire set of temperature stations that are in rural areas show? Do remember that the earth has been naturally warming since the end of the mini ice age so just the presences of warming doesn’t mean anything. The issues of contention is how much warming have we had, how much are we likely to have, the cause of the warming, and what will the impact be.
They will not acknowledge climate reality because they learned from the ozone depletion scare and the Montreal Protocol that fear sells.
https://wp.me/pTN8Y-5Uq
The Ozone hole was caused by CFCs – an issue the entire world rallied around in order to come up with alternatives. And it worked.
Do you even know what you are trying to argue?
“The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long term prediction of future climate states is not possible” IPCC Panel on Climate change May 2018.
In which case why do they do it? especially when they leave so much out of computer models anyway.
This is the FULL quote (below). Any reason why you left off the 2nd sentence?
“The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. Rather the focus must be upon the prediction of the probability distribution of the system’s future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions.”
Drewski, you have been having a good go at convincing readers that the IPCC is a credible organisation.
I’m not going to quote statistics or reports. I will remind you that the IPCC is a government funded (through the UN) body and it’s job, whether we like to admit it or not, is to tell government what it wants to hear and in the process, to keep their jobs. Also, their models are designed with a pre determined outcome bias while these models have buckley’s chance in hell of predicting anything weather related at all.. EG: Temperature predictions remain well above actual to this day. [FYI.. Here at our place, last summer was almost non existent and this winter has been as cold as in the 1970’s]
To gain a good insight into the IPCC, I recommend a book written by Donna Laframboise (2011) “The Delinquent Teenager – Who was mistaken for the worlds’s Top Climate Expert.”
It is also worth remembering the 18 year ‘pause’. In the early 80’s. Weather satellites with highly accurate Platinum Resistance Thermometers were placed in orbit. They could measure atmospheric temperatures at different altitudes with great accuracy.
What they discovered did not fit the narrative, no increase in temperatures for 18 years. Rather than do what reputable scientists would do, ie re-think their conclusions and fins a theory that fitted the facts, they went back to monitoring temperatures at airports.
This really says it all about climate ‘science’!
The heat-island effect of the tarmac runways and jet engines on full thrust will of course demonstrate high local temperatures which are highly localised and in no way are representative of the environment in general.