Can we get this straight about the IPCC climate change report please?

No Mr. Lean, you are incorrect here.

Yesterday’s giant climate report

We didn’t get a giant climate report yesterday. What we got was the summary for policy makers.

We get the report on Monday. And it’s in that report that it is necessary to go looking for what they’ve done.

Personally I’m going to be fascinated to see what they’ve done (if anything) with the emissions scenarios and families. It’s my understanding (a very vague one it is true) is that the A1 family has pretty much been dropped from the process. Which is something of a pity as that was the straight line projection from the 20th cent and as we all know, straight line projections do often turn out to be true.

It’s also the projection that said that we could indeed have lots of global economic growth and if we did a bit of greening of the energy production system then we’d be fine. Dropping that family of scenarios therefore rules out that sort of solution according to the “scientific consensus”.

So I’ll be interested to read the report: but not the propaganda part of it that is being discussed this weekend.

10 comments on “Can we get this straight about the IPCC climate change report please?

  1. From the Lean article.

    “What it does not conclude, despite widely publicised sceptic assertions, is that the world is warming at about half the rate it previously estimated. Its actual reduction is by just one hundredth of a degree centigrade, from 0.13 to 0.12 degrees per decade. ”

    Can someone explain to me how you can measure something, for practical purposes doesn’t exist?
    I’ll explain. Anyone who’s tried to measure temperature in the real world will know, there’s no such thing as a hundredth of a degree. Even a tenth of a degree is stretching it. The only place you find temperatures stable enough to measure with that accuracy is well inside large solids. Try measuring air & the measurement at the point of measurement is constantly changing. Can be a degree or more a second in turbulent conditions but even in still air it’s unstable to within a decimal point or two. And you cannot increase the accuracy by averaging over a large number of measurements. Really you can’t. Why my science teacher would scrawl “superfluous accuracy” in red over experiment results. If you give a hundred kids a tape measure to measure the playground and the smallest division on the tape is 1mm, the results are to 1mm. Averaging the results hasn’t measured the playground to ‘0.01mm accuracy. All you’ve done is raise the level of confidence of the 1mm by trusting to compensating errors.
    So it doesn’t matter how many scientists & how many measurements & how carefully you collate the results the accuracy cannot exceed the accuracy of a single measurement.

  2. Straight line projections often turn out to be true? But surely you would check the validity previous projections before making such a sweeping statement as that.

    Let us know when you find that projection that actually matched reality.

  3. Lean will write whatever nonsense comes into his head.

    One of Bishop Hill’s commenters, Barry Woods, found this footnote on Page 11:

    “No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies.”

    Quoted at Anthony Watt’s place.

    In plain English, they haven’t the faintest idea what is the relationship between extra carbon dioxide and global temperature. Clue: very slight.

    The mealy-mouthed statement above deserves widespread publicity, and to be thrown in the face of every alarmist who claims the science is settled. More, it should have been the only statement in the SPM.

    Of course, that would have derailed the gravy train. Lying turds.

  4. Page 11 footnote is the futureproofing clause.

    In the courtroom in 2020, after the riots and deaths caused by years of cold and collapsing ‘green’ power infrastructure, the scientists can point to it and say, “Look! We told them, but the politicals and Greenpeace wouldn’t let us say it out loud. Don’t hang us, please!”.

    Too late.

  5. “Can someone explain to me how you can measure something, for practical purposes doesn’t exist?”

    Well it doesn’t exist, because they are citing an average, which is practically meaningless when given the scale when applied an entire planet over 100 years. But I suppose “human activity is not really having too much effect” is not headline grabbing.

    The whole “by 2100” thing brings to mind the horse manure problem of the early 20th century, as Tim points out, the improved technology scenario has been wiped off the board, even though it is the “most likely”.

  6. > straight line projections do often turn out to be true

    An exponential is a much better fit to CO2 concentration history over the last, say, 100 years.

    > Personally I’m going to be fascinated to see what they’ve done (if anything) with the emissions scenarios and families

    But not, alas, interested to actually bother look for yourself. As they say “Projections of changes in the climate system are made using a hierarchy of climate models… A new set of scenarios, the Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs), was used for the new climate model simulations…”. In turn, the RCPs are really really difficult to find (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_Concentration_Pathways).

    > Anyone who’s tried to measure temperature in the real world will know, there’s no such thing as a hundredth of a degree

    Irrelevant, since we’re talking about averaging.

    > And you cannot increase the accuracy by averaging over a large number of measurements

    You’re an idiot.

    > they haven’t the faintest idea what is the relationship between extra carbon dioxide and global temperature. Clue: very slight

    No. You could try reading the document you know, you might learn something. To quote: “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)”

    > In the courtroom in 2020…

    Spare us your wank-fantasies.

  7. Lost your middle initial ?

    “> And you cannot increase the accuracy by averaging over a large number of measurements

    You’re an idiot.”

    Let’s see who’s the idiot.

    Ask a hundred people to count the occupants of Wembley Stadium on match day, by eye.
    The accuracy of measurement is one individual.
    Average the result.
    Say (Whatever figure) point 47
    Now show me the 0.47 of an individual.

    So where do your hundreths of a degree come from?

  8. Billy has been let out of the home for the day I see.

    It is my fantasy to see you and your kind in the dock for the damage you’ve done to Western civilisation.

    But I leave the wanking to you and your medievalists.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.