UN panel in final push for new climate report

Sep 26, 2013 by Richard Ingham, Anthony Lucas
Smoke rising from stacks of a thermal power station in Sofia on February 14, 2013.

Scientists and governments pored over the summary Thursday of an eagerly awaited UN report expected to emphasise the escalating threat from climate change.

To be released in Stockholm on Friday, it will be the Nobel-winning panel's first overview since 2007 of the scientific evidence for .

A draft of the summary seen by AFP declares with the greatest emphasis to date that climate change is on the march and humans are responsible for it.

The report "will fire the starting gun" for negotiations on reaching a new by the end of 2015 on curbing , said Tim Gore of Oxfam International.

Those talks are supposed to enact a UN goal of limiting global warming to two degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) from pre-Industrial Revolution levels.

But the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report will indicate that this goal can only be secured though a herculean effort to save energy or switch to cleaner sources.

Only one of the scenarios postulated in the report sees any possibility of safely anchoring the to within 2 C by 2100.

It would require fossil-fuel emissions—scaling new peaks almost every year—to top out in 2020, then drastically decline over the next half-century.

In the worst projection, however, warming will be about 5.6 C (10.1 F) compared to the pre-industrial yardstick.

The report will predict sea levels to rise by between 26 and 81 centimetres (10.4 and 32.4 inches) by 2100, according to the draft.

In its last big review, published six years ago, the Nobel-winning group projected an 18-59 cm (7.2-23.6 inch) rise by 2100.

Graphic explaining the findings of UN climate scientists ahead of the publication of their new report.

The big change comes from new evidence of melting from parts of the giant icesheets that smother Greenland and Antarctica.

The key document being unveiled on Friday is a 31-page summary of a massive technical text, the first volume of the IPCC's Fifth Assessment Report.

Governments around the world have a seat on the IPCC, and can vet the summary, given its implications for how states will address climate change. They cannot amend the main text, though.

Nations have called on scientists to tidy up a key section of the report to clarify why, over the past 15 years, temperatures have risen far slower than some computer models have suggested.

That phenomenon has been seized upon by sceptics to say that climate science is flawed or that is a fraud by the green lobby.

Scientists attribute the "pause" to several factors, including variations in Earth's own climate system that are temporary but complex and still poorly understood.

'No sticking points'

The textual issue over this has been settled to the satisfaction of all, but delegates still have to pore over many other proposed amendments before the summary can be approved, said a source.

The challenge is "the volume of work, especially of the desire of some countries to get clarity," the delegate said. "But currently there are no sticking points."

As a political issue, climate change is in the doldrums.

A first attempt was made at a summit in Copenhagen in 2009 for a deal to tame carbon emissions and help poor countries exposed to worsening droughts, storms and floods.

That event was a near-fiasco and led to the goal being postponed to 2015. Today, willingness for concessions is low, especially in countries still struggling after the 2008 financial crisis.

Some experts say the IPCC report will be too conservative. "They (in the IPCC) are so nervous now," said one, referring to damage done to the panel's reputation when several errors were found in its landmark 2007 overview.

But the fact that the summary is explicitly approved by governments gives the report special weight, say others.

"These negotiations can be seen as the place where communications, science and politics meet," said Vanessa Bulkacz of Climate Action Network Europe, an alliance of green groups.

"After that, it's up to governments to use these persistent scientific facts as a springboard for real climate action."

Explore further: UN report to point to mounting climate challenge

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

UN report to point to mounting climate challenge

Sep 21, 2013

Scientists will hike pressure next week on the UN's troubled climate talks as they release a report pointing to the dizzying challenge of meeting the international body's target for global warming.

10 things to know about the IPCC climate panel

Sep 26, 2013

Here are 10 things to know about the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the U.N.-sponsored scientific group that will present a landmark report on global warming Friday.

Recommended for you

Rio's Olympic golf course in legal bunker

Sep 18, 2014

The return of golf to the Olympics after what will be 112 years by the time Rio hosts South America's first Games in 2016 comes amid accusations environmental laws were got round to build the facility in ...

User comments : 33

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

ScooterG
1.5 / 5 (26) Sep 26, 2013
"Scientists and governments pored over the summary Thursday of an eagerly awaited UN report"

LOL - like a bunch of hungry hogs salivating at the feed trough, they all want their piece of the next round of funding. Relax you money-grubbers...the check's in the mail.
JamesG
1.5 / 5 (24) Sep 26, 2013
This over hyped report will cost our already bankrupt country trillions of dollars.
Claudius
1.5 / 5 (22) Sep 26, 2013
...clarify why, over the past 15 years, temperatures have risen far slower than some computer models have suggested.


"GCMs generally reproduce the broad climatic behaviours at different geographical
locations and the sequence of wet/dry or warm/cold periods on a mean monthly scale.

However, model outputs at annual and climatic (30‐year) scales are irrelevant with
reality; also, they do not reproduce the natural overyear fluctuation and, generally,
underestimate the variance and the Hurst coefficient of the observed series; none of the
models proves to be systematically better than the others.

The huge negative values of coefficients of efficiency at those scales show that model
predictions are much poorer that an elementary prediction based on the time average.

This makes future climate projections not credible."

Assessment of the reliability of climate predictions based on comparisons with historical time series http://itia.ntua....nfo/850/
Grallen
3.9 / 5 (15) Sep 26, 2013
The certainty of human caused climate change has now been put in the same range as certainty that smoking harms you. They even say as much in the report. This spells the doom for the denier misinformation campaign. That is a VERY strong link in the public mind.
VendicarE
4.1 / 5 (14) Sep 26, 2013
"This over hyped report will cost our already bankrupt country trillions of dollars." - JamesGTard

You should have acted earlier when the cost would have been negative.

But now it is too late because you were stupid enough to listen to Corporate Liars, and their stooges.

So Suffer your own ignorance and poison, Loser.

VendicarE
4.1 / 5 (13) Sep 26, 2013
"LOL - like a bunch of hungry hogs salivating at the feed trough" - ScooTard

Look on the bright side ScooTard. You will have at least another year to come here on the Oil Industry Dime and post Denialist idiocy and claptrap to further their corrupt corporate agenda.

Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (26) Sep 26, 2013
"LOL - like a bunch of hungry hogs salivating at the feed trough" - ScooTard

Look on the bright side ScooTard. You will have at least another year to come here on the Oil Industry Dime and post Denialist idiocy and claptrap to further their corrupt corporate agenda.



Do you think we will not be using oil in a few years?
VendicarE
4 / 5 (12) Sep 26, 2013
I think, NumenTard, that you will continue to be a traitor to humanity and continue to demand that as much oil be consumed as possible, for secretly doing so promotes the financial interests of your corrupt backers.
Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (26) Sep 26, 2013
I think, [my superior, Noumenon], that you will continue to be a traitor to humanity and continue to demand that as much oil be consumed as possible, for secretly doing so promotes the financial interests of your corrupt backers.


Actually, I would be happy to make my money off of monkey-shit, had that fulfilled the current demand for energy.

You see, dingbat, profit motive is not contingent upon the particularity of the source,...

You did not answer my question.
vlaaing peerd
3.8 / 5 (10) Sep 27, 2013
The certainty of human caused climate change has now been put in the same range as certainty that smoking harms you. They even say as much in the report. This spells the doom for the denier misinformation campaign. That is a VERY strong link in the public mind.


Only in the US, where ones opinion apparently can't be untied from political or religious preference. The rest of the planet seems fully able to look at facts and perceive them as facts.
Noumenon
1.6 / 5 (21) Sep 28, 2013
Only in the US, where ones opinion apparently can't be untied from political [...] preference. The rest of the planet seems fully able to look at facts and perceive them as facts.


As Homer Simpson once said, "... you could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true". The question is one of severity, urgency, and over potential pointless damage to economies, ....as I think everyone would want cleaner energy sources if it was in principal possible.

If you think that AGW has nothing to do with politics, economics, and form of government, then you're being a gross and smelly "denier".

This is not to say that the core science is wrong either. It's just that politics, available technology, and economic forces, enter the equations when determining what, how much, and when, ....with respect to a response.
runrig
4.6 / 5 (10) Sep 28, 2013
If you think that AGW has nothing to do with politics, economics, and form of government, then you're being a gross and smelly "denier".
This is not to say that the core science is wrong either. It's just that politics, available technology, and economic forces, enter the equations when determining what, how much, and when, ....with respect to a response.
I agree with much of that Noumenon - but some technologies are becoming competitive to fossil. AGW is politicised but those denying it should concentrate on the politics of righting the problem ( if that is possible) rather than pretending they know the science better than the (consensus) experts. I don't subscribe to a contamination between science & politics. I note that this is a problem in the US, with its peculiar and regrettable political polarisation - the need to attack those that are perceived to be "socialist". A Global problem requires a global and co-operative solution - it's not socialism, just plain common sense.
Noumenon
1.7 / 5 (23) Sep 28, 2013
AGW is politicised but those denying it should concentrate on the politics of righting the problem ( if that is possible) rather than pretending they know the science better than the (consensus) experts.


I would agree with that. It is bad strategy, imo, for the political right to debate the core science with climatologists, as it is bad strategy for the political left to see AGW as an opportunity, a foot in the door, to enact liberal progressive policies.

It is not necessary to think that the core science is wrong, nor is it necessary to think that AGW is a imminent calamity for mankind,.. to agree that clean energy is better for everyone.

some technologies are becoming competitive to fossil.


Good. That's all that the political right really want, solutions that are in accord with market forces,.. and not social engineering.
Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (25) Sep 28, 2013
I note that this is a problem in the US, with its peculiar and regrettable political polarisation - the need to attack those that are perceived to be "socialist".


That is not regrettable at all, not one bit. 'Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty'.

"...it's a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization..... one has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world's wealth" - UN IPCC official, Edenhofer

Socialism and 'liberal progressivism' is a constant threat to liberty. Environmentalism and in particular AGW, is a vehicle for the far left.
runrig
4 / 5 (8) Sep 29, 2013
Socialism and 'liberal progressivism' is a constant threat to liberty. Environmentalism and in particular AGW, is a vehicle for the far left.

This I disagree with (and we will have to agree to differ) - though I gave you a 5 for your just prior post.
There is nothing wrong with holding a political view (obvious). It is the reflexive attitude that all policies that require an "organisational" component .. are wrong. And it seems in the eyes of the worst examples - as "evil". It is the extreme that the ideology is taken to, that is the problem. It doesn't solve anything, it just polarises the two parties into becoming further apart. A prime example is this subject - AGW. Just accept the science as correct and move on to discussion of options to correct it.
As Churchill said "Jaw jaw is better than War war".
I hazard to suggest that this parallels much of what goes on in US politics. People moving apart is not a good thing. Extremism (both) by definition isn't the mainstream view
Noumenon
1.4 / 5 (21) Sep 29, 2013
'Extremism in the defense of freedom is no vice. Moderation in the protection of liberty is no virtue.'
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (17) Sep 29, 2013
It is the extreme that the ideology is taken to,

When someone sticks a gun in your face and demands your money, is this extreme?
This is at least an honest version of what any govt does.
People moving apart is not a good thing.

Moving away from totalitarianism is not a good thing?
I want to move away from people who want to steal my property and threaten my life. Don't you?
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (19) Sep 29, 2013
A Global problem requires a global and co-operative solution - it's not socialism, just plain common sense.


Socialism is govt control of private property.

The ONLY solutions proposed by govts is more wealth redistribution (socialism). Why is that?
Why not unleash free market, capitalist solutions?
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (18) Sep 29, 2013
Just accept the science

"If the goal of people doing, and promoting, worthy science like this (golden rice) is to help people and encourage uptake, accusations of being anti-science will not help.

It doesn't matter if you don't like the activists' actions. If you want to win over hearts and minds, characterising those hearts and minds as knuckle-dragging, anti-science morons, or quaintly deluded simpletons who just don't know any better is not a productive tactic."
"There is a classic position in the science communication literature which goes, roughly, if you meet resistance to science, throw facts at those who resist. If that doesn't work, throw more facts at them, and throw them harder.

This approach, though roundly debunked, is unfortunately still a common default."
"We know very well that scientific illiteracy rarely causes rejection of science. Frequently it's the very human urge to maintain and stand up for the values of their group that leads to such rejection."
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (18) Sep 29, 2013
(cont)
"I do, however, work with the sciences. And for scientists I have four suggestions.

1) Change your language, change your mindset. When people oppose something you see as science-based, it does not necessarily mean they oppose science. To approach the world this way is unlikely to be productive (and is probably also just plain incorrect).

2) Science practice is not immune from bias and self-interest, nor is scientific research free from cultural influence (consider halal vaccines, for example) .
3) Some people have very good reasons to be suspicious of scientists and science.
4) Explore, understand and accept that science doesn't know everything. Take your time if this is difficult, but try to accept this broadly, and come to terms with it deeply."
"If scientists genuinely want to take the highest possible moral position (and I believe we should), a broad view of humanity is essential.
http://www.realcl...ork.html
ryggesogn2
1.2 / 5 (17) Sep 29, 2013
Just accept the science as correct

That's not how science really works. It must be demonstrated, repeatedly. Every time an eclipse occurs, observations are made of Mercury to confirm relativity.
As for consensus,
" Democracies love consensus—to a large degree democracies cannot function without it. But the premises of the American consensus today, whether a Democrat or a Republican holds them, are liberal....governments must do something to forestall climate change...
"Whether particular aspects of the consensus are right or wrong matters less than that they are held by as many people as possible." { not very scientific}
"The fact that Cruz is a product of elite institutions only makes his challenge more potent. Nothing quite annoys liberals more than an Ivy League conservative, "
http://freebeacon...a-caste/
runrig
5 / 5 (9) Sep 29, 2013
People moving apart is not a good thing.

Moving away from totalitarianism is not a good thing?
I want to move away from people who want to steal my property and threaten my life. Don't you?


No - because I don't use black white to charcterise things/people. I know there are an infinity of greys between. In short I think - not jump to conclusions driven by ideology.

Also. QED: Ryggy jumps in to display his extremism. Congenitally incapable of thinking in moderate (read rational) terms. The above snip is of course meant to mean Democrat & Republican, Pro vs Anti - so you consider all Democrats/scientists "want to steal my property and threaten my life".
I don't come here to talk politics - when I do I seek to find common ground. With people like you there is plainly none. You see "reds under the beds" everywhere. A paranoia that drives your AGW denialism. I care just that the science is correct. It is and I'll leave the rest to others and to other forums.
runrig
5 / 5 (10) Sep 29, 2013
That's not how science really works. It must be demonstrated, repeatedly. Every time an eclipse occurs, observations are made of Mercury to confirm relativity.


It has and it does.
I am a retired Meteorologist and so, as not "on your side" ,you would give me more contempt than a man dragged in off the street in discussing Climate.
Never the less in a rational world those with knowledge of something, by the balance of probability, know (vastly) more of it than that man off the street. Disregarding your expected "appeal to authority" as something out of Alice in Wonderland, I shall repeat the above as long as it is true to deny your ignorance.
Get over it.

The day you can examine the science without referring to denialist blogs exclusively and put aside you rabid "anti-red" ideology then you might just discover that.
I'll not hold my breath.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (20) Sep 29, 2013
I am a retired Meteorologist

And the typical response from an AGWite would be you are NOT a CLIMATOLOGIST. Meteorology is the study of weather.
This is the response AGWites give when skeptics like Dyson or Ivar Giaever challenge the AGW faith.

not jump to conclusions driven by ideology.

How can you have been involved with science if you have no standards?
Is the MKS system an ideology?
Not murdering, not stealing are just ideologies to you?
The AGWite ideology demands the use of govt force to plunder wealth. But that's ok because you are 'saving humanity'? Ends justify the means, which is how the eugenics scientists justified their murder and how a Tufts scientists was recently banned for two years for researching involving humans.
http://news.scien...en-tufts
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (19) Sep 29, 2013
I don't come here to talk politics - when I do I seek to find common ground.

AGW is ALL about politics and you do NOT seek to find common ground.
AGWites do not respect the rights of individuals.
Why did AGWites immediately pursue govt imposed, coerced solution instead of trying to persuade? Because AGWites are socialists demanding compliance, not cooperation.
Where is their compromise?
Noumenon
1.4 / 5 (19) Sep 29, 2013
"Their excuse for the absence of warming over the past 17 years is that the heat is hiding in the deep ocean.... however, this is simply an admission that the models fail to simulate the exchanges of heat between the surface layers and the deeper oceans....., it is this heat transport that plays a major role in natural internal variability of climate, and the IPCC assertions that observed warming can be attributed to man depend crucially on their assertion that these models accurately simulate natural internal variability,"
VendicarE
4 / 5 (8) Sep 29, 2013
"AGW is ALL about politics " - RyggTard

It has certianly been your goal to make it so.

But you are a failure at that, just as you a failure at everything else.

Poor RyggTard. Please get back to us when you learn how to add, subtract, multiply and divide.

VendicarE
4.1 / 5 (9) Sep 29, 2013
"AGWites do not respect the rights of individuals." - RyggTard

RyggTard refuses to accept reality because Reality is incompatible with his ridiculous vision of reality and "rights"

Rights are a construct of man, nature affords no such luxury.

RyggTard should demand that volcano's stop erupting because their eruptions violate the property rights of those who own property in the surrounding area.

Volcanology is all about politics, he insists.
VendicarE
4.1 / 5 (9) Sep 30, 2013
"skeptics like Dyson or Ivar Giaever"... RyggTard

Dyson: Almost 91 years old
Giaever: Almost 85 years old

No thinking person would allow them to drive a car, let alone claim they have any expertise in Climate Science.

This is particularly true for Dyson who can't even remember that his own studies back in the late 1960's produced essentially the same results as the current IPCC.

VendicarE
4 / 5 (8) Sep 30, 2013
"Socialism is govt control of private property. " - RyggTard

Nature has no respect for RyggTard's concept of "private property".

Is that why he and his kind reject reality, and live in a land of self delusion?

runrig
5 / 5 (7) Sep 30, 2013
"Their excuse for the absence of warming over the past 17 years is that the heat is hiding in the deep ocean.... however, this is simply an admission that the models fail to simulate the exchanges of heat between the surface layers and the deeper oceans....., it is this heat transport that plays a major role in natural internal variability of climate, and the IPCC assertions that observed warming can be attributed to man depend crucially on their assertion that these models accurately simulate natural internal variability,"


Yes, worrying isn't it that although the GCM's are predicting rises on current known variability - there is actually even more warming in the system.
There is no internal variability (hidden in the climate system) that shows any significant cooling. I said hidden.

cont
runrig
5 / 5 (6) Sep 30, 2013
cont

What matters in the end is input (Solar) and output (IR to space). That's the net energy budget ( bar minor geothermal and sensible anthro heating). The major controlling factors of these being albedo and atmospheric opacity to the solar/terrestrial wavelengths (GHG's). The fingerprint for this is the warming of the Trop. and cooling of the Strato/Mesosphere.

So hence this is stated in a current article here re models....

"Collins stresses that the fundamental conclusion reached by climate scientists more than 20 years ago remains unchanged. "Increased fidelity of the models is not altering the underlying conclusion, that increased carbon dioxide will lead to dramatic changes in our climate," he said. "We have very high confidence that the models are simulating the key features in the earth's climate.""

It is the basic budget that is the killer. All we've done in 20 years is to pin down the details a bit better. It's a warming system. Get over it and argue how to tackle it.
runrig
5 / 5 (6) Sep 30, 2013
And the typical response from an AGWite would be you are NOT a CLIMATOLOGIST. Meteorology is the study of weather.
This is the response AGWites give when skeptics like Dyson or Ivar Giaever challenge the AGW faith.


That is like saying a heart surgeon, even though he knows the workings of the heart cannot be the best expert available to judge the long-term prospects for that organ !
The two disciplines overlap and as such I judge the science similarly. We do known about atmospheric processes, fluid dynamics, radiation and gas theory you know. As I've already said on this thread - the basics are quite simple anyway in the end. If what comes in exceeds what goes out then the climate system will store the difference.
So you've cherry-picked your shining hero's - well done. Those two are somehow omniscient sages that the World is supposed to take for their word? ....eureka, Dyson say's it's all OK.

In your "Alice-in-Wonderland" World only - they don't trump 1000's to the contrary