Environment & Energy
Showing Original Post only (View all)Don't believe the extremists: No Big Changes In Leaked Draft AR5 Report [View all]
In previous months there was a great deal of speculation as to what the next IPCC report would say regarding the current scientific consensus on all the aspects of global warming. Many here in EE claimed that the AR5 report would contain 'shocking' information that would provide evidence for their belief that things are 'worse than we thought'. On the other extreme, the individual who actually leaked the report claimed that it contained dramatic reversals regarding the impact of cosmic rays and solar irradiance.
In the end, they were both wrong.
Well, at least for now they both appear wrong. Yes, it's just a draft, and a leaked one at that, but what it contains at this point in time is not really much difference from AR4. The leaker's claims regarding a shift in opinion regarding cosmic rays has been debunked by the actual author of the section, who said that his words were being misinterpreted. In sum, the report contains no dramatic shifts in its description of what we can expect from AGW. The only significant change that I can see is with regard to the frequency of hurricanes, tropical storms, and other severe weather events. After the ridiculous assertions in the mainstream media that Superstorm Sandy was 'caused' by global warming, it is heartwarming to hear the IPCC finally say what has been obvious to experts in the field for years:
In summary, unlike in AR4, it is assessed here that there is low confidence of regional changes in the intensity of extreme extratropical cyclones. There is low confidence of a clear trend in storminess proxies over the last century due to inconsistencies between studies or lack of long-term data in some parts of the world (particularly in the SH). There is low confidence in trends in extreme winds due to quality and consistency issues with analysed data.
http://www.stopgreensuicide.com/Ch2_Obs-atmosur_WG1AR5_SOD_Ch02_All_Final.pdf
Chapther 2, Page 59, lines 38-42
Roger Pielke Jr, a long time critic of the IPCC on this subject, seems particularly pleased:
http://twitter.com/RogerPielkeJr/status/279630083864526848