IPPC Once Again Claims 'The Sky Is Falling'

chicken_little_fcp_sky_fallingThe latest United Nations climate report is sounding the alarm on man-made global warming, saying that fossil fuels needed to be eliminated from the energy supply in the coming decades to avoid catastrophe.

“Continued emission of greenhouse gases will cause further warming and long-lasting changes in all components of the climate system, increasing the likelihood of severe, pervasive and irreversible impacts for people and ecosystems,” reads the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s latest report.

“Decarbonizing… electricity generation is a key component of cost-effective mitigation strategies in achieving low stabilization levels,” the IPCC noted, adding that green energy needed to make up 80 percent of the world’s energy supply by 2050 and 90 percent by 2100 in order to kep temperatures from rising 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial times.

Despite the stark warning from the IPCC, some scientists have said the warning is not dire enough. The Washington Post’s Chris Mooney reported last week about scientists who thought the IPCC’s global warming predictions were too cautious. These scientists argue that the IPCC process can “lead to downplaying the full ranges of future scenarios.”

But while some scientists are saying the IPCC isn’t alarmist enough in its reporting on global warming, others argue that the UN climate bureaucracy is too alarmist in its predictions.

“The IPCC should be lowering their estimates of future impacts, most definitely not raising them,” Cato Institute scientist Chip Knappenberger told The Daily Caller News Foundation. “There is a major flaw in the IPCC [fifth assessment] (and all previous reports as well) in that the climate models that are used to produce all the scary climate projections are very likely, collectively, too sensitive to the buildup of atmospheric carbon dioxide.”

Knappenberger is referring to a measurement called “climate sensitivity” — referring to the estimated temperature rise from a doubling of atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide levels. Increasingly, scientists have been lowering their climate sensitivity measures as temperatures refuse to increase in two decades.

“Only desperate climate alarmists would have the gall to suggest the IPCC produces ‘conservative’ estimates of climate change in light of a growing mountain of evidence that the IPCC actually exaggerates potential climate change,” echoed Pat Michaels, director of Cato’s Center for the Study of Science.

Satellite temperature data shows average global temperatures have not displayed a warming trend in more than 18 years. This so-called pause in global warming has baffled scientists, who have offered dozens of explanations for why global temperatures have not trended upwards in nearly two decades.

“Sometimes, the smartest thing a forecaster can do is look out the window,” Michaels said. “Obviously, way too much warming has been and is being predicted.”

The IPCC has actually overestimated warming since 1950, according to Michaels. “It turns out that the average warming trend predicted for every period of record [1950-2013, 1951-2013, 1952 and others] are greater than what has been observed,” he said.

Read more at Barbwire

  • Daniel

    “Sometimes, the smartest thing a forecaster can do is look out the window” Really? how can this possibly be stated when the risks of climate change spur from only a few degrees of temperature change? the rise in temperature wont be the end of the world for humans, but a change in the world of weather systems and ecosystems themselves. Nothing you’d be able to notice from looking out the window.

    Don’t let these lies sway you, humans are adding pollutants (carcinogens, endocrine disruptors, pesticides, hormones, antibiotics… only to name a few…) to the atmosphere (air pollution), to the ground (land fills), and to the ocean (stream run off) every day–how could such a trend continue indefinitely without the world becoming poisoned?

    • Suzi

      No doubt we can pollute the air and water, which negatively affects our health, but change the climate, no way? Situations in space far beyond our control affect the weather.
      The ones yelling the loudest, Al Gore, movies stars, other rich elites are the ones living the lavish lifestyles, driving their limos, flying their jets, heating and cooling huge homes ( usually several), but they want the little guy to ride his bike or quit using a gas lawn mower. What a joke.

    • Fietser

      How do you know a few degrees won’t be the end of the world? You’re not a scientist. And from what I’ve heard lately, you’re not the only one!

      • Joeb

        I bet you think the earth is flat, and the sun still revolves around the earth as well, right?

      • MIKE

        Fact the Romans lived threw a 3 deg rise and did not notice the change.

    • tom

      >All the shakers and movers behind “climate change” are lefties,one world socialists, and outright marxists. If it walks like a duck, etc, etc.
      Lenin said it best:” Lie, but tell the biggest lie you can imagine. they’ll believe it.”
      The East Anglica scandal was quickly put aside by the complicit ‘presstitutes’

    • MIKE

      Question to the Global warming Belivers: Why is there more ice in the South Pole now then ever in Satilite recored history and why is the North Pole at avarage ice levels and about to break the avarage ice avarage line by March 19th 2015?

    • Richard Urban

      Because the earth is a big place, man has not even scratched this earth, not in anyway and in any form, and it’s likely we never will, unless we want too. Obviously nuclear bombs couldl destroy the earth, and that’s what we need to worry about….

  • Pachistima

    Science continues to shoot down the notion of human-caused greenhouse warming – for example, there’s NO CORRELATION between atmospheric carbon dioxide levels and global temperature: no warming for 18 years or so, global cooling 1945 – 1977 even as carbon dioxide continued to increase. The ClimateGate hoax revealed the corruption of “scientists” at the cutting edge of research. The whole thing is a scam to cut the USA down to size, and make it pay money to countries allegedly negatively affected by climate change.

    • Yeah, well it doesn’t help that we have government entities such as the NOAA, and global political entities like the IPCC and the UN saying things like it’s the warmest year ever, and still trying to perpetuate the global warming agenda. As long as they do we are going to have people like Feister and the other trolls who will only listen to them. And they only listen to them because they are the high preists in the religion of AGW. And nothing we present will get through to them because they don’t want it to get through to them. The entire planet could ice over and they would still not want to hear it.

      • Fietser

        So who should NOAA be paid by, the fossil fuel industry? Make some sense Neilio.

        And you still haven’t answered my question of what caused the warming…

        • Joeb

          He has. It’s natural cycles, end of story.

          See how easy this climate change thing is?

    • tom

      You said it well. They probably want to expand markets a thousand-fold into the third world’s untapped billions. The USA (and Western) middle class is the stooge left standing in this internationalist game of musical chairs. Orwell said that science would by hijacked and used to control the people and to advance the war machine.
      ‘Climate change’ with its carbon trading scheme, draconian taxes and regulations, transfers wealth from the ‘west’ to the more sullen parts of the world. Along the way, it destroys the middle class.
      Big banks, big governments and big business will make trillions on this preposterous lie. When is the new science ligit? when it makes money for those behind it. Truth is no longer a component of science. If a market place can be created from false science, then that “science” becomes defacto legitimate

  • MIKE

    The Facts of the Ice levels as of 11/16/14 National Snow and Ice Data Center show the Ocean sea levels must be declineing NOT going up. More ice less water ,ice meltling water levels go up. Global warming is the biggist Hoax on mankind ever.

  • MIKE

    Global warming is called Summer.

  • MIKE

    All this Global warming is all to take your Paycheck thats it peroid.

  • MIKE

    The Earth was 3 degs hotter under the Romans History and they did not notice it one bit.

  • MIKE

    Global warming loonacy is what got the Democrat party THROW out of office the ICE is there at both poles contary to what Obama says and SHHhhhhh guess what there is no population problem with Polar Bears either they let you shoot a thousand a year shhhhhh.

  • Kevin

    Most of these responses spread misinformation, if not outright lies. No one who knows anything about the subject denies that humans cause global warming, only the extent and rate at which it will cause irreparable harm. This is due to the fact that the models are relatively simple and the atmosphere is astonishingly complex.

    The scientist quoted in the story, Knappenberger, does not deny global warming, he simply says that the predictions are too alarmist, which may or may not be right.

    http://www.desmogblog.com/chip-knappenberger

    The Cato Institute for which he works, unsurprisingly has a similar position

    http://www.cato.org/research/global-warming

    Artic sea ice has decreased since 1979 according to satellite measurements.

    http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

    Climate models reflect the cooling over the last decade due to solar activity minima and El Niño cooling that offset human effects.

    See the bottom of this page:
    http://www.aip.org/history/climate/summary.htm

    This is scientific evidence not political leaning or unsupported belief in grand conspiracies.

    • Why was it warmer during the roman warm period? Was there any irreparable harm done then? It was warmer than it is now. Does it matter if the warming now is caused by us, by our CO2 emissions? Why would it being warmer during the roman warm period not cause irreparable harm then, but now that we’ve caused it to warm, slightly, it’s going to cause irreparable harm? I’m sorry is asking that spreading misinformation?
      And aren’t models wonderful? You can make them say whatever you want! Especially after the fact! Sure, now models reflect cooling over the last decade due to solar minima. But a decade ago climate scientists said that the sun had nothing to do with global warming, and that even if there was a lull in solar activity we were going to fry anyway. Who knew?

  • Richard Urban

    Kevin, sorry dude you drank the kool aid! I think I know a little about the subject. I have been a meteorologist for 30 years, my hobby is studing AGW, and I would like to tell you, that me and my colleagues all laugh at those who have fallen for this scam. If you want to know what controls the climate……I will tell you…….CLOUDS…. and the amount of clouds is determined by many things, motstly cosmic rays! You would learn that in your first cloud physics class. Cosmic rays cause the ice ages! This is all very simple stuff. For you too say that anyone who knows anything about the subject knows that C02 causes substantial global warming is ridiculous and just the opposite. Any true scientist that is not being paid off, will tell you the same thing as I did. Actually several years ago, I predicted it would be likely that we would not see any real changes, and in fact predicted no ocean rise, other than normal (1.7 mm/year) No changes in storms intensity or frequency. Note I was wrong on that, because number of storms and intensity have gone down, but only slightly, except for hurricanes and typhoons those are way down. The AGW nut cases are claiming that the ocean is storing all the extra heat from AGW and that is why we are seeing a pause in surface temperatures. If that were the case then tropical storms would be a real problem by now, but there not, just the opposite.

    Here is my prediction: If anything, we will see cooler than normal temps, for the next 10-20 years than back to normal. Overall, nothing out of the ordinary.

    Note: The arguments I make cannot be broken!

  • Sarah Goodwich

    AGW’ers think it’s ok for them to lie whenever the truth doesn’t serve them, reasoning that their ends justify their means.
    Not nice.

  • #1: no relationship between year to year changes in atmospheric CO2 and annual anthropogenic emissions. (in particular compare figure 6 with figure 10).

    http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2642639

    #2: when the uncertainty in the flows is taken into consideration in the IPCC carbon budget, it is no longer clear that rising atmospheric CO2 can be ascribed to human emissions or that lowering human emissions will have an impact on atmospheric CO2.

    http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2654191

A project of Minnesota Majority, hosted and maintained by Minnesotans for Global Warming.