Home Arguments iPhone App Recent Comments Translations Links Support SkS

Twitter RSS Posts RSS Posts RSS Posts RSS Posts

to support
Skeptical Science
iPhone app

Download
Android app

Download
Nokia app

Download


It's the sun
Climate's changed before
There is no consensus
It's cooling
Models are unreliable
Temp record is unreliable
It hasn't warmed since 1998
Ice age predicted in the 70s
We're heading into an ice age
Antarctica is gaining ice
View All Arguments...


Username
Password
Keep me logged in
New? Register here
Forgot your password?

Latest Posts

Archives


Does the IPCC represent a scientific consensus?

The skeptic argument...

IPCC does not represent a scientific consensus

"Unquestionably, the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was formed to build the scientific case for humanity being the primary cause of global warming. Such a goal is fundamentally unscientific, as it is hostile to alternative hypotheses for the causes of climate change." (Roy Spencer)

What the science says...

The IPCC lead authors are experts in their field, instructed to fairly represent the full range of the up-to-date, peer-reviewed literature. Consequently, the IPCC reports tend to be cautious in their conclusions. Comparisons to the most recent data consistently finds that climate change is occurring more rapidly and intensely than indicated by IPCC predictions.

One characterisation of the IPCC is that the IPCC is politically motivated to exaggerate the dangers of global warming and the level of human influence on climate change. When IPCC predictions are compared to observed data, the opposite is shown to be the case. For example, the acceleration in fossil fuel CO2 emissions is tracking the worst case scenarios used by the IPCC AR4 (Copenhagen Diagnosis 2009). Consequently, atmospheric CO2 is increasing ten times faster than any rate detected in ice core data over the last 22,000 years.


Figure 1: Observed global CO2 emissions from fossil fuel burning and cement production compared with IPCC emissions scenarios. The coloured area covers all scenarios used to project climate change by the IPCC (Copenhagen Diagnosis 2009).

Satellite and tide-gauge measurements show that sea level rise is accelerating faster than expected. The average rate of rise for 1993-2008 as measured from satellite is 3.4 millimetres per year while the IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR) projected a best estimate of 1.9 millimetres per year for the same period. Actual sea level rise is 80% higher than the median projection. Sea level is likely to rise much more by 2100 than the often-cited range of 18-59 centimetres from the IPCC AR4.


Figure 3: Sea level change. Tide gauge data are indicated in red and satellite data in blue. The grey band shows the projections of the IPCC Third Assessment report (Copenhagen Diagnosis 2009).

Summer-time melting of Arctic sea-ice has accelerated far beyond the expectations of climate models. The area of sea-ice melt during 2007-2009 was about 40% greater than the average prediction from IPCC AR4 climate models. The thickness of Arctic sea ice has also been on a steady decline over the last several decades. September sea ice thickness has been decreasing at a rate of 57 centimetres per decade since 1987.


Figure 4: Observed (red line) and modelled September Arctic sea ice extent in millions of square kilometres. Solid black line gives the average of 13 IPCC AR4 models while dashed black lines represent their range. The 2009 minimum has recently been calculated at 5.10 million km2, the third lowest year on record and still well below the IPCC worst case scenario (Copenhagen Diagnosis 2009).

Printable Version  |  Link to this page

Comments

Comments 1 to 3:

  1. While I understand the two first pictures, I dont get the last one (figure 4) to make sense. The observed trend starts to diverge from the IPCC models mean at latest in the end of the 1970's - so what were those models based on, pre-1980 data?
  2. citizenschallenge at 01:43 AM on 3 July, 2010
    We need some source for information about the IPCC.

    The denialist community has succeeded in marginalizing its public moral authority way beyond anything reasonable or acceptable.

    Something must be done to directly combat the denialist's lies concerning the who, what, where and how of the IPCC.

    Any thoughts or suggestions?

    http://citizenschallenge.blogspot.com
  3. doug_bostrom at 02:00 AM on 3 July, 2010
    The very best defense of the IPCC will be their next report. We've seen this movie before and we'll see it again; IPCC releases latest synthesis, doubters and impressionists pile on, no significant dent is made.

    The IPCC is undergoing a review of its processes with an eye to making its next report more useful and less susceptible to synthetic controversy. Learn about the review here at the InterAcademy Council website.

Post a Comment

Political, off-topic or ad hominem comments will be deleted. Comments Policy...

You need to be logged in to post a comment. Login via the left margin or if you're new, register here.

Link to this page

© Copyright 2010 John Cook Links | Translations | About Us | Contact Us