My problems with the IPCC report

Below I will sketch two aspects of the IPCC's work which I find troubling. One relates to some interesting discussions on the thread The coming crisis of climate science which are worth pursuing in light of the two recent IPCC documents (Press release and Headlines document) reprinted here on Klimazwiebel. The other relates to the way the issue is presented by the IPCC.

IPCC Press release

Here is the yesterday's official press release from the IPCC:

Human influence on climate clear, IPCC report says

STOCKHOLM, 27 September - Human influence on the climate system is clear. This is evident in most regions of the globe, a new assessment by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concludes. It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century. The evidence for this has grown, thanks to more and better observations, an improved understanding of the climate system response and improved climate models.

IPCC Headlines

Here are the official headlines from yesterday's press release:

Headline Statements from the Summary for Policymakers 

Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, sea level has risen, and the concentrations of greenhouse gases have increased. Each of the last three decades has been successively warmer at the Earth’s surface than any preceding decade since 1850. In the Northern Hemisphere, 1983–2012 was likely the warmest 30-year period of the last 1400 years.

Reclaiming science

“Popular Science” is completely ending comments because they were determned to be counterproductive to the mission of the magazine: “A politically motivated, decades-long war on expertise has eroded the popular consensus on a wide variety of scientifically validated topics. Everything, from evolution to the origins of climate change, is mistakenly up for grabs again. Scientific certainty is just another thing for two people to “debate” on television. And because comments sections tend to be a grotesque reflection of the media culture surrounding them, the cynical work of undermining bedrock scientific doctrine is now being done beneath our own stories, within a website devoted to championing science.”

http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-09/why-were-shutting-our-comments

How does this reconcile with the suggestions that the blogosphere is a means to make science more democratic? Is the blogosphere as a means of (popular - and sometimes not so popular) scientific discussion merely a transitory 'post-normal' misconception?

The future of the IPCC

There is lots of talk how the IPCC could be continued or modified. I want to add one more scenario, namely regionalization.

Berichte aus der Realität: Auch eine Erklärung für die "Pause"

Eine Leserin schickte mir diesen Kommentar unter der Überschrift "Interview - Klimawandel macht eine Pause":

"Die Modelle der Forscher stimmen…., aber jemand greift gezielt ins Klima ein: der Mensch selbst. Es ist bedauerlich, dass die Forscher mittlerweile in ihrer Materie so hochspezialisiert sind, dass sie nicht mehr über ihren Tellerrand schauen können (oder ihr Wissen nicht mit der Öffentlichkeit teilen). 

Seit ca. 15 Jahren wird mit einem künstlich herbeigeführten Eiskristall-Dunst in der Stratosphäre das Sonnenlicht gefiltert, d.h. reduziert. Diese Wissenschaft der Manipulation heisst auf Englisch "solar radiation management". Die Technik ist kostengünstig und einfach: Mit Hilfe von hochfliegenden Verkehrsflugzeugen (plus chemischen Zusätzen) wird in der Stratosphäre ein künstlicher Dunst erzeugt. Dieser Dunst reflektiert einen Teil des Sonnenlichtes zurück ins Weltall. Die Temperaturen sinken merklich. Regenwolken, die sich vorwiegend in der drunterliegenden Troposphäre befinden, regnen durch die künstliche Abkühlung vorzeitig ab. Das erklärt den ständig grauen Himmel der letzten Jahre, die immer schnelleren Wetterwechsel und das gefühlte "An und Abschalten" der Jahreszeiten.

The coming crisis of climate science?

With the fifth assessment report soon to be released by the IPCC the pre-publication buzz is well underway. A while ago unauthorised drafts circulated in the blogosphere and now the official leaks have found their way into news editing rooms. A central question picked up by most commentators is the ‘pause in global warming’, the ‘stagnation’, or the ‘hiatus’.

Dennis Bray's surveys of climate scientists

Dennis Bray

It seems that there is renewed interest in the surveys of Dennis Bray (and myself as junior partner) of climate scientists. Four of such surveys have been done. Results of three of these are published; a fourth one, run in early 2013, is presently evaluated. We give here the references to reports and analyses.

The intriguing stagnation

We are not lacking hypothesis about the recent hiatus - or stagnation- in the global mean temperature: the ocean is taking up more heat, stratospheric water vapour has decreased, the sun has recently weakened and volcanic activity has also gathered a quicker clip. A preliminary look at the structure of the stagnation may, or may not, offer some clues about how likely which of these hypothesis, or which combination, may end up being the correct one.

Andreas Frey in der FAS - zum HIntergrund

Am vergangenen Sonntag hat Andreas Frey in der Frankfurter Allgemeinen Sonntagszeitung (FAS; 1. September, S. 57) eine schöne Analyse "Warum macht der Klimawandel Pause?" der Meinungen eines Spektrum von Klimawissenschaftlern (u.a. Knutti, Marotzke, Rahmstorf, von Storch) zur "Stagnation" gebracht - aus Copyright-Gründen können wir den Beitrag hier nicht faksimilieren. Aber vielleicht interessiert die Leser, wie der Autor seinen Beitrag vorbereitet hat - deshalb seine Fragen an Hans von Storch und die Antworten dazu: