webodec3ARCHIVEPreview
Open in TheBrain

IPCC 4th

---

NO MERRI

2007 INC TRUTH 2006 MAY

why most targeted/vilified?

see glacier-gate BS PACHAURI?

---

wiki denial 3 26

Several large fossil fuel corporations provide significant funding for attempts to mislead the public about climate science's trustworthiness.[273] ExxonMobil and the Koch family foundations have been identified as especially influential funders of climate change contrarianism.[274] The bankruptcy of the coal company Cloud Peak Energy revealed it funded the Institute for Energy Research, a climate denial think tank, as well as several other policy influencers.[275][276]

After the IPCC released its Fourth Assessment Report in 2007, the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) offered British, American, and other scientists $10,000 plus travel expenses to publish articles critical of the assessment. The institute had received more than $1.6 million from Exxon, and its vice-chairman of trustees was former Exxon head Lee Raymond. Raymond sent letters that alleged the IPCC report was not "supported by the analytical work". More than 20 AEI employees worked as consultants to the George W. Bush administration.[277]

Backing Denial at the American Enterprise Institute

The American Enterprise Institute, an 80-year-old, free market think tank in Washington, D.C., has received more money from ExxonMobil than any other climate science denier organization. In 2018, ExxonMobil gave the organization $160,000, bringing its total to $4.65 million since 1998.

Economist BenjaminZycher, an Enterprise Institute staff member who writes regularly about climate issues, argues that a carbon tax would be “ineffective” and has called the Paris agreement an “absurdity.” He also routinely cites largely debunked papers by John Christy, Judith Curry and other outlier scientists to buttress his attacks on what he calls “climate alarmism.”

Last fall, for example, Zycher took aim at the second volume of the Fourth National Climate Assessment—a periodic, congressionally mandated analysis of peer-reviewed climate science by 13 federal agencies.The report warned that by the end of this century, unchecked climate change could cause tens of thousands of deaths and hundreds of billions of dollars in damage. The Trump administration issued it the day after Thanksgiving in the hope that it would receive limited attention.

Zycher took issue with the report’s conclusions in a blog post on the think tank’s website, citing “systematic evidence on climate phenomena” that he says the report ignored. His “evidence” included half-truths, cherry-picked facts and fabrications. Contrary to Zycher’s claims, human activity is responsible for more than half of the increase in average global temperatures since 1950; sea level rise has accelerated due to climate change; and although there has been little change in the frequency of hurricanes globally, research suggests there has been an increase in hurricane intensity over the past 40 years.

Zycher also posted a column belittling a lawsuit brought by New York Attorney General Barbara Underwood that charges ExxonMobil with defrauding investors by publicly claiming to incorporate climate risks in its business decisions while downplaying or ignoring them for internal planning purposes. The lawsuit, which went to trial on October 22, alleges that ExxonMobil inflated its value, falsely assuring investors that its oil and gas reserves would not become “stranded assets” that would have to be left in the ground. Zycher accused Underwood of “picking an unpopular target and then trying to find a way to convict it of something,” and suggested that she filed the suit to advance her career.

greenpeace 2013?

CFACT’s 2011 financial disclosure form shows that Morano is the most valued employee at CFACT, receiving the largest

salary of $150,000 a year. Morano’s compensation is 40% more than both the Executive Director and the President’s

salaries, whose compensation is roughly $105,000 annually. After Morano’s arrival at CFACT in 2009, CFACT’s revenue

increased significantly, nearly doubling from 2008 to 2009.

 Dr. Willie Soon

Dr. Willie Soon is an aerospace engineer employed at the Harvard-Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, who is wellknown for accepting funds from oil and coal business interests. Greenpeace Freedom of Information Act inquiries to

Smithsonian Institute reveal that in2011 and 2012, Dr. Soon received nearly $115,000 from Donors Trust.13 Since 1994,

Dr. Soon has received over $1.3 million from ExxonMobil, the Koch brothers, American Petroleum Institute, Texaco,

Southern Company, Donors Trust and others.

Even though Dr. Soon is not a trained climatologist and most of his work is not peer-reviewed, his work is still frequently cited by climate deniers. He has been affiliated with a number of climate denial organizations, including the Heartland Institute, George C. Marshall Institute, and Tech Central Station.14 Dr. Soon pretends to be a jack-of-all-trades when it comes to scientific expertise.

He has published articles claiming that polar bears are not threatened by climate change, mercury from coal plants is not a public health threat, and variability of the sun is responsible for Arctic changes. In addition to his organizational affiliations, Dr. Soon has conspired to weaken the scientific consensus on climate change. In a letter obtained by Greenpeace, Dr. Soon alerts his colleagues to an upcoming UN climate change report(IPCC Fourth Assessment), and states “I hope we can start discussing to see what we can do to weaken the fourth assessment.” He also says “As A-team, we may give it our best shot to…counter some of the chapters,” and “Even if we can tackle ONE single chapter forcefully and effectively, we will really accomplish A LOT!” 15

https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/fighting-climate-chaos/climate-deniers/koch-industries/dr-willie-soon-a-career-fueled-by-big-oil-and-coal/

willie Soon plotted to take down the IPCC AR4 before it was even written.

In 2003, as the IPCC was gearing up for the upcoming Fourth Assessment (AR4) due in 2007, Willie Soon began plotting with colleagues about how to undermine the work. As part of the FOIA documents received by Greenpeace, there was a link to Dr. Soon’s documents. That link led to a directory of Dr. Soon’s files at Harvard. Dr. Soon has also referenced these online files in previous articles published by the Competitive Enterprise Institute. In a letter in these files (dated after 10 October) Dr. Soon wrote:

“Clearly they [the AR4 chapters] may be too much for any one of us to tackle them all … But, as A-team, we may for once give it our best shot to try to anticipate and counter some of the chapters, especially WG1—judging from our true expertise in the basic climate sciences …

Even if we can tackle ONE single chapter down the road but forcefully and effectively … we will really accomplish A LOT!

In all cases, I hope we can start discussing among ourselves to see what we can do to weaken the fourth assessment report or to re-direct  attention back to science …”

Who was this “A Team”? The letter was addressed to “Bob, Randy, Walter, Sallie and Dave”.

From other correspondence, it seems possible that “Bob” is Australian scepticBob Carter, as Dr. Soon worked with Carter. “Sallie” is clearly Dr. Sallie Baliunas,“Dave” is likely David Legates.

There is no prominent “A-team” type scientist or climate sceptic called Randy – except ExxonMobil’s lobbyist Randy Randol, who was heavily involved with the Exxon-funded deniers. Randol wrote the famous memo to the Bush administration recommending that the then head of the IPCC, Bob Watson, be replaced. (Watson was indeed replaced – by the current chair Rajendra Pachauri. But Pachauri has continued the rigorous scientific work carried out by Watson and has since become the target of deniers.)

Randol was involved in a number of other Exxon plans to undermine climate science, including a plan cooked up in 1998 with other Exxon-funded think tanks to attack the Kyoto Protocol (see his name, bottom of page 4).

Equally, there is no “Walter” in the climate denial field [cunningham?]– exceptWalt Buchholtz, ExxonMobil’s Government Relations & Issues Advisor, the man responsible for doling out Exxon’s funding grants to deniers and front groups. Buchholtz was listed as a “Government relations advisor” to the Heartland Institute in 2005 (as listed in the Heartland Institute’s 2005 990 IRS form).

Regardless of who these “A Team” members truly were, Willie Soon clearly coordinated a plan to undermine the science chapter of the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment – before he even knew what science it contained. This is a clear example of the climate denier strategy of undermining climate science, and stands in sharp contrast with accepted scientific methodology.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_United_Nations_Climate_Change_Conference

The 2007 United Nations Climate Change Conference took place at the BaliInternational Conference Centre, Nusa Dua, in Bali, Indonesia, between December 3 and December 15, 2007 (though originally planned to end on 14 December). Representatives from over 180 countries attended, together with observers from intergovernmental and nongovernmental organizations.[1] 

The conference encompassed meetings of several bodies, including the 13th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP 13), the 3rd Meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol (MOP 3 or CMP 3), together with other subsidiary bodies and a meeting of ministers.[1]

Negotiations on a successor to the Kyoto Protocol dominated the conference. A meeting of environment ministers and experts held in June called on the conference to agree on a road-map, timetable and 'concrete steps for the negotiations' with a view to reaching an agreement by 2009.[2] It has been debated whether this global meeting on climate change has achieved anything significant at all.

Initial EU proposals called for global emissions to peak in 10 to 15 years and decline "well below half" of the 2000 level by 2050 for developing countries and for developed countries to achieve emissions levels 20-40% below 1990 levels by 2020.

The United States strongly opposed these numbers, at times backed by Japan, Canada, Australia and Russia. The resulting compromise mandates "deep cuts in global emissions" with references to the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report.[1]

==

https://kpfa.org/episode/against-the-grain-june-18-2018/

suggest glaciergate made sci gunshy, softened #?!

cf extreme cities ashley

Cities and Climate Change

How vulnerable are cities to the weather extremes unleashed by climate change? To what extent do rising sea levels and the “heat-island effect” threaten urban areas? Ashley Dawson contends that while contemporary urban life is increasingly fragile and risky, grassroots efforts to protect communities while addressing social inequities deserve our attention. Ashley Dawson, Extreme Cities:

==

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Fourth_Assessment_Report

Climate Change 2007,the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was published in 2007 and is the fourth in a series of reports intended to assess scientific, technical and socio-economic information concerning climate change, its potential effects, and options for adaptation and mitigation.[2] The report is the largest and most detailed summary of the climate change situation ever undertaken, produced by thousands of authors, editors, and reviewers from dozens of countries, citing over 6,000 peer-reviewedscientific studies.People from over 130 countries contributed to the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, which took 6 years to produce.[2] Contributors to AR4 included more than 2500 scientific expert reviewers, more than 800 contributing authors, and more than 450 lead authors.[2]

"Robust findings" of the Synthesis report include:[3]

Overview

Like previous assessment reports, it consists of four reports:

Global warming projections from AR4[4] are shown below. The projections apply to the end of the 21st century (2090–2099), relative to temperatures at the end of the 20th century (1980–1999). Add 0.7 °C to projections to make them relative to pre-industrial levels instead of 1980–1999. (UK Royal Society, 2010, p=10[citation needed].[6] Descriptions of the greenhouse gas emissions scenarios can be found in Special Report on Emissions Scenarios.

AR4 global warming projections[4]| Emissions scenario | Best estimate (°C) | "Likely" range (°C) |

B11.81.1 – 2.9
A1T2.41.4 – 3.8
B22.41.4 – 3.8
A1B2.81.7 – 4.4
A23.42.0 – 5.4
A1FI4.02.4 – 6.4

"Likely" means greater than 66% probability of being correct, based on expert judgement.[5]

Sections

[Intergovernmental Panel on

Climate Change](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change "Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change")

show

IPCC Assessment Reports

show

IPCC Special Reports

UNFCCC · WMO · UNEP

The report was released in four principal sections:

Working Group I: The Physical Science Basis

The full WGI report[7] was published in March 2007, and last updated in September of that year. It includes a Summary for Policymakers (SPM), which was published in February 2007, and a Frequently Asked Questions section.

This section of the report, Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis, assessed current scientific knowledge of "the natural and human drivers of climate change" as well as observed changes in climate. It looked at the ability of science to attribute changes to different causes, and made projections of future climate change.

It was produced by 676 authors (152 lead authors, 26 review editors, and 498 contributing authors) from 40 countries, then reviewed by over 625 expert reviewers. More than 6,000 peer-reviewed publications were cited.[11]

Before being approved, the summary was reviewed line by line by representatives of 113 governments during the 10th session of WGI, in January to February 2007.[12]

On the issue of global warming and its causes, the SPM states that:

Very likely and likely mean "the assessed likelihood, using expert judgment" are over 90% and over 66%, respectively.[15]

Observations

The report notes many observed changes in the Earth's climate including atmospheric composition, global average temperatures, ocean conditions, and other climate changes.

Changes in the atmosphere

Carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide are all long-lived greenhouse gases.

Warming of the planet

Cold days, cold nights, and frost events have become less frequent. Hot days, hot nights, and heat waves have become more frequent. Additionally:

Ice, snow, permafrost, rain, and the oceans

The SPM documents increases in wind intensity, decline of permafrost coverage, and increases of both drought and heavy precipitation events. Additionally:

Hurricanes

Table SPM-2 lists recent trends along with certainty levels for the trend having actually occurred, for a human contribution to the trend, and for the trend occurring in the future. In relation to changes (including increased hurricane intensity) where the certainty of a human contribution is stated as "more likely than not" footnote f to table SPM-2 notes "Magnitude of anthropogenic contributions not assessed. Attribution for these phenomena based on expert judgment rather than formal attribution studies."

Factors that warm or cool the planet

Changes inradiative forcings between 1750 and 2005 as estimated by the IPCC.

AR4 describes warming and cooling effects on the planet in terms of radiative forcing — the rate of change of energy in the system, measured as power per unit area (in SI units, W/m2). The report shows in detail the individual warming contributions (positive forcing) of carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, halocarbons, other human warming factors, and the warming effects of changes in solar activity. Also shown are the cooling effects (negative forcing) of aerosols, land-use changes, and other human activities. All values are shown as a change from pre-industrial conditions.

Climate sensitivity

Climate sensitivity is defined as the amount of global average surface warming following a doubling of carbon dioxide concentrations.[17] It is likely to be in the range of 2 to 4.5 °C, with a best estimate of about 3 °C.[17] This range of values is not a projection of the temperature rise we will see in the 21st century, since the future change in carbon dioxide concentrations is unknown, and factors besides carbon dioxide concentrations affect temperature.[17]

Model-based projections for the future

Model projections are made based on an analysis of various computer climate models running within the different scenarios that were established in 2000 in the Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (the "SRES scenarios"). As a result, predictions for the 21st century are as shown below.

Scenario-specific projections are based on analysis of multiple runs by multiple climate models, using the various SRES Scenarios. "Low scenario" refers to B1, the most optimistic scenario family. "High scenario" refers to A1FI, the most pessimistic scenario family.

Temperature and sea level rise in the various scenarios

There are six families of SRES scenarios, and AR4 provides projected temperature and sea level rises (excluding future rapid dynamical changes in ice flow) for each scenario family.[21]

Selected quotes from the Working Group I Summary for Policymakers

Reaction to Working Group I

In the weeks before publication of the first report, controversy broke out about the report's projections of sea-level change, which in the new report was estimated at less than previous estimates. The now-published text gives a warning that the new estimation of sea-level could be too low: "Dynamical processes related to ice flow not included in current models but suggested by recent observations could increase the vulnerability of the ice sheets to warming, increasing future sea level rise." The mid-points of the sea level rise estimates are within ±10% of those from the TAR; but the range has narrowed.

Lord Rees, the president of the Royal Society, said, "This report makes it clear, more convincingly than ever before, that human actions are writ large on the changes we are seeing, and will see, to our climate. The IPCC strongly emphasises that substantial climate change is inevitable, and we will have to adapt to this. This should compel all of us — world leaders, businesses and individuals — towards action rather than the paralysis of fear. We need both to reduce our emissions of greenhouse gases and to prepare for the impacts of climate change. Those who would claim otherwise can no longer use science as a basis for their argument."[22]

U.S. Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman told a news conference that the report was "sound science" and "As the president has said, and this report makes clear, human activity is contributing to changes in our earth's climate and that issue is no longer up for debate."[23] **Kurt Volker**, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for European and Eurasian Affairs, said, "We support the recent IPCC report, in which U.S. scientists played a leading role."[24]

Based on the report, 46 countries in a "Paris Call for Action" read out by French President Chirac, have called for the creation of a United Nations Environment Organization (UNEO), which is to have more power than the current United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), and is to be modelled after the more powerful World Health Organization. The 46 countries included theEuropean Union nations, but notably did not include the United States, China, Russia, and India, the top four emitters of greenhouse gases.[25]

Working Group II: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability

Working Group II's Summary for Policymakers[26] was released on April 6, 2007. The full report was released September 18, 2007.

WGII states that "evidence from all continents and most oceans shows that many natural systems are being affected by regional climate changes, particularly temperature increases."

Observations

Some observed changes have been associated with climate change at varying levels of confidence.

With a high confidence (about an 8 in 10 chance to be correct) WGII asserts that climate change has resulted in:

With a very high confidence (about a 9 in 10 chance to be correct) WGII asserts that climate change is affecting terrestrial biological systems in that:

WGII also states that the ocean has become more acidic because it has absorbed human-caused carbon dioxide. Ocean pH has dropped by 0.1, but how this affects marine life is not documented.

Attribution of changes

WGII acknowledges some of the difficulties of attributing specific changes to human-caused global warming, stating that "Limitations and gaps prevent more complete attribution of the causes of observed system responses to anthropogenic warming." but found that the agreement between observed and projected changes was "Nevertheless ... sufficient to conclude with high confidence that anthropogenic warming over the last three decades has had a discernible influence on many physical and biological systems."

Projections

WGII describes some of what might be expected in the coming century, based on studies and model projections.

Fresh water

It is projected with high confidence that:

Ecosystems

It is projected with high confidence that:

Food

It is projected with medium confidence (about 5 in 10 chance to be correct) that globally, potential food production will increase for temperature rises of 1–3 °C, but decrease for higher temperature ranges.

Coastal systems

It is projected with very high confidence that:

Objections to original WGII language

US negotiators managed to eliminate language calling for cuts in greenhouse gas emissions, according to Patricia Romero Lankao, a lead author from the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR). The original draft read: "However, adaptation alone is not expected to cope with all the projected effects of climate change, and especially not over the long run as most impacts increase in magnitude. Mitigation measures will therefore also be required." The second sentence does not appear in the final version of the report.[27]

China objected to wording that said "based on observed evidence, there is very high confidence that many natural systems, on all continents and in most oceans, are being affected by regional climate changes, particularly temperature increases." When China asked that the word "very" be stricken, three scientific authors balked, and the deadlock was broken only by a compromise to delete any reference to confidence levels.[27]

Working Group III: Mitigation of Climate Change

See also: Mitigation of global warming

Working Group III's Summary for Policymakers (SPM)[28] was published on 4 May 2007 at the 26th session of the IPCC.[29] The full WG III report was published online in September, 2007.[30]

The IPCC convened in Bangkok on April 30 to start discussions on the draft Summary, with the participation of over 400 scientists and experts from about 120 countries.[31] At the full IPCC meeting on May 4, agreement was reached by the larger gathering of some 2,000 delegates. One of the key debates concerned a proposal to limit concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere to between 445 parts per million and 650 parts per million to avoid dangerous climate change, with pressure from developing countries to raise the lower limit. Despite this, the figures from the original proposal were incorporated into the Summary for Policymakers.[32] The Summary concludes that stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations is possible at a reasonable cost, with stabilization between 445 ppm and 535 ppm costing less than 3% of global GDP.[33]

The WG III report analyses mitigation options for the main sectors in the near-term, addressing also cross-sectorial matters such as synergies, co-benefits, and trade-offs. It also provides information on long-term mitigation strategies for various stabilization levels, paying special attention to implications of different short-term strategies for achieving long-term goals. [34]

Mitigation in the short and medium term (until 2030)

The Summary for Policymakers concludes that there was a high level of agreement and much evidence that 'there is substantial economic potential for the mitigation of global greenhouse gas emissions over the coming decades, that could offset the projected growth of global emissions or reduce emissions below current levels',[35] taking into account financial and social costs and benefits.[36] The technologies with the largest economic potential within this timescale are considered to be:[37]

Key mitigation technologies and practices by sector| Sector | Key mitigation technologies and practices currently commercially available | Key mitigation technologies and practices projected to be commercialized before 2030 |

Energy SupplyImproved supply and distribution efficiency; fuel switching from coal to gas; nuclear power; renewable heat and power (hydropower, solar, wind, geothermal and bioenergy); combined heat and power; early applications of CCS (e.g. storage of removed CO2 from natural gas)Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) for gas, biomass and coal-fired electricity generating facilities; advanced nuclear power; advanced renewable energy, including tidal and waves energy, concentrating solar, and solar PV.
TransportMore fuel efficient vehicles; electric vehicle; hybrid vehicles; cleaner diesel vehicles; biofuels; modal shifts from road transport to rail and public transport systems; non-motorised transport (cycling, walking); land-use and transport planningSecond generation biofuels; higher efficiency aircraft; advanced electric and hybrid vehicles with more powerful and reliable batteries
BuildingsEfficient lighting and daylighting; more efficient electrical appliances and heating and cooling devices; improved cook stoves, improved insulation; passive and active solar design for heating and cooling; alternative refrigeration fluids, recovery and recycle of fluorinated gasesIntegrated design of commercial buildings including technologies, such as intelligent meters that provide feedback and control; solar PV integrated in buildings
IndustryMore efficient end-use electrical equipment; heat and power recovery; material recycling and substitution; control of non-CO2 gas emissions; and a wide array of process-specific technologiesAdvanced energy efficiency; CCS for cement, ammonia, and iron manufacture; inert electrodes for aluminium manufacture
Agriculture

Improved crop and grazing land management to increase soil carbon storage; restoration of cultivated peaty soils and degraded lands; improved rice cultivation techniques and livestock and manure management to reduce :{[CH:{:{

4}:}:](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane "Methane")}: emissions; improved nitrogen fertilizer application techniques to reduce :{[N:{:{

2}:O}:](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrous_oxide "Nitrous oxide")}: emissions; dedicated energy crops to replace fossil fuel use; improved energy efficiency

Improvements of crop yields
Forestry/forestsAfforestation; reforestation; forest management; reduced deforestation; harvested wood product management; use of forestry products for bio-energy to replace fossil fuel useTree species improvement to increase biomass productivity and carbon biosequestration. Improved remote sensing technologies for analysis of vegetation/ soil carbon sequestration potential and mapping land use change
WasteLandfill methane recovery; waste incineration with energy recovery; composting of organic waste; controlled waste water treatment; recycling and waste minimization

Biocovers and biofilters to optimize :{CH:{:{

4}:}: oxidation}:

The IPCC estimates that stabilizing atmospheric greenhouse gases at between 445–535 ppm CO2 equivalent would result in a reduction of average annual GDP growth rates of less than 0.12%. Stabilizing at 535 to 590 ppm would reduce average annual GDP growth rates by 0.1%, while stabilization at 590 to 710 ppm would reduce rates by 0.06%.[38] There was high agreement and much evidence that a substantial fraction of these mitigation costs may be offset by benefits to health as a result of reduced air pollution, and that there would be further cost savings from other benefits such as increased energy security, increased agricultural production, and reduced pressure on natural ecosystems as well as, in certain countries, balance of trade improvements, provision of modern energy services to rural areas and employment.[39]

The IPCC considered that achieving these reductions would require a 'large shift in the pattern of investment, although the net additional investment required ranges from negligible to 5–10%'.They also concluded that it is often more cost effective to invest in end-use energy efficiency improvement than in increasing energy supply.[40]

In terms of electricity generation, the IPCC envisage that renewable energy can provide 30 to 35% of electricity by 2030 (up from 18% in 2005) at a carbon price of up to US$50/t, and that nuclear power can rise from 16% to 18%. They also warn that higher oil prices might lead to the exploitation of high-carbon alternatives such as oil sands, oil shales, heavy oils, and synthetic fuels from coal and gas, leading to increasing emissions, unless carbon capture and storage technologies are employed.[41]

In the transport sector there was a medium level of agreement and evidence that the multiple mitigation options may be counteracted by increased use, and that there were many barriers and a lack of government policy frameworks.[42]

There was high agreement and much evidence that, despite many barriers (particularly in the developing countries), new and existing buildings could reduce emissions considerably, and that this would also provide other benefits in terms of improved air quality, social welfare and energy security.[43]

Mitigation in the long term (after 2030)

The IPCC reported that the effectiveness of mitigation efforts over the next two or three decades would have a large impact on the ability to stabilize atmospheric greenhouse gases at lower levels, and that the lower the ultimate stabilization levels, the more quickly emissions would need to peak and decline.[44] For example, to stabilize at between 445 and 490 ppm (resulting in an estimate global temperature 2 to 2.4 °C above the pre-industrial average) emissions would need to peak before 2015, with 50 to 85% reductions on 2000 levels by 2050.[45]

There was high agreement and much evidence that stabilization could be achieved by 2050 using currently available technologies, provided appropriate and effective incentives were put in place for their development, acquisition, deployment and diffusion, and that barriers were removed.[46] For stabilization at lower levels the IPCC agreed that improvements of carbon intensity need to be made much faster than has been the case in the past, and that there would be a greater need for efficient public and private research, development and demonstration efforts and investment in new technologies during the next few decades.[47] The IPCC points out that government funding in real absolute terms for most energy research programmes has been flat or declining for nearly 20 years, and is now about half the 1980 level.[48] Delays in cutting emissions would lead to higher stabilization levels and increase the risk of more severe climate change impacts, as more of the current high-emission technologies would have been deployed.[49]

Among the measures that might be used, there was high agreement and much evidence that policies that put a price on the cost of carbon emissions could provide incentives for consumers and producers. Carbon prices of 5 to 65 US$/tCO2 in 2030 and 15 to 130 US$/tCO2 by 2050 are envisaged for stabilization at around 550 ppm by 2100.[50]

Synthesis Report

A draft version of the Synthesis Report, said to be subject to final copyedit, was published on 16 November 2007.[51]

The Synthesis Report goes one step further [than the first three Climate Change 2007 Working Group Reports]: it is the decisive effort to integrate and compact this wealth of information into a readable and concise document explicitly targeted to the policymakers.

The Synthesis Report also brings in relevant parts some material contained in the full Working Group Reports over and above what is included in the Summary for Policymakers in these three Reports. It is designed to be a powerful, scientifically authoritative document of high policy relevance, which will be a major contribution to the discussions at the 13th Conference of the Parties in Bali during December 2007. In fact, this Conference was postponed to December to allow the IPCC Synthesis Report to come out first.

— Press conference for the release of the IPCC Synthesis Report

The six topics[52] addressed in the Synthesis Report are:

  1. Observed changes in climate and its effects (WGI and WGII).
  2. Causes of change (WGI and WGIII).
  3. Climate change and its impacts in the near and long term under different scenarios (WGI and WGIII).
  4. Adaptation and mitigation options and responses, and the inter-relationship with sustainable development, at global and regional levels (WGII and WGIII).
  5. The long term perspective: scientific and socio-economic aspects relevant to adaptation and mitigation, consistent with the objectives and provisions of the Convention [sic], and in the context of sustainable development (WGI and WGIII).
  6. Robust findings, key uncertainties (WGI, WGII and WGIII).

The "Convention" mentioned in Topic 5 is the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

The key findings from the AR4 Synthesis Report will be discussed Wednesday 13 December 2007[53] at the United Nations Climate Change Conference (UNFCCC COP 13—CMP 3) in Bali, Indonesia, which takes place 3–14 December (see UNFCCC home page[54]).

Anthropogenic warming could lead to some impacts that are abrupt or irreversible

The SPM states that "Anthropogenic warming could lead to some impacts that are abrupt or irreversible, depending upon the rate and magnitude of the climate change."[citation needed]

Reception

Main article: Criticism of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report

The Fourth Assessment Report has been the subject of criticism. Skeptics of anthropogenic global warming contend that their claims are not sufficiently incorporated in the report. Others regard the IPCC as too conservative in its estimates of potential harm from climate change. The report has also been criticized for inclusion of an erroneous date for the projected demise of the Himalayan glaciers.

Related to the subject of global warming in general, the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report has been discussed by various bodies such as government officials, special interest groups and scientific organizations;see the article "Politics of global warming" for a thorough discussion of the politics surrounding the phenomenon, and the positions of the various parties involved.

The United Nations appointed an independent board of scientists to "review the workings of the world's top climate science panel" which reported in September 2010;[55] see Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change#InterAcademy Council review.

Response to AR4

Several science academies have referred to and/or reiterated some of the conclusions of AR4. These include:

The Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (PBL, et al., 2009;[62] 2010)[63] has carried out two reviews of AR4. These reviews are generally supportive of AR4's conclusions.[64][65] PBL (2010)[65] make some recommendations to improve the IPCC process. A literature assessment by the US National Research Council (US NRC, 2010)[66] concludes:

Climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for—and in many cases is already affecting—a broad range of human and natural systems [emphasis in original text]. ... This conclusion is based on a substantial array of scientific evidence, including recent work, and is consistent with the conclusions of recent assessments by the U.S. Global Change Research Program ..., the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Fourth Assessment Report ..., and other assessments of the state of scientific knowledge on climate change.

Projected date of melting of Himalayan glaciers

Some errors have been found in the IPCC AR4 Working Group II report. Two errors include the melting of Himalayan glaciers (see later section), and Dutch land area that is below sea level.[67]

A paragraph in the 2007 Working Group II report ("Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability"), chapter 10 included a projection that Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035

Glaciers in the Himalaya are receding faster than in any other part of the world (see Table 10.9) and, if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035and perhaps sooner is very high if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate. Its total area will likely shrink from the present 500,000 to 100,000 km2 by the year 2035 (WWF, 2005).

This projection was not included in the final summary for policymakers. The IPCC has since acknowledged that the date is incorrect, while reaffirming that the conclusion in the final summary was robust.They expressed regret for "the poor application of well-established IPCC procedures in this instance". The date of 2035 has been correctly quoted by the IPCC from the WWF report, which has misquoted its own source, an ICSI report "Variations of Snow and Ice in the past and at present on a Global and Regional Scale".

Rajendra K. Pachauri responded in an interview with Science.[68]

Overstatement of effects

Former IPCC chairman Robert Watson said, regarding the Himalayan glaciers estimation, "The mistakes all appear to have gone in the direction of making it seem like climate change is more serious by overstating the impact. That is worrying. The IPCC needs to look at this trend in the errors and ask why it happened".[69] Martin Parry, a climate expert[70] who had been co-chair of the IPCC working group II, said that "What began with a single unfortunate error over Himalayan glaciers has become a clamour without substance" and the IPCC had investigated the other alleged mistakes, which were "generally unfounded and also marginal to the assessment".[71]

Other

The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report featured a graph showing 12 proxy based temperature reconstructions, including the three highlighted in the 2001 Third Assessment Report (TAR); Mann, Bradley & Hughes 1999 as before, Jones et al. 1998 and Briffa 2000 had both been calibrated by newer studies. In addition, analysis of the Medieval Warm Period cited reconstructions by Crowley & Lowery 2000 (as cited in the TAR) and Osborn & Briffa 2006. Ten of these 14 reconstructions covered 1,000 years or longer. Most reconstructions shared some data series, particularly tree ring data, but newer reconstructions used additional data and covered a wider area, using a variety of statistical methods. The section discussed the divergence problem affecting certain tree ring data.[72]

See also

Notes

...

drs dis prep --> covid BS

himalaya error in IPCC was transposed

digits and had already been corrected by

sci 427 glaciers shrinking 2x as decade

before.  cop15

Political views

Regarding the controversy over the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report on the melt rate of Himalayan-glaciers,[15][unreliable source?] Doctors for Disaster Preparedness President Jane Orientsaid: "The data, all the data, needs to come to light, ...Thousands of scientists are capable of assessing it. The only reason to keep it hidden, locked in the clutches of the elite few, is that it decisively disproves their computer models and shows that their draconian emission controls are based on nothing except a lust for power, control and profit."[16]

After the nuclear accident at Fukushima, Doctors for Disaster Preparedness President Jane Orient argued that concerns about the disaster were exaggerated and the accident should not deter the United State from using nuclear power.[17]

Doctors for Disaster Preparedness President Jane Orient supports the building of civil defense shelters in case of a terrorist attack.[18] Due to an increase in fallout shelter construction since 911 by Americans fearing a nuclear terrorist attack, she was quoted as saying, "They're treating me less like a crazy woman than they did before."[19]

^ ^

^===

mashey 2012

..\p211

Z.2011.10-16 Jim Lakely  1016  heartland?

(really, half-page advertisement)

New Global Warming Report Contradicts UN’s IPCC IRS-0E

“The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC),

already under severe criticism for violating the requirements of academic peer

review and relying on secondary sources, comes under question again in a new

report coproduced by three nonprofit research organizations.

Climate Change Reconsidered: 2011 Interim Reportstates “natural causes are

very likely to be [the] dominant” cause of climate change that took place in the

twentieth and the start of the twenty[-]first centuries.

“We are not saying anthropogenic greenhouse gases (GHG) cannot produce

some warming or have not in the past. Our conclusion is that the evidence

shows they are not playing a substantial role,” the study says. Meme-36

The report goes on to state, “the net effect of continued warming and rising

carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere is most likely to be beneficial to

humans, plants, and wildlife.” Meme-120

Both conclusions contradict the widely cited reports of the IPCC. …

Key findings, as outlined in the interim report’s executive summary, include:

• “Rising temperatures and atmospheric CO2 concentrations, by increasing crop

yields, will play a major role in averting hunger and ecological destruction in the

future.” Meme-120

• “Global warming is more likely to improve rather than harm human health

because rising temperatures lead to a greater reduction in winter deaths than the

increase they cause in summer deaths.”

• “Even in worst-case scenarios, mankind will be much better off in the year

2100 than it is today, and therefore able to adapt to whatever challenges climate

change presents.”

• “We find evidence that the models [relied on by the IPCC] over-estimate the

amount of warming that occurred during the twentieth century and fail to

incorporate chemical and biological processes that may be as important as the

physical processes employed in the models.” Meme-05

• “[T]he Medieval Warm Period of approximately 1,000 years ago, when there

was about 28 percent less CO2 in the atmosphere than there is currently, was

both global and warmer than today’s world.” Meme-56

This is classic anti-science created for a non-expert audience, §E.

Few will ever read this, but it is a useful prop for those who wish to

believe.

...

duck 2 22

Climate Change Reconsidered: 2011 Interim Report

:{climatechangereconsidered.org:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:baseline;display:inline"):}::{ › climate-change-reconsidered-2011-interim-report:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:baseline;opacity:1;visibility:visible"):}:

In 2011, the Nongovernmental Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) published Climate Change Reconsidered: 2011 Interim Report, a 400-page report containing summaries and analysis of scientific research published since the original 2009 edition of Climate Change Reconsidered.

Climate Change Reconsidered: 2011 Interim Report on the ...

:{https://www.amazon.com:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:baseline;display:inline"):}::{ › Climate-Change-Reconsidered-Interim-Nongovernmental › dp › 1934791369:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:baseline;opacity:1;visibility:visible"):}:

Climate Change Reconsidered 2011: Interim Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) will reward the reader searching for a one-stop source of authoritative and documented information on the multifaceted topic of climate change.

Climate Change Reconsidered: 2011 Interim Report On The ...

:{store.heartland.org:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:baseline;display:inline"):}::{ › shop › climate-change-reconsidered-2011-interim-report-on-the-nongovernmental-panel-on-climate-change:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:baseline;opacity:1;visibility:visible"):}:

According to Climate Change Reconsidered: 2011 Interim Report, natural causes are very likely to be [the] dominant cause of climate change that took place in the twentieth and at the start of the twenty-first centuries. We are not saying anthropogenic greenhouse gases (GHG) cannot produce some warming or have not in the past

Climate Change Reconsidered: 2011 Interim Report ...

:{https://archive.is:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:baseline;display:inline"):}::{ › x4wXN:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:baseline;opacity:1;visibility:visible"):}:

webpage capture. Saved from: history

Climate Change Reconsidered - Climate Change Reconsidered

:{climatechangereconsidered.org:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:baseline;display:inline"):}::{:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:baseline;opacity:1;visibility:visible"):}:

Climate Change Reconsidered: 2011 Interim Report; Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science; Climate Change Reconsidered II: Biological Impacts; Scientific Critique of IPCC's 2013 'Summary for Policymakers' Commentary and Analysis on the Whitehead & Associates 2014 NSW Sea-Level Report; Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming ...

Scientific Climate Report ("Climate Change Reconsidered ...

:{https://www.calt.iastate.edu:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:baseline;display:inline"):}::{ › annotation › scientific-climate-report-climate-change-reconsidered-2011-interim-report-idso-carter-and:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:baseline;opacity:1;visibility:visible"):}:

Scientific Climate Report ("Climate Change Reconsidered: 2011 Interim Report," by Idso, Carter and Singer) (430-page scientific report authored by climate science researchers (editor of CO2 Science Journal, Ph.D. marine geologist and research professor, and distinguished atmospheric physicist and past director of U.S. Weather Satellite Service ...

:{PDF:(style="margin:-0.2em 0px 0px;padding:1px 0.35em 0px;border:0px;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:600;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:middle;border-radius:var(--default-border-radius);display:inline-block;position:relative;user-select:none;top:-1px;background-color:#d0d0d0;"):}: 2011 Interim Report of the Nongovernmental International ...

:{solberg.snr.missouri.edu:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:baseline;display:inline"):}::{ › gcc › 201NIPCCinterimreport.pdf:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:baseline;opacity:1;visibility:visible"):}:

Climate Change Reconsidered - 2011 Interim Report vi The temperature trend for the period 1995 to 2009 ―is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level.‖ regime. Japan, Canada negotiations for a future Kyoto Protocol, while there When asked, ―When scientists say ―the debate on

Study Claims Global Warming is 'Beneficial' for Human Health

:{https://www.ibtimes.com:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:baseline;display:inline"):}::{ › study-claims-global-warming-beneficial-human-health-313598:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:baseline;opacity:1;visibility:visible"):}:

It directly challenges the findings of the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report. The "Climate Change Reconsidered: 2011 Interim Report" was co-authored by a team...

Fakegate: The Obnoxious Fabrication of Global Warming

:{https://www.forbes.com:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:baseline;display:inline"):}::{ › sites › peterferrara › 2012 › 03 › 01 › fakegate-the-obnoxious-fabrication-of-global-warming:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:baseline;opacity:1;visibility:visible"):}:

Mar 1, 2012Two years later, Heartland published the 418 page Climate Change Reconsidered: The 2011 Interim Report of the NIPCC, which updated the research regarding global warming and "climate change" since...

:{PDF:(style="margin:-0.2em 0px 0px;padding:1px 0.35em 0px;border:0px;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:600;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:middle;border-radius:var(--default-border-radius);display:inline-block;position:relative;user-select:none;top:-1px;background-color:#d0d0d0;"):}: Observations: The Hydrosphere and Ocean

:{myweb.wwu.edu:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:baseline;display:inline"):}::{ › dbunny › pdfs › nipcc_rpt › NIPCC_Chap6-Hydrosphere-Oceans.pdf:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:baseline;opacity:1;visibility:visible"):}:

Climate Change Reconsidered: 2011 Interim Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC). Chicago, IL: The Heartland Institute. IPCC 2007. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Solomon, S., et ...