WORKING Group II, of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), published their contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report earlier today. The summary document begins by explaining that human interference with the climate system is occurring and climate change poses risks for humans and natural systems. The report goes on to assess the impacts, how we can adapt and why we are vulnerable.
Within an hour of the reports release the Australian Broadcasting Corporation had an article quoting CSIRO’s Dr Mark Howden…
“The world's leading climate science organisation - the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) - has released its fifth report and warns the world is ill-prepared for risks from a changing climate.
The CSIRO's Dr Mark Howden, who was lead author on the chapter addressing food production and food security, says the report predicts a rainfall reduction of 20 to 40 per cent in parts of southern Australia in coming decades, while rainfall will be more variable in the north.”
I need to file my The Land column this evening and I would like to put the 20 to 40 percent reduction in some context relative to the rest of the report. But I can’t find these figures in the report.
It’s a long report with many components. Can someone help me…
http://ipcc-wg2.gov/AR5/report/final-drafts/
In particular where does it say rainfall will reduce by 20 to 40 percent in southern Australia?
The Bolter has some fun at the expense of the warming hysterics. One of his best columns.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/opinion/caravan-of-gloom-slowing-down/story-fni0ffxg-1226872710791
Chicago has just experienced the coldest 4 months on record.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/01/its-official-chicago-experienced-the-coldest-four-months-ever/#more-106800
ZIP warming so far this century, but do the extremists really care? Certainly not Garnaut or the CC Authority or the BOM or CSIRO or Greens or Labor or C Council or Fairfax or their ABC etc. They all just hear nothing and see nothing and ignore simple maths or simple logic and reason.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/wheres_the_warming/#commentsmore
Sorry should read hasn't got the guts above. Too much to do this morning, so written in a big hurry.
It's been a while, but AGAIN I'll ask the only question that matters. If OZ followed Garnaut and the CC Authority's advice and increased the co2 tax to 15%, THEN by how much would it lower temp or co2 or change the climate by 2100?
At least Luke thought we could build A new Nuke, but Christy showed that even a thousand new nukles wouldn't make a scrap of difference.
But bazza will argue until he drops about the consequences of CAGW but has got the guts to offer a solution. Of course we all know why don't we? THERE ISN"T ONE, you see NATURE just doesn't care at all.
More lies and deception from the MSM. But don't worry the true religious fanatics will still hold the faith with even more vigour.
The truth and facts mean zip to these true believers. Models are hopeless, f iddling with temp records doesn't matter, earlier similar warm periods don't count, SLR is decelerating in recent studies, polar bears show a 400 to 500% increase in sixty years, precipitation over Greenland has increased since the 1890s and Antarctica is colder than earlier periods etc etc.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/01/la-times-tony-barboza-gets-gaught-fear-mongering-the-ipcc-report-becomes-first-victim-of-facts-that-dont-agree-with-claims/#more-106782
If only bazza and his pals had put as much effort into policing the AGW promoters, and held them to any sort of standard at all (besides those of rent seeking and moral hazard).
Instead we see post hoc arm waving, conflicting WG reports, deception, distraction, etc. by the AGW climatocrats.
And of course outrage that people actually want the actual data to be checked.
“A land of drought and flooding rains
But coming now too hard too fast.”
Like drought in 1902? Like flooding in 1956? Or like both through the 1890s? I hate that.
As for "a high level of uncertainty for the regional rainfall scenarios in parts of southern Australia"...You mean we'll only have that problem "in parts" now? Well, some things get better, it seems, but I'd need to see that improvement to believe it.
Seriously, bazza, what are we to do about a country where, in the late 1830s the Murrumbidgee dried up to a few pools...then in 1841 the drought ended with flooding which caused the Bremer to rise 70 feet? What about a country where you have the world's greatest know wildfire in 1851...then Gundagai gets swept away - just swept away! - by flood the following year?
I know you hate me talking about all this stuff, bazza. But I'm such a tease and it's as easy as shooting fish in a barrel. Hard to resist when Dorothy has been proven so completely right, time and time again.
How much confidence should I have in Jens Land article on IPCC?
Will she declare a conflict of interest?
Will she get it right on how you adapt in the face of a high level of uncertainty for the regional rainfall scenarios in parts of southern Australia?
Will she remind us how her back yard unable-to-be-replicated neural net seasonal forecast alledgedly beat POAMA and yes, without recourse to an independent statistician?
Will she remind her readers of the IPCC temperature scenarios and their high level of confidence?
Maybe she too like the PM will use Mackellar to reassure her readers and ignore the increased severity and frequency of extremes.
Maybe she will update Dorothy.
"A land of drought and flooding rains
But coming now too hard too fast."