Mithrae said:
As I pointed out - and as you, for reasons best known to yourself, had decided to omit from your quotes - one of their scenarios still projects a possibility for 4 degrees of warming by the end of the century ('likely as not' with 'medium confidence'). 4-6 degrees were always the upper end of the estimates and projections, just as 1.5-2 degrees have always been the lower end. The major change is the increasing confidence that we're likely headed for at least 1.5 degrees of warming.
However even if that were not the case, do you think making corrections, increasing knowledge, or improving reliability of modelling are bad things? I was under the impression that was the whole point of ongoing research into our climate, and for that matter of science in general.
You said is post 6
Where did the IPCC say these things? From a brief once-over I can't find the relevant references posted in Mr. Watt's blog.
I was pointing out sections of the new report, that indeed had a downward trend.
I also posted the links to the IPCC docs, so people could look through their long winded
verbiage them self's.
So you were attempting to substantiate the claims made in the OP. Let's see how well you did. Jack Hays claims:
"
Despite its customary obscurantism and spin, the IPCC has now admitted that:
• a number of its CMIP5 models seriously exaggerate future warming;"
Sorry Longview, your references did not support that claim.
"
the climate sensitivity range used for the modeled projections is too high;"
Your references did not say that either.
"
internal variability[4] is expected to significantly offset warming (for some decades);"
Nor did they say that.
"
scientists cannot quantify the influence of sensitivity or of internal variability beyond about 2035; and"
They didn't say that either. Whew, this is getting embarassing.
"
consequently, the modeled temperature projections are unreliable."
Your quotes
directly contradicted that claim, expressing high confidence in several of their end-of-century projection scenarios.
So you haven't managed to substaniate any of the claims made in the OP, but you have contradicted one of them. Moreover, in order to produce your 'downward trend' it seems you chose to omit the end of the paragraph from your second quote, the IPCC scenario RCP8.5 which projects more than 4 degrees of warming ('as likely as not' with 'medium confidence'). That looks rather disingenuous on your part.
It is good that you provided the links in order for that to be seen
###############
Mithrae said:
Indeed, and you obviously have not looked at them. Two of them are links to the right-wing Cato Institute, from August and September, and one of them is a link to a guest post on Steve McIntyre's Climate Audit site from early December.
There is no reference provided for any IPCC 'admission' as claimed. But you guys blindly trust the word of this New Zealand politician, Barry Brill.
Interesting.
Just another
ad hominem from the orthodox warmist priesthood. How about checking the narrative against the historical record? If you find any discrepancies, please let me know. And btw, I trust McIntyre more than I trust the IPCC.
eace
Asking for the original source of the accusations you've made about the IPCC is not an
ad hominem, it's just common sense. Obviously, as we can see, you are unable to provide that information; you're just blindly trusting the word of Mr. Brill. If you think
that is an undesirable characteristic for me to point out, maybe you shouldn't do it?
It's not too late to post an honest retraction of the accusations made in the OP.
