MHAZE,
YOUR SECOND CHERRYPICK
"There is limited evidence of changes in extremes associated with other climate variables since the mid-20th century”

Page 219:

FULLER CONTEXT:-

“Analyses of land areas with sufficient data indicate increases in the frequency and intensity of extreme precipitation events in recent decades, but results vary strongly between regions and seasons. For instance, evidence is most compelling for increases in heavy precipitation in North America, Central America and Europe...

... indications exist that droughts have increased in some regions (e.g., the Mediterranean) and decreased in others (e.g., central North America) since the middle of the 20th century.

... There is very strong evidence, however, that storm activity has increased in the North Atlantic since the 1970s....

FAQ 2.2, Figure 2 summarizes some of the observed changes in climate extremes. Overall, the most robust global changes in climate extremes are seen in measures of daily temperature, including to some extent, heat waves. Precipitation extremes also appear to be increasing, but there is large spatial variability, and observed trends in droughts are still uncertain except in a few regions. While robust increases have been seen in tropical cyclone frequency and activity in the North Atlantic since the 1970s, the reasons for this are still being debated. There is limited evidence of changes in extremes associated with other climate variables since the mid-20th century.”

Now, is “since the 1970’s” the past or the future? ;-) Here’s the tip: don’t copy and paste from denialist trolls or you'll look like an idiot.

@Max Green: "Here’s the tip: don’t copy and paste from denialist trolls or you'll look like an idiot."

Um, Max, I'm not convinced NOT copy/pasting the cherries from "denialist trolls/websites" would make mhaze look any less like an idiot.

I could be wrong, but I am far from convinced that would help at all. :-)

Mhaze, your THIRD CHERRYPICKED QUOTE is also on page 162.

"Based on updated studies, AR4 conclusions regarding global increasing trends in drought since the 1970s were probably overstated."

Oh no! The science was overstated... so what does the rest of the IPCC data conclude?

"However, this masks important regional changes: the frequency and intensity of drought have likely increased in the Mediterranean and West Africa and likely decreased in central North America and north-west Australia since 1950. {2.6.2.2}

Don't denialist's just LOVE to quote data that MASKS other stuff? it's their FAAAVOURITE. They just cherrypick their favourite quotes, and ignore the overall context, the 'vibe' if you will. ;-) The INCONVENIENT DATA. It's just erased from existence, like Marty McFly, or displaced in time, moved from data from our past into the future, also like Marty McFly. You keep trying to get this data "Back to the Future". Dude, unless you've got a Flux capacitor, it just ain't gonna happen, OK?

Now, is "since 1950" the past or the future? ;-) Here’s the tip: don’t copy and paste from denialist trolls or you'll look like an idiot.

The science that underpins the IPCC is beginning to age, the IPCC was published in 2013, the peer reviewed papers used by the IPCC would had been published sometime prior. Each year there are about 12,000 papers published.

Since the last IPCC much new research has been completed in relation to the cryosphere.

Much more recent research:

https://thinkprogress.org/arctic-death-spiral-update-what-happens-in-the-arctic-affects-weather-everywhere-else-eeb823f6112b#.ior53e8ye

A quote from Professor Jennifer Francis:

"Our new study does indeed add to the growing pile of evidence that amplified Arctic warming and sea-ice loss favor the formation of blocking high pressure features in the North Atlantic. These blocks can cause all sorts of trouble, including additional surface melt on Greenland’s ice sheet (the primary focus of this study) as well as persistent weather patterns both upstream (North America) and downstream (Europe) of the block. Persistent weather can result in extreme events, such as prolonged heat waves, flooding, and droughts, all of which have repeatedly reared their heads more frequently in recent years."

Last sentence"

"What happens in the Arctic does not stay in the Arctic."

The volume of sea ice in the Arctic Ocean has continued to fall; in 1979 it was measured as being 15,700 km3, and in 2015, 5,700 km3. The trend has continually gone down.

@ ANT, I hear you, but this is about showing how untrustworthy mhaze's cherrypicking is, and how utterly it misrepresents the IPCC's findings.

@Mhaze, here is your FOURTH CHERRYPICK.

This one is not as bad. The flooding evidence so far does not seem to be as extreme as I would have thought. But the best models with the best physics show flooding will be a MAJOR concern soon. When the best supercomputers from the best scientists in the field say LOOK OUT, I don't care about your petty, selfish, childish little rant about the weather tomorrow not spoiling the weather today. Indeed, I don't even care why you dismiss the models. That's your problem, not mine.

YOUR FOURTH CHERRYPICK"

"In summary, there continues to be a lack of evidence and thus low confidence regarding the sign of trend in the magnitude and/or frequency of floods on a global scale."

CONTEXT:

"AR5 WGII assesses floods in regional detail accounting for the fact that trends in floods are strongly influenced by changes in river management (see also Section 2.5.2). Although the most evident flood trends appear to be in northern high latitudes, where observed warming trends have been largest, in some regions no evidence of a trend in extreme flooding has been found, for example, over Russia based on daily river discharge (Shiklomanov et al., 2007). Other studies for Europe (Hannaford and Marsh, 2008; Renard et al., 2008; Petrow and Merz, 2009; Stahl et al., 2010) and Asia (Jiang et al., 2008; Delgado et al., 2010) show evidence for upward, downward or no trend in the magnitude and frequency of floods, so that there is currently no clear and widespread evidence for observed changes in flooding except for the earlier spring flow in snow-dominated regions (Seneviratne et al., 2012).

Well I don't really know where to go with this. Max is all over the place and just when I think he's almost got it, it proves to be a mirage.

I've been pointing out that AR5 has been largely saying that there is little to no evidence that climate extremes on a global scale shows any discernable trend but did agree that AR5 did opine that extreme events have increased in some places, decreased in others and might increase in the future. I've explained why we should worry about what happens in the future when/if it happens.

So to prove me wrong Max says:
"The flooding evidence so far does not seem to be as extreme as I would have thought. But the best models with the best physics show flooding will be a MAJOR concern soon."

That is, he agrees with my point about the current data AND agrees with my point about potential increases in the future. Somehow agreeing with what I've said proves that what I said was wrong!!

To continue my 'sky' analogy its as though Max is saying "You're completely wrong to say the sky is blue because all the data shows that the sky is blue."

He of course peppers his posts with the accusation that I've cherry-picked from AR5. Apparently I've concentrated on the data about the current situation when he wants me to worry about the future. Cherry-pick is one of those favourite words of the alarmist which, in their hands, means "I don't want this to be true, therefore its cherry-picked". When you can't work out why the data is wrong, callit cherry-picked and hey presto!

Finally Max is continuing his policy of just making it up without evident embarrassment. He keeps saying I " copy and paste from denialist trolls" without bothering to offer even a passing attempt at demonstrating where, how or who.

It'd be sad if it wasn't so comical.