Discussion thread for IPCC live press conference webcast

Webcast of IPCC press conference

STOCKHOLM, 24 September – The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is holding a press conference at 10.00 a.m. Stockholm time (4AM EDT, 1AM PDT) on Friday 27 September 2013 to present the Summary for Policymakers of the Working Group I contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report(AR5).

This press conference will be webcast in English and Chinese and can be followed live.

This link will be live around that time:

http://www.ipcc.ch/webcast

=============================================================

Depending on the timing of the release of the SPM in the webcast, I may or may not be awake to watch it, so, I’m relying on readers to post links tot he SPM and to dissect what was announced.

In the discussion thread, feel free to point out issues in the SPM and changes from the draft SPM here: Access: The “leaked” IPCC AR5 draft Summary for Policymakers

Look to see what they’ve done about pinning down a best guess for climate sensitivity. – Anthony

About these ads
This entry was posted in IPCC AR5 Report and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

111 Responses to Discussion thread for IPCC live press conference webcast

  1. transport by zeppelin says:

    News Flash *****

    I’ve found the missing heat!

    It’s hiding in my Kelvinator

  2. dp says:

    So they’re going to start lying right away and look like idiots and it is our job to make sure nobody misses that. These meetings are nothing if not a gift to the skeptically normal. We owe it to the world to give the reality deniers a large audience. They’re feeling the pain because theirs is the stupid that burns.

  3. Under the sub-topic of Beatings Will Continue Until Morale Improves I wrote a wrapper for Donna Laframboise’s blog article on the process.

  4. noaaprogrammer says:

    Current temperature in Stockholm is 41 degrees F, with the low expected to be 39. So not too much warming is going on there. –Just checking for something similar to the Gore effect!

  5. Wesley Bruce says:

    The morning MSM in Australia is trying its hardest to push the “Its really real” line with talk of 500 year old muscles, tree rings and warming oceans but no mention of any sceptic or any real data. They showed a stevenson box in perfect condition beside an automated unit without mentioning that the former “very accurate weather measurements” were not actually being used by the IPCC.

  6. wayne says:

    Bernd Felsche, read your links. Sounds more like they will beat them until the consensus a solid 100%. And sadly, that is exactly what is happening… 100% agreement is manditory, to refuse to agree is futile and to hell with the science.

  7. Greg says:

    This press conference will be webcast in English and Chinese and can be followed live.

    These guys just don’t know when they’re beat , do they?

    China pulled the run on their scam in Copenhagen and they think they’re going have the wool pulled now? Get real.

  8. IISD is the quasi-official rapporteur of all conclaves environmental. Here’s their latest tweet:

    Discussions continued through the night, final editing work now on SPM #IPCC #AR5 http://t.co/IzkBRetS56— IISDRS (@IISDRS) September 27, 2013

    Nothing quite like pulling two consecutive all-nighters to ensure that one’s “product” has been carefully and thoroughly considered and constructed, eh?!

  9. Andy says:

    Our bbc are already pushing it with simpering harrabin. It pitiful.

    I especially liked his bit where he said mistakes were made e.g. glaciers melting but they are 95 percent certain man is causing the warming that’s causing glaciers to melt etc.

  10. KNR says:

    Headline
    Turkeys did not vote for Christmas , its ‘worse then we thought ‘

    They really have no choice but to talk it up with lots of ‘could ‘ ,’should ‘ , ‘may ‘ etc and nice ‘useful ‘ distant deadlines . Its really not about the ‘science ‘

  11. J Martin says:

    Apparently the IPCC are blaming the change in the AMO on global warming and co2 !!


    For the first time, the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is due to give a clear prediction of how global warming will affect currents in the Atlantic Ocean.
    It will say that the circulation of warm and cold water in the Atlantic, which includes the Gulf Stream, will weaken by 20 to 44 per cent by the end of the century.

    The report will say that the warming of the oceans will interfere with the currents in the Atlantic, also known as the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC). It will state: “It is very likely that the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation will weaken over the 21st century. It is likely that there will be some decline in the AMOC by 2050, but there will be some decades when the AMOC increases.”

    Re the IPCC blaming forthcoming cooling on co2. It’s quite a clever move. The reality must be that given that the next solar cycle may well go missing with some cooling an inevitable result, added to the PDO having gone negative and the AMO about to, some cooling, especially in the UK must be the most likely future for perhaps tens of years.

    If the IPCC had completely ignored the likelihood of cooling and cooling then arrived, they would completely lose all credibility in every sector of society. Will they get away with blaming mankind’s output of co2 for the natural cycles of the oceans. ?

    Leopards don’t change their spots.

    This insanity from;

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/10337064/IPCC-report-Britain-could-cool-if-Gulf-Stream-slows.html

  12. Kev-in-Uk says:

    I’m not sure there are many folk (on the skeptic side) that could listen/watch such a presentation for more than a few minutes at a time without feeling physically sick – so this really needs to be a crowd sourced task to try and cover it all! (Maybe Anthony should have issued a health warning with his request?)

  13. Sigmundb says:

    In todays newspapers here in Europe all groups are positioning for the release.
    Green groups sound the alarm, main stream scientists with grave faces explains the dire situation (worse then ever, pause is an illusion, ice melting all over the place, this years arctic ice comback is nothing).
    Important difference to last thime though, sceptical/lukewarmer voices get some cover and main stream media is asking critical questions about ice and the hiatus/pause and the climate sensivity to C02.
    There is a critical presense this time and there will be hard questions about the IPCCs increased confidence in AGW related to issues like the unforecast hiatus, downadjusted sensitivity, retreat on bad weather etc.
    Given how important it is for the IPCC and their cohorts to keep the momentum it will be interesting to see how this plays out.

  14. StephenP says:

    If anyone gets time to see Professor Brian Cox’s latest programme ‘Science Britannica’ on BBC iPlayer, Episode 2, do so. He “reveals what science really is, explores the mindset of those who practise it, and shows how science runs through the past, present and future of everyone.”
    He interviews the Editor of Nature with a series of leading questions as to how the peer review process ensures that any article published is settled science because it has been through a ‘rigorous’ peer review process. As a result we should believe everything published therein. Especially as regards global warming.

  15. Steve says:

    News in the UK pushing the line that the IPCC is 90% sure man is to blame for warming then follows up with the ‘signed by 900 experts’.
    Didn’t everyone agree how fine the Emperor’s new clothes were?

    Thank you to all those that contribute here – I’ve found a place of calm against the madness.

  16. LabMunkey says:

    In the UK the BBC are covering the pause, but brought on a climate blogger as an expert witness to show that the pause was caused by volcanic aerosols around the equator, or pollution particulates.

    Luckily the governmental minister then chipped in to say that the issue is climate disruptions (more heat waves, more hurricanes etc……) to support the stance……

    it was interesting- you could tell the BBC was trying to square the perceived impartiality vs their ideological bias box they find themselves in….

    nothing to see here…. move along please…..

  17. Keitho says:

    The BBC are in full cry this morning and the cry is “we are all going to die”. Roger Harrabin keeps on popping up with a newly leaked opening statement and reads excerpts from it. Each new release he quotes is more alarming than ever.He also claims there isn’t one, not one they can find, scientist working in the climate field who doesn’t believe we are all going to get baked because mankind are just uncaring bastards.

    They go one further on the Beeb and declare that because of AGW the UK will get colder by at least one degree because the CO2 will cause the Atlantic currents to change. Sceptics are just bully boys and the science is strong and settled but the politicians are weak and unwilling to destroy their economies to save the world.

    I think this one will run and run.

  18. Peter Plail says:

    StephenP – I watched the programme with Cox and was greatly impressed with the arguments he presented for the way scientists approach scientific enquiry. I particularly liked the way he described the “double blind” multi-billion pound CERN hunt for the Higgs boson where they devised this experiment to verify their conjecture. Sadly the section on global warming seemed like an insert from another programme where all the good stuff he mentioned elsewhere went out the window; just talk of consensus with the editor (?) of Nature saying that it must be true because they don.t get any papers for publication that “disprove” global warming.

    It is astounding that a man with the brain power of Cox cannot see the contradictions in his own TV program – where is the elegant experiment that will prove beyond reasonable doubt the “reality” of global warming?

  19. steverichards1984 says:

    BBC this morning, the UK Chief Scientist Advisor, Sir Mark Walport FRS FMedSci, commented on the rash of record breaking floods, heatwaves and other natural phenomena, to ‘prove’ that global warming is happening and that we are to blame!

    Is there any hope for rational discussion and real science when someone like this goes into fairy tale science?

  20. Flavius says:

    Why isn’t their site working, I guess Swiss technology is not so reliable lol

  21. oakwood says:

    Ban ki Moon’s intro: “The heat is on. Now we must act”.

  22. oakwood says:

    Sec-Gen of WMO: we are seeing more impacts on weather patterns, and have seen many extremes over past decades. – So a big change from IPCC’s SREX report just over a year ago.

  23. janama says:

    does this man realise this is being recorded and will be played back in 10 years time.

  24. Peter Miller says:

    I am watching the IPCC farce right now, North Korea would be proud of this type of stitch up.

    Interestingly, there is absolutely no applause for any of the speakers.

    All I can hear is that the industry needs more money for the ‘science’, this is an “essential investment” and “it proves the need for the IPCC”. Natural climate cycles remain a heresy. Apparently global warming is not an ideology.

    This is little more than a jamboree for quasi-government bureaucrats.

  25. janama says:

    you’d think that for an important announcement such as this they could get the audio together.

  26. Dermot O'Logical says:

    Never have I been so depressed about the state, and status, of science #consenseless

  27. Bob Tisdale says:

    Good morning. To honor the release of the IPCC’s AR5 SPM today, I’ve just posted a YouTube video that discusses the curious way that climate modelers appear to have compensated for a failing in the models, which has, in turn, caused an even greater failure. It’s attached to the following blog post:
    http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2013/09/27/video-climate-models-used-by-the-ipcc-for-ar5-are/

    This thread deserves top billing here at WUWT for a number of hours, so I’ll cross post it (my new post with the video) here at WUWT in a few hours.

    Regards from my chilly corner of the world.

  28. M Courtney says:

    According to the Guardian at 9.30am BST, Pachauri has just said,

    I also want to highlight that each of the last three decades has successively warmed at the earth’s surface

    Which is surprising if true.
    He has rejected the deep ocean for the missing heat and says it’s at the surface (but sneaking post the thermometers this decade).

  29. A lesson from criminal justice research: confidence levels are a poor indicator of accuracy http://tinyurl.com/kohyc86

    The IPCC’s change from 90 to 95% certainty is entirely subjective. It merely tells us how IPCC personnel FEEL. Ho hum.

  30. Kurt in Switzerland says:

    Thomas Stocker says that Climate Change is the greatest challenge facing mankind today.
    This is true because they decided this in Cancun some years ago.
    ‘Nuff said.

    Kurt in Switzerland

  31. Bob Tisdale says:

    The approved Summary for Policymakers, dated 27Sept2013, is online. No cover art yet and it’s still in draft form:
    http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGIAR5-SPM_Approved27Sep2013.pdf

  32. Keith Minto says:

    Stocker :
    ” 1983-2012, warmest in 1400 years”, sure by-passes the MWP.

  33. Bob Tisdale says:

    If this is how they addressed the hiatus in full, they will be laughed at across the globe:

    “In addition to robust multi-decadal warming, global mean surface temperature exhibits substantial decadal and interannual variability (see Figure SPM.1). Due to natural variability, trends based on short records are very sensitive to the beginning and end dates and do not in general reflect long-term climate trends. As one example, the rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998–2012; 0.05 [–0.05 to +0.15] °C per decade), which begins with a strong El Niño, is smaller than the rate calculated since 1951 (1951–2012; 0.12 [0.08 to 0.14] °C per decade)”

  34. Keith Minto says:

    Stocker: “93% of warming is in the oceans, this has saved us from more heating”.
    “Warming will continue under all scenarios available”

  35. R. de Haan says:

    They now continue the push the hoax with force.
    This is fantasy la la land.

    We are confronted with a NAZI like doctrine on a global scale.
    The presenters of the report are confident of 100% political support, otherwise their claims wouldn’t be so outrageous.

    I think the we’re back to 2008 and we seriously have to think about other ways to stop this nonsense although I think Mother Nature will proof to be the best ambassador of the skeptic case.

    We’re going to need WUWT for a long time to come.

    In the mean time we have good news from New York:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/27/nyregion/new-yorks-air-is-cleanest-in-50-years-survey-finds.html?_r=0

  36. Eliza says:

    Trouble is most will listen to them not here and this I am afraid will continue for much more years than I or you think. Much stronger action (financial-legal) is need to disband the fraudsters.

  37. Bob Tisdale says:

    Later on page 12, they write with respect to the hiatus:

    “The observed reduction in surface warming trend over the period 1998–2012 as compared to the period 1951–2012, is due in roughly equal measure to a reduced trend in radiative forcing and a cooling contribution from internal variability, which includes a possible redistribution of heat within the ocean (medium confidence). The reduced trend in radiative forcing is primarily due to volcanic eruptions and the timing of the downward phase of the 11-year solar cycle. However, there is low confidence in quantifying the role of changes in radiative forcing in causing the reduced warming trend. There is medium confidence that internal decadal variability causes to a substantial degree the difference between observations and the simulations; the latter are not expected to reproduce the timing of internal variability. There may also be a contribution from forcing inadequacies and, in some models, an overestimate of the response to increasing greenhouse gas and other anthropogenic forcing (dominated by the effects of aerosols). {9.4, Box 9.2, 10.3, Box 10.2, 11.3}”

    Sorry, that is not going to cut it.

  38. Kurt in Switzerland says:

    Min. 1.5ºC warming is inevitable under ALL scenarios – a panel of clairvoyants decided as much.

    Kurt in Switzerland

  39. Keith Minto says:

    I can’t resolve x and y axies on my screen.
    Questions invited from media.

  40. Eliza says:

    Question times very favorauble to skeptics so far you must save this video the hiatus stocker being forced to admit there being hamnered

  41. Keith Minto says:

    Pachurari : “an excellent document”…but did not answer a question of doubt in findings. 9,200 papers reviewed.
    “Climate relevant trends should be over 30yrs” Stocker.
    .

  42. Bob Tisdale says:

    This is rich:

    “Greenhouse gases contributed a global mean surface warming likely to be in the range of 0.5°C to 1.3°C over the period 1951−2010, with the contributions from other anthropogenic forcings, including the cooling effect of aerosols, likely to be in the range of −0.6°C to 0.1°C. The contribution from natural forcings is likely to be in the range of −0.1°C to 0.1°C, and from internal variability is likely to be in the range of −0.1°C to 0.1°C. Together these assessed contributions are consistent with the observed warming of approximately 0.6°C to 0.7°C over this period. {10.3}”

    In other words, they’re saying all of the warming is manmade. How comical!

  43. amoorhouse says:

    Just flicking through the news 24 channels on my box here:

    BBC – carrying the IPCC conference live
    Sky – Big Brother
    France24 – architecture
    CNN – Bank shares
    NHK – Watches
    CCTV – QinPing landslide
    CNBC – Shares
    Bloomberg – business confidence in Nike
    RT – Syria resolution
    euronews – Syria
    Al Jazeera – US/Iran talks

    Nobody is listening

  44. Kurt in Switzerland says:

    A reporter for AFP asked the first (and most burning question) of Pachauri:
    Does this restore credibility to the IPCC (which has apparently suffered, at least in the eyes of skeptics)?

    Pachauri merely underlined the need to restrict human GHG emissions if we are to have hope of stabilizing the climate; he also claimed that the IPCC was scientific and wasn’t concerned with the question of how the general public perceived the summary, before deferring to Stocker. Stocker paid lip service to the hiatus, but claimed that insufficient data was available to say why the warming stopped; he also said insufficient data was available to say what was taking place in the deep oceans.

    Kurt in Switzerland

  45. High Treason says:

    Wake up world. The 95% certainty is a number plucked out out of thin air. Here we see the CO2 curve and the actual temperatures diverging-so much for a correlation. I wonder what a real statistician would say about the divergence implying a greater certainty. All shows the IPCC and its parent body, the UN are engaging in nefarious activity.

  46. coldlynx says:

    There is one simple way to get all IPCC climate scientist to dump the message of 95% consensus:
    Demand that funding is removed from question about if CO2 is responible to research about how to solve “the problem” to get unlimited inexpensive energy to mankind. Take funding from CAGW to real science.

    I bet the message from IPCC will be that CAGW is not settled and need more funding to understand the uncertainties. A new consenus among climate researcher that the uncertainties is larger than IPCC claim will evolve very fast
    Fight fire with fire.
    It is all about the money.

  47. Keith Minto says:

    Stocker : “Higher scenarios being used,but it depends upon us and our choice with emissions”
    ” Don’t focus on temperature…?? huge responsibility for our children in 2100 etc etc etc”
    No numbers in press release. They seem to think 500Gt emitted, must stop another 500Gt.

  48. Jay Currie says:

    Even the Guardian has admitted much lower media turnout than for the last report. (Fiona did not give a confidence level for that assessment. )

  49. wayne says:

    “…. natural forcings [to change temperature] is likely to be in the range of −0.1°C to 0.1°C”

    Clearly they are not speaking of the planet Earth. Now which one are they speaking of again?

  50. Keith Minto says:

    Q “How long will the pause become important”?
    Waffle for an answer so far ……. repeats question…… “20yrs constant temp will be a problem”….Volcanoes may occur…….Talk of Brownian movement !!! in the room…..talks of trends over longer scale……this is all soothing talk, lacking facts and business as usual…..time scale 30yrs now.

  51. Roger Longstaff says:

    Here is my assessmemt of climate change:

    I am 95% certain that global warming will vanish with the sunspots. 97% of the blokes down the pub agree with me.

  52. amoorhouse says:

    Maximum of 68cm sea level rise by 2100. I am getting my water wings on now!

  53. R. de Haan says:

    Human civilization is accused here. This is the crazy Club of Rome assessment that claims human kind is a threat to the planet. The IPCC apparatchiks deliver the proof.
    The next step is to blow up the financial system and take away our civill and democratic rights.
    After that they open up the slaughterhouse.

    If we want to stop this we have a limited amount of time because they will use the economic collapse to call for a siege which will come with travel restrictions.

    I think I go sailing the Southern Hemisphere for the next decade.

  54. Asking the required length of the “hiatus” to falsify the models is claimed to be “an ill posed question”!!!

    Outrageous!

    Richard

  55. M Courtney says:

    Rose pushes for how long it will take for the models to be admitted as wrong.

    Jarraud says “You should distinguish the ability to predict temperature 10 years in advice, from the ability to predict 20-30 years in advance.”

    So the answer is 20-30 years.
    But from now or from when the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change was signed in 1992?

  56. “Climate sensitivity has only recently been discussed in the literature”!
    Ridiculous!

    Richard

  57. The target limit for global temperature rise has been raised from 2deg.C to 2.5 deg.C. This is a retreat.

    Richard

  58. Come on, Richard, they’ve only had billions to spend and it’s not as if sensitivity is central to the whole argument!

  59. amoorhouse: My assessment is the same as your assessment: nobody is listening to their assessment.

  60. vukcevic says:

    IPCC:
    – Humans are ‘the cause’ of the global warming
    Vukcevic:
    – Ergo. Humans are the cause of increase in the tectonic movements in the North Atlantic and the North Pacific.
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NorthAtlantic-NorthPacific.htm

  61. Following the total failure of the AR4 prediction for the first two decades of this century, AR5 now says only 30 year periods should be considered. This is ‘goal post moving’.

    Richard

  62. Manfred says:

    That “at least 30 years” “law” is a very poor excuse And if it fits with a PDO/AMO half cycle it is complete made-up nonsense anyways.

    In previous reports, shorter trends starting in 1979 were presented frequently and prominently, such as 1979-2005 with 26 years in AR4 (nicely fitting the warm PDO/AMO half cycle)

    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/tssts-3-1-1.html
    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch3s3-2-2.html

    A 15 year trend 1998-2013 would be even less biased, spanning about equally over warm and cold PDO phases.

  63. Keith Minto says:

    Sea level : “low confidence in higher level projections over 100yrs”
    Stocker: Q.15yr less relevant so why mention it ?….” 1998 always picked as a start point…plus medium volcanoes plus El Nina……Q being repeated 3 times…..Use IPCC and not Blogs…… it is an emerging scientific issue……(you get the drift, they don’t know)…….
    Stocker :” 18 keys messages are a robust consensus written in plain English”

    Time for the evening meal for me, very disappointing that there is so much confidence in their numbers and little caution with the exception of sea levels to 2100.

  64. Roger Longstaff says:

    Pages of waffle about radiative forcings (estimated to 0.1 Wm-2), yet they admit that they still do not understand the effects of clouds and aerosols. In other words they do not know if the missing heat is in the deep oceans or in deep space.

    Incredible!

  65. ZootCadillac says:

    I can say with 95% confidence that that was 100% hogwash.

  66. Hlaford says:

    I just learned that sea level rise may be regional. It hurts my brain :(

  67. Roger Longstaff says:

    p. 11: “There is low confidence in cloud and aerosol processes in the models”. So how the hell can there be higher confidence in the validity of the models?

  68. wayne says:

    The elephant in the room that so few can vaguely see….

    CO2 concentration does not affect a planetary temperature at all, of thick atmospheres, and at these levels. Now I will always wonder who is going to be credited with the ‘discovery’. It won’t be one of the IPCC scientists, that is now clear.

  69. Keith Minto says:

    Q from Economist: Why is heat going in oceans ? why be certain we are the cause?
    Stocker : (I could not understand a word of his answer)
    Conference closed.
    Actually good questions were asked about sea levels, the pause, confidence etc…the answers were poor at best and I have a 97% confidence estimate that they were evasive. When pressed for clarification, the responders said they needed more sleep.
    Good night.

  70. ZootCadillac says:

    btw. The IPCC headline statements from the summary for policy makers is here. http://www.ipcc.ch/news_and_events/docs/ar5/ar5_wg1_headlines.pdf

  71. mem says:

    These people are living a movie and will not stop until the curtain comes down or the audience walks out. I’m walking…https://theconversation.com/a-question-of-ethics-journalists-and-climate-change-18395

  72. Ken L. says:

    The explanation of the warming hiatus is a pure hoot – a not too subtle attempt to obscure the fact that they don’t know why from the public perception.

  73. Brian H says:

    Wesley Bruce says:
    September 26, 2013 at 11:07 pm

    The morning MSM in Australia is trying its hardest to push the “Its really real” line with talk of 500 year old muscles,

    mussels, perhaps?

  74. Flavius says:

    What I don’t understand: IPCC always speaks about “global” warming and “global” effects and they don’t want to say anything about “local” variations. But why on earth is in their report a graph of the declining Arctic ice (page 29), why not include Antarctica to level it out? Is it “global” only when it suits them and Arctic when it suits them again? Also the “Northern Hemisphere sea ice extend” (page33, 34), since when a hemisphere is “global”? It’s hemi(semi)-sphere, thus half-global!

    Are they trying to fool everyone? why not being honest and show the whole, “global”, ice picture?!?

  75. Kurt in Switzerland says:

    Orwell somersaults in his grave.

    David Rose of the Mail asked how much longer the warming hiatus would have to continue before the IPCC would consider that models might need second-guessing. Then he mentioned the 2007 report’s statement of a best estimate of 3.0ºC for Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity, asking if AR5 would present a revised figure.

    In response, Stocker and his co-panelist (Michel Jarraud, Secretary-General of the WMO) claimed the models showed “remarkable” agreement with actual climate trends! They apparently are not able to give a new best estimate for CS. Jarraud even found the question itself an affront, labeling it scientifically unintelligent. Stocker contracted himself IMHO, as he simultaneously referred to a broader possible range of CS, while expressing more confidence than ever of the human contribution to warming, even as models diverge further from reality. Kudos to the Economist for following up!

    Prior to their short naps between negotiations, the panelists must be praying for some much-needed warming. The figure of 30 y was repeated as the basis for climate trends, since Jarraud thinks that asking questions based on shorter timescales is akin to asking him to predict the motion of Brownian particles. LOL! He probably needs a good rest. Guess we’ll revisit this in 2020. May Stocker and Jarraud be held to their statements!

    This is dogma, not science: “Human CO2 causes long-term warming” is the required conclusion. Data which supports this is heralded as proof, whereas data which refutes this is either buried or relativized. Consensus rules, damn the scientific method.

    A reporter from Germany asked the loaded question of what Germany’s rush to renewables and away from nuclear power would mean for the climate. The panel reported that it wasn’t tasked to answer this question (luckily, as they know the answer is negligible / undetectable).

    The reporters from the Telegraph, FT and the Economist also asked critical questions (and the panelists weaseled and squirmed out of any direct responses). Fiona Harvey of the Guardian asked a loaded question on why we must leave our hydrocarbon resources in the ground, quoting an apparent IPCC reference to a calculated maximum we humans can burn in support. How such a figure squares with the insufficient data, insufficient studies on oceanic heat-uptake, broader range of CS, etc., is beyond me.

    This panel should be summarily panned in the print media. (OK, I’m not expecting anything other than “Doom and destruction ahead, we must come to agreement now!” from the Guardian).

    Kurt in Switzerland

  76. bit chilly says:

    just sent this to the department of energy and climate change.ed davey is obviously stupid and has never bothered to actually attempt to gather any alternative opinion on the subject.
    if any of it is wrong it is a genuine mistake and i will correct,unlike the b/s from the IPCC that is rarely if ever corrected.flat earthers indeed,i think mr davey may find himself referred to as the same within a few years.

    dear sirs,
    i am writing to convey my deep disappointment that a government minister would direct a phrase such as “flat earthers” toward a large proportion of the scientific community and the general populace that do not agree with his position on climate change.
    mr davey urges people to look at the facts.
    i will list some facts for mr daveys perusal,he may well then have to decide who is really a member of the flat earth society.

    1.no statistically significant warming in 17 years despite large rises (8%) in co2 emissions.
    2.contrary to the IPCC statement of decreased snow and ice,global levels of snow and ice show a slight recent increase,and overall trends are well within standard deviation.
    3.again contrary to the IPCC statement that extreme weather events have increased,in some cases they are at their lowest in modern day records,and others are maintaining the same position they have for decades.
    4.there is still no evidence of a tropospheric hotspot and increase in atmospheric water vapour which is central to the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming,as co2 alone is unable to create measurable warming, water vapour is needed as an amplification to the effect of co2.
    5. the IPCC state that the heat that cannot be found in the last 17 years has gone into the deep oceans,this is not suppoted by any observational fact as the temperature of the deep oceans is not monitored.
    the argo bouys measuring 0 to 2000m depths in a very small area of the worlds oceans have detected no measurable increase in temperature.

    i look forward to mr daveys response to the discrepancy between what he states and observational data.

  77. Pointman says:

    Apart from the usual climate-fixated organs of the MSM, it’s being barely reported. Looks like a dead cat bounce to me …

    http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2013/09/20/armageddon-report-no-5/

    Pointman

  78. Kristian says:

    Here’s the reason for the warming ‘pause’ of the last 16 years. There is no mystery here:
    http://i1172.photobucket.com/albums/r565/Keyell/GlvsNINO34_zps1f58a32b.png

    Weekly NINO3.4 (red) vs. global SSTa (blue) (OI.v2) from Jan 1997 to last week (mid Sep 2013); former lagged 4 weeks and scaled 1/8.

    From 1999 there simply is no gradually increasing divergence to be observed between the two curves pointing to a ‘background global warming influence’ on top of the tight relationship between what’s going on in the tropical East Pacific and the globe at large. Until the spike of the last two months. Which now seems to be waning. And which has its singular source in the extratropics of the North Pacific basin.

    The tropical East Pacific has neither ‘held back’ the warming, nor given it a boost over the last decade and a half. Global temperatures have simply tagged along with it rather slavishly. They seem to be held firmly within its grip. No multiyear divergence allowed. As seems to be their habit across decadal periods of time. Like they did between for instance 1964 and 1978, between 1979 and 1987/88 and between 1989 and 1997/98 … and now between 1999 and today. The only times we ever saw a permanent separation between the NINO3.4 and the global temperature anomaly curves during the last 50 years, were the abrupt shifts up by the latter relative to the former occurring specifically in 1978/79, 1988 and 1998. Three instances only. And at no other times:
    http://i1172.photobucket.com/albums/r565/Keyell/GWexplained_zps566ab681.png

    The three shifts are all directly tied to documented major climate regime shifts in the Pacific basin, starting with the extraordinary drop in the SOI in 1976/77 flattening the thermocline from east to west in the tropical Pacific and lowering the mean level of wind stress across the basin, weakening the efficiency of energy loss through evaporation from the ocean, thus establishing what has been called the ‘Great Pacific Climate Shift':
    http://i1172.photobucket.com/albums/r565/Keyell/SOIvslatentampwind_zps8dcdab36.png

  79. Amos McLean says:

    The BBC are REALLY, REALLY laying it on thick with the IPCC report – it’s still the top story on all their news channels.

    “It’s all our fault and temperatures could rise by 4.8 degrees C this Century” . . . They are dragging a wide range of “experts” out, all claiming they have “strong evidence” (in the peerviewed literature) of rising sea, disappearing ice and the “human finger print” in the disaster is evident. The pause in temperature rise was predicted as they have new evidence that the oceans are helping out . . . something must be done!

    Expect even more demands for ‘Green’ funding, taxes, lucrative tarifs . . . gravy anyone?

  80. Jimbo says:

    It is virtually certain that there will be more frequent hot and fewer cold temperature extremes over most land areas on daily and seasonal timescales as global mean temperatures increase. It is very likely that heat waves will occur with a higher frequency and duration. Occasional cold winter extremes will continue to occur (see Table SPM.1).
    http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGIAR5-SPM_Approved27Sep2013.pdf

    What exactly does occasional mean?

    Meteorologists Point To Signs Of Another Upcoming “Nasty Winter For Europe” – Would Be Spectacular Sixth In A Row!
    ………………
    The charts point to another “brutal winter for Europe“. The forecast sees blocking and a negative NAO. Joe also tweeted that “SST analog package combined with low solar, and climate cycle (similar to early 50s) argue for nasty Euro Winter“…………..
    http://notrickszone.com/2013/09/09/meteorologists-point-to-signs-of-another-upcoming-nasty-winter-for-europe-would-be-spectacular-sixth-in-a-row/

  81. phlogiston says:

    This is tragi-comic herd behaviour and group-think. All these UN and government officials and especially the CACA-gravytrain scientists have far too much invested in CACA to be able to back out now. They are in their white wedding gowns and at the alter rail for this nightmarish wedding of deceit and conspiracy. The divorce which will eventually come will be ugly and protracted.

  82. Geoff Wales says:

    This must be where all the real scientists hang out.

  83. DDP says:

    I think it’s quite telling that this monumental document of oh so credible ‘scientific evidence’ is being released on a Friday. Friday, the last day of the working week when governments and political organisations bury bad news so the media can’t ask awkward questions and the electorate will never know how inept they are and how much they are going have to pay for said ineptitude.

  84. Brian H says:

    StephenP says:
    September 27, 2013 at 12:34 am

    If anyone gets time to see Professor Brian Cox’s latest programme ‘Science Britannica’ on BBC iPlayer, Episode 2, do so.

    how the peer review process ensures that any article published is settled science because it has been through a ‘rigorous’ peer review process. As a result we should believe everything published therein. Especially as regards global warming.

    Sounds like an expert whose ignorance I am quite prepared to believe in.
    Peer review, as he touts it, it shaping up to be one of the most damaging influences on the project of Knowledge Acquisition ever developed. Gatekeeping and False Authority have been super-charged by it, or reliance on it.

  85. Jimbo says:

    We can’t explain the increase in Antarctic sea ice extent. We have improved models that predict a decrease in extent. We don’t really know why but we will simulate it and create a scary scenario anyway.

    D.1 Evaluation of Climate Models
    Climate models have improved since the AR4…………..
    Most models simulate a small downward trend in Antarctic sea ice extent, albeit with large inter-model spread, in contrast to the small upward trend in observations……

    —–

    There is low confidence in the scientific understanding of the small observed increase in Antarctic sea ice extent due to the incomplete and competing scientific explanations for the causes of change and low confidence in estimates of internal variability in that region
    http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGIAR5-SPM_Approved27Sep2013.pdf

    Let’s all hope this is the last IPCC report. There is nothing useful here.

  86. Jimbo:

    You conclude your post at September 27, 2013 at 4:31 am by saying

    Let’s all hope this is the last IPCC report. There is nothing useful here.

    I share your hope but disagree that there is “nothing useful” in the AR5 Report.

    The Report is very useful for the politicians wanting the AGW-scare as an excuse for policies they are applying.

    And that political usefulness is the stated Role of the IPCC. I have repeatedly explained this on WUWT most recently at
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/27/sorry-ipcc-how-you-portrayed-the-global-temperature-plateau-is-comical-at-best/#comment-1428167

    Richard

  87. Robin Hewitt says:

    BBC just did global warming on the Daily Politics, two for and two against. Matt Ridley looked like a real UK scientist and they did not try and squeeze him out of the conversation when he started doing science rather than consenses. Something is happening at the BBC and I think it is going to be Prof Cox who does it.

  88. philjourdan says:

    @Donna Laframboise – Thank you. I did not want to believe that to be the case, but from reading the material that is my impression as well.

    We are now dealing with professional bookies, not scientists. But even that is wrong. At least bookies have some science behind their odds.

  89. Ric Werme says:

    richardscourtney says:
    September 27, 2013 at 2:38 am

    Following the total failure of the AR4 prediction for the first two decades of this century, AR5 now says only 30 year periods should be considered.

    So let’s stop the hand wringing over the warming between 1979 and 1998 and only look at 1969 – 1998 or 1979 – 2008.

    Heh – that’s amusing, Wood for Trees gives almost the same slope for each!

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1969/to:1999/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1979/to:2009/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1979/to:1999/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1965/to:2014

  90. Ric Werme:

    re your post at September 27, 2013 at 5:13 am.
    Nice try but total failure.

    The switch to a 30-year frame is a statement by the IPCC that IPCC understanding of climate as stated in its previous (i.e. AR4) Report is plain wrong. And unless the body of the AR5 explains the totality of that error, there is reason to accept that IPCC understanding of climate is still plain wrong.

    I explain this matter on another thread in this comment
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/27/sorry-ipcc-how-you-portrayed-the-global-temperature-plateau-is-comical-at-best/#comment-1428268

    Richard

  91. Jimbo says:

    Donna Laframboise says:
    September 27, 2013 at 1:40 am

    A lesson from criminal justice research: confidence levels are a poor indicator of accuracy http://tinyurl.com/kohyc86

    It’s a good thing this chap wasn’t 95% certain. Nagging doubts exist for a good reason. Computer models V Sceptics? CAGW in a nutshell.

    BBC – 26 September 2013
    Stanislav Petrov: The man who may have saved the world
    Thirty years ago, on 26 September 1983, the world was saved from potential nuclear disaster.

    In the early hours of the morning, the Soviet Union’s early-warning systems detected an incoming missile strike from the United States. Computer readouts suggested several missiles had been launched. The protocol for the Soviet military would have been to retaliate with a nuclear attack of its own……….

    His job was to register any missile strikes and to report them to the Soviet military and political leadership. In the political climate of 1983, a retaliatory strike would have been almost certain………….
    The system was telling him that the level of reliability of that alert was “highest”. There could be no doubt. America had launched a missile.

    “A minute later the siren went off again. The second missile was launched. Then the third, and the fourth, and the fifth. Computers changed their alerts from ‘launch’ to ‘missile strike’,” he says…..

    Although the nature of the alert seemed to be abundantly clear, Mr Petrov had some doubts……..

    …….But what made him suspicious was just how strong and clear that alert was…..
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-24280831

  92. Alvin says:

    I missed the live feed. Did the groundhog see his shadow?

  93. Jimbo says:

    I did a word count of certain words in the SPM. I shan’t be doing it for the full report. :-)

    Summary For Policymakers [PDF]
    “low confidence” = 23 “uncertainties” = 11 “uncertainty” = 16 [=95% confidence]

  94. Ian W says:

    The Weather Channel online is totally convinced by the IPCC – its home page headline currently reads: IT’S ONLY GETTING WORSE and follow that with Landmark Climate Change Report: Warming ‘Extremely Likely’ Man-Made in the background an aerial view of a melting glacier http://s.imwx.com/dru/2013/07/10e0780e-38e6-4c27-9d09-f618da54b257_650x366.jpg

    There is no doubt that this is a real propaganda push using “The Big Lie” technique.

  95. Kurt in Switzerland says:

    Alvin: the groundhog is so bloated from ingesting subsidies fed from above, it can not see beyond its navel (let alone shadow or not)! It can only proclaim warming ahead, as otherwise its food source would be cut off.

    Kurt in Switzerland

  96. Jimbo says:

    Here is how they arrive at the 95%. It’s subjective guesswork really.

    Scientists use a mixture of data and “expert judgment” to decide how likely it is that climate change is man-made and rule out other factors, such as changes in the sun’s output. The IPCC draft halves the likelihood that natural factors are to blame to 5 per cent from 10, the flip side of raising the probability that climate change is man-made to 95 per cent. “It’s based on a discussion among the authors…There must be multiple lines of evidence,” said Eystein Jansen, of the Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research in Norway and one of the authors of the Stockholm draft.
    http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/18/us-warming-idUSBRE98H0E620130918

  97. Bob Koss says:

    Whoever wrote this paragraph in the SPM I want some of what they were smoking.

    It is likely that the ocean warmed between 700 and 2000 m from 1957 to 2009. Sufficient observations are available for the period 1992 to 2005 for a global assessment of temperature change below 2000 m. There were likely no significant observed temperature trends between 2000 and 3000 m for this period. It is likely that the ocean warmed from 3000 m to the bottom for this period, with the largest warming observed in the Southern Ocean. {3.2}

    The XBT system started being used circa 1993 only goes down to about 800 m. The Argo system started circa 2002 goes to 2000 m and wasn’t even completed until 2007. Yet they say they have sufficient observations to make claims about temperatures below 2000-3000 m and even all the way to the ocean bottom.

  98. Bob Koss says:

    Bad blockquote. Last paragraph written by me.

  99. Dave in Canmore says:

    RE backtracking to longer trends to hide unexplained data:

    Curiously, they seem quite comfortable looking at trend changes in ice mass at the poles.

    “The average rate of ice loss from the Greenland ice sheet has very likely substantially increased from 34 [–6 to 74] Gt yr–1 over the period 1992–2001 to 215 [157 to 274] Gt yr–1 over the period 2002–2011. {4.4}”

    Forgetting the absurd GRACE measurements that inspire this statement, they demonstrate that if the last few years of anything help their case, it’s included. If the last few years of a metric contradict them, the data gets smoothed and smeared into the past.

    Dishonest.
    I’m pretty much fed up with paying for this foolish nonsense.

  100. @njsnowfan says:

    “J Martin says:
    September 26, 2013 at 11:49 pm
    Apparently the IPCC are blaming the change in the AMO on global warming and co2 !!”

    Funny,
    AMO Chart
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Amo_timeseries_1856-present.svg

    PDO chart
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PDO.svg

    TSI chart
    http://lasp.colorado.edu/lisird/tsi/historical_tsi.html

  101. @njsnowfan says:

    TSI controls PDO and AMO

  102. Lady Life Grows says:

    Yeah, yeah, they’re acknowledging “the pause,” but they can falsify the longer-term record to make it look like the trend is still up.
    To REALLY understand the pause, you need to look at the Number-of-weather-stations-versus temperature graph. When they quit cutting out the coldest weather stations, there was a pause in the warming. Get THAT across to the Press, and give them a whiff of real scandal, and THEN we will get our point across. Press loves scandal. It sells newspapers.
    The weather balloons and satellites never showed the warming in the first place. That backs up what the Number-of-stations graph hints at.

  103. Brian H says:

    Lady Life Grows says:
    September 27, 2013 at 8:33 am

    Yeah, yeah, they’re acknowledging “the pause,” but they can falsify the longer-term record to make it look like the trend is still up.
    To REALLY understand the pause, you need to look at the Number-of-weather-stations-versus temperature graph. When they quit cutting out the coldest weather stations, there was a pause in the warming.

    It’s much worse than that. The Rank 1 pristine stations register no temp rise since the mid-1800s. But they disagree with the stations in more populated areas, so are treated by the computers as “outliers” and homogenized to agree with the majority.

  104. dbstealey says:

    Lady Life Grows says:

    Yeah, yeah, they’re acknowledging “the pause,” but they can falsify the longer-term record to make it look like the trend is still up. To REALLY understand the pause…

    Folks, it is not a “pause”. Language matters. In order to be a “pause”, global warming would have to resume. Then we could look back, and say that it paused. As of the past decade and a half, though, global warming has stopped.

    It may resume at some point. But it is disingenuous to presume knowing the future. “Pause” is a weasel word. Global warming has stopped for the past 16 – 17 years. That is a long time! It may just as well begin to cool, as in the LIA.

    When someone says global warming has “paused”, ask them how they know.

  105. Jimbo says:

    Maybe it’s my browser but is there a graph showing temperature projections compared to observations in the SPM AR5? If not then why not?

  106. Gunga Din says:

    dbstealey says:
    September 27, 2013 at 9:40 am

    Lady Life Grows says:

    Yeah, yeah, they’re acknowledging “the pause,” but they can falsify the longer-term record to make it look like the trend is still up. To REALLY understand the pause…

    Folks, it is not a “pause”. Language matters. In order to be a “pause”, global warming would have to resume. Then we could look back, and say that it paused. As of the past decade and a half, though, global warming has stopped.

    =====================================================
    Sharp.

    “Pause” does imply heating will resume and implies the IPCC is correct but they just hit a snag. Whether the “pause” continues or not, it won’t be because a model said so. (No matter how good she looks.)

  107. Richards in Vancouver says:

    The IPCC Report was much, much better in the Chinese translation.

    No, I don’t understand Chinese, but I’m 95% sure it was better.

  108. Mario Lento says:

    For anyone who thinks the IPCC is about science, and not religion, then watching this video should certainly change their opinions.

    Michel Jarraud concludes at the end of his segment, “We need more funding” WUWT???

    The speaker after Michel Jarraud (Steiner?) states “It’s not about ideology.” But that statement appears so far from the truth, it’s obvious he’s a dang liar!

    Someone please help me get this right. The IPCC now states that they know more now than 6 years ago and are more certain that man is responsible for at least 1/2 of the increase in temperature. But, their last report stated they were 90 percent certain that almost all of the temperature increase was due to man.

    So can I conclude that now they are more certain that man affects climate less than they used to think?

  109. ROM says:

    To stop a dog from killing chickens you hang a chicken it has just killed around it’s neck for a week or more until it is just a rotten stinking mess which just about fixes any social contact with that dog for the duration.

    That “95%” is going to be one big very stinky chicken around the IPCC’s neck and all the big wheels who partook of the AR5 deliberations for many a year to come,
    And one they are unlikely to be able to discard for far into the foreseeable future.

    “foreseeable future”? Darn! I’ll have to model that..

Comments are closed.