![cover[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/cover1.jpg?quality=83)
From the IPCC website: Final Draft
Note
The Final Draft Report, dated 7 June 2013, of the Working Group I contribution to the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis was accepted but not approved in detail by the Twelfth Session of Working Group I and the Thirty-Sixth Session of the IPCC on 26 September 2013 in Stockholm, Sweden. It consists of the full scientific and technical assessment undertaken by Working Group I.
The Final Draft Report has to be read in conjunction with the document entitled “Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the IPCC 5th Assessment Report – Changes to the Underlying Scientific/Technical Assessment” to ensure consistency with the approved Summary for Policymakers (IPCC-XXVI/Doc.4) and presented to the Panel at its Thirty-Sixth Session. This document lists the changes necessary to ensure consistency between the full Report and the Summary for Policymakers, which was approved line-by-line by Working Group I and accepted by the Panel at the above-mentioned Sessions.
Before publication the Final Draft will undergo copyediting as well as any error correction as necessary, consistent with the IPCC Protocol for Addressing Possible Errors. Publication of the Report is foreseen in January 2014.
WGI AR5 Final Draft (version 7 June 2013)
| Title | |
| Changes to the Underlying Scientific/Technical Assessment (IPCC-XXVI/Doc.4) | 210kB |
| Ch | Title | ||
| Technical Summary | |||
| 1 | Introduction | ||
| 2 | Observations: Atmosphere and Surface | ||
| 3 | Observations: Ocean | ||
| 4 | Observations: Cryosphere | ||
| 5 | Information from Paleoclimate Archives | ||
| 6 | Carbon and Other Biogeochemical Cycles | ||
| 7 | Clouds and Aerosols | ||
| 8 | Anthropogenic and Natural Radiative Forcing | ||
| 9 | Evaluation of Climate Models | ||
| 10 | Near-term Climate Change: Projections and Predictability | ||
| 11 | Near-term Climate Change: Projections and Predictability | ||
| 12 | Long-term Climate Change: Projections, Commitments and Irreversibility | ||
| 13 | Sea Level Change | ||
| 14 | Climate Phenomena and their Relevance for Future Regional Climate Change | ||
| Annex I: Atlas of Global and Regional Climate Projections | |||
| Annex II: Climate System Scenario Tables | |||
| Annex III: Glossary | |||
| Complete Underlying Scientific/Technical Assessment | |||
Excellent, thanks for the links..
In chapter 2, they specifically say there is no proof that extreme weather events has risen since the 1950s, I guess that claim is bogus now?
“Changes to the Underlying Scientific/Technical Assessment” to ensure consistency with the approved Summary for Policymakers”
I can’t believe they would write this with a straight face. The IPCC’s collective mind is so 8 up (and none down) with the Marxist world-view that it probably doesn’t see anything wrong with it.
“Not politics, but science”. Really?
Pachauri’s Demon is really strange. It causes hotter than average water molecules at the ocean surface to travel over 700 m deep.
However, it only appears to work when the atmosphere is cooling.
Funny thing that……:0)
Let the howlers begin!
DesertYote:
Your post at September 30, 2013 at 8:55 am displays ignorance of the purely political – n.b. not scientific – official nature and official purpose of the IPCC. It says in total.
The Summary for Policymakers (SPM) is agreed “line by line” by politicians and/or representatives of politicians, and it is then published. After that the so-called ‘scientific’ Reports are amended to agree with the SPM. This became IPCC custom and practice of the IPCC when prior to its Second Report the then IPCC Chairman, John Houghton, decreed, “We can rely on the Authors to ensure the Report agrees with the Summary.”
This was done and has been the normal IPCC procedure since then. So, IPCC custom and practice dictate that the AR5 report will be edited to match the SPM.
This custom and practice enabled the infamous ‘Chapter 8′ scandal so perhaps it should – at long last – be changed. However, it has been adopted as official IPCC procedure for all subsequent IPCC Reports. Appendix A of the present Report states this when it says.
This is completely in accord with the official purpose of the IPCC.
The IPCC does NOT exist to summarise climate science and it does not.
The IPCC is only permitted to say AGW is a significant problem because they are tasked to accept that there is a “risk of human-induced climate change” which requires “options for adaptation and mitigation” that can be selected as political polices and the IPCC is tasked to provide those “options”.
This is clearly stated in the “Principles” which govern the work of the IPCC. These are stated at
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/ipcc-principles.pdf
Near its beginning that document says
The IPCC exists to provide
(a) “information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change”
and
(b) “options for adaptation and mitigation” which pertain to “the application of particular policies”.
Hence, its “Role” demands that the IPCC accepts as a given that there is a “risk of human-induced climate change” which requires “options for adaptation and mitigation” which pertain to “the application of particular policies”. Any ‘science’ which fails to support that political purpose is ‘amended’ in furtherance of the IPCC’s Role.
The IPCC AR5 is pure pseudoscience intended to provide information to justify political actions; i.e.Lysenkoism.
Richard
From the Summary:
“This document …… should not be cited, quoted or distributed.”
I wonder how much will be changed between now and next January.
Cynical? Me?
At least the cover isn’t the Levitus 2012 56-year Heat-is-Hiding-in-the-deep-ocean-Hockey-Stick.
@Oldseadog 9:23am. +1
“This document …… should not be cited, quoted or distributed.” …read, understood, criticized nor believed.
“The IPCC AR5 is pure pseudoscience intended to provide information to justify political actions; i.e.Lysenkoism. ”
Exactly.1+
Out of curiosity (well isn’t that what keeps us all going?) I looked at the bit about Sea Level Change, and in there the bit about how melting ice might change sea levels. (Around P46 or so)
As a seaman it says to me “We don’t really understand a lot of what is happening but we have made several guesses, some of them informed ones; it is all very interesting and so long as you keep paying our wages we will be delighted to keep watching what is going on and telling you both what we think we have found and what we think it might mean.”
N.B. I have not cited, quoted or distributed anything, so there is no need to call the lawyers.
I’m still just on page 29 of ObamaCare. Now This! Whoa is me…
Hansenkoism. The new Lysenkoism.
From Chapter 9 Evaluation of Climate Models.
“The simulation of large-scale patterns of precipitation has improved somewhat since the AR4,
although models continue to perform less well for precipitation than for surface temperature.”
Simulations of surface temperatures is the bench mark? Have I interpreted this correctly?
I’ve just looked at the Glossary, to see if the IPCC has allowed itself a closer approach to reality. “Climate-carbon cycle feedback” is new, including the admission that temperature “could affect” the CO2 flux between the surface and the atmosphere.
Very risky, this. In unguarded moments, junior oceanographers have blurted out that clathrates sequester more carbon under cold conditions and release it as CH4 and CO2 when warmed; junior biologists and geographers have observed the same about wetlands and soils. Thus, a hysterical press occasionally reports on methane bombs ready to explode in a warming world.
Short-term panic ensues, until silenced by senior scientists who understand that the only thing that can explode is a climate model that includes a positive CO2-sensitivity to temperature as well as the sacrosanct non-trivial “climate sensitivity”.
Without greater care, the IPCC might approach reality too closely, retreat permanently into psychosis, and deprive us of a great source of amusement.
So, having lectured the world about only considering trends over a 30 year period, what do I find in the technical summary: the modeling chapters and the Atlas in annex I use 1986-2005 as the reference period.
Who was it who used the term ‘hilarious incoherence’ with regard to the IPCC?
In the SPM the attributtion section on pg.12 it says :” It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century. {10.3–10.6, 10.9}”
In chapter 10 this is reiterated in detail without specific reference. Do I have to read every one of the 21 pages of references to find the “many” that are relied upon in this part of chapter 10. I have not yet seen a definitive study of attribution that can confirm this statement. If anyone else has please let me know about it.
What we know after this report, which from the political summary seems completely unsupportable:
Honest scientists must distance themselves from the IPCC.
Everyone else will be assumed to be watermelons and peculators.
Shouldn’t this trend have increased under alarmist doctrine?
From chapter 9 Evaluation of Climate Models
There is very high confidence that models reproduce the general features of the global-scale annual- mean surface temperature increase over the historical period, including the more rapid warming in the second half of the 20th century, and the cooling immediately following large volcanic eruptions. Most simulations of the historical period do not reproduce the observed reduction in global-mean surface warming trend over the last 10–15 years. There is medium confidence that the trend difference between models and observations during 1998–2012 is to a substantial degree caused by internal variability, with possible contributions from forcing error and some models overestimating the response to increasing greenhouse-gas forcing. Most, though not all, models overestimate the observed warming trend in the tropical troposphere over the last 30 years, and tend to underestimate the long-term lower stratospheric cooling trend. [9.4.1, Box 9.2, Figure 9.8]
In other words the climate models are not fit for purpose!
Why is this marked ‘Confidential’ and why are there admonitions re: dissemination? It is, after all, marked ‘Draft’.
Remember: This is a political motivation document, not an unbiased summary of climate science. It serves a determined political agenda, not an unvarnished pursuit of knowledge. Politicians, community activists, and climate activists are not scientists. Anything that serves their socialist agenda, regardless of how unscrupulous, erroneous, or egregious, is ‘fair play’.
MtK
Where is the water vapor?
Jean Parisot:
Hidden in all the hot air.
Chapter 10, on detection and attribution, has been mislabeled on the IPCC site with the title of chapter 11.
Thanks, Anthony. Good links!
Shouldn’t the IPCC do a better job of publicizing themselves?