![cover[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/cover1.jpg)
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?
On page 13-93 of the sea level section they spelled Manila with two L’s.
Philippinos will be outraged
Piers Corbyn is a little more direct in his comments than most:
““A cowardly cover-up and a disgrace to Science”
…..
• THEIR “ADMISSION” of a ‘a pause in warming’ over the last 15 years is itself a cover-up for the fact that ONLY THEIR FRAUDULENT DATA shows any ‘warming’ at all in the period – page 5
• THEIR CLAIM that this pause was “something (CO2 warmists) expected” is a brazen lie. They expected ‘runaway warming’……..
Lots more in the same vein at http://www.weatheraction.com/docs/WANews13No39.pdf
Mike McMillan says:
September 30, 2013 at 12:38 pm
Philippinos???????????????????????????
How much is the US paying the UN for this BS???
Too much, pull the plug.
i like this part,
replace with: process-based model projections, but there is no
consensus in the scientific community about their reliability and there
is thus low confidence in their projections.
page 8 from here http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/P36Doc4_WGI-12_Changes-Underlying-Assessment.pdf
Stealth reference to AR4:
7.4.1.1 Classification of Hypothesised Aerosol-Cloud Interactions
Denman et al. (2007) catalogued several possible pathways via which the aerosol might affect clouds.
Denman, K. L., et al., 2007: Couplings Between Changes in the Climate System and Biogeochemistry. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press.
just an engineer, or even filipinos .:)
IPCC must make all of its people attend acting school. No way in hell an untrained person could keep a straight face unloading this pile of fiction. ( there were a better word than fiction but i do strive to be civil.)
Chapter 2:
Figure 2.15 in the top portion(a) they show periods where up to 20% of the SST measurements come from what they call an unknown source(yellow). Bottom portion(b) they mix that unknown source data with other known data sets to create a composite temperature series(black).
If the source is unknown how do they the data is reliable?
The section I hope I put in bold is a circular reference to itself and utterly meaningless. Maybe a typo?
Oops in my previous comment.
Should be … how do they know the data is reliable?
After reading some of the tongue-in-cheek nonsense in the IPCC report I had to clear my mind of the stench it created. So I watched (again):
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2013/06/10/murray-salby-in-significant-part-co2-is-controlled-by-global-temperature-murray-salby/
Prof Murray (Galileo/Copernicus) versus the IPCC (Claudius Ptolemy/kiddies corner).
That sums it up nicely.
Galvanize says:
September 30, 2013 at 10:24 am
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.”
=============
Only the IPCC could come up with “less well” to describe total failure
In my previous post I forgot to mention – go to the middle of the Youtube file to get the important message . The stuff before it just shows that the proxy ice core measurements underestimate the CO2 concentration in the old atmosphere with increased underestimation the further back you go.
And here’s a follow up confirmation if you like of Salby’s theory expressed in the second part of the Youtube file.
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/swedish-scientist-replicates-dr-murry.html
Anthony there is one more document on the IPCC site that is related to the report.
Changes underlying the assessment.
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/P36Doc4_WGI-12_Changes-Underlying-Assessment.pdf
So, that’s how we get from 90% to 95% certain. LOL, settled science.
Uh, nevermind. My bad.
Chapter 11 – Near Term Climate Change
The leaked draft stated that changes due to solar variation would not exceed 0.1 degrees. Now it says:
In summary, possible future changes in solar irradiance could influence the rate at which global mean
surface air temperature increases, but there is high confidence that this influence will be small in comparison to the influence of increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Understanding of the impacts of changes in solar irradiance on continental and sub-continental scale climate remains low.
So they’ve dropped the number altogether in favour of vague arm waving, saying only that it is probably small, but give themselves an out by saying that on continental scales they really don’t know. Wow.
They similarly have backed off their wording from the SOD regarding less frequent and less intense tropical cyclones in favour of wording that they have low confidence that they will increase.
The twisting of words to imply the opposite of what the data says without actually lying is indeed a spectacle to behold.
Could Dr. Svalgaard comment on the following quotation taken from the Box 9.2 of the IPCC Working Group I Report.
“In summary, the observed recent warming hiatus, defined as the reduction in GMST trend during 1998–2012 as compared to the trend during 1951–2012, is attributable in roughly equal measure to a cooling contribution from internal variability and a reduced trend in external forcing (expert judgment, medium confidence). The forcing trend reduction is primarily due to a negative forcing trend from both volcanic eruptions and the downward phase of the solar cycle.”
So, the IPCC claims that there is less radiation arriving at the top of the atmosphere?
Theo Goodwin;
Hilarious. So in Ch11 they seem to be saying that solar forcing isn’t significant and in Ch9 they say it is.
Jo Nova’s thread is well worth reading and distributing
http://joannenova.com.au/2013/09/ipcc-in-denial-just-so-excuses-use-mystery-ocean-heat-to-hide-their-failure/
davidmhoffer says:
September 30, 2013 at 3:02 pm
Hilarious!!! We’re gonna’ have to invent a new word for this.
Theo Goodwin:
There is no need for a new word because there is an existing phrase: i.e. two faced.
However, if you want to invent a new word then I suggest Janus.
Janus was a Roman god with two faces that looked in opposite directions, and was the god of doorways. The IPCC offers a doorway into a world few of us want.
Richard
davidmhoffer says:
September 30, 2013 at 2:37 pm
The twisting of words to imply the opposite of what the data says without actually lying is indeed a spectacle to behold.
_______________________
Oh, it’s still lying.
dfbaskwill says:
September 30, 2013 at 10:02 am
I’m still just on page 29 of ObamaCare. Now This! Whoa is me…
—
The more pages in a document, the less it actually contains, which just shows IPCC actually ‘knows’ nothing. Just pages upon pages of conjecture. It’s the 1000+ page laws that should scare everyone (unless the general public wises up an just ignores them, to understand them is futile).
richardscourtney says:
September 30, 2013 at 3:29 pm
Theo Goodwin:
There is no need for a new word because there is an existing phrase: i.e. two faced.
However, if you want to invent a new word then I suggest Janus.
Janus was a Roman god with two faces that looked in opposite directions, and was the god of doorways. The IPCC offers a doorway into a world few of us want.
Richard
________________________
I’ve often had the same thought, that the IPCC could use the Janus figure as logo.
richardscourtney says:
September 30, 2013 at 3:29 pm
Thanks, Richard, I needed that. I do fear going soft. Now I am having visions of the IPCC as made up of graduate students, some with doctorates, who are galley slaves serving under sadomasochistic masters. What else could explain the turgid prose, sort of prose, found in this document? It was created to torture the reader.
“Janus” will do.
FrankK says:
September 30, 2013 at 2:06 pm
The stuff before it just shows that the proxy ice core measurements underestimate the CO2 concentration in the old atmosphere with increased underestimation the further back you go.
Frank,
Murray Salby is wrong on several counts, but that should be for a more in detailed discussion. In the case of ice cores, what he says is simply impossible:
Ice cores average all fast CO2 changes out over the period of resolution (560 years for Dome C, 600 years for the Vostok ice core). They don’t smooth sustained high level of longer duration like during warm interglacials.
If Salby is right, then the 300 ppmv peak measured during the previous interglacial (the Eemian) would have been 3000 ppmv in reality. But as ice cores only smooth the record, the average over the full period should be maintained. The average glacial/interglacial period is about 9:1 (90 kyr:10 kyr). That means that to smear the 3000 ppmv peak in the glacial period, the CO2 levels should have been below zero. Effectively killing all life on earth…
Heh. I was thinking more Epimetheus. The Father of Excuses. 😉
richardscourtney says:
September 30, 2013 at 9:18 am
###
You need to read my comment again. I think I was pretty clear in what I wrote, but then again, maybe not. I am pretty autistic and find communicating complex ideas using language a bit problematic, so I am used to being misunderstood.
Anyhow, I was trying to say that the IPCC is structurally incapable, on a very fundamental level, from being able to differentiate science from politics. I.e., Anything the IPCC emits from its collect mouth, no mater how much it believes it to be science, will be nothing more then political rhetoric designed to enslave mankind. Why do you think I was saying otherwise? How could I have been more clear?
BTW, I gave up years ago from trying to contribute anything more the anti-Marxist rants after I tried to discuss a controlled experiment and NO ONE could understand, no matter how hard I tried, that I was talking about a controlled experiment NOT the real world.
Alan Robertson says:
“I’ve often had the same thought, that the IPCC could use the Janus figure as logo.”
I for one am very glad to see you and Richard on the same page. I agree with just about everything you both have to say, and it is a relief getting past what was, at the very most, only a minor misunderstanding.
– Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
September 30, 2013 at 4:10 pm
Frank,
Murray Salby is wrong on several counts, but that should be for a more in detailed discussion. In the case of ice cores, what he says is simply impossible:
—————————————————————————————————————-
Well Ferdinand one has to be careful making a statement “that he is wrong”. He may be wrong or you may be wrong. You have a theory that is different to his, that is all. That’s science.
But I am more interested in the second part of his talk about CO2 being driven by the integral of temperature, rather than that temperature is driven directly by CO2. Do you disagree with that, and why? If you disagree, please present your opinion with the relevant mathematics, as the contributing Swedish author has done that also agrees with him. That would be a worthwhile contribution.
Best Regards F
dbstealey says:
September 30, 2013 at 5:10 pm
Alan Robertson says:
“I’ve often had the same thought, that the IPCC could use the Janus figure as logo.”
I for one am very glad to see you and Richard on the same page. I agree with just about everything you both have to say, and it is a relief getting past what was, at the very most, only a minor misunderstanding.
_____________________
Listening to: Jefferson Airplane- Bless Its Pointed Little Head
Hopefully they used better grammar.
Would you say, that the majority of people or lay people would not bother reading this, just take on what they feel experts believe. I meet quite intelligent people, who believe in climate change because it is a warmer than average spring? Well it is not of course. We had a warmer than average September one year, that was followed by a huge hail storm that ruined and destroyed 80 % of the roofs in Armidale. My house had tiles broken but my former 100 year old cottage had a brand new roof. So rain or hail happens after warmer than average climate temps. They don’t understand the science. And honestly they don’t really care. They believe in government cover ups, don’t trust politicians, and follow like sheep. So if someone says humans are causing uncontrollable climate change they feel guilty. What did Goebbels say ‘Tell a lie long enough, and it becomes the truth’. We should look to history and see the scams that have be told, the Mayan 2012 prediction of world end, the 2 K bug, then the 9/II conspiracy theories. Add AGW?
Just keep hammering them folks, you’ll turn the tide on believers and discredit the UN IPCC.
Since only 2% of the IPCCs climate model runs can reproduce the temperature for the period 1951-2012, there are no reasons to believe that their future predictions on climate will be anyway near reality, be that on temperature, humidity, percipitation, sea-level rise, ice-extent, ocean pH, and so on.
Since flawed models are at the core of all of these predictions, the IPCC will continue failing, on all these areas.
The claim is now that 95% on the ‘scientists’ of IPCC believe 50% of the climate change for the period 1951-2012 was caused by humans. That is, only 50% has, according to these ‘scientists’ been caused by natural factors.
If we bring this claim together with the 2% success of the models we get this interesting combination:
95% of the IPCC ‘scientists’ believe 50% of the climate change observed in the period 1951-2012 was caused by humans, their models can in 2% of the cases predict observed temperature record for the same period, thus the IPCC can with 1% certainty predict global climate change caused by humans. They can with the same 1% certainty predict natural effects on global climate. This leaves them with a 98% chance of failing to predict global climate caused by humans or natural causes.
Since this is the case, there are no reasons whatsoever to read the 5th report, for it cannot any better than the 1st, 2nd, 3rd or 4th report predict climate. Since this is the case, and since IPCC has been funded with hundreds of billions of dollars over 30 years, with such a totally failing outcome, the IPCC should immidiately be dismanteled.
What the world needs is a non-govermental climate panel, that asseses the climate system and changes in this, regardless what the causes for climate, human or natural.
For countries that could be seriously affected by abrupt climate changes, there is now no other way of securing their future but to find things out for themselves, and prepare for possible changes as best they can.
This is the only logical conclusion to the IPCCs total failure.
Have you seen the hiding of the model failures in fig. 1.4 of the introduction chapter?
In the leaked draft (http://www.stopgreensuicide.com/Ch1-Introduction_WG1AR5_SOD_Ch01_All_Final.pdf) fig. 1.4 showed this failure. It was discussed before.
Now this failure was hidden by extending the time range from 25 years to 85 years and by including the curves of several wide-spread models.
Here’s what I know for sure: We had maybe 2 weeks of 90’s this summer. Looks like summer’s over. I’m just south of Ft. Collins, CO and not in the foothills. Our forecast for Friday, October 3, 2013 –
Rise: 7:00 AM Set: 6:37 PM Rise: 6:39 AM Set: 6:21 PM
Windy, mix of rain and snow showers. Highs in the mid 40s and lows in the upper 20s.
My tomatoes failed again. It makes no sense. Up until 5 years ago I fed the neighborhood with tomatoes from the same garden. However, I think I’m going to have a good sweet potato yield.
JEM says:
September 30, 2013 at 11:14 am
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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I think they are doing just that.
This rejection of comments and politicization did not go over well with deticated scientists. WUWT: The IPCC consensus on climate change was phoney, says IPCC insider
“Unless we announce disasters, no-one will listen”.
Unsurprisingly, this has led to disagreements between the IPCC and some of the scientists providing the material for its statements on climate.
A number of them have found it impossible to reconcile their scientific work with the lead-authors who compile IPCC reports. Others have found that when they criticize the IPCC, they are not selected to write for the next report.
Scientists who have aired their dissatisfaction with the IPCC are listed below, including a number who have resigned.
One assumes that there are other scientists unhappy at the way the IPCC presents their work but who do not wish to be whistleblowers. They remain unknown except to family and friends….
Ross McKitrick reports on the thinning of the rank @ September 27, 2013 at 5:32 am
….IPCC 4 PR claimed 2,000 scientists contributed whereas IPCC 5 only claims 800….
Ah, now I’ve seen that Steve McIntyre has already written about that hiding of the model failure:
http://climateaudit.org/2013/09/30/ipcc-disappears-the-discrepancy/
DesertYote:
You begin your post at September 30, 2013 at 5:06 pm saying
If I misunderstood you then I apologise, but I don’t think I did.
As a clarification you now say “the IPCC is structurally incapable, on a very fundamental level, from being able to differentiate science from politics”.
My post that answered you began saying
It then quoted your post in full before explaining – with references, links and quotations – how and why the IPCC is pure politics which only uses science as ‘window dressing’. This link jumps to my answer to you at September 30, 2013 at 9:18 am
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/30/ipcc-ar5-full-final-report-released-full-access-here/#comment-1431905
Richard
CLASSIC TEXT IN CHAPTER 9. NOTE THAT UNCERTAINTIES IN CLOUD FORCING LEADS TO RADITIVE ERRORS OF TENS OF WATTS PER SQUARE METRE !
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.
There is very high confidence that uncertainties in cloud processes explain much of the spread in modelled climate sensitivity…biases in cloud simulation lead to regional errors on cloud radiative effect of several tens of watts per square meter.
Cloud feedbacks represent the main cause for the range in modelled climate sensitivity (Chapter 7). The spread due to inter-model differences in cloud feedbacks is approximately 3 times larger than the spread contributed by feedbacks due to variations in water vapour and lapse-rate combined (Dufresne and Bony, 2008), and is a primary factor governing the range of climate sensitivity across the CMIP3 ensemble (Volodin, 2008a).
With very few exceptions (Hourdin et al., 2013; Mauritsen et al., 2013) modelling centres do not routinely describe in detail how they tune their models. Therefore the complete list of observational constraints toward which a particular model is tuned is generally not available.
Almost all CMIP5 historical simulations do not reproduce the observed recent warming hiatus. There is medium confidence that the GMST 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 CMIP5 models overestimating the response to increasing greenhouse-gas forcing.
…most 15-year GMST trends in the near-term future will be larger than during 1998–2012…The reasons for this implication are fourfold: first, anthropogenic greenhouse-gas concentrations are expected to rise further in all RCP scenarios; second, anthropogenic aerosol concentration is expected to decline in all RCP scenarios, and so is the resulting cooling effect; third, the trend in solar forcing is expected to be larger over most near-term 15–year periods than over 1998–2012 (medium confidence), because 1998–2012 contained the full downward phase of the solar cycle; and fourth, it is more likely than not that internal climate variability in the near-term will enhance and not counteract the surface warming expected to arise from the increasing anthropogenic forcing.
LIKE A GAMBLER, THEY THINK THEIR LUCK MUST TURN UP IN THE END !
A spanish news agency cites IPCC AR5 as the source for the following predictions:
* North of Africa 2-3ºC hotter by mid century, 3-6ºC hotter by 2100;
* Maximum temperatures in southern Europe 5-8ºC hotter by 2100;
* Spain: 20% less rain, less clouds, worse yields, more illnesses, and an incredible 60-80% species loss if temperatures go high by just +1,8ºC.
If you don’t believe me, check it yourselves (in Spanish).
I think the journalist just made it all up. It would be interesting to contrast it with what IPCC AR5 actually says.
ScientistForTruth says: @ October 1, 2013 at 3:55 am
CLASSIC TEXT IN CHAPTER 9. NOTE THAT UNCERTAINTIES IN CLOUD FORCING LEADS TO RADITIVE ERRORS OF TENS OF WATTS PER SQUARE METRE !….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Actually I think the MONEY QUOTE is
Since the entire ASSESSMENT process is to ASSESS the current ‘Climate Science’ and Computer Models are the core of ‘IPCC science’
predictingprojecting humans will cause the earth to fry if we do not change our wasteful ways, how on earth can you ‘ASSESS’ ascienceconjecture that is hidden?Of course if you use the ‘fit’ of the climate models to the present climate you could say with 95% confidence that they completely FAIL. Too bad the IPCC dances around that simple statement.
Laurie says:October 1, 2013 at 1:37 am
Re: no tomatoes. I’m at 6600′ near Carbondale. Finally got a ripe tomato on 9/21, unfortunately it frosted that am and killed the five bushes I had. I picked all the green tomatoes, wrapped each in newspaper and placed them 2 deep in paper bags, This allows a gas, ethylene?, that the fruit produces to remain in higher concentration near the fruit which ripens it, yet can still ‘breath’. Keep the nearest to ripening on top and check every few days. I’ve got a dozen ripe ones on the counter now, and see a batch of marinara on the horizon.
I think it was the cool nights in July, 40s here, when it should have been 50s, that set them back. I usually have ripe ones by July, having started them April 1. I’ve had four mornings of frost this year, none last until 10/6.
According to the IPCC, we need to be farther north, where it has warmed the most, to avoid these cooling problems.
Nylo says: @ October 1, 2013 at 4:50 am
A spanish news agency cites IPCC AR5 as the source for the following predictions….
I think the journalist just made it all up.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I think he probably got his marching orders from the Spanish Government. How else are they going to keep the populous from retaliating for the government’s bankrupting of their country by spending money on pixie dust and unicorn fart projects?
Max Keiser Spain is bankrupt, get your money out: Read Between the Lines: IMF Admits Spain is Bankrupt; Get Your Money Out While You Can
Steve Keohane says: @ October 1, 2013 at 6:05 am
Re: no tomatoes….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
An apple added to the paper bag with the selected tomatoes you want to ripen fast helps. (Place away from the rest of the fruit you do not want to ripen immediately.)
SEE: Ethylene: The Ripening Hormone
richardscourtney says:
October 1, 2013 at 2:14 am
DesertYote:
You begin your post at September 30, 2013 at 5:06 pm saying
richardscourtney says:
September 30, 2013 at 9:18 am
###
It then quoted your post in full before explaining – with references, links and quotations – how and why the IPCC is pure politics which only uses science as ‘window dressing’.
###
OK, so you get a gold star to go next to the F. I guess what I was trying to say is just too subtle or complex for you to understand. You missed it by a mile. Are you so stupid that you can not see that my point is a SUPER SET of your contention. Your voluminous references look pretty silly considering the amount of effort you wasted to prove a statement that I already believe to be true. I bet you suck at math.
DesertYote:
re your rant at October 1, 2013 at 1:34 pm.
In your post at September 30, 2013 at 5:06 pm you told me
OK. Your autism sometimes induces you to write words which say are “misunderstood”. Clearly, that has happened on this occasion because I quoted your words verbatim and addressed them. Unfortunately, my doing that has caused you offence. I am sorry about that.
These of my posts have caused you the offence.
The links jump to them and you can see they quote your words and address those words. No mathematics was involved.
At October 1, 2013 at 2:14 am
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/30/ipcc-ar5-full-final-report-released-full-access-here/#comment-1432622
and at September 30, 2013 at 9:18 am
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/30/ipcc-ar5-full-final-report-released-full-access-here/#comment-1431905
Richard