I’ve been given a copy of the “leaked” AR5 SPM, which has been widely circulated and cited in advance in the MSM, but I’ve just now been able to get a copy. Reportedly, there are some 1800 changes requested by government participants in the upcoming meeting to hammer out the final version, so it is doubtful that what I’m posting below will be the same as the final.
Still we need a baseline for comparison, and now I have one, so that will be a future post. These are a few things that caught my eye. I’ll post them as time permits, and I don’t have time to comment today as I have other pressing issues.
First, there doesn’t appear to be a single skeptic (correct me if I’m wrong) in the author list.
Atmosphere
2
3 Each of the last three decades has been warmer than all preceding decades since 1850 and the first decade of
4 the 21st century has been the warmest (see Figure SPM.1). Analyses of paleoclimate archives indicate that in
5 the Northern Hemisphere, the period 1983–2012 was very likely the warmest 30-year period of the last 800
6 years (high confidence) and likely the warmest 30-year period of the last 1400 years (medium confidence).
7 {2.4, 5.3}
8
9
10 [INSERT FIGURE SPM.1 HERE]
11 Figure SPM.1: (a) Observed global mean combined land and ocean temperature anomalies from three surface
12 temperature data sets (black – HadCRUT4, yellow – MLOST, blue – GISS). Top panel: annual mean values, bottom
13 panel: decadal mean values including the estimate of uncertainty for HadCRUT4. Anomalies are relative to the mean of
14 1961−1990. (b) Map of the observed temperature change from 1901−2012derived from temperature trends determined
15 by linear regression of the MLOST time series. Trends have been calculated only for grid boxes with greater than 70%
16 complete records and more than 20% data availability in the first and last 10% of the time period. Grid boxes where the
17 trend is significant at the 10% level are indicated by a + sign. {Figures 2.19–2.21; Figure TS.2}
18
19
20 • The globally averaged combined land and ocean surface temperature data show an increase of 0.89
21 [0.69 to 1.08] °C 3 over the period 1901–2012. Over this period almost the entire globe has experienced
22 surface warming. (Figure SPM.1). {2.4.3}
23
24 • Global mean surface temperature trends exhibit substantial decadal variability, despite the robust multi-
25 decadal warming since 1901 (Figure SPM 1). The rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998−2012;
26 0.05 [−0.05 to +0.15] °C per decade) is smaller than the trend since 1951 (1951−2012; 0.12 [0.08 to
27 0.14] °C per decade). (Figure SPM.1) {2.4.3}
28
29 • Continental-scale surface temperature reconstructions show, with high confidence, multi-decadal
30 intervals during the Medieval Climate Anomaly (950−1250) that were in some regions as warm as in
31 the late 20th century. These intervals did not occur as coherently across seasons and regions as the
32 warming in the late 20th century (high confidence). {5.3.5, 5.5.1}
33
34 • It is virtually certain that globally the troposphere has warmed and the stratosphere has cooled since the
35 mid-20th century. There is medium confidence in the rate of change and its vertical structure in the
36 Northern Hemisphere extra-tropical troposphere and low confidence elsewhere. {2.4.4}
37
38 • Because of data insufficiency, confidence in precipitation change averaged over global land areas since
39 1901 is low prior to 1950 and medium afterwards. The incomplete records show mixed and non-
40 significant long-term trends in global mean changes. Precipitation has increased in the mid-latitude land
41 areas of the Northern Hemisphere since 1901 (medium confidence prior to 1950 and high confidence
42 afterwards). {2.5.1}
43
44 • Changes in many extreme weather and climate events have been observed since about 1950 (see Table
45 SPM.1). It is very likely that the number of cold days and nights has decreased and the number of warm
46 days and nights has increased on the global scale. In some regions, it is likely that the frequency of heat
47 waves has increased. There are likely more land regions where the number of heavy precipitation events
48 has increased than where it has decreased. Regional trends vary, but confidence is highest for North
49 America with very likely trends towards heavier precipitation events. {2.6.1, 2.6.2; FAQ 2.2}
3 In the WGI contribution to the AR5, uncertainty is quantified using 90% uncertainty intervals unless otherwise stated. The 90% uncertainty interval, reported in square brackets, is expected to have a 90% likelihood of covering the value that is being estimated. The upper endpoint of the uncertainty interval has a 95% likelihood of exceeding the value that is being estimated and the lower endpoint has a 95% likelihood of being less than that value. A best estimate of that value is also given where available. Uncertainty intervals are not necessarily symmetric about the corresponding best estimate.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
(Usually when I go for “comic relief” it’s intentional.)
That Warm period was not as warm as today. This is really bad and we must act now.
Interesting that the Koppen decadal climate boundaries say something completely different. link
IT IS ALL GARBAGE.
It is not worth the paper it is written on.
That is my opinion of the latest IPCC assessment.
Hadcrut 4… makes 2005 warmer than 1998… anything helps
34 • It is virtually certain that globally the troposphere has warmed and the stratosphere has cooled since the
In other words, after a lot of massaging of the data, the models say the tropospheric hot spot should be there.
55 Authors. What percentage of climate scientists is this? I not that Tim Osbourne is a contributing author, After publication of the “Harry_READ_ME” file, I’m surprised to see him here.
I’m sorry, I forgot add:
What the hell is the 90% certainty? in most sciences, the two tailed probability is taken as significant at +- 2SD, i.e.: the cumulative probability is 2.5% beyond each tail and the probability is 1 in 20 as being from the observed distribution.
Not only has climate science managed to screw up temperature records, they are now playing fast and loose with basic statistical reasoning..
“I’ve been given a copy of the “leaked” AR5 SPM, which has been widely circulated and cited in advance in the MSM, but I’ve just now been able to get a copy.”
You’re lucky at that, because you are just going to “try to find something wrong with it.”
I sense a moving of the goal posts here – most of the stuff I hear is about how the temperature is rising so quickly over the last 30 years. Now all of a sudden we are moving to consider that the 20th century was warmer than other centuries.
The thing is, that I see there is some kind of surrender on the instrumental record and now with “virtual certainty” the last, instrumented, century is warmer than all of the other non-instrumented centuries.
I am unsure how one gets virtual certainty when there was no instrumental record, but its going to be very difficult to prove or disprove.
September 16, 2013 at 4:44 pm
RC Saumarez says:
“55 Authors. What percentage of climate scientists is this?”
According to one earlier study [Doran?] there were only about 77 “climate scientists” found, 75 of which agreed that ~”the world is warming and that humans might have something to to with it” = 75/77 = 97%.. But now it appears that the ipcc can’t find the other 22, so that the 55 might be all there are left today, as defined by Doran! Fortunately for the ipcc and still using “mainstream” Climate Science’s “method”, this means its “certainty” of our impending doom is still a healthy 53-55/55, or as much as 100%!/sarc
[(53+55)/55 ? 8<) Mod]
Wow, three expert authors from Australia:
Dr Lisa Alexander
Chief Investigator
Climate Change Research Centre
Mathews Building University of New South Wales SYDNEY 2052 Australia
Dr Alexander’s primary research focusses on understanding the variability and driving mechanisms of climate extremes. Of particular significance is her ongoing work assessing global changes in temperature and rainfall extremes, which has contributed significantly to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Assessments.
Professor Nathaniel Bindoff
University of Tasmania
Professor Bindoff is a physical oceanographer specializing in ocean climate and the Earth’s climate system. He is a prominent researcher who has worked to quantify the changing state of the global ocean through analyses of new oceanographic data sets and simulations. He has documented some of the first evidence for changes in the climate change signals in the Indian, North Pacific, South Pacific and Southern Oceans and has shown some of the first evidence of changes in the Earth’s hydrological cycle.
Dr John Church
Leader, Sea Level Rise Program
University of Tasmania
John Church is an oceanographer with the Center for Australian Weather and Climate Research, CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research and the Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Cooperative Research Centre. He has published across a broad range of topics in oceanography and his area of particular expertise is the role of the ocean in climate, particularly anthropogenic climate change.
RC Saumarez and JPedan. Indeed the IPCC have already admitted that the “certainty” is based on the opinions of the authors….nothing scientific or statistical in it at all.
Aside from the sensationalistic visuals, I don’t see much controversial there. Warmer than the LIA? No shirt, Shylock?
1800 changes …??? … I’m listening to the same voices ….. always …. Fernando….. Fernando …. You are out of date……the nightmare continues …..
Robber
You forgot Steve Rintoul CSIRO
Dr Rintoul is a physical oceanographer studying the role of the ocean in the Earth’s climate system, with a particular interest in the Southern Ocean.
His current interests include:ocean currents and how they affect Earth’s climate
the Southern Ocean and the Antarctic Circumpolar Current
how ocean currents influence sea ice, biogeochemical cycles, and the distribution of biological productivity. Dr Rintoul was awarded the inaugural Georg Wüst Medal by the German Society of Marine Research in 2005.
“First, there doesn’t appear to be a single skeptic (correct me if I’m wrong) in the author list.”
When, for instance, Mann was richly rewarded (or, for example, how the Gleick affair turned out), some (good people) were disgusted, but others got the message loud and clear, flocking to the opportunities for them. By this point, the set of individuals calling themselves climatologists is no longer remotely like a random sample of a broad populace, and everyone who naively extrapolates assumptions of honesty prevalence based on experience in more ordinary contexts has no idea whatsoever.
Going from having skeptics in earlier reports to none is of note but totally unsurprising, for, in circumstances like this, ideological polarization applies, getting worse and worse over time by default. Those trying to enforce CAGW-movement convenient views will be behind the scenes actively attacking and trying to drive away purveyors of other information, for dishonesty is never secure until divergence from the group is suppressed, until particular facts are never spoken, posted, or distributed (as seen, attempted or successful, in online community after community, for instance, most of which have nothing to do with climate but for which similar psychology applies).
Nothing short of more and much more global cooling, beyond the capability of anyone to fudge away, will necessarily be saving in the future at this point, for more and more every last major inconvenient dataset gets rewritten. (Temperature, cloud cover, solar activity, humidity, and sea level history are all among examples).
No one argues that is warmed in the late 20th century. The issue is what caused the warming. I see nothing in these statements that discusses attribution. Are they just going to ignore that topic?
Most of us know that ENSO is a major part of that warming. It appears they will just stare blankly into space whenever the topic is brought up.
“In some regions, it is likely that the frequency of heat waves has increased.”
—
Saying “some regions” is not the same thing as saying “most regions,” so I would have to assume that most regions are not seeing an increase in the frequency of heat waves and may even be seeing a decrease.
They use the word “likely” a lot. That tells me they’re guessing and don’t have reliable data. Are they basing their assumptions on climate models rather than actual observations?
Oh Dear indeed.
All the given information is fine… But can someone explain me how the measurements were taken over the globe in the time period like a 1900 or even back where there were no instrumnets. Don’t get me wrong iam a noob.
srinivas2036 said on September 16, 2013 at 11:10 pm:
The real answer is, they weren’t.
The parts of the surface of this planet that aren’t large bodies of water are only about 30% of the surface area. This includes large places like the Antarctica continent that never has had nor ever will have enough thermometers on the ground for a trustworthy record.
Of the remaining land, the US has arguably good coverage of volunteer temperature takers who sent in their daily measurements. Quality wise it’s better than nothing. In there were readings from many airports, which went from grass strips to dirt to tarmac, and tarmac heats up very well in sunlight and releases that heat slowly at night. Likewise many individual thermometers started as purely rural, then civilization grew up around them with heated buildings, brick and concrete, and more tarmac. Amazingly enough, “global warming” has largely shown up as warmer nighttime temperatures.
Other places, perhaps all you’ll get is a record taken from outside the Ministry of Agriculture headquarters or similar, completeness and quality of records highly questionable.
From this a “global” record is built on assumptions, mainly that a spot between two temperature stations will be similar to them. Thus a deep shaded river valley is to be similar in temperatures to the two airports on flat ground it is between, a mountain is similar to stations in valley towns, a swamp is similar to dry ground, etc.
For the oceans, there are some records of water temperatures taken by crews on seafaring ships, with a water temperature at the surface close enough to a surface air temperatures as taken on land. Thus there are sparse but useable records of the usual trade routes, but not elsewhere. Add more assumptions.
They throw all this into the computers, top off the pixie dust dispenser, and from this a global land+sea average temperature dataset is crafted, as with those used above for the IPCC figure. They also change the recorded readings based on many assumptions, which they call “adjustments” and insist are needed. Which invariably make the older readings suddenly become colder, “proving” there is a threatening large rate of warming.
Hope this helps.
Louis says:
September 16, 2013 at 8:21 pm
“In some regions, it is likely that the frequency of heat waves has increased.”
—
Saying “some regions” is not the same thing as saying “most regions,” so I would have to assume that most regions are not seeing an increase in the frequency of heat waves and may even be seeing a decrease.
=============================================
This is the same linguistic dexterity that advertisers use – “Surveys show that some of our customers could save up to 30%”. There are three distinct qualifiers in that sentence, rendering it utterly meaningless.
Likewise the “some regions” and “likely” qualifications here. The IPCC is desperately trying to sell its message, so is reduced to using the tricks of the advertising agency.
Get things in perspective !!!
The last millennium 1000 – 2000 AD was the coolest of the whole Holocene epoch and in the last ~10,000 years the world has cooled about -1.5degC overall.
And in the UK the MO CET has lost about -1 degC since 2000 and even more in the winter and spring of 2013.
Look at the sunspot cycle its going downhill fast.
The future is cold.
Indeed; incredible as it seems, the consensus ‘expert opinion’ was cooked up first, then numbers appended to make it sound scientificy.
Green Jelly Beans Cause Acne – 95% confidence.