Access: The "leaked" IPCC AR5 draft Summary for Policymakers

“Friendly” is a euphemism for “left-wing, Greenshirt” motivated. Since Dr. Curry looks relatively useful to skeptics she is given an immediate exemption for her obfuscation. Skeptics determined to add 30+ years to the climate war through this permissive approach.

I’ve done a keyword search and am a few pages in now. No sign of any mention of ‘pause’ or ‘hiatus’. Looks like the politicos may have got their wish.

It looks like this is all we’re getting by way of concession:
“The rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998−2012; 25 0.05 [−0.05 to +0.15] °C per decade) is smaller than the trend since 1951 (1951−2012; 0.12 [0.08 to 26 0.14] °C per decade)”

Errr……
“The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by more than 20% since 1958 when systematic atmospheric measurements began (see Figure SPM.3), and by about 40% since 1750. The increase is a result of human activity, virtually all due to burning of fossil fuels and deforestation”

When Raj Pachauri does retire, he will have more time to produce his smutty novels. [snip]

Is my mind just in the gutter? Or does LockLizard sound like wordplay on lot lizard?
Prufeshunalism at its finest…

davidmhoffer… and I.P.C.C. will be able (unless the public says no) to continue to expand the time horizon for decades to come all built upon the manufactured rise since the 70’s that due to adjustments will never go away. One day the public is going to wonder… what about those +0.7°C “upward adjustments” made to the temperature records, what about that, what of UHI, have we had the wool pulled over our eyes? One day, and stop speaking of the irrelevant always-bright-red model mumbo-jumbo charts all built on incorrect parameters and assumptions.

Well, this clearly puts you outside the range of normal, respectful, ethical behavior. The excuses you provide at the beginning of this post are lame. You should be ashamed of yourself.
In the end, since this is about to be released anyway, your unethical behavior probably has little cost to anyone else, but I suspect it is going to cost you a great deal in the way of credibility among legitimate scientists, members of the press, policy makers, etc.
Or were you thinking that your credibility is already pretty much blown anyway?

Mac the Knife says:
September 23, 2013 at 11:56 am
AR5, like its predecessors, is a political document, not a scientific document.
/////////////////
This would appear so since why else would you publish a summary for policy makers before the finalisation of the scientific report?
Surely, the report should come first. Once published, a summary of key point can the be prepared for the less scientifically minded, and for those that the activist scientist wish to lead in the direction of their activism.
It seems to me that they are putting the cart before the horse, and at this stage they do not even know whther the horse is a thoroughbred or just some knacker fit only for the knacker’s yard.

“at IPCC chair Rajenda Pachauri willl step down in 2015, ..”
Oh no, I hope he changes his mind and stays on. Rajenda Pachauri has done far more for the skeptic/denialist side than anything the skeptics could have conceived. As long as he stays as chairman, the IPCC will have little credibility. I hope he remains chairman for many years to come.

AR4 was born using precisely the same murky bureaucratic shenanigans outlined above but they got found out. Skeptics did actually go back and check the summary against the underlying documents, did discover nearly one-third of the science experts were actually nothing more than environmental activists and even that some of the scientific predictions were based on nothing more than cut and pastes from alarmist pamphlets. Knowing the arrogance of the same people involved, I’ve no doubt AR5 will prove to be a bastard child of a similar provenance.
http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2013/09/20/armageddon-report-no-5/
Pointman

“The observed reduction in warming trend over the period 1998–2012 as compared to the period 1951–1 2012, is due in roughly equal measure to a cooling contribution from internal variability and a reduced 2 trend in radiative forcing (medium confidence). The reduced trend in radiative forcing is primarily due 3 to volcanic eruptions and the downward phase of the current solar cycle. However, there is low 4 confidence in quantifying the role of changes in radiative forcing in causing this reduced warming 5 trend. {Box 9.2; 10.3.1; Box 10.2}”
Translation: It was the sun. Or super secret volcanoes. Or something.

Interesting.
There is medium confidence from reconstructions that summer sea ice retreat and increase in sea surface temperatures in the Arctic over the past three decades are anomalous in the perspective of at least the last 2,000 years.
I only know of one reconstruction and they’re cocksure it’s unprecedented for at least 1.5k years. I’d like to know what other papers forced the confidence level 4 steps down from virtually certain.

Lock Lizard? Seems the IPCC may be more secure than the US government!

richardscourtney:
Interestingly, the UN Resolution appears only to refer to unspecified “climate change”.
[UNGA43-53, section 10 (b); link on the IPCC Organisation page]

LockLizard, eh? For some reason that name for the IPCC’s security supplier sounds a little too appropriate. In the future they may wish to consider using LockShark. Or, maybe LockRat. For a lighter touch they may wish to employ LockWeasel. Or, for the ultimate they could go with LockSnake; preferably LockViper. I think, perhaps, we may just need our own security supplier to protect us from the IPCC, and I know of a good one. It’s called, LockAndThrownAwayTheKey.

“Further, the IPCC has made it clear in their Principles and Procedures statement that they embrace transparency.”
Transparency… they clearly don’t know what they’re doing?

Thanks for the link Anthony!

The global mean surface temperature change for the period 2016–2035 will likely be in the range of 0.4°C to 1.0°C for the set of RCPs. This is based on an assessment of observationally-constrained projections and predictions initialized with observations (medium confidence).

They just couldn’t resist could they.

Greg Laden says:
September 23, 2013 at 12:30 pm
Well, this clearly puts you outside the range of normal, respectful, ethical behavior. The excuses you provide at the beginning of this post are lame. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Do you mean like the self confessed LIAR and WIRE FRAUDSTER Dr. Peter Glieck?

“observationally-constrained projections ” !?
I assume this means that they would have projected a bigger increase had not reality got in the way.

Poor Greg. in his case too, the family name is not just a family name.
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/laden#Adjective
The Romans had a saying for this, nomina sunt consequentia rerum

Looks like from Table SPM 1 we’re 7/8ths for sure “very likely” to “virtually certain” headed for our justly deserved Heaven on Earth, Tropical Paradise Climate, arriving sometime in the latter half of the 21st century – Girls Gone Wild and Mariachi Boys are not mentioned specifically, but assumed to come with the territory as a matter of obvious necessity.
Hence, I’m expecting the next Glaciation.

After going through this draft again, I think the IPCC should be disbanded this week before the SPM report is released and the scientists sent packing. Its about as far from a truthful document as it can get.

Steven Mosher says:
September 23, 2013 at 12:43 pm “…Of course all the models, the mean of all models shows more ice than the subset….” Whathisname, Brit geochronologist, must be in charge. One Siberian tree showed that the end was near, global meltdown was on its way. Otherwise, 200 Siberian trees said “Buy longjohns.” Which one was presented for show? How can you be partial to this scam?

If they explain The Pause by a decrease in solar forcing, they’ll have a hard time explaining why the very high solar forcing of the last 70 years didn’t cause most or all of the temperature increase up until 1998. The sun was more active in the last half of the 20th century than in any period of the last 1000 years.

VietnamVetsForTruth and Lt. John F. Kerry:
So, poster “Navy Chief” got info from another poster (onemorecaptiansmast) that Texas Tech University Lubbock Tx had purchased from the Defense Dept. all the records of the Vietnam (war/confilct/operation). Said Navy Chief being an active duty E-9 with intel back ground and high knowledge of documents ect. he and others went online to the archives post hast.
Once there on line and later in person in Lubbock the records included the full records of Lt. Kerry’s and all other swiftboats communication logs, all the records who went where, who went on missions, where they went, all the reports all of it down to minute details.
100% fact based from these records proven that Lt. John F. Kerry fabricated each and every one of his awards and citations.
Other info on his trip to Paris, his actions and things regarding his DD-214 and Discharge.
Yet, where is John F. Kerry this very hour.
These people we are dealing with discard facts like they throw out the trash from the compactor each morning. Then the start another day of putting out new trash.
The U.N. is a lie, they live by lies, the ones who put these lies together will lie about this to the end of time. The MSM will cover for them to their last page/electronic gasp.
Yet time is not on their side, and the sun comes up, the tides do what gravity says, the earth does not know they exist, the speed of light is unchanged, the red shift is real, the atom dislikes being smashed and Mother Nature will paddle these bad acting chrldren in her on time.
Drill for oil, drill for natural gas, use it in a responsible way.
These other ones will selfdestruct soon enough, more rope they lust for, let them have it.

De-funding the IPCC will kill it. The taxpayer-funded alarmists will belly up to the trough to spend other people’s money like it’s 1999.

richardscourtney says:
September 23, 2013 at 12:58 pm
“,,,
ROLE
2. The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy, although they may need to deal objectively with scientific, technical and socio-economic factors relevant to the application of particular policies.
…”
///////////////////////
Further to Richard’s post regarding the role of the IPCC, the interpretation that he expresses is a possible interpretation of the remit (that he quotes) and probably it is the interpretation held by a cynic. That interpretation does not necessarily follow from the wording used. It appears that the IPCC have allowed themselves to become subverted, probably as a consequence of the fact that many of the lead scientists are also activists (some more so than others, and some more of an activist than a scientist) and it is because of this subversion that the IPCC reports have become so politicised as opposed to taking a comprehensive and objective investigation into the science which is relevant to assessing the risk of human induced climate change.
So for example, the failure to address some of the issues such as
(i) Why does the satellite temperature data set from 1979 to 1998 differ so starkly to that of the various thermometer data sets? This would include an investigation as to whether the warming shown in the land based data sets is a consequence of UHI, and/or lack of screen maintenance and/or station siting issues, and/or station drop outs and/or the consequence of adjustments/homogenisation of the data over this period.
(ii) Why computer model projections have departed so substantially from observed reality? Are computer models fit for purpose, and what level of confidence should be had in their projections?
(iii) Why is Antarctic ice not melting and why is global ice extent still normal and why is the Arctic behaving to that of the Antarctic?
(iv) Is climate change truly to be regarded as global or is it better viewed as a local or regional phenomena? In particular how is each significant area of the globe (say divided into continents, possibly sub-divided into NSWE and mid) responding and why the different response to what is thought may be a well distributed driver?
(v) To what extent are any of the data sets fit for purpose. What are the true error margins/confidence levels applicable to eacg data set. What, if any, conclusions can be drawn from them.
(vi) To what extent is there correlation between CO2 levels and rate of change in CO2 levels with temperature in the various data sets, and then where any time period does not correlate (ie., temperatures fall, or temperatures remain static) to examine that time period and seek to explain why temperatures fell or remained static or the rise in temperature did not accelerate over and above previous temperature rises which took place when CO2 emissions were relatively low.
(vii) The proper understanding of natural variation. Indeed, this is in practice the holy grail of the climate change issue. Because until we fully understand natural variation what it comprises of, what are the individual forcing events, how these operate and the lower and upper bounds of each and every constituent forcing, it is impossible as a matter of logic to separate the signal of manmade induced temperature changes from the noise of natural variation. I emphasise the importance of this since until natural variation is fully known and understood, it is quite impossible to examine the temperature record and assess whether CO2 has any role whatsoever, by which I mean whether CO2 has a warming effect, a cooling effect, or simply neutral, still less the strength of any positive or negative effect. So for example, until natural variation is fully understood I could make out a case that adding CO2 has a negative effect on temperature. I do this as follows: when the record shows warming I assert that CO2 had a negative effect but natural variation was very highly positive and thus dominated the cooling effect of CO2 leading to a net increase in observed temperatures , when temperatures were static, I claim that CO2 was cooling but at this time natural variation was weakly positive such that one cancelled out the other such that there was no change in the observed temperature, and when it shows cooling I assert that CO2 had a cooling effect but at this time natural variation was entirely neutral such that CO2 dominated temperature at that time leading to a cooling of the observed temperature.
I could carry on with this list, but my point is that the remit expressly calls for a “comprehensive, objective” assessment of the scientific issues and yet the IPCC ignores this call. This is not because of the wording of the remit, but rather a consequence of subversion of the IPCC by those who do not want to see a thorough comprehensive and objective investigation and assessment of the science. Indeed, if one were being objective, the report would emphasise the shortcomings of the science and in particular the key data sets which are not fit for purpose and which are being extrapolated and interpreted beyond reasonable measure.
Further the remit provides that whilst the “reports should be neutral with respect to policy” they may need to deal objectively with scientific, technical and socio-economic factors relevant to the application of particular policies.” The use of the word “may” does not actually compel the IPCC to deal objectively with policy etc, it is at liberty to choose whether or not to do so. However, when discussing adaption and mitigation (human induced climate change on “potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation”), it ought to set out how adaption may proceed and its consequences, and how mitigation may proceed and its consequences (this will depend upon the extent to which CO2 emissions should be cut and the pace of such cuts, but the socio-economic consequence of the policy to reduce CO2 by substantial levels in the absence of replacing energy production by way of nuclear is the deindustrialisation of the globe generally and the developed world in particular returning the developed world back to the levels of poverty and quality of life as seen in the third world and keeping the 3rd world in its present state and condemning its citizens to continue to live in poverty, hunger and have a poor and short life expectancy). It should also look at the extent CO2 is actually mitigated (ie, reduced globally) by the various policies that the policy makers are considering and/or have implemented and accordingly should examine the net reduction of CO2 by such schemes as carbon trading (no world wide reduction of CO2 merely a redistribution of where CO2 is emitted and therefore not a policy of effective mitigation), the introduction of windfarms, because of the unreliable nature of wind necessitating the need for conventional back up which back up is not running at optimum efficiency, there being little if any net reduction in CO2, ditto solar and hence to what extent these achieve the goal of mitigating emissions etc.
I could go on. I accept that the remit of the IPCC is not well drafted but if one were to interpret the remit in the spirit of its intention, it would be adequate. It is not the remit itself but rather the fact that the IPCC has become subverted which has meant that a comprehensive and objective study into the science has not been conducted, this has led to a failure to express the risk of human induced climate change correctly (which is that presently there is inadequate data, coupled with the fact that we lack the knowledge and expertise, to assess what if any risk there is of human induced climate change, but as matters presently stand we are unable to deduce the signal to CO2 from the noise of natural variability such that whilst all risk cannot be ruled out, the risk does not appear substantial).
It is the natural world that sets the game and makes the rules (this is why natural variation must as a pre-cursor be fully understood). It is man’s arrogance that he considers that he can set himself above this. It is the first pictures of the Earth, from space, that led some to consider how vulnerable planet Earth is, when in reality it simply emphasises how insignificant man is. The fact that ants and termites emit more GHGs than man reinforces this view. We are but a pin prick on the planet, and it will survive as it always has not withstanding the fire and brimstone that it the globe has gone through these past 4.5 billion years until such time as the sun expands and boils off the oceans, and then the atmosphere and eventually engulfs and consumes the planet (or if, upon its expansion, the sun does not quite engulf the planet, the planet will be left as a burnt out rocky mass orbiting close to its star the energy from which star will eventually fade away). Until then, sit back, relax and enjoy the ride.

fobdangerclose says:
September 23, 2013 at 8:48 pm
/////////////////
For what its worth, my comments are:
Fraud unravels all. Insurance does not cover fraud. Fraud is neither an error, nor an omission through oversight.
A deliberate omission could amount to fraud. One does not make a deliberate error. That would be an oxymoron.

richardscourtney says:
September 24, 2013 at 1:25 am
“The IPCC is pure politics pretending to be science because that is its specified job.”
And that’s why the IPCC still has not established that its AGW would even constitute a net disease state.

I can see what the IPCC are up to this time. They’ve hidden the pause by using decadal averages, which is why they all cut off at 2005. They’ve started the data at 1901, which conveniently happens to be close to the minimum point in the temperature record.

richardscourtney says:
September 24, 2013 at 1:48 am
//////////////
Richard
You have misinterpreted what I have said.
i did not say that you were a cynic.
I did not say that only people who are cynics would hold the interpretation that you put forward.
I did not say that people who are not cynics would not share the interpretation put forward.
i put forward a generalisation that the interpretation that you have put forward would be an interpretaion appealing to one who is cynical of the IPCC, and as such it is probably the interpretation held by a cynic. This is a generalisation, and I fully accept that cynics may not hold the interpretation that you put forward. I also quite obviously accept that those who are not cynical of the IPCC may hold the interpretation you put forward.
I accept that your interpretation is a possible interpretation, but I beg to differ that it is the correct interpreation.
It is impossible to “..assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change…” without investigating the extent to which climate change is the result of natural non anthropogenic causes.
It is like playing poker, when considering the strength of one’s own hand and the chance of its success, one has to evaluate the risk that the other player will draw good on the river. You might need an ace to make a good hand, you may be able to assess the chance of drawing an ace on the river, but determination alone will not determine the prospects/chance of winning since if that ace were to turn up, it mighty mean that your opponent will make a flush or a straight. you need to determine that risk as well. Both sides of the coin go hand in hand to the proper determination of risks.
If risk assessment is to be performed properly, it is impossible as a matter of risk assessment not to examine fully the other side of the coin. In the climate field one cannot assess the risk of human induced climate change, or the risks that would ensue from human induced climate change until one has assessesthe risk that climate change is not human induced.
If the determination is that climate change is 100% due to natural causes then
(i) you can assess the risk of human induced climate change, this being that there is that there is no risk, or at least no risk unless human activity of another kind takes place 9which other activity could perhaps lead to human induced climate change);
(ii) you can assess the risks that are run to life on planet earth, socieo-economical issues,
infrastructural issues, farming etc etc from human induced climate change, which again can be assessed at none given that you have ascertained that climate change is not human induced.
I do not dispute that the IPCC is looking for data, research that supports the human induced climate change theory. But whilst that is part of its role, the correct interpretation of the ambit of its role is not so limited. It is charged not simply with setting out the case for human induced climate change but rather the evaluation of the risk that climate change is human induced and in order to properly perform that role it needs to assess the risk that climate change is natural and down to non anthropogenic causes.
it is charged with assessing the risks of potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation of human induced climate change. Once again, in order to discharge this obligation it has to assess the risk that climate change is natural and all down to non anthropogenic cause. This is obvious since if climate change is not due to say for example CO2, it is not mitigated by restricting CO2 emissions, by carbon capture, by a switch to green renewables etc.
I usually agree with your comments, we share many similar views, but upon this, with respect, I think that you are mistaken. The difference between us is somewhat accademic; we both accept that the IPCC is prejudiced and not objective, you consider that this was all predetermined by the terms of reference, I consider the terms of reference not to be so limited but that it has become subverted leading to the same ultimate consequence/result.

richardscourtney says:
September 25, 2013 at 3:36 am
////////////////////////
richard
thanks for your further comments.
i am not disagreeing with you as to how matters have turned out, nor whether the IPCC have apolitical role to play, nor whether they are playing a political role, only whether the one sided nature of their reports was preordained/predetermined by the wording used in paragraph 2 Role.
If this matter came before the English Courts for some form of judicial review and the IPCC souught to argue that the provisions of paragraph 2 (their role) entitled them to consider and present only data/evidence/studies etc that supported that (i) climate change was happening; and/or (ii) that climate change was human induced; and/or (iii) entitled them not to consider and to disregard and to not include in their report that climate change was not happening or that if it was happening then it was due to a cause other than human induced, I am extremely confident that the English Courts would give that argument short shrift. I make no comment upon how other systems of law may approach the interpretation of paragraph 2.
Whilst I accept that your interpretation is a possible interpretation, I would say that it is an extraordinary one, such that very clear words would be required to come to that result. I say that it is an extraordinary one, since it is an interpretation that an ordinary person would consider to be perverse.
If that had been the intention, paragraph 2 would have explicitly stated such. It would have read along the following lines
: ‘The IPCC are to assume that climate change is happening and that that change is human induced, upon the basis of that assumption the IPCC are to assess potential impacts of human induced climate change and options for adaptation and mitigation’ or
‘The IPCC are charged with the obligation to present evidence that climate change is happening and that that change is human induced. The IPCC is charged with the further obligation to assess potential impacts of human induced climate change and options for adaptation and mitigation.’
If you like you may dress up the above by throwing in “comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis” to make it look a little bit more sciency. I have not done that because I am seeking to show you the thrust of the wording that would permit the IPCC to stand by your interpretation.
If I recall correctly (and I have not specifically looked into the history) I seem to recall having read on a number of occassions that FAR was not going to conclude that climate change was human induced, but was in fact neutral, but just prior to publication one lead author decided unilaterally, to amend the draft and set out that conclussion. If that is so, then it would seem to undermine your interpretation. You probably know more about the history of the IPCC than I do.
As i said earlier, it does not really matter.how things have come to pass. The material point is that they have happened and the IPCC is essentially political activism.
One can see the politicised nature of all of this by the fact that Germany did not want the pause to be discussed. I suspect that this was motivated by the fact that they have gone too far down the road of green renewable energy with ruinous results for industry and consumer alike. Their industry has become uncompetitive being saddled with the highest energy costs in Europe and energy intensive industries are relocating to countries with cheaper energy (eg., some substantial chemical industries relocating to the US). Germany does not want to see other countries roll back their green renewable projects. Germany wants every one else to catch up with Germany so that all countries are saddled with high energy prices. In that way Germany industrial competitiveness will be restored (since all counties will have equally expensive energy) and there will also then be no point in their industries relocating since the relocation country will be saddled by high energy costs, so there is no saving to be made there. Accordingly, Germany does not want the IPCC to report on matters that may cause other countries to hesitate or worse still to abandon their green renewable policies. For political reason, Germany wishes to see all other countries follow its lead in committing economic suicide as this is the simplest way for Germany to help out their own industries.