Webcast of IPCC press conference
STOCKHOLM, 24 September – The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is holding a press conference at 10.00 a.m. Stockholm time (4AM EDT, 1AM PDT) on Friday 27 September 2013 to present the Summary for Policymakers of the Working Group I contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report(AR5).
This press conference will be webcast in English and Chinese and can be followed live.
This link will be live around that time:
http://www.ipcc.ch/webcast
=============================================================
Depending on the timing of the release of the SPM in the webcast, I may or may not be awake to watch it, so, I’m relying on readers to post links tot he SPM and to dissect what was announced.
In the discussion thread, feel free to point out issues in the SPM and changes from the draft SPM here: Access: The “leaked” IPCC AR5 draft Summary for Policymakers
Look to see what they’ve done about pinning down a best guess for climate sensitivity. – Anthony
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Never have I been so depressed about the state, and status, of science #consenseless
Good morning. To honor the release of the IPCC’s AR5 SPM today, I’ve just posted a YouTube video that discusses the curious way that climate modelers appear to have compensated for a failing in the models, which has, in turn, caused an even greater failure. It’s attached to the following blog post:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2013/09/27/video-climate-models-used-by-the-ipcc-for-ar5-are/
This thread deserves top billing here at WUWT for a number of hours, so I’ll cross post it (my new post with the video) here at WUWT in a few hours.
Regards from my chilly corner of the world.
According to the Guardian at 9.30am BST, Pachauri has just said,
Which is surprising if true.
He has rejected the deep ocean for the missing heat and says it’s at the surface (but sneaking post the thermometers this decade).
A lesson from criminal justice research: confidence levels are a poor indicator of accuracy http://tinyurl.com/kohyc86
The IPCC’s change from 90 to 95% certainty is entirely subjective. It merely tells us how IPCC personnel FEEL. Ho hum.
Thomas Stocker says that Climate Change is the greatest challenge facing mankind today.
This is true because they decided this in Cancun some years ago.
‘Nuff said.
Kurt in Switzerland
The approved Summary for Policymakers, dated 27Sept2013, is online. No cover art yet and it’s still in draft form:
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGIAR5-SPM_Approved27Sep2013.pdf
Stocker :
” 1983-2012, warmest in 1400 years”, sure by-passes the MWP.
If this is how they addressed the hiatus in full, they will be laughed at across the globe:
“In addition to robust multi-decadal warming, global mean surface temperature exhibits substantial decadal and interannual variability (see Figure SPM.1). Due to natural variability, trends based on short records are very sensitive to the beginning and end dates and do not in general reflect long-term climate trends. As one example, the rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998–2012; 0.05 [–0.05 to +0.15] °C per decade), which begins with a strong El Niño, is smaller than the rate calculated since 1951 (1951–2012; 0.12 [0.08 to 0.14] °C per decade)”
Stocker: “93% of warming is in the oceans, this has saved us from more heating”.
“Warming will continue under all scenarios available”
They now continue the push the hoax with force.
This is fantasy la la land.
We are confronted with a NAZI like doctrine on a global scale.
The presenters of the report are confident of 100% political support, otherwise their claims wouldn’t be so outrageous.
I think the we’re back to 2008 and we seriously have to think about other ways to stop this nonsense although I think Mother Nature will proof to be the best ambassador of the skeptic case.
We’re going to need WUWT for a long time to come.
In the mean time we have good news from New York:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/27/nyregion/new-yorks-air-is-cleanest-in-50-years-survey-finds.html?_r=0
Trouble is most will listen to them not here and this I am afraid will continue for much more years than I or you think. Much stronger action (financial-legal) is need to disband the fraudsters.
Later on page 12, they write with respect to the hiatus:
“The observed reduction in surface warming trend over the period 1998–2012 as compared to the period 1951–2012, is due in roughly equal measure to a reduced trend in radiative forcing and a cooling contribution from internal variability, which includes a possible redistribution of heat within the ocean (medium confidence). The reduced trend in radiative forcing is primarily due to volcanic eruptions and the timing of the downward phase of the 11-year solar cycle. However, there is low confidence in quantifying the role of changes in radiative forcing in causing the reduced warming trend. There is medium confidence that internal decadal variability causes to a substantial degree the difference between observations and the simulations; the latter are not expected to reproduce the timing of internal variability. There may also be a contribution from forcing inadequacies and, in some models, an overestimate of the response to increasing greenhouse gas and other anthropogenic forcing (dominated by the effects of aerosols). {9.4, Box 9.2, 10.3, Box 10.2, 11.3}”
Sorry, that is not going to cut it.
Min. 1.5ºC warming is inevitable under ALL scenarios – a panel of clairvoyants decided as much.
Kurt in Switzerland
I can’t resolve x and y axies on my screen.
Questions invited from media.
Here’s Bloomberg’s summary of AR5:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-09-27/global-warming-slowdown-seen-as-emissions-rise-to-record.html
Question times very favorauble to skeptics so far you must save this video the hiatus stocker being forced to admit there being hamnered
Pachurari : “an excellent document”…but did not answer a question of doubt in findings. 9,200 papers reviewed.
“Climate relevant trends should be over 30yrs” Stocker.
.
This is rich:
“Greenhouse gases contributed a global mean surface warming likely to be in the range of 0.5°C to 1.3°C over the period 1951−2010, with the contributions from other anthropogenic forcings, including the cooling effect of aerosols, likely to be in the range of −0.6°C to 0.1°C. The contribution from natural forcings is likely to be in the range of −0.1°C to 0.1°C, and from internal variability is likely to be in the range of −0.1°C to 0.1°C. Together these assessed contributions are consistent with the observed warming of approximately 0.6°C to 0.7°C over this period. {10.3}”
In other words, they’re saying all of the warming is manmade. How comical!
Just flicking through the news 24 channels on my box here:
BBC – carrying the IPCC conference live
Sky – Big Brother
France24 – architecture
CNN – Bank shares
NHK – Watches
CCTV – QinPing landslide
CNBC – Shares
Bloomberg – business confidence in Nike
RT – Syria resolution
euronews – Syria
Al Jazeera – US/Iran talks
Nobody is listening
A reporter for AFP asked the first (and most burning question) of Pachauri:
Does this restore credibility to the IPCC (which has apparently suffered, at least in the eyes of skeptics)?
Pachauri merely underlined the need to restrict human GHG emissions if we are to have hope of stabilizing the climate; he also claimed that the IPCC was scientific and wasn’t concerned with the question of how the general public perceived the summary, before deferring to Stocker. Stocker paid lip service to the hiatus, but claimed that insufficient data was available to say why the warming stopped; he also said insufficient data was available to say what was taking place in the deep oceans.
Kurt in Switzerland
Wake up world. The 95% certainty is a number plucked out out of thin air. Here we see the CO2 curve and the actual temperatures diverging-so much for a correlation. I wonder what a real statistician would say about the divergence implying a greater certainty. All shows the IPCC and its parent body, the UN are engaging in nefarious activity.
There is one simple way to get all IPCC climate scientist to dump the message of 95% consensus:
Demand that funding is removed from question about if CO2 is responible to research about how to solve “the problem” to get unlimited inexpensive energy to mankind. Take funding from CAGW to real science.
I bet the message from IPCC will be that CAGW is not settled and need more funding to understand the uncertainties. A new consenus among climate researcher that the uncertainties is larger than IPCC claim will evolve very fast
Fight fire with fire.
It is all about the money.
Stocker : “Higher scenarios being used,but it depends upon us and our choice with emissions”
” Don’t focus on temperature…?? huge responsibility for our children in 2100 etc etc etc”
No numbers in press release. They seem to think 500Gt emitted, must stop another 500Gt.
Even the Guardian has admitted much lower media turnout than for the last report. (Fiona did not give a confidence level for that assessment. )
“…. natural forcings [to change temperature] is likely to be in the range of −0.1°C to 0.1°C”
Clearly they are not speaking of the planet Earth. Now which one are they speaking of again?