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.
Q “How long will the pause become important”?
Waffle for an answer so far ……. repeats question…… “20yrs constant temp will be a problem”….Volcanoes may occur…….Talk of Brownian movement !!! in the room…..talks of trends over longer scale……this is all soothing talk, lacking facts and business as usual…..time scale 30yrs now.
Here is my assessmemt of climate change:
I am 95% certain that global warming will vanish with the sunspots. 97% of the blokes down the pub agree with me.
Maximum of 68cm sea level rise by 2100. I am getting my water wings on now!
Human civilization is accused here. This is the crazy Club of Rome assessment that claims human kind is a threat to the planet. The IPCC apparatchiks deliver the proof.
The next step is to blow up the financial system and take away our civill and democratic rights.
After that they open up the slaughterhouse.
If we want to stop this we have a limited amount of time because they will use the economic collapse to call for a siege which will come with travel restrictions.
I think I go sailing the Southern Hemisphere for the next decade.
Asking the required length of the “hiatus” to falsify the models is claimed to be “an ill posed question”!!!
Outrageous!
Richard
Rose pushes for how long it will take for the models to be admitted as wrong.
Jarraud says “You should distinguish the ability to predict temperature 10 years in advice, from the ability to predict 20-30 years in advance.”
So the answer is 20-30 years.
But from now or from when the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change was signed in 1992?
“Climate sensitivity has only recently been discussed in the literature”!
Ridiculous!
Richard
The target limit for global temperature rise has been raised from 2deg.C to 2.5 deg.C. This is a retreat.
Richard
Come on, Richard, they’ve only had billions to spend and it’s not as if sensitivity is central to the whole argument!
amoorhouse: My assessment is the same as your assessment: nobody is listening to their assessment.
IPCC:
– Humans are ‘the cause’ of the global warming
Vukcevic:
– Ergo. Humans are the cause of increase in the tectonic movements in the North Atlantic and the North Pacific.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NorthAtlantic-NorthPacific.htm
Following the total failure of the AR4 prediction for the first two decades of this century, AR5 now says only 30 year periods should be considered. This is ‘goal post moving’.
Richard
That “at least 30 years” “law” is a very poor excuse And if it fits with a PDO/AMO half cycle it is complete made-up nonsense anyways.
In previous reports, shorter trends starting in 1979 were presented frequently and prominently, such as 1979-2005 with 26 years in AR4 (nicely fitting the warm PDO/AMO half cycle)
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/tssts-3-1-1.html
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch3s3-2-2.html
A 15 year trend 1998-2013 would be even less biased, spanning about equally over warm and cold PDO phases.
Sea level : “low confidence in higher level projections over 100yrs”
Stocker: Q.15yr less relevant so why mention it ?….” 1998 always picked as a start point…plus medium volcanoes plus El Nina……Q being repeated 3 times…..Use IPCC and not Blogs…… it is an emerging scientific issue……(you get the drift, they don’t know)…….
Stocker :” 18 keys messages are a robust consensus written in plain English”
Time for the evening meal for me, very disappointing that there is so much confidence in their numbers and little caution with the exception of sea levels to 2100.
Pages of waffle about radiative forcings (estimated to 0.1 Wm-2), yet they admit that they still do not understand the effects of clouds and aerosols. In other words they do not know if the missing heat is in the deep oceans or in deep space.
Incredible!
I can say with 95% confidence that that was 100% hogwash.
I just learned that sea level rise may be regional. It hurts my brain 🙁
p. 11: “There is low confidence in cloud and aerosol processes in the models”. So how the hell can there be higher confidence in the validity of the models?
The elephant in the room that so few can vaguely see….
CO2 concentration does not affect a planetary temperature at all, of thick atmospheres, and at these levels. Now I will always wonder who is going to be credited with the ‘discovery’. It won’t be one of the IPCC scientists, that is now clear.
Q from Economist: Why is heat going in oceans ? why be certain we are the cause?
Stocker : (I could not understand a word of his answer)
Conference closed.
Actually good questions were asked about sea levels, the pause, confidence etc…the answers were poor at best and I have a 97% confidence estimate that they were evasive. When pressed for clarification, the responders said they needed more sleep.
Good night.
btw. The IPCC headline statements from the summary for policy makers is here. http://www.ipcc.ch/news_and_events/docs/ar5/ar5_wg1_headlines.pdf
These people are living a movie and will not stop until the curtain comes down or the audience walks out. I’m walking…https://theconversation.com/a-question-of-ethics-journalists-and-climate-change-18395
The explanation of the warming hiatus is a pure hoot – a not too subtle attempt to obscure the fact that they don’t know why from the public perception.
mussels, perhaps?
What I don’t understand: IPCC always speaks about “global” warming and “global” effects and they don’t want to say anything about “local” variations. But why on earth is in their report a graph of the declining Arctic ice (page 29), why not include Antarctica to level it out? Is it “global” only when it suits them and Arctic when it suits them again? Also the “Northern Hemisphere sea ice extend” (page33, 34), since when a hemisphere is “global”? It’s hemi(semi)-sphere, thus half-global!
Are they trying to fool everyone? why not being honest and show the whole, “global”, ice picture?!?