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.
Orwell somersaults in his grave.
David Rose of the Mail asked how much longer the warming hiatus would have to continue before the IPCC would consider that models might need second-guessing. Then he mentioned the 2007 report’s statement of a best estimate of 3.0ºC for Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity, asking if AR5 would present a revised figure.
In response, Stocker and his co-panelist (Michel Jarraud, Secretary-General of the WMO) claimed the models showed “remarkable” agreement with actual climate trends! They apparently are not able to give a new best estimate for CS. Jarraud even found the question itself an affront, labeling it scientifically unintelligent. Stocker contracted himself IMHO, as he simultaneously referred to a broader possible range of CS, while expressing more confidence than ever of the human contribution to warming, even as models diverge further from reality. Kudos to the Economist for following up!
Prior to their short naps between negotiations, the panelists must be praying for some much-needed warming. The figure of 30 y was repeated as the basis for climate trends, since Jarraud thinks that asking questions based on shorter timescales is akin to asking him to predict the motion of Brownian particles. LOL! He probably needs a good rest. Guess we’ll revisit this in 2020. May Stocker and Jarraud be held to their statements!
This is dogma, not science: “Human CO2 causes long-term warming” is the required conclusion. Data which supports this is heralded as proof, whereas data which refutes this is either buried or relativized. Consensus rules, damn the scientific method.
A reporter from Germany asked the loaded question of what Germany’s rush to renewables and away from nuclear power would mean for the climate. The panel reported that it wasn’t tasked to answer this question (luckily, as they know the answer is negligible / undetectable).
The reporters from the Telegraph, FT and the Economist also asked critical questions (and the panelists weaseled and squirmed out of any direct responses). Fiona Harvey of the Guardian asked a loaded question on why we must leave our hydrocarbon resources in the ground, quoting an apparent IPCC reference to a calculated maximum we humans can burn in support. How such a figure squares with the insufficient data, insufficient studies on oceanic heat-uptake, broader range of CS, etc., is beyond me.
This panel should be summarily panned in the print media. (OK, I’m not expecting anything other than “Doom and destruction ahead, we must come to agreement now!” from the Guardian).
Kurt in Switzerland
just sent this to the department of energy and climate change.ed davey is obviously stupid and has never bothered to actually attempt to gather any alternative opinion on the subject.
if any of it is wrong it is a genuine mistake and i will correct,unlike the b/s from the IPCC that is rarely if ever corrected.flat earthers indeed,i think mr davey may find himself referred to as the same within a few years.
dear sirs,
i am writing to convey my deep disappointment that a government minister would direct a phrase such as “flat earthers” toward a large proportion of the scientific community and the general populace that do not agree with his position on climate change.
mr davey urges people to look at the facts.
i will list some facts for mr daveys perusal,he may well then have to decide who is really a member of the flat earth society.
1.no statistically significant warming in 17 years despite large rises (8%) in co2 emissions.
2.contrary to the IPCC statement of decreased snow and ice,global levels of snow and ice show a slight recent increase,and overall trends are well within standard deviation.
3.again contrary to the IPCC statement that extreme weather events have increased,in some cases they are at their lowest in modern day records,and others are maintaining the same position they have for decades.
4.there is still no evidence of a tropospheric hotspot and increase in atmospheric water vapour which is central to the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming,as co2 alone is unable to create measurable warming, water vapour is needed as an amplification to the effect of co2.
5. the IPCC state that the heat that cannot be found in the last 17 years has gone into the deep oceans,this is not suppoted by any observational fact as the temperature of the deep oceans is not monitored.
the argo bouys measuring 0 to 2000m depths in a very small area of the worlds oceans have detected no measurable increase in temperature.
i look forward to mr daveys response to the discrepancy between what he states and observational data.
Apart from the usual climate-fixated organs of the MSM, it’s being barely reported. Looks like a dead cat bounce to me …
http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2013/09/20/armageddon-report-no-5/
Pointman
Here’s the reason for the warming ‘pause’ of the last 16 years. There is no mystery here:
http://i1172.photobucket.com/albums/r565/Keyell/GlvsNINO34_zps1f58a32b.png
Weekly NINO3.4 (red) vs. global SSTa (blue) (OI.v2) from Jan 1997 to last week (mid Sep 2013); former lagged 4 weeks and scaled 1/8.
From 1999 there simply is no gradually increasing divergence to be observed between the two curves pointing to a ‘background global warming influence’ on top of the tight relationship between what’s going on in the tropical East Pacific and the globe at large. Until the spike of the last two months. Which now seems to be waning. And which has its singular source in the extratropics of the North Pacific basin.
The tropical East Pacific has neither ‘held back’ the warming, nor given it a boost over the last decade and a half. Global temperatures have simply tagged along with it rather slavishly. They seem to be held firmly within its grip. No multiyear divergence allowed. As seems to be their habit across decadal periods of time. Like they did between for instance 1964 and 1978, between 1979 and 1987/88 and between 1989 and 1997/98 … and now between 1999 and today. The only times we ever saw a permanent separation between the NINO3.4 and the global temperature anomaly curves during the last 50 years, were the abrupt shifts up by the latter relative to the former occurring specifically in 1978/79, 1988 and 1998. Three instances only. And at no other times:
http://i1172.photobucket.com/albums/r565/Keyell/GWexplained_zps566ab681.png
The three shifts are all directly tied to documented major climate regime shifts in the Pacific basin, starting with the extraordinary drop in the SOI in 1976/77 flattening the thermocline from east to west in the tropical Pacific and lowering the mean level of wind stress across the basin, weakening the efficiency of energy loss through evaporation from the ocean, thus establishing what has been called the ‘Great Pacific Climate Shift’:
http://i1172.photobucket.com/albums/r565/Keyell/SOIvslatentampwind_zps8dcdab36.png
The BBC are REALLY, REALLY laying it on thick with the IPCC report – it’s still the top story on all their news channels.
“It’s all our fault and temperatures could rise by 4.8 degrees C this Century” . . . They are dragging a wide range of “experts” out, all claiming they have “strong evidence” (in the peerviewed literature) of rising sea, disappearing ice and the “human finger print” in the disaster is evident. The pause in temperature rise was predicted as they have new evidence that the oceans are helping out . . . something must be done!
Expect even more demands for ‘Green’ funding, taxes, lucrative tarifs . . . gravy anyone?
What exactly does occasional mean?
This is tragi-comic herd behaviour and group-think. All these UN and government officials and especially the CACA-gravytrain scientists have far too much invested in CACA to be able to back out now. They are in their white wedding gowns and at the alter rail for this nightmarish wedding of deceit and conspiracy. The divorce which will eventually come will be ugly and protracted.
This must be where all the real scientists hang out.
I think it’s quite telling that this monumental document of oh so credible ‘scientific evidence’ is being released on a Friday. Friday, the last day of the working week when governments and political organisations bury bad news so the media can’t ask awkward questions and the electorate will never know how inept they are and how much they are going have to pay for said ineptitude.
Sounds like an expert whose ignorance I am quite prepared to believe in.
Peer review, as he touts it, it shaping up to be one of the most damaging influences on the project of Knowledge Acquisition ever developed. Gatekeeping and False Authority have been super-charged by it, or reliance on it.
We can’t explain the increase in Antarctic sea ice extent. We have improved models that predict a decrease in extent. We don’t really know why but we will simulate it and create a scary scenario anyway.
—–
Let’s all hope this is the last IPCC report. There is nothing useful here.
Jimbo:
You conclude your post at September 27, 2013 at 4:31 am by saying
I share your hope but disagree that there is “nothing useful” in the AR5 Report.
The Report is very useful for the politicians wanting the AGW-scare as an excuse for policies they are applying.
And that political usefulness is the stated Role of the IPCC. I have repeatedly explained this on WUWT most recently at
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/27/sorry-ipcc-how-you-portrayed-the-global-temperature-plateau-is-comical-at-best/#comment-1428167
Richard
BBC just did global warming on the Daily Politics, two for and two against. Matt Ridley looked like a real UK scientist and they did not try and squeeze him out of the conversation when he started doing science rather than consenses. Something is happening at the BBC and I think it is going to be Prof Cox who does it.
@Donna Peters Laframboise – Thank you. I did not want to believe that to be the case, but from reading the material that is my impression as well.
We are now dealing with professional bookies, not scientists. But even that is wrong. At least bookies have some science behind their odds.
richardscourtney says:
September 27, 2013 at 2:38 am
So let’s stop the hand wringing over the warming between 1979 and 1998 and only look at 1969 – 1998 or 1979 – 2008.
Heh – that’s amusing, Wood for Trees gives almost the same slope for each!
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1969/to:1999/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1979/to:2009/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1979/to:1999/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1965/to:2014
Ric Werme:
re your post at September 27, 2013 at 5:13 am.
Nice try but total failure.
The switch to a 30-year frame is a statement by the IPCC that IPCC understanding of climate as stated in its previous (i.e. AR4) Report is plain wrong. And unless the body of the AR5 explains the totality of that error, there is reason to accept that IPCC understanding of climate is still plain wrong.
I explain this matter on another thread in this comment
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/27/sorry-ipcc-how-you-portrayed-the-global-temperature-plateau-is-comical-at-best/#comment-1428268
Richard
It’s a good thing this chap wasn’t 95% certain. Nagging doubts exist for a good reason. Computer models V Sceptics? CAGW in a nutshell.
I missed the live feed. Did the groundhog see his shadow?
I did a word count of certain words in the SPM. I shan’t be doing it for the full report. 🙂
Summary For Policymakers [PDF]
“low confidence” = 23 “uncertainties” = 11 “uncertainty” = 16 [=95% confidence]
The Weather Channel online is totally convinced by the IPCC – its home page headline currently reads: IT’S ONLY GETTING WORSE and follow that with Landmark Climate Change Report: Warming ‘Extremely Likely’ Man-Made in the background an aerial view of a melting glacier http://s.imwx.com/dru/2013/07/10e0780e-38e6-4c27-9d09-f618da54b257_650x366.jpg
There is no doubt that this is a real propaganda push using “The Big Lie” technique.
Alvin: the groundhog is so bloated from ingesting subsidies fed from above, it can not see beyond its navel (let alone shadow or not)! It can only proclaim warming ahead, as otherwise its food source would be cut off.
Kurt in Switzerland
Here is how they arrive at the 95%. It’s subjective guesswork really.
Whoever wrote this paragraph in the SPM I want some of what they were smoking.
Bad blockquote. Last paragraph written by me.
RE backtracking to longer trends to hide unexplained data:
Curiously, they seem quite comfortable looking at trend changes in ice mass at the poles.
“The average rate of ice loss from the Greenland ice sheet has very likely substantially increased from 34 [–6 to 74] Gt yr–1 over the period 1992–2001 to 215 [157 to 274] Gt yr–1 over the period 2002–2011. {4.4}”
Forgetting the absurd GRACE measurements that inspire this statement, they demonstrate that if the last few years of anything help their case, it’s included. If the last few years of a metric contradict them, the data gets smoothed and smeared into the past.
Dishonest.
I’m pretty much fed up with paying for this foolish nonsense.