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.
“J Martin says:
September 26, 2013 at 11:49 pm
Apparently the IPCC are blaming the change in the AMO on global warming and co2 !!”
Funny,
AMO Chart
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Amo_timeseries_1856-present.svg
PDO chart
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PDO.svg
TSI chart
http://lasp.colorado.edu/lisird/tsi/historical_tsi.html
TSI controls PDO and AMO
Yeah, yeah, they’re acknowledging “the pause,” but they can falsify the longer-term record to make it look like the trend is still up.
To REALLY understand the pause, you need to look at the Number-of-weather-stations-versus temperature graph. When they quit cutting out the coldest weather stations, there was a pause in the warming. Get THAT across to the Press, and give them a whiff of real scandal, and THEN we will get our point across. Press loves scandal. It sells newspapers.
The weather balloons and satellites never showed the warming in the first place. That backs up what the Number-of-stations graph hints at.
http://resources3.news.com.au/images/2013/09/27/1226728/875735-130928-kudelka.jpg
It’s much worse than that. The Rank 1 pristine stations register no temp rise since the mid-1800s. But they disagree with the stations in more populated areas, so are treated by the computers as “outliers” and homogenized to agree with the majority.
Lady Life Grows says:
Yeah, yeah, they’re acknowledging “the pause,” but they can falsify the longer-term record to make it look like the trend is still up. To REALLY understand the pause…
Folks, it is not a “pause”. Language matters. In order to be a “pause”, global warming would have to resume. Then we could look back, and say that it paused. As of the past decade and a half, though, global warming has stopped.
It may resume at some point. But it is disingenuous to presume knowing the future. “Pause” is a weasel word. Global warming has stopped for the past 16 – 17 years. That is a long time! It may just as well begin to cool, as in the LIA.
When someone says global warming has “paused”, ask them how they know.
Maybe it’s my browser but is there a graph showing temperature projections compared to observations in the SPM AR5? If not then why not?
=====================================================
Sharp.
“Pause” does imply heating will resume and implies the IPCC is correct but they just hit a snag. Whether the “pause” continues or not, it won’t be because a model said so. (No matter how good she looks.)
The IPCC Report was much, much better in the Chinese translation.
No, I don’t understand Chinese, but I’m 95% sure it was better.
For anyone who thinks the IPCC is about science, and not religion, then watching this video should certainly change their opinions.
Michel Jarraud concludes at the end of his segment, “We need more funding” WUWT???
The speaker after Michel Jarraud (Steiner?) states “It’s not about ideology.” But that statement appears so far from the truth, it’s obvious he’s a dang liar!
Someone please help me get this right. The IPCC now states that they know more now than 6 years ago and are more certain that man is responsible for at least 1/2 of the increase in temperature. But, their last report stated they were 90 percent certain that almost all of the temperature increase was due to man.
So can I conclude that now they are more certain that man affects climate less than they used to think?
To stop a dog from killing chickens you hang a chicken it has just killed around it’s neck for a week or more until it is just a rotten stinking mess which just about fixes any social contact with that dog for the duration.
That “95%” is going to be one big very stinky chicken around the IPCC’s neck and all the big wheels who partook of the AR5 deliberations for many a year to come,
And one they are unlikely to be able to discard for far into the foreseeable future.
“foreseeable future”? Darn! I’ll have to model that..