IPCC AR5 full final report released – full access here

cover[1]From the IPCC website: Final Draft

Note

The Final Draft Report, dated 7 June 2013, of the Working Group I contribution to the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis was accepted but not approved in detail by the Twelfth Session of Working Group I and the Thirty-Sixth Session of the IPCC on 26 September 2013 in Stockholm, Sweden. It consists of the full scientific and technical assessment undertaken by Working Group I.

The Final Draft Report has to be read in conjunction with the document entitled “Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the IPCC 5th Assessment Report – Changes to the Underlying Scientific/Technical Assessment” to ensure consistency with the approved Summary for Policymakers (IPCC-XXVI/Doc.4) and presented to the Panel at its Thirty-Sixth Session. This document lists the changes necessary to ensure consistency between the full Report and the Summary for Policymakers, which was approved line-by-line by Working Group I and accepted by the Panel at the above-mentioned Sessions.

Before publication the Final Draft will undergo copyediting as well as any error correction as necessary, consistent with the IPCC Protocol for Addressing Possible Errors. Publication of the Report is foreseen in January 2014.

WGI AR5 Final Draft (version 7 June 2013)

Title PDF
Changes to the Underlying Scientific/Technical Assessment (IPCC-XXVI/Doc.4) 210kB
Ch Title PDF
Technical Summary
1 Introduction
2 Observations: Atmosphere and Surface
3 Observations: Ocean
4 Observations: Cryosphere
5 Information from Paleoclimate Archives
6 Carbon and Other Biogeochemical Cycles
7 Clouds and Aerosols
8 Anthropogenic and Natural Radiative Forcing
9 Evaluation of Climate Models
10 Near-term Climate Change: Projections and Predictability
11 Near-term Climate Change: Projections and Predictability
12 Long-term Climate Change: Projections, Commitments and Irreversibility
13 Sea Level Change
14 Climate Phenomena and their Relevance for Future Regional Climate Change
Annex I: Atlas of Global and Regional Climate Projections
Annex II: Climate System Scenario Tables
Annex III: Glossary
Complete Underlying Scientific/Technical Assessment
Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of

Excellent, thanks for the links..

Robby

In chapter 2, they specifically say there is no proof that extreme weather events has risen since the 1950s, I guess that claim is bogus now?

DesertYote

“Changes to the Underlying Scientific/Technical Assessment” to ensure consistency with the approved Summary for Policymakers”
I can’t believe they would write this with a straight face. The IPCC’s collective mind is so 8 up (and none down) with the Marxist world-view that it probably doesn’t see anything wrong with it.
“Not politics, but science”. Really?

AlecMM

Pachauri’s Demon is really strange. It causes hotter than average water molecules at the ocean surface to travel over 700 m deep.
However, it only appears to work when the atmosphere is cooling.
Funny thing that……:0)

Let the howlers begin!

DesertYote:
Your post at September 30, 2013 at 8:55 am displays ignorance of the purely political – n.b. not scientific – official nature and official purpose of the IPCC. It says in total.

“Changes to the Underlying Scientific/Technical Assessment” to ensure consistency with the approved Summary for Policymakers”

I can’t believe they would write this with a straight face. The IPCC’s collective mind is so 8 up (and none down) with the Marxist world-view that it probably doesn’t see anything wrong with it.
“Not politics, but science”. Really?

The Summary for Policymakers (SPM) is agreed “line by line” by politicians and/or representatives of politicians, and it is then published. After that the so-called ‘scientific’ Reports are amended to agree with the SPM. This became IPCC custom and practice of the IPCC when prior to its Second Report the then IPCC Chairman, John Houghton, decreed, “We can rely on the Authors to ensure the Report agrees with the Summary.”
This was done and has been the normal IPCC procedure since then. So, IPCC custom and practice dictate that the AR5 report will be edited to match the SPM.
This custom and practice enabled the infamous ‘Chapter 8′ scandal so perhaps it should – at long last – be changed. However, it has been adopted as official IPCC procedure for all subsequent IPCC Reports. Appendix A of the present Report states this when it says.

4.6 Reports Approved and Adopted by the Panel
Reports approved and adopted by the Panel will be the Synthesis Report of the Assessment Reports and other Reports as decided by the Panel whereby Section 4.4 applies mutatis mutandis.

This is completely in accord with the official purpose of the IPCC.
The IPCC does NOT exist to summarise climate science and it does not.
The IPCC is only permitted to say AGW is a significant problem because they are tasked to accept that there is a “risk of human-induced climate change” which requires “options for adaptation and mitigation” that can be selected as political polices and the IPCC is tasked to provide those “options”.
This is clearly stated in the “Principles” which govern the work of the IPCC. These are stated at
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/ipcc-principles.pdf
Near its beginning that document says

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.

The IPCC exists to provide
(a) “information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change”
and
(b) “options for adaptation and mitigation” which pertain to “the application of particular policies”.
Hence, its “Role” demands that the IPCC accepts as a given that there is a “risk of human-induced climate change” which requires “options for adaptation and mitigation” which pertain to “the application of particular policies”. Any ‘science’ which fails to support that political purpose is ‘amended’ in furtherance of the IPCC’s Role.
The IPCC AR5 is pure pseudoscience intended to provide information to justify political actions; i.e.Lysenkoism.
Richard

oldseadog

From the Summary:
“This document …… should not be cited, quoted or distributed.”
I wonder how much will be changed between now and next January.
Cynical? Me?

At least the cover isn’t the Levitus 2012 56-year Heat-is-Hiding-in-the-deep-ocean-Hockey-Stick.
@oldseadog 9:23am. +1
“This document …… should not be cited, quoted or distributed.” …read, understood, criticized nor believed.

cwon14

“The IPCC AR5 is pure pseudoscience intended to provide information to justify political actions; i.e.Lysenkoism. ”
Exactly.1+

oldseadog

Out of curiosity (well isn’t that what keeps us all going?) I looked at the bit about Sea Level Change, and in there the bit about how melting ice might change sea levels. (Around P46 or so)
As a seaman it says to me “We don’t really understand a lot of what is happening but we have made several guesses, some of them informed ones; it is all very interesting and so long as you keep paying our wages we will be delighted to keep watching what is going on and telling you both what we think we have found and what we think it might mean.”
N.B. I have not cited, quoted or distributed anything, so there is no need to call the lawyers.

I’m still just on page 29 of ObamaCare. Now This! Whoa is me…

Typhoon

Hansenkoism. The new Lysenkoism.

Galvanize

From Chapter 9 Evaluation of Climate Models.
“The simulation of large-scale patterns of precipitation has improved somewhat since the AR4,
although models continue to perform less well for precipitation than for surface temperature.”
Simulations of surface temperatures is the bench mark? Have I interpreted this correctly?

I’ve just looked at the Glossary, to see if the IPCC has allowed itself a closer approach to reality. “Climate-carbon cycle feedback” is new, including the admission that temperature “could affect” the CO2 flux between the surface and the atmosphere.
Very risky, this. In unguarded moments, junior oceanographers have blurted out that clathrates sequester more carbon under cold conditions and release it as CH4 and CO2 when warmed; junior biologists and geographers have observed the same about wetlands and soils. Thus, a hysterical press occasionally reports on methane bombs ready to explode in a warming world.
Short-term panic ensues, until silenced by senior scientists who understand that the only thing that can explode is a climate model that includes a positive CO2-sensitivity to temperature as well as the sacrosanct non-trivial “climate sensitivity”.
Without greater care, the IPCC might approach reality too closely, retreat permanently into psychosis, and deprive us of a great source of amusement.

Billy Liar

So, having lectured the world about only considering trends over a 30 year period, what do I find in the technical summary: the modeling chapters and the Atlas in annex I use 1986-2005 as the reference period.
Who was it who used the term ‘hilarious incoherence’ with regard to the IPCC?

In the SPM the attributtion section on pg.12 it says :” It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century. {10.3–10.6, 10.9}”
In chapter 10 this is reiterated in detail without specific reference. Do I have to read every one of the 21 pages of references to find the “many” that are relied upon in this part of chapter 10. I have not yet seen a definitive study of attribution that can confirm this statement. If anyone else has please let me know about it.

JEM

What we know after this report, which from the political summary seems completely unsupportable:
Honest scientists must distance themselves from the IPCC.
Everyone else will be assumed to be watermelons and peculators.

Steven Devijver

Satellite records of Top-of-Atmosphere radiation fluxes have been substantially extended since AR4, and it is unlikely that significant trends exist in global and tropical radiation budgets since 2000. Interannual variability in the Earth’s energy imbalance related to El Niño Southern Oscillation is consistent with ocean heat content records within observational uncertainty. [2.3.2]

Shouldn’t this trend have increased under alarmist doctrine?

Les Esling

From chapter 9 Evaluation of Climate Models
There is very high confidence that models reproduce the general features of the global-scale annual- mean surface temperature increase over the historical period, including the more rapid warming in the second half of the 20th century, and the cooling immediately following large volcanic eruptions. Most simulations of the historical period do not reproduce the observed reduction in global-mean surface warming trend over the last 10–15 years. There is medium confidence that the trend difference between models and observations during 1998–2012 is to a substantial degree caused by internal variability, with possible contributions from forcing error and some models overestimating the response to increasing greenhouse-gas forcing. Most, though not all, models overestimate the observed warming trend in the tropical troposphere over the last 30 years, and tend to underestimate the long-term lower stratospheric cooling trend. [9.4.1, Box 9.2, Figure 9.8]
In other words the climate models are not fit for purpose!

Fabi

Why is this marked ‘Confidential’ and why are there admonitions re: dissemination? It is, after all, marked ‘Draft’.

Mac the Knife

Remember: This is a political motivation document, not an unbiased summary of climate science. It serves a determined political agenda, not an unvarnished pursuit of knowledge. Politicians, community activists, and climate activists are not scientists. Anything that serves their socialist agenda, regardless of how unscrupulous, erroneous, or egregious, is ‘fair play’.
MtK

jeanparisot

Where is the water vapor?

oldseadog

Jean Parisot:
Hidden in all the hot air.

Chapter 10, on detection and attribution, has been mislabeled on the IPCC site with the title of chapter 11.

Thanks, Anthony. Good links!
Shouldn’t the IPCC do a better job of publicizing themselves?

Mike McMillan

On page 13-93 of the sea level section they spelled Manila with two L’s.
Philippinos will be outraged

Ian W

Piers Corbyn is a little more direct in his comments than most:

““A cowardly cover-up and a disgrace to Science”
…..
• THEIR “ADMISSION” of a ‘a pause in warming’ over the last 15 years is itself a cover-up for the fact that ONLY THEIR FRAUDULENT DATA shows any ‘warming’ at all in the period – page 5
• THEIR CLAIM that this pause was “something (CO2 warmists) expected” is a brazen lie. They expected ‘runaway warming’
……..
Lots more in the same vein at http://www.weatheraction.com/docs/WANews13No39.pdf

Just an engineer

Mike McMillan says:
September 30, 2013 at 12:38 pm
Philippinos???????????????????????????

Policy Guy

How much is the US paying the UN for this BS???
Too much, pull the plug.

bit chilly

i like this part,
replace with: process-based model projections, but there is no
consensus in the scientific community about their reliability and there
is thus low confidence in their projections.
page 8 from here http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/P36Doc4_WGI-12_Changes-Underlying-Assessment.pdf

John West

Stealth reference to AR4:

7.4.1.1 Classification of Hypothesised Aerosol-Cloud Interactions
Denman et al. (2007) catalogued several possible pathways via which the aerosol might affect clouds.

Denman, K. L., et al., 2007: Couplings Between Changes in the Climate System and Biogeochemistry. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press.

bit chilly

just an engineer, or even filipinos .:)

Jeff D

IPCC must make all of its people attend acting school. No way in hell an untrained person could keep a straight face unloading this pile of fiction. ( there were a better word than fiction but i do strive to be civil.)

Bob Koss

Chapter 2:
Figure 2.15 in the top portion(a) they show periods where up to 20% of the SST measurements come from what they call an unknown source(yellow). Bottom portion(b) they mix that unknown source data with other known data sets to create a composite temperature series(black).
If the source is unknown how do they the data is reliable?

Figure 2.22: Trends in Global Mean Surface Temperature (GMST) from NCDC MLOST for three non-consectutive shorter periods (1911–1940; 1951–1980; 1981–2012). White areas indicate incomplete or missing data. Trends and significance have been calculated as in Figure 2.22.

The section I hope I put in bold is a circular reference to itself and utterly meaningless. Maybe a typo?

Bob Koss

Oops in my previous comment.
Should be … how do they know the data is reliable?

FrankK

After reading some of the tongue-in-cheek nonsense in the IPCC report I had to clear my mind of the stench it created. So I watched (again):
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2013/06/10/murray-salby-in-significant-part-co2-is-controlled-by-global-temperature-murray-salby/
Prof Murray (Galileo/Copernicus) versus the IPCC (Claudius Ptolemy/kiddies corner).
That sums it up nicely.

Latitude

Galvanize says:
September 30, 2013 at 10:24 am
From Chapter 9 Evaluation of Climate Models.
The simulation of large-scale patterns of precipitation has improved somewhat since the AR4,
although models continue to perform less well for precipitation than for surface temperature.”
=============
Only the IPCC could come up with “less well” to describe total failure

FrankK

In my previous post I forgot to mention – go to the middle of the Youtube file to get the important message . The stuff before it just shows that the proxy ice core measurements underestimate the CO2 concentration in the old atmosphere with increased underestimation the further back you go.
And here’s a follow up confirmation if you like of Salby’s theory expressed in the second part of the Youtube file.
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/swedish-scientist-replicates-dr-murry.html

JS is SD

Anthony there is one more document on the IPCC site that is related to the report.
Changes underlying the assessment.
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/P36Doc4_WGI-12_Changes-Underlying-Assessment.pdf

John West

7.1.2 Rationale for Assessing Clouds, Aerosols and Their Interactions
The representation of cloud processes in climate models has been recognised for decades as a dominant source of uncertainty in our understanding of changes in the climate system (e.g., Arakawa, 1975; Charney et al., 1979; Cess et al., 1989; Randall et al., 2003; Arakawa, 2004; Bony et al., 2006), but has never been systematically assessed by the IPCC before.

So, that’s how we get from 90% to 95% certain. LOL, settled science.

JS is SD

Uh, nevermind. My bad.

davidmhoffer

Chapter 11 – Near Term Climate Change
The leaked draft stated that changes due to solar variation would not exceed 0.1 degrees. Now it says:
In summary, possible future changes in solar irradiance could influence the rate at which global mean
surface air temperature increases, but there is high confidence that this influence will be small in comparison to the influence of increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Understanding of the impacts of changes in solar irradiance on continental and sub-continental scale climate remains low.

So they’ve dropped the number altogether in favour of vague arm waving, saying only that it is probably small, but give themselves an out by saying that on continental scales they really don’t know. Wow.
They similarly have backed off their wording from the SOD regarding less frequent and less intense tropical cyclones in favour of wording that they have low confidence that they will increase.
The twisting of words to imply the opposite of what the data says without actually lying is indeed a spectacle to behold.

Theo Goodwin

Could Dr. Svalgaard comment on the following quotation taken from the Box 9.2 of the IPCC Working Group I Report.
“In summary, the observed recent warming hiatus, defined as the reduction in GMST trend during 1998–2012 as compared to the trend during 1951–2012, is attributable in roughly equal measure to a cooling contribution from internal variability and a reduced trend in external forcing (expert judgment, medium confidence). The forcing trend reduction is primarily due to a negative forcing trend from both volcanic eruptions and the downward phase of the solar cycle.”
So, the IPCC claims that there is less radiation arriving at the top of the atmosphere?

davidmhoffer

Theo Goodwin;
Hilarious. So in Ch11 they seem to be saying that solar forcing isn’t significant and in Ch9 they say it is.

RossP
Theo Goodwin

davidmhoffer says:
September 30, 2013 at 3:02 pm
Hilarious!!! We’re gonna’ have to invent a new word for this.

Theo Goodwin:
There is no need for a new word because there is an existing phrase: i.e. two faced.
However, if you want to invent a new word then I suggest Janus.
Janus was a Roman god with two faces that looked in opposite directions, and was the god of doorways. The IPCC offers a doorway into a world few of us want.
Richard

Alan Robertson

davidmhoffer says:
September 30, 2013 at 2:37 pm
The twisting of words to imply the opposite of what the data says without actually lying is indeed a spectacle to behold.
_______________________
Oh, it’s still lying.

wayne

dfbaskwill says:
September 30, 2013 at 10:02 am
I’m still just on page 29 of ObamaCare. Now This! Whoa is me…

The more pages in a document, the less it actually contains, which just shows IPCC actually ‘knows’ nothing. Just pages upon pages of conjecture. It’s the 1000+ page laws that should scare everyone (unless the general public wises up an just ignores them, to understand them is futile).

Alan Robertson

richardscourtney says:
September 30, 2013 at 3:29 pm
Theo Goodwin:
There is no need for a new word because there is an existing phrase: i.e. two faced.
However, if you want to invent a new word then I suggest Janus.
Janus was a Roman god with two faces that looked in opposite directions, and was the god of doorways. The IPCC offers a doorway into a world few of us want.
Richard
________________________
I’ve often had the same thought, that the IPCC could use the Janus figure as logo.