![cover[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/cover1.jpg?quality=83)
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 | |
| Changes to the Underlying Scientific/Technical Assessment (IPCC-XXVI/Doc.4) | 210kB |
| Ch | Title | ||
| 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 | |||
On page 13-93 of the sea level section they spelled Manila with two L’s.
Philippinos will be outraged
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
Mike McMillan says:
September 30, 2013 at 12:38 pm
Philippinos???????????????????????????
How much is the US paying the UN for this BS???
Too much, pull the plug.
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
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.
just an engineer, or even filipinos .:)
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.)
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?
The section I hope I put in bold is a circular reference to itself and utterly meaningless. Maybe a typo?
Oops in my previous comment.
Should be … how do they know the data is reliable?
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.
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
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
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
So, that’s how we get from 90% to 95% certain. LOL, settled science.
Uh, nevermind. My bad.
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.
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?
Theo Goodwin;
Hilarious. So in Ch11 they seem to be saying that solar forcing isn’t significant and in Ch9 they say it is.
Jo Nova’s thread is well worth reading and distributing
http://joannenova.com.au/2013/09/ipcc-in-denial-just-so-excuses-use-mystery-ocean-heat-to-hide-their-failure/
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
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.
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).
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.