![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 | |||
richardscourtney says:
September 30, 2013 at 3:29 pm
Thanks, Richard, I needed that. I do fear going soft. Now I am having visions of the IPCC as made up of graduate students, some with doctorates, who are galley slaves serving under sadomasochistic masters. What else could explain the turgid prose, sort of prose, found in this document? It was created to torture the reader.
“Janus” will do.
FrankK says:
September 30, 2013 at 2:06 pm
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.
Frank,
Murray Salby is wrong on several counts, but that should be for a more in detailed discussion. In the case of ice cores, what he says is simply impossible:
Ice cores average all fast CO2 changes out over the period of resolution (560 years for Dome C, 600 years for the Vostok ice core). They don’t smooth sustained high level of longer duration like during warm interglacials.
If Salby is right, then the 300 ppmv peak measured during the previous interglacial (the Eemian) would have been 3000 ppmv in reality. But as ice cores only smooth the record, the average over the full period should be maintained. The average glacial/interglacial period is about 9:1 (90 kyr:10 kyr). That means that to smear the 3000 ppmv peak in the glacial period, the CO2 levels should have been below zero. Effectively killing all life on earth…
Heh. I was thinking more Epimetheus. The Father of Excuses. 😉
richardscourtney says:
September 30, 2013 at 9:18 am
###
You need to read my comment again. I think I was pretty clear in what I wrote, but then again, maybe not. I am pretty autistic and find communicating complex ideas using language a bit problematic, so I am used to being misunderstood.
Anyhow, I was trying to say that the IPCC is structurally incapable, on a very fundamental level, from being able to differentiate science from politics. I.e., Anything the IPCC emits from its collect mouth, no mater how much it believes it to be science, will be nothing more then political rhetoric designed to enslave mankind. Why do you think I was saying otherwise? How could I have been more clear?
BTW, I gave up years ago from trying to contribute anything more the anti-Marxist rants after I tried to discuss a controlled experiment and NO ONE could understand, no matter how hard I tried, that I was talking about a controlled experiment NOT the real world.
Alan Robertson says:
“I’ve often had the same thought, that the IPCC could use the Janus figure as logo.”
I for one am very glad to see you and Richard on the same page. I agree with just about everything you both have to say, and it is a relief getting past what was, at the very most, only a minor misunderstanding.
– Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
September 30, 2013 at 4:10 pm
Frank,
Murray Salby is wrong on several counts, but that should be for a more in detailed discussion. In the case of ice cores, what he says is simply impossible:
—————————————————————————————————————-
Well Ferdinand one has to be careful making a statement “that he is wrong”. He may be wrong or you may be wrong. You have a theory that is different to his, that is all. That’s science.
But I am more interested in the second part of his talk about CO2 being driven by the integral of temperature, rather than that temperature is driven directly by CO2. Do you disagree with that, and why? If you disagree, please present your opinion with the relevant mathematics, as the contributing Swedish author has done that also agrees with him. That would be a worthwhile contribution.
Best Regards F
dbstealey says:
September 30, 2013 at 5:10 pm
Alan Robertson says:
“I’ve often had the same thought, that the IPCC could use the Janus figure as logo.”
I for one am very glad to see you and Richard on the same page. I agree with just about everything you both have to say, and it is a relief getting past what was, at the very most, only a minor misunderstanding.
_____________________
Listening to: Jefferson Airplane- Bless Its Pointed Little Head
Hopefully they used better grammar.
Would you say, that the majority of people or lay people would not bother reading this, just take on what they feel experts believe. I meet quite intelligent people, who believe in climate change because it is a warmer than average spring? Well it is not of course. We had a warmer than average September one year, that was followed by a huge hail storm that ruined and destroyed 80 % of the roofs in Armidale. My house had tiles broken but my former 100 year old cottage had a brand new roof. So rain or hail happens after warmer than average climate temps. They don’t understand the science. And honestly they don’t really care. They believe in government cover ups, don’t trust politicians, and follow like sheep. So if someone says humans are causing uncontrollable climate change they feel guilty. What did Goebbels say ‘Tell a lie long enough, and it becomes the truth’. We should look to history and see the scams that have be told, the Mayan 2012 prediction of world end, the 2 K bug, then the 9/II conspiracy theories. Add AGW?
Just keep hammering them folks, you’ll turn the tide on believers and discredit the UN IPCC.
Since only 2% of the IPCCs climate model runs can reproduce the temperature for the period 1951-2012, there are no reasons to believe that their future predictions on climate will be anyway near reality, be that on temperature, humidity, percipitation, sea-level rise, ice-extent, ocean pH, and so on.
Since flawed models are at the core of all of these predictions, the IPCC will continue failing, on all these areas.
The claim is now that 95% on the ‘scientists’ of IPCC believe 50% of the climate change for the period 1951-2012 was caused by humans. That is, only 50% has, according to these ‘scientists’ been caused by natural factors.
If we bring this claim together with the 2% success of the models we get this interesting combination:
95% of the IPCC ‘scientists’ believe 50% of the climate change observed in the period 1951-2012 was caused by humans, their models can in 2% of the cases predict observed temperature record for the same period, thus the IPCC can with 1% certainty predict global climate change caused by humans. They can with the same 1% certainty predict natural effects on global climate. This leaves them with a 98% chance of failing to predict global climate caused by humans or natural causes.
Since this is the case, there are no reasons whatsoever to read the 5th report, for it cannot any better than the 1st, 2nd, 3rd or 4th report predict climate. Since this is the case, and since IPCC has been funded with hundreds of billions of dollars over 30 years, with such a totally failing outcome, the IPCC should immidiately be dismanteled.
What the world needs is a non-govermental climate panel, that asseses the climate system and changes in this, regardless what the causes for climate, human or natural.
For countries that could be seriously affected by abrupt climate changes, there is now no other way of securing their future but to find things out for themselves, and prepare for possible changes as best they can.
This is the only logical conclusion to the IPCCs total failure.
Have you seen the hiding of the model failures in fig. 1.4 of the introduction chapter?
In the leaked draft (http://www.stopgreensuicide.com/Ch1-Introduction_WG1AR5_SOD_Ch01_All_Final.pdf) fig. 1.4 showed this failure. It was discussed before.
Now this failure was hidden by extending the time range from 25 years to 85 years and by including the curves of several wide-spread models.
Here’s what I know for sure: We had maybe 2 weeks of 90’s this summer. Looks like summer’s over. I’m just south of Ft. Collins, CO and not in the foothills. Our forecast for Friday, October 3, 2013 –
Rise: 7:00 AM Set: 6:37 PM Rise: 6:39 AM Set: 6:21 PM
Windy, mix of rain and snow showers. Highs in the mid 40s and lows in the upper 20s.
My tomatoes failed again. It makes no sense. Up until 5 years ago I fed the neighborhood with tomatoes from the same garden. However, I think I’m going to have a good sweet potato yield.
JEM says:
September 30, 2013 at 11:14 am
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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I think they are doing just that.
This rejection of comments and politicization did not go over well with deticated scientists. WUWT: The IPCC consensus on climate change was phoney, says IPCC insider
“Unless we announce disasters, no-one will listen”.
Unsurprisingly, this has led to disagreements between the IPCC and some of the scientists providing the material for its statements on climate.
A number of them have found it impossible to reconcile their scientific work with the lead-authors who compile IPCC reports. Others have found that when they criticize the IPCC, they are not selected to write for the next report.
Scientists who have aired their dissatisfaction with the IPCC are listed below, including a number who have resigned.
One assumes that there are other scientists unhappy at the way the IPCC presents their work but who do not wish to be whistleblowers. They remain unknown except to family and friends….
Ross McKitrick reports on the thinning of the rank @ur momisugly September 27, 2013 at 5:32 am
….IPCC 4 PR claimed 2,000 scientists contributed whereas IPCC 5 only claims 800….
Ah, now I’ve seen that Steve McIntyre has already written about that hiding of the model failure:
http://climateaudit.org/2013/09/30/ipcc-disappears-the-discrepancy/
DesertYote:
You begin your post at September 30, 2013 at 5:06 pm saying
If I misunderstood you then I apologise, but I don’t think I did.
As a clarification you now say “the IPCC is structurally incapable, on a very fundamental level, from being able to differentiate science from politics”.
My post that answered you began saying
It then quoted your post in full before explaining – with references, links and quotations – how and why the IPCC is pure politics which only uses science as ‘window dressing’. This link jumps to my answer to you at September 30, 2013 at 9:18 am
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/30/ipcc-ar5-full-final-report-released-full-access-here/#comment-1431905
Richard
CLASSIC TEXT IN CHAPTER 9. NOTE THAT UNCERTAINTIES IN CLOUD FORCING LEADS TO RADITIVE ERRORS OF TENS OF WATTS PER SQUARE METRE !
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.
There is very high confidence that uncertainties in cloud processes explain much of the spread in modelled climate sensitivity…biases in cloud simulation lead to regional errors on cloud radiative effect of several tens of watts per square meter.
Cloud feedbacks represent the main cause for the range in modelled climate sensitivity (Chapter 7). The spread due to inter-model differences in cloud feedbacks is approximately 3 times larger than the spread contributed by feedbacks due to variations in water vapour and lapse-rate combined (Dufresne and Bony, 2008), and is a primary factor governing the range of climate sensitivity across the CMIP3 ensemble (Volodin, 2008a).
With very few exceptions (Hourdin et al., 2013; Mauritsen et al., 2013) modelling centres do not routinely describe in detail how they tune their models. Therefore the complete list of observational constraints toward which a particular model is tuned is generally not available.
Almost all CMIP5 historical simulations do not reproduce the observed recent warming hiatus. There is medium confidence that the GMST 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 CMIP5 models overestimating the response to increasing greenhouse-gas forcing.
…most 15-year GMST trends in the near-term future will be larger than during 1998–2012…The reasons for this implication are fourfold: first, anthropogenic greenhouse-gas concentrations are expected to rise further in all RCP scenarios; second, anthropogenic aerosol concentration is expected to decline in all RCP scenarios, and so is the resulting cooling effect; third, the trend in solar forcing is expected to be larger over most near-term 15–year periods than over 1998–2012 (medium confidence), because 1998–2012 contained the full downward phase of the solar cycle; and fourth, it is more likely than not that internal climate variability in the near-term will enhance and not counteract the surface warming expected to arise from the increasing anthropogenic forcing.
LIKE A GAMBLER, THEY THINK THEIR LUCK MUST TURN UP IN THE END !
A spanish news agency cites IPCC AR5 as the source for the following predictions:
* North of Africa 2-3ºC hotter by mid century, 3-6ºC hotter by 2100;
* Maximum temperatures in southern Europe 5-8ºC hotter by 2100;
* Spain: 20% less rain, less clouds, worse yields, more illnesses, and an incredible 60-80% species loss if temperatures go high by just +1,8ºC.
If you don’t believe me, check it yourselves (in Spanish).
I think the journalist just made it all up. It would be interesting to contrast it with what IPCC AR5 actually says.
ScientistForTruth says: @ur momisugly October 1, 2013 at 3:55 am
CLASSIC TEXT IN CHAPTER 9. NOTE THAT UNCERTAINTIES IN CLOUD FORCING LEADS TO RADITIVE ERRORS OF TENS OF WATTS PER SQUARE METRE !….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Actually I think the MONEY QUOTE is
Since the entire ASSESSMENT process is to ASSESS the current ‘Climate Science’ and Computer Models are the core of ‘IPCC science’
predictingprojecting humans will cause the earth to fry if we do not change our wasteful ways, how on earth can you ‘ASSESS’ ascienceconjecture that is hidden?Of course if you use the ‘fit’ of the climate models to the present climate you could say with 95% confidence that they completely FAIL. Too bad the IPCC dances around that simple statement.
Laurie says:October 1, 2013 at 1:37 am
Re: no tomatoes. I’m at 6600′ near Carbondale. Finally got a ripe tomato on 9/21, unfortunately it frosted that am and killed the five bushes I had. I picked all the green tomatoes, wrapped each in newspaper and placed them 2 deep in paper bags, This allows a gas, ethylene?, that the fruit produces to remain in higher concentration near the fruit which ripens it, yet can still ‘breath’. Keep the nearest to ripening on top and check every few days. I’ve got a dozen ripe ones on the counter now, and see a batch of marinara on the horizon.
I think it was the cool nights in July, 40s here, when it should have been 50s, that set them back. I usually have ripe ones by July, having started them April 1. I’ve had four mornings of frost this year, none last until 10/6.
According to the IPCC, we need to be farther north, where it has warmed the most, to avoid these cooling problems.
Nylo says: @ur momisugly October 1, 2013 at 4:50 am
A spanish news agency cites IPCC AR5 as the source for the following predictions….
I think the journalist just made it all up.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I think he probably got his marching orders from the Spanish Government. How else are they going to keep the populous from retaliating for the government’s bankrupting of their country by spending money on pixie dust and unicorn fart projects?
Max Keiser Spain is bankrupt, get your money out: Read Between the Lines: IMF Admits Spain is Bankrupt; Get Your Money Out While You Can
Steve Keohane says: @ur momisugly October 1, 2013 at 6:05 am
Re: no tomatoes….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
An apple added to the paper bag with the selected tomatoes you want to ripen fast helps. (Place away from the rest of the fruit you do not want to ripen immediately.)
SEE: Ethylene: The Ripening Hormone
richardscourtney says:
October 1, 2013 at 2:14 am
DesertYote:
You begin your post at September 30, 2013 at 5:06 pm saying
richardscourtney says:
September 30, 2013 at 9:18 am
###
It then quoted your post in full before explaining – with references, links and quotations – how and why the IPCC is pure politics which only uses science as ‘window dressing’.
###
OK, so you get a gold star to go next to the F. I guess what I was trying to say is just too subtle or complex for you to understand. You missed it by a mile. Are you so stupid that you can not see that my point is a SUPER SET of your contention. Your voluminous references look pretty silly considering the amount of effort you wasted to prove a statement that I already believe to be true. I bet you suck at math.
DesertYote:
re your rant at October 1, 2013 at 1:34 pm.
In your post at September 30, 2013 at 5:06 pm you told me
OK. Your autism sometimes induces you to write words which say are “misunderstood”. Clearly, that has happened on this occasion because I quoted your words verbatim and addressed them. Unfortunately, my doing that has caused you offence. I am sorry about that.
These of my posts have caused you the offence.
The links jump to them and you can see they quote your words and address those words. No mathematics was involved.
At October 1, 2013 at 2:14 am
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/30/ipcc-ar5-full-final-report-released-full-access-here/#comment-1432622
and at September 30, 2013 at 9:18 am
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/30/ipcc-ar5-full-final-report-released-full-access-here/#comment-1431905
Richard