The following table compares the IPCC’s discussions of the warming plateau and attribution from the final draft (7Jun2013) and the approved final version (27Sep2013) of the IPCC’s AR5 Summary for Policymakers. It appears the politician agreed to delete the attribution discussion of the warming plateau. If anyone finds something I missed the attribution discussion of the hiatus in the approved version, please let me know and I’ll correct this.
Final Draft 7Jun2013 | Approved 27Sep2013 |
From page SPM-3:Global mean surface temperature trends exhibit substantial decadal variability, despite the robust multi-decadal warming since 1901 (Figure SPM 1). The rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998−2012; 0.05 [−0.05 to +0.15] °C per decade) is smaller than the trend since 1951 (1951−2012; 0.12 [0.08 to 0.14] °C per decade). (Figure SPM.1) {2.4.3}
|
From page SPM-3:In addition to robust multi-decadal warming, global mean surface temperature exhibits substantial decadal and interannual variability (see Figure SPM.1). Due to natural variability, trends based on short records are very sensitive to the beginning and end dates and do not in general reflect long-term climate trends. As one example, the rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998–2012; 0.05 [–0.05 to +0.15] °C per decade), which begins with a strong El Niño, is smaller than the rate calculated since 1951 (1951–2012; 0.12 [0.08 to 0.14] °C per decade)5. {2.4}
|
From page SPM-9:There is very high confidence that models reproduce the more rapid warming in the second half of the 20th century, and the cooling immediately following large volcanic eruptions. Models do not generally reproduce the observed reduction in surface warming trend over the last 10–15 years. There is medium confidence that this difference between models and observations is to a substantial degree caused by unpredictable climate variability, with possible contributions from inadequacies in the solar, volcanic, and aerosol forcings used by the models and, in some models, from too strong a response to increasing greenhouse-gas forcing. {9.4.1, 10.3.1, 11.3.2; Box 9.2} | From page SPM-10:The observed reduction in surface warming trend over the period 1998–2012 as compared to the period 1951–2012, is due in roughly equal measaure to a reduced trend in radiative forcing and a cooling contribution from internal variability, which includes a possible redistribution of heat within the ocean (medium confidence). The reduced trend in radiative forcing is primarily due to volcanic eruptions and the timing of the downward phase of the 11-year solar cycle. However, there is low confidence in quantifying the role of changes in radiative forcing in causing the reduced warming trend. There is medium confidence that internal decadal variability causes to a substantial degree the difference between observations and the simulations; the latter are not expected to reproduce the timing of internal variability. There may also be a contribution from forcing inadequacies and, in some models, an overestimate of the response to increasing greenhouse gas and other anthropogenic forcing (dominated by the effects of aerosols). {9.4, Box 9.2, 10.3, Box 10.2, 11.3}
|
On Attribution, page SPM-11The observed warming since 1951 can be attributed to the different natural and anthropogenic drivers and their contributions can now be quantified. Greenhouse gases contributed a global mean surface warming likely to be in the range of 0.5°C to 1.3 °C over the period 1951−2010, with the contributions from other anthropogenic forcings, including the cooling effect of aerosols, likely to be in the range of −0.6°C to 0.1 °C. The contributions from natural forcings are likely to be in the range of −0.1°C to 0.1 °C, and from internal variability likely to be in the range of −0.1°C to 0.1°C. Together these assessed contributions are consistent with the observed warming of approximately 0.6°C over this period.{10.3.1}
|
On Attribution, page SPM-12 & 13Greenhouse gases contributed a global mean surface warming likely to be in the range of 0.5°C to 1.3°C over the period 1951−2010, with the contributions from other anthropogenic forcings, including the cooling effect of aerosols, likely to be in the range of −0.6°C to 0.1°C. The contribution from natural forcings is likely to be in the range of −0.1°C to 0.1°C, and from internal variability is likely to be in the range of −0.1°C to 0.1°C. Together these assessed contributions are consistent with the observed warming of approximately 0.6°C to 0.7°C over this period. {10.3}
|
On Hiatus Attribution, page SPM-11The observed reduction in warming trend over the period 1998–2012 as compared to the period 1951-2012, is due in roughly equal measure to a cooling contribution from internal variability and a reduced trend in radiative forcing (medium confidence). The reduced trend in radiative forcing is primarily due to volcanic eruptions and the downward phase of the current solar cycle. However, there is low confidence in quantifying the role of changes in radiative forcing in causing this reduced warming trend. {Box 9.2; 10.3.1; Box 10.2}
|
On Hiatus Attribution… |
SHAMELESS PLUG
If this subject interests you, then you need to check out my new book Climate Models Fail.
Pingback: Sorry IPCC – How You Portrayed the Global Temperature Plateau is Comical at Best | Watts Up With That?
Bob, your last comparison with the blank section on HIatus attribution misses the fact that this discussion in the Final draft on p. SPM-11 was simply moved up to another paragraph, the ong one that hyou show on p. SPM-10 of th approved draft.
“The reduced trend in radiative forcing is primarily due to volcanic eruptions and the timing of the downward phase of the 11-year solar cycle. ”
So, can the sun affect climate after all?
Thanks, Lance. I’ve updated the table.
“The reduced trend in radiative forcing is primarily due to volcanic eruptions and the timing of the downward phase of the 11-year solar cycle. ”
Bulldust. The 6 1/2 year downward leg of a Solar Cycles helps cause a 15 year hiatus?
Verily the other one has knobs upon it.
When it gets warmer, it’s CO2 and evil man.
When it gets cooler, it’s natural.
Pingback: corbettreport: The IPCC Exposed - Global Warming Scam - Con Game - Fraud - ALIPAC
Thank you. I was wondering when a comparison of the leak and the final was going to be made.
I’m sure they’ll be more to come.
So, ‘The downward trend is probably due to changes in the sun’s activity’
Isn’t that what we have all been saying about the upward trend for some years now?
Pingback: Thoughts on IPCC AR5 SPM – discussion thread | Watts Up With That?
Any study or report that beings with the phrase:
“Summary for Policymakers”
And includes it’s very own scale of :
virtually certain
very likely
about as likely as not
unlikely
very unlikely
exceptionally unlikely
extremely likely
more likely than not
extremely unlikely
IS DOOMED! AND WILL LIVE IN INFAMY!……..ALTHOUGH “MORE LIKE IT THAN NOT” OR “VIRTUALLY CERTAIN” 95% SURE LAUGHABLE!
“MAY OR MAY NOT” HAVE BEEN “SUPPOSEDLY WRITTEN” OR “PRESUMABLY CONCOCTED” BY LAWYERS!
Is just plain pathetic! This took IPCC scientists 6 years to devised and hundreds of millions if not billions in “research”!
When all they need is reliable proof of what they “about as likely as not” conclude.
IPCC WGI AR5 SPM-2 27 September 2013
“terms have been used to indicate the assessed likelihood of an outcome or a result: virtually certain 99–100% probability, very likely 90–100%, likely 66–100%, about as likely as not 33–66%, unlikely 0–33%, very unlikely 0–10%, exceptionally unlikely 0–1%. Additional terms (extremely likely: 95–100%, more likely than not >50–100%, and extremely unlikely 0–5%) may also be used when appropriate.”
polishing the turd, are they ?
Mike from the cold side of the Soierra, you have such a lovely way with words.