AR5 full report

The final AR5 report is now available here.

Comments

[Martin A]

"Is the heat in the ocean or not? If it is, doesn't that alone invalidate the entire model ensemble? If it is not, doesn't that invalidate the entire model ensemble?"

rhoda

The "heat is in the ocean" rubbish alone is enough to blow the whistle on climate "science". So far as I can see:

- Calculations based on radiative forcing values (both concept and values never subjected to empirical verification) lead to the conclusion that the Earth is receiving more energy than it radiates, yet its temperature has remained static.

- Instead of admitting the obvious conclusion about the validity of the radiative forcing concept and the modelling assumptions it is based on, someone (Hansen?) hypothesised that the 'missing heat' is somehow getting into the deep ocean.

- Despite it sounding less plausible than something from Dan Dare in the early fifties, the "heat is in the ocean" seems to have been pretty well picked up and treated as established fact by climate 'scientists'.

Cynical ? Me? Well I can recognise that smell.

[michael hart]

Dale

Smack on! For years I trusted the UK Met Off. I thought they were the best in the world. The CRU under Lamb had changed the way we thought about climate by concentrating research on the past to understand the future.

Oct 1, 2013 at 8:25 AM | Unregistered CommenterStephen Richards

Stephen, they still probably are the best in the world. That's the problem. Everyone else seems to be even worse. At least as far as the IPCC stuff is concerned.

The Met Office HAS reduced the '10 year catastrophe' to a '5 year non-catastrophe'. That's what they did on Christmas Eve, 2012. The MSM still continue to ignore it, as do Greenpeace and associated politicians.

Sure, at the top, they are still publicly saying "disaster later, rather than sooner". But I take it as a sign that there are still plenty of competent and decent scientists working at the Met Office. They probably don't get much say in the politics, but many of them probably never wanted to either.

[Marion]

Re: Oct 1, 2013 at 5:06 PM | michael hart

I think you're being somewhat optimistic if you think that it was benign forces operating from within the Met Office rather than the external evidence that forced the Met to adopt it's reduced forecasts.

The timing is indicative!

And the MSM are faced with a constant stream of propaganda from this organization (that self proclaims itself to be the best in the world!!) so small wonder they report as they do.

Just one example that I have cited on numerous occasions -

http://hro001.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/uk-met-quick_guide.pdf

(And this was produced at a time when there had been no warming for a decade!)

All I have seen emanating from the Met Office is advocacy and 'outreach'.

;

[ATheoK]

"
This remains a "draft" report. Please note this statement:

This document lists the changes necessary to ensure consistency between the full Report and the Summary for Policymakers...

They intend, as has occurred in the past, to alter the text of the main report written by scientists so that the main report is consistent with the negotiated-behind-closed-doors-by-politicians-&-bureaucrats Summary for Policymakers.

Science is not - and has never been - in the driver's seat at the IPCC.

Sep 30, 2013 at 4:58 PM | Unregistered CommenterDonna Laframboise

Donna:
I clicked into the ten pages of changes from the link on your 'website NoFrakkingConsensus' and since I've been puzzling over the new bizarrely revised Figure 1.4 that Steve McIntyre noticed changed since the second order draft, I started searching through the changes looking for changes made to 'Figure 1.4'. I couldn't find any reference to Figure 1.4 nor could I locate any change references whatsoever to items within Chapter 1 where figure 1.4 resides.

Reads to me that your assessment is correct, science is not behind or within the ten pages of changes. Ten pages of what appear to be red herrings designed to distract people from other changes made; changes that are without documentation.