New Blockbuster IPCC Climate Report: Comprehensive, Authoritative, Conservative

By: Dr. Jeff Masters , 11:31 AM GMT on September 26, 2013

Share this Blog
62
+

Comprehensive. Authoritative. Conservative.
Those words summarize the world's most rigorous and important scientific report in history: the 2013 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) climate assessment, due to be released at 4am EDT Friday in Stockholm, Sweden. The Nobel Prize-winning IPCC has put together an amazingly authoritative and comprehensive report on a subject crucial to the future of civilization, a report that will guide policymakers worldwide as they struggle to cope with the growing chaos generated by the Great Climate Disruption that is already upon us. The first 31 pages of the report, called the "Summary For Policymakers", is what will be released Friday, and this summary will lay out a powerful scientific case that significant climate change with severe impacts is already occurring, humans are mostly responsible, the pace of climate change is expected to accelerate, and we can make choices to cut emissions of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases to limit the damage.

Q: What is the IPCC?
A: In 1988, 300 scientists and high-ranking government officials at an international conference convened by the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) concluded that changes in the atmosphere due to human pollution “represent a major threat to international security and are already having harmful consequences over many parts of the globe.” Immediate action was needed, they said, to negotiate a set of strict, specific targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. But who should coordinate such an effort? The conservative Reagan Administration and some other governments were wary of control by any group that was part of the United Nations structure. These governments proposed formation of a new, fully independent group under the direct control of representatives appointed by each government—that is, an intergovernmental panel. Responding to this pressure, the WMO and UNEP collaborated in creating the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 1988. The IPCC was neither a strictly scientific nor a strictly political body, but a unique hybrid. It could issue reports only with the firm agreement of a great majority of the world’s leading climate scientists, plus the unanimous consensus of all participating governments. Importantly, it would put policy options on the table, but would not make explicit policy recommendations. Given these requirements, the IPCC reports tend to be quite conservative, but have unimpeachable authority.

Q: What is an IPCC report?
A: Every 5 - 6 years, the IPCC issues a massive 3,000+ page report summarizing the current state of knowledge on climate change. These "assessment reports" have been issued in 1990, 1995, 2001, 2007, and now, 2013. The latest assessment will be released in four parts:

"The Physical Science Basis" (September 2013) will describe the observed and predicted changes to Earth's climate.

"Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability" (March 2014) will document the dire consequences associated with the path that we’re on.

"Mitigation of Climate Change" (April 2014) will outline what it will take to get us back on track to avoid the worst impacts of climate change.

The "Synthesis Report" (October 2014) will summarize all of the other reports.

The scientists who prepare the 3,000+ page report cite over 9,200 peer-reviewed scientific articles, but present no original research of their own. At least 259 authors from 39 countries drafted the part of the report being released this week, and the report was subjected to two rounds of review by 1089 experts in 55 countries beginning in December 2011. None of the scientists were paid for their work. The report was also reviewed by government representatives from 38 nations, and the final report that is being debated in Stockholm this week was revised based on the over 54,000 review comments received. The most important part of the report is the "Summary for Policy Makers", a 31-page document that summarizes the key scientific findings, used by governments to make policy decisions on how to respond to climate change. The "Summary for Policy Makers" for "The Physical Science Basis" portion of the 2013 IPCC report is being released on September 27. The actual 1,000+ page scientific report that the "Summary for Policy Makers" summarizes is being released the following Monday (September 30.) While the "Summary for Policy Makers" is drafted by the scientists who serve as the lead authors for the IPCC report, the summary is subject to approval by the governments of the 195 member nations of the IPCC. During the final week of the approval process, politicians can weigh in and demand changes to the summary drafted by the scientists, since the final "Summary for Policy Makers" requires unanimous approval by all of the IPCC nations. The IPCC reports have the most elaborate review and approval process for any scientific report in the world. In 2007, the IPCC won the Nobel Peace Prize. In short, three words summarize the IPCC reports:

Comprehensive.
Authoritative.
Conservative.


FIgure 1. IPCC lead authors gather for a group photo at the four most recent meetings for drafting of the 2013 IPCC assessment report. Image credit: IPCC.

Q: Do errors in the IPCC reports undermine confidence in the science?
A: No. Two small errors have been found in the 3000+ pages of the 2007 IPCC report. Neither has anything to do with the basic conclusions that the globe is unequivocally warming and that human activity is the primary cause (one error was simply a typo.) The mistakes have been acknowledged and corrected and review procedures are being strengthened to avoid future errors. In a report of over 3,000 pages by hundreds of authors, it is not unusual that there would be a few minor errors. Contrarians seeking to discredit climate science, and some in the media, have blown these errors out of proportion, claiming the errors invalidate the entire IPCC report. It's like saying we need to throw out an entire phone book because two misspellings were found in it.

Q: What are some of the weaknesses of the IPCC report?
1) The report is already out-of-date, since papers had to be submitted for publication by July 2012 and published by March 2013 in order to be cited.

2) The report is tedious, complex, and difficult to read, making this vital science difficult to access. Little regard was given by the IPCC to communicating the results of the report. Science has little value if it is not understandably communicated to those who need the information. Where are the accompanying explanatory videos? Why was the report issued on a Friday, the worst day of the work week to get attention? The IPCC has devoted a very small portion of its budget to communication and outreach, leaving the interpretation of the report to others. I can understand the reluctance of the IPCC to provide a more slick and showy interpretation of the report, since they might be accused of "spinning" the science, and one of the great strengths of the IPCC report is its great science and the impartiality of the content. But the assumption that the science will speak for itself is wrong. The most powerful and richest corporations in world history--the oil companies--are waging very well-funded PR campaigns to deny the science, play up the uncertainties, and question the character of the scientists who write the report. The world's most rigorous and important scientific report in history is being kicked apart by powerful special interests whose profits are threatened by the findings.

3) Since the "Summary for Policymakers" is subject to unanimous approval by politicians, the science is potentially compromised, and the conclusions will tend to be conservative. Naomi Oreskes, in Chapter Six of her book, "Merchants of Doubt", recounts the haggling that led up to the approval of the 1995 Summary for Policy Makers. Government delegates for Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and other major oil exporting nations demanded a change to the statement the scientists had drafted, "The balance of evidence suggests an appreciable human influence on climate." For two whole days, the scientists haggled with the Saudi delegate over the single word "appreciable". Nearly 30 different alternatives were discussed before IPCC chair Bert Bolin finally found a word that both sides could accept: "The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on climate." The term "discernible" established a middle ground by suggesting that human-caused climate change was detectable, but the level of that influence was subject to debate. This sentence would go on to become one the most famous scientific statements ever made about climate change, but it was more conservative than what the scientists wanted.

4) The lower-end emissions scenario, called RCP2.6, which assumes that CO2 concentrations will reach 421 ppm by the year 2100, is highly unlikely. Earth reached 400 ppm of CO2 earlier this year, and CO2 has increased by over 2 ppm per year during the past decade. CO2 emissions are accelerating, and CO2 levels will surpass 421 ppm by the year 2023 at the current rate of acceleration. RCP2.6 requires that we slash emissions of CO2 by 50%, relative to 1990 levels, by 2050. We are currently on a pace to match or exceed the worst-case scenario considered by the IPCC (RCP8.5), where CO2 levels reach 936 ppm by the year 2100.

Commentary
The two higher-end emission scenarios of the four considered by the IPCC will very likely warm the planet more than 2°C (3.6°F) over pre-industrial levels. Two degrees Centigrade represents a "dangerous" level of warming for civilization that we must avoid, according to the 2009 Copenhagen Accord, signed by world leaders including President Obama. We will have to work very hard, and very soon, to keep warming below this 2°C "danger" level. As climate writer Elizabeth Kolbert says, holding the global temperature increase to “only” two degrees Celsius, though, is like limiting yourself to “only” a few rounds of Russian roulette: unless you’re uncommonly lucky, the result is not likely be happy. The 0.9°C warming we've experienced since 1900 has already caused a destabilization of global weather patterns, resulting in unprecedented extreme weather events and accelerating melting of polar ice caps. As a group of climate scientists wrote in 2009 at RealClimate.org,

"Even a “moderate” warming of 2°C stands a strong chance of provoking drought and storm responses that could challenge civilized society, leading potentially to the conflict and suffering that go with failed states and mass migrations. Global warming of 2°C would leave the Earth warmer than it has been in millions of years, a disruption of climate conditions that have been stable for longer than the history of human agriculture."

I'll have a full analysis of the new IPCC report Friday morning, and will be offering expert commentary live on The Weather Channel beginning at 7:10 am EDT on Friday. The 2013 Summary For Policymakers will be available on the IPCC website beginning at 4 am EDT Friday.


Video 1. I did a live interview with http://www.democracynow.org Thursday morning during their 8am - 9am EDT news hour, discussing the upcoming IPCC report.

Jeff Masters

Reader Comments

Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

or Join

Not only will you be able to leave comments on this blog, but you'll also have the ability to upload and share your photos in our Wunder Photos section.

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200 Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

Viewing: 293 - 243

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18Blog Index

Quoting 288. ScottLincoln:

Cite your original assertion. Quote the paragraph or sentences where the claim was made that IPCC will shown climatic warming has slowed or stopped. This cannot be something you've concluded, or something an opinion article concluded. It needs to be an actual source, actually quoting the IPCC. If you can't do that, than your claim is unsourceable and you should stop defending it.

It cannot be any more crystal clear.


Here you go Scott..its the very first paragraph after the picture of the globe in case you claim you cant find it..let me know if you need me to provide any more hand holding for you. Not even from a skeptic site..You can refer to the other link I sent you from the Wall Street Journal itself..thats two credible sources I have cited..

This past June, leaked details from the soon-to-be-released UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 5th report started circulating around the web, and more recently, began appearing in major print outlets like the Wall St Journal. The leaked details include observations that the rate of global warming for the period between 1998 and 2012 appears to have slowed down (though that period includes the hottest decade on record).
Read more at http://planetsave.com/2013/09/19/leaked-details-fr om-the-upcoming-5th-ipcc-report-shows-warming-slow -down-climate-skeptics-sure-to-pounce/#gxcxs9dT2c2 qjUdY.99
Member Since: August 19, 2006 Posts: 13 Comments: 16225
Quoting 264. calkevin77:
Good day all. Pleasant morning here in Austin. Temps are in the 80s with highs in the low 90s. Not bad at all.
Interesting read this morning. I had never heard of the IPCC before. It sounds like this is quite a comprehensive report that they have been working on. Will it be available to the general public as these four parts are being released?


GM, Cal, this morning I've been sniffing around another [lesser] Manuel/Ingrid set-up for us... if 92E hugs the coastline more than the GFS predicts and that BOC moisture lifts...



Also that disturbance down by Panama had a track or two left-turning towards us. Not sure what's going on with the guy E of the Antilles, seems to have outrun his convection ATM.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 281. StormPro:
Well I have a masters in math and am an engineer so maybe 3896(that agreed with AGW) divided by 11944 (scientist asked) works out to 97% in your world, but to an empirical mind it cannot. [Irrelevant anecdotes about 6th graders]

No one ever claimed that 3896/11944 is 97%. You are being deliberately dishonest by claiming someone did so.

Read my post again. Read the paper. Until then, perhaps you should leave the scientific interpretation to the science experts in the field.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
We need some tropical action to cool down the Caribbean. PR is burning hot for the last couple of days.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 277. ncstorm:


Scott..I have posted two different websites including one from your side about the details from the leaked IPCC report..I dont know what more you want....you asked for the link..I gave it to you..

Comment 255 was from a different article from the wall street journal about the IPCC and its upcoming report..two different conversations..

This is what he's asking:

Until you show me that the report actually said that, and not that some non-scientist journalist concluded it, you haven't cited your source.

So you can either provide him with a link to the leaked report now, or wait until it comes out and link it then. Otherwise we don't know what the report said, we just know what someone said it said (aka hearsay).
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 277. ncstorm:


Scott..I have posted two different websites including one from your side about the details from the leaked IPCC report..I dont know what more you want..

Cite your original assertion. Quote the paragraph or sentences where the claim was made that IPCC will shown climatic warming has slowed or stopped. This cannot be something you've concluded, or something an opinion article concluded. It needs to be an actual source, actually quoting the IPCC. If you can't do that, than your claim is unsourceable and you should stop defending it.

It cannot be any more crystal clear.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 284. ScottLincoln:

I'm also awaiting your correction to the incorrect claim 3 pages back where you said that no one ever tells you why you are wrong or cites sources, they just tell you that you are wrong.

Besides the fact that I know for a fact that science-minded folks on here with science knowledge actually do, over and over, cite their sources, I just did it myself, to which point you decided to make accusations and lash out.

So I'm sure that you would like to make an addendum to your previous comments now that they are no longer accurate?

Nope, my comment is accurate if you are doing math and not trying to spread misleading, manipulated numbers my friend. BTW, I believe the burning of fossil fuels is affecting the climate, but not at the pace that is reported, then retracted, then reported again
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Member Since: July 15, 2006 Posts: 178 Comments: 56141
Quoting 263. Neapolitan:
Or like believing the earth is just 4,500 years old, and that climate change is a socialist hoax, and being thoroughly confused about basic human anatomy, yet nevertheless being an influential member of the United States House Committee on Science, Space and Technology.


Oooh, Burn!! Really, though, how do they get those positions??? Such a travesty...
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 259. StormPro:

That number is misleading. Please refrain from promoting false info. Thanks

I'm also awaiting your correction to the incorrect claim 3 pages back where you said that no one ever tells you why you are wrong or cites sources, they just tell you that you are wrong.

Besides the fact that I know for a fact that science-minded folks on here with science knowledge actually do, over and over, cite their sources, I just did it myself, to which point you decided to make accusations and lash out.

So I'm sure that you would like to make an addendum to your previous comments now that they are no longer accurate?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Progster:
And now for something completely different:



Its is very uncommon for the circulation of west Pacific ex typhoons to reach the North American west coast. Ex- Frieda produced the Columbus day storm of 1962 which was equivalent to a Cat-3 in terms of winds and damage. Tracking the circulation of extratropically transitioned storms is often best done using the 500 mb vorticity maxima, which makes the CMC track interesting...and a little worrisome. But its a few days out yet.


It is common....

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
While every body talks about GW
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 274. ScottLincoln:

You need to research the definition of the term cherry picking. You asked for a source of a number. I gave you the source. That's not cherry picking, it's called citing a source.

In no way is it misleading to say that, of papers with a position statement on anthropogenic global warming theory, roughly 97% agree. That was the conclusion of the paper.
Speaking of mislead, your hidden claim is that because only ~30% of total papers analyzed had an agreement with the IPCC conclusion on AGW theory, that the other ~70 disagreed. This shows that you have a misunderstanding of how science works, especially in the peer-reviewed literature. Over time, some concepts become so well-established that they are no longer debated in a paper. They are cited, assumed to be correct, and then a new topic based upon the older conclusion is addressed. And that's just talking about the body of the paper... Cook et al looked at the abstracts, which are summaries. Obviously, when a concept is well-established it wouldn't be talked about over and over in a paper's summary that isn't about establishing the basic science anymore!

Consider this your friendly reminder not to accuse someone of lying or being misleading when they know more about a topic than you do.


Well I have a masters in math and am an engineer so maybe 3896(that agreed with AGW) divided by 11944 (scientist asked) works out to 97% in your world, but to an empirical mind it cannot. Just because a scientist doesn't have an opinion doesn't mean you throw out his being asked to suit your number. Really my 6th grader can do the math. You cannot solve for x by discounting the value of y
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Imagine you live in a nice house in a village in a valley in the Northern USA. Up on a hill above the village there is a large-house-size rounded boulder perched on a rock outcrop. A group of young guys are trying out their strength by rocking the boulder to see if they can move it. Each time it rocks it moves a tiny bit further than the last time.

Are you content to sit in your house in the valley below that boulder and just watch the guys play up there, assuming nothing more will happen? Or do you get nervous about the possibility (as they continue the possibility becomes more like probability) that they'll get that monster rock to move enough to tip it off the rock outcrop and send it rolling into the valley where you live. If that were to happen, and it seems closer and closer to happening as they continue to play up there, you'd have maybe as much as a minute to get out of the way before your house and a lot of others will be crushed.

What to do? What to do?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 271. taco2me61:
Good Morning All,

I was going to make a comment about all this but I think I will just leave it alone....
Although I do have my own Opinion about all of this and "I just Do Not Believe" in it.... Not in AGW, Climate Change, Sea Level Rise and or Melting Ice Caps.... That's my opinion and i don't have to read anything to tell me other wise.... I do believe it is a "Cycle" and as the World Turns we all will have our "Up's and Downs".... just saying....

I was hoping to check in about the Weather but I see there is no reason to do just that today....

Maybe I'll check back tomorrow and see if we are back to chating about the Weather....

Yall have a Great Day

Taco :o)
Just remember, Taco, you are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 268. yoboi:



If you think that you have west nile you should go get checked as soon as you can.....there is some meds that can help but the chances of it helping needs to be provided ASAP....hope you get better....


Thanks yoboi, I have been battling this for a couple weeks, and hopefully we have entered the endgame. If things are not better by Monday, off to the doc's I go.

Unfortunately, I do not have any health insurance - so I am waiting for the "evil" ACA to come into effect, so that I can afford to pick up some coverage.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 260. ScottLincoln:

No need for irrelevant hyperbole. Just cite your assertion.

You have yet to source your claim that the new report is going to say that warming slowed down or stopped on climatically-relevant timescales. Instead you just shared some information about the previous report that you wanted to jab in there.

Cite your original assertion.


Scott..I have posted two different websites including one from your side about the details from the leaked IPCC report..I dont know what more you want....you asked for the link..I gave it to you..

Comment 255 was from a different article from the wall street journal about the IPCC and its upcoming report..two different conversations..

Member Since: August 19, 2006 Posts: 13 Comments: 16225
Quoting 211. ncstorm:
well guys Im out till later..

It has been an interesting morning and I enjoyed the debate as well..civil and entertaining

(and the best part of the morning is that I think I won a debate with Nea)
There wasn't any debate. You asked a question, Nea's response didn't suit you. Whether you won or lost this "exchange" is probably mostly in the eyes of the beholder.

FWIW a debate is the statement of a proposition and then statements* by one side supporting the proposition and by the other side denying the proposition. It really only works well if the proposition is clearly stated and fairly narrowly defined and if both sides stick to the given proposition and don't dance around the issue.

*The correct term instead of "statements" is "arguments", but not arguments in the commonly used sense of the word. We get a lot of arguments on this blog, but we almost never see a true debate.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Lotsa room in the server to blog about whatever you want, as this is a free Site.


The authors entry is what matters, not tantrums.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 259. StormPro:


And the person I'm quoting in this maybe cherry picking also. This 97% figure has been throw around here like a blanket to cover the dog puke stain on the couch. That is 32% of scientist asked actually endorse the AGW THEORY. Not 97% of said scientist. That number is misleading. Please refain from promoting false info. Thanks

You need to research the definition of the term cherry picking. You asked for a source of a number. I gave you the source. That's not cherry picking, it's called citing a source.

In no way is it misleading to say that, of papers with a position statement on anthropogenic global warming theory, roughly 97% agree. That was the conclusion of the paper.
Speaking of mislead, your hidden claim is that because only ~30% of total papers analyzed had an agreement with the IPCC conclusion on AGW theory, that the other ~70 disagreed. This shows that you have a misunderstanding of how science works, especially in the peer-reviewed literature. Over time, some concepts become so well-established that they are no longer debated in a paper. They are cited, assumed to be correct, and then a new topic based upon the older conclusion is addressed. And that's just talking about the body of the paper... Cook et al looked at the abstracts, which are summaries. Obviously, when a concept is well-established it wouldn't be talked about over and over in a paper's summary that isn't about establishing the basic science anymore!

Consider this your friendly reminder not to accuse someone of lying or being misleading when they know more about a topic than you do.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 256. LAbonbon:


Hope you feel better, DJ. Take care.


Thanks LA - I will, given time, Tylenol, and sleep. Back to bed for me. Have a good one.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 265. LAbonbon:


weatherman - I have always read your posts with interest. Your 'weather' posts are meticulous and well thought out.

I, too, have a great interest in hydrology and water resources issues. More so than in tropical weather (sacrilege to the blog, I know!). Please, if it's not too much trouble, share any water resources-related information you come across. (Or, wumail, if you prefer, if it seems 'off topic'.)

Thanks


Here is an older article on the Florida water issue (link below) but I am posting the beginning of the paper:


“The source of the water crisis is simple but exceedingly difficult to address, water resources are finite but the population that depends on those supplies is increasing inexorably.” Dennis Hjeresen, Los Alamos National Laboratory and the Green Chemistry Institute 1

Water remains essential for life. According to the United Nations, 1.1 billion people throughout the world have no access to safe drinking water. In the United States,this is certainly not the case. However, water conflicts have pitted Colorado, Arizona,and other western states against each other, particularly in periods of drought, and Florida is no exception.


I would argue that this world-wide crisis is the most important facing Mankind at the moment. Drought related to potential climate change impacts this directly.

Link
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Good Morning All,

I was going to make a comment about all this but I think I will just leave it alone....
Although I do have my own Opinion about all of this and "I just Do Not Believe" in it.... Not in AGW, Climate Change, Sea Level Rise and or Melting Ice Caps.... That's my opinion and i don't have to read anything to tell me other wise.... I do believe it is a "Cycle" and as the World Turns we all will have our "Up's and Downs".... just saying....

I was hoping to check in about the Weather but I see there is no reason to do just that today....

Maybe I'll check back tomorrow and see if we are back to chating about the Weather....

Yall have a Great Day

Taco :o)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:

Changes in Average Annual Runoff
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Member Since: July 15, 2006 Posts: 178 Comments: 56141
268. yoboi
Quoting 240. daddyjames:
G'morning from Central OK,

Mid-90's is the forecast for today (ouch) as the front approaches from the west. Saturday is still expected to be wet for the Southern plains.

Low 100's is the personal forecast as I continue to battle what appears to be a flu (West Nile?) I don't know.

For the tropics - I have no idea what is going on, but did I ever? For that matter did anyone this year? ;)

All you AGWer's out there, fight the good fight! I have no patience to listen to the drivel and the carp spewed by the AGWers (think about it) on the other side - so I am bowing out for the day.

Have a good day! Hope all is well with you. In this case, misery does not want any company. :)




If you think that you have west nile you should go get checked as soon as you can.....there is some meds that can help but the chances of it helping needs to be provided ASAP....hope you get better....
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 255. ncstorm:
Wall Street Journal again..I guess this will be called a piece of garbage as Time Magazine..

excerpt from the above article:

When the IPCC issues a report, it assures the world that the organization bases its conclusions on reputable, peer-reviewed scientific literature, and that its members are comprised of the world's top experts and best scientists. Yet when IPCC personnel answered a 2010 questionnaire sponsored by the InterAcademy Council (a network of national science academies), there were repeated complaints about unqualified individual members. For example, one individual (the responses to the questionnaire were anonymized) said there are "far too many politically correct appointments" involving people with "insufficient scientific competence to do anything useful."

Rajendra Pachauri, the IPCC's chairman since 2002, has repeatedly said that the IPCC bases its conclusions solely on peer-reviewed source material. Yet many of the sources cited by the 3,000-page 2007 IPCC report were press releases, news clippings, discussion papers and unpublished master's and doctoral-degree theses. The IPCC's highly embarrassing, since-retracted claim that the Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035 came from a 2005 World Wildlife Fund publication.
The IPCC report will say what it says. That's what will need to be discussed.

And talk about agendas! The WSJ clearly has a pro-business and pro-BAU agenda. That doesn't make them a totally unreliable source, and it doesn't make their reports "garbage", but it means that a reader should be aware of those biases. News reporting may be pretty straightforward, but the opinion pieces need to be read with a large salt shaker nearby.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
I do, I do, I do Like IPCC and egg's...

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 250. weathermanwannabe:
In follow-up to the comment that I made a few days ago about "fresh water" being the most pressing issue facing Mankind at the moment (whether directly impacted by climate change issues or not), I was watching the Florida Channel last night and there are a meeting/conference recently down here where the issue/concern discussed are some projections regarding the drying up of the groundwater aquifers for South Florida.

Some estimates are coming in about water shortages in the next few years in South Florida and they also discussed the issue of the large costs associated with desalinization plants.

Seem to me they need to take advantage of heavy rain events and start thinking about creating additional water conservation areas/reservoirs down there instead of continuing to dump fresh water into the coast from Lake O. Seems logical to me.

THAT is a pressing short-term issue for many parts of the United States climate change issues aside.



weatherman - I have always read your posts with interest. Your 'weather' posts are meticulous and well thought out.

I, too, have a great interest in hydrology and water resources issues. More so than in tropical weather (sacrilege to the blog, I know!). Please, if it's not too much trouble, share any water resources-related information you come across. (Or, wumail, if you prefer, if it seems 'off topic'.)

Thanks
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Good day all. Pleasant morning here in Austin. Temps are in the 80s with highs in the low 90s. Not bad at all.
Interesting read this morning. I had never heard of the IPCC before. It sounds like this is quite a comprehensive report that they have been working on. Will it be available to the general public as these four parts are being released?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 257. ScottLincoln:

It's beyond just that. It's like believing the moon landing was faked and staged by the government, but then being an active contributor to a blog on space travel and astronauts. It makes little if any sense on any rational level.
Or like believing the earth is just 4,500 years old, and that climate change is a socialist hoax, and being thoroughly confused about basic human anatomy, yet nevertheless being an influential member of the United States House Committee on Science, Space and Technology.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13803
The Nobel Prize-winning IPCC has put together an amazingly authoritative and comprehensive report on a subject crucial to the future of civilization, a report that will guide policymakers worldwide as they struggle to cope with the growing chaos generated by the Great Climate Disruption that is already upon us. The first 31 pages of the report, called the "Summary For Policymakers", is what will be released Friday, and this summary will lay out a powerful scientific case that significant climate change with severe impacts is already occurring, humans are mostly responsible, the pace of climate change is expected to accelerate, and we can make choices to cut emissions of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases to limit the damage.


Word...
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Dr. Masters comes on the Democracy now at the 29.04 mark in the broadcast.

As for sea level. Isostatic rebound is not a serious factor here in Florida, and doesn't effect the trend globally. IT IS RISING, it is HOTTER.

What Dr. M had to say about the fuzziness of climate change and hurricanes was interesting. I'm sorry to hear about the lack of Drought information in this section of the IPCC report.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 255. ncstorm:
Wall Street Journal again..I guess this will be called a piece of garbage as Time Magazine..

No need for irrelevant hyperbole. Just cite your assertion.
Quoting 255. ncstorm:


excerpt from the above article:
[excerpt that had nothing to do with the original point or follow-up questions]

You have yet to source your claim that the new report is going to say that warming slowed down or stopped on climatically-relevant timescales. Instead you just shared some information about the previous report that you wanted to jab in there.

Cite your original assertion.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 178. ScottLincoln:

You can read the publication documenting the process of reaching the 97% figure in Cook et al (2013).

The only number close to "79" in the original person's claim was the number of papers that did not back up anthropogenic warming theory (Table 3)

Position %_of_all %out_of_"w/ AGW position"
Endorse AGW 32.6% (3896) 97.1

No position 66.4% (7930) %u2014

Reject AGW 0.7% (78) 1.9

Uncertain on 0.3% (40) 1.0
AGW


The person you are quoting seems to have made a massive mistake in citing the results.


And the person I'm quoting in this maybe cherry picking also. This 97% figure has been throw around here like a blanket to cover the dog puke stain on the couch. That is 32% of scientist asked actually endorse the AGW THEORY. Not 97% of said scientist. That number is misleading. Please refrain from promoting false info. Thanks
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
258. yoboi
Quoting 249. Naga5000:


The IPCC does not do the research.



You are correct....I just hope that they don't cherry pick what information will be included in the report...Do they provide the data they rejected for the report???? if so could you please provide a link....TIA
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 253. congaline:
I am so tired of the people that come on here claiming to be interested in the science of weather, yet are so clueless about the reality of G.W. It's like arguing with people who think the walk on the moon was staged and never happened. I especially hate hearing those ridiculous people who have the nerve to come on to Dr Masters blog and make dumb comments about him driving an energy efficient car. WTH?

It's beyond just that. It's like believing the moon landing was faked and staged by the government, but then being an active contributor to a blog on space travel and astronauts. It makes little if any sense on any rational level.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 240. daddyjames:
G'morning from Central OK,

Mid-90's is the forecast for today (ouch) as the front approaches from the west. Saturday is still expected to be wet for the Southern plains.

Low 100's is the personal forecast as I continue to battle what appears to be a flu (West Nile?) I don't know.

For the tropics - I have no idea what is going on, but did I ever? For that matter did anyone this year? ;)

All you AGWer's out there, fight the good fight! I have no patience to listen to the drivel and the carp spewed by the AGWers (think about it) on the other side - so I am bowing out for the day.

Have a good day! Hope all is well with you. In this case, misery does not want any company. :)



Hope you feel better, DJ. Take care.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Wall Street Journal again..I guess this will be called a piece of garbage as Time Magazine..

excerpt from the above article:

When the IPCC issues a report, it assures the world that the organization bases its conclusions on reputable, peer-reviewed scientific literature, and that its members are comprised of the world's top experts and best scientists. Yet when IPCC personnel answered a 2010 questionnaire sponsored by the InterAcademy Council (a network of national science academies), there were repeated complaints about unqualified individual members. For example, one individual (the responses to the questionnaire were anonymized) said there are "far too many politically correct appointments" involving people with "insufficient scientific competence to do anything useful."

Rajendra Pachauri, the IPCC's chairman since 2002, has repeatedly said that the IPCC bases its conclusions solely on peer-reviewed source material. Yet many of the sources cited by the 3,000-page 2007 IPCC report were press releases, news clippings, discussion papers and unpublished master's and doctoral-degree theses. The IPCC's highly embarrassing, since-retracted claim that the Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035 came from a 2005 World Wildlife Fund publication.
Member Since: August 19, 2006 Posts: 13 Comments: 16225
Quoting 241. rickdove:
IPCC has an agenda. They were created because in 1988 influential people concluded man was seriously hurting the earth. If it turns out man is not causing life threatening climate change then the influential people would lose their influence (that will not happen). Its like asking McDonalds to lead research on whether or not a big mac causes heart attacks. the IPCC is biased and will make sure all statistics back up their desired results.

IPCC is essentually the same thing as McDonalds? Scientists objectively studying a topic are the same thing as a profit-making entity studying themselves?

You cannot be serious. No rational person would actually conclude any of that to be true.
Quoting 241. rickdove:

i've worked with statistics most of my life and I have learned i can use stats to prove two completely different desired results (without lying). All that being said i have come to the belief that the climate is changing and man is playing a factor in the warming but i'm not convinced the man made component is going to destroy mankind. [Irrelevant political statement]

So wait... it was all a big biased hoax, but now it isn't?

Has the IPCC ever predicted that climate change will "destroy mankind?" I am skeptical. I think you made it up.

So you've "worked with statistics all your life" but are you a physicist? A meteorologist? An atmospheric chemist? An environmental scientist? Just working with statistics does not mean that you will use them properly for a given situation, nor does it make you an expert on in a scientific field that just happens to use statistics.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
I am so tired of the people that come on here claiming to be interested in the science of weather, yet are so clueless about the reality of G.W. It's like arguing with people who think the walk on the moon was staged and never happened. I especially hate hearing those ridiculous people who have the nerve to come on to Dr Masters blog and make dumb comments about him driving an energy efficient car. WTH?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Member Since: July 15, 2006 Posts: 178 Comments: 56141
Quoting 241. rickdove:
IPCC has an agenda. They were created because in 1988 influential people concluded man was seriously hurting the earth. If it turns out man is not causing life threatening climate change then the influential people would lose their influence (that will not happen). Its like asking McDonalds to lead research on whether or not a big mac causes heart attacks. the IPCC is biased and will make sure all statistics back up their desired results. i've worked with statistics most of my life and I have learned i can use stats to prove two completely different desired results (without lying). All that being said i have come to the belief that the climate is changing and man is playing a factor in the warming but i'm not convinced the man made component is going to destroy mankind. So i'm not willing to pay taxes or give up my SUV or use less eletricity etc....


One that understands STATS and the relativity of a Correlation to a Coefficient then a conclusion can be reached.....but data collected cannot be over just a small period of time.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
In follow-up to the comment that I made a few days ago about "fresh water" being the most pressing issue facing Mankind at the moment (whether directly impacted by climate change issues or not), I was watching the Florida Channel last night and there are a meeting/conference recently down here where the issue/concern discussed are some projections regarding the drying up of the groundwater aquifers for South Florida.

Some estimates are coming in about water shortages in the next few years in South Florida and they also discussed the issue of the large costs associated with desalinization plants.

Seem to me they need to take advantage of heavy rain events and start thinking about creating additional water conservation areas/reservoirs down there instead of continuing to dump fresh water into the coast from Lake O. Seems logical to me.

THAT is a pressing short-term issue for many parts of the United States climate change issues aside.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 241. rickdove:
IPCC has an agenda. They were created because in 1988 influential people concluded man was seriously hurting the earth. If it turns out man is not causing life threatening climate change then the influential people would lose their influence (that will not happen). Its like asking McDonalds to lead research on whether or not a big mac causes heart attacks. the IPCC is biased and will make sure all statistics back up their desired results. i've worked with statistics most of my life and I have learned i can use stats to prove two completely different desired results (without lying). All that being said i have come to the belief that the climate is changing and man is playing a factor in the warming but i'm not convinced the man made component is going to destroy mankind. So i'm not willing to pay taxes or give up my SUV or use less eletricity etc....


The IPCC does not do the research.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 226. Naga5000:



What renewable, sustainable energy sources are there though which are not going to cost an arm and a leg to produce? We really are in a very hard place right now, especially with the diminishing supplies of fossil fuels. Our economy and way of life are based on cheap energy so I don't see us maintaining our standard of living in the fairly near future.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 236. ScottLincoln:

So you're going to leave before you cite your source?
First I was skeptical. Now it's suspicious.


well google is your friend..

but here you go..just for you

Wall Street Journal
Member Since: August 19, 2006 Posts: 13 Comments: 16225
Quoting 242. JohnLonergan:


Scott,

The Wall Street Journal is now essentially a Rupert Murdoch propaganda outlet and has a woeful record in its climate reporting.

I agree with everything you said, just thought this is relevant.

Thanks... but honestly I typically don't care who owns this or that (even though there probably is a correlation). The track record speaks volumes for a publication. When they fire all of their science journalists, when they publish leaked technical documents without much effort to get actual experts to interpret them, then that should make anyone of sound judgement skeptical.

When someone cites a media article that did all of the interpretation for them on a document that may not even be the real thing or the final draft, one should be skeptical of that person.

If you find yourself in this situation and are just dying to quote the article because you just must must must talk about what it says and don't want to be skeptical, you must, without question, temper your certainty with qualifiers like "it seems like" or "apparently." Failing to do so brings your credibility into question, and makes you look incapable of critical thinking skills.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 237. superpete:
Big change from yesterday,Caribbean was devoid of convection & now we have a pair of observation areas to monitor



Looks like the circulation may be a little ahead of the convection in that shot. It has to be numbered if it comes within 500 miles of landmass... so I'm guessing 5pm?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 234. redwagon:


Sure am glad there's 'no tropical activity' to track 'at this time'.... what's the hold up



3 things this year! DRY air, Strong Shear, and the lack of much Bermuda High which has caused more Shear.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Thanks Dr. Masters,
Member Since: Posts: Comments:

Viewing: 293 - 243

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18Blog Index

Top of Page

About

Jeff co-founded the Weather Underground in 1995 while working on his Ph.D. He flew with the NOAA Hurricane Hunters from 1986-1990.

Local Weather

Partly Cloudy
34 °F
Partly Cloudy

JeffMasters's Recent Photos

Lake Effort Snow Shower Over Windsor, Ontario
Sunset on Dunham Lake
Pictured Rocks Sunset
Sunset on Lake Huron