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: 193 - 143

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

Quoting 186. luvtogolf:
I wonder how long it will take Dr. Master's to drive back to Michigan in his energy efficient car? I've never made the drive but I'm guessing it is in the 16-18 hour range.

How would that differ from a non "energy efficient car"?
How is this relevant in any way?
Member Since: September 28, 2002 Posts: 5 Comments: 2895
Quoting 139. ScottLincoln:

Let me stop you there. It's hard to take the rest of your post seriously when you are immediately wrong in the first sentence. And we aren't just talking a mistatement, or an exaggeration. It's a direct falsehood.

Perhaps you should actually do the work and look for the answer? Temperatures continue to follow the warming trend.

No one cares that you stayed at a national hotel chain last night, that only works in the commercials.
There should be an automatic ban for anyone posting false info period...
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 185. Naga5000:


They are speaking about surface air temperature only. New research published after the report has shown the opposite, an accelerated warming signal over the last 15 years when looking at land, sea surface, and deep ocean warming.

Link


New research from the IPCC?..no.
Member Since: August 19, 2006 Posts: 13 Comments: 13481
Dr. M: Excellent post on the 2013 IPCC Report; however, the “test pilot” in me begs for one more bit of information. I’m sure the 1990, 1995, 2001, and 2007 reports were compiled using the best available scientific data, but over time, our data quality MUST have improved due to better technology involved in the data collection. Since all “predictions” have a measurable amount of error that can be quantified after some part of the time period of the prediction is past, can we now go to the past reports to see if the quality of the prediction itself is improving? For example: If the 1990 report had a standard deviation of n over 10 years, does the 1995 report reflect an error of .97n and the 2001 report show .94n? If that is the case, then validity of current predictions is improving. Can any of the experts on the blog tackle this one?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Now there's a New angle on the Science.

Thanx.

; )
Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 415 Comments: 125715
Get out the yellow pencil. Look at that big blowup near Panama in the Southern Caribbean and how about that large mass just East of the islands. The tropics are coming back to life!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 177. ncstorm:


thanks Naga for replying..I appreciate your answer..however the leaked IPCC report has stated that the earth has slowed down in warming..they are the Authority on global warming and climate change..are you disputing that claim from them?

I would bet heavily that you've interpreted the report incorrectly. At least you are misunderstanding climate variability and climate change timescales. I am very very doubtful that the report will claim a slowdown in warming or cooling over a climate change relevant timescale. Very skeptical.

Don't you think it would be wise to read the real report, instead of some "leaked" version you found online? Sometimes "leaked" versions are not what you think they are. The fact that you are not waiting for the real report should be considered suspect.

If you'd like to try and berate this point further, perhaps you should directly quote the claim you are repeating. Cite a source, point us directly to where you read it. Otherwise it's begging for skepticism.
Member Since: September 28, 2002 Posts: 5 Comments: 2895
I wonder how long it will take Dr. Master's to drive back to Michigan in his energy efficient car? I've never made the drive but I'm guessing it is in the 16-18 hour range.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 177. ncstorm:


thanks Naga for replying..I appreciate your answer..however the leaked IPCC report has stated that the earth has slowed down in warming..they are the Authority on global warming and climate change..are you disputing that claim from them?


They are speaking about surface air temperature only. New research published after the report has shown the opposite, an accelerated warming signal over the last 15 years when looking at land, sea surface, and deep ocean warming.

Link
Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 2736
This looks nice on satellite for a system not even named. Actually better looking than some of the systems we have had this year.



And this one too! Convectively very-cold cloud tops.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
183. yoboi
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) —

Reject AGW 0.7% (78) 1.9

Uncertain on 0.3% (40) 1.0
AGW





Is this the same cook????

Link
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 173. GTstormChaserCaleb:
Well the FIM-9 likes the area in the SW Caribbean, something to keep an eye on in the next few days. Looks like a trough will come along and try to turn it northeast towards FL.


Looks like stormy weather stuff for me
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 175. Patrap:
The Pentagon and Global Insurer's know the seriousness of the Problem facing civilization.

Thus there actions on Climate change speak volumes on it.

..try da Google's on dat.

Or go with Glenn Beck maybe?


That's the pot calling the kettle black...especially having Al Gore leading that crusade....
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Coffee humor is a hard grasp.




Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 415 Comments: 125715
I really would also like to put it out there not everyone who doesnt believe in GW is a republican or watch Fox news..another tactic used by alarmists..

I voted for President Obama and I only watch Fox for NFL football..LOL

so lets cease with the right/left agenda and tying it with GW..
Member Since: August 19, 2006 Posts: 13 Comments: 13481
Quoting 133. StormPro:

I am awaiting the Pro AGW response to these numbers on the reported 97%. Sounds a tad bit like cherry picking numbers if this is true. I'm enjoying the comments

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.
Member Since: September 28, 2002 Posts: 5 Comments: 2895
Quoting 172. Naga5000:


To answer your question, there hasn't been a slow down in warming or a cooling trend. Air temperature has not risen as quickly in recent years, however ocean energy content has greatly increased. In fact, the UK Met Office has said if this energy had gone into the atmosphere it would have lead to 65F of warming.

"Total ocean heat content has increased by around 170 Zettajoules since 1970, and about 255 Zettajoules since 1955. This increased temperature has caused the oceans (0-2,000 meters) to warm about 0.09 C over this period. As the UK’s Met Office points out, if the same amount of energy had gone into the lower atmosphere it would of caused about 36 C (nearly 65 degrees F) warming! The oceans are by far the largest heat sink for the Earth, absorbing the vast majority of extra heat trapped in the system by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases."


thanks Naga for replying..I appreciate your answer..however the leaked IPCC report has stated that the earth has slowed down in warming..they are the Authority on global warming and climate change..are you disputing that claim from them?
Member Since: August 19, 2006 Posts: 13 Comments: 13481
Patrap, that comment about Florida being a barrier, Island doesn't have anything to do with the game this Monday does it. Because an ill wind is starting to whip up down here. It's plotting a NW direction. Good Luck not. By the why my 1.5 cents today is the system down by Panama looks to be trouble if it comes north.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
The Pentagon and Global Insurer's know the seriousness of the Problem facing civilization.

Thus their actions on Climate change speak volumes on it.

..try da Google's on dat.

Or go with Glenn Beck maybe?
Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 415 Comments: 125715
Aight laterz this is getting out of control (comment 171). ill be back later if the blog EVER cools down.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Well the FIM-9 likes the area in the SW Caribbean, something to keep an eye on in the next few days. Looks like a trough will come along and try to turn it northeast towards FL.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 150. ncstorm:


again..your answer to the leaked report is no where in your comment??..this is quite comical that you are avoiding the question..what does other people comments have to do with my question I asked of the first time ever on this blog? You choose to quote me but yet you dont provide an answer to a simple question

Anyone else from Nea's side of the camp? I really would like to know your thinking as well. Seriously..


To answer your question, there hasn't been a slow down in warming or a cooling trend. Air temperature has not risen as quickly in recent years, however ocean energy content has greatly increased. In fact, the UK Met Office has said if this energy had gone into the atmosphere it would have lead to 65F of warming.

"Total ocean heat content has increased by around 170 Zettajoules since 1970, and about 255 Zettajoules since 1955. This increased temperature has caused the oceans (0-2,000 meters) to warm about 0.09 C over this period. As the UK’s Met Office points out, if the same amount of energy had gone into the lower atmosphere it would of caused about 36 C (nearly 65 degrees F) warming! The oceans are by far the largest heat sink for the Earth, absorbing the vast majority of extra heat trapped in the system by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases."
Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 2736
Quoting 150. ncstorm:


again..your answer to the leaked report is no where in your comment??..this is quite comical that you are avoiding the question..what does other people comments have to do with my question I asked of the first time ever on this blog? You choose to quote me but yet you dont provide an answer to a simple question

Anyone else from Nea's side of the camp? I really would like to know your thinking as well. Seriously..


NC, you won't get an answer just like I didn't to the cherry picking of figures. When there is no answer other than "I'm wrong" you get silence. Kinda like a liberal screaming racist when they are losing an argument about freedoms and rights and\or economics. Have a great and day revel in the victory of silence!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Even if increased levels of CO2 somehow didn't warm the planet, we are fully aware that burning fossil fuels is a dirty and primitive way to obtain energy.

Cutting Carbon Emissions Could Save 3 Million Lives Per Year By 2100, Study Finds

BY KATIE VALENTINE ON SEPTEMBER 23, 2013 AT 2:13 PM

Reducing greenhouse gas emissions won’t just help alleviate climate change – it could also help save millions of lives each year, according to a new study.

The study, published Sunday in Nature Climate Change, found up to 3 million premature deaths could be avoided each year globally by 2100 if aggressive emissions cuts are made. By reducing carbon emissions, the study states, the world will also reduce “co-pollutants” such as ozone and particulates. Long-term exposure to these pollutants has been linked to premature death.

“It is pretty striking that you can make an argument purely on health grounds to control climate change,” said Jason West, one of the study’s lead authors.

The study broke the potential lives saved from reducing carbon emissions into increments: in 2030, aggressive carbon cuts would save 300,000-700,000 premature deaths a year, jumping to 800,000 – 1.8 million in 2050 and 1.4 million to 3 million in 2100.

The study also found another surprising co-benefit of reducing emissions: By cutting each ton of CO2, the associated cost savings of were $50 to $380, based on a cost-benefit analysis that associates saving lives with saving money — more, the study found, than the estimated cost of cutting carbon in the next few decades.


More at Climate Progress --->
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 162. luvtogolf:
He still didn't answer your question........


um humm..I know..he knows as well..
Member Since: August 19, 2006 Posts: 13 Comments: 13481
Quoting 153. luvtogolf:
This is going to be a fun day:)




Gonna be interesting for a few days.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 158. Neapolitan:
You're certainly free to call it "avoiding the question" if you wish. But I've given my reasons for doing what I'm doing, and if that's not good enough for you, well, so be it. I've written tens of thousands of words here in response to questions and comments both polite and angry, so it's pretty obvious I avoid nothing. Nope, just taking a different route today, that's all.

Take care!


Those responses were not in rebuttal to the leaked IPCC report, oh well, we skeptics are all here to learn from you scientists right? I guess that will be another day..take care to you as well!

Member Since: August 19, 2006 Posts: 13 Comments: 13481
Quoting 159. yoboi:


I doubt you get an answer from him... he put himself out there this yr with the artic sea ice prediction and he missed the mark by 175%....


LOL.....well he wasn't off that much! Well maybe!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
People who know GW is happening and is caused by humans don't want to hear that. In fact, they would much rather hear that it's not happening at all. We aren't sadists--this is a serious, unfortunate threat.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
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.

All I got to say is WOW! I'm wondering isn't that something on the level of Mars?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
He still didn't answer your question........
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
2013 season so far...

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 152. originalLT:
To all of you arguing GW, remember a line from the song "The Boxer" by Simon and Garfunkle--"for a man hears what he wants to hear, and disregards the rest".



its kinda like the answer

what if we build a better world for nothing
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
159. yoboi
Quoting 150. ncstorm:


again..your answer to the leaked report is no where in your comment??..this is quite comical that you are avoiding the question..what does other people comments have to do with my question I asked of the first time ever on this blog? You choose to quote me but yet you dont provide an answer to a simple question

Anyone else from Nea's side of the camp? I really would like to know your thinking as well. Seriously..


I doubt you get an answer from him... he put himself out there this yr with the artic sea ice prediction and he missed the mark by 175%....
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 150. ncstorm:


again..your answer to the leaked report is no where in your comment??..this is quite comical that you are avoiding the question..what does other people comments have to do with my question I asked of the first time ever on this blog? You choose to quote me but yet you dont provide an answer to a simple question

Anyone else from Nea's side of the camp? I really would like to know your thinking as well. Seriously..
You're certainly free to call it "avoiding the question" if you wish. But I've given my reasons for doing what I'm doing, and if that's not good enough for you, well, so be it. I've written tens of thousands of words here in response to questions and comments both polite and angry, so it's pretty obvious I avoid nothing. Nope, just taking a different route today, that's all.

Take care!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
the reality of your post dr masters is kinda scary.

“represent a major threat to international security and are already having harmful consequences over many parts of the globe"

"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"

hard to fix things we don't fully undertstand
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 153. luvtogolf:
This is going to be a fun day:)


The good thing: sooner or later, all of the informative articles on global warming will be used on this blog already and then no one will post anything on it since the information was already read.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 144. JohnLonergan:


That shouldn't be called recovery it's more like remission; it's only a temporary blip.

"Regression to the mean"

Happened as expected. Where's the article about the sea ice convention last year where the majority of experts in attendance polled forecasted more ice in 2013 compared to 2012?

Makes sense though, because most experts know the difference between variability and trend. Weather and climate....its almost like they are not the same.
Member Since: September 28, 2002 Posts: 5 Comments: 2895
Quoting 146. LAbonbon:


This type of comment would be right at home in the Yahoo comments section. Out of respect for Dr. Masters (who is the author of this blog), as well as your fellow bloggers, perhaps not comparing folks to farm animals would be a good idea...



bah....bah....bah...
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
This is going to be a fun day:)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
To all of you arguing GW, remember a line from the song "The Boxer" by Simon and Garfunkle--"for a man hears what he wants to hear, and disregards the rest".
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
If an asteroid hit earth and the earth burst into flames the asteroid would be man made i'm sure causing GW!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 140. Neapolitan:
After wading through the thickening contrarian muck both here and elsewhere the past several days in advance of the release of the IPCC report, I thought it might be educational and more than a little fun to show just how very much alike most contrarian/denialist comments are. Some may not enjoy my little synopses, but I'm certainly entertained... ;-)


again..your answer to the leaked report is no where in your comment??..this is quite comical that you are avoiding the question..what does other people comments have to do with my question I asked of the first time ever on this blog? You choose to quote me but yet you dont provide an answer to a simple question

Anyone else from Nea's side of the camp? I really would like to know your thinking as well. Seriously..
Member Since: August 19, 2006 Posts: 13 Comments: 13481
Quoting 122. KEEPEROFTHEGATE:
we have loss so much that any gain is too look like a positive affect in fact its still below in terms of age

young ice fast to melt need 5 to 10 year old ice longer and harder too melt
I see thanks for pointing this out. I think this is a better look at things and how it has progressed over the years.

Significant drop from 2011-2012, so it would make sense that even though their seems to be a recovery this year, it would need to double to get back to 2011 levels to offset the melting that occurred last year.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 70. rjsenterp:
I assume neglects the fact that global warming has halted in the last 15 years and is no where near what the climatologists have predicted.

They probably "neglected" that "fact" because it isn't a fact. It's baloney. Where did you come up with it?

Member Since: September 28, 2002 Posts: 5 Comments: 2895
This season would easily become memorable if that HUGE system actually formed even with shear as an obstacle.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 129. cat6band:



They are all sheep...and Al Gore is their Shepard...haha...bah...bah......


This type of comment would be right at home in the Yahoo comments section. Out of respect for Dr. Masters (who is the author of this blog), as well as your fellow bloggers, perhaps not comparing folks to farm animals would be a good idea...
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 102. JRRP:
SYNOPSIS 2013092600

P41L
14N, 41W
925 hPa


ECMWF: A pouch only in the analysis. After 12 hours, an OW max initially on the SE side of the pouch becomes the only persistent remnant, and it tracks to the northwest and recurves.

GFS: Like ECMWF, with the switch to the OW max that is initially to the SE occurs after 24 hours, and the OW max is stronger than in ECMWF.

UKMET: Similar to GFS, but not as strong.

NAVGEM:

HWRF-GEN: Similar to the other models, with the shift toward the eastern portion after 36 hours. Remnant OW max in the other models is a pouch in HWRF-GEN. Rather than recurve, P41L stalls in the subtropical ridge on Day 5.



Atlantic Sat


Lookin good.....
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 128. georgevandenberghe:


"" sigh!! "

The "Record gains" is a recovery from record low extent last year. The extent is still lower than in any year prior to 2007.

Record lows temperatures on individual days at individual points will continue even after warming progresses. There will be fewer of them and more record highs. Lack of warming in 15 years is a cherrypicked statistic from an extreme El Nino year (which is much warmer
than other years) to the present period where La Nina predominates.
THe moderate El Nino of 2009-2010 was accompanied by a year about
as warm as 1998 with less ENSO contribution.

Warming arguers could pick 1992 as the starting point, a year much colder than others because of the Mt Pinatubo eruption in 1991. It would be bad statistics of course but..




That shouldn't be called recovery it's more like remission; it's only a temporary blip.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
143. JRRP
Quoting Torito:


Yes, but once again, fantasy land. :/

That system can be entirely dropped in 2 runs if it decides to change anything even slightly.

yeah that's the problem
Member Since: Posts: Comments:

Viewing: 193 - 143

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.