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: 893 - 843

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

893. WunderAlertBot (Admin)
10:50 AM GMT on September 27, 2013
JeffMasters has created a new entry.
892. vis0
10:48 AM GMT on September 27, 2013
Apology to moderators  in making things difficult but its my "baby", my theories, my re-discoveries (nature figured it out 1st, i'm just here to enjoy the rideS) . Since these ideas are not officially discovered TILL/IF they turn out to be true) some might complain i'm "monoblahing" cause this wasn't in yer college courses. If Einstein only wrote of e=mc sqD would he be monoblahing (now that we have hindsight) ...R U nutz NOT COMPARING me to him... but i'm not copy & pasting its all original though only on my last blog as this a special comment 'cause i went to the NYC Climate Convention 2013

Fantastic!!! Climate convention.
My apology, i'm sorry for not jotting down names of those that took the time to appear, THANK YOU TO ALL. i jot info by pencil/pen & i missed names in preferring to hear all of what the people said, i hope next time  names
are placed BEHIND them on the static screen or when slide shows stop.

"ml-d" is short for microLow device its a device that uses very low (unperceived to  today's "pick up" devices even the militarizes/police sensitive equipment. i passed my portable ml-d by police scanners (hidden on me) by traffic scanners nothing shows up, though one officer who seemed to have a "science trained mind" in 2011 noticed that my left arm was not visible in the scanner as i went by a portable scanner on 2nd Avenue & 34st. he took a double take as i heard him say were his arm as he starred at me then called a technician to check the scanner for errors. Living "complex" things becomes invisible to simple physics when you use the ml-d  within ones aura since its "grounded" to Space not a planet.Microwaves i use (wanted to Show Dr. Masters my left side, arm hands, knuckles joint areas) are darker by 3 hues due to my microwave (burn) work. Wanted to tell my theories to the panel Dr. Masters conversed w/ but i thought they'll think i'm nuts 'cause my work is not of the present physics mind, not to mention there was a crowd around them & i had more important business to attend to. 

Grading the conversation:  
B :The many experts that used the time to explain in more layman terms what is going on as to our burden on nature.  i appreciate "degreed" people more so when they take the time to explain things to us common folk, we are the majority
& we're are all needed if an attitude change is desired as to how the mass thinks of nature as our friend not foe or something too far away to comprehend that one doesn't need be it to Live or make mucho money.

C-: The bearded guy who has done MUCH great work for ~20 years. (BUT, used the present tense of sha*. At least 3 times & kept saying if you don't think GW by mankind is 100%  you SHOULD  NOT BE HERE ("get out!") Too much
foul language ... F might be the more appropriate grade as to the language
he used but then i'd be thought to have used foul language, i.e. a manner of procreation, though he gets an A for his work/involvement. If some say he was talking to "today's kids", then one is using Lowest common denominator instead of raising the kids up. Could've used that word the first time then used "shoot" or
"chucks"  by then saying "shoot,  hey i kept it clean"  then to end it said the more harsh word so you keep in the listeners memory the severity of the issue. Instead what i remember most is the cheap laughs (as cursing or mentioning sex gets easy giggles from 4th grade till we die/so called mature years.) from the overuse of inappropriate words not the information of your hard work. Weird, he presented an Iceland map i speak of below. Passion for something does not mean on loses civility when whom is watching is a civil crowd or a group of people whose minds you want to "open" be it LIVE or on TV.

 (BTW in case no one "axed", i state the heating of this planet is 64% man 36% the "biorhythms" of  5 NATURAL influences that occur in this type of UNI-verse) STILL THAT MEANS WE TAKE THE xtra BURDEN OFF our mother Earth
she's giving you clean water, air, land to use as we want & we go and make it hard on her so disrespectful.

A- NOT 'cause this is the wunderground so i give an  "A", but Dr. Masters   presentation awoke me & the crowd. i was awake from when i got there
1:40PM (entered 1:55PM) till after the break ~3:30ish but i ate sweets and during the 2nd have had a post sugar "come down" and was nodding off as many others.

When i head the announcement "Dr. Jeff Masters" my brain said get up the guy whom keeps you interested in science talk, is next my ears was like Dextrer's
ears in hearing the underwater ripple of "fish" - An inside (Wxunderground) joke.. If i may digress a bit to thank the women on how  great they looked, Stephanie Abrams got ones attention much more eye popping than i thought WOW!. Haven't
watched TWCh since 2003, its a Time Warner thing.  This from a person (i) that took 2 NYC cable companies/ 1 in NJ to court w/ GREAT help from then Senator Howard Metzenbaum (OHIO). The COMPLETE HUMAN BEING late Sen. Metzsabaum (Ohio) then took my papers to bring TWCh on 24/7 from NY/NJ cases to a Conn. case so the judge there could review the case thus have a better chance of enforcing that TWCh be carried, than having 3-4 watered down court  decisions.  Stephanie Abrams had some interesting conversations with a panel but it was to fast as to the give n take chat. The 2nd guy from Stephanie did a great job the other 3 seemed more like a quick bar talk on ones favorite sports teams stats, lots of important numbers & info but hard to follow (like my blog except i do that purposely). OKay the digressing is done, FOR NOW.

Dr. Masters after Mayor Bloomberg was the best to articulate their points. Bloomberg spoke longer tripped on some words but was smooth to cover up those "trips". Dr. Masters to the point (seemed he got the short end as to time, being last, yet he AWOKE the crowd with his VERY IMPRESSIVE guests. My favorite was the 3rd from the Dr. whose invention turn CO2 (air pollutants) to plastics that is ingenious AND Feasible (easy to get society to invest into), what makes ideas  lourish as helps both sides those whom want take the strain off nature so nature
doesn't remove humans from her guests list yet attracts those whom want to make money thus fund the project.

Next was the young lady from  MIT??? who present a way to use spent atomic fuel  therefore instead of having atomic waste in barrels, as she said that can't be made to hold atomic waste for thousands of years. Instead we use the atomic  waste vast "HIDDEN" energies thus lowering the opportunity for major hazards as the use of spent atomic fuel with her invention can still create much energy but at lower  "temps" which in turn create lower opportunities for hazardous emissions  through accidents.

Oh oh, i'm digressing again (beauty does that to my mind) If i may also state since i'm a being who places much "weight" on the visual if i may,  compliment the beauty  that encompassed the young lady from MIT, don't think of me as being a "guy" but that it adds to a persons ability to attract more to their work as she gets  he attention of those in the scientific community & those whom might not care of science but stop when they see something attractive then are "pulled in" by her work.

What would one rather have 4 of every 10 people supporting a cause that helps  ature or 8 of 10?  A man or woman that looks "sharper/attractive" gets more  attention. The man w/ the foul mouth was attractive. Guess what those that found  him attractive gave him more attention. If you're upset w/ that blame evolution or Gawd or a civilization at 22 degrees N of Equatorial space whom are 6 k years ahead of Earth as to science, in using a science i call "Galacsics" (not misspelled) one can much more easily find life "near by" on other complex planets by a spiral energy output not yet readable by our physics grounded instruments....crazy  search for my other clues like the planet's "space" area code...NGC #4***, here is another CLUE, pick a number in between 0 & 9.

Was hoping to give Dr. Masters some pages on my theories but i had to get my  Apt. (~2 miles east) i walk Manhattan, the greenest way to enjoy my home town. Hec* i walk 40 blocks to get the best deals on my grocery plus it keeps me uhhh  ... trum. Trum? a bit heavier than trim.. As soon as Dr. Masters ended his segment he was surrounded by people, i figured he won't listen to a guy whom has weird theories & no one knows or cares to know (spent 20-30 k of MY hard working  money over 30yrs communicating to scientist & though i see other receiving  awards for ideas/theories i stated years.decades before i guess my style of doing things quietly cause of its dangerous side as able to  destroy civilizations from the inside out in seconds leaving only dust i.e. internal combustion like results, so i quietly go one on another country's blog.  BTW if you're new to Wxunderground 
i state i invented a device that influences nature/weather (see my "vis0" blog classic / modern explorer view)  and i say uses the ULTIMATE method of lowering toxicities we put out, that being that we use the REAL SOLAR POWER, WIND as i state one day it will power 60% of our energy grid/needs thus illuminates all  "artificially" induced energies which by being artificial, add waste as their  bi-product.

So, i got my toxic "you could sniff it" from a mile away,  weather channel umbrella and scooted home then parents Apt. to help them as Father is now disabled both in their late 80s.


 In conclusion being i state i prefer to call it Climate Schizo not GW i'm happy to  see many losing the GW term, TO ME "GW" was a nice way for Mr. Gore
(VP) to bring attention to the seriousness of the matter (and lets be honest himself, hey its politics) but to keep that term "GW" once he stopped "running" made it  worse, cause Nature in cleaning the artificial pollutants goes "haywire" (watch) in shortening" the "sin-wave" signatures of cooler to warmer and vice versa
EVENTUALLY more warmer than cooler YES but TO ME its worse on humanity & business if its harder to predict the weather/climate  by so many fluctuations than  if it where only a straight hard incline line of warming.
.
 For my following TOOTing of my own horm, refer to my HARD TO read (last WxU) blog HERE.   3 graphs  of the many i saw at this meeting  i think showed my ml-d influencing weather, for one look at the ice melt off Greenland. Notice though the presenter pointed out how fast the ice if leaving (3D ice is how it should be  presented not just the visible or 2 dimensional layers. If one counts their money one doesn't just count the top bill one looks through the depth of their wealth, in nature look at the depth of things. Now, if one looks at the east side of  Greenland
its building ice which it has to do by layering meaning we have to wait several years to see if its a trend of a Climate schizo effect (latter i say happens in 2-3 years segments and a quite Star (Sun) adds to that period, in the last blog in 2 wks posting CLUEs as to the EQUATORIAL VERSION of Aurora Borealis which show up as quick  turning /floating plasma balls nearer to the Equator (though can  moved toward polar regions up to ~66% (!60-75 Lat lines N or S) usually near
certain Volcanic crystal activities, this happens more BEFORE the   star/sun
sends energy inward...inward?

CLUE TIME!:  Black holes DO ALLOW LIGHT to escape VIA LOW i MEAN LOW as 0.0000000000000001
to at least 0.0000000000000000000000000000001 u-db
resonances (~sound, yes throughout space its also an indirect clue to why i state there are 5 "lights" faster than 186,400 mps) & that is in turn recycled by light
outputs some mistaken as presently (2013...) titled "Galaxy clusters" to three point  Novae, ancients "gnowledge" (knowledge misspelled as a CLUE) holders titled "the Atlantis effect/reactor". We in not understanding  this think Atlantis just an island on a Planet, its a circular repeating tri-island of reinforcing ABS0 sub atomic  sieves energy
... HUH? ah skip it.just hold clues when its discovered, wonder how?


Maybe in 100 yrs (i wish my science knowledge friends say it'll take over 500 yrs to figure what i CLUE)   DIGRESSING AGAIN!!!

The melting side of Greenland is ~3 times faster in losing 3D ice than its replenishing.  (Dr. Masters try using rotating Lower colour graphs (even a simple stick figure 3D sketch, very low KB) to show this, compare to a human from a 1 or 2 dimension image from the back. Show the human with lover handles then w/o  love handles ask hpow much weight did that human lose if he weighed 240lbs
at 5'8" (that's me...i'm husky) most might guess 10-20 lbs. Now show the
same man revolving and show his heavy gut then non now in 3D we guess the man lost 40-50 lbs, same as with the ice, its a guy upside down and the heating  from artificial pollutants has Mr. Iceberg (wrong he's Puerto Rican) losing his belly, in this case that's not good.

 i state OUTSIDE  the ml-d  its area of influence (AOI, again see graphics on my blog, skip reading it if it gives you a headache)  creates what i call RESPonding HIGHS (why you saw i THINK sinking air re-building so quickly in CERTAIN weather trend years as this) those HIGHS  heat output (compression etcetera,  etc.) fall around the ml-d AOI and one of those areas is on  the western half of  Greenland. 'Cause physics states both sides East & West should melt evenly or the east side a tiny bit faster but its the west side by 3 times that is melting. Again,  please see my last blog for graphics on the ml-d...no i wasn't drinking at the  convention, they had no milk, i'm a milk & cookies man, i'll kick yer a** while i'm  dunking my choco-chip,peace
Member Since: December 15, 2006 Posts: 208 Comments: 318
891. beell
10:28 AM GMT on September 27, 2013
Quoting 835. Jedkins01:





Certainly not an meant as an insult, Jed. Just a comment that was intended to be humorous based on a particular paraphrase used by Scott in a response to your post:

You are in a climate science course that addresses cooling over the past 15 years?

Yes, Jed has been taking his time to get through school.

From some of your posts here, as far as I can tell, your college education is on track! Sorry if this unnecessary attempt at good-natured humor fell flat.

Cheers!
Member Since: September 11, 2007 Posts: 137 Comments: 15303
890. CaicosRetiredSailor
10:17 AM GMT on September 27, 2013
E.8 Climate Stabilization, Climate Change Commitment and Irreversibility


Cumulative emissions of CO2 largely determine global mean surface warming by the late 21st century and beyond (see Figure SPM.10). Most aspects of climate change will persist for many centuries even if emissions of CO2 are stopped. This represents a substantial multi-century climate change commitment created by past, present and future emissions of CO2. {12.5}
Member Since: July 12, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 5984
889. CaicosRetiredSailor
10:16 AM GMT on September 27, 2013
E.7 Carbon and Other Biogeochemical Cycles


Climate change will affect carbon cycle processes in a way that will exacerbate the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere (high confidence). Further uptake of carbon by the ocean will increase ocean acidification. {6.4}
Member Since: July 12, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 5984
888. CaicosRetiredSailor
10:15 AM GMT on September 27, 2013
E.6 Sea Level


Global mean sea level will continue to rise during the 21st century (see Figure SPM.9). Under all RCP scenarios the rate of sea level rise will very likely exceed that observed during 1971–2010 due to increased ocean warming and increased loss of mass from glaciers and ice sheets. {13.3– 13.5}
Member Since: July 12, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 5984
887. aislinnpaps
10:15 AM GMT on September 27, 2013
Good morning, afternoon and evening, everyone. It's 66 degrees with a wind chill of 66 and humidity at 90%. They fixed the glitch and it's back to a heat index of 92 expected later today.

I'm going out of town tonight, be back tomorrow afternoon, getting some R&R, so breakfast tomorrow morning is on your own!

Breakfast's on the sideboard: Andouille sausage and shrimp scramble, steak, eggs and hash browns, bacon and egg grilled cheese, Warm grapefruit and orange with toasted coconut, Apple Pie Breakfast Cakes, Belgian waffles with strawberries or powdered sugar, Apple slices dipped in pancake batter & cooked on the griddle with cinnamon & nutmeg, cheese Danishes, yogurt, fresh fruit and orange, apple or pineapple juice. Enjoy!
Member Since: August 22, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 3112
886. CaicosRetiredSailor
10:14 AM GMT on September 27, 2013
E.5 Cryosphere


It is very likely that the Arctic sea ice cover will continue to shrink and thin and that Northern Hemisphere spring snow cover will decrease during the 21st century as global mean surface temperature rises. Global glacier volume will further decrease. {12.4, 13.4}
Member Since: July 12, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 5984
885. CaicosRetiredSailor
10:13 AM GMT on September 27, 2013
E.2 Atmosphere: Water Cycle


Changes in the global water cycle in response to the warming over the 21st century will not be uniform. The contrast in precipitation between wet and dry regions and between wet and dry seasons will increase, although there may be regional exceptions (see Figure SPM.8). {12.4, 14.3}
Member Since: July 12, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 5984
884. CaicosRetiredSailor
10:13 AM GMT on September 27, 2013
E.1 Atmosphere: Temperature


Global surface temperature change for the end of the 21st century is likely to exceed 1.5°C relative to 1850 to 1900 for all RCP scenarios except RCP2.6. It is likely to exceed 2°C for RCP6.0 and RCP8.5, and more likely than not to exceed 2°C for RCP4.5. Warming will continue beyond 2100 under all RCP scenarios except RCP2.6. Warming will continue to exhibit interannual-to-decadal variability and will not be regionally uniform (see Figures SPM.7 and SPM.8). {11.3, 12.3, 12.4, 14.8}
Member Since: July 12, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 5984
883. CaicosRetiredSailor
10:11 AM GMT on September 27, 2013


Continued emissions of greenhouse gases will cause further warming and changes in all components of the climate system. Limiting climate change will require substantial and sustained reductions of greenhouse gas emissions. {Chapters 6, 11, 12, 13, 14}
Member Since: July 12, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 5984
882. CaicosRetiredSailor
10:09 AM GMT on September 27, 2013
D.3 Detection and Attribution of Climate Change


Human influence has been detected in warming of the atmosphere and the ocean, in changes in the global water cycle, in reductions in snow and ice, in global mean sea level rise, and in changes in some climate extremes (Figure SPM.6 and Table SPM.1). This evidence for human influence has grown since AR4. It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century. {10.3–10.6, 10.9}
Member Since: July 12, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 5984
881. CaicosRetiredSailor
10:09 AM GMT on September 27, 2013
D.2 Quantification of Climate System Responses


Observational and model studies of temperature change, climate feedbacks and changes in the Earth’s energy budget together provide confidence in the magnitude of global warming in response to past and future forcing. {Box 12.2, Box 13.1}
Member Since: July 12, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 5984
880. CaicosRetiredSailor
10:07 AM GMT on September 27, 2013
D.3 Detection and Attribution of Climate Change


Human influence has been detected in warming of the atmosphere and the ocean, in changes in the global water cycle, in reductions in snow and ice, in global mean sea level rise, and in changes in some climate extremes (Figure SPM.6 and Table SPM.1). This evidence for human influence has grown since AR4. It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century. {10.3–10.6, 10.9}
Member Since: July 12, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 5984
879. CaicosRetiredSailor
10:05 AM GMT on September 27, 2013
D. Understanding the Climate System and its Recent Changes
Understanding recent changes in the climate system results from combining observations, studies of feedback processes, and model simulations. Evaluation of the ability of climate models to simulate recent changes requires consideration of the state of all modelled climate system components at the start of the simulation and the natural and anthropogenic forcing used to drive the models. Compared to AR4, more detailed and longer observations and improved climate models now enable the attribution of a human contribution to detected changes in more climate system components.
D.1 Evaluation of Climate Models


Human influence on the climate system is clear. This is evident from the increasing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere, positive radiative forcing, observed warming, and understanding of the climate system. {2–14}



Climate models have improved since the AR4. Models reproduce observed continental-scale surface temperature patterns and trends over many decades, including the more rapid warming since the mid-20th century and the cooling immediately following large volcanic eruptions (very high confidence). {9.4, 9.6, 9.8}
Member Since: July 12, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 5984
878. CaicosRetiredSailor
10:04 AM GMT on September 27, 2013
C. Drivers of Climate Change
Natural and anthropogenic substances and processes that alter the Earth's energy budget are drivers of climate change. Radiative forcing14 (RF) quantifies the change in energy fluxes caused by changes in these drivers for 2011 relative to 1750, unless otherwise indicated. Positive RF leads to surface warming, negative RF leads to surface cooling. RF is estimated based on in-situ and remote observations, properties of greenhouse gases and aerosols, and calculations using numerical models representing observed processes. Some emitted compounds affect the atmospheric concentration of other substances. The RF can be reported based on the concentration changes of each substance15. Alternatively, the emission-based RF of a compound can be reported, which provides a more direct link to human activities. It includes contributions from all substances affected by that emission. The total anthropogenic RF of the two approaches are identical when considering all drivers. Though both approaches are used in this Summary, emission-based RFs are emphasized.


Total radiative forcing is positive, and has led to an uptake of energy by the climate system. The largest contribution to total radiative forcing is caused by the increase in the atmospheric concentration of CO2 since 1750 (see Figure SPM.5). {3.2, Box 3.1, 8.3, 8.5}
Member Since: July 12, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 5984
877. CaicosRetiredSailor
10:03 AM GMT on September 27, 2013
B.5 Carbon and Other Biogeochemical Cycles


The atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2), methane, and nitrous oxide have increased to levels unprecedented in at least the last 800,000 years. CO2 concentrations have increased by 40% since pre-industrial times, primarily from fossil fuel emissions and secondarily from net land use change emissions. The ocean has absorbed about 30% of the emitted anthropogenic carbon dioxide, causing ocean acidification (see Figure SPM.4). {2.2, 3.8, 5.2, 6.2, 6.3}
Member Since: July 12, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 5984
876. CaicosRetiredSailor
10:02 AM GMT on September 27, 2013
B.4 Sea Level


The rate of sea level rise since the mid-19th century has been larger than the mean rate during the previous two millennia (high confidence). Over the period 1901–2010, global mean sea level rose by 0.19 [0.17 to 0.21] m (see Figure SPM.3). {3.7, 5.6, 13.2}
Member Since: July 12, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 5984
875. CaicosRetiredSailor
10:00 AM GMT on September 27, 2013
B.3 Cryosphere


Over the last two decades, the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have been losing mass, glaciers have continued to shrink almost worldwide, and Arctic sea ice and Northern Hemisphere spring snow cover have continued to decrease in extent (high confidence) (see Figure SPM.3). {4.2–4.7}
Member Since: July 12, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 5984
874. CaicosRetiredSailor
9:58 AM GMT on September 27, 2013
B.2 Ocean


Ocean warming dominates the increase in energy stored in the climate system, accounting for more than 90% of the energy accumulated between 1971 and 2010 (high confidence). It is virtually certain that the upper ocean (0−700 m) warmed from 1971 to 2010 (see Figure SPM.3), and it likely warmed between the 1870s and 1971. {3.2, Box 3.1}
Member Since: July 12, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 5984
873. CaicosRetiredSailor
9:53 AM GMT on September 27, 2013
B.1 Atmosphere

Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, sea level has risen, and the concentrations of greenhouse gases have increased (see Figures SPM.1, SPM.2, SPM.3 and SPM.4). {2.2, 2.4, 3.2, 3.7, 4.2–4.7, 5.2, 5.3, 5.5–5.6, 6.2, 13.2}



Each of the last three decades has been successively warmer at the Earth’s surface than any preceding decade since 1850 (see Figure SPM.1). In the Northern Hemisphere, 1983–2012 was likely the warmest 30-year period of the last 1400 years (medium confidence). {2.4, 5.3}

Member Since: July 12, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 5984
872. panzerfaust
9:42 AM GMT on September 27, 2013
The actual Link to the IPPC Summary is:

http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/W GIAR5-SPM_Approved27Sep2013.pdf

Member Since: October 20, 2001 Posts: 0 Comments: 12
871. Ameister12
9:41 AM GMT on September 27, 2013
Good morning everybody.

We could see a pretty active severe weather day across the Texas Panhandle, Western Oklahoma, and Western Kansas. Damaging winds will be the main threat, but there is a decent chance for a couple tornadoes with discrete storms.

Member Since: August 9, 2009 Posts: 10 Comments: 4498
870. KoritheMan
8:37 AM GMT on September 27, 2013

Quoting 869. lobdelse81:
The only hurricane seasons that come remotely close to the type of inactivity of this season may have to be 1907 and 1914. Yes, I realize that 1992 and 1983 may have had less named storms, but we know the monsters that made those years memorable. If you guys can think of any others that are somewhat similar to this season, please let me know :)
Uh... 1997?

I also don't think 1907 and 1914 are even remotely good comparisons, lol. Don't get irrational just because of a single quiet season. :P
Member Since: March 7, 2007 Posts: 521 Comments: 19119
869. lobdelse81
7:37 AM GMT on September 27, 2013
The only hurricane seasons that come remotely close to the type of inactivity of this season may have to be 1907 and 1914. Yes, I realize that 1992 and 1983 may have had less named storms, but we know the monsters that made those years memorable. If you guys can think of any others that are somewhat similar to this season, please let me know :)
Member Since: September 9, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 404
868. HadesGodWyvern (Mod)
7:27 AM GMT on September 27, 2013
Japan Meteorological Agency
Tropical Cyclone Advisory #15
Gale Warning
TROPICAL STORM WUTIP (T1321)
15:00 PM JST September 27 2013
======================================

South China Sea

At 6:00 AM UTC, Tropical Storm Wutip (1000 hPa) located at 16.8N 116.3E has 10 minute sustained winds of 35 knots with gusts of 50 knots. The cyclone is reported as moving northwest at 6 knots.

Gale Force Winds
==================
180 NM from the center in north quadrant
120 NM from the center in south quadrant

Dvorak intensity: T2.5

Forecast and Intensity
=======================
24 HRS: 16.8N 115.4E - 40 knots (CAT 1/Tropical Storm) South China Sea
48 HRS: 16.8N 114.5E - 45 knots (CAT 1/Tropical Storm) South China Sea
72 HRS: 16.8N 113.4E - 45 knots (CAT 1/Tropical Storm) South China Sea
Member Since: May 24, 2006 Posts: 48 Comments: 43653
867. Bluestorm5
5:56 AM GMT on September 27, 2013
Quoting 863. KoritheMan:

Just playin there, duder.

Trust me, even I get tired of weather forecasting sometimes.
Yeah, I just haven't got urge to forecast, look at models, or other stuff. Interesting to see how WxChallenge turn out to be.
Member Since: August 1, 2011 Posts: 23 Comments: 7459
866. AussieStorm
5:29 AM GMT on September 27, 2013


From: NSW Fire Media
RT @smlowc: Water bombing aircraft dousing hard to reach flames at the Blomfield Rd brushfire. Image Samantha Lowcock. #Yarrowitch #nswfires

@NSWRFS
Total Fire Bans will be in place tomorrow Sat 28th for Greater Sydney, Greater Hunter, North Coast, New England, Northern Slopes.

For those that haven't read it, here is my 2013/14 Australian Bushfire Season Forecast Blog
Member Since: September 30, 2007 Posts: 9 Comments: 15749
865. redwagon
5:17 AM GMT on September 27, 2013
Quoting 862. sar2401:

That broad area of cloudiness east of the Lesser Antilles got a 10% circle at 8:00 pm update. If it develops at all, it's going to recurve and going out into the Atlantic to die. The BOC is so dry there's no chance for anything to develop there, and the disturbance by Cuba is just diurnal thing and also has no chance for development. Things are not exactly hopping for September 27.


I thank you for the counter-update. :)
Member Since: August 4, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 2798
864. HurrMichaelOrl
5:11 AM GMT on September 27, 2013
Quoting 839. BaltimoreBrian:
It's a very sad situation skyepony. I hope central FL has a long dry spell that helps Lake Okeechobee drop and further releases into the Indian River unnecessary. The Indian River needs a long time to recover.


I hope for the best for those who are being adversely affected by the high water levels in certain areas of South Florida. I do not, however, wish for a long dry spell here. Normal rainfall will eventually bring water levels in balance. Also, normal rainfall from this time of year forward implies a long dry spell is on its way anyways-the dry season. Do NOT want a drought here.
Member Since: July 13, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 950
863. KoritheMan
5:09 AM GMT on September 27, 2013

Quoting 861. Bluestorm5:


Of course they are real life. Forecasting and tracking 24/7 in your room isn't having life, though :)

Just playin there, duder.

Trust me, even I get tired of weather forecasting sometimes.
Member Since: March 7, 2007 Posts: 521 Comments: 19119
862. sar2401
5:07 AM GMT on September 27, 2013
Quoting redwagon:




Looks like 92E split in half? and there is an Ingrid-typish thing over Veracruz?



New entity under Cuba?

CARIB disturbance calling in moisture from everywhere?



Did I miss anything, other than that spark thinking about crossing basin to BOC? Work just really cramps my WX watching.

That broad area of cloudiness east of the Lesser Antilles got a 10% circle at 8:00 pm update. If it develops at all, it's going to recurve and going out into the Atlantic to die. The BOC is so dry there's no chance for anything to develop there, and the disturbance by Cuba is just diurnal thing and also has no chance for development. Things are not exactly hopping for September 27.
Member Since: October 2, 2004 Posts: 0 Comments: 9761
861. Bluestorm5
5:06 AM GMT on September 27, 2013
Quoting 855. KoritheMan:

Hurricanes and tornadoes aren't real life?

I think you might want to amend that statement a bit, Kyle. :)


Of course they are real life. Forecasting and tracking 24/7 in your room isn't having life, though :)

Quoting 856. Astrometeor:


Who are you and what have you done with Kyle?


College changes everybody.
Member Since: August 1, 2011 Posts: 23 Comments: 7459
860. allancalderini
5:05 AM GMT on September 27, 2013
Quoting 854. Astrometeor:


Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC
Thanks Astro.
Member Since: October 15, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 3703
859. Astrometeor
5:02 AM GMT on September 27, 2013
Good night everyone.

Not much in the way of clouds here tonight:

Member Since: July 2, 2012 Posts: 79 Comments: 8246
858. Civicane49
5:01 AM GMT on September 27, 2013
TROPICAL WEATHER OUTLOOK
NWS NATIONAL HURRICANE CENTER MIAMI FL
1100 PM PDT THU SEP 26 2013

FOR THE EASTERN NORTH PACIFIC...EAST OF 140 DEGREES WEST LONGITUDE..

A WEAK AREA OF LOW PRESSURE CONTINUES TO PRODUCE DISORGANIZED
SHOWERS AND THUNDERSTORMS NEAR THE SOUTHWESTERN COAST OF MEXICO.
SOME SLOW DEVELOPMENT IS POSSIBLE OVER THE NEXT COUPLE OF DAYS
WHILE THE LOW MOVES WESTWARD AT 5 TO 10 MPH...BUT UPPER-LEVEL WINDS
ARE EXPECTED TO BECOME UNFAVORABLE FOR DEVELOPMENT BY EARLY NEXT
WEEK. THIS SYSTEM HAS A LOW CHANCE...20 PERCENT...OF BECOMING A
TROPICAL CYCLONE DURING THE NEXT 48 HOURS AND A LOW CHANCE...20
PERCENT...OF BECOMING A TROPICAL CYCLONE DURING THE NEXT 5 DAYS.
REGARDLESS OF DEVELOPMENT...LOCALLY HEAVY RAINS ARE STILL POSSIBLE
NEAR THE SOUTHWESTERN COAST OF MEXICO FOR ANOTHER DAY OR TWO.

&&
Member Since: July 21, 2011 Posts: 82 Comments: 7056
857. Civicane49
5:01 AM GMT on September 27, 2013
TROPICAL WEATHER OUTLOOK
NWS NATIONAL HURRICANE CENTER MIAMI FL
200 AM EDT FRI SEP 27 2013

FOR THE NORTH ATLANTIC...CARIBBEAN SEA AND THE GULF OF MEXICO...

A LARGE AREA OF CLOUDINESS AND SHOWERS LOCATED OVER THE TROPICAL
ATLANTIC ABOUT 1000 MILES EAST OF THE LESSER ANTILLES IS ASSOCIATED
WITH A TROPICAL WAVE INTERACTING WITH AN UPPER-LEVEL LOW.
SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT IS NOT EXPECTED DUE TO STRONG UPPER-LEVEL
WINDS...AND THIS SYSTEM HAS A LOW CHANCE...10 PERCENT...OF BECOMING
A TROPICAL CYCLONE DURING THE NEXT 48 HOURS WHILE IT MOVES
NORTHWESTWARD AND THEN NORTHWARD AT ABOUT 15 TO 20 MPH. AFTER THAT
TIME...CONDITIONS WILL BE ONLY MARGINALLY CONDUCIVE FOR
DEVELOPMENT...AND THIS SYSTEM ALSO HAS A LOW CHANCE...20
PERCENT...OF BECOMING A TROPICAL CYCLONE DURING THE NEXT 5 DAYS.

&&
Member Since: July 21, 2011 Posts: 82 Comments: 7056
856. Astrometeor
4:59 AM GMT on September 27, 2013
Quoting 849. Bluestorm5:
To be honest, I'm enjoying this break from hurricanes or tornadoes. Very good and healthy to focus on real life :)


Who are you and what have you done with Kyle?
Member Since: July 2, 2012 Posts: 79 Comments: 8246
855. KoritheMan
4:58 AM GMT on September 27, 2013

Quoting 849. Bluestorm5:
To be honest, I'm enjoying this break from hurricanes or tornadoes. Very good and healthy to focus on real life :)
Hurricanes and tornadoes aren't real life?

I think you might want to amend that statement a bit, Kyle. :)
Member Since: March 7, 2007 Posts: 521 Comments: 19119
854. Astrometeor
4:58 AM GMT on September 27, 2013
Quoting 852. allancalderini:
What is IPCC?


Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC
Member Since: July 2, 2012 Posts: 79 Comments: 8246
853. GatorWX
4:58 AM GMT on September 27, 2013
Member Since: January 1, 2008 Posts: 0 Comments: 2386
852. allancalderini
4:54 AM GMT on September 27, 2013
Quoting 822. ColdInFL:

What is IPCC?
Member Since: October 15, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 3703
851. Astrometeor
4:48 AM GMT on September 27, 2013
Quoting 850. Naga5000:

Bam?


No idea.
Member Since: July 2, 2012 Posts: 79 Comments: 8246
850. Naga5000
4:40 AM GMT on September 27, 2013
Quoting 848. Astrometeor:


Sounded more like ncstorm's frustration to me.

Bam?
Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 2682
849. Bluestorm5
4:40 AM GMT on September 27, 2013
To be honest, I'm enjoying this break from hurricanes or tornadoes. Very good and healthy to focus on real life :)
Member Since: August 1, 2011 Posts: 23 Comments: 7459
848. Astrometeor
4:39 AM GMT on September 27, 2013
Quoting 847. Naga5000:


You got it. Somehow scientists should be grouped with McDonalds. Obviously they are the exact same thing and should be treated as such. Was this sarcasm?


Sounded more like ncstorm's frustration to me.
Member Since: July 2, 2012 Posts: 79 Comments: 8246
847. Naga5000
4:35 AM GMT on September 27, 2013
Quoting 803. ncstorm:


are you guys seriously looking up businesses on the BBB and debunking them that way?..I just looked up McDonalds in that same zipcode as Climate Institute and they are not accredited on there either..good gracious..McDonalds has been running a scam for over 73 years..I guess the hamburglar has been robbing us consumers on a real tip..



You got it. Somehow scientists should be grouped with McDonalds. Obviously they are the exact same thing and should be treated as such. Was this sarcasm?
Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 2682
846. redwagon
4:29 AM GMT on September 27, 2013
Quoting 836. Nobody:


Wuzzup with the TX rain chances?




Looks like 92E split in half? and there is an Ingrid-typish thing over Veracruz?



New entity under Cuba?

CARIB disturbance calling in moisture from everywhere?



Did I miss anything, other than that spark thinking about crossing basin to BOC? Work just really cramps my WX watching.
Member Since: August 4, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 2798
845. sar2401
4:29 AM GMT on September 27, 2013
Quoting OracleDeAtlantis:
In case you missed Mr. Don't Mess with Texas ... See page 12, Post 576 for some fun reading.

I think what set me off, was when he said we should "adapt." That's expert troll talk.





Oracle, that was one of the most poorly written, fact-challenged articles about food and food supplies I've ever seen. Not only is global climate change decreasing the supply of food, now it's hordes of "speculators" grabbing up millions of acres of farmland to drive up food prices, yet, the production of food has fallen. "Lester Brown, president of the Earth policy research centre in Washington, says that the climate is no longer reliable and the demands for food are growing so fast that a breakdown is inevitable, unless urgent action is taken." Somehow, I have the feeling that Lester Brown's only experience with farming is driving past a few while on vacation in the country. Since when had climate ever been reliable for a farmer? Show me some evidence climate is less "reliable" today than it was 20 years ago. Why would demand for food be rising so fast when the FAO "suggests" that 870 million people are malnourished?

There are only three reasons for food problems.

1. The US and other developed countries subsidize farmers not to grow food. If farmers were allowed to grow any crop they wanted, and in any amount they wanted, food production would double in several years and food prices would plummet. That's one of the reasons why farmers are subsidized not to grow certain crops - food prices falling too low guarantees that food supplies will also fall within a few years.

2. Global graft and corruption leads to maldistribution of food, not the lack of food. Between the developed countries of the world and the UN, more food has been made available to those in need than ever before in human history. No one needs to be malnourished, but some people are, because they have the misfortune of living in countries run by brutal, corrupt dictators, who steal the food and really do grab millions of acres of farmland, making them unproductive. Look up the history of Zimbabwe if you want to see a human created food crisis. A few of our drones could be put to good use hunting down and killing Robert Mugabe, so the people of Zimbabwe have a chance to improve their miserable existence.

3. Too much food aid from developed countries, rather than helping farmers in these countries increase their own food production. How do you expect a farmer to make money when people are able to get what he could grow for free from the UN or Oxfam? When was the last time you heard of a famine in India? Those used to be an almost yearly occurrence until Nehru cut off all donations of free food and only accepted offers to help educate Indian farmers and provide more fertilizer and better quality of seeds. This was the beginning of India becoming the world power it is today. Some people continued to suffer from malnutrition while the Indian miracle took root, but now India is no longer a world client for free food and has become a net food exporter.

Stop believing people like Brown, the UN, and Oxfam. Their goal is to keep the poor dependent forever. Otherwise, what do they do for a living? Start talking to and reading about farming and food production from those who actually do it, not those who talk and write about it.
Member Since: October 2, 2004 Posts: 0 Comments: 9761
844. Astrometeor
4:28 AM GMT on September 27, 2013
Tomorrow:



Today:

Member Since: July 2, 2012 Posts: 79 Comments: 8246
843. Astrometeor
4:22 AM GMT on September 27, 2013
Quoting 840. TropicalAnalystwx13:

Where did your avatar go?


It suicided thanks to the 2013 Hurricane Season.
Member Since: July 2, 2012 Posts: 79 Comments: 8246

Viewing: 893 - 843

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

Top of Page

About JeffMasters

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