Landmark 2013 IPCC Report: 95% Chance Most of Global Warming is Human-Caused

By: Dr. Jeff Masters , 10:50 AM GMT on September 27, 2013

Share this Blog
124
+

"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." Thus opens the landmark 2013 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report issued today. Working without pay, hundreds of our most dedicated and talented climate experts have collaborated over a six-year period to create the most comprehensive and authoritative scientific document on climate change ever crafted. The first 31 pages of what will be a 4,000-page tome was released this morning after an all-night approval session that stretched until 6:30 this morning in Stockholm, Sweden. This "Summary For Policymakers" lays 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 emission of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases that will limit the damage.

Q: How much has the planet warmed, and what has caused the warming?
The report documents that Earth's surface temperature warmed by 0.85°C (1.5°F) between 1880 - 2012. Two-thirds of this warming (0.6°C, 1.1°F) came after 1950. Human-emitted heat-trapping gases likely were responsible for 0.5 - 1.3°C of this post-1950 warming, while human-emitted aerosol particles reflected away sunlight and likely caused cooling (-0.6° - 0.1°C change in temperature.) Climate change due to variations in solar energy, volcanic dust, and natural sources of heat-trapping greenhouse gases were likely responsible for a small -0.1° - 0.1°C change in temperature since 1950. The sun was in a cool phase between 1978 - 2011, and the report estimates that lower solar output cooled Earth's climate slightly during this period. The influence of cosmic rays on climate over the past century was to weak to be detected, they said. In short, the report shows little support for a significant natural component to global warming since 1950. In fact, natural effects may well have made Earth cooler than it otherwise would have been. The report says that "The best estimate of the human-induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period." In other words, close to 100% of the observed warming is due to humans.


Figure 1. The changing view of the IPCC's assessment reports on the human contribution to climate change.

Q: How have the IPCC reports changed through time?
1990: The report did not quantify the human contribution to global warming.

1995: "The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on climate."

2001: Human-emitted greenhouse gases are likely (67-90% chance) responsible for more than half of Earth's temperature increase since 1951.

2007: Human-emitted greenhouse gases are very likely (at least 90% chance) responsible for more than half of Earth's temperature increase since 1951.

2013: Human-emitted greenhouse gases are extremely likely (at least 95% chance) responsible for more than half of Earth's temperature increase since 1951. This is the same confidence that scientists have in the age of the universe, or that cigarettes are deadly, according to an excellent AP article published this week by Seth Borenstein.

Q: Did the new report change the plausible range of global warming?
A. Yes. The "climate sensitivity" is defined as how much the planet would warm if the amount of atmospheric CO2 doubled. A variety of studies have arrived at very different estimates of the exact CO2 sensitivity of the climate, and the 2007 IPCC report gave a range of the most plausible values: 2 to 4.5ºC, with 3ºC deemed the most likely value. Recent research indicates that a sensitivity as low as 1.5ºC may be possible, so the IPCC widened the range of the most plausible values: 1.5 to 4.5ºC. The new lower limit of 1.5ºC is a best-case scenario that appears no more likely than the high end of 4.5ºC. Furthermore, even the lowest sensitivity scenario would not negate the need for emissions reductions. Current trends show that emissions are on track to increase far beyond doubling, which would create dangerous temperature rise even in a low-sensitivity climate. (Note that they give a small but worrisome possibility--0 to 10% chance--that the climate could warm by more than 6ºC for a doubling of CO2.)


Figure 2. Average of NASA's GISS, NOAA"s NCDC, and the UK Met Office's HadCRUT4 monthly global surface temperature departures from average, from January 1970 through November 2012 (blue), with linear trends applied to the time frames Jan '70 - Oct '77, Apr '77 - Dec '86, Sep '87 - Nov '96, Jun '97 - Dec '02, Nov '02 - Nov '12. Climate change skeptics like to emphasize the shorter term fluctuations in global temperatures (blue lines) and ignore the long-term climate trend (red line.) The global surface temperature trend from January 1970 through November 2012 (red line) is +0.16°C (+0.29°F) per decade. Image credit: skepticalscience.com.

Q: What does the IPCC say about the "speed bump" in surface global warming over the past 10 - 15 years?
Much attention has been given in the press to the fact that the rate of surface warming over the past fifteen years has been slower than during previous decades. The report notes that due to natural variability, trends based on short records are very sensitive to the beginning and end dates and do not in general reflect long-term climate trends. As one example, the rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998–2012) of 0.05 °C per decade, which begins with a strong El Niño, is smaller than the rate calculated since 1951 of 0.12 °C per decade. However, the recent slow-down in surface warming is likely to be a mere "speed bump" on the highway of global warming, caused by natural variability. We have seen such "speed bumps" before, as well as short, sharp downhill stretches where surface warming speeds up. For example, climate scientist Stefan Rahmstorf writes at realclimate.org that "the warming trend of the 15-year period up to 2006 was almost twice as fast as expected (0.3°C per decade), and (rightly) nobody cared. We published a paper in Science in 2007 where we noted this large trend, and as the first explanation for it we named “intrinsic variability within the climate system”. Which it turned out to be." Physics demands that the massive amounts of heat-trapping carbon dioxide humans have dumped into the atmosphere must cause significant warming, but the chaotic complexity of the system is expected to obscure the magnitude of the long-term trend on time scales of a few years to a decade. The attention being to this latest "speed bump" on the highway of global warming is a direct result of a well-funded PR effort by the fossil fuel industry. One has to look at the total warming of the atmosphere, oceans, land, and ice to judge the true progress of global warming, not just the surface temperature. There has been no slowdown in total global warming when we regard this entire system, as I argued in a post earlier this year. More than 90% of the energy of global warming goes into the oceans, and the reason for the relative lack of surface warming this decade is that more heat than usual is being stored in the oceans. That heat will be released to the atmosphere at some point, removing the "speed bump".

The new IPCC report says that there is medium confidence that the "speed bump" in surface warming is due in roughly equal measure to natural multi-year unpredictable variability in the weather, and to changes in the amount of sunlight reaching the surface due to volcanic eruptions and the downward phase of the current solar cycle. Most of the climate models do not reproduce this lower surface warming rate during the past 10 - 15 years. There is medium confidence that this difference between models and observations is due to natural climate variability that is impossible to predict (for example, the El Niño/La Niña cycle), with possible contributions from the models' inadequate handling of volcanic eruptions, changes in solar output, and changes in light-reflecting aerosol particles, and, in some models, a too-strong response to heat-trapping gases. For an explanation of why arguments about the global warming “slowdown” are misleading and should not offer any consolation, see this explainer from Skeptical Science and this one from the Union for Concerned Scientists.

Q: What does the IPCC say about drought?
A: Drought and reduction in water availability due to decreased mountain snow and ice is the greatest threat civilization faces from climate change, since it attacks the two things we need to live--water and food. Unfortunately, the report makes no mention of drought in the text, and we will have to wait for the March 2014 release of the "impacts" portion of the report to hear more about the threat drought poses to society. Today's report does mention drought in one of their two tables, giving “low confidence”--a 20% chance--that we have already observed a human-caused increase in the intensity and/or duration of drought in some parts of the world. This is a reduction in confidence from the 2007 report, which said that it was more likely than not (greater than 50% chance.) However, the forecast for the future is the same as in the 2007 report: we are likely to see dry areas get dryer due to human-caused climate change by 2100. In particular, there is high confidence (80%) in likely surface drying in the Mediterranean, Southwest U.S., and Southern Africa by 2100 in the high-end emissions scenario (RCP8.5), in association with expected increases in surface temperatures and a shift in the atmospheric circulation that will expand the region of sinking air that creates the world's greatest deserts.

Q: What does the IPCC say about sea level rise?
A: Global average sea level has risen 7.5" (19 cm) since 1901. Sea level has accelerated to 1.5" (3.2 cm) per decade over the past 20 years--nearly double the rate of rise during the 20th century. The report projects that sea level will rise by an extra 0.9 - 3.2' (26 to 98 cm) by 2100. While the maximum sea level rise expected has gone up since the 2007 report, when the IPCC did not even consider melt from Greenland and Antarctica because of the primitive state of glacier science then, the new upper bound (3.2') is still is a very conservative number. IPCC decided not to include estimates from at least five published studies that had higher numbers, including two studies with rises of 2 meters (6.6 feet.) This is in contradiction to NOAA's December 2012 U.S. National Climate Assessment Report, which has 6.6 feet (2.0 meters) as its worst-case sea level rise scenario for 2100. Even this number may be too low; at a presentation Thursday in New York City for Climate Week, glaciologist Dr. Jason Box, who knows as much about Greenland's ice sheets as any person alive, explained that Greenland's contribution to global sea level rise doubled over the past ten years. If Greenland's melt rate continues to double every ten years until 2100, Greenland alone will contribute 4.6' (1.4 meters) of global sea level rise, he said. If the doubling time becomes every nine years, then Greenland will cause 16.4' (5 meters) of sea level rise by 2100. His best-guess number for global sea level rise by 2100 is 4.7' (1.5 meters), but warns that our models used to predict melting of ice of Greenland have large unknowns.

Long-term sea level rise is expected to be much greater. The IPCC report states with "very high confidence" that 119,000 - 126,000 years ago, during the period before the most recent ice age, sea levels were 16 - 33 feet (5 - 10 meters) higher than at present. Melting of Greenland "very likely" contributed 1.4 - 4.3 meters of this rise, with additional contributions coming from Antarctica. Temperatures at that time weren't more than 2°C warmer than "pre-industrial" levels during that period. Two of the four scenarios used for the report project we will exceed 2°C of warming by 2100, with "high confidence", raising the possibility that we could see sea level rises of many meters over time scales of 1,000 years or so. The report expects sea level rise reach 3.3 - 9.8' (1 - 3 meters) by 2300, assuming CO2 levels rise above 700 ppm (close to what the higher-end RCP6.0 scenario prescribes.)

Q: What does the IPCC say about ocean acidity?
A: The world's oceans have seen a 26% increase in acidity since the Industrial Revolution, as the average pH has dropped from 8.2 to 8.1. Under all report scenarios, the acidification of the world's oceans will increase, with the pH falling by another 0.06 - 0.32 units. According to a 2012 study in Science, the current acidification rate is likely the fastest in 300 million years, and "may have severe consequences for marine ecosystems."

Q: How about hurricanes?
A: The new report gives “low confidence”--a 20% chance--that we have observed a human-caused increase in intense hurricanes in some parts of the world. This is a reduction from the 2007 report, which said that it was more likely than not (greater than 50% chance.) The IPCC likely took note of a landmark 2010 review paper, "Tropical Cyclones and Climate Change", authored by ten top hurricane scientists, which concluded that the U.S. has not seen any long-term increase in landfalling tropical storms and hurricanes, and that "it remains uncertain whether past changes in tropical cyclone activity have exceeded the variability expected from natural causes." The 2013 IPCC report predicts that there is a greater than 50% chance (more likely than not) that we will see a human-caused increase in intense hurricanes by 2100 in some regions; this is a reduction from the 2007 report, which said this would be likely (66% chance or higher.)

Q: How about extreme weather events?
"Changes in many extreme weather and climate events have been observed since about 1950. It is very likely that the number of cold days and nights have decreased and the number of warm days and nights has increased on the global scale. It is likely that the frequency of heat waves has increased in large parts of Europe, Asia, and Australia. There are likely more land regions where the number of heavy precipitation events has increased than where it has decreased. The frequency or intensity of heavy precipitation events has likely increased in North America and Europe." The report made no mention of tornadoes and severe thunderstorms, since the uncertainties of how they have behaved in the past and how climate change might affect them in the future are too great.

Q: What does the IPCC say about a "Day After Tomorrow" scenario?
A: In the disaster movie "The Day After Tomorrow", the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC)--the ocean current system of which the Gulf Stream Current is a part of--collapses, causing a rapid and extreme change in climate. A collapse of the AMOC is very unlikely (0 - 10% chance) before 2100 according to the report, but cannot be ruled out beyond the 21st century. A weakening of the AMOC by about 11 - 34% by 2100 is expected in the moderate RCP4.5 scenario, where CO2 levels reach 538 ppm in 2100. However, these odds assume that Greenland will dump a relatively modest amount of fresh water into the North Atlantic by 2100. If the higher-end sea level rise estimates that the IPCC did not consider as plausible come true, the AMOC will likely slow down much more, with a higher chance of collapse this century. No slow-down in the AMOC has been observed yet, according to the report.

Commentary
As I read though the report, digesting the exhaustive list of changes to Earth's atmosphere, oceans, and ice that have occurred over the past few decades, I was struck by how the IPCC report reads like lab results from a sick hospital patient. The natural systems that civilization depends upon to thrive have been profoundly disturbed, and the forecast for the future reads like a medical diagnosis for an overweight smoker with a heart condition: unless the patient makes major lifestyle changes, the illness will grow far worse, with severe debilitation or death distinct possibilities. We can and we must make the huge effort to turn things around. Oil and natural gas are the energy technologies of the 20th century. Coal is the energy technology of the 19th century. We have countless innovative and dedicated people ready to move us to the energy technology of the 21st century; I heard three of them speak last night at the Climate Week event I am at, and they really gave me some needed hope that we can turn things around. We must elect new leaders and pressure our existing leaders to take the strong actions needed to advance us into a new, 21st century energy economy. You can all help make it so!

Jeff Masters

Reader Comments

Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

Sign In or Register Sign In or Register

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: 879 - 829

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53Blog Index

Antartic Ice Information (not too technical):

Spreading out

Antarctic sea ice nears record extent once again


and

Record extent

2010 climate report notes Antarctic sea ice grows while world warms


Excerpt:

"The big story out of Antarctica involved sea ice. But unlike in the Arctic, where sea ice extent is shrinking over the last decade, winter sea ice in Antarctica reached a record extent in 2010 thanks to a persistently strong atmospheric circulation pattern called the Southern Annular Mode that locked in the cold. Sea ice responds to colder temperatures by growing more.

The positive growth of total sea ice extent around Antarctica, which averages 18 million square kilometers at the height of winter, is part of a long-term trend and is consistent with how scientists believe climate change affects the southernmost continent, according to Ryan Fogt, an assistant professor of meteorology at Ohio University and an associate editor of the 2010 NOAA report."
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 869. CosmicEvents:
Can you and/or one of the other defenders tell me if you believe that we're going to see more and more intense hurricanes because of AGW? How about F5 tornados? How about a thought on post #810?
In addition to #870, what I've read says that tornadoes and hurricanes are too complicated to determine (so far) any direct causal relationship between them and global warming. So those events cannot be attributed to GW, but GW can contribute to the strength of hurricanes and to thei effects - eg more water vapor so more rain; higher sea levels so more storm surge. Not too sure about tornadoes. I thnk there is a lot of study being done.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 824. Xulonn:
Today was a big deal for the climate change "community" including those who study it as well as those who recognize it. The denialist blogosphere, and I'm sure the denialist Twitter and Facebook world, encouraged their followers to go our and flood the discussions with manufactured doubt from the global denialist community to try to discredit the IPCC AR5 report.

It's obvious that a number of the denial troops came here and created new ID's today judging from the number of first-time posters - denialists all from what I noticed.

However, dedicated and loyal as always, the trusty Masters-Rood Regiment of Climate Science Defenders, armed with knowledge, critical and rational thinking, sharp wit, and a strong desire to protect and defend truth, held their own without outside help.

Reinforcements were not needed.


Well, don't brake your arm patting yourself on the back.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
My final post for the afternoon on this. Why aren't we asking ourselves how to adapt to these problems? What difference does it make if it's a cycle or a manned made problem, why aren't we taking any steps to adapt to it? Proponents against global warming have posted evidence to suggest that these cycles have occurred before in Earth's history, but they never point out how these cycles in the past can last for hundreds of years both up and down.

Life is fickle, those who didn't adapt to the numerous Ice Ages were killed off and vice versa when the Ice Ages ended. Granted we have technology and knowledge about how to survive, but we seemed determined to focus on using the technologies to develop new iPhone's or making new weapons. We seemed obsessed with headbutting over previous actions and reasons without ever asking the real question - what the hell are we to do if we can't fix it?

The only logical choice I can see is up into space, perhaps not in our life, but steps should be made now for eventual human expansion into space well beyond our life time. Generally speaking, most American's think space is, for lack of a better word, freakin' awesome. The universe doesn't change over our political wims, social/economical statuses, and whatever Earthly constructions we have shackled on ourselves. Not only that, but space exploration has proven to give a significant economic return to our country during the Apollo program.

I once read a story by a now long passed German scientist who lived in a German town during the onset of a plague. In that town, there lived a Count who instead of focusing the entirety of his money into the people of that town, focused a small portion of his money into a scientist working on an optics experiment.

Granted, he did not turn a blind eye to the suffering of the people, but he never turned a blind eye to scientific progress. That man with the optics experiment created the modern microscope, which ended up being far easier to produce and use than its predecessors. This invention lead not only led to the cure of that plague, but to obviously hundreds of more cures. We don't have to worry constantly about plagues anymore.

Just something for everyone to consider, I'm sure there are varying opinions on it, but don't gloss over this post.
Member Since: July 8, 2005 Posts: 259 Comments: 24631
Quoting 818. tramp96:

His is the only one that counts. Just ask him.
Actually, I think Nea was speaking of the global scientific community. There is no debate there about AGW/CC and the established science behind it - just a handful of scientists among the tens of thousands around the world.

It's not that Nea "thinks" that his point is right, he does his research and calls out a lot of lies and b.s., and he usually is right. If you can ever show that he is wrong, he will gracefully admit it.

People don't like to be called out when they are wrong, especially when there is strong evidence to back a rebuttal or correction. Of course, Nea seems a bit frustrated by the continued baseless denialism here, especially when people are corrected with facts, and repeat the same b.s. time after time after time, even after they have been shown to be wrong - often serially wrong. Then a snarky wit retort is often well deserved.
Member Since: June 11, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 1614
Quoting 856. WalkingInTheSun:


Are you somehow insinuating that there is favoritism that could grant unfair benefit to certain corp.s over others, to certain people over others? That sounds rather...political, like pork spending, bridges to nowhere, slush-money to big eco-corp.s that soon go bankrupt, etc. Hmm, maybe tighter regs on those in favor & perhaps indiscriminate exemptions from certain things, like in Obama's healthcare situ.?
Pork barrel spending is a loose term but usually is brought up when an attack ad is shown on T.V. to smear a candidate. In reality most of this is earmarks attached to bills which account for roughly 1.1 percent of the entire budget. It is also the representatives job to try and influence the money being spent towards something that would benefit the district, otherwise it goes straight to the executive to spend, and we all know how that turns out.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 795. TropicalAnalystwx13:
2013 currently has the 5th lowest season-to-date ACE index through October 1 since 1950. Only 1962, 1977, 1983, and 1994 had lower values. 1977 and 1994 were El Nino years; 1983 had very strong wind shear across the central Atlantic and Caribbean while the 1962 season struggled because of a stronger-than-average Bermuda High and enhanced wind shear from stronger troughs over the East.

And 2013 problem is because?
Member Since: October 15, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 4467
http://nsidc.org/cryosphere/sotc/images/arc_antarc_ 1979_2012.png
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
867: great minds think alike! :)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
From Dr. M's blog

Q: How about hurricanes?
A: The new report gives “low confidence”--a 20% chance--that we have observed a human-caused increase in intense hurricanes in some parts of the world. This is a reduction from the 2007 report, which said that it was more likely than not (greater than 50% chance.) The IPCC likely took note of a landmark 2010 review paper, "Tropical Cyclones and Climate Change", authored by ten top hurricane scientists, which concluded that the U.S. has not seen any long-term increase in landfalling tropical storms and hurricanes, and that "it remains uncertain whether past changes in tropical cyclone activity have exceeded the variability expected from natural causes." The 2013 IPCC report predicts that there is a greater than 50% chance (more likely than not) that we will see a human-caused increase in intense hurricanes by 2100 in some regions; this is a reduction from the 2007 report, which said this would be likely (66% chance or higher.)

Q: How about extreme weather events?
"Changes in many extreme weather and climate events have been observed since about 1950. It is very likely that the number of cold days and nights have decreased and the number of warm days and nights has increased on the global scale. It is likely that the frequency of heat waves has increased in large parts of Europe, Asia, and Australia. There are likely more land regions where the number of heavy precipitation events has increased than where it has decreased. The frequency or intensity of heavy precipitation events has likely increased in North America and Europe." The report made no mention of tornadoes and severe thunderstorms, since the uncertainties of how they have behaved in the past and how climate change might affect them in the future are too great.

Read more at http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/landm ark-2013-ipcc-report-95-chance-most-of-global-warm ing-is-human#dy50j1uX7YZjWw6l.99
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 824. Xulonn:
Today was a big deal for the climate change "community" including those who study it as well as those who recognize it. The denialist blogosphere, and I'm sure the denialist Twitter and Facebook world, encouraged their followers to go our and flood the discussions with manufactured doubt from the global denialist community to try to discredit the IPCC AR5 report.

It's obvious that a number of the denial troops came here and created new ID's today judging from the number of first-time posters - denialists all from what I noticed.

However, dedicated and loyal as always, the trusty Masters-Rood Regiment of Climate Science Defenders, armed with knowledge, critical and rational thinking, sharp wit, and a strong desire to protect and defend truth, held their own without outside help.

Reinforcements were not needed.
Can you and/or one of the other defenders tell me if you believe that we're going to see more and more intense hurricanes because of AGW? How about F5 tornados? How about a thought on post #810?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
I'm sure TX is loving this rain chance! :D
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 838. AGWcreationists:


That's the entire point.

Katrina had Cat 5 surge as a landfalling Cat 3.

Ike had Cat 4 surge as a landfalling Cat 2.

Sandy had Cat 3 surge as a landfalling non-hurricane (according to the NHC getting hypertechnical).

Large storms create large surge.

The predictive scales need to start reflecting that.


I think those storms were larger not long before landfall, right? So, not sure how anything is too improper, as some of the difference is normal due to formerly being larger storms. However, there is something to what you are saying. The AREA of winds was so large in at least one of the storms that the surge was heavier due to the broader windfield, right? There probably could be some reason to tweak the rating system.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 862. Pallis:
And yet the environmentalists were frothing at the mouth to support it, and it still stands as law.


Refer to 859.
Member Since: July 8, 2005 Posts: 259 Comments: 24631
Quoting 855. CybrTeddy:
Please change, please change, please change soon.

It will lol
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 853. CybrTeddy:


You do realize, outside of morons like Al Gore, no one is really supporting carbon taxes right? It's like this idea acts like it's still 2006.
And yet the environmentalists were frothing at the mouth to support it, and it still stands as law.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
843.

Work in private industry "till they get their head right"?

o_O

I've worked as a geologist in the government, university, and private sectors. Opinions span the spectrum in all three because all three are occupied by homo sapiens, who are a bit more complex than your comment suggests.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 824. Xulonn:
Today was a big deal for the climate change "community" including those who study it as well as those who recognize it. The denialist blogosphere, and I'm sure the denialist Twitter and Facebook world, encouraged their followers to go our and flood the discussions with manufactured doubt from the global denialist community to try to discredit the IPCC AR5 report.

It's obvious that a number of the denial troops came here and created new ID's today judging from the number of first-time posters - denialists all from what I noticed.

However, dedicated and loyal as always, the trusty Masters-Rood Regiment of Climate Science Defenders, armed with knowledge, critical and rational thinking, sharp wit, and a strong desire to protect and defend truth, held their own without outside help.

Reinforcements were not needed.
I hope they keep it up and get louder and louder.

When you keep consuming after the “receptor” has passed its point of tolerance and adaptation, the consumed substance gets more and more unpleasant and unwanted.

Works with everything. Alcohol, tobacco, cocaine, marijuana, sex, porn, apocalyptic cults.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 857. tramp96:

Really???

Link


Like I said, morons like Al Gore. Tragically, there's a lot of morons in government across the planet. Putting a carbon tax on people is like putting a gravity tax on people who are heavier, we don't emit much pollution individually, it's as a whole that's the problem. Given how deeply and thoroughly we've already dug ourselves in the hole, I don't think we can fix the Earth at this point if it's not a cycle. Only choice is up.
Member Since: July 8, 2005 Posts: 259 Comments: 24631
And yet, the chaos on the blog today would be a fart in the wind compared to the chaos we would see if there was a Category 5 hurricane about to hit Florida.
Member Since: July 8, 2005 Posts: 259 Comments: 24631
Quoting 843. Pallis:
Simpletons view. The ones selling green products would be the beneficiaries, as well as the larger extremely well funded corporations that wish to do away with competition. The entire idea of carbon credits is so anti environmental and corrupt, I can't believe they still exist.For environmental groups, global warming is the ultimate issue. It affects everyone, it is dramatic and thus captures the public's attention, and it can only be solved by mobilizing government to impose regulations and develop programs. For those environmentalists hostile toward industrial civilization, global warming provides a rationale to impose their version of ecotopia. The threat of global warming gives license to those who seek to profit from crises.(Low paid?) professors should be out there trying to get rid of brazilian peppernut trees and other invasive species instead of wasting our university's money. Maybe they should work in the private sector till they get their head right.


Are you somehow insinuating that there is favoritism that could grant unfair benefit to certain corp.s over others, to certain people over others? That sounds rather...political, like pork spending, bridges to nowhere, slush-money to big eco-corp.s that soon go bankrupt, etc. Hmm, maybe tighter regs on those in favor & perhaps indiscriminate exemptions from certain things, like in Obama's healthcare situ.?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Please change, please change, please change soon.
Member Since: July 8, 2005 Posts: 259 Comments: 24631
854. VR46L
Quoting 814. Climate175:
I am not impatient about hurricanes forming who knows we could have a hurricane on Christmas Day... Zeta 2005 came late Dec and early Jan.. so just lets see and not hesitate..


The way this season has gone , there is more chance of no more storms this year ...
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 843. Pallis:
Simpletons view. The ones selling green products would be the beneficiaries, as well as the larger extremely well funded corporations that wish to do away with competition. The entire idea of carbon credits is so anti environmental and corrupt, I can't believe they still exist.For environmental groups, global warming is the ultimate issue. It affects everyone, it is dramatic and thus captures the public's attention, and it can only be solved by mobilizing government to impose regulations and develop programs. For those environmentalists hostile toward industrial civilization, global warming provides a rationale to impose their version of ecotopia. The threat of global warming gives license to those who seek to profit from crises.(Low paid?) professors should be out there trying to get rid of brazilian peppernut trees and other invasive species instead of wasting our university's money. Maybe they should work in the private sector till they get their head right.


You do realize, outside of morons like Al Gore, no one is really supporting carbon taxes right? It's like this idea acts like it's still 2006.
Member Since: July 8, 2005 Posts: 259 Comments: 24631
The Joint Typhoon Warning Center currently assesses Wutip at 45 knots. Don't mind the fact that it has a clear eye on microwave and has occasionally been showing it on conventional satellite imagery.

I grow increasingly tired of West Pacific forecasting agencies by the day.


Member Since: July 6, 2010 Posts: 113 Comments: 33319
Quoting 835. DonnieBwkGA:


Why did the name change?


OMG! I asked the same question earlier...had some help from Torito...there are two naming systems in the Pacific.

However, PAGASA has been calling it Paolo, and now that it's outside of their jurisdiction and increased to a TS, JMA/NOAA/JTWC are calling it Wutip. Yesterday, NOAA/JTWC had it as 20W, JMA referred to it simply as TD b, and PAGASA had it as Paolo.

Sooo...I think it's because it went into another jurisdiction (PAGASA says it's out of the Philippine Area of Responsibility).

Haven't seen a map, though, of who 'governs' where.

Not sure if I even answered your question, though.

Let me know if you find out more :)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 836. tramp96:

You just labeled yourself by calling yourself an independent.


I don't think you could have missed my point so thoroughly and utterly. It's quite clear you didn't read my post, or you're just being smug on purpose because you have no genuine response to that.

I'm not other people, I can call myself whatever I want. I'm an independent and you make me glad of it.
Member Since: July 8, 2005 Posts: 259 Comments: 24631
847. VR46L
Wutip

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 840. Xulonn:
I guess you better talk to Dr. Masters about that - He wrote this blog and put it under the topic "Climate Change" so this discussion is where it belongs.


give it a rest..
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
It looks extremely likely we will be entering October without a major hurricane in the East Pacific. It's amazing that the Atlantic has been able to accomplish such a feat, but even more so for the East Pacific. Disturbances here generally don't have upper-level lows or strong upper-level troughs to contend with. African dust isn't an issue, sea surface temperatures and ocean heat content are generally higher, and there is less land interaction (all compared to the Atlantic). But yet here we stand with 0. Since reliable ACE records for the EPAC began in 1971, we've seen two hurricane seasons go without a major hurricane -- 1977 (was a quiet year for the entire globe) and 2003. Current ACE is less than 50% of normal.

Member Since: July 6, 2010 Posts: 113 Comments: 33319
so meanwhile the Chinese are doing coal gasification, and burning coal as well.

so whatever we do will have a marginal impact, why can't we see that and quit supporting countries that are destroying the climate?

totally sucks.

jk
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 755. VAstorms:


Good grief, the post docs and assistant professors that do most of this stuff make almost no money considering their education. So big money in AGW, where?
Simpletons view. The ones selling green products would be the beneficiaries, as well as the larger extremely well funded corporations that wish to do away with competition. The entire idea of carbon credits is so anti environmental and corrupt, I can't believe they still exist.For environmental groups, global warming is the ultimate issue. It affects everyone, it is dramatic and thus captures the public's attention, and it can only be solved by mobilizing government to impose regulations and develop programs. For those environmentalists hostile toward industrial civilization, global warming provides a rationale to impose their version of ecotopia. The threat of global warming gives license to those who seek to profit from crises.(Low paid?) professors should be out there trying to get rid of brazilian peppernut trees and other invasive species instead of wasting our university's money. Maybe they should work in the private sector till they get their head right.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 838. AGWcreationists:


That's the entire point.

Katrina had Cat 5 surge as a landfalling Cat 3.

Ike had Cat 4 surge as a landfalling Cat 2.

Sandy had Cat 3 surge as a landfalling non-hurricane (according to the NHC getting hypertechnical).

Large storms create large surge.

The predictive scales need to start reflecting that.


I'm a little late to the conversation, but isn't NHC coming out w/ a surge scale? 2014 or 2015?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 772. SLU:
The blog can sure do with something like this right now for us to get back on topic and send all of these off topic discussions to back to the climate change blogs where they belong. Not here.


Ivan 2004.

I guess you better talk to Dr. Masters about that - He wrote this blog and put it under the topic "Climate Change" so this discussion is where it belongs.
Member Since: June 11, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 1614
If this blog had an emergency resent button, it should be pushed now!
Member Since: May 12, 2012 Posts: 15 Comments: 3036
Quoting 827. WalkingInTheSun:


However, the surge of Ike was a lot larger than it would normally be for a storm of similar winds, it seems.


That's the entire point.

Katrina had Cat 5 surge as a landfalling Cat 3.

Ike had Cat 4 surge as a landfalling Cat 2.

Sandy had Cat 3 surge as a landfalling non-hurricane (according to the NHC getting hypertechnical).

Large storms create large surge.

The predictive scales need to start reflecting that.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 819. Naga5000:


You're jumping to conclusions. Do some research on the topic before proclaiming it is not properly being addressed. In fact, I'm positive there is a plethora of papers available through google scholar on the subject. You raise a good question, but look to see if there's a answer before assuming there isn't.


True. A lot to read on, although my post 821 indicates the experts are showing concern now about my same concerns and that it is all much bigger than they currently know. Hmmm.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 819. Naga5000:


You're jumping to conclusions. Do some research on the topic before proclaiming it is not properly being addressed. In fact, I'm positive there is a plethora of papers available through google scholar on the subject. You raise a good question, but look to see if there's a answer before assuming there isn't.


Google Scholar gives 2,310,000 in .17 sec for "land use effects climate change", plenty of info out there foe he who wants to look for it. But looking for it, not my job,man
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
T.S. Wutip (formerly Paolo). Looks to hit Vietnam close to where TD 18 hit last week.



Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 816. txjac:
I dont know about anyone else I am actually enjoying the conversation between Walking In the Sun and Scott Lincoln. Makes me think ...new ideas to consider in my sceptisism of the subject


Thanks, but I try to be fair. If I close my mind to the views of other possibilities, I cannot say I am being true to science, facts, etc. I have found that I must be willing to (music...)
"...hold on loosely,
but don't let go.
If you cling too tightly,......."


Hey, you want TRUTH, you gotta be willing to have truth, no matter what -- all emotions aside.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 827. WalkingInTheSun:


Ike & Sandy caused so much $-damage due to where they hit and how much build-up has taken place in the land-use of the affected areas, so it is not really fair IMO to look at it that way -- in $$'s. However, the surge of Ike was a lot larger than it would normally be for a storm of similar winds, it seems.


Wasn't just because of where they hit, it was because they were so large and kicked up so much surge. Sandy and Ike had an insane high IKE scale (so did Isabel, which caused a lot of damage for a Category 2). If Andrew had been the size of Sandy and at its max strength, it would be been the storm of the millennium.
Member Since: July 8, 2005 Posts: 259 Comments: 24631
Should climate models have predicted the pause?

Media coverage today of the launch of the 5th Assessment Report of the IPCC has again said that global warming is “unequivocal” and that the pause in warming over the past 15 years is too short to reflect long-term trends.

Over recent days some commentators have criticised climate models for not predicting the pause. It’s good to see this being addressed, and so begin to clarify the difference between climate model projections and predictions.

We should not confuse climate prediction with climate change projection. Climate prediction is about saying what the state of the climate will be in the next few years, and it depends absolutely on knowing what the state of the climate is today. And that requires a vast number of high quality observations, of the atmosphere and especially of the ocean.

Whilst the last decade has seen a rapid increase in good observations of the surface and upper ocean, thanks to Argo floats, we have very few for the deep ocean. Without these requisite observations to initialise, i.e. set running, a climate prediction, it is impossible to have predicted the current pause, however good the climate models.

On the other hand, climate change projections are concerned with the long view; the impact of the large and powerful influences on our climate, such as greenhouse gases. Projections capture the role of these overwhelming influences on climate and its variability, rather than predict the current state of the variability itself.

The IPCC model simulations are projections and not predictions; in other words the models do not start from the state of the climate system today or even 10 years ago. There is no mileage in a story about models being ‘flawed’ because they did not predict the pause; it’s merely a misunderstanding of the science and the difference between a prediction and a projection.

As the IPCC states in line with our three papers on the pause, the deep ocean is likely a key player in the current pause, effectively ‘hiding’ heat from the surface. Climate model projections simulate such pauses, a few every hundred years lasting a decade or more; and they replicate the influence of the modes of natural climate variability, like the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) that we think is at the centre of the current pause.

The Daily Telegraph today also covers the science of the pause.

Critically there is ever more confidence that the world is warming as a result of human actions, and limiting climate change would require substantial and sustained reductions in emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:

Viewing: 879 - 829

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53Blog 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.

JeffMasters's Recent Photos

Carrot Nose in Danger
Deep Snow in Brookline, MA
Sunset at Fort DeSoto
New Years Day Sunset in Death Valley