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.

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: 779 - 729

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

Quoting 776. StormTrackerScott:


#Beer and lots of it this evening


and plenty of football..
Member Since: August 19, 2006 Posts: 13 Comments: 13419
Quoting 715. rickdove:
If man is destroying the earth's climate, what is IPCC recommending we do?

For God sakes man turn your computer off don't you know coal plants produce 44% off the electricity in this country

P.S.
Eat mor chiken
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 715. rickdove:
If man is destroying the earth's climate, what is IPCC recommending we do?
You'll have to wait a bit for that one, Rick - next March:

As of August 2011, the Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) was already under way. It will consist of three Working Group (WG) Reports and a Synthesis Report, to be completed in 2013 and 2014.

WG I: The Physical Science Basis – mid September 2013, Summary for Policymakers published 27 September.
WG II: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability – mid March 2014
WG III: Mitigation of Climate Change – early April 2014
AR5 Synthesis Report (SYR) – October 2014
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 765. ncstorm:


I dont think its getting that much attention here in the US though..its friday and people are looking forward to their weekend..

my TL on twitter:

#InsideCHANEL Promoted
#AgentsofSHIELD
#Obamacare
#tcot
Florida
#Giveaway
#TGIF
New York
Halloween
Congress



#Beer and lots of it this evening
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
are we going to get invest soon.
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. No here.


Ivan 2004.



Blog topic is about climate change, ergo it's completely relevant and cannot be moved. If there was a hurricane out in the Atlantic, that would dominate the discussion. It's the slowest season in nearly 20 years.. there's really nothing else to talk about.
Member Since: July 8, 2005 Posts: 259 Comments: 23009
Quoting 771. ScottLincoln:

I didn't even think about that.
But I've always had a chuckle when I've crossed that bridge.


I stopped laughing at the bridges name the 1st time I had to cross it during a windy snow storm. I'm from Texas and wasn't used to that sort of abuse from a bridge.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
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.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 768. jascott1967:


It is. I didn't think the word "Bong" would be accepted by the website but you proved me wrong.

I lived in Duluth from 2000-2010.

I didn't even think about that.
But I've always had a chuckle when I've crossed that bridge.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
If I started something and now I'm running off, apologies. Time to enter the bumber car contest on Hwy 98 and head to the boat. Taking the grandkids to dinner and the 4 year old is driving (pray for me and Nana)...
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 762. WalkingInTheSun:

So, it talks about the release of carbon in to the atmosphere from felled trees rather than the differences in heating & cooling based on barran versus vegetated regions.

It's part of land use change. See 751.

IPCC AR4:
Human activities since the industrial era have altered the nature of land cover over the globe, principally through changes in croplands, pastures and forests. They have also modified the reflective properties of ice and snow. Overall, it is likely that more solar radiation is now being reflected from Earth%u2019s surface as a result of human activities. This change results in a negative forcing.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 758. ScottLincoln:

I think that's the Bong Bridge.


It is. I didn't think the word "Bong" would be accepted by the website but you proved me wrong.

I lived in Duluth from 2000-2010.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Checking the Platte River

Kearney, NE



Grand Island, NE



Duncan, NE

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
766. Skyepony (Mod)
I was at the Indian River yesterday. Dead fish everywhere. Tomorrow morning is hands across the lagoon in five counties, from New Smyrna to Stuart. It is to bring attention & awareness to revive our river from both locals & politicians...


Events are planned from 9 to 10 a.m. Sept. 28 as part of National Estuaries Day and will occur at designated causeways in all five counties bordering the 156-mile-long Indian River Lagoon. At 9:45 a.m., participants will join hands for 15 minutes as a symbol of support. Hands Across the Lagoon gatherings will occur at:
• New Smyrna South Causeway (State Road 44)
• Max Brewer Causeway, Titusville (SR 406)
• State Road 520 Causeway, Cocoa Beach
• Melbourne Causeway (U.S. 192) — Parking available at Front Street Park, Geiger Point Park and East Minister Presbyterian Church in Indialantic.
• Kayaks Across the Lagoon: Kiwanis Island Park (SR 520), Merritt Island
• Wabasso Causeway (County Road 510, Indian River County)
• South Bridge Causesway in Fort Pierce (SR 1A)
• Stuart Causeway (SR 1A)


Upcoming lagoon forums

What: Brevard County Commission’s Indian River Lagoon workshop. Presentations will include reports about the current problems in the lagoon and the estuary’s economic value to the region. Rep. Bill Posey may attend.
When: 6 p.m. Thursday, Oct. 17
Where: Ted Moorhead Lagoon House, 3275 Dixie Highway, N.E., Palm Bay
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 757. VR46L:


Probably because its the main newsheadline all day well at least in some parts of the world .. is bringing folk out of the wood work ! Good Job there is little weather at the moment !


I dont think its getting that much attention here in the US though..its friday and people are looking forward to their weekend..

my TL on twitter:

#InsideCHANEL Promoted
#AgentsofSHIELD
#Obamacare
#tcot
Florida
#Giveaway
#TGIF
New York
Halloween
Congress

Member Since: August 19, 2006 Posts: 13 Comments: 13419
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 679. islander44:


Perhaps we need to make a list of the common myths, with links to the rebuttal. So the followup post would be:

" Your post contains myth 1, 3, 4, 5, 9, and 13 on this list. Click on the link for the science that refutes your claims."

It would save us all a lot of time.

Now, is there any weather out there worth discussing?
Well, it's 72 def F and raining at 4,200 ft. elevation in the mountains of Western Panama, but then again, this happens almost every afternoon at this time of year.

Yep - not worth discussing - back to the AGW/CC slugfest.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 744. Naga5000:


Well deforestation, as far as carbon release goes, is estimated to represent about 15% of man made CO2 emissions. "By most accounts, deforestation in tropical rainforests adds more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere than the sum total of cars and trucks on the world%u2019s roads. According to the World Carfree Network (WCN), cars and trucks account for about 14 percent of global carbon emissions, while most analysts attribute upwards of 15 percent to deforestation." Link

Like I said, the data is out there, and it is most definitely used in the calculations. If your game, I would use google scholar and check the papers out.


Again, another good link, yet it too unintentionally skirts the issue of the question I posed. It is limited, as follows:
"The reason that logging is so bad for the climate is that when trees are felled they release the carbon they are storing into the atmosphere..."

So, it talks about the release of carbon in to the atmosphere from felled trees rather than the differences in heating & cooling based on barran versus vegetated regions. Good info, again, and another dimension, but not what I was looking for. What it does show, nevertheless, is that deforestation both in carbon-release from trees AND from urban areas in matters of the asphalt versus forests.....combine to make an even larger difference -- and this is not yet taking into account the core issue of what I was talking about! It seems, then, that the entirety if it all should add up to something really signicant, and IF SO, where is it in the discussion? Why is there so little mention of it when it evidently is bigger than they seem to think?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 759. ncstorm:
Sorry Scottlincoln..I accidently plussed your post..
LOL!!!!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
In order to save the world from AGW we must hurl one another into the oceans. I suggest we start with Congress.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Sorry Scottlincoln..I accidently plussed your post..
Member Since: August 19, 2006 Posts: 13 Comments: 13419
Quoting 756. jascott1967:


I think his name references a bridge that connects Duluth, MN and Superior, WI. But I could bwrong.

I think that's the Bong Bridge.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
757. VR46L
Quoting 750. VAstorms:
Where did all of these people come from suddenly on this blog? Did someone tell someone else Dr. Masters was going to discuss AGW so they all showed up? If so, I wish they would go back under the rock they seem to have come from. Do they realize this is Dr. Masters' blog and not theirs?


Probably because its the main newsheadline all day well at least in some parts of the world .. is bringing folk out of the wood work ! Good Job there is little weather at the moment !
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 745. Xulonn:
Can I call you "Richard B Wrong"?


I think his name references a bridge that connects Duluth, MN and Superior, WI. But I could bwrong.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 732. Greg01:
For those of you that are convinced that AGW is a big hoax and nothing but a money grab, perhaps you can figure out the mechanism through which the "AGW crowd" is going to profit by this "hoax". Consider it your ground-floor opportunity to profit by it as well. Ignoring the science is unproductive, claiming that others will profit by it is disingenuous at best.


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?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 750. VAstorms:
Where did all of these people come from suddenly on this blog? Did someone tell someone else Dr. Masters was going to discuss AGW so they all showed up? If so, I wish they would go back under the rock they seem to have come from. Do they realize this is Dr. Masters' blog and not theirs?
Do you?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
753. VR46L
Quoting 749. NttyGrtty:
(says "thank you," takes a bow, spills the vodka, smiles and exits as gracefully as possible in this situation)...


LMAO !!!

Too funny :)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 751. ScottLincoln:

Deforestation is part of land use change. You can find sources online that quantify land use change and compare the net forcing to that of greenhouse gases. You'll find that greenhouse gases are far more dominant.


Thanks again Scott, that is one aspect I am not as well versed in. :)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 740. WalkingInTheSun:


Well, since urban areas account for an estimated 2 - 4 % of GW and the majority of deforestation is not urban, it could well be a double-digit effect on GW stats. If so, and if there is info on it, why is it being ignored...or flying so low under the radar on the GW issue? After all, planting trees, reforestation & even aforestation projects are simple things that almost anyone can participate in. If the denuding of the lands around Kilimanjaro accounted for temporary diminishing of glacial coverage, there, we could see good effects from concerted efforts, worldwide. It would also be better for the world & our environments at any rate, regardless of what one thinks about GW, so could garner broad advocacy & enthusiasm.

Deforestation is part of land use change. You can find sources online that quantify land use change and compare the net forcing to that of greenhouse gases. You'll find that greenhouse gases are far more dominant.

From the IPCC AR4:
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Where did all of these people come from suddenly on this blog? Did someone tell someone else Dr. Masters was going to discuss AGW so they all showed up? If so, I wish they would go back under the rock they seem to have come from. Do they realize this is Dr. Masters' blog and not theirs?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 743. VR46L:


Had to plus that ;) A truthful assessment .
(says "thank you," takes a bow, spills the vodka, smiles and exits as gracefully as possible in this situation)...
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
748. Skyepony (Mod)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 736. Naga5000:


Good one, thanks for sharing.


Oh,....so it's the avatar thing again! (haha)
Hmmm, maybe I should put my old one back up, so we keep both sides of the political stuff going. :-)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 716. Xulonn:
There is no "Tropical Weather Blog." This is Dr. Jeff Masters' personal blog. In addition to being a Ph.D. Meteorologist with a heavy background in tropical and severe weather, he is also an expert on climate change.

Jeff blogs about what he chooses, and that includes AGW/CC. He usually locks down the comments to tropical weather when there are hurricanes or the tropics are are active - which is not happening right now.

The big news in weather/climate today is the release of the IPCC's 5th report - at least the first section of it. That is the subject of Jeff's blog today blog - and most of the comments.


Upper right hand corner under Dr. Jeff Masters picture this blog is listed under "Tropical Blogs". However, Dr. Masters can post on any subject he wants to, it is his blog.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 646. RichardBLong:
Can I call you "Richard B Wrong"?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 740. WalkingInTheSun:


Well, since urban areas account for an estimated 2 - 4 % of GW and the majority of deforestation is not urban, it could well be a double-digit effect on GW stats. If so, and if there is info on it, why is it being ignored...or flying so low under the radar on the GW issue? After all, planting trees, reforestation & even aforestation projects are simple things that almost anyone can participate in. If the denuding of the lands around Kilimanjaro accounted for temporary diminishing of glacial coverage, there, we could see good effects from concerted efforts, worldwide. It would also be better for the world & our environments at any rate, regardless of what one thinks about GW, so could garner broad advocacy & enthusiasm.


Well deforestation, as far as carbon release goes, is estimated to represent about 15% of man made CO2 emissions. "By most accounts, deforestation in tropical rainforests adds more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere than the sum total of cars and trucks on the world%u2019s roads. According to the World Carfree Network (WCN), cars and trucks account for about 14 percent of global carbon emissions, while most analysts attribute upwards of 15 percent to deforestation." Link

Like I said, the data is out there, and it is most definitely used in the calculations. If your game, I would use google scholar and check the papers out.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
743. VR46L
Quoting 735. NttyGrtty:
Don't sweat the approvals or +'s on here. There are "plus monkeys" on boths side of every debate on here. Things get +'d not for the content but for who typed it. Ask whatever you want and sift what you can from the responses. Oh, the - button works well to...


Had to plus that ;) A truthful assessment .
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 714. TropicalAnalystwx13:
Some people are upset that this "debate" is going on today. I'm actually pretty happy about it...I have to write a 12-page junior research paper about it next month. :)
Have fun... I had to do the same 2 years ago on National Weather Service funding.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 715. rickdove:
If man is destroying the earth's climate, what is IPCC recommending we do?


According to Dr. M's blog yesterday, the full report is rolling out in stages. The sections on adaptation & mitigation are coming out in 2014.

Info available here
Member Since: June 26, 2013 Posts: 0 Comments: 1297
Quoting 726. Naga5000:


Actually I didn't really look into it. I just did a simple google search. I'm sure there is a bunch of info on the subject, it's one of those things that I highly doubt was overlooked.


Well, since urban areas account for an estimated 2 - 4 % of GW and the majority of deforestation is not urban, it could well be a double-digit effect on GW stats. If so, and if there is info on it, why is it being ignored...or flying so low under the radar on the GW issue? After all, planting trees, reforestation & even aforestation projects are simple things that almost anyone can participate in. If the denuding of the lands around Kilimanjaro accounted for temporary diminishing of glacial coverage, there, we could see good effects from concerted efforts, worldwide. It would also be better for the world & our environments at any rate, regardless of what one thinks about GW, so could garner broad advocacy & enthusiasm.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
From Angela Fritz's Blog:

A heavyweight boxer in the climate change match is missing from the 5th climate assessment report released by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) on Friday.

Permafrost, which is frozen ground that doesn't melt during the summer, covers 24% of the land in the northern hemisphere. Permafrost acts like a massive cryogenic chamber, stabilizing tens of thousands of years of organic matter, and stores approximately 1.5 trillion tons of carbon, which is twice the amount of carbon that's currently in our atmosphere. When the organic matter thaws, that carbon will be exposed to the elements, made available to escape into the air in the form of heat-trapping gases, with the potential to knock out our efforts to slow down global warming with a one-two punch.

This effect, called the permafrost carbon feedback, is not present in the global climate change models used to estimate how warm the earth could get over the next century. But research done in the past few years shows that leaving the permafrost effect out of the climate models results in a far more conservative estimate of how our climate will change. Scientists predict that greenhouse gas from permafrost alone could lead to an additional 1.5°F of warming by the end of this century, on top of our day-to-day human emissions.

To put that in perspective, the earth has already warmed around 1.5°F since 1901, and climate scientists suggest that we should keep global warming below 3.6°F in order to avoid a "dangerous" level of warming. The climate models used in Friday's report, without the permafrost effect, estimate that by the end of this century we will have warmed at least 7°F if we continue "business as usual" with no efforts to reduce our fossil fuel consumption.

More here.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 733. PedleyCA:
Riverside, Jurupa Valley, CA (Indian Hills), Jurupa Valley, California (PWS)
Updated: 1:25 PM PDT on September 27, 2013
Clear
77.5 °F
Clear
Humidity: 16%
Dew Point: 28 °F

Wind: 8.4 mph from the West
Wind Gust: 14.4 mph
Pressure: 29.92 in (Falling)
Heat Index: 77 °F
Visibility: 10.0 miles
UV: 15.0 out of 16
Pollen: 6.00 out of 12
Pollen Forecast new!
Clouds:
Clear -
(Above Ground Level)
Elevation: 1000 ft

78.1 here and a bit windy. Mild Santa Ana.


Ok that's it. I'm taking a weekend trip to visit friends and fam back in Cali :)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 609. Sfloridacat5:
Finally get my computer hooked up at my our new house and hurry to check the blog only to find out the world in coming to an end.
I was hoping we'd have a storm to discuss vs. GW arguements.
new home in Fl?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 734. tramp96:

I'm with you man. I won't even watch the NFL anymore cause they keep score. I think at the end of every game it should be 0-0 and we can all sing Kum Ba Yah.
Your avatar should be the new flag.


Good one, thanks for sharing.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 720. WalkingInTheSun:


Well, you are right about the "contentious" aspect.
I posed a question, and Naga500 offered a response.
No problem there, and he had a link with info to back up what he apparently thought. Good!
However, his link addressed only a small part of my question, yet got big approvals, while my question itself -- a legitimate one -- got 1 approval.

Look, if you want to argue a point legitimately, do so. I wasn't even argueing, just posing thoughts. However, the response shows that there seem to be a lot of people who don't care WHAT you say but rather WHO is saying it and WHICH SIDE is saying it.
Well, that is not very scientific. To play politics & ram one sidedly on an issue due solely upon political & personal emotions....does not belong in a scientific discussion. Right?

If you got evidence of something, fine, but people, please be mature enough to be scientific & view things aside from mere emotion. I think both sides can say this is a good idea. What I posted was responded with a polite referrence to it relating to only 2 - 4 % of GW. Okay, but there was much more to it than that not accounted for in what the link was about, so how much does the rest (non-urban) account for in the GW issue? If it pushes the amount of GW up into double-digits, isn't that significant? Or, should it be ignored because it wasn't thought about or doesn't alarm as much (since it is a simpler issue that people CAN do something about)?

Btw -- Thanks, Naga5000 for responding with that link. I simply think it is not sufficient for the totality of my concerns. Maybe they simply don't have data on the other aspects yet. Hey, you tried.
Don't sweat the approvals or +'s on here. There are "plus monkeys" on boths side of every debate on here. Things get +'d not for the content but for who typed it. Ask whatever you want and sift what you can from the responses. Oh, the - button works well to...
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 653. Naga5000:
There we have it, folks. It's a CONSPIRACY!

I, for one, will not stand for AGW coming to take my guns and force vaccinate my children. :p

I'm with you man. I won't even watch the NFL anymore cause they keep score. I think at the end of every game it should be 0-0 and we can all sing Kum Ba Yah.
Your avatar should be the new flag.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Riverside, Jurupa Valley, CA (Indian Hills), Jurupa Valley, California (PWS)
Updated: 1:25 PM PDT on September 27, 2013
Clear
77.5 °F
Clear
Humidity: 16%
Dew Point: 28 °F

Wind: 8.4 mph from the West
Wind Gust: 14.4 mph
Pressure: 29.92 in (Falling)
Heat Index: 77 °F
Visibility: 10.0 miles
UV: 15.0 out of 16
Pollen: 6.00 out of 12
Pollen Forecast new!
Clouds:
Clear -
(Above Ground Level)
Elevation: 1000 ft

78.1 here and a bit windy. Mild Santa Ana.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
For those of you that are convinced that AGW is a big hoax and nothing but a money grab, perhaps you can figure out the mechanism through which the "AGW crowd" is going to profit by this "hoax". Consider it your ground-floor opportunity to profit by it as well. Ignoring the science is unproductive, claiming that others will profit by it is disingenuous at best.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
731. yoboi
Quoting 722. Naga5000:





I like the animated one from JC better......
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Is this the same blog I read one month ago?Where are you hurricane fans?This is gonna be a long road to 2015 hurricane season.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 727. luvtogolf:


They sent their disciples to this blog to spread the good news.


One of us! One of us!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:

Viewing: 779 - 729

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 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.