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: 629 - 579

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 626. WalkingInTheSun:
Do GW advocates consider the meteorological factors possible in GW? Just curious. We commonly notice greater 24-hr temp diff's. in regions with a rather barren landscape, don't we? Night-time cooling is greater, & daytime heating is greater, commonly.

Okay, so who is factoring in (again) the massive global deforestation, paving of roads, parking lots, concrete & metal buildings, etc. into the equations? This sounds reasonable...that it should be considered AND that it can add up, tremendously. With the extremes of deforestation across the earth, there is of course the matter in Indonesia where it is resulting in massive escape of CO2 from the mushy organic former forst floor, but also there are huge areas that have quickly gone from a cooler day-temp to an environment that fosters higher day-temps.....and from warmer night-temps to an environment devoid of vegetation that fosters greater cooling during the night.


Estimated 2-4% according to this study. Link
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 623. DoctorDave1:


Do I count as a AGW denier troll if I say AGW could be caused by CFCs?


CFCs and HCFCs are the most potent greenhouse gases known, but only because they reradiate outgoing infrared at wavelengths not intercepted by water vapour, CO2, or any of the other GHGs.

However, the miniscule amounts of these gases in the atmosphere means that they (probably) don't contribute all that much. It's a while since I looked at the estimates, but CFCs are believed to be minor contributors, like nitrous oxide and ozone.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
627. VR46L
Quoting 620. StormTrackerScott:
12Z Euro sends a weak tropical storm into the FL Big Bend near Cedar Key at 168hrs. FL residents may need to start watching whats going on in the Caribbean.



A tropical storm is stretching it...

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Do GW advocates consider the meteorological factors possible in GW? Just curious. We commonly notice greater 24-hr temp diff's. in regions with a rather barren landscape, don't we? Night-time cooling is greater, & daytime heating is greater, commonly.

Okay, so who is factoring in (again) the massive global deforestation, paving of roads, parking lots, concrete & metal buildings, etc. into the equations? This sounds reasonable...that it should be considered AND that it can add up, tremendously. With the extremes of deforestation across the earth, there is of course the matter in Indonesia where it is resulting in massive escape of CO2 from the mushy organic former forst floor, but also there are huge areas that have quickly gone from a cooler day-temp to an environment that fosters higher day-temps.....and from warmer night-temps to an environment devoid of vegetation that fosters greater cooling during the night.

I know -- I should not ask such questions & should rather accept everything blindly. I prefer to think.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 613. schistkicker:
I just have to say, as a scientist I am intrigued by all the folks coming in to disparage Dr. Masters, the topic of the blog, the people posting science-based comments... most of whom seem to have less than 10 comments posted in their account history.

I have a hypothesis that might explain this, but I'm afraid I lack the means to test it. Sigh...


Which "most of whom" have less than 10 comments in their account history? I see one ninja with less than 100 comments but he's been here since 2008...
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 593. Proveit:


Yes, CFC's are increasing over the poles from volcanoes. Look it up I did.

CFCs are entirely anthropogenic.
You seem to be confusing CFCs with HCI.
http://www.epa.gov/ozone/science/myths/volcano.ht ml
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 617. yonzabam:
I go away for a couple of days and look what happens. The place is crawling with AGW denier trolls who appear to have joined all at the same time. What a coincidence. Anyone would think it was a coordinated attack by the oil industry, but they wouldn't get up to those kind of shenanigans, now would they?

One thing that the IPCC isn't being candid enough about is the fact that the model predictions are likely to be significant underestimates due to the fact that positive feedback effects which cannot be quantified are not included. These include release of methane from under the Arctic ocean, and release of methane and CO2 from melting permafrost.



Do I count as a AGW denier troll if I say AGW could be caused by CFCs?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 613. schistkicker:
I just have to say, as a scientist I am intrigued by all the folks coming in to disparage Dr. Masters, the topic of the blog, the people posting science-based comments... most of whom seem to have less than 10 comments posted in their account history.

I have a hypothesis that might explain this, but I'm afraid I lack the means to test it. Sigh...


The deniers are having a field day on the UK Telegraph and Guardian sites, too. They outnumber 'believers' by about 20 to 1.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
621. N3EG
When is the tipping point where global warming goes from commonly accepted theory to proven fact?

Hopefully soon.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
12Z Euro sends a weak tropical storm into the FL Big Bend near Cedar Key at 168hrs. FL residents may need to start watching whats going on in the Caribbean.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
619. VR46L
Quoting 604. Naga5000:


I'm pretty sure you missed post 537 that quoted comment #50 to attack Neapolitan. Maybe?


Yeah I did , that is hilarious too .

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 614. WalkingInTheSun:


You were saying there was a big difference, but I see none. Don't mean any disrespect, but I think they are pretty much based on the same methodology, just different time-frames. :-)


Nope they are quite different.

Link

Link

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
I go away for a couple of days and look what happens. The place is crawling with AGW denier trolls who appear to have joined all at the same time. What a coincidence. Anyone would think it was a coordinated attack by the oil industry, but they wouldn't get up to those kind of shenanigans, now would they?

One thing that the IPCC isn't being candid enough about is the fact that the model predictions are likely to be significant underestimates due to the fact that positive feedback effects which cannot be quantified are not included. These include release of methane from under the Arctic ocean, and release of methane and CO2 from melting permafrost.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
fall time is here I am getting ready for winter soon.
Member Since: March 12, 2013 Posts: 8 Comments: 12842
The distrubance east of the Lesser Antilles seems to be organising slowly. Wind shear has decreased quite a bit over it. There's an upper low just to its west, however that's travelling west so shouldn't influence the system too much, unless it stalls.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 596. CybrTeddy:


Yes..?


You were saying there was a big difference, but I see none. Don't mean any disrespect, but I think they are pretty much based on the same methodology, just different time-frames. :-)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
I just have to say, as a scientist I am intrigued by all the folks coming in to disparage Dr. Masters, the topic of the blog, the people posting science-based comments... most of whom seem to have less than 10 comments posted in their account history.

I have a hypothesis that might explain this, but I'm afraid I lack the means to test it. Sigh...
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
612. yoboi
Quoting 601. schistkicker:


It's dishonest to quote other people as saying things that aren't being said.

I'm a geologist. If I were to pick up the most recent issue of Tectonics, a well-regarded journal in my field, do you have any idea how many of the peer-reviewed papers would explicitly take a position on plate-tectonic theory in the abstract? If I were a betting man, I'd put some money down on something less than 5% of the total from a given volume year, since it's established science. Does that mean only 5% of the geologists endorse plate tectonic theory? If I picked up a copy of JAMA, how many abstracts would re-confirm the germ theory of disease?

I'm sorry, but there's really no way to try to spin the data the way you're doing without being exceedingly dishonest. You might want to avoid that if you want to be taken seriously.

(I don't, but there might be lurkers or less-informed readers who could use seeing this sort of stuff debunked)



At the end of the day only 36% endorsed it.....
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 606. gatorman98:
So this is what happens when we have a boring year in the tropics and Florida isn't in a cone of doom. The GW brain vomit has been amazing. That is all.


i have been genuinely entertained for two days, yesterday was fun in the IPCC is coming out post and today with the release it has been just as vitriolic and nonsensical.

I wonder how the Antilles storm is doing? I am not going to look for fear of it blowing away.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Oooon another note I've finally made a decision..After a year and a half of savings and looking at countless videos and "peer" reviews...(lol).I've decided to by a range rover sport on Saturday.Woot!.Aw man.Can't wait to smell that new car smell.The family van has already been paid off.Looking forward to it!.
Member Since: August 14, 2010 Posts: 10 Comments: 16327
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.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
608. bwi
Quoting 552. BirdieMan:
The IPPC doesn't have a clue. This is nothing more than a bunch of academics with an agenda. The bottom line to the global warming debate is MONEY. Most of the people that promote the junk are looking for a personal economic gain.


Because the vast scientific conspiracy theory is so much more plausible than the rational efforts of oil companies to prevent their trillions of dollars worth of "assets" from being devalued by conservation and renewables! :)

We have given fossil fuel companies license, direct subsidies, and indirect forgiveness of the negative externalities caused as they help us liberate gigatons of sequestered carbon into the atmosphere.

Deplorable as it may be, it makes perfect rational sense for these companies to try to protect their licenses, subsidies, and protection from being taxed for pollution costs and climate disruption impacts, so that their remaining underground "assets" retain their current value. I regard their disinformation and misinformation tactics as a breach of trust with the civilization that grants them their licenses in the first place, and a abdication of proper corporate ethics, stewardship and public responsibility, but I cannot say their efforts are irrational.

The academic conspiracy theory, however, is ridiculous. If somebody really could prove that all the current measurements on global warming were wrong, or could develop a scientifically convincing alternative physics for why the measurements are occurring as they are, he or she would be a instant millionaire. A scientific celebrity. Besides, most scientists are born contrarians and relish rivalry. The reason none have disproved the consensus global warming measurements and theories indicates that those measurements and theories are highly likely to be correct!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 606. gatorman98:
So this is what happens when we have a boring year in the tropics and Florida isn't in a cone of doom. The GW brain vomit has been amazing. That is all.


Thank you!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
So this is what happens when we have a boring year in the tropics and Florida isn't in a cone of doom. The GW brain vomit has been amazing. That is all.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
The earth has been warming since the last ice age so what is new here except an excuse for big government to control our energy usage through increased costs? The good doctor should stick to predicting the weather for a more realistic time period, like tomorrow or next week and leave his political narrative to the politicians.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 594. VR46L:
Oh my now going back over 250 comments to keep the fighting up hilarious


I'm pretty sure you missed post 537 that quoted comment #50 to attack Neapolitan. Maybe?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 590. ScottLincoln:

...and scientists knew about CFCs as greenhouse gases since far before May 2013. The claims are not even remotely accurate according to any measure.


You're right.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 589. Xulonn:
Liu's paper was published in May, and debunked at SkepticalScience in June. I wouldn't want a horse that has been dead for 3 months in my living room!


You're right.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 592. StormPro:
It is dishonest to say 97% of climate scientist endorse this theory when plainly only 36% of those asked have endorsed it. I didn't say it but plenty on here including Neo have and one day when I don't have the world to save I'll research back in old posts and show you.


It's dishonest to quote other people as saying things that aren't being said.

I'm a geologist. If I were to pick up the most recent issue of Tectonics, a well-regarded journal in my field, do you have any idea how many of the peer-reviewed papers would explicitly take a position on plate-tectonic theory in the abstract? If I were a betting man, I'd put some money down on something less than 5% of the total from a given volume year, since it's established science. Does that mean only 5% of the geologists endorse plate tectonic theory? If I picked up a copy of JAMA, how many abstracts would re-confirm the germ theory of disease?

I'm sorry, but there's really no way to try to spin the data the way you're doing without being exceedingly dishonest. You might want to avoid that if you want to be taken seriously.

(I don't, but there might be lurkers or less-informed readers who could use seeing this sort of stuff debunked)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 594. VR46L:
Oh my now going back over 250 comments to keep the fighting up hilarious


You peeped that too? LOL..sad..
Member Since: August 19, 2006 Posts: 13 Comments: 14250
Quoting 583. calkevin77:


...I read the hole over the poles causes it to be extra cold...

If I weren't on my work computer I would Google that :)



Oddly enough, the depleted ozone layer did have one positive side effect: It helped curb global warming. The thinned ozone of the Antarctic led to brighter clouds that reflected some of the sun’s radiation away from Earth. Cutting out this effect may give global warming a slight boost, but scientists are quick to note that we’re far better off with a healthy ozone layer.

Read the full text here: http://mentalfloss.com/article/30733/whatever-happ ened-hole-ozone-layer#ixzz2g7XqAQAA
--brought to you by mental_floss!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 560. LargoFl:
perhaps the northeast should watch this,gfs has it closer to the coast this run..


nah we are all too busy reading thru 12 pages of global warming bickering.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 527. Losttsol:
Everyone on the site realizes that there have been multiple times throughout geologic history when no ice sheets existed, even at the poles, right? You also realize that we are into about year 11000 of an interglacial period, with others lasting over 25000 years. Good, now carry on your conversations with your <50 years of real scientific data on climate change.


Yeah, during periods when the earth HAD NO seasons, and dinosaurs ruled the land. If we lose the Greenland ice sheet, mean sea level goes up SEVEN meters, enough to put Florida pretty much entirely underwater. The predictions are that this WILL happen now from the two human caused "carbon ages", the second of which is now coming to a close. A third carbon age has now taken root, and if allowed to continue will be the worst of them. Get a clue ...
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 566. WalkingInTheSun:



.....patterns, trends, and observations?


Yes..?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Landmark 2013 IPCC Report: 95% Chance Most of Global Warming is Human-Caused
Posted by: Dr. Jeff Masters, 5:50 AM CDT on September 27, 2013 +56
"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

Read more at http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/landm ark-2013-ipcc-report-95-chance-most-of-global-warm ing-is-human#JzzI4f4A7iiJItQU.99
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
594. VR46L
Oh my now going back over 250 comments to keep the fighting up hilarious
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 582. ScottLincoln:


Pulled all of what together? Into what kind of hypothesis?


No. CFCs are not increasing due to volcanic activity.


Wow. No. No cooling spell. If there is no cooling spell, it couldnt have been caused by an ozone hole over the south pole.

It seems more like you personally do not have enough information. That's a separate issue than whether or not scientists have enough information.


Yes, CFC's are increasing over the poles from volcanoes. Look it up I did.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
It is dishonest to say 97% of climate scientist endorse this theory when plainly only 36% of those asked have endorsed it. I didn't say it but plenty on here including Neo have and one day when I don't have the world to save I'll research back in old posts and show you. Until then I will continue my efforts to expose government waste ie: NOAA computers used to have elementary arguments about basic math. Off to have lunch with my good friend in the IG's office
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 545. ScottLincoln:

Correlation is not causation. Better correlation is not necessarily evidence of better causation.

The physics of CO2 and the physics of CFCs are known. The paper didn't address the physics. And that's really the only way to explain how CFCs could have been more responsible than CO2. One paper cannot refute over a 100 years of known physics, especially with a skepticism arousing "near 100% correlation" only.


Sure -- sorry for the less-perfect wording.
It then however comes out looking like some of those studies where....people who eat ______ have less of a certain type of problem, therefore it is said that _____ causes that problem, when in reality, it could be a number of other factors instead. After all, if say you eat more fish or less meat, you might be more health-conscious, over-all, and also tend to do other things, take beneficial supplements, etc. that are in common with others who have such habits. This gets back to something I dislike in modern science. Too often there seems to be a lack of ferreting out things by elliminating the variables to find THE sure, thing/s involved. (sigh)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 589. Xulonn:
Liu's paper was published in May, and debunked at SkepticalScience in June. I wouldn't want a horse that has been dead for 3 months in my living room!

...and scientists knew about CFCs as greenhouse gases since far before May 2013. The claims are not even remotely accurate according to any measure.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 573. DoctorDave1:


Now this is not the truth. They did not even know about the correlation until May.
Liu's paper was published in May, and debunked at SkepticalScience in June. I wouldn't want a horse that has been dead for 3 months in my living room!
Member Since: June 11, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 1396
Quoting 317:
I'm sorry, it's still very hard for me, a thermodynamics engineer, to believe the global warming is significantly due to man-made influences. There is way too much variability in the process and CO2 increases are just as likely to be an effect rather than a cause.

In addition, I'd much rather take my chances on devastating global doom, then to give more power to tyrannical governments. I'd rather die hot and free.
Contrarian buzzword summary:

"Hard for me...to believe" (Denying data)
"Too much variability" (Denying data; Casting doubt on evidence)
"CO2 increases an effect rather than a cause" (Denying data; Casting doubt on evidence)
"Give power to tyrannical governments" (Conspiracy theory)
Quoting 390:
Global warming is a lie and a fraud. Most scientist agree on this. The problem is that everyone believes Al Gore and the media. Global warming believers all stand to make a lot of money on the global warming theory.
These people need to really do there homework before telling lies. It's just a shame how easy it is to brainwash the American people.
Contrarian buzzword summary:

--"Lie" (Conspiracy theory; ad hominem)
--"Fraud" (Conspiracy theory; ad hominem)
--"Most scientist agree on this" (Attacking consensus)
--"Al Gore" (Conspiracy theory; ad hominem)
--"The media" (Conspiracy theory)
--"Global warming believers all stand to make a lot of money on the global warming theory." (Conspiracy theory)
--"Lies" (Conspiracy theory; ad hominem)
--"Brainwash" (Conspiracy theory)
Quoting 552:
The IPPC doesn't have a clue. This is nothing more than a bunch of academics with an agenda. The bottom line to the global warming debate is MONEY. Most of the people that promote the junk are looking for a personal economic gain.
Contrarian buzzword summary:

--"Academics" (Ad hominem)
--"Agenda" (Conspiracy theory)
--"MONEY" (Conspiracy theory)
--"Junk" (Ad hominem)
--"...looking for a personal economic gain" (Conspiracy theory)

IPCC
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 579. StormPro:



Link

DoctorDave1, you are attempting to reason mathematics with some who believe (3896/11944)*100=97%
They constantly throw out "Y" to solve for "X"


Are you still beating that horse? It died yesterday..

Let me try to break this down a bit more for you with a simple analogy

There are 100 papers out there related to apples, of the 100 papers about apples 35 talk about sugar content of apples.

Of those 35 papers about apple sugar content 33 suggest apples are sugary while 2 flat out deny sugar is in apples.

The other 65 have nothing to do with apple sugar content and are not counted because they have no official position about sugar in apples.

In this example (a analogy to climate papers) 33/35 or ~94.3% agree there is sugar in apples while 2/35 or ~5.7% deny it. Counting the papers that have nothing to say about sugar is laughable.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 579. StormPro:



Link

DoctorDave1, you are attempting to reason mathematics with some who believe (3896/11944)*100=97%
They constantly throw out "Y" to solve for "X"

Oh, you are going to bring up that deliberate falsehood again today?

I will repeat, again, just in case you might be listening this time.

No one said what you are claiming that they said. You are being deliberately dishonest. It scars your character, and calls the rest of your posts immediately into question.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 559. Naga5000:


Ah yes, the academic monetary conspiracy theory. One of my favorites. Thanks for sharing!
That guy deserves a fish slap
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 579. StormPro:



Link

DoctorDave1, you are attempting to reason mathematics with some who believe (3896/11944)*100=97%
They constantly throw out "Y" to solve for "X"

You might find the Missing dollar riddle amusing.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 575. Proveit:
I have read many articles on global warming, ozone holes, volcanic eruptions and weather patterns. I also have had a weather stations at my home. I do not compare my weather station with the other local station because they set in a low spot and the two are sometimes 8 degrees different in temperature and we are only 6 miles a part. I am not sure if any one article or Scientist have ever put all these together in one theory but I have tried. Here are the facts I have gathered in my own weather station findings over the last 30 years sitting in the same spot the median temperature is pretty much steady. We have not broken any all time high temperatures when it comes to the 30 year weather cycle that I have gathered from other sources. The temperatures from the 30's and 50's are still our all time highs. During the last one the high temp for that heat wave was about 4 degrees cooler than the all time highs in the previous two 30 year heat waves.
Now from what I gather the ozone holes on the poles are a collection of CFC's mainly from volcanic eruptions and I don't remember why the cfc's hover over the North Pole or sometimes the South pole could upper level winds or proximity to the source. One thing for sure though the hole on the south pole detected in 2011 was not caused by man made chemicals. Now from the article I read the hole over the poles causes it to be extra cold in those regions and somehow this helps shrink the ozone holes. Now from what I read these cold spells also cause it to be cold in winter for all regions. The article also said the closing of the ozone hole over the North Pole also caused more warming in the Northern Hemisphere including the North pole which caused a lot of the ice melting there. So, my point is this cooling spell over the last 10-15 years that has the caused the scientific community admit cooling is caused by the hole in the south pole which has been colder than in the previous years and the ice has grown there not shrunk. So, with this in mind (thinking outside the box) how can be sure that human co2 output has that much affect on our climate? With the small changes in temperatures that say is global warming how can they be exact enough to say these pattern changes did not affect the numbers? Is this just a volcanic weather cycle from pole to pole that happens every 100 years or so? I think we do not have enough information myself.


...I read the hole over the poles causes it to be extra cold...

If I weren't on my work computer I would Google that :)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 575. Proveit:
I also have had a weather stations at my home. I do not compare my weather station with the other local station because they set in a low spot and the two are sometimes 8 degrees different in temperature and we are only 6 miles a part. I am not sure if any one article or Scientist have ever put all these together in one theory but I have tried.


Pulled all of what together? Into what kind of hypothesis?
Quoting 575. Proveit:

[private weather station anecdotes]
Now from what I gather the ozone holes on the poles are a collection of CFC's mainly from volcanic eruptions ...One thing for sure though the hole on the south pole detected in 2011 was not caused by man made chemicals.


No. CFCs are not increasing due to volcanic activity.
Quoting 575. Proveit:

[More on CFCs and claims that reduced CFCs caused North Pole warming]
So, my point is this cooling spell over the last 10-15 years that has the caused the scientific community admit cooling is caused by the hole in the south pole which has been colder than in the previous years and the ice has grown there not shrunk.


Wow. No. No cooling spell. If there is no cooling spell, it couldnt have been caused by an ozone hole over the south pole.
Quoting 575. Proveit:

I think we do not have enough information myself.

It seems more like you personally do not have enough information. That's a separate issue than whether or not scientists have enough information.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
From FB,

Ah, good old science. I sucked at science in school. But hey, just because a periodic table only makes me think of the "Breaking Bad" opening credits doesn't mean I underestimate the hugely important role science has in the world.

This video is a nice little reminder.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
580. VR46L
Quoting 551. washingtonian115:
Maybe all this hot air on the blog will help that disturbance form east of the islands.


Or push the CO2 emissions over the edge .....

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 573. DoctorDave1:


Now this is not the truth. They did not even know about the correlation until May.



Link

DoctorDave1, you are attempting to reason mathematics with some who believe (3896/11944)*100=97%
They constantly throw out "Y" to solve for "X"
Member Since: Posts: Comments:

Viewing: 629 - 579

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.

Local Weather

Scattered Clouds
76 °F
Scattered Clouds