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: 179 - 129

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

U betcha, anytime irg,

I built a few refineries and maintained a catcracker here for them.

They owe a lot of La. Deceased asbestos claims,but pay only 2-50% on them when forced .

Dad died from asbestosis Lung cancer and well, we get from all of them on occasion.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Aside from the threat that rising sea levels has on coastal communities, wouldn't global warming be a good thing in terms of useable crop land. I mean why shouldn't places that drop down to 20 below catch a break. Why is global warming ALWAYS such a bad thing? Science and the "experts" aside, why does it always seem to be that humans want to believe the end is near during THEIR lifetimes?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 98. Patrap:
Very cool GreenPeace move on Shell...LOL


I was laughing out loud and THEN the second sign appeared. I shared it on one of our Save the Indian River Lagoon Facebook pages.. Thanks Pat!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
A large sea freighter completed a voyage through the hazardous Arctic Northwest Passage for the first time on Friday as global warming opens routes that mariners have wanted for centuries.

The 75,000 deadweight-tonne Nordic Orion, built in 2011, left the Canadian Pacific port of Vancouver in early September with a cargo of coking coal and is scheduled to arrive in the Finnish port of Pori on Oct. 7, according to AIS shipping data.

“The Northwest Passage is more than 1,000 nautical miles shorter than the traditional shipping route through the Panama Canal and will save time, fuel and reduce carbon dioxide emissions, but even more importantly increase the amount of cargo per transit 25 percent,” said Nordic Bulk Carriers, the Danish owner of the ship.

Harsh conditions in the Arctic sea route so far have limited shipping mostly to small cargo vessels and ice-breakers, which supply northern Canadian communities.

The 225 metre long Nordic Orion, a panamax-sized ship, has a strengthened bulk to cope with floating ice.

It is currently off the western coast of Greenland, where it let a Canadian Arctic adviser off board at Nuuk in Greenland, its operator said.

The vessel is to deliver the coal to Ruukki Metals, a Finnish steel producer.

Many scientists say the melting of Arctic ice is a consequence of warmer temperatures caused by greenhouse gases emitted by burning fossil fuels, particularly coal.

In another development on Friday, leading climate scientists said they were more certain than ever that mankind is the main culprit for global warming.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 165. VR46L:


Ouch My eardrums !

I am not an alarmist or a denier . I believe there is warming some is man made ..but some is natural cycles ice ages have happened before as has warming . It is upto humans to adapt , maybe not chose to live in areas that are subject to flooding .

Gosh you personally seem to have a real issue with me , I don't care why you do ... Keep the personal attacks coming ....
I have watched several science documentaries and the thing is though is that when the Dinosaurs were around their was more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than their is now and it was 60% hotter.I do believe that our recent warming is caused by a natural cycle with man helping but not as much as one seems to think.I don't believe that it is all our fault without the help of a natural cycle in place.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 165. VR46L:


Ouch My eardrums !

I am not an alarmist or a denier . I believe there is warming some is man made ..but some is natural cycles ice ages have happened before as has warming . It is upto humans to adapt , maybe not chose to live in areas that are subject to flooding .

Gosh you personally seem to have a real issue with me , I don't care why you do ... Keep the personal attacks coming ....
That isn't what I asked. This was not a personal attack. I did not ask you to explain your position. I even tried to warn people off so case you were concerned about being attacked.

Now - please give an example of how to respond nicely (no vinegar) to someone who says: IPCC is entirely political and Doc only writes about it because he gets paid.

You want us to be nicer. Show us how.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 150. washingtonian115:
The climate changing is nothing new.Climate change has happened before we were here and will happen after we're long gone.Some of you all make it seem like it's just going to stop on a dime once we stop doing what we're doing.The climate on earth has always been changing.Always!.

I'm off for the day because I'm not raising my pressure for people's aggressive behavior.If you don't want to discuss it civil without calling names and pointing fingers then I'm not participating.
Goodmorning Washi, goodmorning everyone, this is pretty much the same view I have and that is the climate has been changing ever since the Earth formed, some changes have been so drastic as to kill off societies like the cavemen and the dinosaurs and so on, the thing that makes Global Warming unique is that it is a new science and the start of the Industrial Revolution may very well have something to do with it (cars, factories, and nuclear reactors) all of that man-made, before that any rise in Global Warming would have been from the natural process of the Earth and the cycles it goes through. I'll say this though while CO2 levels have gone up, most of that could be contributed to natural events and on a smaller scale human contribution. I would say somewhere in the ball park of 80% the Earth releasing CO2 and 20% humans releasing CO2. Just my take.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
As the comments from denialists/contrarians grow within this blog entry today, I have a message for them: Please remember that the ideology you are embracing and the lies that you are perpetuating were derived by the same people whose lies were responsible for over 100 million deaths last century alone, and will be responsible for countless more deaths in this century.

Fast-forward to time index 4:42 in the video below to see what I mean. Otherwise, sit back and watch for the next 5 minutes to try and understand how you (we) are being lied to:

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 159. Goodenough:
All I can say is... There have been several Ice Ages, and several warming stages so far! And, most of them had NO humans involved! Why give UN anything..EVER!


...and we know what caused those large-scale climate fluctuations in the past, too (orbital fluctuations, tectonic movements, flood basalt eruptions, changes in oceanic circulation patterns, asteroid impacts). Those causes are not responsible for what we're currently seeing (insofar as those previous forcings are currently active, they'd actually tend towards cooling), so they're irrelevant to understanding modern climate change.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 152. ihave27windows:
If Dr. Masters told some of you cubes of frozen urine rained from the sky and offered him cigarettes, many of you would believe him.
Quoting 155. ihave27windows:
No disrespect to Dr. Masters whatsoever. Just making an observation.

But that's just it... what you said was disrespectful.

Saying something offensive, but prefacing it with "no offense," is basically the same thing. It does not provide a mechanism to say something unsubstantiated, silly, and disrespectful to someone who actually has put in the effort to speak on atmospheric science topics with authority.

So next time, if your goal is not to have someone feel disrespect, just dont type something disrespectful. Especially on their own blog post, which you are not forced to visit, read, or comment on.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
168. yoboi
That's a theory endorsed by Dr Russ Schnell, a scientist doing atmospheric research at Mauna Loa Observatory, 11,000 feet up on Hawaii. "It appears that we have a very good case for suggesting that the El Ninos are going to become more frequent, and they're going to become more intense and in a few years, or a decade or so, we'll go into a permanent El Nino."

"So instead of having cool water periods for a year or two, we'll have El Nino upon El Nino, and that will become the norm. And you'll have an El Nino, that instead of lasting 18 months, lasts 18 years," he said.

With crazy talk like this from Mauna Loa...It would not suprise me if they give false co2 readings.....


Link
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 162. FLwolverine:
LOL - this is so beautifully ambiguous. Clever of you to use "deniers". One side has often used that word; the other side can nod and say, oh, yeah, THEY are the real deniers.

I would ask you what you really think, but your posts have and will reveal that.

It's called projection. People sometimes become so oblivious to their own personal issues that they claim scores of other people are doing the very thing that the individual is doing.
It's one of the sad aspects of human nature I was discussing.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 147. So....the sun was in a cool phase which made things cooler but the sun doesn't affect warming.



This part is actually mostly true -- there's been a lull in insolation over the last 30 years or so... yet the planet's temperature trend didn't match the insolation patterns, because the anthropogenic signal drowns out the solar variation signal. If our global climate was driven by the sun, we should have seen a pronounced cooling trend; unfortunately we're not on one.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
165. VR46L
Quoting 156. FLwolverine:
OK - just pretend, pretend for a minute that you are a so-called alarmist. What would you reply to a post that says: (for example). The IPCC is just a political statement and Doc's only pushing this because he gets paid to. (Paraphrase of one of the early posts today)

What would you say?

And please don't wiggle out of this. You keep saying posters should be nicer. Give us an example.

NOTICE TO EVERYONE: IF VR ANSWERS THIS SHE IS NOT TAKING A POSITION ON AGW; She is talking manners, not science, SO DON'T ATTACK HER!


Ouch My eardrums !

I am not an alarmist or a denier . I believe there is warming some is man made ..but some is natural cycles ice ages have happened before as has warming . It is upto humans to adapt , maybe not chose to live in areas that are subject to flooding .

Gosh you personally seem to have a real issue with me , I don't care why you do ... Keep the personal attacks coming ....
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
With regards to this article and the theory of man-made global warming, if indeed global warming is caused by man, A) how do you propose to change it? b) how do you propose to stop the melting of the permafrost in the arctic that is releasing huge amounts of methane into the environment thus speeding up global warming. It isn't as simple as some want you to believe. It isn't just about going after the petroleum industry. Sure, they need to play their part, but what about other factors that would mitigate anything man did to stop global warming...Angle of the Earth to the sun for instance which HAS caused the spread of the Saharan over Africa in the last 10,000 years? Tell those in developing countries that they are not allowed to have gas cars or refrigeration...see what your response will be.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 160. mtrdude:
Am amazed and astounded at the "sheep syndrome" comments; global warming (climate change, HA!) stopped in 1998. [Other ramblings]

So wait, now the global increase in heat energy evident in the climate system "stopped in 1998?" It didn't stop in 2010? Or 1995?

According to what measure has the increase in heat energy stopped in 1998?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 131. luvtogolf:


It is very sad that these guys continue to push lies and propaganda in such a way to mislead the public. Promoting a report that hand picks its documents is irresponsible and any 4th grader would discount it for a science project. The denialist community that campaigns this stuff should look in the mirror and ask this question; “how can I find better way to use my 6th grade education?”
LOL - this is so beautifully ambiguous. Clever of you to use "deniers". One side has often used that word; the other side can nod and say, oh, yeah, THEY are the real deniers.

I would ask you what you really think, but your posts have and will reveal that.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 147. whipster:
So....the sun was in a cool phase which made things cooler but the sun doesn't affect warming. OK. Unpaid. OK.

The sun is in a cool phase which has an relative cool affect. But it isn't affecting the warming, because the warming components are overwhelming the relative cool effect from declining solar activity. This is not a particularly complicated concept.

Do you have MS Excel? Put two timeseries in two different columns. One that is climbing quickly, another than is falling very slowly. Make a third column where these are added together. Make a forth column where the sum is divided by the climbing column. As you will see, the sum will barely change (relative to the increasing column) but will be slightly lower. At this point, you will have just demonstrated the issue with your comment above.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Am amazed and astounded at the "sheep syndrome" comments; global warming (climate change, HA!) stopped in 1998. I can emphasize it no better than Harry Frankfurt said; "BS, CS & HS". Make your vitriolic comments if you must but don't expect me to care!

I don't see how we're going to switch from 19th century energy to 21st century innovation with our political leaders deep in scientific denial. Could you please write more about the innovative ideas you heard about this week? I need a dose of hope.

By the way, there is little coverage about this important report on the news today. As Jeff noted yesterday, Friday is the worst day to issue a report. And the noisemakers in Washington are doing their best to manufacture crisis after crisis to drown out the truly important news.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
All I can say is... There have been several Ice Ages, and several warming stages so far! And, most of them had NO humans involved! Why give UN anything..EVER!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 86. Ossqss:


So from your perspective as an X office admin assistant for a small roofing company, where are they scientifically wrong in the paper ?

Please tell us for the record.

If you even have to ask the question of where in the Heartland paper they are incorrect on climate science, then you really don't have the climate science literacy to be reading papers on climate science and commenting on them.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 127. VR46L:


Keep trying to tell them folk are more likely to listen when they are not insulted and labelled oh well !
OK - just pretend, pretend for a minute that you are a so-called alarmist. What would you reply to a post that says: (for example). The IPCC is just a political statement and Doc's only pushing this because he gets paid to. (Paraphrase of one of the early posts today)

What would you say?

And please don't wiggle out of this. You keep saying posters should be nicer. Give us an example.

NOTICE TO EVERYONE: IF VR ANSWERS THIS SHE IS NOT TAKING A POSITION ON AGW; She is talking manners, not science, SO DON'T ATTACK HER!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
No disrespect to Dr. Masters whatsoever. Just making an observation.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Dr Masters...
Thanks for the great summary and commentary about the new IPCC assessment report. These reports truly are exhaustive summaries of the state of climate science, and what recently observed climatic changes mean for the world.

Unfortunately, we know all too well that many will see this as yet another opportunity to lash out - not because they have rational, evidence-based reasoning to disagree - but because they have inherent issues with implications from the science. And many of these same individuals lack the expert knowledge on the vast array of components encompassing climate science, yet actively refuse to educate themselves or even read these assessments. As the evidence mounts higher and higher, the lines in the sand get deeper and longer. Some eventually convince themselves that there is something so wrong with the summary reports that they wont even considering reading them, yet will make themselves believe that they are expert enough to comment on them. It's a sad symptom of some unfortunate aspects of human nature, but also of a broader lack of science literacy in today's society.

I predict that someday we will reach a point when many of these individuals will simply have no choice but to see the changes in front of them and will realize that the scientists of decades prior were, in fact, right all along. But it will be the fault of the scientists for not being certain enough. We have very little chance to reach those people within the window of time when action can avert serious climatic changes; the lag time between energy imbalance and equilibrium global temperature is too long such that by the time dramatic, serious changes are noted, we are decades past the time to stop them.

With all that said, I personally ask you to continue your efforts, your science and commentary, despite these individuals. Even if we are not able to convince enough non-scientists of this near-scientific-certainty within the timeline of possible action, it will be known that we have done everything possible - and everything dutifully required of us as scientists - to educate those that do want to learn, to warn the of our possible future.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
If Dr. Masters told some of you cubes of frozen urine rained from the sky and offered him cigarettes, many of you would believe him.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 121. Autistic2:


I don't believe ANYTHING from the UN. It should be defunded by us and thrown out of the country! A waste of time and energy making a blog about anything from the un.

Show me something from an American, Israel, or European science group. Now that I will be leave.



In 1988, 300 scientists and high-ranking government officials at an international conference convened by the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) concluded that changes in the atmosphere due to human pollution “represent a major threat to international security and are already having harmful consequences over many parts of the globe.” Immediate action was needed, they said, to negotiate a set of strict, specific targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. But who should coordinate such an effort? The conservative Reagan Administration and some other governments were wary of control by any group that was part of the United Nations structure. These governments proposed formation of a new, fully independent group under the direct control of representatives appointed by each government—that is, an intergovernmental panel. Responding to this pressure, the WMO and UNEP collaborated in creating the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 1988. The IPCC was neither a strictly scientific nor a strictly political body, but a unique hybrid. It could issue reports only with the firm agreement of a great majority of the world’s leading climate scientists, plus the unanimous consensus of all participating governments. Importantly, it would put policy options on the table, but would not make explicit policy recommendations. Given these requirements, the IPCC reports tend to be quite conservative, but have unimpeachable authority.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
The climate changing is nothing new.Climate change has happened before we were here and will happen after we're long gone.Some of you all make it seem like it's just going to stop on a dime once we stop doing what we're doing.The climate on earth has always been changing.Always!.

I'm off for the day because I'm not raising my pressure for people's aggressive behavior.If you don't want to discuss it civil without calling names and pointing fingers then I'm not participating.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
The Friday AGW fights are exceeding good! I need another box of popcorn! Another C2H5OH please!
(I have appreciated the AGW posts with the tech. data showing the problem. It is pretty convincing and offsets the hidden global agenda theories. I do believe though that there are some in this world who have figured out a way to turn a buck on this AGW problem)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
148. VR46L
Quoting 144. IKE:
"""The planet is Warming. What does it take to convince you?"""




Yep... Bashing keyboards with labels and insults, burning up more CO2 while doing so ....WTG
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
So....the sun was in a cool phase which made things cooler but the sun doesn't affect warming. OK. Unpaid. OK.

A hoax can only last so long, and the wheels are falling off this one.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 139. Xyrus2000:


Attacking the messenger. Haven't seen that one before. You can't build a scientific case so you resort to character unsubstantiated character assassination and conspiracy theories instead.

You're not original, or convincing since all you have is some anecdotal story based on what appears to be an extremely biased and naive understanding of how things in the research world works.

For example, why would a climate scientist bother fighting for scraps when they can get bankrolled by Exxon just for being a turncoat? Have you looked at how much money Exxon makes and compare that with the total science funding in this country? And that's just one company.

The fact that you're even implying there is a global conspiracy proves you have no credible case against the science.
I made no mention as to whether I thought man-made global warming is happening or not. YOU made that assumption. FEAR SELLS (take a look at the terror threat and the loss of our freedoms for that one)and you are a henny penny. Do you seriously deny that college professors Don't care about funding and tenure? That is first and foremost in there minds whether you want to believe it or not. WE ARE ALL THE EARTH not separate from the Earth. I am not so presumptuous as to think I can actually make a difference in the macro climate of this great machine. Oh, and just so you know the fuels we use keep getting cleaner and cleaner and cleaner. Just compare London of today to London of the 1880's. That will happen in due course.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Lotsa folks been blogging about the warming, some over 7 years here.

And with the "Warming and How" Subject settled, what is the next step ?


There is a tipping point to the warming induced, one should google's dat un.




Member Since: Posts: Comments:
144. IKE
"""The planet is Warming. What does it take to convince you!?!?!?!?"""


Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 121. Autistic2:


I don't believe ANYTHING from the UN. It should be defunded by us and thrown out of the country! A waste of time and energy making a blog about anything from the un.

Show me something from an American, Israel, or European science group. Now that I will be leave.



o_O

Uh...well the report is conglomeration of the science from SCIENTISTS all over the world, including the US and Europe. That's kind of the whole point.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 137. flcanes:
Looks like were in for a slugfest.
Time to pop out all of that popcorn I have been saving up...


Please refer to post #65 on this blog for the schedule for the rest of this week for the blog. xD
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
well said Daisy . the facts are breaking through the noise of people who have a interest in fossil fuels.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
(The best and most expensive coffee in the world comes from the Boquete region.)

Can we find dat here in New Orleans ?, or can ya ship me some ?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 118. bluehaze27:


One thing I have learned in college is that there are two things college professors care more about than anything else, and that is FUNDING and TENURE...The other thing I learned was that if you want a job, identify a problem and then be the one to say you will solve the problem whether one exists or not.


Attacking the messenger. Haven't seen that one before. You can't build a scientific case so you resort to unsubstantiated character assassination and conspiracy theories instead.

You're not original, or convincing since all you have is some anecdotal story based on what appears to be an extremely biased and naive understanding of how things in the research world works.

For example, why would a climate scientist bother fighting for scraps when they can get bankrolled by Exxon just for being a turncoat? Have you looked at how much money Exxon makes and compare that with the total science funding in this country? And that's just one company.

The fact that you're even implying there is a global conspiracy proves you have no credible case against the science.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 88. ncstorm:
Did the ricky rood blog regulars have their morning meeting yet..I see they have since they all pounced on my posts this morning..I saw your posts yesteday where you claimed a war on Doc's blog..some of you even said it was insane over here..really?? coming from the mouths of Dr. Roods regulars..LOL

anyway..I have to go back to work but I will be back later today..

Have a cup of coffee on me..make sure not to use the microwave though..

Actually, we did have a kind-of online meeting at Dr. Rood's blog last night to prepare for the b.s. that we knew would hit the fan here today.

We are prepared to do battle with misinformation, idiocy and ignorance for the rest of the day.


I'll start the morning with a nice cup of carefully brewed strong cup of medium roast coffee grown right here on the slopes of Volcan Baru. (The best and most expensive coffee in the world comes from the Boquete region.)

Then, when it's all over for today, we will relax and have a nice cold bottle of Fresca.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Looks like were in for a slugfest.
Time to pop out all of that popcorn I have been saving up...
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
I would go back and find my post from yesterday, but am too lazy to do so.

Short summation is basically all this talk about global warming and climate change is mostly a waste of time. Yes science backs up the claims and it is hard to deny that it is happening.

That being said, humans as a whole pretty much don't care. Even if the US tries to make efforts to change, the rest of the world wants what we have and they aren't gonna stop what they are doing to get there.

Humans in general do not care about the future only about what is convenient now and so we will continue down this path until our demise and all of this science and talking about it really isn't going to change anything on a global scale. Sad, but the truth.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
When was the last time Earth saw it's CO2 Rise above 400ppm...?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 132. Patrap:


Umm, what? 0_o

anyways... navgem shows a very weak low instead of a nor'easter at 84 hours.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 86. Ossqss:


So from your perspective as an X office admin assistant for a small roofing company, where are they scientifically wrong in the paper ?

Please tell us for the record.
I'll ignore the creepy (and incorrect) stalker part of your comment, and just tell you that the NIPCC that has fooled so many is pretty much wrong from the front cover to the last page. That is, anything with the words "Heartland Institute" can be safely dismissed in its entirety. All wise people will do the same...
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13580
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 4.5C, with 3C deemed the most likely value. Recent research indicates that a sensitivity as low as 1.5C may be possible, so the IPCC widened the range of the most plausible values: 1.5 to 4.5C. The new lower limit of 1.5C is a best-case scenario that appears no more likely than the high end of 4.5C. 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 6C for a doubling of CO2.)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 70. ncstorm:
nothing like having doom with my morning coffee..Doc stated a "day after tomorrow" scenario will happen..even though the movie has been criticized that its not meterologically correct..yep..



It is very sad that these guys continue to push lies and propaganda in such a way to mislead the public. Promoting a report that hand picks its documents is irresponsible and any 4th grader would discount it for a science project. The denialist community that campaigns this stuff should look in the mirror and ask this question; “how can I find better way to use my 6th grade education?”
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Last comment for me of the day for me (have lot's of work to do today).

Perhaps it is a good thing (for the Bloggers on this particular site) that the Report came out during this lull period to capture everyone's full attention.

Enjoy the nice weather this weekend for the SE and be nice to one another with no personal attacks. It's a hot button issue for many but no reason to be snippy with one another on this public blog.

Have a Great One and see Yall next week......... WW.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 125. Patrap:
Now that I will be leave.

Snort, ack, giggles'


I believe that person has autism..
Member Since: August 19, 2006 Posts: 13 Comments: 15746

Viewing: 179 - 129

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.