Ipcc report 2013

ginjawarrior

Well-Known Member
This needs it's own thread

Posting key points here for those that won't read it


http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/blogs/earthmatters/2013/09/27/key-science-points-from-the-2013-ipcc-report/?src=earthmatters-rss
These key science points were published on September 27, 2013, as “headline statements” by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as part of the organization’s fifth assessment report. Background links provided by Earth Observatory.+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. Read more about global warming.
+Each of the last three decades has been successively warmer at the Earth’s surface than any preceding decade since 1850. In the Northern Hemisphere, 1983–2012 was likely the warmest 30-year period of the last 1400 years. See maps showing global temperature trends.
+Ocean warming dominates the increase in energy stored in the climate system, accounting for more than 90% of the energy accumulated between 1971 and 2010 (high confidence). It is virtually certain that the upper ocean (0−700 m) warmed from 1971 to 2010, and it likely warmed between the 1870s and 1971.Read more about Earth’s energy budget.
+Over the last two decades, the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have been losing mass, glaciers have continued to shrink almost worldwide, and Arctic sea ice and Northern Hemisphere spring snow cover have continued to decrease in extent (high confidence). Read more about Arctic and Antarctic sea ice.
+The rate of sea level rise since the mid-19th century has been larger than the mean rate during the previous two millennia (high confidence). Over the period 1901–2010, global mean sea level rose by 0.19 [0.17 to 0.21] m. Read more about sea level rise.
+The atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2), methane, and nitrous oxide have increased to levels unprecedented in at least the last 800,000 years. CO2 concentrations have increased by 40% since pre-industrial times, primarily from fossil fuel emissions and secondarily from net land use change emissions. The ocean has absorbed about 30% of the emitted anthropogenic carbon dioxide, causing ocean acidification. Read more about the greenhouse effect.
+Total radiative forcing is positive, and has led to an uptake of energy by the climate system. The largest contribution to total radiative forcing is caused by the increase in the atmospheric concentration of CO2 since 1750. Read more about radiative forcing.
+Human influence on the climate system is clear. This is evident from the increasing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere, positive radiative forcing, observed warming, and understanding of the climate system. Read more about the human fingerprint on the climate system.
+Climate models have improved since the AR4. Models reproduce observed continental-scale surface temperature patterns and trends over many decades, including the more rapid warming since the mid-20th century and the cooling immediately following large volcanic eruptions (very high confidence). Read more about climate models.
+Observational and model studies of temperature change, climate feedbacks and changes in the Earth’s energy budget together provide confidence in the magnitude of global warming in response to past and future forcing. Read more about Earth’s energy budget.
+Human influence has been detected in warming of the atmosphere and the ocean, in changes in the global water cycle, in reductions in snow and ice, in global mean sea level rise, and in changes in some climate extremes. This evidence for human influence has grown since AR4. It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century. Read more about the human influence on climate.
+Continued emissions of greenhouse gases will cause further warming and changes in all components of the climate system. Limiting climate change will require substantial and sustained reductions of greenhouse gas emissions.Read more about greenhouse gases.
+Global surface temperature change for the end of the 21st century is likely to exceed 1.5°C relative to 1850 to 1900 for all RCP scenarios except RCP2.6. It is likely to exceed 2°C for RCP6.0 and RCP8.5, and more likely than not to exceed 2°C for RCP4.5. Read more about global surface temperatures.
+Warming will continue beyond 2100 under all RCP scenarios except RCP2.6. Warming will continue to exhibit interannual-to-decadal variability and will not be regionally uniform. Read more about the NASA GISS tempearture record.
+Changes in the global water cycle in response to the warming over the 21st century will not be uniform. The contrast in precipitation between wet and dry regions and between wet and dry seasons will increase, although there may be regional exceptions. Read more about the water cycle.
+The global ocean will continue to warm during the 21st century. Heat will penetrate from the surface to the deep ocean and affect ocean circulation. Read more about how oceans absorb heat.
+It is very likely that the Arctic sea ice cover will continue to shrink and thin and that Northern Hemisphere spring snow cover will decrease during the 21st century as global mean surface temperature rises. Global glacier volume will further decrease. Read more about sea ice.
+Global mean sea level will continue to rise during the 21st century. Under all RCP scenarios the rate of sea level rise will very likely exceed that observed during 1971–2010 due to increased ocean warming and increased loss of mass from glaciers and ice sheets. Read more about sea surface temperature.
+Climate change will affect carbon cycle processes in a way that will exacerbate the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere (high confidence). Further uptake of carbon by the ocean will increase ocean acidification. Read more about the ocean’s carbon balance.
+Cumulative emissions of CO2 largely determine global mean surface warming by the late 21st century and beyond. Most aspects of climate change will persist for many centuries even if emissions of CO2 are stopped. This represents a substantial multi-century climate change commitment created by past, present and future emissions of CO2. Read more about carbon dioxide.


Of course it doesn't matter how many times this is done as the denier ideologues just cannot imagine being wrong
 

ginjawarrior

Well-Known Member
Well it happens to everybody desertdude what I don't understand is why you decided to repeat your mistake and post it here
 

Harrekin

Well-Known Member
Well it happens to everybody desertdude what I don't understand is why you decided to repeat your mistake and post it here
Did you notice they hugely dropped their lowest potential figures?

The Earth is definitely warming, I'm still not convinced its solely due to human influences tho.
 

ginjawarrior

Well-Known Member
Who needs observation when we have consensus!
Who needs scientific studies when you can cobble together a graph by picking the worst out of mulitple (see the model number) and then post it with no links or explanation.....


Smacks of desperation if you ask me
 

desert dude

Well-Known Member
Who needs scientific studies when you can cobble together a graph by picking the worst out of mulitple (see the model number) and then post it with no links or explanation.....


Smacks of desperation if you ask me
When you are making world changing recommendations based on numerical models that are wrong, then a little humility is to be expected. The basis of science is observation. When your studies contradict your real-world observations and you obstinately stand by your studies, that smacks of desperation.
 

ginjawarrior

Well-Known Member
When you are making world changing recommendations based on numerical models that are wrong, then a little humility is to be expected. The basis of science is observation. When your studies contradict your real-world observations and you obstinately stand by your studies, that smacks of desperation.
Yeah your graph doesn't disprove anything

The ipcc isn't showing enough humility for you?

That's really fucking desperation if you ask me


Edit:go read the report
 

desert dude

Well-Known Member
Yeah your graph doesn't disprove anything

The ipcc isn't showing enough humility for you?

That's really fucking desperation if you ask me


Edit:go read the report

When your model of gravity (F = G*m1*m2/r^2) differs from real world measurements by 71% it is time to fiddle with "G" a bit.
 

Doer

Well-Known Member
Did you notice they hugely dropped their lowest potential figures?

The Earth is definitely warming, I'm still not convinced its solely due to human influences tho.
Well, fooled you I guess. No one has said the earth is warming solely because of humans. WG1 has not yet established a bias for any AGW. No models will match the space data.

There maybe some data we are higher than the average now and will begin to cool....at some time.

Ice will spread, albedo will increase, etc.
 

ginjawarrior

Well-Known Member
Well, fooled you I guess. No one has said the earth is warming solely because of humans. WG1 has not yet established a bias for any AGW.
No models will match the space data.

There maybe some data we are higher than the average now and will being to cool....at some time. Ice will spread, albedo will increase, etc.
So your not going to read report then?

Is your version of reality that delicate?
 

desert dude

Well-Known Member
Did you notice they hugely dropped their lowest potential figures?

The Earth is definitely warming, I'm still not convinced its solely due to human influences tho.
There is no question in anybody's mind whether humans are the sole cause of global warming, they are not. There are lots of questions about the atmospheric sensitivity to increased CO2 though.

My quibble with the AGW crowd is not so much with the "warming" as it is with the, "we have to live in mud huts, else we are going to die" response.

I am old enough to remember the dire predictions of the "coming ice age" that was in all the news just a couple of decades ago. Climate is going to change, that is certain.
 

Doer

Well-Known Member
Speaking of being wrong:



Yeah, I mentioned in your other thread, the tap dance will be obvious and here it is.

pause.jpg
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/10337858/IPCC-report-the-temperature-pause-explained.html
How un-scientific can a sold out Professor, get? Hidden, is it? WTF good are these Climate Reports, in that case?

This says they need to start again and use Method this time, not foregone conclusion to prove, in the name of Kill Big Oil.
 

desert dude

Well-Known Member
Care to show ​model 32 ​​​is the model used?


Wonder why it's number 32?
You lost me. It is on the IPCC and the AGW alarmists to explain why their models of the climate are so wrong. When a model contradicts reality, then the model is wrong, it is as simple as that. Now, maybe there is a reasonable explanation but hand waving does not cut it. There is no need to jump off the balcony if your building is not on fire.
 

ginjawarrior

Well-Known Member
There is no question in anybody's mind whether humans are the sole cause of global warming, they are not. There are lots of questions about the atmospheric sensitivity to increased CO2 though.

My quibble with the AGW crowd is not so much with the "warming" as it is with the, "we have to live in mud huts, else we are going to die" response.

I am old enough to remember the dire predictions of the "coming ice age" that was in all the news just a couple of decades ago. Climate is going to change, that is certain.
I for one do not support the "live in mud huts" ideology

There are some efficiency improvements we can make in the western world but ultimately we have a world full of people that have every right to enjoy the same power luxuries that US westerners do

Now it's perfectly possible for us to get off of carbon fuels and that's without wasting huge amounts or money and damaging large tracts of land with renewables (I do think they have a place in power but not to supply baseload power)

The one simple answer is nuclear power

Don't forget fukishima was one of the world's oldest reactors.... it was hit by one of the biggest earthquakes ever recorded... (dropping a meter compared to sea level)... then hit by a frigging tsunami...

We have the technology and the fuel to power ourselves with nuclear power for over 20000 years

http://www.withouthotair.com/
 

desert dude

Well-Known Member
I for one do not support the "live in mud huts" ideology

There are some efficiency improvements we can make in the western world but ultimately we have a world full of people that have every right to enjoy the same power luxuries that US westerners do

Now it's perfectly possible for us to get off of carbon fuels and that's without wasting huge amounts or money and damaging large tracts of land with renewables (I do think they have a place in power but not to supply baseload power)

The one simple answer is nuclear power

Don't forget fukishima was one of the world's oldest reactors.... it was hit by one of the biggest earthquakes ever recorded... (dropping a meter compared to sea level)... then hit by a frigging tsunami...

We have the technology and the fuel to power ourselves with nuclear power for over 20000 years

http://www.withouthotair.com/
We are in complete agreement on this. I have no problem with reducing CO2 emissions, but we ALL have to do it. I absolutely will not support any "agreement" that requires the west to take a vow of poverty while the rest of the world makes no changes.

And, yes, I agree that increased use of nuclear generation is the obvious solution to the problem. That is not the solution that the alarmists want though. The enviro-nuts throw a tantrum at every innovation that lessens the problem. They are disingenuous and to be ridiculed.
 

ginjawarrior

Well-Known Member
We are in complete agreement on this. I have no problem with reducing CO2 emissions, but we ALL have to do it. I absolutely will not support any "agreement" that requires the west to take a vow of poverty while the rest of the world makes no changes.

And, yes, I agree that increased use of nuclear generation is the obvious solution to the problem. That is not the solution that the alarmists want though. The enviro-nuts throw a tantrum at every innovation that lessens the problem. They are disingenuous and to be ridiculed.
There's a lot of realists out there that want something to change

And the eco nuts wind me up no end they have completely shoved their heads up their arses when it comes to the reality of our power needs

All out war between the wingnuts doesn't help we need to meet in centre for this one
 

desert dude

Well-Known Member
There's a lot of realists out there that want something to change

And the eco nuts wind me up no end they have completely shoved their heads up their arses when it comes to the reality of our power needs

All out war between the wingnuts doesn't help we need to meet in centre for this one

Good luck with that. The left distrusts and hates the right, and vice versa.

This is a lot like the war on the second amendment in the US. You can't compromise with the gun grabbers, there is no middle ground.
 
Top