2013 IPCC Climate Change Report Leak - Warming predictions changed from previous

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Masbee

-- Rookie of the Year
Joined
Sep 17, 2008
Messages
2,856
Likes
97
Points
48
Estimated Increases in Temperature 70 years from now:

2007 Report:
Very Likely warming of 1 to 3 degrees Celsius.

2013 Report:
Likely warming of 1 to 2.5 degrees Celsius.

Lots more at the link:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324549004579067532485712464.html#articleTabs=article


Dialing back on the catastrophic disaster predictions as the more time goes on the more the "models" that have been used look like utter shit.

Strange that all this time there have been careful critics of the models used and their theory, design, application, data feeds, and execution - and yet have been shouted down for years. Why?
 
Because the President says it's all true.

Go Blazers
 
you guys do realize that warming of 1 to 2 degrees in 70 years is still a big deal, right?

(and in other words, I think that's between 1.8 and 3.6 degrees increase in F, which makes more sense to us)
 
Last edited:
Estimated Increases in Temperature 70 years from now:

2007 Report:
Very Likely warming of 1 to 3 degrees Celsius.

2013 Report:
Likely warming of 1 to 2.5 degrees Celsius.

Lots more at the link:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324549004579067532485712464.html#articleTabs=article


Dialing back on the catastrophic disaster predictions as the more time goes on the more the "models" that have been used look like utter shit.

Strange that all this time there have been careful critics of the models used and their theory, design, application, data feeds, and execution - and yet have been shouted down for years. Why?
Because money.
 
you guys do realize that warming of 1 to 2 degrees in 70 years is still a big deal, right?

(and in other words, I think that's between 1.8 and 3.6 degrees increase in F, which makes more sense to us)

Except for this, MILD warming is actually GOOD for many human environments all around planet earth.

Some places would get "better" and some "worse", just like what happened during the last natural mini ice age.

If the warming that happened was mild enough, the net gains/losses could be equal. Very much in the arena of plausible even within the IPCC new report.

The only way to get 8 Billion people to give up "cheap" energy (cheap is relative in that coal, oil, etc. is expensive, and extremely expensive for those in poverty around the world), and yet non carbon energy is multiples more expensive and would cost world economies Trillions upon Trillions and kill millions or even billions if the world governments forced a quick transition to non carbon energy - the best energy we have right now.

If we have a "pause", which we do, and if the (much criticized) models are being readjusted downward, as they are, the policy options open up. The Al Gore, gloom and doom, we have submit to a really crazy and expensive and gives us all the power over you now or we will all die Plan, looks now as insane as it was then.

Instead, how about come up with a way to compensate those who suffer due to climate change, maybe with a tax on countries who experience increased crop yields (the winners in the climate change lottery), another plan to deal with changes in water supplies, and at the same time fund a manhattan project to more quickly get advanced low carbon output energy sources functioning - meaning much cheaper than carbon energy and then they will be adopted.
 
you guys do realize that warming of 1 to 2 degrees in 70 years is still a big deal, right?

(and in other words, I think that's between 1.8 and 3.6 degrees increase in F, which makes more sense to us)

I'm sure they got it right this time!

/greenfont
 
Drudge has two articles linked together. One talking about massive growth in arctic sea ice. The other, algore telling us in 2007 the earth has a fever and the ice would all be gone by 2013.

Of course algore is no scientist, but he was worthy of a Nobel, awarded by these IPCC sycophants. He was citing what he deemed to be convincing and settled science in that speech.

Oooooooops?
 
All I know is that in the 70s and 80s I wore a long-sleeved sweatshirt all through the summer, but since the 90s it has been too hot to do so. Back then I owned not even one short-sleeved shirt. I moved to Bellingham in 1974.

One more thing I know for sure. I've lived in this house since 1994, and it used to be very hard to mow the lawn in September, much less October, since the rain began in late August. It is now dry almost every day a month longer than it used to be, and each year gets noticeably later. This summer it was so dry I didn't have to cut it from early July till a week ago. That is much worse than last summer, which was noticeably different from the summer before, etc. Weeds take over from grass when the grass doesn't grow.

Actually there's another thing I know. Snow used to be predictable. There were always 2-3 long ones (sitting on the ground 2 weeks before melting) and 2-3 short ones (1-2 days before melting). For the last few years snows have become, year by year, fewer and shorter. To the point that last winter, there were ZERO long snows and ZERO short ones.

It was shocking because each year the trend has been so obvious, but still hasn't reach a limit. I keep expecting it to stay the same for a year, but each year is hotter, less rain, less snow. Personalities change with hotter weather. People yell in the neighborhood now. Strangers in the parking lot act like they do in California. The mellow vibe I used to love about the Northwest is dying.
 
In the 70s, the consensus was we were about to have a new ice age.

What was the population of Bellingham then and now?
 
you guys do realize that warming of 1 to 2 degrees in 70 years is still a big deal, right?

(and in other words, I think that's between 1.8 and 3.6 degrees increase in F, which makes more sense to us)

It's at least a 100% miss on a "model" that was supposed to be accurate, and policy was supposed to be set on it. If these clowns are admitting that large of an error, I assume that they are still erring on the side of "OH SHIT WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE" over anything else.

Dupes and morons still buy this stuff, IMO.
 
Drudge has two articles linked together. One talking about massive growth in arctic sea ice. The other, algore telling us in 2007 the earth has a fever and the ice would all be gone by 2013.

Of course algore is no scientist, but he was worthy of a Nobel, awarded by these IPCC sycophants. He was citing what he deemed to be convincing and settled science in that speech.

Oooooooops?

Al Gore is basically Jimmy Swaggart, except Gore was smart enough to have political power before his scam to make millions, which makes him even more of a prick.
 
Al Gore makes a movie and all of a sudden we are unable to have a rational discussion on pollution.
 
All I know is that in the 70s and 80s I wore a long-sleeved sweatshirt all through the summer, but since the 90s it has been too hot to do so. Back then I owned not even one short-sleeved shirt. I moved to Bellingham in 1974.

One more thing I know for sure. I've lived in this house since 1994, and it used to be very hard to mow the lawn in September, much less October, since the rain began in late August. It is now dry almost every day a month longer than it used to be, and each year gets noticeably later. This summer it was so dry I didn't have to cut it from early July till a week ago. That is much worse than last summer, which was noticeably different from the summer before, etc. Weeds take over from grass when the grass doesn't grow.

Actually there's another thing I know. Snow used to be predictable. There were always 2-3 long ones (sitting on the ground 2 weeks before melting) and 2-3 short ones (1-2 days before melting). For the last few years snows have become, year by year, fewer and shorter. To the point that last winter, there were ZERO long snows and ZERO short ones.

It was shocking because each year the trend has been so obvious, but still hasn't reach a limit. I keep expecting it to stay the same for a year, but each year is hotter, less rain, less snow. Personalities change with hotter weather. People yell in the neighborhood now. Strangers in the parking lot act like they do in California. The mellow vibe I used to love about the Northwest is dying.

Why are you talking about weather in a climate change thread?

You do know the difference right?
 
Al Gore makes a movie and all of a sudden we are unable to have a rational discussion on pollution.

algore's movie dates previous predictions made by the settled science. Such as by 2013 there'd be no ice in the arctic at all. Now we have a chance to see if their dire predictions come true.

I'm all for dealing with pollution as long as we use reasonable means.

I read yesterday that if the US stopped using fossil fuel completely that it would make .08 degrees difference in projected future warming. That's in the IPCC report, supposedly (I didn't read it yet, it is like 600 pages). I may be off in that .08 degrees - it may really be .008 degrees, my memory isn't as great as it used to be ;)

My position is that to save .08 degrees of warming, it is not worth spending tens of $trillions of dollars remaking society so it doesn't use fossil fuel.
 
It's at least a 100% miss on a "model" that was supposed to be accurate, and policy was supposed to be set on it. If these clowns are admitting that large of an error, I assume that they are still erring on the side of "OH SHIT WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE" over anything else.

Dupes and morons still buy this stuff, IMO.

just as dupes and morons still believe that a temperature increase of almost 3 degrees (that's what 2 degrees C means in F) in 70 years time isn't anything to get alarmed over.
 

Facebook_meme_Global_Cooling_11.gif


http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/29/dr-holdrens-ice-age-tidal-wave/?_r=0

As a long-time student of John P. Holdren’s gloomy visions of the future, like his warnings about global famines and resource shortages, I can’t resist passing along another one that has just been dug up. This one was made in 1971, long before Dr. Holdren came President Obama’s science adviser, in an essay just unearthed by zombietime (a blog that has been republishing excerpts of his past writings). In the 1971 essay, “Overpopulation and the Potential for Ecocide,” Dr. Holdren and his co-author, the ecologist Paul Ehrlich, warned of a coming ice age.

They certainly weren’t the only scientists in the 1970s to warn of a coming ice age, but I can’t think of any others who were so creative in their catastrophizing. Although they noted that the greenhouse effect from rising emissions of carbon dioxide emissions could cause future warming of the planet, they concluded from the mid-century cooling trend that the consequences of human activities (like industrial soot, dust from farms, jet exhaust, urbanization and deforestation) were more likely to first cause an ice age. Dr. Holdren and Dr. Ehrlich wrote:

The effects of a new ice age on agriculture and the supportability of large human populations scarcely need elaboration here. Even more dramatic results are possible, however; for instance, a sudden outward slumping in the Antarctic ice cap, induced by added weight, could generate a tidal wave of proportions unprecedented in recorded history.

But that would just be the beginning. Dr. Holdren and Dr. Ehrlich continued:

If man survives the comparatively short-term threat of making the planet too cold, there is every indication he is quite capable of making it too warm not long thereafter. For the remaining major means of interference with the global heat balance is the release of energy from fossil and nuclear fuels. As pointed out previously, all this energy is ultimately degraded to heat. What are today scattered local effects of its disposition will in time, with the continued growth of population and energy consumption, give way to global warming. … Again, the exact form such consequences might take is unknown; the melting of the ice caps with a concomitant 150-foot increase in sea level might be one of them.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2007/sep/19/inside-the-beltway-69748548/

NASA scientist James E. Hansen, who has publicly criticized the Bush administration for dragging its feet on climate change and labeled skeptics of man-made global warming as distracting “court jesters,” appears in a 1971 Washington Post article that warns of an impending ice age within 50 years.

“U.S. Scientist Sees New Ice Age Coming,” blares the headline of the July 9, 1971, article, which cautions readers that the world “could be as little as 50 or 60 years away from a disastrous new ice age, a leading atmospheric scientist predicts.”

The scientist was S.I.Rasool, a colleague of Mr. Hansen’s at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. The article goes on to say that Mr. Rasool came to his chilling conclusions by resorting in part to a new computer program developed by Mr. Hansen that studied clouds above Venus.

The 1971 article, discovered this week by Washington resident John Lockwood while he was conducting related research at the Library of Congress, says that “in the next 50 years” — or by 2021 — fossil-fuel dust injected by man into the atmosphere “could screen out so much sunlight that the average temperature could drop by six degrees,” resulting in a buildup of “new glaciers that could eventually cover huge areas.”

If sustained over “several years, five to 10,” or so Mr. Rasool estimated, “such a temperature decrease could be sufficient to trigger an ice age.”

http://denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm

There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production – with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now. The regions destined to feel its impact are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in the North, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical areas – parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia – where the growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon.

The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually. During the same time, the average temperature around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree – a fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation. Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars’ worth of damage in 13 U.S. states.

To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world’s weather. The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth’s climate seems to be cooling down. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic. “A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale,” warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, “because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century.”

A survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop of half a degree in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968. According to George Kukla of Columbia University, satellite photos indicated a sudden, large increase in Northern Hemisphere snow cover in the winter of 1971-72. And a study released last month by two NOAA scientists notes that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the continental U.S. diminished by 1.3% between 1964 and 1972.
 
I found this gem.

http://www.wecnmagazine.com/2007issues/may/may07.html#1

Reid A. Bryson holds the 30th PhD in Meteorology granted in the history of American education. Emeritus Professor and founding chairman of the University of Wisconsin Department of Meteorology—now the Department of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences—in the 1970s he became the first director of what’s now the UW’s Gaylord Nelson Institute of Environmental Studies. He’s a member of the United Nations Global 500 Roll of Honor—created, the U.N. says, to recognize “outstanding achievements in the protection and improvement of the environment.” He has authored five books and more than 230 other publications and was identified by the British Institute of Geographers as the most frequently cited climatologist in the world.

...

Bryson is a believer in climate change, in that he’s as quick as anyone to acknowledge that Earth’s climate has done nothing but change throughout the planet’s existence. In fact, he took that knowledge a big step further, earlier than probably anyone else. Almost 40 years ago, Bryson stood before the American Association for the Advancement of Science and presented a paper saying human activity could alter climate.

“I was laughed off the platform for saying that,” he told Wisconsin Energy Cooperative News.

In the 1960s, Bryson’s idea was widely considered a radical proposition. But nowadays things have turned almost in the opposite direction: Hardly a day passes without some authority figure claiming that whatever the climate happens to be doing, human activity must be part of the explanation. And once again, Bryson is challenging the conventional wisdom.

“Climate’s always been changing and it’s been changing rapidly at various times, and so something was making it change in the past,” he told us in an interview this past winter. “Before there were enough people to make any difference at all, two million years ago, nobody was changing the climate, yet the climate was changing, okay?”

“All this argument is the temperature going up or not, it’s absurd,” Bryson continues. “Of course it’s going up. It has gone up since the early 1800s, before the Industrial Revolution, because we’re coming out of the Little Ice Age, not because we’re putting more carbon dioxide into the air.”

Little Ice Age? That’s what chased the Vikings out of Greenland after they’d farmed there for a few hundred years during the Mediaeval Warm Period, an earlier run of a few centuries when the planet was very likely warmer than it is now, without any help from industrial activity in making it that way. What’s called “proxy evidence”—assorted clues extrapolated from marine sediment cores, pollen specimens, and tree-ring data—helps reconstruct the climate in those times before instrumental temperature records existed.

We ask about that evidence, but Bryson says it’s second-tier stuff. “Don’t talk about proxies,” he says. “We have written evidence, eyeball evidence. When Eric the Red went to Greenland, how did he get there? It’s all written down.”

Bryson describes the navigational instructions provided for Norse mariners making their way from Europe to their settlements in Greenland. The place was named for a reason: The Norse farmed there from the 10th century to the 13th, a somewhat longer period than the United States has existed. But around 1200 the mariners’ instructions changed in a big way. Ice became a major navigational reference. Today, old Viking farmsteads are covered by glaciers.

Bryson mentions the retreat of Alpine glaciers, common grist for current headlines. “What do they find when the ice sheets retreat, in the Alps?”

We recall the two-year-old report saying a mature forest and agricultural water-management structures had been discovered emerging from the ice, seeing sunlight for the first time in thousands of years. Bryson interrupts excitedly.

“A silver mine! The guys had stacked up their tools because they were going to be back the next spring to mine more silver, only the snow never went,” he says. “There used to be less ice than now. It’s just getting back to normal.”
 
Man, they just keep changing their stance, these scientists! It's almost like they see empirical evidence and adjust their models accordingly!
 
In the 70s, the consensus was we were about to have a new ice age. What was the population of Bellingham then and now?

It doubled, 40,000 to 80,000, many of them Hispanic.

Why are you talking about weather in a climate change thread? You do know the difference right?

Tell me what I missed. I have seen a very noticeable change over the last 30 years.
 
Man, they just keep changing their stance, these scientists! It's almost like they see empirical evidence and adjust their models accordingly!

Scientists are obviously flip floppers. And lord knows conservatives/republicans and anti climate change* deniers hate flip floppers!





*wait, do I mean global warming? Gosh, the name change obviously invalidates things. Nevermind
 
I've got no problem with them evolving their view. I just wouldn't take it for gospel when they've been so wrong so recently, and continue to be wrong.

The IPCC, for example, keeps revising its expectations toward the skeptics' expectations. They'll eventually get all the way there when their current predictions don't hold water.
 
I've got no problem with them evolving their view. I just wouldn't take it for gospel when they've been so wrong so recently, and continue to be wrong.

The IPCC, for example, keeps revising its expectations toward the skeptics' expectations. They'll eventually get all the way there when their current predictions don't hold water.


Science is the art of always being a little wrong, but progressively more right, until you're really wrong... and being okay with all of it.

http://kottke.org/13/09/temperature-chart-for-the-last-11000-years

The paragraph that is most interesting to me is: "But also, what would have happened had the Industrial Revolution and the corresponding anthropogenic climate change been delayed a couple hundred years? The Earth might have been in the midst of a new ice age, Europe might have been too cold to support industry, and things may not have gotten going at all."

So really, the 1977 TIME cover article wasn't wrong, necessarily; it's just that the data was revised and journalists are awful - AWFUL - at accurately representing science without sounding alarmist.

Climate change as a "discussion" gives us all enough red herrings to point at to avoid doing anything meaningful about being excellent to the only place we've ever lived, and that makes me a sad panda.
 

Time is not a scientific journal

Let me educate you on the point of notions of cooling in the 70s.

Climate was not well understood in the 70s. In 1975 US National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council reported "…we do not have a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and what determines its course. Without the fundamental understanding, it does not seem possible to predict climate…"

Also, a survey of peer reviewed scientific papers from 1965 to 1979 show that while a few papers predicted global cooling (7 in total) significantly more papers (42 in total) predicted global warming.
 
Time is not a scientific journal. They just report what the scientists write in their journals. They should have won a nobel prize!

Sorry if I chuckle a bit at the link you posted. It's so much spin, I'm getting dizzy from reading it. The coming ice age deniers have to cleanse history !

You don't have to educate me about science in the 1970s, I was around back then, were you? In the 1970s, they were using things like ice cores and tree rings and other measures of climate/global warmth. Computer models, too. As much as we see crap blasted in the news about AGW these days, there was as much about the coming ice age back then.

The funny thing you wrote in your post is "without the fundamental understanding..." - well it is near impossible to have a fundamental understanding of a system as complex as the earth's climate. This is why the computer models consistently are proven wrong, why the science that algore relied on to assure us there'd be no ice in the arctic this year is wrong, ad infinitum.

Bryson isn't the snake oil salesman here. He's telling the truth.

“All this argument is the temperature going up or not, it’s absurd,” Bryson continues. “Of course it’s going up. It has gone up since the early 1800s, before the Industrial Revolution, because we’re coming out of the Little Ice Age, not because we’re putting more carbon dioxide into the air.”

Like I said, I'm fine with science adjusting its view of things as it learns, but it is dubious that when the science fails there's a rush to spin the failure into a "it still doesn't mean we're wrong." Over and over.
 
Still, does the idea of changing potentially 3 degrees in under 100 years alarm you?

Hell, let's just say 1 degree. Doesn't that make you think it's more serious than deniers let on?
 
Still, does the idea of changing potentially 3 degrees in under 100 years alarm you?

Hell, let's just say 1 degree. Doesn't that make you think it's more serious than deniers let on?

julius,

what if the earth is going to warm up 3 degrees even if man didn't exist on the planet? I think that is the true question.

EDIT: I don't suggest that warming isn't going on, or that it's not a big problem. I suggest that we can't do squat about it and our money would be better spent building a little bit further from the oceans so we don't see as much flood damage.

On the other hand, as the so-called temperature spiked, we've seen considerably less actual damage to our cities and shorelines than decades ago, if you look at how much $$$ it cost to repair.
 
julius,

what if the earth is going to warm up 3 degrees even if man didn't exist on the planet? I think that is the true question.

EDIT: I don't suggest that warming isn't going on, or that it's not a big problem. I suggest that we can't do squat about it and our money would be better spent building a little bit further from the oceans so we don't see as much flood damage.

On the other hand, as the so-called temperature spiked, we've seen considerably less actual damage to our cities and shorelines than decades ago, if you look at how much $$$ it cost to repair.

Actually I think the true question is has there been a 100 year stretch where it rose 3 degrees ever?

I think we should concentrate on polluting less, and cleaning up the earth more.
 
Actually I think the true question is has there been a 100 year stretch where it rose 3 degrees ever?

I think we should concentrate on polluting less, and cleaning up the earth more.

There have been many many 100 year stretches where it rose 3 degrees.

And I SERIOUSLY doubt it's going to rise 3 degrees over the next 100.

EDIT: It's risen .7 degrees the past 100, my expectation is about the same for the next 100.
 
Still, does the idea of changing potentially 3 degrees in under 100 years alarm you?

Hell, let's just say 1 degree. Doesn't that make you think it's more serious than deniers let on?

First off, that is the IPCC's new "Likely" range, which used to be their "Very Likely" range.

Also, if you read the article, they used to have NO UPPER LIMIT for the post 70 years mark, which is what led to all of those insane leftist (and Hollywood) doomsday stories. "OMG, the temps are going to skyrocket! and we are all going to die!" They now have an upper limit estimate.

And comments have already been pouring in that the new IPCC report completely ignores several of the most recent papers that lend significant support for a further revision downward.

If the "pause" continues for a couple more years, that plus the most current data will cause another downward estimate for the next IPCC report. Then they will say "Somewhat Likely" increase of .5 to 1 C.

Here is something to ponder, this group claims that it would cost 50 times less money to deal with the effects of warming that in would cost to stop it. Even if you are going to quibble with their numbers, the 50 to 1 claim has a lot of room work with. What if it cost 5 times as much? Wouldn't it be stupid policy to impose those costs? And, what if as some claim, warming continued regardless of any actions of humans moving forward? We blow up our economies and then still suffer the effects of warming, now without the financial means to respond.

http://topher.com.au/50-to-1-video-project/#prettyPhoto
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top