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

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

What are we contributing to ecosystems? Parking lots? How do we fit into the various cycles that have to run smoothly in order for an ecosystem to be self sufficient? By taking out as many natural resources as possible?

WHY DONT WE HAVE A RIGHT TO THOSE GODDAMNED LIONS ECOSYSTEM? WE ARE PIONEERS AFTERALL

BTW, sure, we contribute parking lots. Like bees contribute honeycombs.
 
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Regardless of whether or not climate change is quickening or just part of a normal cycle and whether or not its influenced by human activity, it's all a huge sideshow compared to the exponential increase in human population since 1900 - the single biggest threat to civilization and maybe the long-term viability of our species we've ever faced.

But by all means carry on.
 
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Regardless of whether or not climate change is quickening or just part of a normal cycle and whether or not its influenced by human activity, it's all a huge sideshow compared to the exponential increase in human population since 1900 - the single biggest threat to civilization and maybe the long-term viability of our species we've ever faced.

But by all means carry on.

People rarely talk about how there's only so much water to go around. There's less and less per person as there are more persons.

I've seen it suggested that the entire population of the earth could fit in Texas. That got me to thinking if it were possible, so I did the math and it sure is. You'd have to build up more than 2 stories though. You'd make food for everyone using hydroponics.
 
http://opinion.financialpost.com/2013/09/16/ipcc-models-getting-mushy/

0916graphic.jpg


The figure nearby is from the draft version that underwent expert review last winter. It compares climate model simulations of the global average temperature to observations over the post-1990 interval. During this time atmospheric carbon dioxide rose by 12%, from 355 parts per million (ppm) to 396 ppm. The IPCC graph shows that climate models predicted temperatures should have responded by rising somewhere between about 0.2 and 0.9 degrees C over the same period. But the actual temperature change was only about 0.1 degrees, and was within the margin of error around zero. In other words, models significantly over-predicted the warming effect of CO2 emissions for the past 22 years.

Chapter 9 of the IPCC draft also shows that overestimation of warming was observed on even longer time scales in data collected by weather satellites and weather balloons over the tropics. Because of its dominant role in planetary energy and precipitation patterns, models have to get the tropical region right if they are credibly to simulate the global climate system. Based on all climate models used by the IPCC, this region of the atmosphere (specifically the tropical mid-troposphere) should exhibit the most rapid greenhouse warming anywhere. Yet most data sets show virtually no temperature change for over 30 years.

The IPCC’s view of the science, consistently held since the 1990s, is that CO2 is the key driver of modern climate change, and that natural variability is too small to count in comparison. This is the “mainstream” view of climate science, and it is what is programmed into all modern climate models. Outputs from the models, in turn, have driven the extraordinarily costly global climate agenda of recent decades. But it is now becoming clear that the models have sharply over predicted warming, and therein lies a problem.

As the gap between models and reality has grown wider, so has the number of mainstream scientists gingerly raising the possibility that climate models may soon need a bit of a re-think. A recent study by some well-known German climate modelers put the probability that models can currently be reconciled with observations at less than 2%, and they said that if we see another five years without a large warming, the probability will drop to zero.

Continued at link...
 
Sure, you can claim there is a consensus. It's not intellectually honest, but you can make that claim.

I don't think "consensus" has anything to do with science. It's something related to elections and polling. Political in nature, not science. They could take a poll where 100% of the scientists say the earth is flat, but that doesn't make it so.

Nor do I think the polls are accurate. It'd be like saying Obama won with 97% of the vote if you don't count the dissenters.
 
You are making a moral argument.

That is fine as long as you recognize when you switch from being a pragmatist to a moralist.

And then understand, that many people will not agree with the proposition: It is inherently immoral for humans to impact their environment.

Maybe, but you have to be specific.

What exactly will haunt us?

You do realize that earth, all by itself, periodically decimates most living things - you know, for shits and giggles.

This is a global warming thread. Stay on topic.
 
Denny, do you even believe in pollution?

People who don't believe in pollution are idiots. People who accept the theory of AGW based on disproved models are acting on faith, and not science.
 
Denny, do you even believe in pollution?

Yes, I believe in pollution and that we should do what's reasonable to avoid polluting the air and water.

The AGW guys are complaining about CO2. What are we supposed to do, not breathe?
 
Yes, I believe in pollution and that we should do what's reasonable to avoid polluting the air and water.

The AGW guys are complaining about CO2. What are we supposed to do, not breathe?

But apparently scaling back on ecosystem decimation isn't reasonable.
 
But apparently scaling back on ecosystem decimation isn't reasonable.

It is. That's not what is being proposed, though. The degree of "scaling back" and its effect also have to be questioned.

For example, the WEFA estimated the cost of Kyoto:
  • Loss of $2700 per family
  • 2.4 million fewer jobs
  • $300B loss in real GDP
  • Cost of goods increased
  • Loss of opportunity to improve technology and procedures to accomplish the same goals

After all that, it may not, at all, have affected global warming. It certainly doesn't address actual pollution.

http://accf.org/wp-content/uploads/1997/01/warming2.pdf

I get the impression that Kyoto is only the start of what is on the agenda.
 
Those numbers are from an advocacy group opposing Kyoto. What are the numbers if we do nothing? Higher and increasing, the longer we wait.

They far understate the effects. They're no advocacy group; their report is referenced by people on both sides of the hoax.
 
I don't think "consensus" has anything to do with science. It's something related to elections and polling. Political in nature, not science. They could take a poll where 100% of the scientists say the earth is flat, but that doesn't make it so.

Nor do I think the polls are accurate. It'd be like saying Obama won with 97% of the vote if you don't count the dissenters.

I'm not following your argument. If consensus is meaning less for science then what were you try to say with this post?

In the 70s, the consensus was we were about to have a new ice age.
 
We can disrupt as many ecosystems as we want so long as we can prove those climate scientists wrong on the exact amount of degrees they predicted.

One of the things for me is that we appear to be trying to set permanently a moving target. The temperatures of this planet have risen and fallen over the eons. Why do we think that some setpoint in the past is the immovable target at which we should remain?
 
I'm not following your argument. If consensus is meaning less for science then what were you try to say with this post?

My point is consensus is meaningless. It's a political argument.

Consensus that the earth is flat doesn't make it so.
 
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Regardless of whether or not climate change is quickening or just part of a normal cycle and whether or not its influenced by human activity, it's all a huge sideshow compared to the exponential increase in human population since 1900 - the single biggest threat to civilization and maybe the long-term viability of our species we've ever faced.

But by all means carry on.

Population growth tends to take care of itself as countries develop. In other words, as countries become wealthier, they have fewer children. Our future is Europe and Japan.
 
People rarely talk about how there's only so much water to go around. There's less and less per person as there are more persons.

I've seen it suggested that the entire population of the earth could fit in Texas. That got me to thinking if it were possible, so I did the math and it sure is. You'd have to build up more than 2 stories though. You'd make food for everyone using hydroponics.

Mediocre Man's worst nightmare.
 
Population growth tends to take care of itself as countries develop. In other words, as countries become wealthier, they have fewer children. Our future is Europe and Japan.

It's not our future I'm worried about it's China and India.
 
If something has always existed, we shouldn't waste money protecting ourselves, trying to manage the situation. For example, crime and war.
 
One of the things for me is that we appear to be trying to set permanently a moving target. The temperatures of this planet have risen and fallen over the eons. Why do we think that some setpoint in the past is the immovable target at which we should remain?

I would say that if you have historical records that date back millions of years of carbon levels between x and y and all of a sudden they jump to z, that might be a problem.

But my point is that "global warming" or "climate change" is a lost debate due to politics infecting it, and that it is affecting the overall conversation we should be having about pollution in general.
 
I would say that if you have historical records that date back millions of years of carbon levels between x and y and all of a sudden they jump to z, that might be a problem.

But my point is that "global warming" or "climate change" is a lost debate due to politics infecting it, and that it is affecting the overall conversation we should be having about pollution in general.

You're misrepresenting the historical record.

This graph is for the past ~450,000 years or so.

globaltempco2.jpg
 
Look, I have a graph that says something different. I'm going with mine because it doesn't have stupid writing on it.

cycles.jpg

Yours has data that was altered to get alarming results. Believe in lies much?
 
http://a-sceptical-mind.com/the-rise-and-fall-of-the-hockey-stick

Eventually a US senate committee of inquiry was set up under the chairmanship of Edward Wegman a highly respected Professor of mathematics and statistics and in 2006 his report was published. You can download it here.

The report examined the background to Mann’s Hockey Stick paper, the paper itself, the critique of it by McIntyre and McKitrick and took evidence from all the key players. Interestingly Wegman’s committee commissioned some original research into how the small world of climatology actually worked. The study of the social networking of the paleoclimatology world showed how closed it was and how often a small group of scientists both co-wrote and peer reviewed each others papers. For work that depended so much on making statistical claims about trends it was noted that it was surprising that no statisticians ever seemed to be involved in either the research work itself or its peer review.

The key finding in the WEgman Report was that “Our committee believes that the assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade in a millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year in a millennium cannot be supported by the MBH98/99 [the technical name of Mann's original Hockey Stick paper]”

The other conclusions of the Wegman Report are also very interesting; It listed the following conclusions:

Conclusion 1. The politicization of academic scholarly work leads to confusing public debates. Scholarly papers published in peer reviewed journals are considered the archival record of research. There is usually no requirement to archive supplemental material such as code and data. Consequently, the supplementary material for academic work is often poorly documented and archived and is not sufficiently robust to withstand intense public debate. In the present example there was too much reliance on peer review, which seemed not to be sufficiently independent.

Conclusion 2. Sharing of research materials, data, and results is haphazard and often grudgingly done. We were especially struck by Dr. Mann’s insistence that the code he developed was his intellectual property and that he could legally hold it personally without disclosing it to peers. When code and data are not shared and methodology is not fully disclosed, peers do not have the ability to replicate the work and thus independent verification is impossible.

Conclusion 3. As statisticians, we were struck by the isolation of communities such as the paleoclimate community that rely heavily on statistical methods, yet do not seem to be interacting with the mainstream statistical community. The public policy implications of this debate are financially staggering and yet apparently no independent statistical expertise was sought or used.

Conclusion 4. While the paleoclimate reconstruction has gathered much publicity because it reinforces a policy agenda, it does not provide insight and understanding of the physical mechanisms of climate change except to the extent that tree ring, ice cores and such give physical evidence such as the prevalence of green-house gases. What is needed is deeper understanding of the physical mechanisms of climate change.

Generally the response of the IPCC, the supporters of the CO2 hypothesis and the broader coalition of climate campaigners to all this was a cross between a sneer and a yawn, and the Hockey Stick continued to be used widely as a campaigning and propaganda tool.
 
I would say that if you have historical records that date back millions of years of carbon levels between x and y and all of a sudden they jump to z, that might be a problem.

But my point is that "global warming" or "climate change" is a lost debate due to politics infecting it, and that it is affecting the overall conversation we should be having about pollution in general.

Are we certain that carbon levels in the atmosphere are responsible for the changes in temperature?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top