Jump to content
Thunder?
Local
Radar
Pollen
IGNORED

The latest IPCC report


johnholmes

Recommended Posts

Posted
  • Location: just south of Doncaster, Sth Yorks
  • Location: just south of Doncaster, Sth Yorks

    hi

    I thought it appropriate to start a completely new thread with the IPCC report due to be published tomorrow, Friday 2nd February 2007.

    This is the current BBC link with some comments ahead of its release.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6321351.stm

    Some of us believe this is happening, some believe it is all 'man made', some part man made, some believe its happening but is not due to man, some do not believe it is happening.

    Scope for debate, but PLEASE no acrimony, all have a right to their viewpoint. But can we have no one liner ya boo comments, constructive comments please. Mods PLEASE simply delete anything that does not meet this criteria as it would be nice to have a full, sensible debate on this extremely important report.

    It is after all produced, even with government meddling, by many of the leading scientists of the world. All far more knowledgeable than any of us.

    A sneak comment was that they are likely to suggest that the overall global rise by the end of the century will be 3C.

    BBC News also showed an island in the Bay of Bengal, which is under extreme threat with the rising waters. One old man had already been moved from one island that was now beneath the sea.

    This, IF, the predicted rise is correct, will mean that whilst some of you are alive people will be flooded permanently out of their home. meantime the governments of the world do nothing, and still argue about whether it is actually happening.

    John

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    • Replies 75
    • Created
    • Last Reply
    Posted
  • Location: West Totton, Southampton
  • Location: West Totton, Southampton

    Hi John,

    Whilst there have been many of these threads over recent months, with the launch of a new report I would like to get in first before the heavy weights add their endless pages of facts and complete submission to reports.

    I will state my beliefs first so that you can accept my bias before reading my ramblings (maybe everyone should do this for a change rather than arguing a standpoint):

    I believe the world is warming to some degree.

    I believe SOME of that warming is attributed to human industrialisation with a time lag of ~ 100yrs.

    I believe that even if exaggerated we need to do something now because IF we are even partly to blame, with a time lag it is only going to get worse.

    So those are my biases:

    With my pre determined bias... there is little point in me debating if there is a temp rise. However I have little faith in the temp rise being as predicted, when it seems that no weather model (on which the climate models are based) can predict even the general pattern for the next 72hrs.

    I don't believe that temperature will be the killing factor that makes us realise our mistakes it will be extreme events or precipitation (or lack of). That might mean that there is more precipitation nearer the poles that might even halt the ice recession, but could signal severe droughts towards the equator.

    Storms will become far more prevalent in the developed and developing world.

    So more to the point with my vast assumptions...what can we do?

    Will changing your 20 light bulbs to energy efficient ones help, probably not, but it isn't going to do any more damage!

    Will taxing 4x4 drivers £300 to park outside their own house help when others pay £100 definitely not. This just makes those who have the wealth to buy a 4x4 become more cynical of green policies as a way of raising taxes.

    However providing better public transport, which is a much more expensive option, is a good solution but un-economical because it would cost government money rather than raising revenue.

    Should we tax our fuel even more? no because that would penalise the poor who probably use far less than the electronic enabled majority. But, alternatives are still expensive so why not give interest free loans to those willing to invest in green alternatives.

    I could go on... but unfortunately I am not in government so a voice in here means nothing. There is only one reason why the government doesn't raise green taxes for green projects, and that is because it makes money for it's other initiatives! Solve that problem and there would be much greater support!.

    Steve.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Sheffield South Yorkshire 160M Powering the Sheffield Shield
  • Weather Preferences: Any Extreme
  • Location: Sheffield South Yorkshire 160M Powering the Sheffield Shield

    Well my viewpoints are.

    Yes The Planet is warming

    Mostly natural but a small input by Man.

    Nothing wrong with cleaning things up as it's a good idea anyway.

    Governments see this as a way of raising revenue so not really interested in providing alternatives as their income will fall.

    Imagine a Car that is pollution free do you need to tax it all. Does it really matter if it's not going anywhere quickly.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......
  • Weather Preferences: Hot & Sunny, Cold & Snowy
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......

    Can't wait for 5AR! Should be due in a couple of years time!!!

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Lincoln, Lincolnshire
  • Weather Preferences: Sunshine, convective precipitation, snow, thunderstorms, "episodic" months.
  • Location: Lincoln, Lincolnshire

    Interesting that the IPCC have picked up on the changes in Northern Hemisphere circulation patterns and concluded that it is likely that anthropogenic influences have contributed to those changes. I've had plenty of discussions with Stratos Ferric on that issue and we have both generally arrived at similar conclusions- and for similar reasons to those stated in the report.

    Interesting that the projected range of "likely" temperature increase is now 2-4.5C, rather than 1.4-5.8C, though 3C is still around what they predicted as a most likely view in their 2001 report.

    Anyone who reads documents like the IPCC should take note of their careful use of wording like "likely", "very likely" and "more likely than not". It's very common for politicians and environmental pressure groups to replace them with "will definitely happen". I think of the IPCC reports as being some of the most balanced around on climate change, and the 2001 report contributed significantly to my view that the balance of scientific evidence suggests that the warming is unlikely to be entirely "natural".

    I also agree with much of what The PIT and WindWatcher say above.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Dorset
  • Location: Dorset

    IPCC has always been conservative in the past and no doubt will be in the future.

    A likely increase in temps of 3C is not good news, and that's assuming we do something about it.

    Will read through it now.

    Matt

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: .
  • Location: .
    Interesting that the IPCC have picked up on the changes in Northern Hemisphere circulation patterns and concluded that it is likely that anthropogenic influences have contributed to those changes. I've had plenty of discussions with Stratos Ferric on that issue and we have both generally arrived at similar conclusions- and for similar reasons to those stated in the report.

    This is an extremely important issue that you highlight TWS. I know you have been at the forefront of raising the synoptic pattern discussions on this forum, and that SF has also picked up on this.

    When we come to analyse this winter will we take seriously the circulation shifts though? I am increasingly sure that this is a significant factor in driving our winters. To see some flesh and back up for that is very important in my view, and something all forecasters and analysts need to start factoring in. My caveat to that is we're in unchartered territory here. We can see how the effects are occuring now and since the 1980's, but 10, 20, 100 years time?

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: .
  • Location: .
    This is an extremely important issue that you highlight TWS. I know you have been at the forefront of raising the synoptic pattern discussions on this forum, and that SF has also picked up on this.

    When we come to analyse this winter will we take seriously the circulation shifts though? I am increasingly sure that this is a significant factor in driving our winters. To see some flesh and back up for that is very important in my view, and something all forecasters and analysts need to start factoring in. My caveat to that is we're in unchartered territory here. We can see how the effects are occuring now and since the 1980's, but 10, 20, 100 years time?

    Apologies for having to reply to myself, which is less a function of increasing age and more that I missed the time-limit on the edit button!

    The report makes for remarkable reading. I think in some ways it should be the lead headline on NW , and not just buried in this thread. I write that because the scientific arguments as presented are so compelling that I do think this curtails the debate. Concretely, the debate about whether the planet is warming is not at issue (it is indeed warming); but the 'very likely' anthropogenic causation from such a conservative and august body pretty much closes the argument now. There will always be dissenters in any age, especially this one of internet-fed conspiracy theories, but we have to get on from here. This report does beg the vital question: ok, so what do we do about it? We know some of the steps, but the IPCC will present them in 3 further reports to be released this year.

    Some things about their findings really stand out, and I'm poring over the report slowly. One, for me, is that methane is the forgotten gas in all this. I know it is debated, and I've had to defend my cows for example (!), but that level of 1774 ppb is really shocking compared to the range of 320 to 790 ppb in the past 650,000 years. Blimey o'Riley folks ... I'd be very interested in further thoughts on this. One theory is that the more the planet warms, the more methane is released from peat bogs (e.g. in Siberia). If so, the increase will not be linear.

    There's so much in here to discuss, a brilliant but disturbingly bleak report.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Dorset
  • Location: Dorset
    Apologies for having to reply to myself, which is less a function of increasing age and more that I missed the time-limit on the edit button!

    The report makes for remarkable reading. I think in some ways it should be the lead headline on NW , and not just buried in this thread. I write that because the scientific arguments as presented are so compelling that I do think this curtails the debate. Concretely, the debate about whether the planet is warming is not at issue (it is indeed warming); but the 'very likely' anthropogenic causation from such a conservative and august body pretty much closes the argument now. There will always be dissenters in any age, especially this one of internet-fed conspiracy theories, but we have to get on from here. This report does beg the vital question: ok, so what do we do about it? We know some of the steps, but the IPCC will present them in 3 further reports to be released this year.

    Some things about their findings really stand out, and I'm poring over the report slowly. One, for me, is that methane is the forgotten gas in all this. I know it is debated, and I've had to defend my cows for example (!), but that level of 1774 ppb is really shocking compared to the range of 320 to 790 ppb in the past 650,000 years. Blimey o'Riley folks ... I'd be very interested in further thoughts on this. One theory is that the more the planet warms, the more methane is released from peat bogs (e.g. in Siberia). If so, the increase will not be linear.

    There's so much in here to discuss, a brilliant but disturbingly bleak report.

    Indeed I think the Hadley recently stated that 30% of the warming will be attributable to Methane over the 100 years.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......
  • Weather Preferences: Hot & Sunny, Cold & Snowy
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......
    There's so much in here to discuss, a brilliant but disturbingly bleak report.

    Nothing 'nice' about climate change. the only 'nice' thing to come from it is the apparent movement further into mainstream acceptance that man made Global warming is a measurable thing (don't be fooled by the language, you couldn't give a 100% certainty of the Sun rising tomorrow though we acept that it probably will!) that is having measurable effects that can be projected into the near future with near certainty as to it's effects over that time period.

    The nay sayers slip ever further into the area of acceptability currently occupied by the K. Ringesque view on things (IMO).

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: A small planet somewhere in the vicinity of Guildford, Surrey
  • Location: A small planet somewhere in the vicinity of Guildford, Surrey
    Nothing 'nice' about climate change. the only 'nice' thing to come from it is the apparent movement further into mainstream acceptance that man made Global warming is a measurable thing (don't be fooled by the language, you couldn't give a 100% certainty of the Sun rising tomorrow though we acept that it probably will!) that is having measurable effects that can be projected into the near future with near certainty as to it's effects over that time period.

    The nay sayers slip ever further into the area of acceptability currently occupied by the K. Ringesque view on things (IMO).

    I have not read the full summary (if that makes sense!) yet but, as I said over on the other thread, there is nothing particularly surprising in it. Just to reiterate something I said on the other thread, though, in the initial BBC report they quote that it is "very likely" mankind is responsible for GW (to which they attribute a 90% certainty), and they also quote that the evidence is "unequivocal". To repeat my question, "How can it be both 90% certain and unequivocal?"

    Anyway, that's my first nit picked! When I've read the full pdf I'll probably have found others... :)

    C-Bob

    PS - In the interests of avoiding acrimony, as per John's request, shall we dispense with the "that's the nay-sayers argument gone"-type comments and concentrate rather upon the facts of the report? :)

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Rochester, Kent
  • Location: Rochester, Kent

    I've briefly reviewed the report to glean it's basic points. I shall thoroughly read it tonight after the kids have gone to bed.

    However, on what I've seen, I think, for once, the language is compelling, the summary of the evidence is compelling, thus the argument is compelling. I think that there are mistakes in that assumptions ar bound to creep in (they do even in double-blind peer review) but the overall feeling I get from this report is 'oh Doh a dumb swear filter got the better of met!' what the hell are my kids going to grow up to.

    As I said, I'll read it properly later tonight.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: .
  • Location: .
    I have not read the full summary (if that makes sense!) yet but, as I said over on the other thread, there is nothing particularly surprising in it. Just to reiterate something I said on the other thread, though, in the initial BBC report they quote that it is "very likely" mankind is responsible for GW (to which they attribute a 90% certainty), and they also quote that the evidence is "unequivocal". To repeat my question, "How can it be both 90% certain and unequivocal?"

    Bob, I think for scientific academics to rate something at 90% or above is about as near unequivocal as you'll ever get. They are a conservative body, so this is really in very compelling. When I did cases in court I used to give categories and the highest certainty I ever gave was, coincidentally, 90% or above, which for my testimony meant 'beyond reasonable doubt'. I honestly think this report has nailed it. There are lots of sub-issues arising, but the biggest follow up I suspect will now be ok so we're making a substantial impact, so what do we do about it? .

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: just south of Doncaster, Sth Yorks
  • Location: just south of Doncaster, Sth Yorks

    but the overall feeling I get from this report is 'oh Doh a dumb swear filter got the better of met!' what the hell are my kids going to grow up to.

    bluntly put but I hope many many thousands of people with influence with the politicians of the world feel the same. The, maybe, just maybe, they will get off their backsides and start to TRY and plan some kind of strategy to TRY and cope with its effects.

    John

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Sunny Southsea
  • Location: Sunny Southsea

    Evening, all.

    I've no doubt that the regular climate change posters will read the summary over the next few days, but, as there are likely to be a few people who don't fancy the 21 page read, here's my attempt at a summary of the summary; taking the headline points from the report and reducing them down to the simplest possible language. No doubt this will dispose of the nuances, but please don't nitpick over my choice of words unless you feel very strongly that I am misleading people. I'll be happy to debate details of the report when folks have had a chance to read it. Just remember, I'm only doing this to try and be helpful!

    1. Greenhouse gases and other stuff, like aerosols, affect the energy balance of the climate system.

    2. There are a lot more of these in the atmosphere; most of the increases come from human activity.

    3. Carbon Dioxide is the most important anthropogenic greenhouse gas.

    4. Most of the CO2 increase has come from fossil fuel burning, and some (1.6/7.2) from land use changes.

    5. Though methane output is not growing as fast as it used to, we are also responsible for this component, mainly from agriculture and fossil fuel use.

    6. We are also responsible for the growth of Nitrous Oxide in the atmosphere, mainly due to agriculture.

    7. The net anthropogenic (human) effect on climate has been one of warming. We are warming the climate.

    8. It's definitely getting warmer (this is the 'unequivocal' referred to above).

    9. At regional scales, long-term changes have been observed, many of which are linked to the warming caused by us.

    10. Some things have not changed: The diurnal temperature range, Antarctic sea-ice extent. Effects on the MOC are uncertain.

    11. Paleo evidence supports the interpretation that the last 50 years is unusual in at least the previous 1300 years.

    12. Most of the extra warmth is down to increases in anthropogenic greenhouse gase (this is the 'very likely' referred to in an earlier post): yep, it's us.

    13. The equilibrium climate sensitivity (how much a doubling of CO2 will warm the climate) is 2<4.5C, with 3C being a good fit.

    14. The variability of the previous 700 years is very likely volcanic and solar in origin,and not 'natural' (internal) climate variability.

    15. It's going to warm by about 0.2C a decade for the next two decades, whatever we do.

    16. Continued GHG emissions at or above current rates will make things worse.

    17. There is much more confidence about the projected patterns of regional change likely in the 21st century.

    18. Even if GHG concentrations are stabilised, warming and sea level rise will continue for centuries to come.

    There. That's about as short as I can make it. If you want more details, RTFR! It's linked to above. Please also remember that these are not my opinions, they are the conclusions of the IPCC; don't shoot the messenger!

    I hope some of you find this helpful, or a stimulus to respond or ask questions.

    :)P

    Edit: Mondy: you are a card :good:

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Lincolnshire coast
  • Location: Lincolnshire coast

    One thing missing from the various scenarios (see page 14 of the Summary) is any mention of Peak Oil. A decline in the rate of oil extraction because of supply constraints may limit our ability to emit CO2.

    For discussion of this aspect see http://www.powerswitch.org.uk/forum/viewto...asc&start=0

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: just south of Doncaster, Sth Yorks
  • Location: just south of Doncaster, Sth Yorks

    I've got to page 8 and am having a rest. There is a lot and I mean a lot of very small print additional to the main printed page on almost every page.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Sunny Southsea
  • Location: Sunny Southsea
    One thing missing from the various scenarios (see page 14 of the Summary) is any mention of Peak Oil. A decline in the rate of oil extraction because of supply constraints may limit our ability to emit CO2.

    For discussion of this aspect see http://www.powerswitch.org.uk/forum/viewto...asc&start=0

    The scenarios probably do take this into account, but I can't guarantee that. For example, a switch from oil to coal as a primary energy source after reserves run low would imply a continuation of emissions relative to economic growth.

    :)p

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Sheffield South Yorkshire 160M Powering the Sheffield Shield
  • Weather Preferences: Any Extreme
  • Location: Sheffield South Yorkshire 160M Powering the Sheffield Shield

    Well our local wrag The Stir has picked up on it and created a sensual article.

    If you live near a River you'll get flooded. To be correct if you live on a flood plain you'll get flooded which is nothing new.

    All the trees will die out. Well over the History of the planet vegatation has changed with climate and will continue to do so.

    Man is controling the Weather. If we were we wouldn't be having these problems. Would we be sending troops to Iraq. Nope we'd just bake them instead with years of drought. A better statement would be Man is influencing the Weather.

    A few people think is scare tactics by the Government to raise taxes. Most people I know think that Governement is actually doing this myself included. If the Government was really serious it would doing everything to help us get greener.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: just south of Doncaster, Sth Yorks
  • Location: just south of Doncaster, Sth Yorks

    It is the Star not stir as Pit either purposely or by accident called it, and this is the lead article.

    Assuming Pit made his comments based on this, and we do not know unless Pit decides to tell us, this has to rank, as a typical example of mis quoting.

    here is the article.

    Now come on Pit, I did politely ask for constructive comments. If you can't be sensible then we will have to delete any of your posts

    .

    http://www.sheffweb.co.uk/ViewArticle.aspx...;SectionID=5079

    John

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Lincoln, Lincolnshire
  • Weather Preferences: Sunshine, convective precipitation, snow, thunderstorms, "episodic" months.
  • Location: Lincoln, Lincolnshire

    That article does look rather sensationalist, reporting extremely concerning things for the future as if they will definitely happen- and some of these are worst-case scenarios, and others aren't directly climate-change related (e.g. all-day rush hour!) However, it doesn't look like that article stems from the IPCC Report (though no doubt some tabloids/politicians will exaggerate that as well).

    As far as I'm concerned there's no need for them to exaggerate; it helps breed scepticism. The evidence for a significant anthropogenic component in global climate change is surely strong enough from the IPCC report as it stands.

    The report, btw, does not disprove the arguments of the "nay-sayers" who think GW is entirely "natural". What it does do, though, is provide evidence to suggest that it is unlikely that the nay-sayers are correct- which, of course, those who believe GW is natural are entitled to challenge.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Archived

    This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

    Guest
    This topic is now closed to further replies.
    ×
    ×
    • Create New...