The latest IPCC report

[biffvernon]

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.

Actually, it seems that the IPCC scenarios do not take into account the decline in the rate of oil production that the Peak Oil community regards as likely.

There is no mention of Peak Oil in the Summary, nor do any of the scenarios include the case in which oil production peaks in the next very few years and then declines at such a rate that an unbridgeable gap between supply and demand develops no matter what the price.

The consequent forced demand destruction and worldwide economic collapse would then put a real limit on CO2 emissions. In the face of oil shortage there could be a great effort made to increase coal burn and exploit unconventional oil. The prevention of such fossil fuel use combined with planned demand destruction through efficiency improvement, conservation and development of sustainable energy sources must be our focus.

The omission from the IPCC Report of Peak Oil scenarios is of concern to those of us who are aware of the likely consequences of the future decline in the rate of oil production.

[Iceberg]

Finaly got through it all last night.

Considering the conservative nature of the IPCC it's very significant the effects they think have already occured due to AGW.

Warmer nights and colder days

Warming and more frequent hot days

Warm spells and heat waves increasing in frequency

More Heavy precip events

More droughts

More intense hurricanes

Increases in See level.

Also

Temps at the top of permafrost layer in the artic circle have incease since the 1980's by 3C and the area covered by seasonal permafrost has decreaed by 7% and upto 15% in the spring.

Also this before the real heat and postive feedbacks kick in, also with the negative effects of aerosols.

The final thing that really surprised me was the increased melt of the greenland icesheet.

1961-2003 rate of sea level rise (m per century) was only 0.05, this increased 400% to 0.21 between 1993 and 2003 and has increase again by 250% between 2003 (the latest figure in the AR4) and 2006.

Greenland is indeed a key problem.

In many ways it would be nice to have a yearly paper updating some of these figures.

Actually, it seems that the IPCC scenarios do not take into account the decline in the rate of oil production that the Peak Oil community regards as likely.

There is no mention of Peak Oil in the Summary, nor do any of the scenarios include the case in which oil production peaks in the next very few years and then declines at such a rate that an unbridgeable gap between supply and demand develops no matter what the price.

The consequent forced demand destruction and worldwide economic collapse would then put a real limit on CO2 emissions. In the face of oil shortage there could be a great effort made to increase coal burn and exploit unconventional oil. The prevention of such fossil fuel use combined with planned demand destruction through efficiency improvement, conservation and development of sustainable energy sources must be our focus.

The omission from the IPCC Report of Peak Oil scenarios is of concern to those of us who are aware of the likely consequences of the future decline in the rate of oil production.

The IPCC report does provide the peak oil scenario by proxy. through the B series a switch from fossil fuels to more technological advanced activities. Hence the B scenario's are lower in CO2 input.

To be fair Peak Oil has some support, but they would end up with 100 different Series if they were to take everything into account.

[Gray-Wolf]

I think maybe a portion of our posters could earn some cash from their viewpoints. An American right wing think tank is offering $10,000 for scientist/economists to challenge the U.N.'s report on climate change.

The american Enterprise institute (AEI) ,who recieve funding from ExonMobil, are putting up the offer.........

[VillagePlank]

A few interesting points about scepticism:

(i) Scepticism used to be debating the science. Now that the mainstream mechanics are known, and are very likely (IPCC terminology) to be accurate and correct - what basis is there of scepticism?

(ii) Economics. This argument is still underground - but it's there. The first gasps of air for this beast was the retort to the Stern report. No-one's really dragged that out yet, but be sure it's going to happen

(iii) Hidden Agendas. Well, we all like a good conspiracy theory, don't we?

I am now entirely convinced given that the IPCC in and of themselves don't actually do that much apart from review others research, and that this science has been mainstream for a while now.

The very fact they are prepared to quantify risks, in a way that I see as unprecedented (climate scientists are notoriously cagey about assigning risks, apart from perhaps, the boys and girls of Benfield Grieg), is the final now in the coffin of scepticism.

Given, now, that they can be measured (in the full public spotlight) over the next ten years, and, indeed, they have set their stall out so that this can be the case has the perfume of good, conscientuous (sp?) science, which, when all is said and done should only ever be applauded.

I think someone said in Paris, yesterday, that 2nd Feb 2007 will go down in history as the day the argument was over, and our choice of what to do about it begins.

Brave words, but I think ultimately, history will show him to be correct. I just hope, as a society, we make the right choices.

[Admiral_Bobski]

I confess I still have not read the report (been busy making a new cage for my rats!), but hopefully I'll get around to it today. Am I right in saying that this is a summary that gives conclusions based upon the full, as yet unreleased, report? If so then the debate may not be over - unless all arguments come back round to "the IPCC says it's so, so it is so..." We've debated the TAR, so I see no reason why we can't debate the 4AR even if it is "90% certain". (To WIB I would say that the use of the word "unequivocal" is wrong - there's a big difference between unequivocal and "as close to unequivocal as you're going to get in science" - people still try to argue that Einstein's theories are wrong, and they're probably 99%+ certain, so there's always room for debate! )

[johnholmes]

I confess I still have not read the report (been busy making a new cage for my rats!), but hopefully I'll get around to it today. Am I right in saying that this is a summary that gives conclusions based upon the full, as yet unreleased, report? If so then the debate may not be over - unless all arguments come back round to "the IPCC says it's so, so it is so..." We've debated the TAR, so I see no reason why we can't debate the 4AR even if it is "90% certain". (To WIB I would say that the use of the word "unequivocal" is wrong - there's a big difference between unequivocal and "as close to unequivocal as you're going to get in science" - people still try to argue that Einstein's theories are wrong, and they're probably 99%+ certain, so there's always room for debate! )

no the full report is in the link I give early in this thread.

John

[Admiral_Bobski]

no the full report is in the link I give early in this thread.

John

oh, right - I thought I heard mention that the full report wasn't to be released until May, but fair enough. In that case I shall have a good thorough read and see if there's any debate left in this old dog!

Ta

C-Bob

[Mondy]

I may very well have picked this up wrong, but i thought this was the first of 4 reports culminating in an even bigger report come May

[Admiral_Bobski]

I've just checked and downloaded the pdf and it is, indeed, a 21 page "Summary for Policymakers". It is the full summary (i.e. not edited or abridged), but it is not the full report (which will probably run into hundreds of pages). I'd best get reading, I suppose.

C-Bob

[johnholmes]

oh, right - I thought I heard mention that the full report wasn't to be released until May, but fair enough. In that case I shall have a good thorough read and see if there's any debate left in this old dog!

Ta

C-Bob

sorry Bob you are right, it is the issue as you describe, and yes its 21 pages long. heaven knows how long the full report might be. I've got as far as page 12 so far!

John

[Admiral_Bobski]

sorry Bob you are right, it is the issue as you describe, and yes its 21 pages long. heaven knows how long the full report might be. I've got as far as page 12 so far!

John

This beast's going to take quite a lot of digestion before any sensible debate's going to come out of it, I think! My initial thoughts are that the report isn't any big surprise (as I have said), and that 90% certainty still leaves some scope for argument (little Devil's Advocate that I am!). It's interesting that there has been much debate about all the latest articles and theories over the past year and yet now, once the IPCC have come along, the debate is somehow suddenly perceived as being over. The 4AR is based upon all the papers that we have been debating, and the fact that the IPCC have drawn a certain conclusion doesn't negate the possibility of there being any other conclusions to draw.

Long may the debate last!

C-Bob

PS - The "Long May the Debate Last" comment is not an attempt to "muddy the waters", it is not an attempt to "delay action when we should be acting now", it is not an attempt to upset or rile anybody. Debate is an essential and important aspect of any scientific theory - the more debating that goes on, the sharper and more refined the theories become. So please don't shout at me for that one!

[Thundery wintry showers]

A few interesting points about scepticism:

(i) Scepticism used to be debating the science. Now that the mainstream mechanics are known, and are very likely (IPCC terminology) to be accurate and correct - what basis is there of scepticism?

(ii) Economics. This argument is still underground - but it's there. The first gasps of air for this beast was the retort to the Stern report. No-one's really dragged that out yet, but be sure it's going to happen

(iii) Hidden Agendas. Well, we all like a good conspiracy theory, don't we?

I think someone said in Paris, yesterday, that 2nd Feb 2007 will go down in history as the day the argument was over, and our choice of what to do about it begins.

Brave words, but I think ultimately, history will show him to be correct. I just hope, as a society, we make the right choices.

I have doubts that we will come up with a plan of coherent action. On the general public front, most of us don't want to give up things we take for granted. On the authorities front, there's a dodgy choice between implementing 'carrot' measures that may entail some short-term risks with the economy (politicians generally don't like taking risks via deviating from the status quo) and 'stick' measures that would be highly unpopular and risk losing election votes.

I reckon that the economics arguments will come into more prominence in the future, as the scepticism arguments are becoming more and more drowned out by the contrary evidence.

[Mondy]

Having now read the report, here's my take on it.

I'm not a climatologist - they're primarily involved in predicting weather based on trends and measurements and building models, all of which they themselves admit are imperfect even given accurate, up-to-date, global measurements. But the insistence that we "know" what we're experiencing now has never happened before (and therefore it must be human-driven), is at best based on the shakiest of ground.

I do not hold any degrees in related earth sciences (not even geography) but, if anyone, even a climatologist, tells you they know what the temperature of the earth was 200 years ago to the small increments we're talking about, let alone thousands of years ago, let alone being able to dicern what the relatively short term up and down spikes within the larger trends were without relying on a best-guesswork and inference, they're either lying for a purpose or merely trying to satisfy their present conclusion.

Data-gathering of such things on a worldwide scale through reliable measurement and scanning has only begun in the last eyeblink of time. The indirect deducing past "climate" is based on using the only evidence that remains - not direct measurement. Ice core gas bubbles and the fact the Titanic hit an iceberg so far south does not replace direct measurement or reliable remote sensing, no matter how much it makes the present "crisis" sound more urgent.

And that's the nexus of the debate. What drives the "scaremongers" (i'm using that term loosely, as it's not directed to anyone on here, but other outside factors; media etc), to the notion that "we've not seen this rapidity before SO THEREFORE we're causing it". They can't tell you with any certainty, beyond the most general trends, what's gone on before. If even the most astute climatologist plugs in accurate measurements to models predicting the furture they'll still admit it's a probability.

But to take the next leap - comparing the educated guess (regarding the future) to glaring unknowns (what happened in the past) goes down an entirely different road - one of judgement calls or heinous extrapolated guesswork. Those judgements found in the reports summary are NOT produced only by your "expert" climatologists. This is where the agenda is rearing it's head.

In fact, some of the same climatologists that contributed to the report don't agree with those judgements. It's NOT a proven premise merely because it's riding the coat-tails of measurement-driven computer-modeling. They disagree because the to make them is to ignore the thinness of the empirical data from the past, and then consider it causation when it could easily and very well be correlative.

The bottom line is science/scientists can make a good educated guess as to whether the globe is, on average, warming or cooling compared to when they first began gathering enough data to do so....which is very recently. To rely, however, on beauracrats and politicized non-emperical pseudo-science to make a coat-tailed, judgement-comparison is foolish...but that's what the summary does.

I'm now off to pour that Highland Park in the knowledge that at least this sceptic will not be "drowned out"..

*I've spell checked this again and again (it's quite a large reply, even for me), so apologises if it's not up to scratch for some people!

[biffvernon]

The IPCC report does provide the peak oil scenario by proxy. through the B series a switch from fossil fuels to more technological advanced activities. Hence the B scenario's are lower in CO2 input.

No, the B scenarios are not Peak Oil aware at all. They paint a rosy future where we all behave rather nicely but do not take into account our inability to sustain the world's economy, including agriculture, as oil production rate declines faster that our ability to create sustainable alternatives.

I think maybe a portion of our posters could earn some cash from their viewpoints. An American right wing think tank is offering $10,000 for scientist/economists to challenge the U.N.'s report on climate change.

The american Enterprise institute (AEI) ,who recieve funding from ExonMobil, are putting up the offer.........

We all know that ExonMobil are chief among the villans, and I certainly am not challenging the IPCC, who have clearly produced the most important report of the century.

[johnholmes]

Mondy

I'm sure you will get a response to your 'take' on this report.

Glad you read it but I see it far far differently to how you do.

But that is the idea of this thread to agree to disagree once we have read this major summary of the full report.

John

[Admiral_Bobski]

Okay, I've read about half of it now and skimmed through the rest for now (fear not, I shall read the second half in greater detail later).

It looks increasingly like the debate is going to continue in much the same way as it did with the TAR, namely that it will centre around two main points: how accurate are their assessments (e.g. Table SPM-1), and how valid are their assumptions (e.g. are we taking the essential parts of the climate system into account, and are we attributing the right proportions to the right factors)? Since the models which predict future climate are structured around our understanding of past records (the accuracy of the assessments) and our assumptions about present and future conditions (the validity of the assumptions), and it is those model predictions that are used to determine future policy, I think those are probably the essential aspects of the debate. There is little point in quibbling over the data from the last thirty years (certainly the last 15, anyway), and no doubt that there appears to be some warming - the core part of the debate is as to whether this is attributable to mankind's activities.

Time to go back over the second half now!

TTFN

C-Bob

[Gray-Wolf]

I reckon that the economics arguments will come into more prominence in the future, as the scepticism arguments are becoming more and more drowned out by the contrary evidence.

Guy's, Guy's , lets get real just about here. We have a perfect model to the way things will go (economicaly) in the real world right now.

We know govt. won't bite the bullet because of the undicided/nay sayers, but the insurance comp.'s will.

As with the American model the insurance comp.'s will 'act normaly' and look for 'squeal room'.

As soon as any Authority claims G.W. as a certainty then all weather related damage will be 'uninsured' so storm damage and flooding will become uninsurable. It will all be 'foreseeable' and 'man made' and therefore you're own concern. 'Didn't you know global warming meant more severe storms?', 'Didn't you know global warming meant more flooding?' they'll say and then you've only the Govt. to look too. That means you and me really.

[parmenides3]

Hi. Just a couple of quick pick-ups on Mondy's post:

First paragraph: The report tells us that they are confident that the paleo evidence is soundly-researched and supported by a range of findings in different parts of the world, using both actual temp records (e.g. the CET) and proxies. The report does not say that what is happening now has never happened before; it does say that current temps are likely as high or higher than at any time in the past 1300 years, e.g, the MWP. It does not say that now is categorically warmer than the MWP, but is confident that today is at least as warm and probably warmer.

The argument that 'we know current warming must be human-driven because this have never happened before' is not made by the report, so the 'therefore' is misplaced. The argument for the human causes is covered elsewhere in the report. So the 'shakiest of grounds' might not be so shaky after all.

The report does say, though, that the levels of CO2 and other GHGs in the atmosphere is unprecedented, and I suspect this is what you picked up on.

I think that to suggest that the report claims perfect knowledge of past climates is disingenuous. All reconstructed temperature records contain error bars. This does not prevent the trends from being distinguishable, however, nor does it imply deception on the part of any scientists. I have read that ice-core records now operate on sub-annual scales and, as far as I know, in fractions of a degree (with the error bars). To suggest that the sum of twenty years' scientific effort is no better than 'best guesswork' and inference is to do the scientists a great disservice. Unfortunately, we'll have to wait for the release of the WH1 report (science summary) to see what evidence has been looked at for this, though you can get a good idea from recent papers in GRL, ACP, etc.

Last note: nobody is claiming that the sinking of the Titanic is evidence of GW, so why do you mention it? Why not instead mention the consistent 30-year reduction of Arctic sea-ice levels, measured by the best instruments available? Or the measured rise in sea=level due to thermal expansion, or the measured mass loss of glaciers worldwide, or the changing mass-balance of the Greenland Ice Sheet?

I'll come back on some of your other comments later.

:)P

[Gray-Wolf]

The largest loss of life in sea accidents due to storms 'likely' intensified by global warming has to be the recent 5 year tally from far Eastern (overcrowded, not unlike the titanic) ferry disasters. Of course , not being prestigious 'maiden voyages' the passenger list isn't as 'Exclusive' in part so media coverage isn't as great......

[The PIT]

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

Thanks John I wasn't go to comment until you said I misquoted. I didn't.

Yes the Stir is The Star. Called the Stir as it likes to Stir things up and get things wrong at times.

Quote.

Everyone lives near a River will be flooded. My Comment. Only if you live on a flood plain which is perfectly natural. Not everyone who lives near a river is on a flood plain.

Quote

The first Time that Humans are controlling the Weather. My Comment. Err not true true we're not controlling it maybe influcencing it but certainly not controlling it. Otherwise it would be used as a weapon.

Quote

A Few People think that it is just a reason for the Governement to raise taxes. My Comment. A lot of people I know agree that this is what the Government is actually doing. I don't think the Government is really taking it seriously otherwise it would do more like proper investment in public transport.

These are direct quotes taken from the Star I've got infront of me. Pity you didn't read it or you would have seen the quotes.

By the way I read I've the report and I'm still not 100% convinced.

However I still believe it's a good idea anyway to clean our act up anyway. It would benifit us and the World and make a much more pleasant enviroment for all of to live in. Certainly it would make a much healither world to live in. Now whether the report is correct or not the we may never know if we do clean up. If we don't who knows I won't be around to find out so then do we owe to the children to do something???

[parmenides3]

By the way I read I've the report and I'm still not 100% convinced.

One cannot help but ask, why not? If 2500-odd scientists and 130-odd governments can agree that what is in the report is the best available summary for policy-makers of twenty-odd years work, what do you feel it is missing?

On the other hand, one might ask, okay, 100% convinced is too much for you, but are you at least willing to go 50%?

:)P

[The PIT]

One cannot help but ask, why not? If 2500-odd scientists and 130-odd governments can agree that what is in the report is the best available summary for policy-makers of twenty-odd years work, what do you feel it is missing?

On the other hand, one might ask, okay, 100% convinced is too much for you, but are you at least willing to go 50%?

:)P

Probably becuase it wasn't that long ago that we're were going to suffer an ice age. Also weren't we all going to die of Aids then Bird Flu plus something else in the meantime.

Yes the Climate is changing probably mostly natural but can anyone put a real figure with 100% Certainty of how much Man is having effect. Since I work for the same place as the prof quoted in the Star or The Stir as it's also known round Sheffield do you want me to drop him an email asking for his actual thoughts.

Edited February 3, 2007 by The PIT

[parmenides3]

Just a quick question: the report says it isn't mostly natural and it is mostly us. It also puts numbers on, for example, climate sensitivity. Are you saying that you don't believe the report, or that you think it is wrong?

Email the prof. I'd love to hear what he thought of the article.

Don't confuse media scare stories with hard science. Oh, and AIDS has killed millions.

:)P

[The PIT]

I will do if thats okay with Net weather people. See if I can get him to post direct thats if everyone agrees.

P3 The star article was a bit alarmist. Scared my mother by the way.

Edited February 3, 2007 by The PIT

[parmenides3]

Go for it! When I emailed Realcimate, Gavin Schmidt replied in person (he's a quite important climate scientist). So did Steve McIntyre (an important sceptic), and James Annan, and William Connolley, and Roger Pielke Sr., etc... : These people like to know that they are being listened to, and I'm sure he'll respond. My only suggestion would be to try to be quite precise in any questions you ask, or it might be quite a long xorrespondence.

:)P