Ipcc Report On Climate Change And Extreme Weather Events

[IanM]

I'm sure you've all been waiting for this bit of light reading for the weekend, but just in case, here is the latest IPCC output, the summary document for policy makers :

http://www.ipcc-wg2.gov/SREX/images/uploads/SREX-SPM_Approved-HiRes_opt.pdf

The full document is scheduled for release in February

Ian

[Dorsetbred]

Interesting reading from a risk team the word "likely" appears 44 times in 29 pages!

[The PIT]

Well it's likely to be right and unlikely to be proven wrong....

[stewfox]

I'm sure you've all been waiting for this bit of light reading for the weekend, but just in case, here is the latest IPCC output, the summary document for policy makers :

http://www.ipcc-wg2....d-HiRes_opt.pdf

The full document is scheduled for release in February

Ian

Why less Hurricans, whats the excuse now?

[jethro]

The critiques are coming in thick and fast.....

http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2011/11/leaked-text-of-ipcc-extreme-report.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15698183

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/42491

http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/

http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/

[VillagePlank]

The whole idea is a FUQed question - ie, scientifically, it cannot be settled. You can imagine what I think about anyone who says that it is - as if anyone else cares, anyway :lol:

Edited November 20, 2011 by Boar Wrinklestorm

[VillagePlank]

Why less Hurricans, whats the excuse now?

I think it starts with 'We never claimed certainty, as with all science there is uncertainty ....' Of course, all true, but ....

Edited November 20, 2011 by Boar Wrinklestorm

[laserguy]

I think it's all cobblers. ALL of it. Going back to the serious business of trying to nail this damn game on the xbox.

[Coast]

The critiques are coming in thick and fast.....

IPCC chief braced for storms of denial over extreme weather report

UN climate science panel chairman Rajendra Pachauri says he is ready for attacks from climate sceptics over the panel's new extreme weather report

http://www.guardian....r?newsfeed=true

[Methuselah]

I think it's all cobblers. ALL of it. Going back to the serious business of trying to nail this damn game on the xbox.

Hi Barrie, mate. How's it hanging? And, in some respects, I suspect you might be right...

[Gray-Wolf]

Maybe it's time to renounce my Perdita views?

Maybe it's easier to accept that we are of nature and so anything we do is of nature also?

Maybe I can just let go and say it's all natural and so avoid the constant concerns and bickering?

Time to accept that my concerns are pointless and will change nothing?

[jethro]

I think if you say "it's all natural" you'll be in the minority on this forum and ignoring a large body of scientific study. However, I don't think individual concerns were ever likely to change anything in either the climate change industry, or the climate of the world so it's probably wise to let those go if you value your sanity.

[Roger J Smith]

Establishing the frequency of severe weather is very difficult, given the two factors of expanding population and improving weather forecasting warnings having contradictory impacts on available statistics. We can really get into much confusion by considering damage or casualty figures, the more reliable index would be meteorological parameters.

On that basis, it is very difficult to justify the alarmism of the IPCC, especially when a long period of record is considered.

I think most people active in meteorology would recognize that decade to decade statistics on severe weather would fluctuate so much that worthwhile comparisons are meaningless.

But half-century to half-century comparisons would make it appear that severe weather events are not increasing. Century to century or half-millenium to half-millenium comparisons are even more reassuring that the current climate is not heading "out of control."

That's the big picture that any sensible analysis of weather extremes in the past should teach us.

Islands are not being swept into the seas. London is not being destroyed by windstorms. Drought and dust bowl conditions are not eating up the American midwest (Texas granted a different story). Cities are not being swept off their foundations by hurricanes.

None of it is real. But it was in the past. So what does that tell us?

Basically this -- calm down and stop making things up.

[Alan Robinson]

Maybe it's time to renounce my Perdita views?

Just out of interest GW, which Perdita is that, and what views do you refer to? Not the Perdita that was intended to be deserted as an infant on the coast of Bohemia (whatever that is), but who lived happily ever after? Just what is it that is lost? I struggle to follow you sometimes.

[VillagePlank]

Maybe I can just let go and say it's all natural and so avoid the constant concerns and bickering?

At least for our lifetime, natural signals are now due to overpower any anthro-signal.

I trust this report less than the last two; their forecasts, given that they are paid for, and approved by UN member states, it seems to me to closely follow global GDP - ie they can't forecast hell on earth next week since the member governments no longer have any cash to pay for a remedy; and they can't tax the poor in these times of austerity. It's much better to issue a report effectively saying we don't know in the hope for continued existence since not knowing requires more investment ....

I wouldn't worry then: as soon as global GDP makes a turn to the strong positive, the forecasts of doom and gloom will be back - and so will the taxes and pictures of homeless polar bears.

Edited November 22, 2011 by Boar Wrinklestorm

[Methuselah]

Despite my conviction that we are right to fear the consequences of AGW, I still do not trust these claims about 'unusual' weather. Yet!

[4wd]

I was mystified why the BBC TV report on this appeared to overlook what it actually says, and go with various clips of flooding and things being swept away - specifically mentioned as not correlating at all well with any warming.

For balance they could have shown that despite far more accurate reporting of natural disasters over the last 100 years the numbers of people actually killed by severe weather has plummeted.

[Village]

^{LOL at the IPCC and the way they continually change their story to fit the the data. They used to predict that Huricanes would become more common in an ever warming world and sited the bad storms of recent decades as proof of this.}

^{Now that the opposite is true they have done a complete 180 degree u-turn and now predict the opposite to make their story fit the current reality. LOL Can we take any of this crystal ball gazing seriously?}

Edited November 22, 2011 by Village

[laserguy]

I think if you say "it's all natural" you'll be in the minority on this forum and ignoring a large body of scientific study.....

Then I'm a fully paid-up member of the ignorant minority - and proud of it!

Eyup Pete,I'm alright me old. Thanks for asking. Yourself?

[loafer]

The IPCC report certainly has the benefit of recognising that the climate is affected by lots of things one of which could be CO2, which is good progress to a balanced scientific discussion.

It also identifies what extreme weather events would be more or less likely if their climate models prove accurate, which is interesting in itself.

The real problem is that the current climate models are proving anything but accurate with both sea surface and air temperatures coming in below what was predicted and trending downwards in some cases, so the higher overall temperatures that have been predicted by their models have no real foundation at the moment.

The report acknowledges this by saying that in the medium term manmade influences will be lost in the data noise. The problem is that, in common with all modelling, the reemergence of manmade influences seems as likely to be predicated simply on compounding a variable rather than anything they can point at, so until they can demonstrate cause and effect it is hard to take their longer term predictions seriously.

[Village]

I think if you say "it's all natural" you'll be in the minority on this forum and ignoring a large body of scientific study.

What about the hand picked IPCC panel who are ignoring the large body of scientists and scientific evidence which indicates that the small variations that we are seeing are well within the limits of the background natural climate variation which has always occured?

Was it not the IPCC climate committee who themselves banned the world leading expert scientist and authority on Polar Bears from speaking at an IPCC summit in Copenhagen because his findings that Polar Bear numbers are increasing didnt fit their theory that the opposite is true?

[jethro]

What about the hand picked IPCC panel who are ignoring the large body of scientists and scientific evidence which indicates that the small variations that we are seeing are well within the limits of the background natural climate variation which has always occured?

Was it not the IPCC climate committee who themselves banned the world leading expert scientist and authority on Polar Bears from speaking at an IPCC summit in Copenhagen because his findings that Polar Bear numbers are increasing didnt fit their theory that the opposite is true?

That depends on whether or not you think the IPCC are the b-all and end-all of climate science, personally speaking, I've always taken their politically driven reports with copious amounts of salt.

The science says that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, you can't argue with that. How that relates to current climate is a whole different ball game.

[Gray-Wolf]

Just out of interest GW, which Perdita is that, and what views do you refer to? Not the Perdita that was intended to be deserted as an infant on the coast of Bohemia (whatever that is), but who lived happily ever after? Just what is it that is lost? I struggle to follow you sometimes.

Winters Tale 'Perdita' and her exchange with Polixenes regarding 'Natures Bas tards? If we (Mankind) are of Nature then our efforts are also of Nature. No Worries eh?

EDIT: God bless the swear filter! I hope you understand my spacing!!

Edited November 22, 2011 by Gray-Wolf

[VillagePlank]

Winters Tale 'Perdita' and her exchange with Polixenes regarding 'Natures Bas tards? If we (Mankind) are of Nature then our efforts are also of Nature. No Worries eh?

EDIT: God bless the swear filter! I hope you understand my spacing!!

Well, yes, in so much a beaver affects a river by building it's dam; the difference is - that we are aware that we might be causing problems, and we are capable of changing our behaviour accordingly. As I said earlier, this is a FUQed question - we cannot, by experiment, verify or otherwise the conjecture that manmade emissions cause global temperatures to rise, and further to that point, if they do then by how much.

Most sensible people will agree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, that it causes warming, that we are emitting quite a bit of the stuff. The effect on a system as complex as the Earth - ie the how much bit - is the question, here.

Edited November 23, 2011 by Boar Wrinklestorm

[Methuselah]

I think if you say "it's all natural" you'll be in the minority on this forum and ignoring a large body of scientific study.

What 'large' body is that, J? All natural? That said, I'm always sceptical of these 'extreme weather is caused by AGW' claims... :smiliz19: