Ipcc Report On Climate Change And Extreme Weather Events

[VillagePlank]

If you really want to be pedantic, I got the picture from Roy Spencer's site - http://www.drroyspencer.com/about/

Aahh - that plot is for months, not years; that is to say each 'dot' is a month. I didn't notice that first time around.

I've guestimated an annual linear trend for the last five years on that graph - I don't have access to the raw data to do it myself. If you can provide the source data, I'll quite happily do it, zoom it in etc etc.

Edited November 23, 2011 by Boar Wrinklestorm

[stewfox]

Additionally, the last 10 years of BEST data *do* show warming, so long as you remember to exclude the last two monthly data points. Why should you exclude them? Well, they're based on incomplete data: the few dozen stations in Antarctica that happened to have reported in early when BEST did their data grab. The error bars for those two specific points are something like 3 degrees C - they're useless.

Drop those out, and the trend over the last 10 years is upwards, and not significantly different from the warming trend of the previous century or so.

They admit they dont measure the ocean temps don't the oceans count as part of global temperatures as they cover 70% of the globe.?

[cyclonic happiness]

See! this proves my whole point!

If everything is so clear cut, then why is there such a heated debate about whether global warming/cooling caused or not caused by humans,in this thread?

Just goes to show that everyone is out to prove their own point regardless of the truth and the truth shall only be revealed by time, not by graphs or debating!

[VillagePlank]

See! this proves my whole point!

Sorry, you've lost me - we're debating about whether we're warming or cooling; most people accept that humans contribute at least something ....

[cyclonic happiness]

Sorry, you've lost me - we're debating about whether we're warming or cooling; most people accept that humans contribute at least something ....

I mean that, if it's such an 'absolute' either way, why is there so much debate?

[VillagePlank]

I mean that, if it's such an 'absolute' either way, why is there so much debate?

That's the point - it isn't absolute. See my post on FUQed up questions.

Edited November 23, 2011 by Boar Wrinklestorm

[OldGreggsTundraBoy]

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.

This means nothing of weather events are getting more or less severe! The fact that deaths have dropped is due our ongoing development of strategies to cope better with disasters.

[cyclonic happiness]

That's the point - it isn't absolute. See my post on FUQed up questions.

It's the only thing I think really gets on my nerves about this forum. Year upon year upon year, I see people wasting vast amounts of time and effort arguing the whole climate thing and trying to score points against each other.

And seeing people losing their tempers over something that they cannot possibly know about.

Climate is not for our eyes, should be left in the lap of the 'gods' imo.

(there's another one....the god debate )

[OldGreggsTundraBoy]

^{LOL at the IPCC and the way they continually change their story to fit the the data.}

Its what any decent scientist would do!

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

Far less ice than there should be this time of year and every year in memmory. Every year less.

Edited November 23, 2011 by OldGreggsTundraBoy

[VillagePlank]

It's the only thing I think really gets on my nerves about this forum. Year upon year upon year, I see people wasting vast amounts of time and effort arguing the whole climate thing

Robust debate is how we learn, isn't it? Socratic method et al.

[Gray-Wolf]

http://www1.carleton...-at-high-speed/

Nobody told the Canadian ice shelves that a global average of 0.1c wasn't a lot of warming (nor did they mention that the noughties had been a 'flat-line/cooling decade.....esp. since 05'?) and could be lost in noise?

This 'warming' Elephant just won't stop outgrowing the excuses as to why it's just 'normal' and 'natural' to see such changes? (there's another paper out highlighting both poles loss of ice sheets? Unparallelled in 12,000yrs it would seem?)

http://http-server.carleton.ca/~dmueller/iceshelves/img/SouthernWardHuntIceShelfAugust2008.jpg

Edited November 23, 2011 by Gray-Wolf

[cyclonic happiness]

Robust debate is how we learn, isn't it? Socratic method et al.

Or 'flogging a dead horse' as we say in a living language?

[jethro]

Aahh - that plot is for months, not years; that is to say each 'dot' is a month. I didn't notice that first time around.

I've guestimated an annual linear trend for the last five years on that graph - I don't have access to the raw data to do it myself. If you can provide the source data, I'll quite happily do it, zoom it in etc etc.

Feel free but I'm sure it would be easier just to read his research papers.

http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt

http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/tltglhmam_5.3

[jethro]

It's the only thing I think really gets on my nerves about this forum. Year upon year upon year, I see people wasting vast amounts of time and effort arguing the whole climate thing and trying to score points against each other.

And seeing people losing their tempers over something that they cannot possibly know about.

Climate is not for our eyes, should be left in the lap of the 'gods' imo.

(there's another one....the god debate )

I'm not being funny but it's not compulsory to visit the climate area, it's great that you do but if it gets on your nerves, why bother? I rarely visit the model thread, especially from November through to March because it's nigh on impossible to get any idea of what weather to expect as the vast majority of posters spend all their time looking for a teeny glimmer of hope in seeing a snowflake or three.

Personally, I don't consider it a waste of time to try and understand climate change, I enjoy learning new things about it and I enjoy learning from other people on here - Boar Wrinklewotsist (what was wrong with VP? It was far easier to remember) and I weren't point scoring in an hostile way, I'm sure I can speak for both of us when I say "it's friendly banter", certainly no frayed tempers.

Climate not for our eyes.....we're subjected to it on a daily basis, as a professional gardener I'm keenly aware of it, as a custodian of historical gardens and estates, I've got to be able to plan for the long term future (several generations hence when dealing with trees), it's important to me that I try to make educated decisions.

[4wd]

http://www1.carleton...-at-high-speed/

Nobody told the Canadian ice shelves that a global average of 0.1c wasn't a lot of warming

The Canadians -- being a practically bunch, not prone to hand wringing angst and self-flagellation - are probably delighted at the new fishing grounds and reduced sea transport times.

Do you think there might be oil under there too?

[Village]

How many years would you like me to go back? They all trend one way. Up. I note that you say 'significant' - what exactly do you mean by that?

As usual, selective data sets again......if one extends the graph back 11,000 years one will note that this tiny carefully selected snippet is taken out of context and therefore totally insignificant. Its only the AGW enthusiasts who want to apply this one tiny decadal change to Mankind. Why? Especially why when there is an 11,000 year trend ....

You say "how many years do you want me to go back?" OK....well try 10,000 years ....now try and explain why they tiny change in only this decade must be do to Human activity when temperatures have been varying quite naturally since the beginning of the world! Thats the case you have to make. So far to date nobody has managed to conclusively make this point, but the IPCC continually gets caught out exagerating with their claims so much so that they keep changing and downgrading them.

[VillagePlank]

You say "how many years do you want me to go back?" OK....well try 10,000 years ....now try and explain why they tiny change in only this decade must be do to Human activity when temperatures have been varying quite naturally since the beginning of the world! Thats the case you have to make. So far to date nobody has managed to conclusively make this point, but the IPCC continually gets caught out exagerating with their claims so much so that they keep changing and downgrading them.

Not a problem - where's the data for the 11,000 years? How was such a set constructed?

As usual, selective data sets again......

The challenge is for you to pick the dataset. I've already done other people's homework for them with the 5 years, and 10 years that other people were making claims about (such as the world is no longer warming) and pointed out that the claims are - on the face of it - erroneous.

When you're ready, post it up!

Edited November 24, 2011 by Boar Wrinklestorm

[jethro]

As usual, selective data sets again......if one extends the graph back 11,000 years one will note that this tiny carefully selected snippet is taken out of context and therefore totally insignificant. Its only the AGW enthusiasts who want to apply this one tiny decadal change to Mankind. Why? Especially why when there is an 11,000 year trend ....

You say "how many years do you want me to go back?" OK....well try 10,000 years ....now try and explain why they tiny change in only this decade must be do to Human activity when temperatures have been varying quite naturally since the beginning of the world! Thats the case you have to make. So far to date nobody has managed to conclusively make this point, but the IPCC continually gets caught out exagerating with their claims so much so that they keep changing and downgrading them.

The reason why the warming in recent decades is attributed to AGW is because when all known natural contributing factors are programmed into a climate model, it cannot reproduce the recent warm decades. When the information on CO2 emissions and the predicted impact from these is added to the model, the results better replicate the recent warm decades, (it works retro-spectively too but not to the same degree of accuracy).

My own personal gripe with this is that a computer program is only as good as the data fed into the system, as we have such an incomplete knowledge of climate and all the contributing factors, it is impossible to ensure the model accurately represents normal climate variation. If natural variation, (both scale and cause) is unknown, we cannot possibly be in a position to make any validated claims of the impact AGW is having. Plus, historical climate is measured using proxy data, with the best will in the world (and the best available science) I question the degree of accuracy of the claims of hottest/wettest/driest since the last ice age, or any other point in distant time, when comparing against the accuracy of modern technology.

Neither myself, nor Boar Wrinklestorm are AGW enthusiasts, we both are middle ground people, accepting of the science that CO2 is a greenhouse gas but dubious and questioning of the level of impact.

[Village]

I think everybody knows that the computer models predicting our weather type and what we can expect many decades to a hundred years forth are complete bunkum. We know this because the same computer programes are used to predict the stock markets years and decades forth and they too are complete bunkum.

The real world has absolutely nothing to do with interpolated data and worse still; interpoltions on interpolations. The real world doesnt know about means, averages, balances....these are man made ideas which simpl dont exist in nature.

The real world never sleeps, its in constant turmoil and it works on reactions to one systemic real shock to the next. Since nobody can ever predict these systemic real shocks before they happen then the computer programes which assume a future world based on assumptions are a complete waste of time or an intriguing pastime at best.

Any applied physicist will already know this. Climatologists symply use computers to sell their own pet crystal ball stories for political reasons. And thats got absolutely nothing to do with science.

[laserguy]

The real world has absolutely nothing to do with interpolated data and worse still; interpoltions on interpolations. The real world doesnt know about means, averages, balances....these are man made ideas which simpl dont exist in nature.

The real world never sleeps, its in constant turmoil and it works on reactions to one systemic real shock to the next. Since nobody can ever predict these systemic real shocks before they happen then the computer programes which assume a future world based on assumptions are a complete waste of time or an intriguing pastime at best.

Any applied physicist will already know this. Climatologists symply use computers to sell their own pet crystal ball stories for political reasons. And thats got absolutely nothing to do with science.

Very nicely put,V. I've always maintained,and always will that "climate change" has absolutely nothing to do with,er,climate change. Still,it's fun and infuriating to watch the shenanigans as they happen. Maybe the IPCC should stick to cricket.

[jethro]

I think everybody knows that the computer models predicting our weather type and what we can expect many decades to a hundred years forth are complete bunkum. We know this because the same computer programes are used to predict the stock markets years and decades forth and they too are complete bunkum.

The real world has absolutely nothing to do with interpolated data and worse still; interpoltions on interpolations. The real world doesnt know about means, averages, balances....these are man made ideas which simpl dont exist in nature.

The real world never sleeps, its in constant turmoil and it works on reactions to one systemic real shock to the next. Since nobody can ever predict these systemic real shocks before they happen then the computer programes which assume a future world based on assumptions are a complete waste of time or an intriguing pastime at best.

Any applied physicist will already know this. Climatologists symply use computers to sell their own pet crystal ball stories for political reasons. And thats got absolutely nothing to do with science.

I think all that depends upon whether or not you expect absolute accuracy or vague ideas. The best the scientists can do if offer vagueness but all too often it is presented as authoritative fact; all your reasons above and the data issues I suggested earlier mean facts about the future are impossible to predict. However, no scientist is in a position to say "we've spent all your research money and we haven't a clue" - they're paid to have a clue. Couple this with a real drive to replace the diminishing fossil fuel based energy supplies with renewables and you've got a perfect storm of politically driven science reports which claim a degree of authority which only really exists in the minds of the IPCC.

[Village]

Very nicely put,V. I've always maintained,and always will that "climate change" has absolutely nothing to do with,er,climate change. Still,it's fun and infuriating to watch the shenanigans as they happen. Maybe the IPCC should stick to cricket.

Hey Laser,

If the IPCC applied their same computer predictions to Cricket do you think they would be any closer to being right?

And thats the acid test isnt it....if they cant even predict one day ahead, then how the hell can they possibly hold up these predictions and ask us all to take them seriously.

One minute warming will lead to more Huricanes, now they have changed to less Huricanes....and thats using the same programe!

Absolute fruit cakes!

[VillagePlank]

Absolute fruit cakes!

Let's try a little thought experiment.

Let's pretend today is midsummer's day, we've all danced around Kit's Coty, now we're all a bit tired especially after copious amounts of local cider. The day, 21st June, is coming to a close, and we've retired to the local hostelry. You see that a complex series of low pressure systems with associated fronts is coming in next week. The jet-stream is all over the place; even the 500hPa are swapping extravagantly between model runs - everything depends on the cyclogenesis of a series of lows that is currently a 500 hPa shortwave off the SW corner of Greenland.

That presents a problem. We want to go for a picnic in 4 days time. The lows could skirt Scotland, they could hit central England, they could dive south and hit Paris. The cold fronts predicted with the low pressures are likely to bring heavy (and thundery) downpours given the tongue of moist air advecting from the near continent meaning our picnic is going to be a washout. Models haven't got a grip of it; human forecasters are scratching their head whilst knowledgeably propping up the bar.

Do you go for the picnic?

Quite rightly, and as you say, this one's a difficult call. The damn fruitcakes cannot even write the software for the weather models; after all it's only extrapolation of the tuple of temperature, humidity, and pressure, right? Every promptly agrees, and we complain, much to the landlady's amusement (and profit - in depth conversations tend to involve more beer) about the state of weather forecasting.

You then take it that extra step - well, if we can't get this system right, how the hell can we get climate right? How is it that even the best long range seasonal forecast is just an educated guess? Lot's of people agree with you; can't wait to pat you on the back and point out what a thoroughly decent fellow you are.

I then lay a bet, for £10, on the table - that I can predict something, accurately, of what might be happening in six months time. Of course, you scoff; how can that be - we can't even decide whether or not to go on that damn picnic. Of course, you all fall around laughing - and can't wait to congratulate yourself on how marvellously stupid this idiot Boar is.

Do you make the bet? My bet is that the CET on June 21 will be higher than the CET on December 21 for this year, and every year hence. You decline the bet, go home, and wonder where it all went wrong. You were right to decline the bet - there is not a single June 21 CET that has exceeded the CET on December 21 in the same year. The bet could have been for December 21st in 20 years time - I'd still be odds on to win.

Edited November 27, 2011 by Boar Wrinklestorm

[Village]

Hey Boar,

My point is that for the last decade we have been pressured and scaremongered into believing that Huricanes would be much more common in a future world warmed by burning fossil fuels and that the future is in our own hands.

The idea that we can turn the temperature up and down like a thermostat depending on how many televisions are left on standby or by how many school runs we make in a 4 x 4 is crackpot enough. However, to come with the same scare story about man made catastrophic Huricanes actually becoming less likely is fuit cake.

Why? because now they tell us that if we carry on leaving the TV on standby and drive the kids to school in the 4 x 4 then we can reduce the chances of terrible Huricanes. The fruit cakes are actually saying its good for a quiet life in the Gulf of Mexico, but two years ago it wasnt!!

Look here is what the IPCC said only four years ago:

The IPCC's "Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis"

Issued Feb. 2

Projections

"Based on a range of models, it is likely that future tropical cyclones (typhoons and hurricanes) will become more intense,"

"There is less confidence in projections of a global decrease in numbers of tropical cyclones."

http://ipccinfo.com/hurricanes.php

Now this is what they say this year: 18th November 2011

Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance

Climate Change Adaptation

A Special Report of Working Group I and Working Group II

of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

"It is likely that the global frequency of tropical cyclones will

either decrease or remain essentially unchanged. [3.4.4]"

"There is medium confidence that there will be a reduction in the number of extra-tropical

cyclones averaged over each hemisphere."

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

Fruit cakes.

Edited November 28, 2011 by Village

[BornFromTheVoid]

Hey Boar,

My point is that for the last decade we have been pressured and scaremongered into believing that Huricanes would be much more common in a future world warmed by burning fossil fuels and that the future is in our own hands.

The idea that we can turn the temperature up and down like a thermostat depending on how many televisions are left on standby or by how many school runs we make in a 4 x 4 is crackpot enough. However, to come with the same scare story about man made catastrophic Huricanes actually becoming less likely is fuit cake.

Why? because now they tell us that if we carry on leaving the TV on standby and drive the kids to school in the 4 x 4 then we can reduce the chances of terrible Huricanes. The fruit cakes are actually saying its good for a quiet life in the Gulf of Mexico, but two years ago it wasnt!!

Look here is what the IPCC said only four years ago:

The IPCC's "Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis"

Issued Feb. 2

Projections

"Based on a range of models, it is likely that future tropical cyclones (typhoons and hurricanes) will become more intense,"

"There is less confidence in projections of a global decrease in numbers of tropical cyclones."

http://ipccinfo.com/hurricanes.php

Now this is what they say this year: 18th November 2011

Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance

Climate Change Adaptation

A Special Report of Working Group I and Working Group II

of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

"It is likely that the global frequency of tropical cyclones will

either decrease or remain essentially unchanged. [3.4.4]"

"There is medium confidence that there will be a reduction in the number of extra-tropical

cyclones averaged over each hemisphere."

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

Fruit cakes.

They both project a decrease in tropical storm activity and an increase in intensity! Extra-tropical cyclones are not tropical cyclones so I'm not sure why you included them...

I normally wouldn't comment on this kinda thing as I'm not too pushed about the IPCC, but as far as I can see, they've been relatively consistent with the tropical storm forecasts. If anything, they've done the slight reverse of what you're saying. Perhaps I'm missing something???

IPCC 2007

Based on a range of models, it is likely that future tropical cyclones (typhoons and hurricanes) will become more intense, with larger peak wind speeds and more heavy precipitation associated with ongoing increases of tropical SSTs

There is less confidence in projections of a global decrease in numbers of tropical cyclones.

IPCC 2011

Heavy rainfalls associated with tropical cyclones are likely to increase with continued warming

Average tropical cyclone maximum wind speed is likely to increase, although increases may

not occur in all ocean basins.

It is likely that the global frequency of tropical cyclones will

either decrease or remain essentially unchanged.