IPCC climate report 2013

[BornFromTheVoid]

[sarcasm]I see the IPCC has failed to acknowledge that CO2 is just a trace gas and therefor can have no effect on the climate. We can dismiss the rest of their eco-babble...[/sarcasm]

 

[Coast]

The Independents view:

 

IPCC report: Scientists are 95% certain humans are responsible for climate change

 

Most comprehensive report on climate change ever leaves little doubt that greenhouse gases are causing the world to heat up

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/ipcc-report-scientists-are-95-certain-humans-are-responsible-for-climate-change-8843573.html

 

 

[UV-RAY]

Today on radio 4 this morning said they have been trying to find ONE skeptical scientist in Britain qualified to speak on the report but found no-one . Are any of the vociferous skeptics on here scientists qualified to speak on the subject ? If so an opportunity awaits ....

They obviously didn't look hard enough as all you to do is google them and a whole list appears. Still lets not get facts in the way of a good story eh!

[UV-RAY]

Anyway we are now witnessing a cornered animal in action, the IPCC projections up until now have been way off base f the pause or worse a decline in global temps take place for the next 10 years, will the case be closed or will we see a more sensible approach on climate sensitivity?

[Coast]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-nI8MByIL8

[Methuselah]

Today on radio 4 this morning said they have been trying to find ONE skeptical scientist in Britain qualified to speak on the report but found no-one . Are any of the vociferous skeptics on here scientists qualified to speak on the subject ? If so an opportunity awaits ....

Where's 'Lord' Monckton gone? He usually has some pearls-of-wisdom...

[Paul]

It would be a shame if some of those taking part in this thread missed the opportunity to discuss this latest IPCC report because they can't stop themselves from name calling and the like, so please have a think before submitting your post.

[BornFromTheVoid]

With regard to the slow down in warming since 1998, from section D.1:

 

The observed reduction in surface warming trend over the period 1998–2012 as compared to

the period 1951–2012, is due in roughly equal measure to a reduced trend in radiative forcing

and a cooling contribution from internal variability, which includes a possible redistribution of

heat within the ocean (medium confidence). The reduced trend in radiative forcing is primarily

due to volcanic eruptions and the timing of the downward phase of the 11-year solar cycle.

However, there is low confidence in quantifying the role of changes in radiative forcing in

causing the reduced warming trend. There is medium confidence that internal decadal

variability causes to a substantial degree the difference between observations and the

simulations; the latter are not expected to reproduce the timing of internal variability. There

may also be a contribution from forcing inadequacies and, in some models, an overestimate of

the response to increasing greenhouse gas and other anthropogenic forcing (dominated by the

effects of aerosols). {9.4, Box 9.2, 10.3, Box 10.2, 11.3}

 

EDIT: And for clouds, from section D.2:

The net radiative feedback due to all cloud types combined is likely

positive. Uncertainty in the sign and magnitude of the cloud feedback is due primarily to

continuing uncertainty in the impact of warming on low clouds

 

Edited September 27, 2013 by BornFromTheVoid

[be cause]

Where's 'Lord' Monckton gone? He usually has some pearls-of-wisdom...

 

I had no idea that Monckton was a scientist !

[UV-RAY]

 

With regard to the slow down in warming since 1998, from section D.1:

 

The observed reduction in surface warming trend over the period 1998–2012 as compared to

the period 1951–2012, is due in roughly equal measure to a reduced trend in radiative forcing

and a cooling contribution from internal variability, which includes a possible redistribution of

heat within the ocean (medium confidence). The reduced trend in radiative forcing is primarily

due to volcanic eruptions and the timing of the downward phase of the 11-year solar cycle.

However, there is low confidence in quantifying the role of changes in radiative forcing in

causing the reduced warming trend. There is medium confidence that internal decadal

variability causes to a substantial degree the difference between observations and the

simulations; the latter are not expected to reproduce the timing of internal variability. There

may also be a contribution from forcing inadequacies and, in some models, an overestimate of

the response to increasing greenhouse gas and other anthropogenic forcing (dominated by the

effects of aerosols). {9.4, Box 9.2, 10.3, Box 10.2, 11.3}

 

EDIT: And for clouds, from section D.2:

The net radiative feedback due to all cloud types combined is likely

positive. Uncertainty in the sign and magnitude of the cloud feedback is due primarily to

continuing uncertainty in the impact of warming on low clouds

 

 

For me you cannot add one thing as a causation for warming then dismiss it for being a part of the warming, both ENSO and Solar output are responsible for a large part of the warming as they are equally for the pause. We still have no way of knowing just how a large a part greenhouse gases or natural forcings play, it's all assumptions and it's on these assumptions which will make or break us all one way or the other.

I had no idea that Monckton was a scientist !

Lol, he's a baffoon and someone I take no notice off.

[BornFromTheVoid]

For me you cannot add one thing as a causation for warming then dismiss it for being a part of the warming, both ENSO and Solar output are responsible for a large part of the warming as they are equally for the pause. We still have no way of knowing just how a large a part greenhouse gases or natural forcings play, it's all assumptions and it's on these assumptions which will make or break us all one way or the other.

Lol, he's a baffoon and someone I take no notice off.

 

There are lots of ways to work out how greenhouse gasses influence our climate, such as measuring the reduction in energy leaving the Earth and attributing to the specific wavelengths being absorbed and re-emitted back by CO2 and other GHGs. Yes, solar (in the early part of the century at least) has influenced the temperature trend and ENSO has impacts of the decadal and interdecadal variability (like the higher than average rate of warming in the 15 years up to 2006), but as ENSO has no long term trend it cannot contribute to long term climate warming.

 

For solar data

There is high confidence that changes in total solar irradiance have not contributed to the

increase in global mean surface temperature over the period 1986 to 2008, based on direct

satellite measurements of total solar irradiance. There is medium confidence that the 11-year

cycle of solar variability influences decadal climate fluctuations in some regions. No robust

association between changes in cosmic rays and cloudiness has been identified

[UV-RAY]

There are lots of ways to work out how greenhouse gasses influence our climate, such as measuring the reduction in energy leaving the Earth and attributing to the specific wavelengths being absorbed and re-emitted back by CO2 and other GHGs. Yes, solar (in the early part of the century at least) has influenced the temperature trend and ENSO has impacts of the decadal and interdecadal variability (like the higher than average rate of warming in the 15 years up to 2006), but as ENSO has no long term trend it cannot contribute to long term climate warming.

 

For solar data

There is high confidence that changes in total solar irradiance have not contributed to the

increase in global mean surface temperature over the period 1986 to 2008, based on direct

satellite measurements of total solar irradiance. There is medium confidence that the 11-year

cycle of solar variability influences decadal climate fluctuations in some regions. No robust

association between changes in cosmic rays and cloudiness has been identified

Enso certainly does impact in the longer term. both the PDO and AMO are important drivers in terms of our climate. These cannot be dismissed lightly and play a very important role in warming and cooling.

Edited September 27, 2013 by Sceptical Inquirer

[BornFromTheVoid]

Enso certainly does impact in the longer term. both the PDO and AMO are important drivers in terms of our climate. These cannot be dismissed lightly and play a very important role in warming and cooling.

 

Nobody has dismissed their influence on climate variability, but the long term trends are something different. Can you produce some evidence that they have influenced the long term warming trend?

[Methuselah]

Enso certainly does impact in the longer term. both the PDO and AMO are important drivers in terms of our climate. These cannot be dismissed lightly and play a very important role in warming and cooling.

Fair enough SI...But does it affect (unusual one-off events like 1997/98 excluded) have any effect over geologic timescales? No-one's 'dismissing' them; it's just that they are 'oscillations' and, being entirely internal, aren't really forcings in the same way as are manmade CO₂ and Solar Activity trends...They don't actually increase/decrease global heat-content? 

[snowking]

Regardless of how long a period something has to run for before the IPCC will consider it 'significant' (after all, surely roughly 30 years of warming, followed by 15 years of no warming should mean that the 15 years should be seen as least half as significant as the ~30 years of warming - maybe I'm being too simple here), what baffled me during the press conference was upon answering questions with regards to how the 15 years of no warming might affect climate model projections they essentially dismissed it as insignificant...

 

Now, that sort of attitude is (just about) fine IF the pause in warming stops tomorrow and we then see a resumption in the same rate of temperature change as we saw before. But lets just hypothesise here for a second that the pause in global warming has been caused by, say, solar variability, and that the projections (including NASA's own projections) for cycle 25 do indeed see it as one of the quietest for hundreds of years, then we are not necessarily talking about the warming resuming tomorrow....we are talking about the pause (or perhaps even slight decline - bearing in mind this is theoretical) lasting at least another 10-15 years. If this occurs, surely it means that, once again, their climate models will prove incorrect and will have overestimated the temperature rise over time.

 

There is nothing to suggest that the warming will not resume once again eventually....equally I would argue given that they could not see such a pause in warming occurring, there is no absolute certainty that the warming will resume again. But in terms of their basic modelling of the situation, even if they truly believe this is a temporary pause in warming and that it will resume again, by the time it does their projections will most likely once again be way out because they refuse to input shorter-term climatological change.

 

The very fact that most of the answers to questions about the 15 year pause were answered along the lines of 'it's an insignificant period, you need to look at the longer term trend' was in itself hugely contradictory, given that we are currently basing our projections on a warming period that is only ~50 years old overall.

 

SK

[Coast]

I'm a bit confused and admit I haven't seen or heard the full report yet. But the media articles seem to all be having a different spin on things, typically:

 

 

Global warming has slowed in last 15 years despite record greenhouse gas levels, scientists say

 

Global warming has slowed since 1998 even though humans spewing ever more greenhouse gases are almost certainly to blame for damaging the atmosphere.

 

That’s according to a 36-page summary of a report from a United Nations panel released in Stockholm Friday concluding Earth’s temperature since 1998 has increased at less than half the pace of longer-term averages since 1951. The findings reduce predictions for the temperature in 2100 from when the UN last assessed climate science in 2007. The panel also expects sea levels to rise more quickly than previously forecast, endangering some of the world’s biggest cities and invigorating debate about how fast policy makers must act to protect the environment. “Continued emissions of greenhouse gases will cause further warming and changes in all components of the climate system,†said Thomas Stocker, a professor of climate at the University of Bern in Switzerland and co-chairman of the group that drafted the report. “Limiting climate change will require substantial and sustained reductions of greenhouse gas emissions.â€

 

The study by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is aimed at guiding the work of envoys from more than 190 nations attempting to negotiate a treaty that would restrict fossil fuel pollution from 2020. Global warming skeptics have seized on the lull in warming along with mistakes made in the IPCC’s last report in 2007 as evidence that concerns about the climate are overblown. The panel has acknowledged its last report exaggerated the rate of melting from glaciers in the Himalayas and overstated the risk of flooding in the Netherlands. “This weakens the argument for widespread alarmism over global warming,†Bjorn Lomborg, a Danish scientist and author of “The Skeptical Environmentalist,†wrote by e-mail. “The report contains none of the media’s typically apocalyptic scenarios, no alarmism, and no demands to cut emissions by X- percent or to hand out lavish subsidies on solar panels.â€

 

Before this year’s report, envoys from the U.S. and European Union sought more details about the slowdown in global warming, which is referred to as a “hiatus.†In including language about the slowdown, the IPCC overrode concerns from Germany and Hungary that the 15-year period since 1998 isn’t long enough to determine trends in the climate. At the same time, negotiations on the wording that went through the night to early Friday led to the inclusion of the caveat that “due to natural variability, trends based on short records are very sensitive to the beginning and end dates and do not in general reflect long-term climate trends.†The lower pace of warming in recent years may be explained by natural phenomena including volcanic eruptions, a periodic drop in the sun’s warmth and natural variation in the weather, the panel said in its wider report, the UN said.

 

The report noted an acceleration of the melting of ice caps covering Greenland and Antarctica and a retreat in sea ice over the Arctic Ocean. It said concentrations in the atmosphere of the three main gases blamed for global warming — carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide — are at their highest in at least 800,000 years. It also repeated a statement from 2007 that warming of the climate is “unequivocal.â€

 

The global average surface temperature trend of late is like a speed bump

 

Temperatures on average worldwide rose at 0.05 degree Celsius (0.09 degree Fahrenheit) per decade from 1998 through 2012, according to the report from the IPCC. The rate was 0.12 degree per decade from 1951 through 2012, the panel said, noting that “due to natural variability, trends based on short records are very sensitive to the beginning and end dates and do not in general reflect long-term climate trends.†“The global average surface temperature trend of late is like a speed bump, and we would expect the rate of temperature increase to speed up again just as most drivers do after clearing the speed bump,†Brenda Ekwurzel, a climate researcher at the Cambridge, Massachusetts-based Union of Concerned Scientists, said in a blog. Even at the slower rate, the increase translates to half a degree of warming per century, which is more than three times the estimated speed of warming when the last ice age ended between 17,500 and 10,000 years ago. The UN has resolved to limit warming to less than 2 degrees Celsius since industrialization began, and has charted about 0.8 degrees of warming already.

 

The study provides “a firm foundation for considerations of the impacts of climate change on human and natural systems and ways to meet the challenge of climate change,†said Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the IPCC, which is charged with compiling the work of thousands of scientists around the globe. He spoke in the Swedish capital, where the environmental group Greenpeace placed a two-metre high block of ice with a model of an oil rig flaring flames onto it. “We know that pollution from burning fossil fuels is the main cause of climate change,†Samantha Smith, leader of the climate and energy program at the environmental group WWF said in a statement. “Climate change is a gigantic and clear risk.† The panel noted that 15-year periods starting in 1995, 1996, and 1997 would have average warming rates of 0.13, 0.14 and 0.07 degrees Celsius per decade respectively. The UN World Meteorological Organization defines climate as the average weather over a 30-year period.

 

The report today didn’t mention another possible reason behind the slowdown in warming: that oceans may be absorbing more of the temperature increases. That was the subject of a study in the journal Geophysical Research Letters in May, since the cutoff date for science in the UN report was March 15. That study found ocean waters deeper than 700 meters (2,300 feet) have absorbed more heat since 1999. Today’s study said heat uptake from 700 meters to 2,000 meters “likely continued unabated,†without signaling any acceleration. The UN’s findings today are the first installment of three reports summarizing the IPCC’s work. The next parts are due in March and April, with a final document synthesizing the three scheduled for completion in October 2014.

 

When the panel finished its last study six years ago, it was rewarded with the Nobel Peace Prize and the prospect its findings might spur a globally binding treaty to cut greenhouse gases. That deal never materialized, and scientists were criticized for inaccuracies in their work and the content of leaked e-mails between climate researchers. A probe into the scientists recommended that leadership of the panel should change after every major assessment, a conclusion the UN said it would accept and implement after this study, allowing Pachauri to stay in charge for a second assessment report.  Friday, the scientists said it’s “extremely likely†that humans caused more than half of the global temperature increase since the 1950s. That’s more certain than the 2007 report, which put the probability at “very likely.†The language assigns numerical probabilities of at least 95 percent for “extremely likely†and greater than 90 percent for “very likely.â€

 

Other findings and forecasts include:

 

* Global average temperatures are likely to rise by 0.3 degree to 4.8 degrees Celsius by 2100, according to a draft issued on Aug. 12. That’s less than the gain of 1.1 degrees to 6.4 degrees forecast in 2007. The world already has warmed about 0.85 degree since 1880.

 

* Sea levels may increase 26 centimeters to 98 centimeters (10 to 39 inches) by the end of the century, more than the 2007 range for gains of 18 to 59 centimeters. The level already has risen about 19 centimeters.

 

* The sensitivity to a hypothetical doubling of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere may be lower, leading to a temperature increase of 1.5 to 4.5 degrees. That’s a half degree less at the bottom end of the range than in 2007.

 

 

 

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/09/27/mankind-extremely-likely-the-cause-of-global-warming-scientists-say-a-change-from-very-likely-in-2007/

 

 

[knocker]

The 'pause' doesn't seem to apply to OHC.

Edited September 27, 2013 by knocker

[BornFromTheVoid]

Regardless of how long a period something has to run for before the IPCC will consider it 'significant' (after all, surely roughly 30 years of warming, followed by 15 years of no warming should mean that the 15 years should be seen as least half as significant as the ~30 years of warming - maybe I'm being too simple here), what baffled me during the press conference was upon answering questions with regards to how the 15 years of no warming might affect climate model projections they essentially dismissed it as insignificant...

 

Now, that sort of attitude is (just about) fine IF the pause in warming stops tomorrow and we then see a resumption in the same rate of temperature change as we saw before. But lets just hypothesise here for a second that the pause in global warming has been caused by, say, solar variability, and that the projections (including NASA's own projections) for cycle 25 do indeed see it as one of the quietest for hundreds of years, then we are not necessarily talking about the warming resuming tomorrow....we are talking about the pause (or perhaps even slight decline - bearing in mind this is theoretical) lasting at least another 10-15 years. If this occurs, surely it means that, once again, their climate models will prove incorrect and will have overestimated the temperature rise over time.

 

There is nothing to suggest that the warming will not resume once again eventually....equally I would argue given that they could not see such a pause in warming occurring, there is no absolute certainty that the warming will resume again. But in terms of their basic modelling of the situation, even if they truly believe this is a temporary pause in warming and that it will resume again, by the time it does their projections will most likely once again be way out because they refuse to input shorter-term climatological change.

 

The very fact that most of the answers to questions about the 15 year pause were answered along the lines of 'it's an insignificant period, you need to look at the longer term trend' was in itself hugely contradictory, given that we are currently basing our projections on a warming period that is only ~50 years old overall.

 

SK

 

When you have a data set that shows a significant amount of noise, such as surface temperature, the start and end of of a trend can have a huge influence on the outcome. Picking 1998 (large el Nino) and continuing along through a number of years with several la Nina events is clearly going to produce a lower rate of warming than some other start point. Picking the 15 years up to 2006 produces a faster rate of warming than was predicted. Neither are representative of the long term trend, just the noise.

 

The slow down (temps are still climbing on all but one of the global temperature datasets) in warming has been largely explained. Extra heat has entered the oceans (increased La Nina events), solar activity has declined and volcanic aerosols have all contributed, all the while the planet continues to gather heat and the radiative forcing from our CO2 emissions continues to grow, resulting in an increasing energy surplus, more coming in than going out. Studies have been carried out on the impact on a grand solar minimum during the next century, it's effect would be quite small and easily over-ridden by anthropogenic warming.

 

Cherry picking a short time period to show that warming isn't happening as expected, is like picking a few weeks in October when there was a warming trend and claiming is disproves the theory of seasons. (EDIT: Not that that's what you're trying to do, but many have!)

Edited September 27, 2013 by BornFromTheVoid

[snowking]

When you have a data set that shows a significant amount of noise, such as surface temperature, the start and end of of a trend can have a huge influence on the outcome. Picking 1998 (large el Nino) and continuing along through a number of years with several la Nina events is clearly going to produce a lower rate of warming than some other start point. Picking the 15 years up to 2006 produces a faster rate of warming than was predicted. Neither are representative of the long term trend, just the noise.

 

The slow down (temps are still climbing on all but one of the global temperature datasets) in warming has been largely explained. Extra heat has entered the oceans (increased La Nina events), solar activity has declined and volcanic aerosols have all contributed, all the while the planet continues to gather heat and the radiative forcing from our CO2 emissions continues to grow, resulting in an increasing energy surplus, more coming in than going out. Studies have been carried out on the impact on a grand solar minimum during the next century, it's effect would be quite small and easily over-ridden by anthropogenic warming.

 

Cherry picking a short time period to show that warming isn't happening as expected, is like picking a few weeks in October when there was a warming trend and claiming is disproves the theory of seasons. 

 

Surely though then I could also argue that that taking this:

 

 

Is also an example of cherry picking when compared to something such as this:

 

 

A very extreme example I realise, but we cannot argue that on the one hand one small 'cherry picked' period of time that suggests warming has paused doesn't count, yet another slightly less small period of time that suggests warming is taking place does count.

 

I realise that I am slightly contradictory in the thoughts I am putting across here but that is intentional - you cannot suggest one period of time isn't significant but another period is. There is no doubt the warming period was significant, but that being the case, the recent period without warming also becomes significant.

 

 

 

The 'pause' doesn't seem to apply to OHT.

 

Fair enough.

 

It seems a little convenient to me though that for years we have been told to follow datasets such as UAH and HADCRUT to see the warming....and then when it takes a pause all of a sudden more emphasis is being places on deeper ocean temperatures. No doubt that can have all sorts of consequences, it's just that at present there seems to be as much cherry picking going on from those that wholly believe in AGW as there is from those who are adamantly against the theory.

 

SK

[knocker]

The fifth Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report was released on September 27th. In anticipation of the widespread news coverage of this auspicious report, climate contrarians appear to be in damage control mode, trying to build up skeptical spin in media climate stories. This page provides debunkings of the more common myths regarding the IPCC. Click on the one-line debunking for a detailed rebuttal. Short URLs for each rebuttal are also provided for easy sharing.

 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/ipcc.php

[Methuselah]

The 'pause' doesn't seem to apply to OHC.

Precisely, knocker...The OHC has been a sort for holy grail for 'sceptics' for years (It hasn't been taken fully into account, blah blah blah), Which is quite true IMO; only, now that it is being acknowledged - it appears to have become part of the conspiracy? There ain't no way of pleasing some people!

 

Another good reason for keeping political ideology out of science?

[BornFromTheVoid]

Surely though then I could also argue that that taking this:

 

 

Is also an example of cherry picking when compared to something such as this:

 

 

A very extreme example I realise, but we cannot argue that on the one hand one small 'cherry picked' period of time that suggests warming has paused doesn't count, yet another slightly less small period of time that suggests warming is taking place does count.

 

I realise that I am slightly contradictory in the thoughts I am putting across here but that is intentional - you cannot suggest one period of time isn't significant but another period is. There is no doubt the warming period was significant, but that being the case, the recent period without warming also becomes significant.

 

 

 

 

Fair enough.

 

It seems a little convenient to me though that for years we have been told to follow datasets such as UAH and HADCRUT to see the warming....and then when it takes a pause all of a sudden more emphasis is being places on deeper ocean temperatures. No doubt that can have all sorts of consequences, it's just that at present there seems to be as much cherry picking going on from those that wholly believe in AGW as there is from those who are adamantly against the theory.

 

SK

 

The past temperature oscillations associated with the ice age were investigated. The Milankovitch cycles were found to be the instigators, the feedbacks (CO2 being a very important one) drove the large ups and downs. The planet was on a gradual cooling trend from the last interglacial, the Holocene Climate Optimum about 8,000 years ago, until the turn of the 20th century when it shot up.

 

The past glacial temperature data only adds to the certainty that our warming is unique, and that feedback mechanisms appear to be mainly positive (which drive the glacial/interglacial cycles.)

 

Picking 1998 is clear cherry picking. It's purposely looking for a time period that shows a trend which fits a pre-convieved idea, whilst ignoring the rest of the data.Why the focus is on the current temperature, is due to it's relevance to current society. The glacial/interglacial cycles, and previous climates before that have all been analysed, by many of the same scientists studying the current and projected climates. It's not ignored in the slightest.

 

You can find many period without substantial warming over the last 100 years, because it is such a noisy data set. They are only significant when the rest is ignored.

 

Our view of the Earth's climate is improving all the time, and as it does so, we can incorporate more and more data into our understanding. Oceanic heat content is one of the more recent ones. Those that believe in AGW, as you say, (so almost every climate related scientists) are taking into account as much data as they can in order to understand what's going on. To leave out the ocean data would be wrong, just as it would be wrong to leave out the cryosphere, the stratosphere, solar, or anything else.

Edited September 27, 2013 by BornFromTheVoid

[UV-RAY]

Leaving aside the "oh yes it is, oh no it isn't" debate, I think SK is asking the questions that need to asked but somehow the IPCC failed to address these and thus cause more uncertainty amongst the general public.

[snowking]

The past temperature oscillations associated with the ice age were investigated. The Milankovitch cycles were found to be the instigators, the feedbacks (CO2 being a very important one) drove the large ups and downs. The planet was on a gradual cooling trend from the last interglacial, the Holocene Climate Optimum about 8,000 years ago, until the turn of the 20th century when it shot up.

 

The past glacial temperature data only adds to the certainty that our warming is unique, and that feedback mechanisms appear to be mainly positive (which drive the glacial/interglacial cycles.)

 

Picking 1998 is clear cherry picking. It's purposely looking for a time period that shows a trend which fits a pre-convieved idea, whilst ignoring the rest of the data.Why the focus is on the current temperature, is due to it's relevance to current society. The glacial/interglacial cycles, and previous climates before that have all been analysed, by many of the same scientists studying the current and projected climates. It's not ignored in the slightest.

 

You can find many period without substantial warming over the last 100 years, because it is such a noisy data set. They are only significant when the rest is ignored.

 

Our view of the Earth's climate is improving all the time, and as it does so, we can incorporate more and more data into our understanding. Oceanic heat content is one of the more recent ones. Those that believe in AGW, as you say, (so almost every climate related scientists) are taking into account as much data as they can in order to understand what's going on. To leave out the ocean data would be wrong, just as it would be wrong to leave out the cryosphere, the stratosphere, solar, or anything else.

But once again surely this can be argued as cherry picking data as you are taking the findings from one set of reports focusing on conditions the last ice age...where as using something such as the paleoclimatological shows that fluctuations have occurred naturally through time, and that temperature rise actually occurred before C02 rise. Anyway, I am going off on a whole new tangent there.

 

And yes, you can indeed find many such period over the last 100 years, but that still doesn't change the fact that picking a period of 30 years of warming could also be argued as insignificant using the same ideology. We simply do not have a long enough time span of potential warming yet to say with certainty that things will carry on getting warmer. If we take a quote back from your original reply:

 

 

Studies have been carried out on the impact on a grand solar minimum during the next century, it's effect would be quite small and easily over-ridden by anthropogenic warming.

 

 

Well quite clearly the fact that such conditions appear to be having an affect on things - regardless of whether or not the pause can be argued since 1998 (I do agree with you in terms of cherry picking there) or a slightly shorter period, the point is that the temperature readings we have been using during the last 20-30 years or so have shown that something has caused a pause (how temporary that is is open to debate), and I would argue that such an impact has already proven significant.

 

Now it could be argued that this slight pause is what would be considered a 'quite small' effect, but if that were the case then surely even this small effect should have been factored in to previous reports and projections? That way organisations wouldn't have had to lower their projections for temperature rise, they may have just been correct in the first place.

 

Anyway, we could go on and on back and forth with this. I still remain slightly on the fence with the whole idea of global warming and I just feel that those pro the idea of AGW are too often insistent that those anti AGW are 'cherry picking', when the same is true of them. Quite frankly 30 years of warming doesn't give us enough evidence, and regardless of what the current projections might show if the projections were really completely accurate then they should have taken in to account the current pause (no matter how long it is argued it is). It just shows for me that really, despite reports such as this, we actually have very little dependable idea of where the longer term temperature trend is headed, and whether any increase will prove permanent owing to C02.

 

SK

[snowking]

Leaving aside the "oh yes it is, oh no it isn't" debate, I think SK is asking the questions that need to asked but somehow the IPCC failed to address these and thus cause more uncertainty amongst the general public.

Yep that is my main interest here.

 

Don't get me wrong, I am not a climatologist, and I have nothing but respect for those in that particular field who have one of the trickiest jobs in the world for so many reasons.

 

But I do not feel that anything other than the potential for warming has really been addressed at any stage during the last 15 years. All of this is, ultimately, theoretical (on either side of the argument) but only one possible scenario seems to be considered and discussed. I am not a member of the IPCC so I cannot of course say this with absolute certainty, but this is the message that seems to emanate from the organisation to an outside world's point of view

 

SK