IPCC climate report 2013

[knocker]

Some initial comments from Dr. Aslak Grinsted.

 

AR5 sea level rise uncertainty communication failure

 

http://www.glaciology.net/Home/Miscellaneous-Debris/ar5sealevelriseuncertaintycommunicationfailure

Edited September 27, 2013 by knocker

[loafer]

Very interesting...the London Evening Standard has a tiny "in brief" paragraph on page 4, and that's it. Did the boy cry wolf too often?

[Methuselah]

Very interesting...the London Evening Standard has a tiny "in brief" paragraph on page 4, and that's it. Did the boy cry wolf too often?

Maybe yes, maybe no...But it's the Tory Party love-in next week...

[stewfox]

 

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).

 

 

We had a representative on Radio 4 state today 'we know a,b,c and d etc etc

 

One of his 'we know' was all the extra heat is going into the oceans , we have also heard it on here as if its a fact

 

So at least the report this time has chosen its words carefully.

 

Its not a new theory articles written in 1979 talk about surface heat going into the oceans. However  Its still a theory.

[knocker]

The best clear-eyed wrap-up of report.

 

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/09/27/ipcc-global-warming-report-clarifies-humanitys-choices/

[The PIT]

First flaw in the ipcc report found. http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2013/5/27/met-office-admits-claims-of-significant-temperature-rise-unt.html

I find it disappointing that the met office weren't willing to look into this. We don't seem have moved on from the reluctance to discuss/correct data/conclusions when possible errors have been raised.

[VillagePlank]

The myth of using a period long enough gives a more accurate trend, here. ie Even if we posted shockingly low negative anomalies forover the next half century the long term trend still shows warming even though experience would be tantamount to a new ice age.

Edited September 28, 2013 by Sparkicle

[Methuselah]

Yes, the idea that energy comes into a system and has some sort of hysteresis releasing that energy back into the system at some point later. I'm sure I've heard of that idea before. It's a bit mad, though, considering that the highly active solar cycles of the late 20th century might have some small residue left by reason of solar UV reaction with sea water which later release that energy back into the system is just crazy crazy crazy and more crazy. To top it all it, the ocean might release heat at a rate depending on how much heat is already in the ocean, but, around here, no one believes in such tosh as Newton's Law of Cooling. I mean surely that doesn't aptly describe the mechanism from first principles of physics: and of course anyone who might even investigate such an idea certainly deserves ridicule and insults.

I tend to view the entire Earth as one system, S; one in which each different component has its own unique heat capacity. The end result - to me at least - seems far too complex to comprehend, other that in principle? The only way of perfectly simulating reality is by way of building a perfect replica?? 

[VillagePlank]

I tend to view the entire Earth as one system, S; one in which each different component has its own unique heat capacity. The end result - to me at least - seems far too complex to comprehend, other that in principle? The only way of perfectly simulating reality is by way of building a perfect replica?? 

 

Sorry Pete, I edited my comment out - thought it was too close to the mark to post!

Edited September 28, 2013 by Sparkicle

[knocker]

First flaw in the ipcc report found. http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2013/5/27/met-office-admits-claims-of-significant-temperature-rise-unt.html

I find it disappointing that the met office weren't willing to look into this. We don't seem have moved on from the reluctance to discuss/correct data/conclusions when possible errors have been raised.

 

This is old news. I believe the METO did respond.

 

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/news/statistical-models-and-temperature

 

It also seems a bit odd to me that the funding is to promote green policies when the government is actively pursuing fracking.

Edited September 28, 2013 by knocker

[BornFromTheVoid]

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:

 

 

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

 

Nothing is being ignored, which is an intrinsic part of cherry picking. All the temperature data we have adds to the weight of evidence. The last 30 years is just one small part of that, a trivial little point that makes up the mountains of evidence.

 

For example, if you use the UAH data, you can find period of no significant warming up to 1998, and a period of no significant warming from 1998 to present, and claim, voila, there has been no warming at all!

 

 

Or you could look at the whole data set

 

 

You could also cherry pick to show a faster warming trend

 

 

Looking  at all the available data can in no way be considered cherry picking. Focusing on short term fluctuations in a noisy data set is just cherry picking! You can only find a pause by looking at the short time spans in a noisy dataset, which says nothing about the overall trend. CO2 is not dominant over short time spans, the noise from natural variation is. Climate projections have never claimed to be able to predict short term variability, ever. Things like volcanic eruptions, ENSO, solar activity etc, cannot be predicted, but over longer time periods, their effect largely balance out

 

The planet is still accumulating warmth, we still have a large energy imbalance and we know that CO2 is the cause, from multiple lines of evidence. It isn't simply a correlation between the current warming and temperature, there is so much more to it!

 

There so much more to CO2 induced warming than 30 years of data, I really don't know why you believe that to be the case!?

[Methuselah]

 

 

Or you could look at the whole data set

 

There so much more to CO2 induced warming than 30 years of data[...]

Not an easy task, to achieve, that? Neither would making any sense of the resulting graphic be entirely simple! 

[UV-RAY]

Nothing is being ignored, which is an intrinsic part of cherry picking. All the temperature data we have adds to the weight of evidence. The last 30 years is just one small part of that, a trivial little point that makes up the mountains of evidence.

 

For example, if you use the UAH data, you can find period of no significant warming up to 1998, and a period of no significant warming from 1998 to present, and claim, voila, there has been no warming at all!

 

 

Or you could look at the whole data set

 

 

You could also cherry pick to show a faster warming trend

 

 

Looking  at all the available data can in no way be considered cherry picking. Focusing on short term fluctuations in a noisy data set is just cherry picking! You can only find a pause by looking at the short time spans in a noisy dataset, which says nothing about the overall trend. CO2 is not dominant over short time spans, the noise from natural variation is. Climate projections have never claimed to be able to predict short term variability, ever. Things like volcanic eruptions, ENSO, solar activity etc, cannot be predicted, but over longer time periods, their effect largely balance out

 

The planet is still accumulating warmth, we still have a large energy imbalance and we know that CO2 is the cause, from multiple lines of evidence. It isn't simply a correlation between the current warming and temperature, there is so much more to it!

 

There so much more to CO2 induced warming than 30 years of data, I really don't know why you believe that to be the case!?

[UV-RAY]

Nothing is being ignored, which is an intrinsic part of cherry picking. All the temperature data we have adds to the weight of evidence. The last 30 years is just one small part of that, a trivial little point that makes up the mountains of evidence.

 

For example, if you use the UAH data, you can find period of no significant warming up to 1998, and a period of no significant warming from 1998 to present, and claim, voila, there has been no warming at all!

 

 

Or you could look at the whole data set

 

 

You could also cherry pick to show a faster warming trend

 

 

Looking  at all the available data can in no way be considered cherry picking. Focusing on short term fluctuations in a noisy data set is just cherry picking! You can only find a pause by looking at the short time spans in a noisy dataset, which says nothing about the overall trend. CO2 is not dominant over short time spans, the noise from natural variation is. Climate projections have never claimed to be able to predict short term variability, ever. Things like volcanic eruptions, ENSO, solar activity etc, cannot be predicted, but over longer time periods, their effect largely balance out

 

The planet is still accumulating warmth, we still have a large energy imbalance and we know that CO2 is the cause, from multiple lines of evidence. It isn't simply a correlation between the current warming and temperature, there is so much more to it!

 

There so much more to CO2 induced warming than 30 years of data, I really don't know why you believe that to be the case!?

But if you question which proxies and how they were used to come to such a conclusion then the answers aren't quite so clear cut. Then add in a solar output, ENSO, and numerous other forcings and you get a completely different looking dataset.

 

 

Edited September 28, 2013 by Sceptical Inquirer

[BornFromTheVoid]

 

But if you question which proxies and how they were used to come to such a conclusion then the answers aren't quite so clear cut. Then add in a solar output, ENSO, and numerous other forcings and you get a completely different looking dataset.

 

 

 

 

The temperature data includes the effects of ENSO and whatnot. Proxies have error ranges, which are included in any reconstructions which use them (or at least should be included!)

What's up with the zoom  images on your posts?

[Methuselah]

And, anywho, the only basis for some events' existence (the MWP?) depends solely on proxies? 

[UV-RAY]

The temperature data includes the effects of ENSO and whatnot. Proxies have error ranges, which are included in any reconstructions which use them (or at least should be included!)

What's up with the zoom  images on your posts?

Indeed they do have error ranges but as we are all aware Proxies have come in for quite a bit of flak over the last few years and with good reason tbh.  Within that  graph replicating relatively high solar output for the last 100 years or so would be quite difficult?

[stewfox]

Nothing is being ignored, which is an intrinsic part of cherry picking. All the temperature data we have adds to the weight of evidence. The last 30 years is just one small part of that, a trivial little point that makes up the mountains of evidence.

 

For example, if you use the UAH data, you can find period of no significant warming up to 1998, and a period of no significant warming from 1998 to present, and claim, voila, there has been no warming at all!

 

 

Or you could look at the whole data set

 

 

You could also cherry pick to show a faster warming trend

 

 

There so much more to CO2 induced warming than 30 years of data, I really don't know why you believe that to be the case!?

 

 

From your own graphs were at -0.2c in 1980 and today at 0 with a lot of variability in between from a trend to cooling in 1985 etc

 

I'm happy for people to keep investigating for the next 30 years (but budgets cut back)

 

Surely you cant expect people to be alarmist re that data ?? After 30yrs we are back at 0.  A long way from the 6.4c rise next 100yrs that some historic models predicted (worse case)

Edited September 28, 2013 by stewfox

[UV-RAY]

From your own graphs were at -0.2c in 1980 and today at 0 with a lot of variability in between from a trend to cooling in 1985 etc

 

I'm happy for people to keep investigating for the next 30 years (but budgets cut back)

 

Surely you cant expect people to be alarmist re that data ?? After 30yrs we are back at 0.  A long way from the 6.4c rise next 100yrs that some historic models predicted (worse case)

Indeed Stew, there is insufficient  evidence to suggest warming will continue at an alarming rate, worst case scenario at best looks around 0.7c I would say.

[BornFromTheVoid]

Indeed they do have error ranges but as we are all aware Proxies have come in for quite a bit of flak over the last few years and with good reason tbh.  Within that  graph replicating relatively high solar output for the last 100 years or so would be quite difficult?

 

Proxies have their issues of course, different ones for each type use. Have they been getting lots of flack recently though? From where?

I'm not sure I get your second point, sorry. Replicating solar activity within the graph? Do you mean that the solar activity of the last 100 years was unlikely to continue so high into the future?

 

From your own graphs were at -0.2c in 1980 and today at 0 with a lot of variability in between from a trend to cooling in 1985 etc

 

I'm happy for people to keep investigating for the next 30 years (but budgets cut back)

 

Surely you cant expect people to be alarmist re that data ?? After 30yrs we are back at 0.  A long way from the 6.4c rise next 100yrs that some historic models predicted (worse case)

 

Yep, there is a lot of noise in the data, but the trend line shows an increase of about 0.45C during the time. Why would I expect anyone to be alarmist at anything? The 6.4C rise (extremely unlikely) would be compared to pre-industrial times, not the average used on the UAH graph.

[stewfox]

 

Yep, there is a lot of noise in the data, but the trend line shows an increase of about 0.45C during the time. Why would I expect anyone to be alarmist at anything? The 6.4C rise (extremely unlikely) would be compared to pre-industrial times, not the average used on the UAH graph.

 

From around -0.2c to + 0.2c I make 0.4c . I would be more interested in looking at how we are re the 'O' line.

 

I think the main point is how are you going to convince governments to spend trillions based on that data ?

 

Maybe we are in a blip maybe all extra heat is going into the oceans maybe post 2020 we will see accelerated run away warming.

 

I just think the people who make the decisions will need more evidence and that will take time a few more decades of data.

 

It was only a few years ago we were talking no more sub 3c  CET months no more sub 10c CET seasons.

 

I appreciate that's local but I don't want a heavy green Tax on my heating just yet

Edited September 28, 2013 by stewfox

[BornFromTheVoid]

From around -0.2c to + 0.2c I make 0.4c . I would be more interested in looking at how we are re the 'O' line.

 

I think the main point is how are you going to convince governments to spend trillions based on that data ?

 

Maybe we are in a blip maybe all extra heat is going into the oceans maybe post 2020 we will see accelerated run away warming.

 

I just think the people who make the decisions will need more evidence and that will take time a few more decades of data.

 

It was only a few years ago we were talking no more sub 3c  CET months no more sub 10c CET seasons.

 

I appreciate that's local but I don't want a heavy green Tax on my heating just yet

 

From slightly below -0.2 to slightly above 0.2C.... but that doesn't matter.

 

Governments aren't being convinced to spend trillions based on that. There is vastly more data, which you're aware of. It's an investment in the future, in clean energy, energy security and mitigation of serious impacts. Trillions more will be spent on adaptation measures if BAU is the way forward, and we'll still have the pollution issues and associated environmental and health effects of continued fossil fuels use.

 

Ah c'mon now, few posts, on a regional forum, from an individual member, about no more sub 3C CETs, is completely irrelevant to this! 

[knocker]

Amazing interactive visualisation by @guardian: how hot will it get in my lifetime? http://gu.com/p/3j4dz/tw

[Kiwi]

From slightly below -0.2 to slightly above 0.2C.... but that doesn't matter.

 

Governments aren't being convinced to spend trillions based on that. There is vastly more data, which you're aware of. It's an investment in the future, in clean energy, energy security and mitigation of serious impacts. Trillions more will be spent on adaptation measures if BAU is the way forward, and we'll still have the pollution issues and associated environmental and health effects of continued fossil fuels use.

 

Sounds like some Governments are becoming more realistic about the high cost and supposed benefits of clean energy.

 

Interviewed ahead of the Tory party conference, George Osborne told the Times: "I want to provide for the country the cheapest energy possible, consistent with having it reliable, in other words as a steady supply, and consistent with us playing our part in an international effort to tackle climate change.

"But I don't want us to be the only people out there in front of the rest of the world. I certainly think we shouldn't be further ahead of our partners in Europe."

The chancellor also attacked Labour's plans to eliminate carbon from the power sector by 2030. He argued that for an aluminium smelter to leave the UK and go to another country would not make much difference to climate change. But it would make a "huge difference" to those who lost their jobs as a result, he said.

[Methuselah]

And - he wants to procure the maximum profits for himself and his family, who have interests in the fracking industry, it is 'rumoured'?