IPCC climate report 2013

[Gray-Wolf]

Speaking of 'Peer Review' have folk wondered at the review process that this report endured before it was published? When folk sit here trying to pull apart the report they are messing with the most conservative of takes on what our future holds for us.

 

No matter how the last report was attacked by some quarters ( and posters here on N.W.) it was being quoted by them as a 'reliable source' by the end of it's life as it was a much less worrying take on change than the emerging studies.

 

We will surely see the same with this report with a few years of it being attacked and denied only for it to then become a valued study prior to the release of the next report.

 

As I have said before the process of 'Peer review' endured by the report leaves most of it's findings outdated and, in many cases, superseded by current science.

 

The folk who are not involved in the debate should be aware of how conservative and dated the evidence presented is and that for those seeking to dispute future climate impacts it may prove to be their best chance of forwarding their opinion?

 

I take it that by the time of the next report we will have moved out of the current set of natural forcings that have slowed the rate of warming and either be warming at a rate predicted by the IPCC or one much higher ( due to climate feedbacks from the warming) .If this proves true you can bet that the current detractors of this paper will be using it's 'conservative' predictions as reason why we should not 'panic' over the changes we witness.

[VillagePlank]

 Is 'political activism' now a criminal offence, too?

 

A lack of political activism, it would seem, is closer to becoming one with calls for ecocide to become an international crime rapidly growing since the 1970s. This is some middle class concept developed completely under the basis that we, the rich, have gone through our industrial revolution, we like our place at the top (thank you very much) and emerging nations, amongst the biggest polluters, can and should be kept down in their poverty, by preventing them exploiting the natural resources in the same way that the rich countries have already.

[BornFromTheVoid]

"Better" is a matter of opinion. It is not quantifiable, nor subject to the scientific method, and is subject to socio-political views that are particularly a function of the time in which such views are espoused.

 

Is this where we pretend that there used to be some Eden where everything was in equilibrium, sunsets were brighter, trees were greener, oceans were a shade of deeper blue, and "The Good Life" is the better ideal?

 

Fine, more informed decisions (which are likely to to result in "better" decisions, imo, than less informed one).

 

Your second paragraph is nothing but inflammatory nonsense.

[VillagePlank]

Your second paragraph is nothing but inflammatory nonsense.

 

No it isn't. There is a clear belief that it used to better in 'the good old days' My contention is that 'the good old days' never existed with reference to climate and by extension, the environment, regardless that it might be a romantic and attractive notion.

Edited September 29, 2013 by Sparkicle

[stewfox]

The purpose of this thread surely is to discuss the IPCC 2013 report rather then point scoring  ?

 

Why for example is there just medium confidence of a nearly artic free summer sea ice extent in the next 40 years and just low confidence that the Antarctica will show any reduction in extent and volume by the end of the century ?????

-------------------------------------------------------

Year-round reductions in Arctic sea ice extent are projected by the end of the 21st century

from multi-model averages. These reductions range from 43% for RCP2.6 to 94% for RCP8.5

in September and from 8% for RCP2.6 to 34% for RCP8.5 in February (medium confidence)

(see Figures SPM.7 and SPM.. {12.4}

• Based on an assessment of the subset of models that most closely reproduce the

climatological mean state and 1979‒2012 trend of the Arctic sea ice extent, a nearly ice-free

Arctic Ocean19 in September before mid-century is likely for RCP8.5 (medium confidence)

(see Figures SPM.7 and SPM.. A projection of when the Arctic might become nearly ice-free

in September in the 21st century cannot be made with confidence for the other scenarios.

{11.3, 12.4, 12.5}

• In the Antarctic, a decrease in sea ice extent and volume is projected with low confidence for

the end of the 21st century as global mean surface temperature rises. {12.4}

---------------------------------------------------

Edited September 29, 2013 by stewfox

[minus 9]

The facts are there for the warmest crew to see. No significant rise in temps in the last 17 years. But co2 is still rising rapidly. The theory is bust. Remember it is a theory not fact.

[Methuselah]

A lack of political activism, it would seem, is closer to becoming one with calls for ecocide to become an international crime rapidly growing since the 1970s. This is some middle class concept developed completely under the basis that we, the rich, have gone through our industrial revolution, we like our place at the top (thank you very much) and emerging nations, amongst the biggest polluters, can and should be kept down in their poverty, by preventing them exploiting the natural resources in the same way that the rich countries have already.

But, what has any of that got to do with the IPCC's report? It's IPCC's place to report on scientific matters, not to get involved with how the various vested-interest vie for supremacy...

 

Whatever games the multinational corporations choose to play has no discernible effect on the science itself. Unfortunately (has it not always been thus?) hacks, politicians and lobbyists do little else than conflate one with t'other...

Edited September 29, 2013 by A Boy Named Sue

[UV-RAY]

But, what has any of that got to do with the IPCC's report? It's IPCC's place to report on scientific matters, not to get involved with how the various vested-interest vie for supremacy...

 

Whatever the multinational corporations chose to play has no discernible effect on the science itself. Unfortunately (has it not always been thus?) hacks, politicians and lobbyists do little else than conflate one with t'other...

Yet they deem no rise in global temps for 15 years as insignificant, so much for reporting on scientific matters then!

[BornFromTheVoid]

 

 

The facts are there for the warmest crew to see. No significant rise in temps in the last 17 years. But co2 is still rising rapidly. The theory is bust. Remember it is a theory not fact.

Just a theory, like evolution! CO2 isn't supposed to override short term variability. Things like ENSO, solar activity, aerosols, will have a big effect on year to year fluctuations, even with CO2 increaseing. The fact that we've had such low solar activity, many La Ninas, increased aerosols and yet we're still seeing slow warming, says a lot.

 

 

 

 

No it isn't. There is a clear belief that it used to better in 'the good old days' My contention is that 'the good old days' never existed with reference to climate and by extension, the environment, regardless that it might be a romantic and attractive notion.

Maybe there is by some people, but it's not my view, and it's irrelevant to this discussion, 

[Methuselah]

Yet they deem no rise in global temps for 15 years as insignificant, so much for reporting on scientific matters then!

Why? Has that ceased to be the case, then? Anyway, as we're always being reminded, just how the globe will respond to ever-increasing levels of atmospheric CO₂ is still not yet fully understood...Unknown feedbacks - being, well, unknown - will always remain difficult to model... 

[UV-RAY]

Why? Has that ceased to be the case, then? Anyway, as we're always being reminded, just how the globe will respond to ever-increasing levels of atmospheric CO₂ is still not yet fully understood...Unknown feedbacks - being, well, unknown - will always remain difficult to model... 

Agreed but it's the unknown that should be now a concern for want of a better word, to those who deem 15 years as insignificant. Judith Curries take on all this is certainly worth a read.

[BornFromTheVoid]

Agreed but it's the unknown that should be now a concern for want of a better word, to those who deem 15 years as insignificant. Judith Curries take on all this is certainly worth a read.

 

While JC presents one point of view, I think the other couple of hundred or so scientists involved in the latest IPCC report's views are more worthwhile. They are, at least, peer reviewed and not an opinion blog.

[UV-RAY]

While JC presents one point of view, I think the other couple of hundred or so scientists involved in the latest IPCC report's views are more worthwhile. They are, at least, peer reviewed and not an opinion blog.

Lol, Judith Currie has probably forgotten more than most who work within the IPCC, I'm sure she would love to hear how well you regard her and her worthless blogging.

[Methuselah]

Lol, Judith Currie has probably forgotten more than most who work within the IPCC, I'm sure she would love to hear how well you regard her and her worthless blogging.

Well, that may or not be true - your guess would be as good as mine...Anywho, JC's brand of scepticism is welcome; it's the kind of input that keeps things going forward... 

[Tamara]

Considering the IPCC rely so much on the assumed positive radiative effect from clouds in terms of interaction with CO2/GHG's to verify up to two thirds of the predicted warming over the mutli decades to come, and they repeat yet again the uncertainty about cloud feedbacks (same as last report) how do they still manage to upgrade their 'probablity' rating of AGW forcing being at work to 95%? They say that cloud feedbacks are 'likely' to be positive...so what percentage do we put on 'likely' then. It sure is no where near 95%. to start to reflect and underpin justification for such confidence. And who knows, the percentage of negative feedbacks from clouds could be underestimated as well

 

In all seriousness, I think they had to upgrade the probablity rating further on AGW consensus probability to maintain the momentum of the panel integrity and credibility. So much has already been put at stake there was really no option.

 

I also very much agree with the hypothesis put forward by snowking about the 15 years pause and the IPCC dismissal of it as, essentially, inconsequential.

 

This raises the stakes highly with so much increasing evidence growing to suggest that solar cyclical activity is being constantly under estimated. At the same time therefore the IPCC have raised the stakes extremely high for themselves with this latest updated report.

 

Essentially the uncertainties of the report into the larger areas of where positive feedbacks are being assumed are still the same, and they are under higher threat from being cancelled out by greater negative natural variation since the last report was produced -yet they have upgraded their own confidence in their forecasts against a background of the start of their forecast period already looking far too bullish *that reads verging on incorrect*

 

How much of this forecast probability exercise as a banner header flyer for the IPCC simply just a cosmetic outer operation to satisfy political stakes and agendas?

Edited September 29, 2013 by Tamara Road

[VillagePlank]

 

 

Just a theory, like evolution! CO2 isn't supposed to override short term variability. Things like ENSO, solar activity, aerosols, will have a big effect on year to year fluctuations, even with CO2 increaseing. The fact that we've had such low solar activity, many La Ninas, increased aerosols and yet we're still seeing slow warming, says a lot.

 

 

Maybe there is by some people, but it's not my view, and it's irrelevant to this discussion,

(1) Ever heard of hysteresis? Oceans soaking up heat and giving it back later comes to mind. This comment relies that all factors are well mixed over the period in question - in this case year to year. Why does the sun's energy (or indeed any other natural factor) have to synchronise with the dataset but CO2 electromagnetic energy of the same wavelengths is somehow different in that, specially, that form of energy, which is indistinguishable from any other form of energy, is capable of capacitance in our oceans. You can post anomalies of -0.5C for 60 years into the future, and still show 'slow warming'

 

(2) I didn't say it was your view; but nevertheless it is ingrained, given that 'normal' climate is a reference period in the past presumably a stable period without warming or cooling, excepting natural variation.We say that the atmosphere has warmed compared to that period; the implication is clear - the reference period is normal, we're currently posting high anomalies against that period that is abnormal; therefore the reference period is 'better' since it is 'normal'

Edited September 29, 2013 by Sparkicle

[Paul]

Again, if you're unable to debate in here (or indeed anywhere in this or any other part of the forum) then there's a problem - it's either moderate yourselves or don't be surprised if the team take action to stop those creating problems from posting.

[Methuselah]

Anyway, political point-scoring and supposition aside, the issue of cloud feedback is an important (perhaps even counter-intuitive) one, in its own right: I've always assumed that cloud feedbacks ought to be negative; the evidence, however, continues to point to the opposite situation being the case...Whoops! So much for assumption... 

[knocker]

Excellent live blog on the release of the IPCC WG1 SPM.

 

Climate change report: live reaction to IPCC conclusions

 

Friday, scientists in Stockholm presented the most exhaustive and authoritative state of climate science to date. Follow our live news and reaction as the UN's climate science panel publishes the first part of its fifth assessment report (AR5)

 

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/sep/27/ipcc-climate-change-report-ar5-live-coverage?CMP=twt_fd

Edited September 29, 2013 by knocker

[stewfox]

Excellent live blog on the release of the IPCC WG1 SPM.

 

Climate change report: live reaction to IPCC conclusions

 

Friday, scientists in Stockholm presented the most exhaustive and authoritative state of climate science to date. Follow our live news and reaction as the UN's climate science panel publishes the first part of its fifth assessment report (AR5)

 

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/sep/27/ipcc-climate-change-report-ar5-live-coverage?CMP=twt_fd

 

"""""""""""Qin Dahe, also co-chair of the working group, said: "As the ocean warm, and glaciers and ice sheets reduce, global mean sea level will continue to rise, but at a faster rate than we have experienced over the past 40 years."""""""""""""

 

Followed by a impressive picture of LeConte Glacier in Alaska in full melt. ....(probably taken in July)

 

However since its discovery, the glacier has retreated nearly 2.5 miles (4.0 km), although it is considered to be in a stable position today. In need many Alaska glaciers are now advancing.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LeConte_Glacier

 

They should double check their photo shop photos.

Edited September 29, 2013 by stewfox

[knocker]

35 Years at Bear Glacier, BC

 

http://glacierchange.org/2013/07/35-years-at-bear-glacier-bc/

Edited September 29, 2013 by knocker

[knocker]

For most climate experts, however, the battle is long over — at least when it comes to the science. What remains in dispute is not whether climate change is happening, but how fast things are going to get worse.

 

There are some possibilities that are deliberately left out of the IPCC projections, because we simply don’t have enough data yet to model them. Jason Box, a visiting scholar at the Byrd Polar Research Center told me in an email interview that: “The scary elephant in the closet is terrestrial and oceanic methane release triggered by warming.†The IPCC projections don’t include the possibility — some scientists say likelihood — that huge quantities of methane (a greenhouse gas thirty times as potent as CO2) will eventually be released from thawing permafrost and undersea methane hydrate reserves. Box said that the threshhold “when humans lose control of potential management of the problem, may be sooner than expected.â€

 

Box, whose work has been instrumental in documenting the rapid deterioration of the Greenland ice sheet, also believes that the latest IPCC predictions (of a maximum just under three foot ocean rise by the end of the century) may turn out to be wildly optimistic, if the Greenland ice sheet breaks up. â€œWe are heading into uncharted territory†he said. “We are creating a different climate than the Earth has ever seen.â€

 

 

http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/09/what-leading-scientists-want-you-to-know-about-todays-frightening-climate-report/280045/

[knocker]

IPCC model global warming projections have done much better than you think

 

http://skepticalscience.com/ipcc-model-gw-projections-done-better-than-you-think.html

[Gray-Wolf]

It's not just cherry picking the data though Knocks , it's cherry picking the argument as well! The 1910-1940 warming spurt is often used by misleaders to show Arctic warming as rampant as it is today ( though it never achieves this due to the evidence that shows the limitations of this initial AGW spurt) it does , however, show a very similar rate of warming to the last period of warming. both of these periods must be showing AGW on top of a collaboration of natural positive forcings. In just the same way the 'flat-line' from 1940 to 1980 and from 98' onward shows the opposite in terms of forcings but not in terms of 'trend'. In both cases the collaboration of negative forcings did not produce a 'cooling' of the planet ( an opposite of the warming trend that the positive forcings gave). On top of that the 'natural' was enhanced by man's 'dimming' of the atmosphere with his pollution yet still no cooling?

 

With Indo-China now engaged in cleaning up their pollution will the next 'natural' warming be enhanced by the drop out of pollution that has helped 'mask' the potential to warm above and beyond the natural forcings?

 

EDIT: Let us all remember that this report does not include some of the data we would all find useful due to the use of Veto by a number of member states. The same occurred with the last report and, at that time, we saw Australia, India china and Canada leading this expurgation of data.

 

For those intent on using the document it may well prove prudent to look at what was omitted, and why?

Edited October 1, 2013 by Gray-Wolf

[UV-RAY]

Ant yet the report practically airbrushes the pause out of existence, could be a lot of egg on faces if they are wrong about this.