Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 830 831 832 833 834 835 836 837 838 839 840 841 842 843 844 845 Next
Comments 41851 to 41900:
-
dana1981 at 00:34 AM on 2 October 2013IPCC model global warming projections have done much better than you think
Bob @3 - McIntyre adds nothing of value whatsoever. His post is basically "I don't understand why the data shifted up." Ever heard of proper baselining? Just goes to show that Tamino is 10 times the statistician McIntyre is, as Tamino figured this out 10 months ago. Also, if you're confused about the proper baselining, then compare the trends! It's easy for a graph to be visually misleading, but the trends don't lie. I literally see nothing of value in McIntyre's post.
franklefkin @4 - as I noted, the fact that climate models don't accurately predict ocean cycles in the short-term is not particularly relevant. We're not especially concerned about climate change in 2020, we're concerned about climate change in 2050 and beyond.
-
Andrew Mclaren at 00:20 AM on 2 October 2013IPCC model global warming projections have done much better than you think
I'm seeing a lot of contrarians using the old Spencer/Christy "hunt for the fugitive TMT hot spot" cherry-picked graph comparing 20N to 20S latitude band satellite/balloon readings to the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5) ensemble. This is then implied to challenge the global extents of the models... as stated in the following article:
http://opinion.financialpost.com/2013/09/27/nota-bene-climate-models-vs-actual-climate/
Spencer's original is at his site:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-73-models-vs-obs-20N-20S-MT-5-yr-means1.png
Of course all this conveniently does away with the amplified warming at higher latitudes which all global models must account for. I was initially skeptical about the integrity Spencer's original since it indicates the (dotted line) Mean calculation "Mean USA" which I'd assumed meant data that had nothing to do with equatorial latitudes, but I guess having looked at another citation at Watts' site that was supposed to indicate "US based research". Still, a nasty cherry pick considering how it is being used for exaggerated claims of "none of the models work".
I recognize the TMT hot spot as something of a red herring, as it really seems to be more of a potentially amplified heat capacity at altitude, than uniformly warmed atmospheric layer. It's not the subject of this thread per se, but certain bloggers etc. do seem to be milking this hunt-for the-nonexistent-'signature' for all its worth (which is not a lot) and more.
Thanks for presenting more accurate information here. I'd like to see the missattribution of Spencer's work in the contrarian media, better shown up for what it is.
-
IPCC model global warming projections have done much better than you think
fretslider - Astounding. You make claims of data distortion by linking to a figure that has in fact been airbrushed and reworked to remove critical data.
Even with the incorrect 1990 baselining, the draft figure 1.4 (seen here) includes a light grey region that shows the range of model variations and the uncertainties in temperature measurements, the expected range around model means due to natural variation. Observations are well within those bounds. McIntyre's reworked figure that you point to above lacks the range of model variations, showing only the range of model ensemble means - see denial tactic #2 in the opening post.
That reworked McIntyre figure (along with other 'skeptics' like Patrick Michaels in Forbes, who edited the figure captioning and falsely claimed: "The very large grey zone is irrelevant to the forecasts that were made") is a clear distortion. I would go so far as to say it is a demonstrable lie about the science on McIntyre's part. Don't be fooled.
-
John Hartz at 22:54 PM on 1 October 2013IPCC model global warming projections have done much better than you think
@fretslider: Your comment was deleted because it is sloganneing. Please read the SkS Comment Policy and adhere it.
-
Tom Curtis at 22:24 PM on 1 October 2013IPCC model global warming projections have done much better than you think
franklefkin @4, of course it shows a bias. It shows a massive bias that results from a carefully selected start point for observations at one of the largest El Nino's on record. You fail to show that their is any additional bias beyond that in the cherry picked start point, something you need to do before concluding that the models show a bias.
-
franklefkin at 21:57 PM on 1 October 2013IPCC model global warming projections have done much better than you think
Bottom line however, the models have not done an adequate job, which even the IPCC admits:
Box 9.2: Climate Models and the Hiatus in Global-Mean Surface Warming of the Past 15 Years
The observed global-mean surface temperature (GMST) has shown a much smaller increasing linear trend over the past 15 years than over the past 30 to 60 years (Section 2.4.3, Figure 2.20, Table 2.7; Figure 9.8; Box 9.2 Box 9.2 Figure 1a,c). Depending on the observational data set, the GMST trend over 1998–2012 is estimated to be around one-third to one-half of the trend over 1951–2012 (Section 2.4.3, Table 2.7; Box 9.2 Figure 1a,c). For example, in HadCRUT4 the trend is 0.04 ºC per decade over 1998–2012, compared to 0.11 ºC per decade over 1951–2012. The reduction in observed GMST trend is most marked in Northern- Hemisphere winter (Section 2.4.3, (Cohen et al., 2012)). Even with this “hiatus” in GMST trend, the decade of the 2000s has been the warmest in the instrumental record of GMST (Section 2.4.3, Figure 2.19).
Nevertheless, the occurrence of the hiatus in GMST trend during the past 15 years raises the two related questions of what has caused it and whether climate models are able to reproduce it. Figure 9.8 demonstrates that 15-year-long hiatus periods are common in both the observed and CMIP5 historical GMST time series (see also Section 2.4.3, Figure 2.20; (Easterling and Wehner, 2009), (Liebmann et al., 2010)). However, an analysis of the full suite of CMIP5 historical simulations (augmented for the period 2006–2012 by RCP4.5 simulations, Section 9.3.2) reveals that 111 out of 114 realisations show a GMST trend over 1998–2012 that is higher than the entire HadCRUT4 trend ensemble (Box 9.2 Figure 1a; CMIP5 ensemble-mean trend is 0.21 ºC per decade).
Being on the high side 114 out of 117 times is indicative of a bias.
Moderator Response:[DB] It is customary to provide a link to the source when quoting.
-
Bob9499 at 21:45 PM on 1 October 2013IPCC model global warming projections have done much better than you think
Dana, you should really take a look at this.
http://climateaudit.org/2013/09/30/ipcc-disappears-the-discrepancy/
-
skywatcher at 19:46 PM on 1 October 2013IPCC model global warming projections have done much better than you think
Excellent article Dana. It seems so many people fall into the trap of thinking that the temperatures should doggedly trail the inexorable rise of the multi-model mean, failing to realise that every individual model run rises and falls around that line.
I can't see if you link to it above (very probably you do), but for readers I might highlight Foster and Rahmstorf 2011 which elegantly showed what happens when you remove exogenous factors - you end up with the underlying warming signal, still continuing unabated through the past decade. The Kosaka paper you discussed recently shows how including some of that variability leads to an excellent modelling of surface temperatures including the recent surface temp 'slowdown'. And yet deniers still claim the change in surface temperatures is unexpected or represents a model 'failure'...
Keep up the superb work!
-
Matt Fitzpatrick at 17:11 PM on 1 October 2013IPCC model global warming projections have done much better than you think
I've also been seeing a little bit of a #4) Curve fitting exercises purporting to have better predictive power than IPCC model forecasts based solely on short-term hindcasts with arbitrary parameters. Not many stoop that low to make the IPCC's models look bad, but some do.
-
scaddenp at 16:32 PM on 1 October 2013Models are unreliable
Engineer, the issue is estimating climate sensitivity is non-linear feedbacks. Decreasing ice and increasing methane emissions would be two examples. Models attempt to build these influences in whereas linear extrapolation does not.
-
engineer8516 at 15:51 PM on 1 October 2013Models are unreliable
"Climate trends are weather, averaged out over time - usually 30 years. Trends are important because they eliminate - or "smooth out" - single events that may be extreme, but quite rare."
So if we look at the past 30 years we should get the climate trend. According to skepticalscience's trend calculator from 1983 to 2013 the earth's temp has increased by 0.17 C per decade (GISTEMP moving average 12 months). Since CO2 has risen at about a linear rate since 1980 (according to: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/), is it reasonable to predict a best guess rise of 1.7C from decades (1990 - 2000) to (2090 - 2100)? This would point to the low scenario from IPCC 2007, which has a best guess of 1.8C.
-
John Hartz at 07:56 AM on 1 October 2013Understanding the pre-IPCC Anti-Climate Science Misinformation Blitz
@rockytom #49:
As long as the fossil fuel industry exists, Deniersville will exist.
-
rockytom at 06:05 AM on 1 October 2013Understanding the pre-IPCC Anti-Climate Science Misinformation Blitz
I guess the deniers couldn't find any emails to steal! They do become more strident as their numbers decline.
-
John Cook at 03:24 AM on 1 October 2013Public talk explaining our consensus paper & answering critics
The Monckton quote comes from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZSPOawk698 - around the 2:30 minute mark.
-
Smith at 03:05 AM on 1 October 2013Public talk explaining our consensus paper & answering critics
Can you please give the provenance of the Monckton quote?
-
AndersM at 18:23 PM on 30 September 201316 ^ more years of global warming
The video in the post is "private". A mistake?
-
Jim Hunt at 18:17 PM on 30 September 2013Latest myth from the Mail on Sunday on Arctic ice
The Mail on Sunday's "retraction" yesterday didn't amount to the proverbial hill of beans, so here's our latest report deconstructing the recent "Shock news!" about "And now it’s global COOLING!":
http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2013/09/santas-secret-summer-swim/
-
TonyW at 17:41 PM on 30 September 2013Why is the IPCC AR5 so much more confident in human-caused global warming?
I'm not sure about the usefulness of the RPCs as they all seem to assume economic growth continuing to the end of the century. That seems like an awfully large assumption given resource depletion and environmental deterioration (not to mention debt levels). However, I suppose the people they are targetting all make the same assumption so maybe it's useful as a way of engaging the unengagable. -
scaddenp at 12:47 PM on 30 September 2013Models are unreliable
Further to Zwiers. Any good scientist is a skeptic - a real one. Fake skeptics are only skeptical about things they disagree with and will swallow any kind of junk uncritically if it supports their notions.
-
scaddenp at 12:43 PM on 30 September 2013Models are unreliable
tcflood "wouldn't the effect be to remove the ENSO effects thereby insuring some departures of observation from the models when real ENSOs would occur? "
Essentially true. See for instance the graph here. Forcing ENSO in model to match what happens is somewhat like Kosaka and Xie did. See discussion here.
Comment from Mike at RC on Zwiers.
"[Response: Francis is a top-rate scientist of the highest integrity. I strongly suspect that he has been misquoted and mischaracterized quite a bit lately. -mike]
-
Taiko at 11:07 AM on 30 September 2013Secretary of State Kerry and Senator Boxer Remark on the IPCC Report
It's been interesting to see some of the reader comments on sites like the UK Guardian and PBS Newshour. The climate denier trolls seem to be out in full force. But none of them appears to have actually read the Summary Report for Policymakers. As an American I am embarrassed that someone as ignorant about science as Lamar Smith chairs the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology.
-
tcflood at 09:36 AM on 30 September 2013Models are unreliable
@jsmith. Thanks for the response. I read somewhere that many of the GCMs actually do produce ENSO episodes but that the timing of their appearance (as in nature) is chaotic. If modeling results are reported as an average of many models, wouldn't the effect be to remove the ENSO effects thereby insuring some departures of observation from the models when real ENSOs would occur? So, hypothetically, if there were some way to trigger an episode at the same time in all the models, the match between models and observation might be much improved. I don't pose this as a realistic modeling strategy, but rather as an accurate and effective counterargument to this common cavil in the denier echo chamber?
Also, the denier rant that called my attention to the above-cited paper said Zwiers is a vice chair of the IPCC. I infer from your comment that he is nonetheless a skeptic. The paper certainly reads like he is.
-
John Russell at 09:04 AM on 30 September 2013Secretary of State Kerry and Senator Boxer Remark on the IPCC Report
The BBC carried a series of comments from notable figures including leading UK politicians, environmentalists and scientists (with a few in denial).
Moderator Response:[JH] Thank you.
-
Paul Pukite at 08:41 AM on 30 September 2013The Pacific Ocean fills in another piece of the global warming puzzle, and puzzles Curry
I wanted to chime in with my own SOI analysis inspired by Kevin C and Icarus.
I took a monotonic warming and laid the scaled SOI on top of it, comparing to the GISS temperature record. Then I added in the major volcanic disturbances using the BEST data. The lower panel is the SOI-corrected signal, which shows no evidence of a pause.Since the SOI reverts to the mean, it is virtually impossible for the pause to continue considering its past historical trend.
-
Don9000 at 07:29 AM on 30 September 2013Secretary of State Kerry and Senator Boxer Remark on the IPCC Report
William@12
No. Kerry was never a member of the GOP or Republican Party. His first campaign for national office was in 1972. He ran as a Democrat and lost to Paul W. Cronin, the Republican candidate.
You may be thinking of Robert Gates, President Obama's first Secretary of Defense, a hold-over from the Bush presidency.
-
grindupBaker at 06:18 AM on 30 September 2013Understanding the pre-IPCC Anti-Climate Science Misinformation Blitz
@RobertF #45. (On-topic) Because `a sub-beginner`, `denier friend` and `What am I missing?` I suggest tentatively you might be missing `the big picture`. I started 6 months ago (I had assumed it was a simple, boring slam-dunk in prior years) with a few hours of getting physical quantities - sun, earth`s ecosystem, mostly oceans of course with 97.3% of all the ecosystem heat being there and the other 2.5% being water that`ll return to oceans one day, then fossil fuel reserves & consumption weights & measures. I concluded `global warming` is heat entering the oceans, it cannot be anything else. Surface & air temperatures are important to us, a fairish proxy and needed to rise eventually to stop the global warming. So, the actual question is how many ZettaJoules of heat are going into the oceans. There`s information everywhere to study and make your personal decision from, I`m going with the 13 ZJ per year. Your 'denier friend' must be going with less or he`d be an `alarmist`. After you have studied and formed your own opinion, you need to ask him for his estimate in ZettaJoules of heat per year that are going into the oceans (he must provide you with a ZJ number and accuracy range for you to ponder) and what he bases that on. Suggest you look at what`s available regarding ocean temperature measurements, XBT, ARGO floats, the prior rubber buckets, and the various numbers. Sure, surface & air temperatures are important for a few reasons but it`s all about quantifying heat change in the oceans.
-
Jim Hunt at 05:54 AM on 30 September 2013Latest myth from the Mail on Sunday on Arctic ice
AnotherBee - We covered that point here. We are continuing to pursue that issue and many others with both the Mail and the PCC.
In case it's of some interest, here's our latest video report, hot off the presses, which covers the Mail's recent "revision" and also touches on the mismatched dates issue:Moderator Response:[DB] Reduced Video Player width to 450.
-
william5331 at 05:28 AM on 30 September 2013Secretary of State Kerry and Senator Boxer Remark on the IPCC Report
And yet, with a stroke of the pen, the politicians could have a profound effect on the problem. Simply put in Hansen's Tax and Dividend. The economics will take care of the rest. What is so hard for them to understand here. Wasn't Kerry a member of the GOP before Obama hired him. Perhaps he should go and talk with his former colegues.
Moderator Response:[JH] John Kerry was indeed a Senator from Massachusetts. He was also the Democrat's nominee for President in 2003, when George W. Bush won re-election. You can rest assurred that Kerry has communicated and will continue to communicate with his former Senate colleagues on a wide variety of subjects including what to do about climate change.
-
grindupBaker at 05:16 AM on 30 September 2013Understanding the pre-IPCC Anti-Climate Science Misinformation Blitz
@scaddenp #43 I'm harping on this a bit but it's important because it's the basics and "denier" comments on web sites don't grasp it (the paid and mischief makers pretend not to grasp it) and you said "...CIMP models...". Yes, I`m sure the "models" would do an excellent job but I`m talking reality, not simulation, and it`s simple. It needs 5.5 ZettaJoules to raise average air temperatutre 1 degree Celsius (I got from Dr. Randall lecture + simple math) and ORAS4 reanalysis says oceans took up 250 ZJ the last many decades. Add 8% estimate for ice melt & miscellaneous and this would have today raised air temperature by 49 degrees Celsius. No simulation "models" needed just simple math & logic. The "models" are good for projecting what will happen with various emissions scenarios but whenever a simple concept can be described without reference to these simulation "models", it should be.
-
grindupBaker at 04:37 AM on 30 September 2013Secretary of State Kerry and Senator Boxer Remark on the IPCC Report
@ClimateChangeExtremist #7 You have quantity mistake. Total current CO2 in air 400 ppmv = 3,120 gigatonnes, which is 390 Gt above 350 ppmv.
-
grindupBaker at 04:27 AM on 30 September 2013Secretary of State Kerry and Senator Boxer Remark on the IPCC Report
@Moderator #5 I think it's necessary you clarify whether every Congressperson Lamar Smith opinion is "poppycock" because there's some diverse opinions in it, the obvious being quantiication of "unilateral action by the U.S." as opposed to a global agreement in which the other big coal burners are included.
Moderator Response:[JH] Cong Smith's pontification about the US not proceeding alone tells me that he believes the U.S. should relinquish its role as a world leader. From my perspective as a patriotic American, such a policy is poppycock.
-
jimb at 04:17 AM on 30 September 2013Secretary of State Kerry and Senator Boxer Remark on the IPCC Report
Perhaps Congressperson Lamar Smith can publish his latest readings in relation to his review of the 'actual scientific assesment of the peer-reviewed literature."
-
rockytom at 04:09 AM on 30 September 2013Secretary of State Kerry and Senator Boxer Remark on the IPCC Report
We can expect the deniers to still deny and the contrarians to still be contrary to mainstream science. The fight will go on! In the U. S. we are seeing the result of our failed education system in not teaching critical thinking. The republicans are blind to facts and the truth, as they have been for a few generations. Maybe the AR5 will help. Let's hope it does.
-
PhilBMorris at 04:06 AM on 30 September 2013Secretary of State Kerry and Senator Boxer Remark on the IPCC Report
Nothing short of a Manhattan style approach to dealing with our CO2 emissions, not just from fossil fuel burning, but land use as well, will do. And it isn’t just a matter of reducing our CO2 emissions; there's the issue of energy requirements - from non-fossil fuels of course - needed sequester several thousand gigatonnes of excess CO2 to get us back down to 350 ppm. Bold statements are all very well; bold action is another matter and the political gridlock in Washington is all but guaranteed to prevent any real action from happening. And unfortunately, if the US doesn’t act, then it's unlikely any of the other major polluters will.
-
dana1981 at 04:03 AM on 30 September 2013Why is the IPCC AR5 so much more confident in human-caused global warming?
chriskoz @47 - RCP 3PD and RCP 2.6 are the same. PD is peak and decline, with the decline being from 3 W/m2 to 2.6.
-
Roger D at 02:15 AM on 30 September 2013Secretary of State Kerry and Senator Boxer Remark on the IPCC Report
(-snip-).
Smith is Chairman of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology.
Moderator Response:[JH] Discussing somone's religion is prohibited.
-
AnotherBee at 01:55 AM on 30 September 2013Latest myth from the Mail on Sunday on Arctic ice
I heard a garbled newspaper review of today's Mail revision (as highlighted by MA Rodger) above, so I visited the article to see what it actually said.
In addition to the blaming the NSIDC for the previous error, I noticed an interesting slight of hand with the images that accompany the article. There are two comparison images, the first captioned "NASA satellite images showing the spread of Arctic sea ice 27th August 2012" and the second captioned "And now, much bigger: The same Nasa image taken in 2013". Yes, it was an image from 2013, but the image itself bears the date of August 15th. Now, what do you suppose happens between August 15th and August 27th?
Take a look at the side-by-side comparisons on the UIUC Cryosphere Today Site. Here's August 15th and here's August 27th. Of course they both show a story of greater ice area in 2013, but - especially the 27th comparison - is not the story that Rose tells in the article.
-
jsmith at 01:50 AM on 30 September 2013Models are unreliable
@tcflood it looks like there was indeed less warming over the period 1997-2012 than the models predicted, however, what "skeptics" often fail to mention is that "the surface warming trend from 1993 to 2007 was significantly higher than projections." See here for more information: http://www.abc.net.au/environment/articles/2013/09/27/3857704.htm
-
Christopher Gyles at 01:40 AM on 30 September 2013Secretary of State Kerry and Senator Boxer Remark on the IPCC Report
Congressperson Lamar Smith (R-Texas) released the following statement.
Chairman Smith: “Lobbying by several nations to influence the latest IPCC report demonstrates that these reports have become more political than scientific. The ‘summary for policymakers’ released this morning in Stockholm appears to be designed to provide cover for excessive regulations and carbon taxes. There is little doubt the Obama administration will try to use this report to support additional costly regulations. But even the EPA has admitted that unilateral action by the U.S., including its recent energy regulations, will result in negligible changes to our carbon dioxide emissions and will have no discernible impact on the global temperature.“The IPCC also has had to backtrack from previous reports in several important areas. The report backs away from claims about a connection between climate change and severe weather. The report states ‘low confidence’ in any connection between human-driven climate change and increased droughts or hurricanes. Rather than releasing politically-influenced opinions, the IPCC should let the science speak for itself. I look forward to reviewing the actual scientific assessment of the peer-reviewed literature.”
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=41680
Moderator Response:[JH] Thank you for your contribution. It helps us track the poppycock being spread by climate deniers.
-
Christopher Gyles at 01:33 AM on 30 September 2013Secretary of State Kerry and Senator Boxer Remark on the IPCC Report
US Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz:
"I believe that the report is a watershed; we have clear evidence from our climate scientists that global warming is happening and that we as humans are playing a critical role, which is the underpinning of the President's Climate Action Plan. The plan places a strong emphasis on mitigating the risks of climate change through further investments in clean technologies aligning with our all-of-the-above energy strategy. The President's plan also brings forward a strong focus on the need to prepare for climate change because we are already experiencing the anticipated impacts of global warming,"
Moderator Response:[DB] Added source per request.
[JH] Thank you for your contribution.
-
MA Rodger at 21:28 PM on 29 September 2013Latest myth from the Mail on Sunday on Arctic ice
The latest enstallment from David Ruse of the Daily Rail complete with 'apology'. I did wonder if his "60% ice loss" story resulted from such a typo (2.38 sq km not 1.38 sq km). He is of course entirely innocent He blames it all on the evil NSIDC.
In this latest installment, Rose is very strong on the "It was the Rail wot done it," it being them who exposed the 17-years-without-a-rise and also that the start date was before the El Nino of 1998. You have to ask though - if it was 17 years, how come the Rail only managed to spot it last year?
And his HadCRUT data, as well as being cherrypicked are also not very accurate. "David, it is 0.405 for June 1997 & 0.514 for July 2013. And your claimed start-date for the pause (January 1997) was 0.204."
However Rose has reined back on some of his nonsense. Back in March he told us the temperatures were "about to crash out" of the "95% degree of certainty" zone. Today it is only "very likely that by the end of this year, world average temperatures will have crashed below the ‘90 per cent probability’ range." So who knows. By the end of the year it might be only an outside chance that Rose is within 1 sd of reality.
-
shoyemore at 21:08 PM on 29 September 2013Secretary of State Kerry and Senator Boxer Remark on the IPCC Report
Prof Sir Brian Hoskins, from Imperial College London, told BBC News: "We are performing a very dangerous experiment with our planet, and I don't want my grandchildren to suffer the consequences of that experiment."
IPCC climate report: humans 'dominant cause' of warming
Moderator Response:[JH] Thank you for your contribution.
-
chriskoz at 20:43 PM on 29 September 2013Why is the IPCC AR5 so much more confident in human-caused global warming?
I've noticed another detail: RPC3PD scenario is not there anymore: looks like it was replaced by RPC2.6. I'm not sure if those two scenarios are the same or if RPC2.6 has been slightly changed. But looking at Figure SPM.10 (the last one) it seems that the emissions are pacing about the same in all scenarios until 2030, then RPC2.6 starts slowing down in 2040 and stops abruptly in 2050 at cumulative ~750GtC, which is way below the suggested 1Tt alowance known from earlier reports.
RPC2.6 being the only acceptable scenario for those who care about the future of the planet, I'd like to have a feeling how realistic it is compared to the old RPC3PD. Are they realy the same? The emission halt within 2040-2050 seems to be too abrupt. And then, does AR5 still asume that humans start "scrubbing off" CO2 from the atmosphere around 2070? Or the Earth natural sinks (ocean + biosphere) would significantly outweigh the natural sources (permafrost + clathrate methane) helping to realise RPC2.6 scenario?
-
TonyW at 19:43 PM on 29 September 2013Why is the IPCC AR5 so much more confident in human-caused global warming?
Right, got ya! Thanks scaddenp.Yes, I agree that it's a reasonable inference. As dana noted, the report says "The best estimate of the human induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period." Now that I've actually seen it (I don't know why I couldn't find it before), along with the figure, I can see that it's a reasonable inference so I'm loathe to quibble further but the summary doesn't actually make the claim mentioned, I think it could be better explained, but perhaps that's nit-picking.Thanks for the replies to sort my mind out! -
scaddenp at 19:28 PM on 29 September 2013Why is the IPCC AR5 so much more confident in human-caused global warming?
TonyW - the figures are not inline with the text but at the bottom of the document. While I dont think Dana is making direct quotes, it is certainly the inference from the figure. Also when it says human is "most likely" in range in 0.5 to 1.3 and natural forcing and internal variability to be" -0.1 to 0.1", then it seems a perfectly reasonable inference to me.
-
justmoi at 19:10 PM on 29 September 2013Models are unreliable
tcflood's source in pdf, in case SkS can't access it by other means.
-
TonyW at 17:22 PM on 29 September 2013Why is the IPCC AR5 so much more confident in human-caused global warming?
Thanks to dana and scaddenp but I'm struggling to find the quoted passages (as mentioned by dana @42) or the figure (mentioned by scaddenp @43). All I can find is the summary for policymakers, as provided in the link in the article above. It has no figures included and doesn't contain the quotes mentioned by dana.If the quoted passages are accurate, I'm still not sure how they result in the claim that "the IPCC says that humans have most likely caused all of the global warming over the past 60 years." One may be able to infer that for one's own opinion but not as a statement of fact.I guess I'll have to wait for the final draft to be made available on-line to check on this. -
scaddenp at 16:47 PM on 29 September 2013Why is the IPCC AR5 so much more confident in human-caused global warming?
TonyW - it would seem to be the logical conclusion to draw from looking at figure SPM-6 in the just released report.
-
ajki at 16:39 PM on 29 September 2013Secretary of State Kerry and Senator Boxer Remark on the IPCC Report
"... In reaction to the report, [EU] Climate Action Commissioner Connie Hedegaard said: ''The issue is not whether to believe in climate change or not. The issue is whether to follow science or not. The day when all scientists with 100% certainty warn you against climate change, it will be too late. If your doctor was 95% sure you had a serious disease, you would immediately start looking for the cure. Why should we take bigger risks when it's the health of our planet at stake?"..." [source]
Moderator Response:[JH] Thank you for your contribution.
-
dana1981 at 14:51 PM on 29 September 2013Why is the IPCC AR5 so much more confident in human-caused global warming?
TonyW @40 - see the quotes from the IPCC report in the Current Global Warming Caused by Greenhouse Gases, Not Nature section above.
Prev 830 831 832 833 834 835 836 837 838 839 840 841 842 843 844 845 Next
