Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

IPCC Report 2007 - Summary for Policy Makers


Recommended Posts

We've had a number of threads that go back and forth on the anal details of Climate Change. And of couse, we see stories that the "science is settled". I found it interesting that the IPCC's own latest report indicates the following.......note that they use the term "likely". Other terms are used throughout the document - terms like "more likely than not", "very likely" and "virtually certain". In selecting "likely" to describe the very heart of Global Warming arguments, it appears that even the IPCC has a long way to go before the science is settled.

It is likely that there has been significant anthropogenic

warming over the past 50 years averaged over each

continent except Antarctica (see Figure SPM.4).

The observed patterns of warming, including greater

warming over land than over the ocean, and their

changes over time, are only simulated by models that

include anthropogenic forcing. The ability of coupled

climate models to simulate the observed temperature

evolution on each of six continents provides stronger

evidence of human influence on climate than was

available in the TAR. {3.2, 9.4}

Link: http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_SPM.pdf

Edited by Keepitsimple
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 84
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Waldo...your replies are often muddied by providing information that is somewhat related but out of context. I started this thread with a simple quote from the latest IPCC "Summary for Policy Makers".

We've had a number of threads that go back and forth on the anal details of Climate Change. And of couse, we see stories that the "science is settled". I found it interesting that the IPCC's own lates

Yep. There are a lot of deniers amoung alarmists who insist in believing that we understand climate when the overwhelming evidence says that we don't. In any case, the bigger problem with this "settle

We've had a number of threads that go back and forth on the anal details of Climate Change. And of couse, we see stories that the "science is settled". I found it interesting that the IPCC's own latest report indicates the following.......note that they use the term "likely". Other terms are used throughout the document - terms like "more likely than not", "very likely" and "virtually certain". In selecting "likely" to describe the very heart of Global Warming arguments, it appears that even the IPCC has a long way to go before the science is settled.

... even though the summary report (for "policymakers") you link to, itself, provides an index for the likelihood terms used, you prefer to continue your deniers agenda attempting to cast doubt/suspicion at every turn. The science is settled... unless you're a denier.

Guidance Notes for Lead Authors of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report on Addressing Uncertainties

Likelihood may be based on quantitative analysis or an elicitation of expert views

          Table 4. Likelihood Scale.
Terminology                Likelihood of the occurrence/ outcome

Virtually certain          > 99% probability of occurrence
Very likely                > 90% probability
Likely                     > 66% probability
About as likely as not     33 to 66% probability
Unlikely                   < 33% probability
Very unlikely              < 10% probability
Exceptionally unlikely     < 1% probability

would you care to... actually... provide the IPCC AR4 report statements that you're questioning the "likelihood" attachments for? I'll provide you one... adding the probability association.

Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is
very likely
(> 90% probability)
due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The science is settled... unless you're a denier.
Yep. There are a lot of deniers amoung alarmists who insist in believing that we understand climate when the overwhelming evidence says that we don't.

In any case, the bigger problem with this "settled science" argument is it assumes that the science tells us what policies we should adopt. i.e. it does not make a difference how certain the we are about the effect of CO2 over the last 30 years if we do not feel the cost of the "solutions" outweighs the alledged benefits.

For example, if the science told us that a genetic defect in 20% of the people would eventually lead to the collapse of the human race would we then support the mass sterilization of that 20%? I am suspect most people would refuse to support such invasive policies even if the risk was real.

In the end we need a way to produce energy for the same cost as fossil fuels without emissions. We don't have that technology today which means any discussion about timetables and targets for eliminating CO2 emissions is a waste of time. The technology has to be developed first.

Edited by Riverwind
Link to post
Share on other sites

... even though the summary report (for "policymakers") you link to, itself, provides an index for the likelihood terms used, you prefer to continue your deniers agenda attempting to cast doubt/suspicion at every turn. The science is settled... unless you're a denier.

So your table of percentages for the term "likely" tells us that there is 1 chance in 3 that humans do not play a significant role in "Global Warming". And with regards to the other 2 out of 3 chances, the IPCC is still struggling with what "significant" actually means. Does that sound like the science is settled? And one has to ask, regardless of what "significant actually means" - why is their "certainty" only 66.6%? This is exactly why people like yourself are referred to as alarmists. There are very, very few deniers - people who believe that humans don't have any influence on Climate Change. Most "sceptics" regard humans as having only a small or moderate impact on Climate Change.

Edited by Keepitsimple
Link to post
Share on other sites

We've had a number of threads that go back and forth on the anal details of Climate Change. And of couse, we see stories that the "science is settled".

We have talked about this before.

If the argument is to say science is never settled then it can apply to smoking as well. They use the word "risk" and "could" and "possibly" and "might" when talking about the outcomes.

Link to post
Share on other sites
would you care to... actually... provide the IPCC AR4 report statements that you're questioning the "likelihood" attachments for? I'll provide you one... adding the probability association.
Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is
very likely
(> 90% probability)
due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.

So your table of percentages for the term "likely" tells us that there is 1 chance in 3 that humans do not play a significant role in "Global Warming". And with regards to the other 2 out of 3 chances, the IPCC is still struggling with what "significant" actually means. Does that sound like the science is settled? And one has to ask, regardless of what "significant actually means" - why is their "certainty" only 66.6%? This is exactly why people like yourself are referred to as alarmists. There are very, very few deniers - people who believe that humans don't have any influence on Climate Change. Most "sceptics" regard humans as having only a small or moderate impact on Climate Change.

I'm not clear what specific "likely" likelihood reference you're alluding to within the report - I've already suggested you provide the IPCC AR4 report statements that you're actually questioning the "likelihood" attachments for. I'll offer another one from the (policymakers summary) report:

The observed widespread warming of the atmosphere and ocean, together with ice mass loss, support the conclusion that it is
extremely unlikely
(< 5% probability)
that global climate change of the past 50 years can be explained without external forcing, and
very likely
(> 90% probability)
that it is not due to known natural causes alone.

... does this last statement clarify your concerns about the IPCC report's stated "likelihood" influence of mankind's role?

Your last couple of sentences are a worthy subject on their own... what actually separates a skeptic from a denier and how are their respective positions arrived at - and separated? You state few actually question that mankind has an influence - that there are really very few deniers... that it's really a matter of degrees. I see/read a significant influence of outright deniers - those attempting to manipulate and shift mainstream media towards outright denial of the existence/influence of AGW. Frankly, I'd be interested in comments on how the general public actually delineates between your described skeptic vs. denier categorizations... with all the denial manipulation attempts at play, how a skeptics position is actually realized over an outright rejection... and, of course, how that supposed skeptic/denier split might, in turn, influence politicians/policymakers. On a skeptics "measuring stick"... whatever that is... how/when does one arrive at a decision point that AGW countering measures are required?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not clear what specific "likely" likelihood reference you're alluding to within the report - I've already suggested you provide the IPCC AR4 report statements that you're actually questioning the "likelihood" attachments for. I'll offer another one from the (policymakers summary) report:

Waldo...your replies are often muddied by providing information that is somewhat related but out of context. I started this thread with a simple quote from the latest IPCC "Summary for Policy Makers".....you said you didn't know what I was referring to. It's right there in the original link - not hard to find. As I said - it goes to the heart of Climate Change and the "confidence" in whether humans are responsible and how much impact they have. A follow-up posting qualified "likely" as being "2 out of 3 chances of being correct" and we still don't know what "significant" actually means. The statement seems clear to me and if you can read it with an open mind, perhaps you can tell me how this equates to "The Science is settled". Here's the quote again.

It is likely that there has been significant anthropogenic

warming over the past 50 years averaged over each

continent except Antarctica (see Figure SPM.4).

The observed patterns of warming, including greater

warming over land than over the ocean, and their

changes over time, are only simulated by models that

include anthropogenic forcing. The ability of coupled

climate models to simulate the observed temperature

evolution on each of six continents provides stronger

evidence of human influence on climate than was

available in the TAR. {3.2, 9.4}

To follow up on the Alarmist/Denier issue....Alarmists are absolutely sure that humans are the major factor in Climate Change and that without major reductions in GHG, the world will be irreparably damaged. Deniers, for the most part, acknowledge that humans have SOME influence on Climate change, but not a significant one. And that is where the line is drawn - what is "significant"?. If we affect Climate Change by 30% - does that create Armegeddon? And if so and we magically eliminate all fossil fuels, we reduce that impact to 20% - will that somehow avert Armegeddon? It's really a question of what is "significant. But it goes further......to accept that, we have to agree that CO2 has the magnitude of effect that is being claimed. The science is so "not settled".

Edited by Keepitsimple
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
To follow up on the Alarmist/Denier issue....Alarmists are absolutely sure that humans are the major factor in Climate Change and that without major reductions in GHG, the world will be irreparably damaged. Deniers, for the most part, acknowledge that humans have SOME influence on Climate change, but not a significant one. And that is where the line is drawn - what is "significant"?. If we affect Climate Change by 30% - does that create Armegeddon? And if so and we magically eliminate all fossil fuels, we reduce that impact to 20% - will that somehow avert Armegeddon? It's really a question of what is "significant. But it goes further......to accept that, we have to agree that CO2 has the magnitude of effect that is being claimed. The science is so "not settled".

I'll try to get back to your complete post later tonight... actually, if you note, I wasn't speaking to an "alarmist/denier" categorization split... my comments were completely centered around your reference to skeptic versus denier... and my requests (to you, in general) were in that vein; i.e. skeptic/denier. It's very clear so I'm sure why you've taken your own tangent from there.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll try to get back to your complete post later tonight... actually, if you note, I wasn't speaking to an "alarmist/denier" categorization split... my comments were completely centered around your reference to skeptic versus denier... and my requests (to you, in general) were in that vein; i.e. skeptic/denier. It's very clear so I'm sure why you've taken your own tangent from there.

OK - fair point. Part of the alarmist/denier debate is due to the use of the term AGW. All sceptics except for loonies agree that there is Climate Change (and has been for eons) - and that change consists of cycles that warm and cycles that cool. Knowledgeable sceptics also acknowledge that the planet has been warming at a rate of about 1 degree per century for several centuries - regardless of CO2. So the term Global Warming is mis-leading - it implies that temperatures will always be warming - and that's what the true Alarmist zeolots would have us believe - that we are reaching a tipping point and the world will be doomed. So yes - in that respect we are deniers - we deny that such an armegeddon will be upon us. You need not go back too far to remember late 70's/80's when Global Cooling was occurring and predicted - that was the result of a cooling cycle that lasted from the 40's through to the 70's - roughly the 30 year cycles that cooling and warming have followed.....and CO2 was increasing rapidly as a result of postwar expansion. Now we're arguably at the tail end of the warming cycle and many scientists are predicting that 30 year cycle to continue as a cooling cycle. So in summary, it's not that sceptics don't believe that humans CAN contribute in some degree to general warming......but the argument is always - because climate cycles up and down regardless of CO2, how much effect does CO2 actually have. Following the theory of the Alarmists, as CO2 goes up, so will the temperature. If it doesn't, then CO2 doesn't play as big a role as Alarmists think. And as far as measuring temperature, I'll take the sattelite/troposhere readings every time.....not the more recent human "adjusted" heat island/land based temperatures.

Edited by Keepitsimple
Link to post
Share on other sites

To say that the science is settled is an outright lie. Scientist don't like to admit to the fact that they don't understand everything. But that is the case especially for large complex systems like the earth. The science behind global warming is confusing and much of it too recent and unempirically tested. Far too much is correlational to actually make inferences from or to attribute causation. There still is no cohesive understanding amongst scientists as to what climate change will look like or if its even preventable, or even how to stop it. Climate change though alarming is still a science in its infancy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll try to get back to your complete post later tonight... actually, if you note, I wasn't speaking to an "alarmist/denier" categorization split... my comments were completely centered around your reference to skeptic versus denier... and my requests (to you, in general) were in that vein; i.e. skeptic/denier. It's very clear so I'm sure why you've taken your own tangent from there.

OK - fair point.

Fair point or not you're still skirting the issue you initially brought forward and to which my questions were targeted. I suggested your point was sound and worthy of follow-up; frankly, a discussion around the delineation between so-called "skeptics" versus "deniers" would illuminate, particularly the role of media in shaping those delineations. It's generally accepted the majority of the general public gains it's information about global warming/AGW through the media... it's unclear to me how that general public would (or could) decipher information to the point of fitting neatly into the "skeptics" category you claim as more prominent within the skeptics versus denier dynamic. Anyway, it's certainly your prerogative to not want to discuss your initial point further - certainly, you can expect why some may question your hesitancy. :lol:

As to the other part of your question, I have to admit I presumed you were thinking more broadly... you've referred to the "bigger picture" elsewhere. As to your specific statement concern, again, scale is the consideration of the statement (less than 50 years) where the largest uncertainty within interannual or decadal scales is natural climate variability. This is certainly elaborated on further within the actual detailed IPCC Working Group documents or integrations of same; e.g. within the Synthesis Report:

Difficulties remain in simulating and attributing observed temperature changes at smaller scales. On these scales, natural climate variability is relatively larger, making it harder to distinguish changes expected due to external forcings. Uncertainties in local forcings, such as those due to aerosols and land-use change, and feedbacks also make it difficult to estimate the contribution of GHG increases to observed small-scale temperature changes.

So... in your zest to label an overall uncertainty within the narrowly focused small scale statement... your "why only 66% certainty", doesn't fit to what the IPCC AR4 report is actually stating about the overall impact of mankind within global warming.

Next.

Link to post
Share on other sites

To say that the science is settled is an outright lie. Scientist don't like to admit to the fact that they don't understand everything. But that is the case especially for large complex systems like the earth. The science behind global warming is confusing and much of it too recent and unempirically tested. Far too much is correlational to actually make inferences from or to attribute causation. There still is no cohesive understanding amongst scientists as to what climate change will look like or if its even preventable, or even how to stop it. Climate change though alarming is still a science in its infancy.

Huh!

If, as you say, scientists don’t like to admit to the fact that they don’t understand everything… would those IPCC supporting scientists engage in providing and disseminating information that opening speaks to uncertainty within the assortment of qualifiers used in published IPCC reports? That’s the essence of this thread… that’s the particulars of one set of those qualifiers that I provided more details on (i.e. the “likelihood” qualifiers with their associated probability assignments). Certainly the science is evolving… improving… to allow more pointed, more definitive certainty assignments. If you know anything of the IPCC process, you would recognize those certainties have strengthened over the years as reflected with each successive IPCC report release.

When one speaks to the much manipulated phrase, “the science is settled”… one recognizes that climate scientists are now >90% certain that mankind is causing climate change… that’s reflected with the IPCC AR4 reports… and that’s up from the 66% certainty offered within the 2001 IPCC TAR reports. So, yes… in terms of recognizing that mankind is causing climate change... the “science is settled”. Perhaps you didn’t recognize the pointed significance of the 2 statements I quoted from the SPM report; again:

Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is
very likely
(> 90% probability)
due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.

The observed widespread warming of the atmosphere and ocean, together with ice mass loss, support the conclusion that it is
extremely unlikely
(< 5% probability)
that global climate change of the past 50 years can be explained without external forcing, and
very likely
(> 90% probability)
that it is not due to known natural causes alone.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You need not go back too far to remember late 70's/80's when Global Cooling was occurring and predicted - that was the result of a cooling cycle that lasted from the 40's through to the 70's - roughly the 30 year cycles that cooling and warming have followed.....and CO2 was increasing rapidly as a result of postwar expansion.

that's your myth, at no point in the 70's was global cooling accepted consensus, at no point did climate change papers on cooling out number those projecting warming, something like 4 to 1 warming vs cooling...you accepted sensationalized media spin as confirmed science, can't sell magazines predicting warmer days but ewww a return to the ice age now that will sell magazines to the gullible......
Now we're arguably at the tail end of the warming cycle and many scientists are predicting that 30 year cycle to continue as a cooling cycle. So in summary, it's not that sceptics don't believe that humans CAN contribute in some degree to general warming......but the argument is always - because climate cycles up and down regardless of CO2, how much effect does CO2 actually have.
how much effect does SO2 have? when 20million tons of SO2 from a volcano(Pinatubo)can cool the planet for two years but 1.8 Gigatons of Anthropogenic CO2 can have no significant effect? explain that please??? and then explain what is causing the warming, the entire world of Climatology is waiting for your explanation?
Link to post
Share on other sites

So... in your zest to label an overall uncertainty within the narrowly focused small scale statement... your "why only 66% certainty", doesn't fit to what the IPCC AR4 report is actually stating about the overall impact of mankind within global warming.

Next.

I'm coming to the conclusion that you're just a cut-and-past poster and don't really know that much. I have no idea why you provided a quotation that talked about local climate variability in smaller scales. My previous post was related to the 30 year cycles of ocean decadal influence......where temperatures alternately cool for 30 years and warm for 30 years, all within a gentle upward trend of a historical one degree per century. That's the thrust of Mojib Latif's work. It's also why scientists thought we were going into an ice age in the 80's. This is in direct contradiction to the IPCC's theory that there is a direct short-term link between GHG and temperature. But....if there is a factor that can actuall cool the globe for 30 years while GHG's rise - does that not cause one to think that perhaps the GHG influence is not as great as first supposed?

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is likely that there has been significant anthropogenic warming over the past 50 years averaged over each

continent except Antarctica (see Figure SPM.4). The observed patterns of warming, including greater warming over land than over the ocean, and their changes over time, are only simulated by models that include anthropogenic forcing. The ability of coupled

climate models to simulate the observed temperature evolution on each of six continents provides stronger evidence of human influence on climate than was available in the TAR. {3.2, 9.4}

As to your specific statement concern, again, scale is the consideration of the statement (less than 50 years) where the largest uncertainty within interannual or decadal scales is natural climate variability. This is certainly elaborated on further within the actual detailed IPCC Working Group documents or integrations of same; e.g. within the Synthesis Report:

Difficulties remain in simulating and attributing observed temperature changes at smaller scales. On these scales, natural climate variability is relatively larger, making it harder to distinguish changes expected due to external forcings. Uncertainties in local forcings, such as those due to aerosols and land-use change, and feedbacks also make it difficult to estimate the contribution of GHG increases to observed small-scale temperature changes.

So... in your zest to label an overall uncertainty within the narrowly focused small scale statement... your "why only 66% certainty", doesn't fit to what the IPCC AR4 report is actually stating about the overall impact of mankind within global warming.

Next.

I have no idea why you provided a quotation that talked about local climate variability in smaller scales.

:lol: Did you forget which thread you're in... the Latif discussion is in the other thread... this is the one where you presume to undercut the IPCC by showcasing your cut-paste prowess in finding (rather, make that being directed to (by your favourite deniers blog)) something to showcase a much reduced certainty about mankind's influence towards climate change. Sorry to burst your bubble!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Waldo.....I took a look at your synthesis report and could find no mention of the effect of long term cooling and warming of the oceans....this is the crux of Latif's work. The oceans are supposed to be warming according to IPCC but in fact they are cooling - and according to Latif, are likely to be the primary force behind his projection for cooling. The whole area of ocean cooling/warming - and what actually causes THAT....is a very compelling area of study. I have yet to see a reasonable explanation for why we had warming through the dustbowl years followed by cooling from the 40's to the 70's when post war industrialism was driving up GHG's.....and then we had warming for 30 years - and now we have cooling....but they all seem to be somehow tied to 30 year cycles that correspond to warming and cooling oceans. That's a trend that's measured over 100 years and is separate from GHG growth. Do you have anything concise to say about that without coming out with 15 quotes which skirt the issue?

Edited by Keepitsimple
Link to post
Share on other sites

Waldo.....I took a look at your synthesis report and could find no mention of the effect of long term cooling and warming of the oceans....this is the crux of Latif's work. The oceans are supposed to be warming according to IPCC but in fact they are cooling - and according to Latif, are likely to be the primary force behind his projection for cooling. The whole area of ocean cooling/warming - and what actually causes THAT....is a very compelling area of study. I have yet to see a reasonable explanation for why we had warming through the dustbowl years followed by cooling from the 40's to the 70's when post war industrialism was driving up GHG's.....and then we had warming for 30 years - and now we have cooling....but they all seem to be somehow tied to 30 year cycles that correspond to warming and cooling oceans. That's a trend that's measured over 100 years and is separate from GHG growth. Do you have anything concise to say about that without coming out with 15 quotes which skirt the issue?

so... should I accept your retraction on the overall certainty aspects of AWG relative to the narrowly selected/applied statement (less than 50 years) that you offered as a suggestion (an implication) of reduced AWG certainty?

after accepting that Latif has not projected/predicted global cooling... does the rest of your reply offer anything discussion worthy? :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

so... should I accept your retraction on the overall certainty aspects of AWG relative to the narrowly selected/applied statement (less than 50 years) that you offered as a suggestion (an implication) of reduced AWG certainty?

after accepting that Latif has not projected/predicted global cooling... does the rest of your reply offer anything discussion worthy? :lol:

I started the thread with a reference to the term "likely" - I should have known that the subject would deteriorate because the IPCC is famous for it's use of "qualifiers" so that as observations change, they can say "we didn't say that" and yet of course, the "science is settled". Where are the hurricanes, where are the rising seas, where are the warming oceans, where's the hotspot in the troposphere, why is antarctica's ice thickening, why has the polar bear population skyrocketed in Canada - home to 2/3 of the world's polar bears, why haven't the ski hills gone out of business as they were predicted to....and on and on. Sure - the Science is settled.

As for Latif......he said what he said - watch your own video, even though it's one that tries to put Pandora back in the box. You've neglected to address my own question to you......similar to Latif's work, other scientists have pointed out the 30 year cycles of ocean cooling and warming that correspond to the warming/cooling/warming/cooling 30 year cycles of the past century. Further to Latif's own words, the oceans are cooling when according to IPCC, they should be warming. Doesn't this relatively new discovery make you at least ask a few questions? That's what sceptics do - they ask questions - based on observations - not on models and guesses.

Edited by Keepitsimple
Link to post
Share on other sites

I started the thread with a reference to the term "likely" - I should have known that the subject would deteriorate because the IPCC is famous for it's use of "qualifiers" so that as observations change, they can say "we didn't say that" and yet of course, the "science is settled". Where are the hurricanes, where are the rising seas, where are the warming oceans, where's the hotspot in the troposphere, why is antarctica's ice thickening, why has the polar bear population skyrocketed in Canada - home to 2/3 of the world's polar bears, why haven't the ski hills gone out of business as they were predicted to....and on and on. Sure - the Science is settled.

As for Latif......he said what he said - watch your own video, even though it's one that tries to put Pandora back in the box. You've neglected to address my own question to you......similar to Latif's work, other scientists have pointed out the 30 year cycles of ocean cooling and warming that correspond to the warming/cooling/warming/cooling 30 year cycles of the past century. Further to Latif's own words, the oceans are cooling when according to IPCC, they should be warming. Doesn't this relatively new discovery make you at least ask a few questions? That's what sceptics do - they ask questions - based on observations - not on models and guesses.

The only thing that's deteriorated in this thread is your weak attempt to challenge the IPCC's overall position and certainty about AGW... by your purposeful isolated highlight to a single statement that included a "likely" attachment... an attachment that actually implies ">66% probability", although you purposely spoke to it as, "why only 66%". You obviously didn't understand the "less than 50 years" scale implications of your chosen statement in terms of the science, the overall IPCC position, or what the IPCC's likelihood attachment (reflecting the science) actually meant. It becomes clearer every post why you hesitate to answer questions around your own broached subject of the "skeptic versus denier" dynamic... and delineating qualifications therein.

In a passing reference I've already addressed the iterative progression of certainty within the assorted IPCC reports - as the science evolves and methodology improves that certainty has progressed in kind. And again,

When one speaks to the much manipulated phrase, “the science is settled”… one recognizes that climate scientists are now >90% certain that mankind is causing climate change… that’s reflected with the IPCC AR4 reports… and that’s up from the 66% certainty offered within the 2001 IPCC TAR reports. So, yes… in terms of recognizing that mankind is causing climate change... the “science is settled”. Perhaps you didn’t recognize the pointed significance of the 2 statements I quoted from the SPM report; again:
Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is
very likely
(> 90% probability)
due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.

The observed widespread warming of the atmosphere and ocean, together with ice mass loss, support the conclusion that it is
extremely unlikely
(< 5% probability)
that global climate change of the past 50 years can be explained without external forcing, and
very likely
(> 90% probability)
that it is not due to known natural causes alone.

Latif is being discussed in the other ongoing active thread... perhaps take your (continued) misinterpretations and misrepresentations there.

You've already stated in your OP that, "We've had a number of threads that go back and forth on the anal details of Climate Change"... no need for you to divert this thread into another - but your choice. Provide a clear precise supporting basis for each and every one of the scatter-gun points you've just spewed... that includes who/what you claim has advised said points (valid or not) will occur, your countering statement to each said point and the supporting basis you'd like to offer to counter said points. With that in place we'll have the beginnings of a proper foundation to discuss further... otherwise... it's just you spewing talking points. Batter-up! :lol:

(by the by - we've already touched upon the "Antarctica ice thickening" point, but feel free to bring it forward again - your choice)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Waldo......the problem that many sceptics have with IPCC and CO2 in general is the premise upon which their original CO2 theory was founded. Basically, it came down to "the temperature has gone up and the only thing we can see that's different is the amount of CO2". It has been shown that historical rises in CO2 actually come AFTER a warming period - not before. That was one leg of the stool that was kicked out. It's also been shown - for anyone who cares to look - that there have been 25-30 year periods of cooling when CO2 has been going up. That's another leg of the stool that's gone. That doesn't mean that CO2 and GHG's are meaningless - it just means that they are at best, bit players in Climate Change. As I've stated before, much more compelling are the Ocean Decadal Oscillations. There is much more of a direct link to Climate Change - the pattern is easy to see and supported by temperature observations over the last 100 years and related glacial retreats and advances before that. I've attached a link to a paper by Don Easterbrook that sets out in fairly simple terms that the PDO is likely a major driver of Climate Change. Having said that, I would still maintain that there are additional complex factors that include Solar cycles and orbit variations, among others. Temperatures are cooling and will cool for the next 20 years......but I suppose that still won't change the minds of true believers.

Figure 3. Coincidence of Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), global temperature, and glacier fluctuations in the North Cascades. Glaciers advanced during the 1880–1915 cool period when the PDO was cool, then when the PDO switched to its warm mode, global temperatures warmed, and glaciers retreated from ~1915–1945. The PDO changed from warm to cool ~1945–1977, global temperatures cooled and glaciers advanced once again. In 1977, the PDO switched from cool to warm mode, global temperatures warmed, and glaciers retreated. In 1999, the PDO changed back to its cool mode and global cooling began.

What we can learn from these geologic climate changes is that the past is indeed the key to the future. In 1999, the year after the warmest year of recent times, I projected the climate pattern from the past century and past 500 years into the future and predicted that we would be due for 25–30 years of global cooling beginning about 2000. The PDO changed from its warm to cool mode in 1999 and since then we have had global cooling, quite moderate to flat (interrupted by two warm El Ninos) and intensifying since 2007.

Link: http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Newgeologicevidenceofpastperiodsofoscillatingclimate.pdf

Edited by Keepitsimple
Link to post
Share on other sites
The science is settled... unless you're a denier.

For someone who is a global warming skeptic, the science is not settled.

There is an important difference between a global warming denier and a global warming skeptic.

A denier asserts that various claims of global warming claimants are not correct.

A skeptic asserts that various claims of global warming claimants are not certain.

Link to post
Share on other sites
There is an important difference between a global warming denier and a global warming skeptic.
It is more complicated that that.

The trouble is the IPCC makes a large number of scientific and economic claims. The various activists and rent seekers then take these claims and use them to justify their favourite government policies. These policies are then bundled with the IPCC scientific claims under the banner "climate change" and anyone who questions any part of the bundle is a called a "denier".

i.e. It is not enough to agree that CO2 causes warming. You must also agree that the only way to deal with the CO2 problem is to immediately transfer trillions from the poor and middle class in developed countries into the bank accounts of third world dictators under the guise of purchasing 'carbon credits'. If you dare to suggest that such transfers will not address the problem you are labelled a "denier".

It is quite rediculous.

Edited by Riverwind
Link to post
Share on other sites

Waldo......the problem that many sceptics have with IPCC and CO2 in general is the premise upon which their original CO2 theory was founded. Basically, it came down to "the temperature has gone up and the only thing we can see that's different is the amount of CO2". It has been shown that historical rises in CO2 actually come AFTER a warming period - not before. That was one leg of the stool that was kicked out.

unfortunately you don't understand the significance of CO2 lag, this is the smoking gun of anthropogenic CC...1st by making this claim you're denying that CO2 is a GHG is that correct:)?...2nd in past warming's as recorded in ice core samples CO2 spikes generally 800yrs after temp spikes, there is no massive warming to account for the this rise in CO2 800yrs ago, this temperature rise is trailing the CO2 rise, how can that be please explainbecause you've now claimed that CO2 is not be a GHG...3rd the CO2 increases recorded are anthropogenic they are not natural emissions...

It's also been shown - for anyone who cares to look - that there have been 25-30 year periods of cooling when CO2 has been going up. That's another leg of the stool that's gone. That doesn't mean that CO2 and GHG's are meaningless - it just means that they are at best, bit players in Climate Change.

now we're back to the ultimate in denier weather ignorance, weather temps are never a straight line occurrence there is natural variation short term and long(again this is why the data is graphed to determine long term trends,this was 7th grade stuff for me)...you're in need of some very basic science classes...
As I've stated before, much more compelling are the Ocean Decadal Oscillations. There is much more of a direct link to Climate Change - the pattern is easy to see and supported by temperature observations over the last 100 years and related glacial retreats and advances before that. I've attached a link to a paper by Don Easterbrook that sets out in fairly simple terms that the PDO is likely a major driver of Climate Change. Having said that, I would still maintain that there are additional complex factors that include Solar cycles and orbit variations, among others. Temperatures are cooling and will cool for the next 20 years......but I suppose that still won't change the minds of true believers.
no climatologist has suggested anthropogenic influences are the only factors at play only deniers make that claim of them(climatologists)...solar cycles have been absolutely ruled out as player in the last 30 yrs of warming, solar activity has been low while temps continued to rise...average Global temp trend continues to rise regardless of PDO

you come up with all these straws for causes of warming yet offer no evidence to explain the cause of the warming, nothing, apparently in the minds of deniers evidence is not required...

Link to post
Share on other sites

In selecting "likely" to describe the very heart of Global Warming arguments, it appears that even the IPCC has a long way to go before the science is settled.

Link: http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_SPM.pdf

Even though there are several statements of probability, there are also several key statements of certainty. For the IPCC, at least some important fundamental science is settled. The following is an example of one of the IPCC's statements of certainty:

“Both past and future anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions will continue to contribute to warming and sea level rise for more than a millennium, due to the time scales required for removal of this gas from the atmosphere. {7.3, 10.3}”.

In the article “Correct Timing is Everything - Also for CO2 in the Air”, available here, Tom V. Segalstad, Associate Professor of Resource and Environmental Geology, The University of Oslo, Norway, writes:

“In a paper recently published in the international peer-reviewed journal Energy & Fuels, Dr. Robert H. Essenhigh (2009), Professor of Energy Conversion at The Ohio State University, addresses the residence time (RT) of anthropogenic CO2 in the air. He finds that the RT for bulk atmospheric CO2, the molecule 12CO2, is ~5 years, in good agreement with other cited sources (Segalstad, 1998), while the RT for the trace molecule 14CO2 is ~16 years. Both of these residence times are much shorter than what is claimed by the IPCC. ...”.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Tell a friend

    Love Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...