Newest IPCC assessment: Increased certainty on AGW

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by Row6, Aug 20, 2013.

  1. Row6
    Offline

    Row6 New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2009
    Messages:
    15,997
    Likes Received:
    26
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings Received:
    +26
    From today's NYT's, the latest IPCC assessment notes more certainty about the causes of global warming while lowering the estimated minimum temperature increase.

    "An international panel of scientists has found with near certainty that human activity is the cause of most of the temperature increases of recent decades, and warns that sea levels could conceivably rise by more than three feet by the end of the century if emissions continue at a runaway pace.

    The scientists, whose findings are reported in a draft summary of the next big United Nations climate report, largely dismiss a recent slowdown in the pace of warming, which is often cited by climate change doubters, attributing it most likely to short-term factors.

    The report emphasizes that the basic facts about future climate change are more established than ever, justifying the rise in global concern. It also reiterates that the consequences of escalating emissions are likely to be profound....

    The coming report will be the fifth major assessment from the group, created in 1988. Each report has found greater certainty that the planet is warming and greater likelihood that humans are the primary cause.

    The 2007 report found “unequivocal” evidence of warming, but hedged a little on responsibility, saying the chances were at least 90 percent that human activities were the cause. The language in the new draft is stronger, saying the odds are at least 95 percent that humans are the principal cause.

    On sea level, which is one of the biggest single worries about climate change, the new report goes well beyond the assessment published in 2007, which largely sidestepped the question of how much the ocean could rise this century....

    Regarding the question of how much the planet could warm if carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere doubled, the previous report largely ruled out any number below 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit. The new draft says the rise could be as low as 2.7 degrees, essentially restoring a scientific consensus that prevailed from 1979 to 2007.

    But the draft says only that the low number is possible, not that it is likely. Many climate scientists see only a remote chance that the warming will be that low, with the published evidence suggesting that an increase above 5 degrees Fahrenheit is more likely if carbon dioxide doubles.

    The level of carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas, is up 41 percent since the Industrial Revolution, and if present trends continue it could double in a matter of decades.

    Warming the entire planet by 5 degrees Fahrenheit would add a stupendous amount of energy to the climate system. Scientists say the increase would be greater over land and might exceed 10 degrees at the poles..."​

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/20/s...te-change-panel-finds.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&
  2. MichaelJoeWilliamson
    Offline

    MichaelJoeWilliamson Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    Messages:
    6,820
    Likes Received:
    415
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +497
    How many different threads is Row going to be start regarding this?
  3. Row6
    Offline

    Row6 New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2009
    Messages:
    15,997
    Likes Received:
    26
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings Received:
    +26
    Uh, this thread is on the same general subject as last week - AGW - but based on an entirely different news item of substance.
  4. GatorRade
    Offline

    GatorRade Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    6,748
    Likes Received:
    188
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +571
    It seems to me that you would be the last person to criticize someone for starting multiple climate change threads.
  5. gatordowneast
    Offline

    gatordowneast Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    11,748
    Likes Received:
    303
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +985
    See "hell freezes over" in Wikipedia. Perhaps then we will be spared.
  6. LittleBlueLW
    Offline

    LittleBlueLW Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    5,328
    Likes Received:
    729
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +1,042
    I just wish all these 'scientists' would quit beating this dead horse and get onto real world solutions.

    How about let's start with the biggest offender, power generation and get some nuclear plants coming online instead of burning coal and other fossil fuels. Or lets get with installing technology to burn fossil fuels cleaner. Like now.

    And while we are at it, lets also convince the other industrial nations they must do the same. Or else.
    • Like Like x 1
  7. FoxGator
    Offline

    FoxGator Sly as a Fox Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2007
    Messages:
    975
    Likes Received:
    65
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Ratings Received:
    +116
    Let's look at the heading photograph that graces this fine article:

    [​IMG]

    Isn't the sky supposed to be blue? Or maybe the photo was taken at night, or dusk. This photo has had some serious alterations to it. The New York Times is certainly going out of their way to make steam, that's right, steam look like an offensive pollutant. They use false images like this to attempt to give credence to the article they publish. But with a stunt like this, it just leaves me with an impression that something is rotten (and it's not the steam).

    Any legit news organization would be embarrassed to publish such fauxtography.
  8. baygator1
    Online

    baygator1 Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    4,871
    Likes Received:
    1,415
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +1,601
    www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2013/03/Whitehouse-GT_Standstill.pdf
  9. GatorRade
    Offline

    GatorRade Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    6,748
    Likes Received:
    188
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +571
  10. tegator80
    Offline

    tegator80 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2007
    Messages:
    4,982
    Likes Received:
    896
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Richmond, VA
    Ratings Received:
    +1,845
  11. baygator1
    Online

    baygator1 Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    4,871
    Likes Received:
    1,415
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +1,601
    Admittedly, my eyes were crossed from reading - I had to take a break. With that said, Dr. Whitehouse offers a very dispassionate, objective and thorough assessment. Whether he agrees or disagrees with particular points, he offers observational data to support his reasoning and positions.

    Beyond his general approach, I appreciate a much more inclusive approach towards variability, especially natural variability. He and Susan Solomon certainly aren't alone in this area, but it is refreshing to see more and more acknowledgement from respected sources. We may eventually find that natural variability (among many threads) is so significant when combined that it renders anthropogenic influence statistically insignificant...little more than noise in the modeling.
    • Like Like x 1
  12. GatorRade
    Offline

    GatorRade Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    6,748
    Likes Received:
    188
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +571
    I don't know anything specific about Dr. Whitehouse, so I don't intend to demean his specific character. I just know that the leaders of the GWPF have a rather unrepresentative array of views on climate change.

    We can't know much about anthropogenic forces without also knowing about natural forces as well, so I am all for all the information that we can get. And it is certainly possible that natural variability will swamp anthropogenic variability, so this is something we'd like to know. However, this new IPCC assessment is suggesting that the experts in the field are deeming this less likely at this time.
  13. docspor
    Offline

    docspor Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2010
    Messages:
    215
    Likes Received:
    23
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Ratings Received:
    +30
    I'm still buying the 5 mountain pass.
  14. MichaelJoeWilliamson
    Offline

    MichaelJoeWilliamson Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    Messages:
    6,820
    Likes Received:
    415
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +497
    I only start a new one when the old one is pruned. I certainly don't start multiple threads on the same subject within a few days of each other.

    No matter. It is reminiscent of a 3 year old screaming for attention.
    • Like Like x 1
  15. BobK89
    Offline

    BobK89 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    11,747
    Likes Received:
    86
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Tampa, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +287
    Can we stop the posts about global warming and start posting some solutions!!!!

    Don't you guys get sick of this debate.

    Someone, ANYONE, offer ANY rational solution and you'll get my attention.
  16. GatorRade
    Offline

    GatorRade Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    6,748
    Likes Received:
    188
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +571
    I'm not complaining, MJW. I like the threads, but I was thinking that you were the progenitor of most of them.
  17. 108
    Online

    108 Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    17,707
    Likes Received:
    289
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    NYC
    Ratings Received:
    +1,100
    there will be no solutions implemented on a federal level unless our congress can agree that is is real, despite their corporate sponsors
  18. dadx4
    Offline

    dadx4 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    28,735
    Likes Received:
    417
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Greenville SC
    Ratings Received:
    +888
    I want to play too. Man is even causing the polar ice caps on MARS to melt.

    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

    Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of space research at St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun.

    "The long-term increase in solar irradiance is heating both Earth and Mars," he said.
    • Like Like x 1
  19. Row6
    Offline

    Row6 New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2009
    Messages:
    15,997
    Likes Received:
    26
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings Received:
    +26
    Hopefully without sounding trite, the first step in solving a problem is admitting you have one, and many if not most regular TH posters are in denial on AGW. As long as that continues and lacking some startling new evidence which upends the scientific consensus on the subject - and of course that would be posting worthy as well - I'll continue posting new important information as it appears. I notice that the same posters who object to this newsworthy thread on a critical subject with verifiable expert testimony seem to have no problem with multiple daily postings by those who obviously lack all standards for judging sources.
  20. GatorRade
    Offline

    GatorRade Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    6,748
    Likes Received:
    188
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +571
    Linked in your article:

    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/09/060913-sunspots.html

Share This Page