Global warming is just half what was projected: IPCC

[transplant99]

Saw this article and was quite stunned by it. I dint know the ins and outs of this debate like many here do, so am I being fed a load of horsecrap when i use that info to determine that things arent quite as desperate as so many have made it seem the last few years?

Obviously there is climate change going on, but that is normal for this planet to see. The question is how much of it is "manmade" change. What does this study now tell us in that regard then?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ses-wrong.html

[Brannigans Law]

I look forward to the level headed and intellectually honest debates between open minded parties on each side.

[Erick Estrada]

Warming at only half the rate predicted? Shocking lol.

I'll wait for the climate activists to refute this and tell us how ignorant we are for not accepting that man controls everything including the earth's weather.

[burn_this_city]

It doesn't change the fact that things are still warming, it simply buys a bit more time.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Warming at only half the rate predicted? Shocking lol.

I'll wait for the climate activists to refute this and tell us how ignorant we are for not accepting that man controls everything including the earth's weather.

How very level headed

[Brannigans Law]

The trouble there, EE, (and I agree with you) is that we don't know the role the ocean is playing. It's pretty big. If the ocean is heating up and sucking all the excess heat created and that's why there's this delay in the atmosphere heating, that could be bad.

But then again didn't global warming chicken littles claim that all this warming happens in the atmosphere or some-other-sphere to begin with because of greenhouse effects?

I don't know but in the end this all seems like human arrogance to me and "group think". I could be wrong of course.

[photon]

Trusting anything written by the general media on any kind of science is difficult enough, let alone on climate change, let alone The Daily Mail, let alone David Rose. (EDIT: And by trust I mean trusting that it is an accurate representation of the science, not that it is intentionally misleading, though that happens, I bet this is one case).

The Bad Astronomer does a good job of pointing out why this is just picking things out to find a supposed conflict where none exists and how he misquotes people to try and support his point (the scientist he misquoted even commented on the article comments!).

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astro...on_sunday.html

[photon]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Warming at only half the rate predicted? Shocking lol.

I'll wait for the climate activists to refute this and tell us how ignorant we are for not accepting that man controls everything including the earth's weather.

On one hand you just believe something written in newspaper as completely true, but then imply that anything refuting it (like some actual science, or even just reading what the newspaper article is written from or talking to the scientist that is misquoted) can safely assumed to be false.

And you do it every time you comment on this issue. It's a clear example of confirmation bias.

[ernie]

1) wait for the paper to actually come out so it can be assessed by people actually knowledgeable in science.

2) the chart they show has the recorded temperature right in the midst of the computer models. Most are indeed higher but a few are below. Some are below for awhile and then higher. They are computer models and won't be 100% accurate and NO ONE has ever said they are. However the trend they are showing still shows strong agreement with the actual so it would seem the models really are more right than wrong. As well for it to be really useful article one should tease out why those models are providing higher values? Which one is the most sophisticated model and what does it say? etc etc etc

[undercoverbrother]

Daily Mail is a rag.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

It doesn't change the fact that things are still warming, it simply buys a bit more time.

Here is what i dont understand though...and this comes from a complete lack of knowledge on my part admittedly.

The earth has ALWAYS had climate change...always. It heats up and cools down, always has and always will....thats all i know.

My question is this, although its clear that man is contributiing to the heating aspect at this point, how much is that contributiuon and is it worth the heavy financial burden that it appears it will be to make the changes that many claim. If things will just continue to warm up regardless of what "we" do, is the fallout of economic costs really a good idea?

If what is said in the article (regardless who printed it as the gist is from the scientists themselves) is true...what are the real ramifications of just staying the course (and as will be necessary one day anyhow), finding alternative energy sources?

[icecube]

The single biggest reason the world is such a mess in so many ways is because the first thing anyone is worried about is the "economy", without any regard for social or environmental costs.

Sustainability doesn't factor into anybody's mind. It's insane and disgusting when you actually stop to think about it.

[photon]

Originally Posted by transplant99

My question is this, although its clear that man is contributiing to the heating aspect at this point, how much is that contributiuon and is it worth the heavy financial burden that it appears it will be to make the changes that many claim. If things will just continue to warm up regardless of what "we" do, is the fallout of economic costs really a good idea?

How much, humans are the dominant forcing in climate right now according to the science. The discussion about the costs of doing something vs. the costs of doing nothing is important, and regardless of climate change in a lot of cases the remedies are worthwhile.. fossil fuels are a finite resource and pollute in other ways and finding alternative and renewable sources for our energy, increasing efficiency to reduce the energy used, etc are worthy goals in and of themselves.

Originally Posted by transplant99

If what is said in the article (regardless who printed it as the gist is from the scientists themselves) is true...what are the real ramifications of just staying the course (and as will be necessary one day anyhow), finding alternative energy sources?

The gist isn't from scientists though, the article's author is taking different things and comparing them, feigning shock and drawing an invalid conclusion when they don't match, and misquoting the scientists themselves to the degree the quoted scientist has to speak up in objection.

The real implications of doing nothing is a good question, a more difficult one to answer. This can give some idea.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by photon

How much, humans are the dominant forcing in climate right now according to the science. The discussion about the costs of doing something vs. the costs of doing nothing is important, and regardless of climate change in a lot of cases the remedies are worthwhile.. fossil fuels are a finite resource and pollute in other ways and finding alternative and renewable sources for our energy, increasing efficiency to reduce the energy used, etc are worthy goals in and of themselves.



The gist isn't from scientists though, the article's author is taking different things and comparing them, feigning shock and drawing an invalid conclusion when they don't match, and misquoting the scientists themselves to the degree the quoted scientist has to speak up in objection.

The real implications of doing nothing is a good question, a more difficult one to answer. This can give some idea.

The bolded doesnt make sense when this data is right in the study...no?

Back then, it said that the planet was warming at a rate of 0.2C every decade – a figure it claimed was in line with the forecasts made by computer climate models.

But the new report says the true figure since 1951 has been only 0.12C per decade – a rate far below even the lowest computer prediction.

[ernie]

Originally Posted by transplant99

The bolded doesnt make sense when this data is right in the study...no?

Back then, it said that the planet was warming at a rate of 0.2C every decade – a figure it claimed was in line with the forecasts made by computer climate models.


But the new report says the true figure since 1951 has been only 0.12C per decade – a rate far below even the lowest computer prediction.

This is science. The number itself holds very little meaning without the error. Put the error bars on that chart and you will likely see that the observed fits the model or is very very close to doing so. You'll also note that the chart they show has computer predictions that are lower than the observed so without going into the entire report and 1000s of references it is compiled from even that chart shown in the story doesn't say what the author of the story says. The actual are higher than 2 models and bang on another 2.

And as mentioned above is the levelling off due to other things. I don't think anyone has ever really argued there aren't things that "mother nature" can do to alleviate the obvious effects (i.e. temp increase), but that mitigation in all likelihood has a cost. It's robbing Peter to pay Paul.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by transplant99

The bolded doesnt make sense when this data is right in the study...no?

Back then, it said that the planet was warming at a rate of 0.2C every decade – a figure it claimed was in line with the forecasts made by computer climate models.

But the new report says the true figure since 1951 has been only 0.12C per decade – a rate far below even the lowest computer prediction.

If you accept that data point, you're accepting that man made climate change is a reality.

Are you sure you want to do that?

[troutman]

September 30th is the publication date of the new Report:

http://www.ipcc.ch/

The Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) will provide an update of knowledge on the scientific, technical and socio-economic aspects of climate change. It will be composed of three working group reports and a Synthesis Report (SYR). The outline and content can be found in the AR5 reference document and SYR Scoping document.

The Working Group (WG) Reports and Synthesis Report will be completed in 2013/2014:


WG I: The Physical Science Basis
23-26 September 2013, Stockholm, Sweden
WG II: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability
25-29 March 2014, Yokohama, Japan
WG III: Mitigation of Climate Change
7-11 April 2014, Berlin, Germany

https://www.ipcc-wg1.unibe.ch/

http://www.climatechange2013.org/

The Final Draft of the Working Group I contribution to the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report will be available here on 30 September

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by transplant99

The bolded doesnt make sense when this data is right in the study...no?

Back then, it said that the planet was warming at a rate of 0.2C every decade – a figure it claimed was in line with the forecasts made by computer climate models.

But the new report says the true figure since 1951 has been only 0.12C per decade – a rate far below even the lowest computer prediction.

If you read the second link posted above it explains that:

To be polite, I'll just say these statements are a huge misinterpretation of reality.
I went to the Assessment Report 4 (AR4), the document from 2007 he’s talking about. On page 12 of the Summary for Policymakers, it says this:

Since IPCC’s first report in 1990, assessed projections have suggested global average temperature increases between about 0.15°C and 0.3°C per decade for 1990 to 2005. This can now be compared with observed values of about 0.2°C per decade, strengthening confidence in near-term projections.
That’s where Rose gets that 0.2°C number. Ah, but note the time range: 1990-2005. That’s a sixteen year time span, and a recent one.

If you look at page 5 of that same report, you’ll also see this statement [emphasis mine]:

The linear warming trend over the last 50 years (0.13°C [0.10°C to 0.16°C] per decade) is nearly twice that for the last 100 years.
Note the time range here: It’s actually over 50 years, and starts far earlier than the time range quoted for the 0.2° rise per decade. We know the Earth is warming faster now than it was a century (or five decades ago), so comparing a recent 16-year span to one that’s 50 years long and much older is grossly inappropriate. It’s apples to oranges. And in the second statement it actually says flat out that the more recent 50 years have warmed far faster than the 50 before them.

So basically the number has been .12 on average for the last 50 years and higher in more recent years, i.e. is getting worse

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

If you accept that data point, you're accepting that man made climate change is a reality.

Not at all. Why does accepting climate change mean you are accepting that it's man made? The climate has never remained the same throughout history. It's the only irrefutable truth in the entire subject of climate change.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by photon

On one hand you just believe something written in newspaper as completely true, but then imply that anything refuting it (like some actual science, or even just reading what the newspaper article is written from or talking to the scientist that is misquoted) can safely assumed to be false.

And you do it every time you comment on this issue. It's a clear example of confirmation bias.

Your interpretation of my comment is very selective in drawing conclusions that I believe that article 100% and that I belive anything refuting it is false. Amazing you could get all that conclusive evidence out of a very general post. Bias comes from everyone including yourself.