The Glade 4.0
https://gladerebooted.net/

We got it wrong on [global] warming, says IPCC
https://gladerebooted.net/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=10393
Page 1 of 1

Author:  Lydiaa [ Sun Sep 15, 2013 11:12 pm ]
Post subject:  We got it wrong on [global] warming, says IPCC

Posted without comment.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/he ... 6719672318

Spoiler:
Quote:
THE Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's latest assessment reportedly admits its computer drastically overestimated rising temperatures, and over the past 60 years the world has in fact been warming at half the rate claimed in the previous IPCC report in 2007.

More importantly, according to reports in British and US media, the draft report appears to suggest global temperatures were less sensitive to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide than was previously thought.

The 2007 assessment report said the planet was warming at a rate of 0.2C every decade, but according to Britain's The Daily Mail the draft update report says the true figure since 1951 has been 0.12C.

Last week, the IPCC was forced to deny it was locked in crisis talks as reports intensified that scientists were preparing to revise down the speed at which climate change is happening and its likely impact.

It is believed the IPCC draft report will still conclude there is now greater confidence that climate change is real, humans are having a major impact and that the world will continue to warm catastrophically unless drastic action is taken to curb greenhouse gas emissions.

The impacts would include big rises in the sea level, floods, droughts and the disappearance of the Arctic icecap.

But claimed contradictions in the report have led to calls for the IPCC report process to be scrapped.

Professor Judith Curry, head of climate science at the Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta, told The Daily Mail the leaked summary showed "the science is clearly not settled, and is in a state of flux".

The Wall Street Journal said the updated report, due out on September 27, would show "the temperature rise we can expect as a result of manmade emissions of carbon dioxide is lower than the IPCC thought in 2007".

The WSJ report said the change was small but "it is significant because it points to the very real possibility that, over the next several generations, the overall effect of climate change will be positive for humankind and the planet".

After several leaks and reports on how climate scientists would deal with a slowdown in the rate of average global surface temperatures over the past decade, the IPCC was last week forced to deny it had called for crisis talks.

"Contrary to the articles the IPCC is not holding any crisis meeting," it said in a statement.

The IPCC said more than 1800 comments had been received on the final draft of the "summary for policymakers" to be considered at a meeting in Stockholm before the release of the final report. It did not comment on the latest report, which said scientists accepted their forecast computers may have exaggerated the effect of increased carbon emissions on world temperatures and not taken enough notice of natural variability.

According to The Daily Mail, the draft report recognised the global warming "pause", with average temperatures not showing any statistically significant increase since 1997.

Scientists admitted large parts of the world had been as warm as they were now for decades at a time between 950 and 1250, centuries before the Industrial Revolution.

And, The Daily Mail said, a forecast in the 2007 report that hurricanes would become more intense had been dropped.

Writing in The Wall Street Journal, Matt Ridley said the draft report had revised downwards the "equilibrium climate sensitivity", a measure of eventual warming induced by a doubling of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. It had also revised down the Transient Climate Response, the actual climate change expected from a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide about 70 years from now.

Ridley said most experts believed that warming of less than 2C from pre-industrial levels would result in no net economic and ecological damage. "Therefore, the new report is effectively saying (based on the middle of the range of the IPCC's emissions scenarios) that there is a better than 50-50 chance that by 2083 the benefits of climate change will still outweigh the harm," he said.

Author:  Talya [ Mon Sep 16, 2013 8:31 am ]
Post subject: 

Surprise!

Author:  Rorinthas [ Mon Sep 16, 2013 8:43 am ]
Post subject:  Re: We got it wrong on [global] warming, says IPCC

Attachment:
unsurprisedcrayon.jpg
unsurprisedcrayon.jpg [ 4.8 KiB | Viewed 2571 times ]

Author:  Diamondeye [ Mon Sep 16, 2013 10:42 am ]
Post subject:  Re: We got it wrong on [global] warming, says IPCC

Quote:
It is believed the IPCC draft report will still conclude there is now greater confidence that climate change is real, humans are having a major impact and that the world will continue to warm catastrophically unless drastic action is taken to curb greenhouse gas emissions.


*facepalm* "We were off by 50%, but really, everything else we said is still trustworthy!"

Author:  NephyrS [ Mon Sep 16, 2013 12:18 pm ]
Post subject: 

Judith Curry has been a very interesting person to listen to as of late.

Author:  Arathain Kelvar [ Mon Sep 16, 2013 1:04 pm ]
Post subject: 

Quote:
Professor Judith Curry, head of climate science at the Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta, told The Daily Mail the leaked summary showed "the science is clearly not settled, and is in a state of flux".


Of course it is. That's the way these things work, and that's ok. Just don't say that it's settled.

Author:  NephyrS [ Mon Sep 16, 2013 1:55 pm ]
Post subject: 

You haven't been keeping up with the arguments- Curry's been arguing that the global community should avoid making statements that seem overly factual, due to the huge flux in the different models.

She's been one of the leading scientists pushing for more cautious interpretation of the varying results.

Author:  Stathol [ Mon Sep 16, 2013 3:42 pm ]
Post subject: 

And here we get to the core of the issue: an experiment conducted in a computer has zero scientific value.

Don't get me wrong, computer models are tremendously useful tools for performing calculations, but that's all they are. A very large portion of the HIGW crowd have deluded themselves into thinking that a computer model is reality. They don't grasp that what they do is fundamentally different from using a computer model to, say, calculate the mechanical stresses in a building. They fail to understand that the physical theories that underlie finite element analysis have been heavily experimentally tested. Just as crucially, the results of the model can be tested directly against reality -- not just against theory. To top it all off, they don't realize the orders of magnitude of complexity that separate bridge trusses from global climate. Lorenz is rolling over in his grave.

Author:  TheRiov [ Mon Sep 16, 2013 3:51 pm ]
Post subject: 

I disagree Stathol. While an experiment conducted on a computer cannot exist in a vacuum, if your model, tested in a computer, provides accurate predictions, that is strong circumstantial evidence for your model. It's NOT perfect, and can lead you to false assumptions on occasion, but that's a far cry from "zero scientific value"

Yes, Ideally every experiment could be conducted under lab conditions, with careful controls, etc. In many cutting edge fields at the very limits of our current understanding, such as Cosmology, theoretical physics, and yes, planetary ecology, we simply don't have the capability to perform experiments. We must rely on models, test the models, evaluate if the models & theory make accurate predictions, and then look for evidence of those predictions.

This method is what has been used to (so far) validate much of the Big Bang theory (Predictions: Cosmic Background Radiation, elemental distribution exactly matching the model, etc. )

Yes, science *ALWAYS* should continue to question assumptions and always will. But that does NOT mean it has "zero scientific value"

Author:  Corolinth [ Mon Sep 16, 2013 5:09 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: We got it wrong on [global] warming, says IPCC

The global climate is a highly nonlinear system, and as such can not be accurately predicted with DSP techniques.

Author:  Arathain Kelvar [ Tue Sep 17, 2013 9:59 am ]
Post subject: 

Models are useful, but they are models. Discounting them completely is as problematic as believing them wholeheartedly.

They are useful, or not, depending on the circumstances, the data, and the accuracy of the built-in equations.

Indeed, a model that gives you a truly accurate answer would not be usable, as you would have too much data input. It would not be a model, in fact. By definition, a model is a simplified prediction - it is not intended to give an accurate result. It's intended to provide general understanding of outcomes.

So, yes they are useful, no they are not accurate. As they are found to be inaccurate, they are typically refined based on the new data.

Author:  Talya [ Wed Sep 18, 2013 11:22 am ]
Post subject: 

This is just a coverup. The real reason temperatures are lower is the increase in naval piracy off the coast of West Africa.

Author:  Rorinthas [ Wed Sep 18, 2013 11:42 am ]
Post subject:  Re: We got it wrong on [global] warming, says IPCC

It took us longer than expected to get there.

Author:  Rynar [ Wed Sep 18, 2013 10:59 pm ]
Post subject:  Re:

Talya wrote:
This is just a coverup. The real reason temperatures are lower is the increase in naval piracy off the coast of West Africa.

People are stealing belly buttons in West Africa?

Author:  Micheal [ Thu Sep 19, 2013 1:06 am ]
Post subject: 

No, oranges,

Author:  Kaffis Mark V [ Thu Sep 19, 2013 8:27 am ]
Post subject:  Re:

Talya wrote:
This is just a coverup. The real reason temperatures are lower is the increase in naval piracy off the coast of West Africa.

Image

Author:  Elmarnieh [ Thu Sep 19, 2013 8:33 am ]
Post subject: 

I think I'd rather face sommelier pirates.

Author:  Talya [ Thu Sep 19, 2013 9:03 am ]
Post subject:  Re:

Elmarnieh wrote:
I think I'd rather face sommelier pirates.


It was a good year for that.

Author:  Elmarnieh [ Thu Sep 19, 2013 9:17 am ]
Post subject: 

ARghh we be having a fine selection o cheese f'ya.

Author:  Müs [ Tue Oct 01, 2013 12:11 am ]
Post subject: 

In other news, Humans are causing global warming says IPCC: http://abcnews.go.com/International/sci ... d=20408574

Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
https://www.phpbb.com/