Leaked IPCC report: 90% confidence in AGW is now 95% -- and sea level will rise!

[KingOrfeo]

Chris Mooney reports in MoJo:

Even though more than a month remains until an official release, Reuters is now reporting on a leaked draft of the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's Fifth Assessment Report. The report, the first in six years by the international body, is considered the definitive scientific take on climate change (although it is sometimes faulted for being too conservative, and quickly becomes out of date).

Previous IPCC reports have made news for a variety of reasons. The 2001 report, for instance, declared it "likely" (e.g., a 66 percent probability; explanation here) that most of the observed warming that the planet has seen is caused by humans. The 2007 report upped that assessment to "very likely" (a 90 percent probability); and now, according to Reuters, scientists are giving us a 95 percent confidence in this central conclusion of modern climate research. That appears to be the chief headline that will be emerging from the IPCC this time around.

Another bombshell reportedly contained in the draft: The IPCC will now label the phenomenon of sea level rise "unequivocal" and increase prior estimates of projected sea level during this century.

IPCC reports are, invariably, attacked upon release by climate skeptics, who seek to cast doubt on some or all of the findings. Based on the Reuters report, those seeking a soft underbelly this time will know where to look: The report validates the increasingly popular skeptic claim that the rate of increase in global temperatures has "slowed" since 1998. In other words, temperatures are still going up, just not necessarily as quickly as previously.

The new report, Reuters says, offers only "medium confidence" that scientists understand the reasons for this slowing. Causes cited include the possibility that the oceans are taking up more heat, that volcanic eruptions (which tend to produce cooling) may be providing a partial offset to temperature rise, contributing too cooling, or that the climate itself has a lower "sensitivity" to greenhouse gas emissions than previously proposed. (For an explanation of why skeptics' arguments about the global warming "slowdown" are misleading and should not offer any consolation, see this explainer from Skeptical Science.)

According to Jonathan Lynn, who is head of communications at the IPCC, the organization expects that leaks will occur because report drafts wind up in so many different hands. Lynn cautions that "there's no question that the final report will not be the same as the drafts." Indeed, for the upcoming 15-page "Summary for Policymakers," requested changes are myriad. "We've received about 1,800 comments from governments, which will have to be taken into account in the approval sessions coming up in September," says Lynn.

But will any of that reverse the scientific community's overwhelming conclusion that global warming is human-caused?

Not very likely.

Even less likely that any of this will penetrate the feeble minds of our resident denialists . . . but, one can always hope.

 

[KingOrfeo]

The Guardian reports:

So, what will the report say? I will admit that I have not read the report (it hasn't been released). Early drafts have been leaked, primarily by people trying to disrupt the process. These early drafts allow us to predict what will be contained within the report. An alternative approach is to review the immense body of literature from which the report is drawn. Based on the literature I've reviewed, I will predict the central themes of the IPCC report.

First, readers will likely find that this report is very similar to the last report (which was released in 2007). There will be slight changes to our confidence in certain observations. Climate models will have improved slightly, particularly in how they handle atmospheric particulates and cloud formation. A major effort since the last report has been the use of climate models to predict changes at the regional level. The report will likely say that this endeavor has had mixed success.

The new report will describe how climate changes are continuing without abatement. In particular, temperatures are rising, oceans are heating, waters are rising, ice is melting, the oceans are acidifying, heat is even moving to the deepest parts of the oceans. Just as importantly, the report will show that these changes are largely human-caused.

Some items are worse than we thought. In the last report, ice loss, particularly from Greenland, was a minor issue. Now, it is clear that not only Greenland, but also Antarctica are melting and this melt is raising sea levels. Furthermore, Arctic sea ice is being lost faster than previously reported.

The new report will likely have continued questions. For instance, how will hurricanes change in a warming world (the most powerful hurricanes are becoming even more powerful, but the change in frequency is not known) is still an open question.

Extreme weather will be a mixed bag. Some extreme weather has certainly increased (heat waves for instance, drought in certain areas, and heavy precipitation events). Changes to tornadoes and thunderstorms? That is one area that is highly uncertain.

So, in short, since 2007 we have developed better tools, and we are more certain about how we are changing the climate. Other areas still vex us. But, it is clear we certainly know enough to take action to stop the coming changes to our climate.

How does this square with my title? One continuing question is, how much and how fast will the climate change. Are we going to be in a "slow simmer" or a "fast boil"? The answer to this question rests on how sensitive the climate is. If the climate is not very sensitive, it means the Earth's temperature will change more slowly. A more sensitive Earth will have a more rapid temperature change.

There is some belief that the IPCC will lower the range of climate sensitivity by a tiny amount. If my crystal ball is correct, the denialosphere will latch onto this, and will, unwittingly, be agreeing that the IPCC is correct; we are changing the climate. You cannot both accept the IPCC conclusions that humans are changing the climate and simultaneously claim that climate change is either not occurring or is natural. In the end, the contrarians will be in the "slow simmer" camp. So listen carefully to the Christopher Moncktons, James Inhofes, and Rush Limbaughs of this world. Wait for them to bring up the IPCC sensitivity and realize just how much they have conceded.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Meanwhile, Rush Limbaugh sez:

If you believe in God, then intellectually you cannot believe in manmade global warming. You must be either agnostic or atheistic to believe that man controls something he cannot create.

Somebody needs to advise Rush that that's what humans do. We take the world as we find it, and we change it (and not always as intended). Whether evolved or put in our nature by God, it is our biological specialty. Has been ever since our ancestors figured out that you can change the shape of a rock by banging it against another rock; that you can take those wolves following the camp for scraps and control their breeding and turn them into a thousand breeds of dog; that you don't have to just look around for edible plants to gather, you can plant them, and then control their breeding so the edible parts grow bigger and tastier. We even change the landscape, and you don't need high tech to do it. Europeans came to the New World and saw a wilderness untouched by the hand of man, but it wasn't, really, you pretty much have to go to (pre-global-warming) Antarctica to find that. The Indians did not walk lightly on the land, they changed it -- they had already made it something very different from what they found when they crossed the Bering Strait. (See American Colonies, by Alan Taylor.)

 

[fgarvb1]

Hell man.

That was in our Weekly Reader back in grade school!

Discovered because well... The Sea and Ocean levels was rising!

 

[KingOrfeo]

Hell man.

That was in our Weekly Reader back in grade school!

Discovered because well... The Sea and Ocean levels was rising!

Yeah, well, now it's for real.

 

[miles]

This non-issue is so old and tired.

 

[koalabear]

Yeah, well, now it's for real.

It's happened before, at least 4 times, before humans were around to blame, idiot.

 

[trysail]

One could be forgiven for wondering what the fuss is all about.

Hadley Centre Central England Temperature (HadCET) dataset (the CET dataset is the longest instrumental record of temperature in the world— 1772-2012)

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/


_______________
Temperatures from University of Alabama-Huntsville (NASA)

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_July_2013_v5.6.png

_______________
Temperatures from Goddard Institute for Space Studies, NASA

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.C.gif


_______________
Global Land and Sea Temperatures from Hadley Centre, Climate Research Unit, UK Meteorology Office, University of East Anglia

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1995/normalise


_______________
Global Land and Sea Temperatures from Hadley Centre, Climate Research Unit, UK Meteorology Office, University of East Anglia
CO2 from Earth Sciences Research Laboratory (Mauna Loa) NASA

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1995/normalise/plot/esrl-co2/from:1995/normalise


_______________
The upper panel shows the air temperature at the summit of the Greenland Ice Sheet, reconstructed by Alley (2000) from GISP2 ice core data. The time scale shows years before modern time. The rapid temperature rise to the left indicate the final part of the even more pronounced temperature increase following the last ice age. The temperature scale at the right hand side of the upper panel suggests a very approximate comparison with the global average temperature (see comment below). The GISP2 record ends around 1855, and the two graphs therefore ends here. There has since been an temperature increase to about the same level as during the Medieval Warm Period and to about 395 ppm for CO2. The small reddish bar in the lower right indicate the extension of the longest global temperature record (since 1850), based on meteorological observations (HadCRUT3). The lower panel shows the past atmospheric CO2 content, as found from the EPICA Dome C Ice Core in the Antarctic (Monnin et al. 2004). The Dome C atmospheric CO2 record ends in the year 1777.

http://www.climate4you.com/



Global Sea Ice Area

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg
​

 

[MNGuy]

Oh my God! We need to do something. We need to kill all the Chinese building those coal plants. We need to kill all those Indians for reproducing. We need to kill all the Muslims, well, just because. We need to stop driving cars and go back to the horse and buggy. We need to become one with nature just like the Amerindians lived in paradise, never mind the human sacrifice thing. We must act NOW!!

 

[koalabear]

Oh my God! We need to do something. We need to kill all the Chinese building those coal plants. We need to kill all those Indians for reproducing. We need to kill all the Muslims, well, just because. We need to stop driving cars and go back to the horse and buggy. We need to become one with nature just like the Amerindians lived in paradise, never mind the human sacrifice thing. We must act NOW!!

Don't forget we must move Al Gore's beachfront home to higher ground.

 

[MNGuy]

Don't forget we must move Al Gore's beachfront home to higher ground.

Yes! We must save the savior!

To help, I will hold my breath for ten seconds between every breath.

 

[phrodeau]

Why is Trysail making such a clear case for global warming this morning?

Every graph shows a dramatic temperature increase or sea ice loss. He's made the point perfectly clear.

 

[koalabear]

Why is Trysail making such a clear case for global warming this morning?

Every graph shows a dramatic temperature increase or sea ice loss. He's made the point perfectly clear.

Keep your lead shoes on.

 

[phrodeau]

Keep your lead shoes on.

At least he tries to contribute something to the thread.

 

[sethp]

So the takeaway is clear...don't buy ocean front property and invest in solar!

Seriously though...the argument against global warming is usually, just an argument against our responses to global warming, like carbon taxes. I love the cartoon that lists all the benefits of fighting global warming...more fuel efficient cars, more cheap solar and wind energy, more trees, less air pollution and smog and on and on and on...

 

[KingOrfeo]

Yes! We must save the savior!

To help, I will hold my breath for ten seconds between every breath.

Yes, please do.

 

[Busybody]

Chris Mooney reports in MoJo:



Even less likely that any of this will penetrate the feeble minds of our resident denialists . . . but, one can always hope.

You motherfucking loon a tic asshole, STFU WITH THS SHIT!

 

[KingOrfeo]

Hierarchy of Global Warming Denial:

Global warming deniers form a sliding scale of denial which is outlined below - in general these beliefs are designed to prevent action being taken.

1.Not only deny global warming, but insist the opposite is occurring[24] (taken from the Conservapedia homepage). This probably goes beyond denialism and verges on the psychotic.

2.Simply deny global warming is happening[25] - and maintain that no action is necessary - an increasingly uncommon position.

3.Global warming is happening, but it’s not caused by humanity - so we don’t have to do anything.

4.Global warming is happening, and it is in part caused by humanity, but mostly it's caused by solar activity - so we don't have to do anything.

5.Global warming is happening, it is caused by humanity, but it may be a good thing[26] - so we don’t have to do anything.

6.Global warming is happening, it is caused by humanity, it is a bad thing, but China and India aren't doing anything - so we don’t have to do anything.

7.Global warming is happening, it is caused by humanity, it is a bad thing, but even if China and India do something it’s too late for us to do anything and it would cost us a shitload of dough - so we don’t have to do anything.

8.(There is an hypothesized eighth step, "Global warming was happening, it was caused by humanity, it is a very bad thing and previous governments should have done something, but it's too late now!")

 

[imalickin]

Hierarchy of Global Warming Denial:

So, how soon are you moving to the Rockies?

It's going to get awfully wet in Fla.

 

[unregistered]

 

[KingOrfeo]

Rush was simply trying to rise to the religious level of those whom you worship on the subject.

Lame even for you.

 

[rosco rathbone]

In NYC, the MTA has posters all over announcing service changes due to the post-Superstorm Sandy reconstruction work. They've named the program Fix & Fortify.

"Fix&Fortify"? Fortify against what? That was supposed to be a once a century storm surge.

 

[KingOrfeo]

In NYC, the MTA has posters all over announcing service changes due to the post-Superstorm Sandy reconstruction work. They've named the program Fix & Fortify.

"Fix&Fortify"? Fortify against what? That was supposed to be a once a century storm surge.

That does not mean you won't get another one next year. Statistics don't work like that.

 

[rosco rathbone]

That does not mean you won't get another one next year. Statistics don't work like that.

You don't do irony, do you KO?

 

[KingOrfeo]

You don't do irony, do you KO?

You can't always tell. There's many Litsters who would have written that in earnest.