Jump to content

Report Climate change ipcc


Recommended Posts

34 minutes ago, Ed Stone said:

What on Earth has climate change got to do with Brexit? And anywho, scientifically evidenced truths are a far cry from evidence-free political opinions. What is it you expect to gain from such conflation?

And, yes - you are making a political point!?

Sigh, this is getting very boring now lol. What I'm saying is, I find it funny that someone can make such a comparison between brexit and climate change, especially given their views on the matter. And yes, if you actually READ what BornFromTheVoid said, you'll see that he is comparing brexit and climate change, and I am merely responding to said comparison with a little tit bit about his paradoxical views.

And yet again, this needs a disclaimer because some people cant seem to help themselves, but I have not given my political view, nor have I even said that any persons view is right or wrong, so no, there is no political point lol!!

Jeez.....these Brexit deniers....haha

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 806
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Am a bit of a loss with this debate. Firstly, because I don't get the name-calling and mudslinging, how does that help? But secondly and more importantly, I just can't understand how much more ev

The IPBES Global Assessment on biodiversity was released yesterday at https://www.ipbes.net/ and makes grim reading. It lists climate change as an increasing factor in the state of life on our planet.

It's amazing really how you continue to miss the point, I don't think anyone is saying climate change isn't caused by humans in some way, but it's not the sole cause, there are other factor at play, s

Posted Images

17 minutes ago, cheeky_monkey said:

There are plenty of news articles from sources such as the Guardian, New York Times etc even the UN stating exactly that stretching back to 1988..that we have 10 years to save the planet..and the same impending doom scenarios pop up again and again at regular intervals over the last 30 years

Official reports stating 10 years to save the planet? Unlikely I'd say. The media will do what the media always does, but I don't think there was ever scientific reports, let alone a scientific consensus, back then that we have 10 years to save the planet.
We knew how dangerous climate change could be since the 80s, and people were warned. Act now, gradually transition away from fossils fuels and we'll avoid the severe impacts of climate change with little economic cost - but that was largely ignored.
Now a certain degree of damage has been done and more is inevitable. We will have to undergo a rapid and potentially costly decorbonisation of the global economy and major alterations to our everyday lives just to have a chance of keeping warming to 1.5C. This is the official consensus of the global climate science community as per the IPCC - not some regular media headline.

But the IPCC is relatively conservative and slightly dated. It takes so long to compile the reports that by the time it's published it's already slightly out of date. The 1.5C target is basically impossible now, IMO, with the rapid alterations mentioned by the IPCC now needed to keep warming below 2C.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Paul said:

Am a bit of a loss with this debate. Firstly, because I don't get the name-calling and mudslinging, how does that help?

But secondly and more importantly, I just can't understand how much more evidence some people need? Surely when there's enough consensus amongst virtually all of the worlds leading experts on a subject, then that should be enough to convince all but those who have made up their minds and aren't interested in the science, evidence etc?

But maybe I'm wrong here, so for those deniers out there (I'm not going to use the word sceptics, because being sceptical can surely only last so long, and faced with the mountain of evidence, it has to be impossible to remain sceptical any longer?), what more do you need, what piece of evidence is missing for you right now? Is there anything a climate scientist could show or explain to you to answer the questions you still have?

I get that there will be differing global temperature forecasts, and how natural climate cycles may effect the over-riding trends etc etc. So for those who agree with the principle of AGW but are wondering about the finer details, this isn't aimed at you so much, although, we can probably safely assume the worlds leading experts haven't missed that stuff when looking into all of this prior to putting the IPCC and other reports together! 

It depends on what you class as evidence, for me evidence is based on facts somwith that in mind the only facts we can truly agree in is the globe has warmed and no doubt man is responsible for some of that warming just how much is open to debate as is how much warming we’ll continue tosee.

This headline of seeing a further 0,7c rise before 2030 is highly unlikely considering we’ve only seen a 0.8c rise over the last 150 years and counting, Whatever happened to the huge uncertainties on how much warming we’ll continue to see, this was always the IPCC mantra but suddenly we’ve seen a change of tune, why is the question we should be asking.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Rambo said:

Sigh, this is getting very boring now lol. What I'm saying is, I find it funny that someone can make such a comparison between brexit and climate change, especially given their views on the matter. And yes, if you actually READ what BornFromTheVoid said, you'll see that he is comparing brexit and climate change, and I am merely responding to said comparison with a little tit bit about his paradoxical views.

And yet again, this needs a disclaimer because some people cant seem to help themselves, but I have not given my political view, nor have I even said that any persons view is right or wrong, so no, there is no political point lol!!

Jeez.....these Brexit deniers....haha

Okay then...If your points are neither political nor scientific, what are they? Other than attempts to divert the thread away from what really matters? When are you going to offer-up your alternative theory, so that it can be properly assessed?

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Hocus Pocus said:

It depends on what you class as evidence, for me evidence is based on facts somwith that in mind the only facts we can truly agree in is the globe has warmed and no doubt man is responsible for some of that warming just how much is open to debate as is how much warming we’ll continue tosee.

This headline of seeing a further 0,7c rise before 2030 is highly unlikely considering we’ve only seen a 0.8c rise over the last 150 years and counting, Whatever happened to the huge uncertainties on how much warming we’ll continue to see, this was always the IPCC mantra but suddenly we’ve seen a change of tune, why is the question we should be asking.

Note quite. Temperatures are currently close to 1C above pre-industrial already, and most of that warming (around 0.7C) has come in the last 40 years.
compare_datasets_new_logo_small_2017.png

https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/news/2018/global-surface-temperatures-in-2017

The Met Office also thinks there's a small chance that an individual year may exceed 1.5C between now and 2022.

https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/2018/decadal-forecast-2018

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ed Stone said:

What on Earth has climate change got to do with Brexit? And anywho, scientifically evidenced truths are a far cry from evidence-free political opinions. What is it you expect to gain from such conflation?

And, yes - you are making a political point!?

Have you ever thought of being a politician Ed?

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, BornFromTheVoid said:

Note quite. Temperatures are currently close to 1C above pre-industrial already, and most of that warming (around 0.7C) has come in the last 40 years.
compare_datasets_new_logo_small_2017.png

https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/news/2018/global-surface-temperatures-in-2017

The Met Office also thinks there's a small chance that an individual year may exceed 1.5C between now and 2022.

https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/2018/decadal-forecast-2018

That’s not up to date and it currently sits at 0.8c BFTV. It did get close to 1c with the super nino event buthas since fallen back into line.

My question on why all of a sudden the uncertainties are now certainties remains unanswered.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this article explains well some of the issues however I expect some will dismiss the source if it’s nit directly from the IPCC. I could cite Judith Curry or Roy Spencer but feel the same responses will only flame the divisions, hence why I rarely bother with climate science as there’s no middle ground.

 

http://notrickszone.com/2018/10/08/reliable-cru-nasa-best-noaa-land-temp-data-conflict-by-up-to-90-0-8c-spawning-large-uncertainty/

 

Edited by Hocus Pocus
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Hocus Pocus said:

That’s not up to date and it currently sits at 0.8c BFTV. It did get close to 1c with the super nino event buthas since fallen back into line.

My question on why all of a sudden the uncertainties are now certainties remains unanswered.

It's fallen back, from an annual peak of at about 1.2C back to about 1C above pre-industrial.
 

Just now, Hocus Pocus said:

I think this article explains well some of the issues however I expect some will dismiss the source if it’s nit directly from the IPCC. I could cite Judith Curry or Roy Spencer but feel the same responses will only flame the divisions, hence why I rarely bother with climate science as there’s no middle ground.

 

http://notrickszone.com/2018/10/08/reliable-cru-nasa-best-noaa-land-temp-data-conflict-by-up-to-90-0-8c-spawning-large-uncertainty/

 

That's another climate change denier website, written by amateur bloggers with the intent to mislead.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, BornFromTheVoid said:

It's fallen back, from an annual peak of at about 1.2C back to about 1C above pre-industrial.
 

That's another climate change denier website, written by amateur bloggers with the intent to mislead.

Not a renowned scientist, so dismissed as climate denier....... I have to wonder if any renowned scientists are to scared to speak out with fear their career would be finished.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, SteveB said:

Not a renowned scientist, so dismissed as climate denier....... I have to wonder if any renowned scientists are to scared to speak out with fear their career would be finished.

Dismissed as a climate denier site because all they post, and have done for years, is climate denier propaganda. They misrepresent papers, misrepresent scientists, quote, promote and link to other denier blogs and websites. They only ever post anti-climate science stuff -  a clear agenda. Much like WUWT, climate depot, realclimatescience, joannenova, global warming policy foundation, etc, etc. They are all linked and all read from largely the same script. All are mainly run by paid activists with no expertise in climate science.

There are websites run mostly by active and published climate scientists too, ya know!

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I read the IPCC climate change report and came here thinking I would find an intellectual conversation on the subject. Oh how wrong I was.....

Instead I am frankly astonished, this threat reads like half a bunch of tin foil hat wearing climate change deniers. I find it bizarre and staggering that with an overwhelming majority of the worlds experts in the relevant fields stating the facts, that some people deny its happening. Especially in this forum of all places. I suppose a similar thing would have happened if the internet was available when flat earth believers were more abundant in society.  

Don't even start your pathetic argument that climate change is not man made. I genuinely think people do not have a simple grasp on time. The earth naturally warms and cools over many millennia, not 50 years!!! And just because you are not waking up, looking out of the window and seeing extreme weather on a daily basis, does not mean that it is not happening. 

The following graph is based on the comparison of atmospheric samples contained in ice cores and more recent direct measurements, provides evidence that atmospheric CO2 has increased since the Industrial Revolution. Taken directly from Vostok ice core data.

7Y6Ekzq.png

https://imgur.com/a/OrsPm1E 

Note the previous warming and cooling phases have closely matched the CO2. You have to be certified insane to think that this is not the reason why the earth is dramatically warming and being irreversibley damaged at the same time. Incidently if your argument that the earth goes in cycles then we should actually be in the cool part not the warm part! 

The met office produced this handy video today that was probably targeted at people who are struggling with the concept of visualizing temperatures from man made climate change (my 5 year old daughter quickly grasped the concept so I have faith fully grown educated adults will be able to).

Coral reef decimation, ocean acidification, melting glaciers will be the least of your worries. Once tipping point has been reached, permafrosts will contribute to gas emissions at an uncontrollable rate. Even if its not you, or your children, it will certainly be your childrens children that suffer. But I guess as long as you can smugly say that the scientists got it wrong by 5 or 10 years, you won't really care about the mass migrations, disease, food shortages and endless other list of problems that will become very real. 

The problem with the human race is that if its not effecting you personally, at this very moment in time, then who the hell cares!!

 

Edited by TomIOW
  • Like 6
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, SteveB said:

Not a renowned scientist, so dismissed as climate denier....... I have to wonder if any renowned scientists are to scared to speak out with fear their career would be finished.

Scientists don't need to 'speak out', as since their work is evidence based, they can allow that to do the talking for them. Plus of course there's the peer review process. So the more likely picture, as much as you may not want to believe it, is that there's no reason to speak out because there's no scientific evidence to support those alternate views.

Sometimes, if something looks like a dog, smells like a dog and barks like a dog, it is actually a dog. Even if the 'establishment' is telling you it's a dog and every fibre in your being is screaming at you to disbelieve them because they are the 'establishment', especially as you really want a cat. At some point you just have to face up to the fact that Tiddles is actually Fido and there's no amount of arguing or wishful thinking or YouTube based 'evidence' can change that fact.

Edited by Paul
  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, SteveB said:

Not a renowned scientist, so dismissed as climate denier....... I have to wonder if any renowned scientists are to scared to speak out with fear their career would be finished.

Why would a renowned/competent scientist want to get behind denialist garbage? Science says what science says.

So let's leave the political spin to ideologues and Uncle Joe's 'useful idiots', eh...?

Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Paul said:

Scientists don't need to 'speak out', as since their work is evidence based, they can allow that to do the talking for them. Plus of course there's the peer review process. So the more likely picture, as much as you may not want to believe it, is that there's no reason to speak out because there's no scientific evidence to support those alternate views.

Sometimes, if something looks like a dog, smells like a dog and barks like a dog, it is actually a dog. Even if the 'establishment' is telling you it's a dog and every fibre in your being is screaming at you to disbelieve them because they are the 'establishment', especially as you really want a cat. At some point you just have to face up to the fact that Tiddles is actually Fido and there's no amount of arguing or wishful thinking or YouTube based 'evidence' can change that fact.

Thats a good post, but alas I'll keep an open mind and leave all cards on the table thank you. 

Edited by SteveB
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TomIOW said:

I read the IPCC climate change report and came here thinking I would find an intellectual conversation on the subject. Oh how wrong I was.....

Instead I am frankly astonished, this threat reads like half a bunch of tin foil hat wearing climate change deniers. I find it bizarre and staggering that with an overwhelming majority of the worlds experts in the relevant fields stating the facts, that some people deny its happening. Especially in this forum of all places. I suppose a similar thing would have happened if the internet was available when flat earth believers were more abundant in society.  

Don't even start your pathetic argument that climate change is not man made. I genuinely think people do not have a simple grasp on time. The earth naturally warms and cools over many millennia, not 50 years!!! And just because you are not waking up, looking out of the window and seeing extreme weather on a daily basis, does not mean that it is not happening. 

The following graph is based on the comparison of atmospheric samples contained in ice cores and more recent direct measurements, provides evidence that atmospheric CO2 has increased since the Industrial Revolution. Taken directly from Vostok ice core data.

7Y6Ekzq.png

https://imgur.com/a/OrsPm1E 

Note the previous warming and cooling phases have closely matched the CO2. You have to be certified insane to think that this is not the reason why the earth is dramatically warming and being irreversibley damaged at the same time. Incidently if your argument that the earth goes in cycles then we should actually be in the cool part not the warm part! 

The met office produced this handy video today that was probably targeted at people who are struggling with the concept of visualizing temperatures from man made climate change (my 5 year old daughter quickly grasped the concept so I have faith fully grown educated adults will be able to).

Coral reef decimation, ocean acidification, melting glaciers will be the least of your worries. Once tipping point has been reached, permafrosts will contribute to gas emissions at an uncontrollable rate. Even if its not you, or your children, it will certainly be your childrens children that suffer. But I guess as long as you can smugly say that the scientists got it wrong by 5 or 10 years, you won't really care about the mass migrations, disease, food shortages and endless other list of problems that will become very real. 

The problem with the human race is that if its not effecting you personally, at this very moment in time, then who the hell cares!!

 

Wow, your high horse is even big than some others on here. 

I best leave it at that, because if I gave you the reply you truly deserve, I would be banned for life. 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BornFromTheVoid said:

It's fallen back, from an annual peak of at about 1.2C back to about 1C above pre-industrial.
 

That's another climate change denier website, written by amateur bloggers with the intent to mislead.

Like I said it’s now 0.8c which is widely accepted by most. As for being a deniers site well like I said I could cite respected scientists such as Judith Curry who knows more than anyone posting here or for that matter most working within the circles of climate  science, as does Roy Spencer. Just because  you disagree  with those doesn’t make them less credible.

This is why climate science is unlike any other scientific field, it’s become a closed shop of nodding dogs where questions on outcomes are met with  with an almost hostile reception. As for a consensus  amongst climate scientists, well I have a copy of the just what was asked of these scientists in forming a consensus and it was based on a simple question of “do you think man has contributed to today’s warming”. Of course the answer is yes but there is no consensus on outcomes merely a range of temps in which we may or may not see.

Edited by Hocus Pocus
  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TomIOW said:

The earth naturally warms and cools over many millennia, not 50 years!!!

 

 

 

Now i don't disagree that the earth is warming and at an accelerating rate..but there is evidence that the globe has rapidly warmed in little as 10 years in the past and vice versa..so the earth doesn't always warm and cool over millennia it can warm and cool drastically and suddenly and the climate can swing widely..there are probably lots of natural reason why this happens..however is man made warming a thing?..evidence says yes and this to me is irrefutable..to what extent is not 100% clear because we can only take an educated guess as to what happened in the past based on what we know...which like everything else is forever changing. 

Edited by cheeky_monkey
  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Paul said:

Scientists don't need to 'speak out', as since their work is evidence based, they can allow that to do the talking for them. Plus of course there's the peer review process. So the more likely picture, as much as you may not want to believe it, is that there's no reason to speak out because there's no scientific evidence to support those alternate views.

Sometimes, if something looks like a dog, smells like a dog and barks like a dog, it is actually a dog. Even if the 'establishment' is telling you it's a dog and every fibre in your being is screaming at you to disbelieve them because they are the 'establishment', especially as you really want a cat. At some point you just have to face up to the fact that Tiddles is actually Fido and there's no amount of arguing or wishful thinking or YouTube based 'evidence' can change that fact.

So what does that make those scientists your oblivious to who do speak out then?

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

The difference between me and the usual suspects on here is as follows, if my prediction of global and uk temperatures no more than 1.5c deviation from the current (could be either way) by the year 2100 and probably even 2200 including some mini ice ages and some much warmer periods is wrong and there is a 5c or 7c increase then I will admit I was wrong, will the likes of Paul and BFTV etc do the same if their predictions are wrong - I very much doubt it!

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, feb1991blizzard said:

The difference between me and the usual suspects on here is as follows, if my prediction of global and uk temperatures no more than 1.5c deviation from the current (could be either way) by the year 2100 and probably even 2200 including some mini ice ages and some much warmer periods is wrong and there is a 5c or 7c increase then I will admit I was wrong, will the likes of Paul and BFTV etc do the same if their predictions are wrong - I very much doubt it!

I'm not so arrogant as to make 'predictions', I prefer to defer to those with far greater knowledge of the subject rather than pretend to know more than they do and pluck figures out of thin air.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Paul said:

I'm not so arrogant as to make 'predictions', I prefer to defer to those with far greater knowledge of the subject rather than pretend to know more than they do and pluck figures out of thin air.

Fair enough then I should have left you out of it, but im talking about the aforementioned experts on the subject - the actual qualified climate scientists on this forum.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Hocus Pocus said:

Like I said it’s now 0.8c which is widely accepted by most. As for being a deniers site well like I said I could cite respected scientists such as Judith Curry who knows more than anyone posting here or for that matter most working within the circles of climate  science, as does Roy Spencer. Just because  you disagree  with those doesn’t make them less credible.

This is why climate science is unlike any other scientific field, it’s become a closed shop of nodding dogs where questions on outcomes are met with  with an almost hostile reception. As for a consensus  amongst climate scientists, well I have a copy of the just what was asked of these scientists in forming a consensus and it was based on a simple question of “do you think man has contributed to today’s warming”. Of course the answer is yes but there is no consensus on outcomes merely a range of temps in which we may or may not see.

Neither Roy Spencer (who's also a creationist) or Judith Curry (now retired) have published any meaningful climate papers in years, perhaps decades. Those they have published have been debunked or retracted by the journal. They are 2 of about 4 in your camp that have relevant qualifications and some published studies under their belts.
On the other hand, there are literally thousands of other actively working scientists more qualified to comment on the climate debate than those two mentioned. Yet why do you ignore them? Might it be the few dissenting voices on the climate denier site get disproportionate publicity through climate denier media channels?

I work and interact with climate scientists all the time, and my own PhD involves quite a bit of climatology too. My department has climate and ice sheet modellers, paleoclimatologists, permafrost experts, etc. I have never met a single expert, not locally or internationally, that thinks humanity is not the primary driver of climate change.

This feels a bit like standing in the middle of a forest, surrounded by trees, sending you photos of the trees and with experts reports confirming it's a forest, - while you tell me I'm biased and ignoring the truth that it's a desert because a blog said so.

Edited by BornFromTheVoid
  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, BornFromTheVoid said:

Neither Roy Spencer (who's also a creationist) or Judith Curry (now retired) have published any meaningful climate papers in years, perhaps decades. Those they have published have been debunked or retracted by the journal. They are 2 of about 4 in your camp that have relevant qualifications and some published studies under their belts.
On the other hand, there are literally thousands of other actively working scientists more qualified to comment on the climate debate than those two mentioned. Yet why do you ignore them? Might it be the few dissenting voices on the climate denier site get disproportionate publicity through climate denier media channels?

I work and interact with climate scientists all the time, and my own PhD involves quite a bit of climatology too. My department has climate and ice sheet modellers, paleoclimatologists, permafrost experts, etc. I have never met a single expert, not locally or internationally, that thinks humanity is not the primary driver of climate change.

This feels a bit like standing in the middle of a forest, surrounded by trees, sending you photos of the trees and with experts reports confirming it's a forest, - while you tell me I'm biased and ignoring the truth that it's a desert because a blog said so.

So if a man believes in god his credentials aren’t worth the paper they’re written on, wow confirmation bias of what I just said above.

Also Judith has produced numerous articles for previous IPCC reports yet remains sceptical of the modelled ( that’s the key word here ) outcomes at the higher end of temp rises. 

So we now have a situation which sees the uncertainties in global temperature projections being replaced with a “We’ve only got 12 years before temps breach the 1.5c threshold, you couldn’t make it up perhaps they are after all these are algorithms we’re talking about right not a set in stone prediction.

I await the next twelve years with a wry smile on my face and will comeback to this then.?

Edited by Hocus Pocus
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...