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

FXMastermind · September 28, 2013, 8:00am

Read more at http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/landmark-2013-ipcc-report-95-chance-most-of-global-warming-is-human#lyqHhUe2cbyVpcvB.99

The Earth's Magnetic Field Impacts Climate - Danish Study

Since climate is a political, even religious issue to some, they have to ignore, attack or dismiss all science that they disagree with.

Pity.

brazil84 · September 28, 2013, 2:04pm

That’s interesting, but it needs to be emphasized that the burden is not on skeptics to explain what (if anything) drives the climate.

Most importantly, nobody knows what caused the Little Ice Age. Which is a big problem for warmists because it’s reasonable to believe that whatever caused the Little Ice Age, working in reverse, is what is primarily responsible for warming in the 20th century. The alternative is to believe that this same unknown forcing clicked off around 1950 for unknown reasons and from then on, CO2 produced warming at pretty much the same rate as the previous 50 years.

FXMastermind · September 28, 2013, 2:53pm

Well, since this seems to be the current “argue about climate change” topic at this point, I’m tempted to respond at length. The climate-gate emails sparked my waning interest in climate, and I found things are more complicated now, not less. The more we study climate, the more we find we don’t actually know much. Except for the AGW crowd, they know almost everything.

Yeah, well we used to know what caused it. Not anymore.

It’s a cluster of ignorance, and people who know it all. But, since time marches on, at least we are now able to know if the 1988 predictions hold water.

Sea level rise is one of those things that we can actually measure, sort of. If it does become a real threat, the rate increases, and it’s going to become really expensive, then you will see large scale Geoengineering, and fast. Because the wealthy mostly live on the water. And if climate change is going to effect their bottom line, you will see the problem solved.

:smack:

GIGObuster · September 28, 2013, 3:21pm

Pity that you have to reach for the bottom of the barrel for a cite, indeed, no easy picking left.

That bibliotecapleyades claims to be:

This site wants to emulate a Virtual Library, including information found on the Internet in connection with reports, news, treatises, studies, theories and findings made possible by a multitude of people and personalities (professors, teachers, scientists, researchers, experts in religion, politicians, philosophers, members of intelligence, etc.), who have been devoted for decades to informing the general public (most recently through the Internet) of “new information” and a new way of seeing and interpreting History, Sciences, Sociopolitics, Myths and Legends, Archeology, Astronomy, etc.

These explorations bring more light to mystical and “religious” information than we have received through a dogmatic system of education, often unclear, distorted and manipulated. Here, we have the opportunity to report on new chapters beyond current knowledge, such as Exopolitics, Neo-Archeology, Parascience, “Alternative” Medicine, Life in Our Universe and much more…

Bolding mine.

Indeed, FXMstermind is correct that it is religious to some.

The conclusions are not very encouraging in the paper, the authors acknowledged that “**If **changes in the magnetic field, which occur independently of the earth’s climate, **can **be linked to changes in precipitation, then it can only be explained through the magnetic field’s blocking of the cosmetic rays,”

Iffinitis Aguda is no evidence.

But, we have to look at the sources and sites that even former skeptic scientists recommend because they link to the published science and not the mystical woo woo ones.

While reported observed correlations between cosmic rays and clouds are suggestive of effects of cosmic rays on clouds, cosmic rays rarely change without other inputs to the Earth system also changing (e.g. total solar irradiance or solar energetic particle events, both also driven by changes in the sun, but distinct from cosmic rays). Thus, we must understand the physical basis of how cosmic rays may affect clouds. However, it is clear that substantially more work needs to be done before we adequately understand these physical connections, and that no broad conclusions regarding the effect of cosmic rays on clouds and climate can (or should) be drawn from the first round of CLOUD results. Finally, there has been no significant trend in the cosmic ray flux over the 50 years, so while we cannot rule out cosmic-ray/cloud mechanisms being relevant for historical climate changes, they certainly have not been an important factor in recent climate change.

Inability to explain other observations

In addition to these multiple lines of empirical evidence which contradict the GCR warming theory, the galactic cosmic ray theory cannot easily explain a number of observed fingerprints of the increased greenhouse effect, such as the cooling of the upper atmosphere and greater warming at night than day.

Additionally, because cosmic radiation shows greater variation in high latitudes, we expect larger changes in cloud cover in polar regions if GCRs are succesfully influencing cloud cover. This is not observed. Furthermore, examining the nuclear reactor accident at Chernobyl, ionization from the radioactivity would be expected to have produced an increase in cloud cover. There is no evident increase in cloud cover following the accident (Sloan 2007).
Galactic cosmic rays can’t explain global warming

In summary, studies have shown that GCRs exert a minor influence over low-level cloud cover, solar magnetic field has not increased in recent decades, nor has GCR flux on Earth decreased. In fact, if GCRs did have a significant impact on global temperatures, they would have had a net cooling effect over the past 50 years, especially over the past 50 years when global warming was strongest.

It has to be noticed that what FX is doing here is to assume that reports from scientists that were not confirmed or supported by others should be included in the report, that is just asking to ignoring peer review, evidence and the followups. Science does not work that way.

http://climatecrocks.com/2011/08/31/from-the-horses-mouth-the-new-study-on-cosmic-rays-and-climate/

Recently, experiments were undertaken by Dr. Kirkby (interviewed above) at the European Atom smasher facility, – CERN – to learn more about the particle interactions that might validate this theory. The publication of his recent paper on the results has been bouncing around in the denialosphere as yet another “final nail in the coffin of man-caused global warming”.

Dr. Kirkby’s take, as you hear in the interview — not so much.

From the Editor’s summary in Nature:
Even with the large enhancements in rate caused by ammonia and ions, they conclude that atmospheric concentrations of ammonia and sulphuric acid are insufficient to account for observed boundary layer nucleation.

There are more questions to answer.
If cosmic rays have an effect on climate, we should expect that, given the unequivocal warming of the last 40 years, there should be a corresponding trend in cosmic rays. And we don’t see one.

GIGObuster · September 28, 2013, 3:36pm

It is quite simple, conrarians misled many about what the climate emails said.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2012/02/01/what-caused-the-little-ice-age/

However, new research by scientists at the University of Colorado-Boulder (yay team!) may have pegged it: the LIA appears to have started abruptly in the late 13th century, between the years 1275 and 1300. Radiocarbon dating of plants from Baffin Island (north of the Hudson Bay in Canada) and sediment samples from a lake in Iceland indicate that there was a rapid onset of severe cooling at that time. It’s been thought that the cooling started around then, but it’s been hard to pin down until now.

More importantly, this narrows down the cause of the LIA: four tropical volcanoes erupted violently in that period. The ash would have darkened the atmosphere, letting slightly less sunlight down. Some of the gases emitted by volcanoes also cool the air. It seems clear these volcanoes are what triggered the Little Ice Age.

Sure there is a cluster of ignorance, as you are ignoring recent research, you have to also learn to ignore the media that only gives you that ignorance.

More from Phil Plait :

This work is extremely important, of course, because it has a direct impact on understanding the Earth’s climate. Even more obviously, if you’ve been reading my blog for more than about ten seconds, is that a lot of climate change deniers like to point to the Sun as being the culprit in the rapid warming of the Earth over the past century. However, even before this study was announced, we knew that’s dead wrong: there is nothing to link the Sun to the current rise in temperatures.

I’ll note that the dreadful Daily Mail article I tore apart the other day spends a lot of its time linking the Sun to the Little Ice Age. I find it particularly noteworthy that this Colorado study — years in the making — was announced the same day that article came out. The contrast between careful scientific study and the befuddling assertions of a climate change denier shows the intellectual bankruptcy of the latter. And even then, the Colorado research was hardly needed to show the Daily Mail article was baloney; its own internal failings were apparent when it grossly twisted the results from the UK Met Office (the weather service for the UK).

Also, ironically, around the very same time I was posting my article, NASA released more news that the Sun cannot be responsible for global warming.

The big picture here, the thing to remember and take home, is that real scientists are doing real work to learn more about what’s really going on with our home planet. A lot of folks out there are making careers (and a ton of money) trying to sow doubt on that work, twisting it in any way they can imagine to make it seem like either the Earth’s not warming up (but it is) or that humans are not to blame (but we are). The more we study the past, the more we can understand the present and future, despite any attempts at obfuscation.

Why fix something if it is not broken? As pointed before, reporting on how GeoEngineering will save us depends on accepting the science, and accepting that computer models do a great job because they and the climate scientists will be at the forefront of deploying and checking that the Geoengineering done works.

FXMastermind · September 28, 2013, 4:43pm

I obviously hit a nerve.

GIGObuster · September 28, 2013, 4:51pm

Even on that you are wrong.

What it is clear is that you are happy to ignore that they misled you on the Cosmic Ray issue, Climate Gate, the Little Ice Age, etc. Why it is never considered by many skeptics to take the contrarian media to task for their misinformation?

brazil84 · September 28, 2013, 4:51pm

Lol, I wasn’t aware that we used to know.

Anyway, another possibility to consider is that the Little Ice Age had NO external cause, that it was just the kind of unpredictable fluctuation inherent in all chaotic systems.

But it’s an important question, because until and unless it is known what caused the Little Ice Age, it is silly to attribute late 20th century warming primarily to CO2.

FXMastermind · September 28, 2013, 4:53pm

The experts who spend their live doing Paleoclimatical studies know exactly why the modern insanity of AGW is so full of nonsense. If the 3% of experts who disagree with “the consensus” are correct, (and those figures are suspect of course), then 97% of climate experts are wrong.

Because we actually have lived through 25 years of climate since the doomsayers of 88 predicted drastic changes, we already know how wrong experts can be.

GIGObuster · September 28, 2013, 4:55pm

And it is clear that he is ignoring the cite, ignorance is not supposed to be cherished.

FXMastermind · September 28, 2013, 4:56pm

“Know” in the scientific sense that changes happened, theories abound as to the cause. Vulcanism and a solar minimum used to be the consensus about the LIA cold period. but like today, there is no actual certainty on these issues.

Hell, according to some prominent climate experts, there was no LIA. Just a slightly colder Europe for a little while.

:smack:

FXMastermind · September 28, 2013, 5:05pm

Now you are sounding like one of them science deniers. Are you saying the climate isn’t broken?

GIGObuster · September 28, 2013, 5:06pm

You need a cite for that.

No evidence for that, as demonstrated your evidence **is **based on faith.

And once again, just an affirmation based on ignorance, that is not what the IPCC reports and changes already have been reported before, the important lesson is that we have to work to make sure those changes don’t become harder to manage and cause extreme events more often.

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/spms1.html

Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice and rising global average sea level (Figure SPM.1). {1.1}

Eleven of the last twelve years (1995-2006) rank among the twelve warmest years in the instrumental record of global surface temperature (since 1850). The 100-year linear trend (1906-2005) of 0.74 [0.56 to 0.92]°C[1] is larger than the corresponding trend of 0.6 [0.4 to 0.8]°C (1901-2000) given in the Third Assessment Report (TAR) (Figure SPM.1). The temperature increase is widespread over the globe and is greater at higher northern latitudes. Land regions have warmed faster than the oceans (Figures SPM.2, SPM.4). {1.1, 1.2}

Rising sea level is consistent with warming (Figure SPM.1). Global average sea level has risen since 1961 at an average rate of 1.8 [1.3 to 2.3] mm/yr and since 1993 at 3.1 [2.4 to 3.8] mm/yr, with contributions from thermal expansion, melting glaciers and ice caps, and the polar ice sheets. Whether the faster rate for 1993 to 2003 reflects decadal variation or an increase in the longer-term trend is unclear. {1.1}

Observed decreases in snow and ice extent are also consistent with warming (Figure SPM.1). Satellite data since 1978 show that annual average Arctic sea ice extent has shrunk by 2.7 [2.1 to 3.3]% per decade, with larger decreases in summer of 7.4 [5.0 to 9.8]% per decade. Mountain glaciers and snow cover on average have declined in both hemispheres. {1.1}

From 1900 to 2005, precipitation increased significantly in eastern parts of North and South America, northern Europe and northern and central Asia but declined in the Sahel, the Mediterranean, southern Africa and parts of southern Asia. Globally, the area affected by drought has likely[2] increased since the 1970s. {1.1}

It is very likely that over the past 50 years: cold days, cold nights and frosts have become less frequent over most land areas, and hot days and hot nights have become more frequent. It is likely that: heat waves have become more frequent over most land areas, the frequency of heavy precipitation events has increased over most areas, and since 1975 the incidence of extreme high sea level[3] has increased worldwide. {1.1}

There is observational evidence of an increase in intense tropical cyclone activity in the North Atlantic since about 1970, with limited evidence of increases elsewhere. There is no clear trend in the annual numbers of tropical cyclones. It is difficult to ascertain longer-term trends in cyclone activity, particularly prior to 1970. {1.1}

Average Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the second half of the 20th century were very likely higher than during any other 50-year period in the last 500 years and likely the highest in at least the past 1300 years. {1.1}

Observational evidence[4] from all continents and most oceans shows that many natural systems are being affected by regional climate changes, particularly temperature increases. {1.2}

Changes in snow, ice and frozen ground have with high confidence increased the number and size of glacial lakes, increased ground instability in mountain and other permafrost regions and led to changes in some Arctic and Antarctic ecosystems. {1.2}

There is high confidence that some hydrological systems have also been affected through increased runoff and earlier spring peak discharge in many glacier- and snow-fed rivers and through effects on thermal structure and water quality of warming rivers and lakes. {1.2}

In terrestrial ecosystems, earlier timing of spring events and poleward and upward shifts in plant and animal ranges are with very high confidence linked to recent warming. In some marine and freshwater systems, shifts in ranges and changes in algal, plankton and fish abundance are with high confidence associated with rising water temperatures, as well as related changes in ice cover, salinity, oxygen levels and circulation. {1.2}

Of the more than 29,000 observational data series, from 75 studies, that show significant change in many physical and biological systems, more than 89% are consistent with the direction of change expected as a response to warming (Figure SPM.2). However, there is a notable lack of geographic balance in data and literature on observed changes, with marked scarcity in developing countries. {1.2, 1.3}

GIGObuster · September 28, 2013, 5:10pm

Well it is clear that you are not aware of the term “contradiction”

You may act like if you are not aware of it, but claiming that Geoengineering will be so great is a foolish thing to propose when most of the basic science that will enable us to use Geoenginnering is being rejected.

FXMastermind · September 28, 2013, 5:24pm

If the blind could only see.

http://www.sptimes.com/2005/11/06/Worldandnation/To_live_below_sea_lev.shtml

Rising sea levels, a problem for a very long time, has long been dealt with by many people. The alarmists shouting about sea level don’t seem to know this.

GIGObuster · September 28, 2013, 5:40pm

Strawman, it is the costs of all those efforts the ones that contrarians never add. Other economists helping climate researchers do and continue to tell us that it is foolish to not act to minimize the bad effects that will make adaptation much more expensive than controlling our emissions now.

Among the standard arguments used by climate contrarians and echoed by Singer is: “So in spite of rising CO2 levels, undoubtedly anthropogenic, most observations show no warming trend.” Singer uses the data selectively to support his argument. As I showed in my earlier pieces, if we use the standard statistical techniques for examining trends, then it is clear that the globe is warming, and in fact it has warmed faster over the period of the rapid growth in CO2 concentrations than in earlier periods. However, with a volatile series, such as the stock market or global temperatures, there are always periods of decline. But in both cases the trend has been upward and significantly so.

The other point Singer makes is that “a modest warming is likely to be beneficial.” If he means a “modest warming” of 1/2 or 1°C, then there is evidence that the combination of CO2 accumulation and warming will have benefits in some sectors and in some regions. But we need to take into account the scientific evidence for “realistic warming” projected to be 3–4°C along with other geophysical changes—such as potential melting of the major ice sheets, rapid sea-level rise, and hurricane intensification—by the end of this century, if nations fail to take significant steps to slow climate change. The evidence from hundreds of scientific and economic studies finds serious to grave impacts on agriculture, coastlines and associated settlements, and ecosystems, as well as increasing acidification of the oceans and threats to many species around the world.

Science progresses, the earth warms, glaciers melt, the oceans become increasingly acidic, but the climate contrarians change not.

And that was William D. Nordhaus, who just became president-elect of the AEA.

Trinopus · September 28, 2013, 8:30pm

One of the denialist arguments is an objection to spending billions of dollars to combat the effects of global warming. Now, as you say, sure, we can deal… It only costs the same billions of dollars they don’t want to spend.

Do you figure sea-gates to preserve Venice are going to be cheap?

Look at the costs of the proposed installations in New York City after the recent flooding. Not cheap.

And, in any case, the fact that we can (at huge expense) deal with sea level rising cannot meaningfully be used as an argument that it isn’t happening.

Trinopus · September 28, 2013, 8:34pm

But if the sun’s output itself had increased, that would be equally obvious from any measuring station on the earth’s surface. If the sun had brightened enough to explain observed global warming, wouldn’t that be immediately and painfully obvious?

The sun is a (slightly) variable star, but does that variability correlate at all with global warming? I don’t have any scholarly cites, but the Bad Astronomer says no. (Second only in credibility to Cecil Adams!)

FXMastermind · September 28, 2013, 8:57pm

Sea levels change, that is one of those things we know for sure. Exactly how much and how fast is still a question.

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/06/13/1015619108.full.pdf

We present new sea-level reconstructions for the past 2100 y based
on salt-marsh sedimentary sequences from the US Atlantic coast.
The data from North Carolina reveal four phases of persistent
sea-level change after correction for glacial isostatic adjustment.
Sea level was stable from at least BC 100 until AD 950. Sea level
then increased for 400 y at a rate of 0.6 mm/y, followed by a further
period of stable, or slightly falling, sea level that persisted until
the late 19th century. Since then, sea level has risen at an average
rate of 2.1 mm/y, representing the steepest century-scale increase
of the past two millennia. This rate was initiated between AD 1865
and 1892. Using an extended semiempirical modeling approach,
we show that these sea-level changes are consistent with global
temperature for at least the past millennium.

Sea level then increased for 400 y at a rate of 0.6 mm/y = a rise of 2 and a half meters, during what is known as the MWP, another thing warmists don’t like to admit is real.

followed by a further period of stable, or slightly falling, sea level that persisted until the late 19th century = sea levels fell as ice built up and the oceans cooled worldwide during the LIA.

Since then, sea level has risen at an average rate of 2.1 mm/y, = as the planet warmed sea levels started rising again, going up by over a meter.

Assuming there wasn’t much of a decrease during the LIA, according to that paper the sea level has increased by over three meters since the Roman Warm Period.

Now certainly if we are seeing a drastic rate increase, or the oceans are going to rise by the rate they have been, there will be several feet more to come. This assumes a lot, the most important being a drastic melting of old ice.

But, and this is a real big but, it’s very easy to cool the planet off, if it really does get out of control. Much easier than warming it up.

The ocean Ph change, that is a far more serious matter, and for no other reason we got to stop burning so much fossil fuel. And making so much concrete. And cutting down all the forests.

Or, we must plant a lot more trees to suck the carbon out of the air. Considering the chances of getting modern humankind to stop using fuels, I think planting trees is a workable solution. The problem with solutions like that, is there is no profit, and profit runs the world. Figure out a way to make saving the world from carbon that also puts cash in the pocket, problem will be solved.

FXMastermind · September 28, 2013, 9:04pm

Long before the current global warming suckfest began, there was a lot of research into the sun, climate, changes, and all kinds of theories and musings about it. The sun doesn’t seem to change it’s visible output enough to cause large changes, but our actual science about this is so short you can’t really know.

Certainly the recent findings about how much the UV changes, how they effects the upper layers of the atmosphere, how those layers influence weather and climate down below, and of course the cloud issue, it doesn’t seem to be anywhere close to settled.

Certainly the hydrological cycle is connected to the sun, and we suspect strongly the maunder Minimum was due to the sun (even with the volcanic effect, volcanoes don’t influence climate for that long).

I don’t trust the people who act like they know it all when it comes to nature. They are usually dead wrong. Like how right now we were supposed to be in this grand solar maximum, extreme danger from solar storms, the powwer grids at risk, and this prediction was from 2005. Dead wrong.

Topic		Replies	Views
More than 90% chance that global warming is due to human activity... Great Debates	158	7226	February 11, 2007
Need proof of Global Warming Great Debates	388	10422	May 29, 2008
brazil84's Global Warming Thread Great Debates	353	11938	March 21, 2008
I'm sorry, but this is unspeakably dumb... The BBQ Pit	142	8430	February 12, 2007
UN Sees Faster Global Warming - will GW 'Global Warming' Bush care? Great Debates	64	2313	July 16, 2001

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

Related topics