It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by neo96
Higher electric bills
Higher gas costs
Higher food prices
Higher consumer products
Originally posted by sonnny1
Originally posted by neo96
Higher electric bills
Higher gas costs
Higher food prices
Higher consumer products
Quiet Neo......
You live in Realty land .....
Originally posted by neo96
The Us is not the largest polluter in the world.
So either your calcs are wrong / don't tell the whole story, or the IPCC has its calcs wrong. What do you think?
Der Spiegel Interview with Hans von Storch
Storch: So far, no one has been able to provide a compelling answer to why climate change seems to be taking a break. We're facing a puzzle. Recent CO2 emissions have actually risen even more steeply than we feared. As a result, according to most climate models, we should have seen temperatures rise by around 0.25 degrees Celsius (0.45 degrees Fahrenheit) over the past 10 years.
That hasn't happened. In fact, the increase over the last 15 years was just 0.06 degrees Celsius (0.11 degrees Fahrenheit) -- a value very close to zero. This is a serious scientific problem that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will have to confront when it presents its next Assessment Report late next year.
SPIEGEL: Do the computer models with which physicists simulate the future climate ever show the sort of long standstill in temperature change that we're observing right now?
Storch: Yes, but only extremely rarely. At my institute, we analyzed how often such a 15-year stagnation in global warming occurred in the simulations. The answer was: in under 2 percent of all the times we ran the simulation. In other words, over 98 percent of forecasts show CO2 emissions as high as we have had in recent years leading to more of a temperature increase.
Storch: If things continue as they have been, in five years, at the latest, we will need to acknowledge that something is fundamentally wrong with our climate models. A 20-year pause in global warming does not occur in a single modeled scenario. But even today, we are finding it very difficult to reconcile actual temperature trends with our expectations.
Der Spiegel
global mean temperature has only increased 0.06 d/C in the last 15 years (IPCC projection 0.25 d/C).
The IPCC temperatures are on target
A paper in Nature Climate Change checks in on the projections from the first IPCC report, published in 1990. That report projected simple trends based on greenhouse gas emissions through 2030, a period we’re just over halfway through. The most frequently cited projection estimates 0.7–1.5°C of warming between 1990 and 2030, which means we would see an increase of about 0.35 – 0.75 °C through 2010. (The range of values is a product of uncertainty about the exact sensitivity of climate to greenhouse gases.) The observed temperature trend through 2010 is about 0.35–0.39°C, depending on the dataset.
So, is it as simple as saying the projection was (barely) correct, but overestimated warming? Not really. The first thing to do is account for natural variability. The researchers chose to address this by running many climate model simulations in a “stable” configuration with no drivers of warming or cooling. Ninety percent of the natural variability fell within a range of ±0.19°C. If you apply that as a measure of potential noise around the signal of the underlying trend, the projected warming by 2010 becomes 0.28 – 0.81°C, which includes the observed trend a little more cleanly.
The "skeptics" were keen on deconstructing the hockeystick because they considered it as a key argument "pro" man-made causes. However, it was not, and the fact that the hockeystick methodology was flawed did not imply that the question about man-made causes would be entirely open again. (Of course there is some doubt left, because of significant uncertainty in the level of natural variability - but this doubt is small.) This demonstrates very clearly that overselling does not pay; instead it endangers the credibility of the whole community.
Originally posted by talklikeapirat
reply to post by EasyPleaseMe
So either your calcs are wrong / don't tell the whole story, or the IPCC has its calcs wrong. What do you think?
You don't have to rely on someone else's opinion, you can check the data for yourself.
Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by talklikeapirat
Or you can use the same site and input the full span of years so they're all in one graph which shows a more accurate picture in my opinion.
Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations. This is an advance since the TAR’s conclusion that “most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations”.
IPCC
That's simply incorrect. The IPCC has never projected a set value of temperature increase.
It is extremely likely [">95% probability"] that human activities have caused more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature since the 1950s.
The right-hand panel shows ranges of global average temperature change above pre-industrial, using (i) ‘best estimate’ climate sensitivity of 3°C (black line in middle of shaded area), (ii) upper bound of likely range of climate sensitivity of 4.5°C (red line at top of shaded area) (iii) lower bound of likely range of climate sensitivity of 2°C (blue line at bottom of shaded area).
IPCC
The linear global warming trend since 2000 is 0.18°C per decade for the IPCC model mean, vs. 0.15°C per decade according to GISTEMP (through mid-2011). This data falls well within the model uncertainty range (shown in Figure 2, but not Figure 3), but the observed trend over the past decade is a bit lower than projected.
NOAA 2008
Ensembles with different modifications to the physical parameters of the model (within known uncertainties) are performed for several of the IPCC SRES emissions scenarios. Ten of these simulations have a steady long-term rate of warming between 0.15° and 0.25ºC decade–1, close to the expected rate of 0.2ºC decade–1 (...).
Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model’s internal climate variability. The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.
(not a religion or faith, just science)
Storch: Unfortunately, some scientists behave like preachers, delivering sermons to people. What this approach ignores is the fact that there are many threats in our world that must be weighed against one another. If I'm driving my car and find myself speeding toward an obstacle,
I can't simple yank the wheel to the side without first checking to see if I'll instead be driving straight into a crowd of people. Climate researchers cannot and should not take this process of weighing different factors out of the hands of politics and society.