Contrarians may finally agree we are changing the climate
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 43,669
(Maybe not all contrarians, but you can't please everyone.)
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... ar5-report
With the forthcoming IPCC report, the contrarians finally agree we are changing the climate
Climate contrarians may concede more than they bargained for when the next IPCC report is published
We are weeks away from the much-anticipated release of the 5th climate report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). This organization has worked very hard to summarize the latest science on climate change, with thousands of donated hours from scientists around the globe. Although there are many other climate reports that synthesize the science, the IPCC is the largest and most comprehensive.
I know many of the scientists who have taken on leadership author roles, without pay, to produce this document. We owe them our gratitude and congratulations.
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.
But back to the IPCC; in a certain sense, the IPCC has done its job. For this fifth report, they have synthesized the science and provided enough evidence that action is warranted. How many more reports of this type do we need? Will a sixth report that confirms what we already know make much of a difference? Will a seventh? Do these reports need to be written every 5-6 years? Perhaps one a decade would be sufficient? These reports require enormous amounts of time and energy. Scientists who take authorship roles put their own research on hold, sometimes for years.
Whatever the future holds for the IPCC, the history books will tell us we were warned. Time and time again, the world's best scientists have sent us clear messages. Whatever happens, whatever pathway we choose, whatever are the future climate disruptions, we owe these scientists, and the IPCC our deepest gratitude. Thanks.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... ar5-report
With the forthcoming IPCC report, the contrarians finally agree we are changing the climate
Climate contrarians may concede more than they bargained for when the next IPCC report is published
We are weeks away from the much-anticipated release of the 5th climate report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). This organization has worked very hard to summarize the latest science on climate change, with thousands of donated hours from scientists around the globe. Although there are many other climate reports that synthesize the science, the IPCC is the largest and most comprehensive.
I know many of the scientists who have taken on leadership author roles, without pay, to produce this document. We owe them our gratitude and congratulations.
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.
But back to the IPCC; in a certain sense, the IPCC has done its job. For this fifth report, they have synthesized the science and provided enough evidence that action is warranted. How many more reports of this type do we need? Will a sixth report that confirms what we already know make much of a difference? Will a seventh? Do these reports need to be written every 5-6 years? Perhaps one a decade would be sufficient? These reports require enormous amounts of time and energy. Scientists who take authorship roles put their own research on hold, sometimes for years.
Whatever the future holds for the IPCC, the history books will tell us we were warned. Time and time again, the world's best scientists have sent us clear messages. Whatever happens, whatever pathway we choose, whatever are the future climate disruptions, we owe these scientists, and the IPCC our deepest gratitude. Thanks.
"It's a sad and beautiful world"
-Roberto Benigni
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
-
That must be an interesting report.Athens 2006 / Milton Keynes 2014 / London 1&2 2022 / Seattle 1&2 2024 / Dublin 2024 / Manchester 2024 / New Orleans 20250
-
That story doesn't really say anything about how we're actually changing the climate.The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.0 -
know1 wrote:That story doesn't really say anything about how we're actually changing the climate.
that's because
a) that's not what the story is about and
b) people should already know how we are changing the climate ... it's called global warming and as I've begged people on here for years to do ... is to learn the science ... it's not complicated - the only complication is figuring exactly what the overall implications will be ...0 -
polaris_x wrote:people should already know how we are changing the climate ... it's called global warming and as I've begged people on here for years to do ... is to learn the science ... it's not complicated - the only complication is figuring exactly what the overall implications will be ...
The problem with that is that learning inevitably exposes one to information that contradicts one's current understanding of the world. For anybody naive enough to still be in thrall to the bullshit oil companies and their shareholders are spreading to protect their profit margins, that's likely to be a big no-no.0 -
Pingfah wrote:The problem with that is that learning inevitably exposes one to information that contradicts one's current understanding of the world. For anybody naive enough to still be in thrall to the bullshit oil companies and their shareholders are spreading to protect their profit margins, that's likely to be a big no-no.
for sure ... it's why i beat the critical thinking drum whenever i can ...0 -
The only information that you have given out on AGW/Climate Change has been "learn the science"polaris_x wrote:Pingfah wrote:The problem with that is that learning inevitably exposes one to information that contradicts one's current understanding of the world. For anybody naive enough to still be in thrall to the bullshit oil companies and their shareholders are spreading to protect their profit margins, that's likely to be a big no-no.
for sure ... it's why i beat the critical thinking drum whenever i can ...
You have never ever demonstrated that you actually know whatever science it is your talking about and have never ever demonstrated any critical thinking concerning this science.
Repeating the same thing over and over and over for YEARS without any actual evidence of understanding is far from beating the "critical thinking drum"...
I have seen people on this forum for years ask you to explain your understanding on this subject and I have never seen an answer from you other than variations of "learn the science"...0 -
Blockhead wrote:The only information that you have given out on AGW/Climate Change has been "learn the science"
You have never ever demonstrated that you actually know whatever science it is your talking about and have never ever demonstrated any critical thinking concerning this science.
Repeating the same thing over and over and over for YEARS without any actual evidence of understanding is far from beating the "critical thinking drum"...
I have seen people on this forum for years ask you to explain your understanding on this subject and I have never seen an answer from you other than variations of "learn the science"...
what you mean like this?
viewtopic.php?f=13&t=202212&p=4848872&hilit=global+warming+polaris_x#p4848839
seriously, i've explained it sooo many times - it gets tiring ... we've been debating this topic for years and you've NEVER taken the time to read what I send you ... i assume it's because you just don't believe anything i write - that is why i try to get people to go educate themselves from objective sources ...0 -
All that link proves is that you have identified/defined what climate change/Global warming is.polaris_x wrote:Blockhead wrote:The only information that you have given out on AGW/Climate Change has been "learn the science"
You have never ever demonstrated that you actually know whatever science it is your talking about and have never ever demonstrated any critical thinking concerning this science.
Repeating the same thing over and over and over for YEARS without any actual evidence of understanding is far from beating the "critical thinking drum"...
I have seen people on this forum for years ask you to explain your understanding on this subject and I have never seen an answer from you other than variations of "learn the science"...
what you mean like this?
http://forums.pearljam.com/viewtopic.ph ... x#p4848839
seriously, i've explained it sooo many times - it gets tiring ... we've been debating this topic for years and you've NEVER taken the time to read what I send you ... i assume it's because you just don't believe anything i write - that is why i try to get people to go educate themselves from objective sources ...
Its entirely different to tie that into AGW and claim the same "learn the science"
Again, nowhere am I disproving or debating GW/CC, just the lies and distorted facts/politics of it being man made.0 -
know1 wrote:That story doesn't really say anything about how we're actually changing the climate.
Because, the key question right now is who (we-human beings or the nature itself) changes the climate and not how, that's why. Environmentalists aren't certain yet about this factor. Nikola Tesla proved many years ago that the earth periodically (every 30.000 years I think) changes its climate. So for sure, climate change is partly incurred because of the earth itself. Scientists are now searching for the other half. If there's any other half.Athens 2006 / Milton Keynes 2014 / London 1&2 2022 / Seattle 1&2 2024 / Dublin 2024 / Manchester 2024 / New Orleans 20250 -
Blockhead wrote:All that link proves is that you have identified/defined what climate change/Global warming is.
Its entirely different to tie that into AGW and claim the same "learn the science"
Again, nowhere am I disproving or debating GW/CC, just the lies and distorted facts/politics of it being man made.
for crying out loud ... did you read the part about greenhouse gases? ... and that they are the cause of our warming?
i will be brutally honest with you ... you have been indoctrinated and to a lesser degree brainwashed ... you have been so infused with partisan hatred that you no longer have the ability to think for yourself ... your reliance on information from organizations with agendas counter to the truth is crippling you and your understanding ... i will throw this bone at you tho ... it happens to so called "liberals" too ... the guys here who support obama are almost the same ...
AGW is widely accepted pretty much everywhere in the world now ... you can argue all you like about whether you care to do anything about it but the science behind it is sound and irrefutable ... stop reading these right wing websites ... all they are doing is planting a divide by feeding on your biases ...0 -
Pap wrote:Because, the key question right now is who (we-human beings or the nature itself) changes the climate and not how, that's why. Environmentalists aren't certain yet about this factor. Nikola Tesla proved many years ago that the earth periodically (every 30.000 years I think) changes its climate. So for sure, climate change is partly incurred because of the earth itself. Scientists are now searching for the other half. If there's any other half.
again ... NO ... scientists know what is causing global warming ... it's caused primarily by humans ...0 -
polaris_x wrote:Pap wrote:Because, the key question right now is who (we-human beings or the nature itself) changes the climate and not how, that's why. Environmentalists aren't certain yet about this factor. Nikola Tesla proved many years ago that the earth periodically (every 30.000 years I think) changes its climate. So for sure, climate change is partly incurred because of the earth itself. Scientists are now searching for the other half. If there's any other half.
again ... NO ... scientists know what is causing global warming ... it's caused primarily by humans ...
But, they are still trying to prove it. Can you prove Mr. Tesla wrong? I don't think so. The guy won 4 Nobel prizes for a reason. Besides, if you ever get a chance to study Prehistoric Archaeology will see what Tesla was talking about. Never say "NO". That's very black-and-white and science isn't that way at all.Athens 2006 / Milton Keynes 2014 / London 1&2 2022 / Seattle 1&2 2024 / Dublin 2024 / Manchester 2024 / New Orleans 20250 -
Pap wrote:But, they are still trying to prove it. Can you prove Mr. Tesla wrong? I don't think so. The guy won 4 Nobel prizes for a reason. Besides, if you ever get a chance to study Prehistoric Archaeology will see what Tesla was talking about. Never say "NO". That's very black-and-white and science isn't that way at all.
the guy died over 70 years ago man ... climate science and the concept of global warming wasn't studied seriously until like 30 years ago ...
the scientists have done the work ... it's understood now ... that is not to say that there isn't any natural variability in climate ...there obviously is but the warming of the planet is caused by humans ...
edit: the guy never won a nobel prize ... if he did it would have been for physics not climate science ...Post edited by polaris_x on0 -
Oh look! Another "learn the science" variation.polaris_x wrote:Blockhead wrote:All that link proves is that you have identified/defined what climate change/Global warming is.
Its entirely different to tie that into AGW and claim the same "learn the science"
Again, nowhere am I disproving or debating GW/CC, just the lies and distorted facts/politics of it being man made.
for crying out loud ... did you read the part about greenhouse gases? ... and that they are the cause of our warming?
i will be brutally honest with you ... you have been indoctrinated and to a lesser degree brainwashed ... you have been so infused with partisan hatred that you no longer have the ability to think for yourself ... your reliance on information from organizations with agendas counter to the truth is crippling you and your understanding ... i will throw this bone at you tho ... it happens to so called "liberals" too ... the guys here who support obama are almost the same ...
AGW is widely accepted pretty much everywhere in the world now ... you can argue all you like about whether you care to do anything about it but the science behind it is sound and irrefutable ... stop reading these right wing websites ... all they are doing is planting a divide by feeding on your biases ...
Whats your point about the greenhouse gasses? Water vapor makes up 95% of it...
When you actually display an understanding of the science you preach, I will listen...
Also no where in this post or in any of my posts do I reference information from "right wing websites"
You, just like your AGW is about sides and politics. When you can get past that, Ill be ready to listen....0 -
polaris_x wrote:the guy died over 70 years ago man ...
edit: the guy never won a nobel prize ... if he did it would have been for physics not climate science ...
And Albert Einstein died 58 years ago, but we still base our current knowledge and research on his discoveries.
Even so, you need to know about Physics to understand how the earth works.Athens 2006 / Milton Keynes 2014 / London 1&2 2022 / Seattle 1&2 2024 / Dublin 2024 / Manchester 2024 / New Orleans 20250 -
Blockhead wrote:Oh look! Another "learn the science" variation.
Whats your point about the greenhouse gasses? Water vapor makes up 95% of it...
When you actually display an understanding of the science you preach, I will listen...
Also no where in this post or in any of my posts do I reference information from "right wing websites"
You, just like your AGW is about sides and politics. When you can get past that, Ill be ready to listen....
weren't you HeidiJam before?
in any case - yes, learn the science ... for 1. then we can debate the issue and 2. you can set aside your partisanship ...
water vapour is the primary greenhouse gas but it isn't the gas that has been added in significant amounts since the industrial revolution ...0 -
Pap wrote:And Albert Einstein died 58 years ago, but we still base our current knowledge and research on his discoveries.
Even so, you need to know about Physics to understand how the earth works.
i don't know how legitimate the website is but the tesla society seems to support the notion that nikola tesla would believe in the science of global warming ...
http://www.teslasociety.com/globalwarm.htm
in any case ... i'm not sure how nikola tesla could have studied climatology based on records that would have been available to him then ...0 -
polaris_x wrote:i don't know how legitimate the website is but the tesla society seems to support the notion that nikola tesla would believe in the science of global warming ...
http://www.teslasociety.com/globalwarm.htm
I'm not trying to position him or me against the global warming effect. I'm just trying to shed some light to the question of who is responsible for it.Athens 2006 / Milton Keynes 2014 / London 1&2 2022 / Seattle 1&2 2024 / Dublin 2024 / Manchester 2024 / New Orleans 20250 -
Pap wrote:I'm not trying to position him or me against the global warming effect. I'm just trying to shed some light to the question of who is responsible for it.
the IPCC has been studying this for a loooong time now ... we are causing it ... the only light that needs to be shone right now is why not everyone understands this ...0 -
When you cling to vaguary there really is no point in discussing this with you...polaris_x wrote:Blockhead wrote:Oh look! Another "learn the science" variation.
Whats your point about the greenhouse gasses? Water vapor makes up 95% of it...
When you actually display an understanding of the science you preach, I will listen...
Also no where in this post or in any of my posts do I reference information from "right wing websites"
You, just like your AGW is about sides and politics. When you can get past that, Ill be ready to listen....
weren't you HeidiJam before?
in any case - yes, learn the science ... for 1. then we can debate the issue and 2. you can set aside your partisanship ...
water vapour is the primary greenhouse gas but it isn't the gas that has been added in significant amounts since the industrial revolution ...
1. What science do I need to learn?0
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.9K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110.1K The Porch
- 275 Vitalogy
- 35.1K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.2K Flea Market
- 39.2K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.8K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help