AP leak of IPCC report

[longview]

Warming lull haunts authors of key climate report
They said,

IPCC draft said sea levels have risen by 7.5 inches (19 centimeters) since 1901.

But then added.

The panel also raised its projections for sea level rise to 10-32 inches (26-81 centimeters) by the end of the century.

The 7.5 inches since 1901 looks accurate based on NOAA.
Sea Level Trends
But the projection of a sea level rise between 10-32 inches in 87 years is too broad.
It's like projecting all the adults showing up to a football game will be between 100 and 320 lbs,
and then claiming a 98% accuracy.
To hit the 32 inch mark in 87 years, the slope of the sea level rise would have to increase
from it's current 0-12 inches per century to 36 inches per century.
This would be more than three times the current rise.
They might as well call it a guess rather than a projection.
Their error bar means they will be correct, but correct about what?

 

[Moot]

If the earth is warming faster than previously predicted then it stands to reason the ice shelfs are melting faster as well.

 

[WCH]

If the earth is warming faster than previously predicted then it stands to reason the ice shelfs are melting faster as well.

That's not what is happening. They 'predicted' faster warming.

 

[flogger]

If the earth is warming faster than previously predicted then it stands to reason the ice shelfs are melting faster as well.

Well not on Antarctica the biggest one of all they arent

Antarctic Sea Ice Extent Breaking All Records | NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

 

[WCH]

The sea level rise/fall map is in millimeters/year...LOL! Does look like there's any significant rises but there are some substantial falling levels in places

 

[longview]

If the earth is warming faster than previously predicted then it stands to reason the ice shelfs are melting faster as well.

You should have bolded the IF and maybe even made the font bigger.

 

[Moot]

The 5 stages of climate denial are on display ahead of the IPCC report | Dana Nuccitelli | Environment | theguardian.com


"...The fifth Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report is due out on September 27th, and is expected to reaffirm with growing confidence that humans are driving global warming and climate change. In anticipation of the widespread news coverage of this esteemed report, climate contrarians appear to be in damage control mode, trying to build up skeptical spin in media climate stories. Just in the past week we've seen:

The David Rose Mail on Sunday piece that treated scientific evidence in much the way bakers treat pretzel dough.
Dr. John Christy interviewed by the Daily Mail;
Christy's colleague Dr. Roy Spencer in The Christian Post;
Andrew Montford in Rupert Murdoch's The Australian;
Matt Ridley in Rupert Murdoch's Wall Street Journal;
and Bjorn Lomborg in The Washington Post.

Interestingly, these pieces spanned nearly the full spectrum of the 5 stages of global warming denial.

Stage 1: Deny the Problem Exists

Stage 2: Deny We're the Cause

Stage 2b: Consensus Denial

Stage 3: Deny It's a Problem

Stage 4: Deny We can Solve It

Stage 5: It's too Late

 

[longview]

The 5 stages of climate denial are on display ahead of the IPCC report | Dana Nuccitelli | Environment | theguardian.com


"...The fifth Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report is due out on September 27th, and is expected to reaffirm with growing confidence that humans are driving global warming and climate change. In anticipation of the widespread news coverage of this esteemed report, climate contrarians appear to be in damage control mode, trying to build up skeptical spin in media climate stories. Just in the past week we've seen:

The David Rose Mail on Sunday piece that treated scientific evidence in much the way bakers treat pretzel dough.
Dr. John Christy interviewed by the Daily Mail;
Christy's colleague Dr. Roy Spencer in The Christian Post;
Andrew Montford in Rupert Murdoch's The Australian;
Matt Ridley in Rupert Murdoch's Wall Street Journal;
and Bjorn Lomborg in The Washington Post.

Interestingly, these pieces spanned nearly the full spectrum of the 5 stages of global warming denial.

Stage 1: Deny the Problem Exists

Stage 2: Deny We're the Cause

Stage 2b: Consensus Denial

Stage 3: Deny It's a Problem

Stage 4: Deny We can Solve It

Stage 5: It's too Late

Skeptical challenges of Scientific statements is as much a part of science as data observation.
If you choose accept without question, statements made by others, that is Faith not Science.
Most of the skeptics here, seem to use the Scientific method,
they present data to counter statements made.
The AGW supporters tend to go with an appeal To authority through rhetoric.
Example in this thread:
I said,

To hit the 32 inch mark in 87 years, the slope of the sea level rise would have to increase
from it's current 0-12 inches per century to 36 inches per century.
This would be more than three times the current rise.

and supported my statement with a link to the NOAA sea level site.
You said,

If the earth is warming faster than previously predicted
then it stands to reason the ice shelfs are melting faster as well.

So is the earth warming faster than was previously predicted, and what was previously predicted ?
Did you cite a reference with data supporting this statement?

 

[code1211]

If the earth is warming faster than previously predicted then it stands to reason the ice shelfs are melting faster as well.

And the reverse is also true.

 

[code1211]

The 5 stages of climate denial are on display ahead of the IPCC report | Dana Nuccitelli | Environment | theguardian.com


"...The fifth Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report is due out on September 27th, and is expected to reaffirm with growing confidence that humans are driving global warming and climate change. In anticipation of the widespread news coverage of this esteemed report, climate contrarians appear to be in damage control mode, trying to build up skeptical spin in media climate stories. Just in the past week we've seen:

The David Rose Mail on Sunday piece that treated scientific evidence in much the way bakers treat pretzel dough.
Dr. John Christy interviewed by the Daily Mail;
Christy's colleague Dr. Roy Spencer in The Christian Post;
Andrew Montford in Rupert Murdoch's The Australian;
Matt Ridley in Rupert Murdoch's Wall Street Journal;
and Bjorn Lomborg in The Washington Post.

Interestingly, these pieces spanned nearly the full spectrum of the 5 stages of global warming denial.

Stage 1: Deny the Problem Exists

Stage 2: Deny We're the Cause

Stage 2b: Consensus Denial

Stage 3: Deny It's a Problem

Stage 4: Deny We can Solve It

Stage 5: It's too Late

The "Science" of Global Warming is lacking in every measurable. Their predictions are wrong every time. This by itself is amazing. Their premise is so absolutely wrong that it absolutely precludes an accurate prediction. The casual observer might wonder why they have not yet noticed that they have been wrong in every attempt to date.

They say that they have determined the cause and they base their predictions on that cause and the effects they say must occur is the cause is correct. Again, lacking any positive results, why do they maintain their faith?

The actual real world data shows conclusively that they are wrong and yet they continue to proclaim that they are right. Is this how science operates in a real world setting?

There is not a single scientific organization on the planet that has offered a hypothesis on this because there is not a defined method to falsify the assertion. Without a test of falsifiability, there can be no hypothesis.

What makes you think that the climate of 1900 or 1800 or 1700 was the best and most optimal climate ever on the planet? Striving to maintain something in a state of stasis seems to imply that it cannot be improved. What drives you to this conclusion?

 

[Moot]

The "Science" of Global Warming is lacking in every measurable. Their predictions are wrong every time. This by itself is amazing. Their premise is so absolutely wrong that it absolutely precludes an accurate prediction. The casual observer might wonder why they have not yet noticed that they have been wrong in every attempt to date.

They say that they have determined the cause and they base their predictions on that cause and the effects they say must occur is the cause is correct. Again, lacking any positive results, why do they maintain their faith?

The actual real world data shows conclusively that they are wrong and yet they continue to proclaim that they are right. Is this how science operates in a real world setting?

There is not a single scientific organization on the planet that has offered a hypothesis on this because there is not a defined method to falsify the assertion. Without a test of falsifiability, there can be no hypothesis.

What makes you think that the climate of 1900 or 1800 or 1700 was the best and most optimal climate ever on the planet? Striving to maintain something in a state of stasis seems to imply that it cannot be improved. What drives you to this conclusion?

Apparently, there was a minor error in one paragraph in the 900 page AR4 report and from that you seemed to have drawn quite a few false conclusions yourself.

 

[Moot]

Skeptical challenges of Scientific statements is as much a part of science as data observation.
If you choose accept without question, statements made by others, that is Faith not Science.
Most of the skeptics here, seem to use the Scientific method,
they present data to counter statements made.
The AGW supporters tend to go with an appeal To authority through rhetoric.
Example in this thread:
I said,

"To hit the 32 inch mark in 87 years, the slope of the sea level rise would have to increase
from it's current 0-12 inches per century to 36 inches per century.
This would be more than three times the current rise."

and supported my statement with a link to the NOAA sea level site.
You said,

"If the earth is warming faster than previously predicted
then it stands to reason the ice shelfs are melting faster as well."

So is the earth warming faster than was previously predicted, and what was previously predicted ?
Did you cite a reference with data supporting this statement?

Apparently the fourth IPCC report (AR4) gave 3 predictions...a low..a medium...and a high estimate as to how high sea levels would rise by 2100. At the time the report was published six or seven years ago, the evidence seemed to support the lower prediction of 10 to 12 inches. However, new evidence is now supporting the higher prediction that said the sea level could rise up to 1 meter or higher. That means the earth is heating up faster and the sea level is rising 3x faster than previously thought.


Warmer temperatures in the Artic and Greenland is melting the ice pack and shelfs faster than predicted. Add that to the thermal expansion of the oceans also from warmer temperatures and voila...rising sea levels that could reach 1 meter in the next 80 or 90 years.

From SkepticalScience.com.....

Figure 3: Projection of sea-level rise from 1990 to 2100, based on IPCC temperature projections for three different emission scenarios. The sea-level range projected in the IPCC AR4 for these scenarios are shown for comparison in the bars on the bottom right. Also shown in red is observed sea-level (Vermeer 2009).

Figure 3 shows projected sea level rise for three different emission scenarios. The semi-empirical method predicts sea level rise roughly 3 times greater than the IPCC predictions. Note the IPCC predictions are shown as vertical bars in the bottom right. For the lowest emission rate, sea levels are expected to rise around 1 metre by 2100. For the higher emission scenario, which is where we're currently tracking, sea level rise by 2100 is around 1.4 metres.

There are limitations to this approach. The temperature record over the past 120 years doesn't include large, highly non-linear events such as the collapse of an ice sheet. Therefore, the semi-empirical method can't rule out sharp increases in sea level from such an event.

Independent confirmation of the semi-empirical method is found in a kinematic study of glacier movements (Pfeffer 2008). The study examines calving glaciers in Greenland, determining each glacier's potential to discharge ice based on factors such as topography, cross-sectional area and whether the bedrock is based below sea level. A similar analysis is also made of West Antarctic glaciers (I can't find any mention of calculating ice loss from East Antarctica). The kinematic method estimates sea level rise between 80 cm to 2 metres by 2100.

Recent observations find sea level tracking at the upper range of IPCC projections. The semi-empirical and kinematic methods provide independent confirmation that the IPCC underestimate sea level rise by around a factor of 3. There are growing indications that sea level rise by the end of this century will approach or exceed 1 metre....read....

How much will sea levels rise in the 21st Century?

 

[longview]

Apparently the fourth IPCC report (AR4) gave 3 predictions...a low..a medium...and a high estimate as to how high sea levels would rise by 2100. At the time the report was published six or seven years ago, the evidence seemed to support the lower prediction of 10 to 12 inches. However, new evidence is now supporting the higher prediction that said the sea level could rise up to 1 meter or higher. That means the earth is heating up faster and the sea level is rising 3x faster than previously thought.


Warmer temperatures in the Artic and Greenland is melting the ice pack and shelfs faster than predicted. Add that to the thermal expansion of the oceans also from warmer temperatures and voila...rising sea levels that could reach 1 meter in the next 80 or 90 years.

From SkepticalScience.com.....


How much will sea levels rise in the 21st Century?

Thank you for posting a link with a link to the real paper,
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/12/04/0907765106.full.pdf
Now we actually have some science to discuss.
I will review this carefully, (and with more caffeine), however my first glean looks like they used good Scientific methodology.
I am a bit concerned about the source of the temperature data, being the models that are all proving inaccurate.

 

[code1211]

Apparently, there was a minor error in one paragraph in the 900 page AR4 report and from that you seemed to have drawn quite a few false conclusions yourself.

What is the error to which you refer?

 

[code1211]

Apparently the fourth IPCC report (AR4) gave 3 predictions...a low..a medium...and a high estimate as to how high sea levels would rise by 2100. At the time the report was published six or seven years ago, the evidence seemed to support the lower prediction of 10 to 12 inches. However, new evidence is now supporting the higher prediction that said the sea level could rise up to 1 meter or higher. That means the earth is heating up faster and the sea level is rising 3x faster than previously thought.


Warmer temperatures in the Artic and Greenland is melting the ice pack and shelfs faster than predicted. Add that to the thermal expansion of the oceans also from warmer temperatures and voila...rising sea levels that could reach 1 meter in the next 80 or 90 years.

From SkepticalScience.com.....


How much will sea levels rise in the 21st Century?

I am never comfortable with using agenda driven blogs as sources.

The IPCC is only a half step above an agenda driven blog.

That said, they seem to have really tightened down the estimate of sea level rise to between about 25 and about 45 inches before the year 2100. See what they did here? Make the range so big that they simply cannot miss. Unless even the minimum is too high.

The University of Colorado seems to think the sea level rise will be closer to a rational total of about 6 to 8 inches. Based on this, the IPCC seems to have "predictions" that call for somewhere between 300 and 700% of what a major University thinks will happen.

http://sealevel.colorado.edu/conten...grace-over-2002–2011-and-its-impact-sea-level

If the IPCC was trying to form an opinion using hyperbole, this might be a good prediction for them to publish.

 

[Moot]

I am never comfortable with using agenda driven blogs as sources.

If I recall you use some very shady sources yourself.

The IPCC is only a half step above an agenda driven blog.

Well, yours is corporate agenda based on fear of renewable and sustainable new energy sources that would compete with oil. They have a lot of money to pay for professional global warming deniers and websites. There is a major conflict of interest between a scientist who is paid by a corporation to support their agenda and one who donates their time and knowledge to help save the planet for future generations. The scientists that do the research for the IPCC are all voluteers from countries all over the world.

That said, they seem to have really tightened down the estimate of sea level rise to between about 25 and about 45 inches before the year 2100. See what they did here? Make the range so big that they simply cannot miss. Unless even the minimum is too high.

Giving high and low estimates allows government to prepare for both best and worst case scenarios.

What are the odds? Figuring out what the odds of something occuring is how science tries to predict the future. Prediction is not and never will be an exact science because mankind has not yet invented or figured out way to travel into the future to observe the evidence. So the best mankind can do is to predict what might occur and to do that we use science to figure out the odds or probabilities. This gives governments something on which to base their budgets, future planning and allocation of assets and resources on.

Remember the Bible story of the Pharoah and seven years of famine? The Pharoah was the only ruler in the ME that prepared for the worst case scenario instead of the best case scenario. As a result his kingdom was the only one that wasn't decimated from famine. Now, if the famine had never occurred the Pharoah would still be well off because he has more than enough grain to sell and trade. Preparing for the worst was a win/win for the Pharoah. The point is, a country that has a lot coast line and doesn't prepare for the worst, is country run by fools.

The University of Colorado seems to think the sea level rise will be closer to a rational total of about 6 to 8 inches. Based on this, the IPCC seems to have "predictions" that call for somewhere between 300 and 700% of what a major University thinks will happen.

http://sealevel.colorado.edu/conten...grace-over-2002–2011-and-its-impact-sea-level

If the IPCC was trying to form an opinion using hyperbole, this might be a good prediction for them to publish.

How does the opinion of one university equate to being a majority opinion when the IPCC uses scientists and reports from hundreds of universities and colleges from all over the world?

It looks like you're the one trying to form an opinion using hyperbole.

 

[Jack Hays]

The 5 stages of climate denial are on display ahead of the IPCC report | Dana Nuccitelli | Environment | theguardian.com


"...The fifth Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report is due out on September 27th, and is expected to reaffirm with growing confidence that humans are driving global warming and climate change. In anticipation of the widespread news coverage of this esteemed report, climate contrarians appear to be in damage control mode, trying to build up skeptical spin in media climate stories. Just in the past week we've seen:

The David Rose Mail on Sunday piece that treated scientific evidence in much the way bakers treat pretzel dough.
Dr. John Christy interviewed by the Daily Mail;
Christy's colleague Dr. Roy Spencer in The Christian Post;
Andrew Montford in Rupert Murdoch's The Australian;
Matt Ridley in Rupert Murdoch's Wall Street Journal;
and Bjorn Lomborg in The Washington Post.

Interestingly, these pieces spanned nearly the full spectrum of the 5 stages of global warming denial.

Stage 1: Deny the Problem Exists

Stage 2: Deny We're the Cause

Stage 2b: Consensus Denial

Stage 3: Deny It's a Problem

Stage 4: Deny We can Solve It

Stage 5: It's too Late

Dana Nuccitelli!:lamo:lamo

 

[longview]

Thank you for posting a link with a link to the real paper,
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/12/04/0907765106.full.pdf
Now we actually have some science to discuss.
I will review this carefully, (and with more caffeine), however my first glean looks like they used good Scientific methodology.
I am a bit concerned about the source of the temperature data, being the models that are all proving inaccurate.

They are saying their final formula was dH(t)/dt= a(T(t+r)-T0)+ b dT(t+r)/dt
with the "a" factor being the short time frame sea level rise and "b" being the longer time frame rise.
Without knowing what data they used for the variable inputs, it would be difficult to complete their
formula with what is provided.
Their results shown in Table 1. (at the bottom of page 5)
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/12/04/0907765106.full.pdf
has some wide range of results based on the model run.
An example the B1 max temp of 2.9 degrees C yields a rise of 131 cm,
but the A2 minimum Temp is also 2.9 degrees C, but yields a rise of 98 cm.
All of the runs have a prerequisite that Co2 and Global temps go hand in glove,
As they used the AGW models for their inputs.
So if we look at the low range of B1 the expected Temp increase above the
1980-2000 average is 1.4 degrees C, which would cause a sea level rise of 81 cm +- 7%,
over the 1990 sea level.
I need to see what the 1980-2000 avg temp was (it will be higher than the base temp of 57.92F, used
in the other tables) and then what the sea level at various tide stations, to see how their
predictions are doing so far.

 

[Deuce]

Dana Nuccitelli!:lamo:lamo

Don't you guys whine about attacking the source all the time?

 

[KLATTU]

And the reverse is also true.

In the real world of science but not in the climate science If the reverse happens, the warmist community quick comes up with some cockamamie" explanation."
The GWPF
‏@TheGWPF 22 Sep Ted Shepherd: 'it appears warming has gone into deep ocean; unfortunately we don't have instruments to find it' Climate change: IPCC cites global temperature rise over last century | Environment | The Observer

( that's REAL tweet by a warmist (cough) scientist (cough) )

 

[gslack]

I find it hilarious that so many warmers still cite the IPCC as a scientific body, when they are by no means such..

They already assume a position before anything else. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, (IPCC) states they are a governmental body, and that they already assume that man-made climate change is fact. I don't recall an Intergovernmental Panel on any other scientific theory.. If there is anything scientific about them, I'd love to see it..

 

[code1211]

If I recall you use some very shady sources yourself.

Well, yours is corporate agenda based on fear of renewable and sustainable new energy sources that would compete with oil. They have a lot of money to pay for professional global warming deniers and websites. There is a major conflict of interest between a scientist who is paid by a corporation to support their agenda and one who donates their time and knowledge to help save the planet for future generations. The scientists that do the research for the IPCC are all voluteers from countries all over the world.

Giving high and low estimates allows government to prepare for both best and worst case scenarios.

What are the odds? Figuring out what the odds of something occuring is how science tries to predict the future. Prediction is not and never will be an exact science because mankind has not yet invented or figured out way to travel into the future to observe the evidence. So the best mankind can do is to predict what might occur and to do that we use science to figure out the odds or probabilities. This gives governments something on which to base their budgets, future planning and allocation of assets and resources on.

Remember the Bible story of the Pharoah and seven years of famine? The Pharoah was the only ruler in the ME that prepared for the worst case scenario instead of the best case scenario. As a result his kingdom was the only one that wasn't decimated from famine. Now, if the famine had never occurred the Pharoah would still be well off because he has more than enough grain to sell and trade. Preparing for the worst was a win/win for the Pharoah. The point is, a country that has a lot coast line and doesn't prepare for the worst, is country run by fools.

How does the opinion of one university equate to being a majority opinion when the IPCC uses scientists and reports from hundreds of universities and colleges from all over the world?

It looks like you're the one trying to form an opinion using hyperbole.

What are the shady sources you take issue with?

The low and high estimates that are ridiculously high are ridiculous.

What is the USA doing to prepare for a sea level rise of 2 inches each year for the next 80 years? I'm not disputing that we are run by fools, I just don't see that preparation you seem to think is happening.

Why give any weight to the University of Colorado? Because that is where NASA houses its National Snow and Ice Data Center. This is generally accepted as the gold standard of information on Ice in the Cryosphere.

If the NSIDC disagrees with the IPCC, I will go with the predominantly non-political one every time. The IPCC is purely political and is therefore agenda driven, misleading, dishonest and corrupt.

 

[code1211]

In the real world of science but not in the climate science If the reverse happens, the warmist community quick comes up with some cockamamie" explanation."
The GWPF
‏@TheGWPF 22 Sep Ted Shepherd: 'it appears warming has gone into deep ocean; unfortunately we don't have instruments to find it' Climate change: IPCC cites global temperature rise over last century | Environment | The Observer

( that's REAL tweet by a warmist (cough) scientist (cough) )

This is a routine dodge of the Diehards.

The warming is in the ocean that is acting as a huge sink. Then the ARGO Array of Buoys was deployed. No warming found.

A rational scientist would think, "Hmmm... If that was wrong, maybe there is s different reason why the heat is not showing up." What do the diehards think instead?

It must have gone somewhere else in the ecosystem that we cannot measure it. Interesting that when they are confronted with the absolute certainty that their premise is wrong, they double down.

 

[Jack Hays]

Don't you guys whine about attacking the source all the time?

I've never cited a comedian.:lamo:lamo

 

[Jack Hays]

Leaked Chapter 9 AR5: Musings.

23 September, 2013 (12:41) | Data Comparisons | By: lucia
Reading Willis’s post at WUWT inclined me to start delving into leaked Chapter 9 of the final draft. I will be eventually saying something a bit specific about a portion he quoted, but I wanted to plow through much of the chapter and post initial comments as they occurred to me. I admit to jumping around in the draft a bit– focusing on the pause, volcanoes, aerosols and general evaluation of models. So, please excuse this if it’s a bit disorganized. But I think since its a draft and language or exlanations could change, it’s not worth being too organized. That said, it’s starting some conversation.
Read more »eace