Evidence for Man-Made Climate Change Getting Even Stronger

[Trakar]

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=evidence-for-man-made-climate-change
By Environment Correspondent Alister Doyle

DOHA (Reuters) - Evidence that global warming is man-made is getting stronger, the head of a U.N. panel of climate scientists said, in a further blow to skeptics who argue rising temperatures can be explained by natural variations.

Rajendra Pachauri spoke on the sidelines of a conference in Qatar where 200 nations are trying to reach a deal to cut emissions of greenhouse gases to avert floods, droughts, heat waves and mounting sea levels.
The influential U.N. climate panel said the probability human activity was the main cause of climate change was "at least 90 percent" in its last report in 2007.

Pachauri told Reuters late on Wednesday he expected the panel would raise the level of that likelihood even higher in its next report, due in 2013...
(Read rest of article at above link.)

 

[CrusaderFrank]

LOLZ.


Oh wait, that was a serious article?

LOLZ ^2

 

[TakeAStepBack]

I thought the concensus already established it as fact? Now the evidence gets stronger?

These are deranged and desperate people.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I thought the concensus already established it as fact? Now the evidence gets stronger?

These are deranged and desperate people.

It's New n' Improved Consensus!

 

[TakeAStepBack]

A 90% probability. WTF is that even suppose to mean? It's like a fucking weatherman "50% chance of rain today."

Gee, thanks, Cork.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Double Secret Consensus!

 

[Trakar]

I thought the concensus already established it as fact? Now the evidence gets stronger?

These are deranged and desperate people.

Concensus does not establish fact, merely that most of the active and leading figures in the field agree upon an established and compellingly supported understanding. Additional supporting evidence enhances and adds support to that understanding, in the same way that it does for every other area of science.

 

[Trakar]

A 90% probability. WTF is that even suppose to mean? It's like a fucking weatherman "50% chance of rain today."

Gee, thanks, Cork.

When a weather man cites a 90% chance of rain for a given set of conditions, what he is saying is that in the past, when this same set of conditions have occurred, it has rained 90 times out of 100.

Science uses statistical terms when talking about probabilities in reference to confidence intervals. The IPCC uses a varient of this statistical terminology as explained in thier reports:

Chapter 2 of this report uses a related term ‘level of scientific understanding’ when describing uncertainties in different contributions to radiative forcing. This terminology is used for consistency with the Third Assessment Report, and the basis on which the authors have determined particular levels of scientific understanding uses a combination of approaches consistent with the uncertainty guidance note as explained in detail in Section 2.9.2 and Table 2.11.

The standard terms used in this report to define the likelihood of an outcome or result where this can be estimated probabilistically are:

Likelihood Terminology Likelihood of the occurrence/ outcome
Virtually certain > 99% probability
Extremely likely > 95% probability
Very likely > 90% probability
Likely > 66% probability
More likely than not > 50% probability
About as likely as not 33 to 66% probability
Unlikely < 33% probability
Very unlikely < 10% probability
Extremely unlikely < 5% probability
Exceptionally unlikely < 1% probability


The terms ‘extremely likely’, ‘extremely unlikely’ and ‘more likely than not’ as defined above have been added to those given in the IPCC Uncertainty Guidance Note in order to provide a more specific assessment of aspects including attribution and radiative forcing.

Unless noted otherwise, values given in this report are assessed best estimates and their uncertainty ranges are 90% confidence intervals (i.e., there is an estimated 5% likelihood of the value being below the lower end of the range or above the upper end of the range).
Note that in some cases the nature of the constraints on a value, or other information available, may indicate an asymmetric distribution of the uncertainty range around a best estimate.

(excerpted from 1.6 The IPCC Assessments of Climate Change and Uncertainties - AR4 WGI Chapter 1: Historical Overview of Climate Change Science )

 

[westwall]

A 90% probability. WTF is that even suppose to mean? It's like a fucking weatherman "50% chance of rain today."

Gee, thanks, Cork.

When a weather man cites a 90% chance of rain for a given set of conditions, what he is saying is that in the past, when this same set of conditions have occurred, it has rained 90 times out of 100.

Science uses statistical terms when talking about probabilities in reference to confidence intervals. The IPCC uses a varient of this statistical terminology as explained in thier reports:

Chapter 2 of this report uses a related term ‘level of scientific understanding’ when describing uncertainties in different contributions to radiative forcing. This terminology is used for consistency with the Third Assessment Report, and the basis on which the authors have determined particular levels of scientific understanding uses a combination of approaches consistent with the uncertainty guidance note as explained in detail in Section 2.9.2 and Table 2.11.

The standard terms used in this report to define the likelihood of an outcome or result where this can be estimated probabilistically are:

Likelihood Terminology Likelihood of the occurrence/ outcome
Virtually certain > 99% probability
Extremely likely > 95% probability
Very likely > 90% probability
Likely > 66% probability
More likely than not > 50% probability
About as likely as not 33 to 66% probability
Unlikely < 33% probability
Very unlikely < 10% probability
Extremely unlikely < 5% probability
Exceptionally unlikely < 1% probability


The terms ‘extremely likely’, ‘extremely unlikely’ and ‘more likely than not’ as defined above have been added to those given in the IPCC Uncertainty Guidance Note in order to provide a more specific assessment of aspects including attribution and radiative forcing.

Unless noted otherwise, values given in this report are assessed best estimates and their uncertainty ranges are 90% confidence intervals (i.e., there is an estimated 5% likelihood of the value being below the lower end of the range or above the upper end of the range).
Note that in some cases the nature of the constraints on a value, or other information available, may indicate an asymmetric distribution of the uncertainty range around a best estimate.

(excerpted from 1.6 The IPCC Assessments of Climate Change and Uncertainties - AR4 WGI Chapter 1: Historical Overview of Climate Change Science )

So, when the UK Met Office says there has been no warming for the last 16 years....what global warming are you talking about man causing...specifically?

 

[Trakar]

So, when the UK Met Office says there has been no warming for the last 16 years....what global warming are you talking about man causing...specifically?

Please link to the specific Met Office release, on a Met Office site that supports your assertion.

As for a Met office link that confirms and supports AGW there are many. Examples of these comments:

"...The scientific consensus states that it is very likely that most of the warming over the last 50 years is a result of greenhouse gas emissions caused by human activity.
The exchange of 'man-made' carbon dioxide between man-made emissions, atmosphere, ocean and land, is about 7 GtC/year (billion tons of carbon, in the form of carbon dioxide, per year), which also shows much larger natural exchanges between atmosphere and ocean (about 90 GtC/yr) and atmosphere and land (about 60 GtC/yr). However, these natural exchanges have been in balance for many thousands of years, leading to the pre-industrial concentration of CO2 remaining steady at about 280 ppm.
CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere are rising. They have increased by about 38% since industrialisation began, from 280 ppm (parts per million) to 387 ppm. Two-thirds of that increase has occurred in the last 50 years. CO2 levels are now 30% higher than at any time over at least the last 800,000 years..."
Climate change &#8212; frequently asked questions - Met Office

"...It has been demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that the climate is changing due to man-made greenhouse gases. We are already committed to future substantial change over the next 30 years and change is likely to accelerate over the rest of the 21st century..."
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/b/1/informing.pdf

"
We, members of the UK science community, have the utmost confidence in the observational evidence for global warming and the scientific basis for concluding that it is due primarily to human activities. The evidence and the science are deep and extensive. They come from decades of painstaking and meticulous research, by many thousands of scientists across the world who adhere to the highest levels of professional integrity. That research has been subject to peer review and publication, providing traceability of the evidence and support for the scientific method.
The science of climate change draws on fundamental research from an increasing number of disciplines, many of which are represented here. As professional scientists, from students to senior professors, we uphold the findings of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, which concludes that 'Warming of the climate system is unequivocal' and that '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'..."
Statement from the UK science community - Met Office

or more directly in response to Mr. Rose's disingenuous confabulations:

Met Office in the Media: 14 October 2012 « Met Office News Blog

Met Office in the Media: 29 January 2012 « Met Office News Blog

 

[IanC]

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=evidence-for-man-made-climate-change
By Environment Correspondent Alister Doyle

DOHA (Reuters) - Evidence that global warming is man-made is getting stronger, the head of a U.N. panel of climate scientists said, in a further blow to skeptics who argue rising temperatures can be explained by natural variations.

Rajendra Pachauri spoke on the sidelines of a conference in Qatar where 200 nations are trying to reach a deal to cut emissions of greenhouse gases to avert floods, droughts, heat waves and mounting sea levels.
The influential U.N. climate panel said the probability human activity was the main cause of climate change was "at least 90 percent" in its last report in 2007.

Pachauri told Reuters late on Wednesday he expected the panel would raise the level of that likelihood even higher in its next report, due in 2013...
(Read rest of article at above link.)

wow! I remember when SA was a difficult magazine to read, but worth the effort. that article is pretty much fact free, and propaganda to boot. past editors must be knashing their teeth or rolling in their graves.

 

[IanC]

So, when the UK Met Office says there has been no warming for the last 16 years....what global warming are you talking about man causing...specifically?

Please link to the specific Met Office release, on a Met Office site that supports your assertion.

As for a Met office link that confirms and supports AGW there are many. Examples of these comments:

"...The scientific consensus states that it is very likely that most of the warming over the last 50 years is a result of greenhouse gas emissions caused by human activity.
The exchange of 'man-made' carbon dioxide between man-made emissions, atmosphere, ocean and land, is about 7 GtC/year (billion tons of carbon, in the form of carbon dioxide, per year), which also shows much larger natural exchanges between atmosphere and ocean (about 90 GtC/yr) and atmosphere and land (about 60 GtC/yr). However, these natural exchanges have been in balance for many thousands of years, leading to the pre-industrial concentration of CO2 remaining steady at about 280 ppm.
CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere are rising. They have increased by about 38% since industrialisation began, from 280 ppm (parts per million) to 387 ppm. Two-thirds of that increase has occurred in the last 50 years. CO2 levels are now 30% higher than at any time over at least the last 800,000 years..."
Climate change — frequently asked questions - Met Office

"...It has been demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that the climate is changing due to man-made greenhouse gases. We are already committed to future substantial change over the next 30 years and change is likely to accelerate over the rest of the 21st century..."
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/b/1/informing.pdf

"
We, members of the UK science community, have the utmost confidence in the observational evidence for global warming and the scientific basis for concluding that it is due primarily to human activities. The evidence and the science are deep and extensive. They come from decades of painstaking and meticulous research, by many thousands of scientists across the world who adhere to the highest levels of professional integrity. That research has been subject to peer review and publication, providing traceability of the evidence and support for the scientific method.
The science of climate change draws on fundamental research from an increasing number of disciplines, many of which are represented here. As professional scientists, from students to senior professors, we uphold the findings of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, which concludes that 'Warming of the climate system is unequivocal' and that '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'..."
Statement from the UK science community - Met Office

or more directly in response to Mr. Rose's disingenuous confabulations:

Met Office in the Media: 14 October 2012 « Met Office News Blog

Met Office in the Media: 29 January 2012 « Met Office News Blog

why do you keep asking us to fight the same battles over and over again?

the Met and other distributors of global temps have all produced data that show no significant warming for the last 15 years. when you add in the rather bizarre homogenization adjustments (or should I say remove) then there is a distinct possibility that there has been cooling but not at a significant level.

 

[jwoodie]

The latest "scientific" estimate is that Earth temperatures may rise 1 degree F by 2100, which would be a boon to agricultural production (for those of you interested in world hunger).

 

[IanC]

The latest "scientific" estimate is that Earth temperatures may rise 1 degree F by 2100, which would be a boon to agricultural production (for those of you interested in world hunger).

be careful how you word you posts here. there are 'many' estimates out there, scientific or otherwise, based on many different sets of assumptions.

I concur that the likely small amount of warming this century is likely to improve agriculture and human living conditions, IMHO of course.

 

[MDiver]

Lost cause.
The people care only about the here and now (are they working, is there food on the table). They aren't going to worry about the climate until it's so bad, they there is no living on the planet. By then, of course, it'll be too late.

 

[Katzndogz]

The minute I saw UN panel of climate scientists, I knew it was going to be a phony.

 

[IanC]

Lost cause.
The people care only about the here and now (are they working, is there food on the table). They aren't going to worry about the climate until it's so bad, they there is no living on the planet. By then, of course, it'll be too late.

do you consider CO2 production to be pollution? what exactly is going to make the world uninhabitable?

 

[westwall]

Lost cause.
The people care only about the here and now (are they working, is there food on the table). They aren't going to worry about the climate until it's so bad, they there is no living on the planet. By then, of course, it'll be too late.

Yes, if your scientific literacy is so poor that you think a one degree rise in global temperature will cause the end of the world, you are indeed, a lost cause.

 

[mamooth]

"Denialist political cultists sputter their rage out at the real world. Film at 11."

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Consensus. This time for real.

We have peer reviewed our consensus and we consent that we have consensus*

(*90% for sure that we have consensus) **

(** really, we're not kidding this time)