Re: Weather-Manmade Global Warming Link Builds, Study Says

by **snowdog** 2012-03-27, 3:49 pm

So I guess we will devolve into the tin foil hat conspiracy bs? ok. What do you have that proves Co2 is driving the heating? Where is your mountain of evidence?

by **snowdog** 2012-03-27, 3:55 pm

Stovepipe wrote:If you don't think we are in a climate warming pattern then I don't really know what to tell you. You probably think the sky is orange too and I'm not going to argue that either because it's silly.

I think we are coming out of a warming pattern and heading into a cooling pattern. What I deny is that man had any great effect on the warming. See what you can't refute is, even though Co2 has continued to rise (just as Hansen et al thought it would) the global temp hasn't responded as they predicted it would. NOT EVEN CLOSE. Of course they keep changing their predictions and they keep getting it wrong. One would think with that mountain of evidence they could get some better predictions.

Weather-Manmade Global Warming Link Builds, Study Says - Page 3 Gw310

by **Stovepipe** 2012-03-27, 4:14 pm

snowdog wrote:
Stovepipe wrote:If you don't think we are in a climate warming pattern then I don't really know what to tell you. You probably think the sky is orange too and I'm not going to argue that either because it's silly.

I think we are coming out of a warming pattern and heading into a cooling pattern. What I deny is that man had any great effect on the warming. See what you can't refute is, even though Co2 has continued to rise (just as Hansen et al thought it would) the global temp hasn't responded as they predicted it would. NOT EVEN CLOSE. Of course they keep changing their predictions and they keep getting it wrong. One would think with that mountain of evidence they could get some better predictions.

[snip]

Bullshart.

Weather-Manmade Global Warming Link Builds, Study Says - Page 3 Fbgw0

Global temperature has risen (right along with greenhouse gases) pretty closely to what the modeling has predicted.

by **Stovepipe** 2012-03-27, 4:25 pm

I will say that the thread has taken a turn for the better as we are now comparing data instead of Rush Limbaugh talking points. I'll add my normal disclaimer that there is nothing personal here, just good fun. Now I'm off to have a beer and see a movie with the wife. I'll check back later for the LOLs.

Very Happy

by **snowdog** 2012-03-28, 12:45 pm

I found this graph today while doing some reading. I found it very telling. Yesterday I asked why you didn't post graphs that went past 2005 or even 2001. Here is another good example of why the IPCC can't get out of its' own way.

Weather-Manmade Global Warming Link Builds, Study Says - Page 3 Gw410

According to the chart it was based on 2007 IPCC projections. I'm guessing that means IPCC rebuilt it's model and re-ran it's projections in 2007. Either way. The graph shows that not only is the IPCC projections off base, they aren't even close. For one when the IPCC model projects a valley in most cases reality shows a peak and vice versa. Also the IPCC model vastly overdoes the heating and the "cooling" points get no where close to as low as the true actual "cooling" points.

What this shows me is that either 1) the AGW theory is bunk or 2) those in this huge consensus with mountains of science still have no idea what role CO2 plays in our atmosphere as they can't produce a working model that even comes close to predicting reality 5 years out more or less 100 years out.

by **Stovepipe** 2012-03-28, 4:18 pm

snowdog wrote:I found this graph today while doing some reading. I found it very telling. Yesterday I asked why you didn't post graphs that went past 2005 or even 2001. Here is another good example of why the IPCC can't get out of its' own way.

According to the chart it was based on 2007 IPCC projections. I'm guessing that means IPCC rebuilt it's model and re-ran it's projections in 2007. Either way. The graph shows that not only is the IPCC projections off base, they aren't even close. For one when the IPCC model projects a valley in most cases reality shows a peak and vice versa. Also the IPCC model vastly overdoes the heating and the "cooling" points get no where close to as low as the true actual "cooling" points.

What this shows me is that either 1) the AGW theory is bunk or 2) those in this huge consensus with mountains of science still have no idea what role CO2 plays in our atmosphere as they can't produce a working model that even comes close to predicting reality 5 years out more or less 100 years out.

It sounds to me like you don't understand, even in general terms, how climate models work or how they are used. You are trying to make the case that the models are useless based on a 5 year span of weather events not matching up with one model scenario's projections. First of all, climate models estimate trends in climate, they do not at all attempt to predict weather, they are useful on a multi-decade scale. You continuing to disregard those charts I posted that only go to 2005 only further illustrates your missing of the point. If you are going to measure the skill of a climate model and only look at 5 or even 10 years of data then you really have nothing at all to gauge whether the thing is useful or not.

These models are predicting a century's worth of climate, pretty damn accurately too. That is one of the best ways to test them; plug historical known forcing data into them, watch how they simulate the climate, and compare the results to what was observed. This is where you can clearly see that greenhouse gases increasing over time has warmed the atmosphere. This is hind-casting and it's a critical part of climate modeling. This is also how we can have a degree of confidence in the models skill at estimating the future. And before you jump in and say "they just fit it to a curve and tricked it to simulate correctly" NO they did not. It's all in the peer reviewed scientific papers if you want to read about how it works.

But you won't see any of this if you choose to only look at charts that show weather from the past 5 or 10 years. Feel free to continue to only look at the small bits of information that appear to confirm your denial. It's a shame that we can't have a constructive discussion on the science of climate change, but so far that has been impossible because every other one of your sentences denies common scientific consensus and claims everything is bunk. If you are going to have your head in the sand that deep then I'm certainly not going to be able to convince you otherwise.

There really is no debate on whether or not AGW is real. I'm sorry there just isn't. I mean there are people that claim the world is flat. There are people that claim the flying spaghetti monster is going to kill us all, but there isn't any serious debate about those things among reasonable individuals. I'd love to discuss climate change policies and get people's thoughts on how we can address the situation going forward. What the possible implications are for the planet. Talk about advances in climate science and interesting new study's being done. But aside from Math/Met, it appears nobody cares about that line of discussion.

by **Toot** 2012-03-28, 4:33 pm

Stovepipe wrote:

There really is no debate on whether or not AGW is real. I'm sorry there just isn't.

Weather-Manmade Global Warming Link Builds, Study Says - Page 3 Lmao

by **Stovepipe** 2012-03-28, 5:48 pm

by **Toot** 2012-03-28, 9:49 pm

Frankly computer models cannot predict anything with good accuracy beyond a few hours...so one would be quite naive to think they can actually predict global temps years in advance Rolling Eyes

Sure global temps did rise if you look at graphs that end around the year 2000 but they have basically cooled since then. I can make a graph that will backup which ever agenda I choose its all about the start and stop date...lol

If you look at unbiased temp data from the 1800's to current (Recorded history) you will see many warming and cooling spikes/cycles and this is all perfectly normal. I see no evidence whatsoever of man made global warming and I refuse to believe any made up data that supposedly happened 10,000 years ago...there is no possible way to have that data and have it correct....sorry!

In our short time here our most powerful and greatest/worst invention is the Atomic Bomb and even that cannot change the earths thermostat...its silly to think we humans riding around in cars burning gasoline has caused some colossal change in global temperatures ...ludicrous really. Im still waiting on all the bad products of AGW.... where is the damn effects? I mean afteralll this warming has been going on since the end of the little ice age..........pfffffffffffffffffft Rolling Eyes

by **Stovepipe** 2012-03-28, 10:04 pm

I guess that settles it then. Why spend 100s of billions of dollars researching something when it can all be explained away in 3 simple paragraphs.

Weather-Manmade Global Warming Link Builds, Study Says - Page 3 Joker

Weather-Manmade Global Warming Link Builds, Study Says - Page 3 Joker

Screw science!

smartass

by **Toot** 2012-03-28, 10:14 pm

lol

by **snowdog** 2012-03-29, 8:52 am

Stovepipe wrote:It sounds to me like you don't understand, even in general terms, how climate models work or how they are used. You are trying to make the case that the models are useless based on a 5 year span of weather events not matching up with one model scenario's projections. First of all, climate models estimate trends in climate, they do not at all attempt to predict weather, they are useful on a multi-decade scale.

No I understand how models work. I also like how when it cools it's called "weather" but when it warms it's called "climate". It's only global warming when the consensus tells us it is and it is only weather variability when they say it is. It is easy to control the debate when you control when and how you get to use the terms.

These models are predicting a century's worth of climate, pretty damn accurately too. And before you jump in and say "they just fit it to a curve and tricked it to simulate correctly" NO they did not.

See here is the problem. If they didn't manipulate past data then something isn't jiving. You can't have a model that is "closely accurate" for 100 years produce such bad results just 5 years into a new updated model run. There would have to be SIGNIFICANT warming for the current global temperature to ever catch up to the 2007 IPCC model run. Also the green cone around the mean on the graph I showed should take into account any weather variability. It did in the graph you posted showing the last 100 years. The margin of error looked to be about .4 degree C between ensemble runs and magically the global temp stayed very close to the ensemble mean (yet it doesn't do that now). Of course you say that data wasn't messaged. I say seeing as how bad the current model performed just 5 years out it is obvious they have messaged past data.

There really is no debate on whether or not AGW is real. I'm sorry there just isn't.

You can say that till you are in red in the face but it doesn't make it true. Prove it.

by **Stovepipe** 2012-03-29, 9:17 am

snowdog wrote:
There really is no debate on whether or not AGW is real. I'm sorry there just isn't.

You can say that till you are in red in the face but it doesn't make it true. Prove it.

The burden of proof is on your shoulders my friend, since you are the one making the extreme minority claim that goes against virtually every expert in the field. Just because a small group of non-scientists are screaming about something doesn't mean there is a legitimate debate on the subject. This is not unlike the "truthers" who believe there was a conspiracy by the government to blow up the world trade center. This is not unlike the "birthers" that argue until they are blue in the face that Obama has a fake birth certificate and is really from Kenya. That's not what I call debate.

One problem here is that you, taking the hardcore libertarian stance, are starting with the premise that since the government is spending billions to research this it MUST be fraud and you use that as a starting point to work backwards. The science itself plays second fiddle to this notion. It doesn't really matter what data or evidence is produced, you aren't really going to read any of it beyond an excerpt or two that google turns up. There is no convincing you because your mind is already made up. Science be damned.

Regardless of that, I will gladly continue talking about the data and analysis with you because not only do I find that interesting but it's also been a great excuse to do more reading and brush up on some things. Truth be told, if I had not had the luxury of taking a climatology class a few years ago and not had a professor to hold my hand and explain some of the concepts in depth I probably wouldn't be running my mouth at all right now. If it wasn't for that course I probably wouldn't have read in full the IPCC report or some of referenced papers associated with it. I'm not even close to an expert in this field I wholeheartedly admit but I've read enough and studied enough to say with confidence that there is no way there is rampant fraud among the scientific community on this topic.

I have a busy day at work today so I'll not have time to get into any details on the modeling but look forward to joining back in on the conversation later on.

hurry

by **snowdog** 2012-03-29, 9:33 am

One problem here is that you, taking the hardcore libertarian stance, are starting with the premise that since the government is spending billions to research this it MUST be fraud and you use that as a starting point to work backwards.

I've mentioned that once in this thread. My main problem with AGW is that they don't have a working model. Which I went over in my last post. I'll await your answer on that issue.

The funding and what not is just a side issue that should get peoples' attention. As with anything in life the big question is "cui bono"? Who stands to gain and who stands to lose. Who gains from pushing the AGW agenda? It's certainly not the serfs.

by **Stovepipe** 2012-03-29, 9:45 am

snowdog wrote:
One problem here is that you, taking the hardcore libertarian stance, are starting with the premise that since the government is spending billions to research this it MUST be fraud and you use that as a starting point to work backwards.

I've mentioned that once in this thread. My main problem with AGW is that they don't have a working model. Which I went over in my last post. I'll await your answer on that issue.

The funding and what not is just a side issue that should get peoples' attention. As with anything in life the big question is "cui bono"? Who stands to gain and who stands to lose. Who gains from pushing the AGW agenda? It's certainly not the serfs.

Thanks for clarifying your stance. So you're main beef is with the state of climate models, their ability to illustrate that greenhouse gases influence warming, and their skill at estimating future warming. Am I clear?

As far as who stands to gain from the "agenda", well, we all do as well as future generations of course. I'm not going to get into the gains and losses discussion until we can come to terms on the "beef" above.

Very Happy

by **snowdog** 2012-03-29, 11:01 am

Stovepipe wrote:Thanks for clarifying your stance. So you're main beef is with the state of climate models, their ability to illustrate that greenhouse gases influence warming, and their skill at estimating future warming. Am I clear?

Lol, it's hard to say what my main beef is (there are many). The models are definitely a window into the heart of the theory to simplify it down to a sentence. So the models help show the error in the theory, past that you start getting down into the nuts and bolts to see where the theory went wrong. What parts are right and what parts are wrong. What assumptions were right and what assumptions were wrong.

Also, I'm not saying I'll never believe man contributes to warming but I'm not ready to pour billions of dollars down a black hole and change legislation for something, I think, it based on a very weak theory. What if we learn 100 years from now that man in fact did have a very small effect on warming but nothing that had any sort of significant impact on life. Was it worth the billions of dollars, consolidation of resources and changing of global legislation?

by **Stovepipe** 2012-03-29, 11:20 am

snowdog wrote:What if we learn 100 years from now that man in fact did have a very small effect on warming but nothing that had any sort of significant impact on life. Was it worth the billions of dollars, consolidation of resources and changing of global legislation?

Weather-Manmade Global Warming Link Builds, Study Says - Page 3 04a3d945

by **snowdog** 2012-03-29, 11:36 am

While the cartoon is funny it doesn't really deal with true question. It's not that it is a hoax, just badly misunderstood. Also, we aren't making the world better just mostly lining the pockets of those taking advantage of the theory.

by **Stovepipe** 2012-03-29, 12:26 pm

snowdog wrote:While the cartoon is funny it doesn't really deal with true question. It's not that it is a hoax, just badly misunderstood. Also, we aren't making the world better just mostly lining the pockets of those taking advantage of the theory.

You were adamant that it is a scam earlier in the thread. Scam, hoax, whatever. Your allegation is that the science is faulty and it's all part of an agenda. Not to get off on another tangent but since you mentioned government spending I thought I'd just double check the numbers.

According to the CBO, the U.S. is spending in the neighborhood of 5 billion a year on combined climate science and technology research.

Source: http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/112xx/doc11224/03-26-climatechange.pdf

To put that in perspective, the U.S. spent more than 683 billion on the military in 2010.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States

We are talking about a drop in the bucket in terms of spending. I'd think by you saying it is misunderstood that you'd be interested in more thoroughly getting to the bottom of it. It's as if you are saying "we don't know and we shouldn't find out" all while almost every single expert in the field is saying "this is very much real and very much a threat to the planet". I assure you that much of that military spending is going towards bracing the country against threats that are laughable at best.

by **snowdog** 2012-03-29, 12:51 pm

Stovepipe wrote:You were adamant that it is a scam earlier in the thread. Scam, hoax, whatever. Your allegation is that the science is faulty and it's all part of an agenda. Not to get off on another tangent but since you mentioned government spending I thought I'd just double check the numbers.

I have never said it was a hoax or a scam. That is a straw man of your own creation. I said it was more hype than substance. However it could probably be termed a scam in a certain sense.

We are talking about a drop in the bucket in terms of spending. I'd think by you saying it is misunderstood that you'd be interested in more thoroughly getting to the bottom of it.

First off $5 Billion is a crap load of money to be spent in one year studying this. What have we spent over the past 15 years to 20 years? As far as studying it more to get to the bottom of it...what purpose would it serve? Is there a real threat that there is this theoretical "tipping point" of sorts?

by **Stovepipe** 2012-03-29, 1:39 pm

snowdog wrote:
Stovepipe wrote:You were adamant that it is a scam earlier in the thread. Scam, hoax, whatever. Your allegation is that the science is faulty and it's all part of an agenda. Not to get off on another tangent but since you mentioned government spending I thought I'd just double check the numbers.

I have never said it was a hoax or a scam. That is a straw man of your own creation. I said it was more hype than substance. However it could probably be termed a scam in a certain sense.

We are talking about a drop in the bucket in terms of spending. I'd think by you saying it is misunderstood that you'd be interested in more thoroughly getting to the bottom of it.

First off $5 Billion is a crap load of money to be spent in one year studying this. What have we spent over the past 15 years to 20 years? As far as studying it more to get to the bottom of it...what purpose would it serve? Is there a real threat that there is this theoretical "tipping point" of sorts?

Don't even try to play the straw man card with me snowdog. You want to pick nits on words? Fine, toot was the one insisting it was a scam. You merely stated it was baseless, hype, and bunk. Is that better? Yeah I really created a straw man there.
facepalm

How much spent over 15 years? A tiny speck under the fingernail of a much larger being, that's how much. Is there a real threat? The results of all that money being spent say yes. Not just yes but emphatically yes.

If you are going to honestly sit there and claim that the climate models ARE NOT EVEN CLOSE to accurately predicting climate then you have some mighty large blinders on. I figured you would bite on the hind-casting thing, and suggest that they just correct the data to match results they want to show. I should have worn my boots today because the bullshit is getting very deep in here. You do not have many legs to stand on here, your argument as to the science being bunk is incredibly weak, and you are grasping at straws. Point me to some peer reviewed papers that show GCM hind-casting, as used in the IPCC analysis, was faked. I'll be waiting.

You wanted me to get back with you on that chart you posted showing a few years of weather data? Well I was going to go through the motions of checking to see which actual model produced that (since IPCC uses many models) and which scenario that projection represented (since IPCC uses many scenarios) but taking another look at it, there is no need to whatsoever. That projection deviated from the observed weather starting in about 2008, it was most likely due to a shift in ENSO that the climate model didn't predict (since it isn't designed to predict weather) and really has no bearing at all on the big picture of climate and still generally represents trend within it's useful time scale. To use this as a basis to refute ALL of AGW, while ignoring the model's impressive skill at predicting the previous 100 years climate, is clown shoes wearing nonsense.

I'm still open to learning more about your viewpoint, but honestly man this is getting a bit ridiculous.

by **snowdog** 2012-03-29, 2:29 pm

Stovepipe wrote:Don't even try to play the straw man card with me snowdog. You want to pick nits on words? Fine, toot was the one insisting it was a scam. You merely stated it was baseless, hype, and bunk. Is that better? Yeah I really created a straw man there.

You are the one posting pics of tin foil hat crazies. It may have been in good fun and I didnt take offense to it but it is a subtle debate technique to paint the other side as crazy. I was just clarifying my position so it doesn't get construed.

How much spent over 15 years? A tiny speck under the fingernail of a much larger being, that's how much.

What does that even mean? Is $5 Billion dollars in one year not a lot of money? Will $20 Billion in one year get us any close to finding an answer to this theory? Where does the money pit stop or is it a black hole?

You do not have many legs to stand on here, your argument as to the science being bunk is incredibly weak, and you are grasping at straws. Point me to some peer reviewed papers that show GCM hind-casting, as used in the IPCC analysis, was faked. I'll be waiting.

Stove, you are missing the point by a loooooong shot. We don't have to go down the road of peer reviewed papers...just look at the actual data vs that of the IPCC climate model.

Look at your 100 year graph. It has x number of ensemble runs and has an ensemble mean. The min/max of the ensemble runs look to have a delta of .4 degree C. Which gives a cone of variability. If you notice the actual recorded global temp almost never varies outside of that predicted cone of variability. If one were to look at that graph and that graph alone you would think that is one bad ass model and obviously the IPCC has this thing figured out.

Now look at the 2007 IPCC model run. It still has about a .4 degree C cone of variability (shaded in green). The actual data did stay in that cone for the 1st couple of years. Since then things have gone awry...badly. Now we are way outside the cone of variability. Also note the 2007 IPCC climate model never cools for any significant period of time it only warms and keeps increasing the warming by whatever factor is built in. However long range meteorological models continue to forecast a cooling globe into the future. If the met models are right there is going to be a HUGE discrepancy between the 2007 IPCC model and actual temp.

So now lets compare the results from the 2 graphs. You have the 100 year graph where recorded global temp almost never gets outside of the cone of variability. So one would think this is both a climate and met model because we have gone through numerous Nino/Nina's, PDO cycles, Sun cycles, etc. and yet this 100 year model has been strikingly accurate. Then we have the new 2007 IPCC model run that after 5 years is off and your only recourse is to tell me it isn't a met model but a climate model and doesn't take into account ENSO and other met factors????

Something doesn't jive. You can't have it both ways.

by **Stovepipe** 2012-03-29, 2:45 pm

Snowdog, while you are focused on that zoomed in chart, I'm going to take a step back and show you the big picture. Not only does the IPCC have this thing figured out, but the models have even been CONSERVATIVE on the projections.

Allow me to turn your attention to the Copenhagen Diagnosis. Since we are between IPCC assessment reports (next one due out in 2013) it is useful to look at what recent papers have shown. In summary, we have this:

Surging greenhouse gas emissions: Global carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels in 2008 were 40% higher than those in 1990. Even if global emission rates are stabilized at present –day levels, just 20 more years of emissions would give a 25% probability that warming exceeds 2°C. Even with zero emissions after 2030. Every year of delayed action increase the chances of exceeding 2°C warming.

Recent global temperatures demonstrate human-based warming: Over the past 25 years temperatures have increased at a rate of 0.190C per decade, in every good agreement with predictions based on greenhouse gas increases. Even over the past ten years, despite a decrease in solar forcing, the trend continues to be one of warming. Natural, short- term fluctuations are occurring as usual but there have been no significant changes in the underlying warming trend.

Acceleration of melting of ice-sheets, glaciers and ice-caps: A wide array of satellite and ice measurements now demonstrate beyond doubt that both the Greenland and Antarctic ice-sheets are losing mass at an increasing rate. Melting of glaciers and ice-caps in other parts of the world has also accelerated since 1990.

Rapid Arctic sea-ice decline: Summer-time melting of Arctic sea-ice has accelerated far beyond the expectations of climate models. The area of summertime sea-ice during 2007-2009 was about 40% less than the average prediction from IPCC AR4 climate models.

Current sea-level rise underestimates: Satellites show great global average sea-level rise (3.4 mm/yr over the past 15 years) to be 80% above past IPCC predictions. This acceleration in sea-level rise is consistent with a doubling in contribution from melting of glaciers, ice caps and the Greenland and West-Antarctic ice-sheets.

Sea-level prediction revised: By 2100, global sea-level is likely to rise at least twice as much as projected by Working Group 1 of the IPCC AR4, for unmitigated emissions it may well exceed 1 meter. The upper limit has been estimated as – 2 meters sea-level rise by 2100. Sea-level will continue to rise for centuries after global temperature have been stabilized and several meters of sea level rise must be expected over the next few centuries.

Delay in action risks irreversible damage: Several vulnerable elements in the climate system (e.g. continental ice-sheets. Amazon rainforest, West African monsoon and others) could be pushed towards abrupt or irreversible change if warming continues in a business-as-usual way throughout this century. The risk of transgressing critical thresholds (“tipping points”) increase strongly with ongoing climate change. Thus waiting for higher levels of scientific certainty could mean that some tipping points will be crossed before they are recognized.

The turning point must come soon: If global warming is to be limited to a maximum of 2°C above pre-industrial values, global emissions need to peak between 2015 and 2020 and then decline rapidly. To stabilize climate, a decarbonized global society – with near-zero emissions of CO2 and other long-lived greenhouse gases – need to be reached well within this century. More specifically, the average annual per-capita emissions will have to shrink to well under 1 metric ton CO2 by 2050. This is 80-90% below the per-capita emissions in developed nations in 2000.

http://www.copenhagendiagnosis.com/

So it is YOU that are missing the point by focusing pretty much only on global average temperature and only one small subsection of a cherry picked data set. What is listed above is the consensus and it is showing how reality is matching up with model projections. But oh yeah, that is just a consensus of people that are all wrong according to you right? I'm not calling you crazy, but I have to say that this thread surprises me. You have proven that you are a smart guy. You have been a wiz all winter analyzing weather, I respect you a great deal. But the blatant ignoring of evidence by you on this is startling.

by **Stovepipe** 2012-03-29, 3:31 pm

More about the report I linked above in case anyone didn't go check it out. Very very interesting stuff. It's like a mini version of an IPCC assessment report that is more digestible and less dry. The Cliffs Notes version if you will. Eyeballing the reference section I count at least 275 referenced papers.

It is more than three years since the drafting of text was completed for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report (AR4). In the meantime, many hundreds of papers have been published on a suite of topics related to human-induced climate change.

The purpose of this report is to synthesize the most policy-relevant climate science published since the close-off of material for the last IPCC report. The rationale is two-fold.

First, this report serves as an interim evaluation of the evolving science midway through an IPCC cycle - IPCC AR5 is not due for completion until 2013.

Second, and most important, the report serves as a handbook of science updates that supplements the IPCC AR4 in time for Copenhagen in December 2009, and any national or international climate change policy negotiations that follow.

This report covers the range of topics evaluated by Working Group I of the IPCC, namely the Physical Science Basis. This includes:

an analysis of greenhouse gas emissions and their atmospheric concentrations, as well as the global carbon cycle;
coverage of the atmosphere, the land-surface, the oceans, and all of the major components of the cryosphere (land-ice, glaciers, ice shelves, sea-ice and permafrost);
paleoclimate, extreme events, sea level, future projections, abrupt change and tipping points;
separate boxes devoted to explaining some of the common misconceptions surrounding climate change science.

The report has been purposefully written with a target readership of policy-makers, stakeholders, the media and the broader public. Each section begins with a set of key points that summarises the main findings. The science contained in the report is based on the most credible and significant peer-reviewed literature available at the time of publication. The authors primarily comprise previous IPCC lead authors familiar with the rigor and completeness required for a scientific assessment of this nature.

by **snowdog** 2012-03-29, 3:53 pm

Stovepipe wrote:Snowdog, while you are focused on that zoomed in chart, I'm going to take a step back and show you the big picture.

I'm not trying to be a prick but before we step back and move the goalposts can you answer the discrepancy in the models?

So it is YOU that are missing the point by focusing pretty much only on global average temperature and only one small subsection of a cherry picked data set.

None of the data is cherry picked. It's based on IPCC numbers, models and current climate data. You are dodging the question.

I'm not calling you crazy, but I have to say that this thread surprises me. You have proven that you are a smart guy. You have been a wiz all winter analyzing weather, I respect you a great deal. But the blatant ignoring of evidence by you on this is startling.

I appreciate the kind words. I respect you as well but people can look at data and see 2 totally different things.

by Sponsored content