Just 2% short of the magic 97% number, I’m sure the SkS kidz will be devastated.
From Reuters:
Drafts seen by Reuters of the study by the U.N. panel of experts, due to be published next month, say it is at least 95 percent likely that human activities – chiefly the burning of fossil fuels – are the main cause of warming since the 1950s.
That is up from at least 90 percent in the last report in 2007, 66 percent in 2001, and just over 50 in 1995, steadily squeezing out the arguments by a small minority of scientists that natural variations in the climate might be to blame.
That shifts the debate onto the extent of temperature rises and the likely impacts, from manageable to catastrophic. Governments have agreed to work out an international deal by the end of 2015 to rein in rising emissions.
“We have got quite a bit more certain that climate change … is largely manmade,” said Reto Knutti, a professor at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich. “We’re less certain than many would hope about the local impacts.”
…
WARMING SLOWING
The panel will try to explain why global temperatures, while still increasing, have risen more slowly since about 1998 even though greenhouse gas concentrations have hit repeated record highs in that time, led by industrial emissions by China and other emerging nations.
An IPCC draft says there is “medium confidence” that the slowing of the rise is “due in roughly equal measure” to natural variations in the weather and to other factors affecting energy reaching the Earth’s surface.
Scientists believe causes could include: greater-than-expected quantities of ash from volcanoes, which dims sunlight; a decline in heat from the sun during a current 11-year solar cycle; more heat being absorbed by the deep oceans; or the possibility that the climate may be less sensitive than expected to a build-up of carbon dioxide.
“It might be down to minor contributions that all add up,” said Gabriele Hegerl, a professor at Edinburgh University. Or maybe, scientists say, the latest decade is just a blip.
In scientific parlance, I’d call that a SWAG>
At DNAindia:
Drafts seen by Reuters of the study by the UN panel of experts, due to be published next month, say it is at least 95 percent likely that human activities – chiefly the burning of fossil fuels – are the main cause of warming since the 1950s. That is up from at least 90 percent in the last report in 2007, 66 percent in 2001, and just over 50 in 1995, steadily squeezing out the arguments by a small minority of scientists that natural variations in the climate might be to blame.
That “squeeze out” is about right, look at Dr. Roger Pielke’s minority view with the AGU:
His minority view was one of 15 people that made the statement.
That works out to about a 7% minority view (or 93% majority) on that panel
Tom Nelson wonders about the 95% certainty:
[Were those numbers calculated, or just pulled out of some orifice?]
UPDATE:
Kurt Rohlfs writes via email about that statement from Tom Nelson:
Your article asks “Were those numbers calculated, or just pulled out of some orifice?” They were not calculated, at least if the same procedure from the fourth assessment report was used. In that prior climate assessment, buried in a footnote in the Summary for Policymakers, the IPCC admitted that the reported 90% confidence interval was simply based on “expert judgment” i.e. conjecture. This, of course begs the question as to how any human being can have “expertise” in attributing temperature trends to human causes when there is no scientific instrument or procedure capable of verifying the expert attributions.
Meanwhile, they haven’t offered up an explanation as to why reality and IPCC models diverge, perhaps because they can’t.
> 95% likely with just 4% of the CO2… hmmm
97% is for the next report. Unless it is pal reviewed in which case it might be 102%
There was an error in the quote, so I fixed it for them. 😉
=========
Drafts seen by Reuters of the study by the U.N. panel of advocates, due to be published next month, say it is at least 95 percent likely that human activities – chiefly the burning of fossil fuels – are the main cause of warming since the 1950s.
That is up from at least 90 percent in the last report in 2007, 66 percent in 2001, and just over 50 in 1995, steadily squeezing out the arguments by a large majority of scientists that natural variations in the climate might be to blame.
==========
Variations in the WEATHER?
Did I read right?
they are 95% certain that 3-4% of the CO2 caused the warming since the 1950’s….
and equally certain that the lack of warming was caused by natural causes
…and I’m 100% certain they are either stupid…..or crooked….more than likely both
Since the definition of climate change and of global warming, is, according to UNFCC, UNEP, and IPCC, warming caused by human activity, AR5 is in conflict with itself.
All warming is AGW according to them, not “most” warming.
See they are still not living in the real world then!!
Taking their lesson from Rusty Limbaugh’s “99.4% correct, as audited by ” To *them*, there is no such thing as bad publicity.
Those percentages bear a creepy resemblance to the Free and Democratic election results of Soviet Russia, 1954 -1989. So does the squeezing out of the opposition.
Well I am 99.99% certain that of the 0.74 C that the global temperature allegedly rose in the last century, mankind is responsible for less than 0.01 C of that 0.74 C.
However, I am 100% certain that the models which the IPCC uses and has used in the past, are 100% crap.
Statistical Dissonance
In STILL Epic Fail: 73 Climate Models vs. Measurements, Running 5-Year Means Roy Spencer showed projections of 75 models from 1979 ALL running higher than recent satellite temperature measurements. See Graph
That appears to be >97% FAIL. i.e., > 2 sigma from the mean evidence, or 95% probability that the IPCC’s anthropogenic warming is NOT due primarily to human causes.
For the technical trend probabilities see Lucia’s explorations at The Blackboard. e.g., citing von Storch for the last 15 years (from 1998):
Lucia observes:
So much for 97% confidence of anthropogenic causes!!!
Calling all Statisticians.
The IPPC are 95% certain that Climastrology is the way forward, and It is Mann made.
The science never worked for them.
The data never worked for them.
Their models fail them.
Then, there was Climategate.
All they can do is desperately cling to the old, tired mantras like “most scientists agree”, and “the heat is hiding in the deep oceans”.
They are desperate.
You’re missing the big news from the Reuters story:
“…the IPCC has added what diplomats say is an improbable scenario for radical government action that would require cuts in global greenhouse gases to zero by about 2070.”
They would like to remove all CO2 and water vapor from the atmosphere. The Environmental Impact Study for that will be interesting!
More seriously, is this just sloppy writing — or does the reporter not understand that “greenhouse gases” are a natural part of the air?
Friends:
I am 100% certain that the claimed increase in certainty concerning the cause of twentieth century warming is fabricated.
My certainty derives from the lack of any twenty first century warming despite the prediction of “committed warming” in the IPCC’s 2007 report.
Richard
Footnote on Committed Warming
The explanation for this is in IPCC AR4 (2007) Chapter 10.7 which can be read at
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch10s10-7.html
It says there
In other words, it was expected that global temperature would rise at an average rate of “0.2°C per decade” over the first two decades of this century with half of this rise being due to atmospheric GHG emissions which were already in the system.
This assertion of “committed warming” should have had large uncertainty because the Report was published in 2007 and there was then no indication of any global temperature rise over the previous 7 years. There has still not been any rise and we are now way past the half-way mark of the “first two decades of the 21st century”.
So, if this “committed warming” is to occur such as to provide a rise of 0.2°C per decade by 2020 then global temperature would need to rise over the next 7 years by about 0.4°C. And this assumes the “average” rise over the two decades is the difference between the temperatures at 2000 and 2020. If the average rise of each of the two decades is assumed to be the “average” (i.e. linear trend) over those two decades then global temperature now needs to rise before 2020 by more than it rose over the entire twentieth century. It only rose ~0.8°C over the entire twentieth century.
Simply, the “committed warming” has disappeared (perhaps it has eloped with Trenberth’s ‘missing heat’?).
Why is the headline conflating the confidence level and the consensus figure. They are two different things. This isn’t about what 95% of scientists think. This is a 95% chance that the oberved warming is the result of human activities. This is a simple reading comprehension matter.
Scientists believe causes could include: greater-than-expected quantities of ash from volcanoes, which dims sunlight; a decline in heat from the sun during a current 11-year solar cycle; more heat being absorbed by the deep oceans; or the possibility that the climate may be less sensitive than expected to a build-up of carbon dioxide.
I guess they just ignore peer reviewed science. This paper:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2012JD017997/abstract
covered here:
http://scienceofdoom.com/2013/02/07/ceres-airs-outgoing-longwave-radiation-el-nino/
clearly shows the recent cooling is the result of ENSO changes. They measured it for god sakes. This result supports the hypothesis put forward by Bob Tisdale that ENSO is the driver of global temperatures. Since the PDO is a good index of ENSO activity I like to use it when discussing climate drivers. This is evident in charts like this one:
http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/figure-113.png
That global temperatures have been driven by the Pacific Ocean for at least a century.
It appears the IPCC is going to ignore this strong evidence that human emissions ARE NOT the driver of changes in global temperatures.
This isn’t about consensus but about confidence. You can argue about the confidence but you cannot link the two, as is done in the headline.
Speaking as a statistician, measurements such as “97% certain” are generally overstated.
Why? Because such statements necessarily assume a specific model, and the uncertainty in the assumptions behind the model are never fully understood. It’s not possible to do so, since that would require complete knowledge of a situation. In other words, there are things we don’t even know that we don’t know, and we cannot model that.
In short, the IPCC is making a ridiculously accurate statement for a situation that is rife with ignorance and complication. They would do better to simply state their belief that AGW is almost certainly occurring rather than trying to bully with faux mathematics.
Given the undisputed facts that CO2 has increased since FAR, but temperatures have not, the IPCC is setting themselves up for public ridicule.
Maybe down in the fine print they justify the increase in confidence to 95% percent the humans have caused the majority of warming, but I think this is only scientifically justifiable by simultaneously saying human contribution of warming has dropped from 90% to 60% (still a majority), and that the estimate for overall warming due to CO2 has dropped from near 2 degrees to less than 1 deg. But that would be only if they are playing it straight.
There is little doubt in my mind that the “Bum’s Rush” is on. The only thing that will matter is the Press Release before the publication of the Executive Summary which is a month before the publication of detailed report. Bait and switch, headlines matter, fine print be damned.
If that’s the way they want to play the game, then the opposition needs to pull no punches. In FAR, they were 90% confident that humans cause most of the warming through CO2 increases. In the past five years, computer models all predicted higher temperatures. Instead, nature has remained flat to cooling. No objective scientist would increase their confidence given such a poor record of prediction. The only confidence that should increase is the belief that the IPCC is playing the world’s taxpayers for fools. Like Latitude, my confidence is 100% the IPCC is engaging in daylight robbery.
“Fool me once, shame on you.
Fool me twice, shame on me.”
Attempt to fool me a fifth time,
we need to apply the tar and feathers.
rabbit:
re your post at August 16, 2013 at 1:37 pm
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/16/the-ipccs-new-certainty-is-95-what-not-97/#comment-1392538
I think you are saying 95% of all statistics are made up.
Have I got that right? If so, then with respect to the IPCC I agree.
Richard
Margaret Hardman says:
August 16, 2013 at 1:36 pm
This isn’t about consensus but about confidence. You can argue about the confidence but you cannot link the two, as is done in the headline.
————————-
I’m sure that AW is aware of the difference. The connection is that CACCA consistently, shamelessly uses baselessly high percentages when talking up support for its ludicrous lies.
There is zero evidentiary basis for the assertion that humans are the main cause of climate change at the 95% confidence level, just as there is zero support for the claim that 97% of “active climate scientists” believe the same, let alone all scientists, as that particular lie is commonly reported.
Correction to 1:39 pm.
“FAR” should be “AR4”
[snip . . stop it , that’s spam . . mod]
So … the predictions and models have proven to be less and less accurate as time goes on, but the confidence that they are right is increasing as time goes on. Why not just go ahead and say “The more I am wrong just proves that I was right.”
The IPCC are nothing but a gang of criminals, guilty of crimes against humanity.
In 2001 they were 66% certain; now they’re 95% certain. Since then, temperatures are, well, to be kind, flat; but CO2 has gone up by over 35ppm. I’m wondering if the dollar increase in grant money might be the missing factor here.
Reuters is one of the chief propagandist media enablers: let’s recall Sir Cripsin Tickell is on their board. Of course when AR5 first draft leaked, Reuters was quite discreet. Not one article on low sensitivity or models’ fail. But facts are not the business these people are into. This selective release by Reuters is no coincidence. In France for instance, glaciologist masquerading as a climatologist Jean Jouzel who is supervising the sea level chapter in AR5, is once again touring TV sets with the most alarmist material yet, from increased droughts’ frequency and severity -no one told him that droughts are linked mainly with cold periods- to sea level rise: only the goal posts, once again have shifted since the impending 2012 doom did not happen.
From skeptics are uneducated, old farts to 97% of scientists believe in AGW, claims will now appear in the global media party with increasing frequency: that is no AGW prediction but the result of ABS. Thomson Reuters opens the ball…
This ought to be the battleground over the science in the AR5. As rgbatduke put it, if the IPCC writes this sort of nonsense, “there will be hell to pay”. I am going to be very interested to see how Judith Curry responds to this nonsense.
Jim Cripwell, Me too.
richardscourtney:
A more accurate statement might be “uncertainty is always greater than believed.”
Milodonharlani
Two things – no evidence? Mmm, do we agree there is no evidence for the later comment by Bruce Cobb that “The IPCC are nothing but a gang of criminals, guilty of crimes against humanity.” I know this is a different point but if you are going to call me out on lack of evidence then surely…
Second, if AW knows it, why not make that clear? He doesn’t because it is a stick in a wasps nest and, lo, the predictable comments are trotted out. Even you must be bored of reading them every day.
rabbit:
Thankyou for your reply to me at August 16, 2013 at 2:07 pm
If you have no objection I will adopt the use of your statement; i.e.
“uncertainty is always greater than believed.”
Richard
Mannian maths and similar dodgy analysis techniques are a pre-requisite for this sort of 95% certainty.
Natural climate cycles can be safely ignored as they are unquantifiable, however the impact of the increase in CO2 levels is 110% quantifiable. Why? Because we the IPCC say so.
On a more serious note, what does the guts of this document say? Note: That’s not the summary section written by spin doctors designed to impress/influence goofy politicians and the liberal media.
greg2213 says:
August 16, 2013 at 12:50 pm
There was an very slight error in the fix for the fix for the error in the quote by the U.N., so I fixed it for them. 😉
You should produce an additional GIF with future AR5, AR6 & AR7 arrows pointing at the same point the AR4 arrow points to (note, the AR6 arrow pointing straight up and the AR7 arrow pointing backwards)
Margaret, is sarcasm really that difficult for you to understand? Well, I’m not too surprised. Anyone that has fallen for the cAGW propaganda machine is several blades short of a nice lawn.
So they took 1950 !
This would exclude most of AMO/PDO effects and is quite a good startting point.
But did they also tell that HadCrut4 trend since then is only 0.1K / decade?
And, according to leaked AR5, forcing increase of CO2 during 1950-2011 is only 1.2 W/m2, while total anthropogenic forcing increased by 1.7 W/m2.
http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j237/hausfath/ScreenShot2012-12-13at43419PM_zps4a925dbf.png
Therefore CO2 contributed only about 1.2/1.7 * 0.1 K/decade = 0.07K/decade since 1950,
and this under doubtful assumptions of zero urban heat and zero non TSI influence from the sun.
The strategy may be to frighten with the strong increase after 1979, which is mostly due to AMO/PDO, but to connect high confidence with another date without conceding that we are now talking about a very little CO2 temperature effect.
Margaret Hardman says:
August 16, 2013 at 2:08 pm
There is abundant evidence in support of Mr. Cobb’s statement, although “all” might not be as robustly supported. There might still be some real scientists involved in IPCC, who haven’t yet given up all hope in its plainly anti-scientific endeavor.
OTOH, there is no evidence whatsoever to support the IPCC’s assertion that humans are mainly (whatever that might mean, presumably more than half) responsible for climate change (whatever that means today) at the 95% confidence level. Truly they are confidence-persons, or con-men for short.
If you believe that evidence exists to support this conclusion, I’d appreciate your presenting it. Thanks.
LOL.
In one paragraph they claim that 95% of scientists agree that humans are warming up the planet, and in another that explain that they don’t know why it isn’t. First the say the warming can’t be attributed to natural variation, then they claim the the lack of warming over the last two decades might be because of…. natural variation!
You just can’t make this stuff up.
Until you define what you mean by “main cause of warming,” it is quite impossible to assign any confidence levels. “Main” must be expressed as a quantity. I also note that even if man is the main cause of warming, it does not follow that we should be concerned. As always, the issue is “how much” are humans responsible for, not whether warming is occurring.
Bizarre, as more and more data has piled up ripping the theory that co2 is a major driver to shreds, the IPCC became more and more certain. This simply is NOT science or a struggle to find the truth.
As it becomes more obvious this theory was wrong, Im rather concerned it will have negative impacts on ACTUAL environmental causes. the boy who cried wolf and all that. Very sad.
“We have got quite a bit more certain that climate change … is largely manmade,”
And why, precisely … because it isn’t changing this century perhaps?
I can go one better–I’m 100% certain that since there’s been no statistically-significant warming in over 16 years, what the IPCC asserts is only correct if human activity has not increased in all that time.
Now, I believe the global economy has been slowing down, but it hasn’t leveled off–not for 16+ years!
And it doesn’t take a “panel of experts” to come to that conclusion.
“due in roughly equal measure” to natural variations in the weather and to other factors affecting energy reaching the Earth’s surface.
So, they are here for the first time admitting that “weather”, note not climate, can vary naturally. It is up to the IPCC to show that all
climate weather variation is not due to natural causes, including “factors affecting energy reaching the Earth’s surface”.These guys are juggling like crazy to keep their
grant fund receiving hairy balls in the air.Rats, formatting problem in the last post. This is how it was supposed to look:
“due in roughly equal measure” to natural variations in the weather and to other factors affecting energy reaching the Earth’s surface.
So, they are here for the first time admitting that “weather”, note not climate, can vary naturally. It is up to the IPCC to show that all
climateweather variation is not due to natural causes, including “factors affecting energy reaching the Earth’s surface”.These guys are juggling like crazy to keep their
grant fund receivinghairy balls in the air.Come on man….
“… or the possibility that the climate may be less sensitive than expected to a build-up of carbon dioxide.”
The planet has not warmed for 17 years. The gig is up. A lack of warming is only possible if the planet resists forcing changes (negative feedback) rather than amplifies forcing changes (positive feedback).
The IPCC is 95% sure that some of the warming in the last 70 years is due to AGW (primarily the increase in CO2 and CH4 in the atmosphere).
We are 100% sure that the IPCC is a rigging a process to cover up scientific evidence that the warming due to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 will be less than 1C as planetary cloud cover in the tropics increases or decreases to resist forcing changes, negative feedback.
http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/236-Lindzen-Choi-2011.pdf
On the Observational Determination of Climate Sensitivity and Its Implications
Richard S. Lindzen1 and Yong-Sang Choi2
….We again find that the outgoing radiation resulting from SST fluctuations exceeds the zerofeedback response thus implying negative feedback. In contrast to this, the calculated TOA outgoing radiation fluxes from 11 atmospheric models forced by the observed SST are less than the zerofeedback response, consistent with the positive feedbacks that characterize these models. …. … However, warming from a doubling of CO2 would only be about 1C (based on simple calculations where the radiation altitude and the Planck temperature depend on wavelength in accordance with the attenuation coefficients of well mixed CO2 molecules; a doubling of any concentration in ppmv produces the same warming because of the logarithmic dependence of CO2’s absorption on the amount of CO2) (IPCC, 2007). This modest warming is much less than current climate models suggest for a doubling of CO2. Models predict warming of from 1.5C to 5C and even more for a doubling of CO2. Model predictions depend on the ‘feedback’ within models from the more important greenhouse substances, water vapor and clouds. Within all current climate models, water vapor increases with increasing temperature so as to further inhibit infrared cooling. Clouds also change so that their visible reflectivity decreases, causing increased solar absorption and warming of the earth. Cloud feedbacks are still considered to be highly uncertain (IPCC, 2007), but the fact that these feedbacks are strongly positive in most models is considered to be an indication that the result is basically correct. …
So some of the ’cause’ was natural? So most of the ’cause’ of the other sharp rise between 1910 to 1940 were natural? With the 16+ year temperature standstill you have to wonder whether the main cause of the warming since 1950 is due to human activities.
Margaret Hardman says:
August 16, 2013 at 1:35 pm
Why is the headline conflating the confidence level and the consensus figure. They are two different things. This isn’t about what 95% of scientists think. This is a 95% chance that the oberved warming is the result of human activities. This is a simple reading comprehension matter.
Margaret, you just failed the reading comprehension test.
“Just 2% short of the magic 97% number, I’m sure the SkS kidz will be devastated.”
“Scientists believe causes could include: greater-than-expected quantities of ash from volcanoes, which dims sunlight; a decline in heat from the sun during a current 11-year solar cycle; more heat being absorbed by the deep oceans; or the possibility that the climate may be less sensitive than expected to a build-up of carbon dioxide.”
Are they really going to publish this nonsense? Are they going to explain to the world that the heat that might have warmed the atmosphere escaped to the deep oceans? Do they expect someone to believe that? Why did they not know about this ocean phenomenon before the seventeen year “pause” in warming? Are they going to explain the concept of “ad hoc” hypotheses (from Popper, Logic of Scientific Discovery) used to save a favorite hypothesis from falsification?
Are they really going to say that the climate might be less sensitive to CO2? Would the general public not understand that to mean that CO2 is less important than had been thought before the seventeen year “pause?” Do they expect that the public will not ask if the sensitivity could possibly prove to be zero?
The IPCC will try to wear a happy face but the best they can expect from this report is public ridicule.
Clipe
I understand what the 95% actually means. That’s what I meant.
thisisnotgoodtogo said @ August 16, 2013 at 12:57 pm
… warming caused by human activity, AR5 is in conflict with itself.
All warming is AGW according to them, not “most” warming.
I now understand their climate/weather bait and switch. All climate warming is caused by human activity, but cooling and weather are caused by natural factors. A pretty piece of reasoning – just false in so many ways.
Does no one teach logic in universities any more?
Milodonharlani
I think you missed the sarc symbol from your comment. You are joking, surely. If you aren’t you are seriously mistaken. It is clear from your comment that short of rabbits in the Precambrian, nothing I suggest as evidence will ever be admitted by you as evidence. It would look better on your CV together into a micturating contest than it would on mine. So no point in giving you any. Take that how you will.
It’s calculated like this:
Margaret Hardman:
At August 16, 2013 at 2:48 pm you say
So do I. This links to my above statement (at August 16, 2013 at 1:25 pm) which explains what it means
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/16/the-ipccs-new-certainty-is-95-what-not-97/#comment-1392526
Richard
D.I. @ August 16, 2013 at 1:16 pm
Let me correct your spelling in that their posting of yours:
The IPPC are 95% certain that Crimatology is the way forward, and It is Mann made.
Margaret
You don’t seem to understand the sarcastic reference to the 97%. That’s what I mean.
My wish would be for “The Physical Basis” to be a downloadable .pdf in entirety (zip file?), as well as broken up in to .pdf chapters.
That way one only has to do a quick search on a topic of interest, find the biased science, and challenge it with the scientific literature (within seconds). You simply can’t do that now, unless someone wants to point out where to get the current edition in whole????? Prove me wrong.
We could do a FactCheck on the whole thing. When its broken up in separate documents its much too hard to systematically check all the errors.
This really needs to be done folks, I will tear down this piece of shit in 24 hours.
Yes, yes; and Hansen in his 1988 testimony claimed 99% certainty. When does another 25 years of intense study result in less certainty about a hypothesis? When the hypothesis was formed originally on the basis of data barely above, or even within the noise level, and there is no improvement in the resolving power or understanding of that data in the meantime.
In response to Theo Goodwin @ August 16, 2013 at 2:48 pm
Theo, what happens when the end of the world, as promised by some cult leader, does not occur?
Or after Titanic sunk, described as unsinkable by naval architects?
Or I do not win millions in the Ontario lottery, as promised by the OLG.CA?
A lot of hand waving, excuses and hopes that no one notices. Either that, or there is the terminal solution, Jim Jones and David Koresh.
What we see here is the hand waving approach. God forbid the Jim Jones approach.
It’s actually pretty simple. There is no Science based reason for ANY Scientist, even a “climate scientist”, to be 95% certain of causation when there is:
1. No effect
2. No correlation
Even if I was a “climate scientist”, looking at the real-world situation I’d have that confidence level down somewhere in the 30% range. As in, it’s still possible, but not looking very likely.
Unfortunately, like something out of a Lewis Carroll novel, the characters involved are so absolutely certain of their previous claims that they can only SEE things that match their earlier predictions. Even when observation completely devastates their prediction, it’s all they see.
You can be sure the bookies have done their homework
http://www.paddypower.com/bet/novelty-betting/weather/climate-change
Margaret Hardman says:
August 16, 2013 at 2:54 pm
Why is it clear to you that I would accept no evidence of a human influence on climate. IMO there might be one, but too small to be measured & whether the effect is to cool or warm is unclear. But I’m open to your persuasion, so please try.
It’s getting tiresome that every time anyone here asks you kindly to justify your apparently blind faith in CACCA, you find some way to weasel out of so doing. I’m sure that many besides me would enjoy reading your facts & reason in support of the hypothesis (repeatedly falsified) that humans are primarily responsible for “climate change” in the past fifty years, or whatever time frame you chose.
Surely you have some concrete reasons for holding this belief. Why the reluctance to share them?
Bruce Cobb
They are a gang of CRIMATOLOGISTS; Get with the lingo!
So “natural variations in the climate” are OK to explain the failures of the models but not for any other single thing. This makes sense since “natural variations” were dismissed early on as having any impact.
Normally statistical significance is only considered reached when p<0.05. Therefore 95% is not staistically significant.
Perhaps “97%” is still a valid number? But only if it applies to confidence in the IPCC.
Most people, unless they are true deniers acknowledge that CO2 has a definite and predictable role in warming the Earth, Since the CO2 has risen, one might expect an increase in temperature.
Bravo! The IPCC has detected this and is, may be, might be confident at the 95% level that this has occurred. This isn’t really the point. Does temperature rise that is detectably attributable to CO2 actually matter if there is no significant amplification?
The headline doesn’t address this, which is the issue that matters.
Er, what volcanoes?
I don’t believe the 95% number for a second, but lets suppose for a moment that it is accurate. That still means there’s a 5% chance they are wrong. They are asking governments across the world to spend trillions of dollars on something that’s not a sure bet. If I gave you 20 guns, and only 1 of them was loaded, and offered you a million dollars to pick one, put it to your head and pull the trigger, would you do it?
The UN-IPCC is participating in a ‘Confidence Game’. A ‘95% Confidence Interval’ is just another piece of the confidence game. The ultimate goal is the continued funding fraud that is at the heart of AGW.
Confidence Game legal definition:
noun.
An intentional misrepresentation of past or present facts in order to gain a person’s trust so that he/she will transfer money or property to the individual making the misrepresentation. Also called a con game.
Doesn’t that perfectly describe the AGW confidence game?
MtK
Baffled how the confidence level can go up for something when evidence of it goes down.
Let’s say a man was charged with a crime and had a trial by jury. They are the only suspect in this crime.
After each day in court, the jurors increase their confidence in his guilt. After the 1st day they are 50% sure, day 2 at 66%.
On day 3, the defense presents credible evidence that somebody else must have participated in commiting the crime and surely they should have reasonable doubt but instead, the jury goes to 90% confidence.
On day 4, the defense shows very compelling evidence that other people, at the very least took part in the crime, if they were not actually responsible for most/all of the crime(and the jurors even admit that there must have been a role played by others)……….and the jurors, instead of increasing reasonable doubt become 95% confident in the defendants guilt.
What the heck is this?
1930’s in the Jim Crow south with a black man on trial and an all white jury??????
No, just the IPCC as the jury and CO2 charged with the crime.
The very existence of IPCC depends upon the danger of climate change – which really means anthropogenic global warming. Given human nature, why would the IPCC cut its own throat by admitting that climate change is mainly controlled by forces other than human? The only way to make the IPCC accountable is to scale their funding according to the accuracy of their climate model predictions. That would force them to silently incorporate the real forces at work in their climate model, and then everyone would be happy.
On second thought, why don’t we all listen to the Old Farmers Almanac forecasts since it has been at it for over 200 years, and just can the IPCC.
Margaret Hardman, Previous IPCC reports read like that, too. They conflate consensus and confidence level, it seems, in their very vague wording. I’d welcome any direction to a good explanation for how they derive these confidence intervals. I’ve looked pretty hard in past reports.
It appears that they calculated their confidence using the inverse of the formula used to adjust the recorded temperature of 1934.
After all, it would be overstating my opinion of their statistical prowess to assume the creation of a completely different mathematical expression of bias.
What about the AMO changing in that time frame…Noaa even says it exagerrates and masks the changes in temperature between its cycles. 95% certain it’s human caused when the AMO has a factor on temperature that is published and increased temperatures then……
Yes, probably should have said “Mans releasing greenhouse gases” (AGW) is the crime.
So as the temp has dropped when they predicted increase, and their models have failed to predict anything, their certainty in the correctness of their position has increased. Ya, makes perfect sense.
Well, there you go! Just a little editing, and I’m 100% certain they ARE the main cause of Mann-caused global warming since the 1950’s!
Why are any of you talking to Margaret Hardman in the first place? She’s a useful idiot, and completely beneath consideration. Second, when can we be done funding in any way this wretched pumping mechanism, the IPCC. They are a travesty, an embarrassment to science, and a criminal scam.
Margaret Hardman,
A simpleton was driving down a highway when he saw an apparently stalled car and motorist on the shoulder. Wanting to be of help, the simpleton pulled over and offered his assistance, whereupon the stalled motorist pulled a gun and forced him out of his car. The gunman scribed a circle in the gravel with his toe and instructed the simpleton to stand in it or be shot. Then the gunman proceeded to vandalize parts of the simpleton’s car. After each escalating act of vandalism, the gunman glanced at the simpleton, who each time beamed back at him from within the circle. Finally, the gunman put the simpleton’s car into neutral and pushed it off the road and down a steep embankment where it rolled over and burst into flames. Looking once again at the simpleton, the gunman was surprised to see him laughing uncontrollably! “Look,” said the gunman, “I just destroyed your car piece by piece and you think it is all a joke. Just what is so funny?” Well, answered the simpleton, while you were doing that, I stepped outside the circle five times!”
Margaret, you apparently don’t know when you’re “beat”. It’s looking more and more like CO2 climate sensitivity is low. Most WUWT readers think that is good news. Why don’t you?
Mike Maguire says: “Baffled how the confidence level can go up for something when evidence of it goes down.”
It’s worse than that, but you need to look a little more specifically at their findings. In 2007 the IPCC was 90% confident in the proposition that man-made CO2 caused most of the warming “since the 1950s.” Since 2007, temperatures have continued to be flat despite CO2 concentrations remaining at record highs. The IPCC expresses only “medium confidence” however, in their current explanation as to how natural effects have been counteracting the CO2 effect. In IPCC parlance “medium confidence” is significantly less than 90% – I forget the exact percentage.
My question is this – how can the confidence in CO2’s influence on temperatures go up from 90% in 2007 to 95% today, when the IPCC is less than 90% confident in the mechanism by which nature counteracted CO2’s supposedly near-certain effect so as to, in combination, produce the measured temperature trend since 2007? We’re talking about the same climate system here – your understanding of that system is what it is. If you only have “medium certainty” in it’s transient unforced response and/or it’s response to changes in “energy reaching the earth’s surface”, how can you have a greater confidence in the system’s response to CO2? They’re saying “well, when CO2 is the driver, we’re really, really certain how the climate responds, but when solar radiation is the driver or when there is no driver, we’re less certain what the climate does.”
It’s BS. Really, the expressed certainty that CO2 has caused most of the warming since the 50s is a dogmatic, logically unsubstantiated premise. Then they start speculating on what possible natural effects might square the data with their unproven premise, but nobody can really agree, so they come up with some compromise, really fuzzy language that most can kind-of agree to, rather than take the rational approach and simply admit that there is less certainty in that premise.
“Margaret” has always seemed to me to be pre-programmed.
It’s the Weather, Volcanoes, the Sun, deep oceans,
lack of emotional climate or a combination of stuff
like that, or…..a blip. SAY IPCC !
How many times have warmists shot down suggestions such as these.
And now in their hour of need, here they all are and more coming up again
at fast speed when they need them. What a lame bunch of head scratching,
foot kicking excuses are these for turning the world’s economies upside down.
15 years is just weather? Well maybe it is, but if they
had their full on warming I bet it wouldn’t be called that.
Margaret Hardman, if you’re in a position to arrange such things, I’ll be happy to come and present a seminar, of my own work, quantitatively showing that there is zero evidence that human GHG emissions have affected global climate.
If you’re interested, you can contact me at pfrank_eight_three_zero_AT_earthlink_dot_net, where the pfrank runs into the three numerals.
That offer goes for any other academic AGW-IPCC believers out there. I have a seminar demonstrating the total unreliability of climate models, a second one demonstrating the huge and neglected systematic errors in the surface air temperature record, and a third that’s a composite overview of both issues. All my own analysis.
I’m also in a position to produce a seminar showing that standard paleo-temperature reconstructions represent a descent into pseudo-science, but have not yet organized it.
From this last, I explicitly exclude Paul Dennis, and those like him, who have retained their critical wit and their scientific integrity, and continue the hard labor of real science, in relative obscurity, one might add, as the media limelight flatters the charlatans.
Let them have 95% certainty that the recent (lack of) warming is man made.
The oceans are absorbing 0.5 W/m2/year. The surface is absorbing 0.03 W/m2/year (effectively nothing).
In 100 years, the oceans will have warmed 0.2C. A slightly warmer ocean means that surface temps should be slightly warmer 100 years from now.
So, those (not clear to everyone) numbers means that we are warming between 18% to 33% of that previously predicted by the IPCC.
Welcome to the incorrect theory of global warming, number 1346 on the list of incorrect theories in human history, number 2 on the list of human resources wasted on a incorrect theory (communism being number 1).
“The panel will try to explain why global temperatures, while still increasing, have risen more slowly since about 1998 even though greenhouse gas concentrations have hit repeated record highs in that time, led by industrial emissions by China and other emerging nations.”
Well, yes, that is a bit of a sticky wicket. Time for some really creative BS.
Hello,
The recent ‘IPCC Draft’ might just be a ‘disinformation’ … fait accompli.
The Final Draft could borrow, i.e. plagiarize, the preferred IPCC mechanism, the AGU ‘Mission Statement On Anthropogenic Global Warming and up the % to 100.
After all, the #2 Principle of the IPCC already states that Humans ARE responsible for ‘Global Warming’.
Humans are the Raison d’être of the IPCC.
Kill All Humans, Eliminate Global Warming.
Simple logic.
False.
Drafts seen by Reuters of the study by the U.N. panel of experts, due to be published next month, say it is at least 95 percent likely that human activities – chiefly the burning of fossil fuels – are the main cause of warming since the 1950s.
They are right, because human activities to reduce black carbon, organic carbon and aerosol pollution from burning fossil fuels has been the largest contributor to warming over the last 60 years.
Margaret Hardman says:
August 16, 2013 at 1:35 pm
Why is the headline conflating the confidence level and the consensus figure. They are two different things. This isn’t about what 95% of scientists think. This is a 95% chance that the oberved warming is the result of human activities. This is a simple reading comprehension matter.
As pointed out above, the 95% confidence has no statistical basis and is merely, some unknown person or persons estimate (that is, what they think), and hence directly comparable with the (dubiously derived) what 97% of scientists think. Although the latter has a somewhat firmer statistical basis.
I’ll suggest the lack of comprehension is yours, in not understanding the source of the IPCC’s 95% confidence.
“Drafts seen by Reuters of the study by the U.N. panel of experts, due to be published next month, say it is at least 95 percent likely that human activities – chiefly the burning of fossil fuels – are the main cause of warming since the 1950s”
……….well, you had better hope so.
If there has been anything else in the professional literature that could delay the onset of the next glacial, it has rarely been discussed for the past 2 decades.
If you have anything else other than CAGW to get us past the 1/2 precession cycle old Holocene, now would be a good time to spill the beans.
Otherwise, you are betting that things will not change for ___X___ tens of thousands of years.
Since I’m in it for the genus, not the species, my hope is that, as always, the low information types will simply not get this, until it is well beyond too late.
Given our dependence on fossil fuels, the possibility exists that this could be a speciation event………….
At the half-precession old, and several centuries change Holocene, this might be the only relevant question……
Climatewise
What if, it ain’t all about you ??
The CET temperature record over more than 300 years shows a linear (overall ) increase of 0.25 degree C per century that is 100 % certain. Since there where large temperature variations even before industrialisation (i.e CO2 emissions) during this period it is clear that there is no evidence that the more “recent” increase in temperature since 1950 ( not taking into account the last 15 years of no increase !! ) is due to man-made CO2. That is, the probability of this having occurred is not significant.
There. fixed.
“In that prior climate assessment, buried in a footnote in the Summary for Policymakers, the IPCC admitted that the reported 90% confidence interval was simply based on “expert judgment” i.e. conjecture.”
.
In other words, that is a number they pulled out of their rear ends with no calculation or real foundation involved.* They converted qualitative dogma to a random quantitative number so as to look more impressive.
.
Such is a perfect example of how the CAGW movement is utterly about convincing by style. For a harmless purpose in contrast, Star Trek TOS script writers would sometimes have Spock state probability guesses to many numerical digits. Actually experts in the truest reality-checked science (engineering) do not use more than a meaningful number of significant figures, but it was superficially impressive to much of the audience.
.
The Reuters article conveys the 95% number from “experts” (activists), tying it to many pages of IPCC reports which everyone knows few people in the public will ever read. So the intended implicit message that “this figure was derived in an ironclad manner through pages and pages of detailed quantitative calculations and analysis” is conveyed without explicitly stating the lie. There is no legal liability (not that the CAGW movement practically ever faces such), but effectively a lie is conveyed. People are to be so impressed by the implied appeal to authority, by the style of it, to avoid actual critical thought.
.
Likewise, computer models are utterly loved in activist climatology since GIGO looks impressive while covering up almost any amount of fudged inputs and false hidden assumptions, as the average person is never going to see, inspect, or verify lengthy code. (In fact, papers based on computer models can be submitted without even uploading all original code and data, knowing often nobody will ever bother fully verifying).
.
Pal review (“peer review”) in activist-dominated fields likewise enforces a formal, superficially impressive style of writing more than validity in content.
.
“That is up from at least 90 percent in the last report in 2007, 66 percent in 2001, and just over 50 in 1995”
.
That reflects increased ideological polarization / dishonesty over time (not reality down to global temperatures having been flat to declining since 1998), increased confidence in what they could get away with, and/or a feeling of less left to lose now.
.
—————————-
.
* (The primarily-AGW claim is contrary to what, unlike CO2, correlates well with changes in sea level, humidity, cloud cover, temperature, and glaciers over the past few decades and prior centuries as illustrated in http://s24.postimg.org/rbbws9o85/overview.gif ).
Thousands of scientists don’t agree with the IPPC.The West owes the East $billions with no way to pay it back . The East is getting nervous and wants a payment plan .It must be new and it must be huge .Tax carbon was the solution and some scientists were to make it credible while promoting it through the (Strong) United Nations . The problem is there are just too many that question” the science is settled” BS . The West will default on debt obligations or give up dirt.that is likely someone elses just like they did when Germany started inhaling countries.
I heard in science it is a regular practice to estimate the most likely theory to have verification.
This allows the scientists to say they had multiple working hypotheses, but then, sad to say, the little contenders like solar input didn’t really have any statistical chance of working out in the real world.
So the paradigm is decided on because…statistically we can have confidence in this one theory over all of the others. And the paradigm somehow lines up with the political and cultic objectives – one of which is to destroy the use of fossil fuels by people who now rely on it.
You know what they say, candy’s nice but statistics are quicker.
Indeed.
==============
They’re in over their heads and they’re still digging!
The hole will make a handy grave, when the walls collapse.
Regarding conflating the infamous 97% consensus with the 95% certainty:
It seems that is the point here… Not that WUWT is conflating the two, but instead is pointing out the sheer “ludicrosity” of it all….
SkS et al are just trumpeting this type of “ninety something” made up numbers, in this particular case a study plucking 95% out of the air based on someones subjective opinion – not based upon any instrument reading, or objectively reproducible formula.
Why 95%? “Why not 97%” is what the headline asks… Heck, why not claim 99%? Come on, the global warming guys have had a good ride for over a decade — and billions of taxpayer dollars — they should have been able to pump up both the consensus AND the certainty by 2%. NOT lost 2% (after we spent all those billions?!?!)
Robert of Ottawa says:
August 16, 2013 at 2:51 pm thisisnotgoodtogo said @ August 16, 2013 at 12:57 pm
… warming caused by human activity, AR5 is in conflict with itself.
All warming is AGW according to them, not “most” warming.
I now understand their climate/weather bait and switch. All climate warming is caused by human activity, but cooling and weather are caused by natural factors. A pretty piece of reasoning – just false in so many ways.
Does no one teach logic in universities any more?[/quote]It’s worse than you thought.
Not only all warming, but all change is warming, human caused.
Climate change is said to be Anthro. Global Warming is said to be Anthro. This also goes for WMO and anyone working under them
As well, the UN declares a body a scientific body and it is. then.
So when they day something totally irrational sounding, when you think about it, you can understand how if a study mentions cooling, since it mentions climate change, it means warming, AKA AGW.
At last we can make sense of what they’re saying…and that’s why it’s worse than we thought!
But wiki gives the clincher definition!
“Global warming” includes a PREDICTION.
“Global warming is the rise in the average temperature of Earth’s atmosphere and oceans since the late 19th century and its projected continuation.”
So that’s why when it’s cooling, it really is warming.
It’s settled.
In advance.
Observing the IPCC and their Green supporters brings to mind an observation I made during my college days in the late 1970s. I was part of a large religious students organization that was recruiting and sending missionaries “over there” to help the heathen to find God.
In time, as I migrated through the religious experiences, I came across interesting deployments of other missionaries, namely from “over there” locations coming to America to help us find God. I inquired among our missionary faculty what was going on.
It turns out that people are the same, the world over. We believe that we’re fine, but those heathen “over there” need saving. So we send missionaries to “over there” locations. The religious in the “over there” locations send their youth to America to convert us to the true religion.
And so it is also in the political economy, where surveys find people believe that they personally are fine, but that others in different states are doing poorly. (rampant Confirmation Bias).
So here we see the Green Movement behaving quite religiously about their topic, including sending their missionaries to places where the ignorant savages live. Each year, the IPCC cranks up the amount of man-made climate harming, et cetera.
I have to acknowledge the shear audacity to push these lines of assertions in the face of 17 years of cooling. Facts don’t matter. The heathen “over there” need saving!
Perhaps when we acknowledge the religious bent of their thought processes, we can begin to understand that nothing we are currently saying to them is even registering in their mental reasoning centers. We are talking to “true believers” that facts and logic simply do not matter.
What happens about the Arctic Sea Ice Extent (DIP) chart? It is still not brought up to date, and the curve for 2013 ends with a sudden dip, that certainly is an instrumental error.
The graph says that actual warming from 1990 to 2012 is 0.12 to 0.16 C. How do you get that figure?
A check on Woodfortrees.org gives with a mean of 60 months gives a value of approximately twice that, see: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1980/mean:60/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1980/mean:60/plot/gistemp/from:1980/mean:60/plot/uah/from:1985.4/to:1995/trend/plot/uah/from:2005/trend
Even if you cherry pick the top in 1990 and the down in 2012 you get more increase than 0.16 C on a 60 months mean. You can of course justify the value of 0.12 – to 0.16C by narrowing the cherry picking to a few months in 1990 compared to a few months in 2012, but is that is less than fair statistics.
Is it my imagination or is it that as the “evidence” becomes more tenuous the “scientists” become more certain?
The rationalization to 95% is extremely significant for the hypesters.
A 95% confidence rate is one that has profound implications in statistics.
Making fun of this by comparing to the bs of Lewandowsky and SkS is missing the point.
When the IPCC fabricates this sort of stuff, it has deadly implications. 95% confidence means the IPCC can, if their obviously false claim stands up, make their *policy demands* sound ligitimate.
The IPCC leadership is fighting for their lives by using the ‘the best defense is a good offense’ strategy.
This study is good evidence that the entire edifice of the IPCC and AGW is operating with even less scientific basis than a religious board which, after years of seeking divine inspiration finally gets the answer they sought from the start.
But since AGW is a secular pseudo-religion that most politicians embrace, the implications for people who care for science and good public policy had best take this latest load of IPCC garbage seriously.
Jean Meeus said on August 16, 2013 at 11:59 pm:
Assuming you mean DMI, that’s the old type chart, using 30% sea ice concentration, which they were going to stop making. Since the product’s being discontinued and they don’t want it used, perhaps they just don’t care about fixing the erroneous dip.
Although if you follow that link, you’ll see an updated chart, with dip, currently Aug 17.
You want the new chart, 15% concentration, current and with no big dip.
There is also available another 15% daily Arctic sea ice chart, IARC-JAXA.
Interesting how the summary for politicians becomes ever more disconnected from reality. Observations about the lack of warming trump models, sensitivity estimates for climate feedbacks plummet, (as opposed to the CAGW trumpeted CO2 doom feedbacks) and more scientists are speaking out. Yet the science challenged IPCC senior editors still spin ‘unprecedented’ climate impacts from CO2 effects they can not definitively measure nor ball park predict.
As others mention, frantic hand waving combined with near meaningless polly* speech frames the IPCC draft suitable for more “man is evil, CO2 is evil.”, “Return to the stone age, without fire or light”, fact deficient MSM announcements.
polly* – simplification for describing mantras and promises politician’s repeat endlessly.
Much like the infamous “Polly want a cracker” line repeated to parrots until the poor birds are brainwashed into also repeating inane lines. A process that has proven quite effective on the CAGW groupies.
It’s really incredible. Some comments of mine about this proposition and the comparison of the confidence-level standards in climatology on one side and hard sciences on the other side:
http://motls.blogspot.com/2013/08/95-percent-confidence-in-hep-vs-ipcc.html?m=1
There is an inverse relationship between their confidence in themselves and the data. That’s not just correlation. I’d not jump on this too hard at this time lest they drop it from their report. Let them go on record first.
So what they are saying, if you read between the lines, is that they are 95% certain that the models are incapable of capturing all the factors listed that they think responsible for the warming pause. To put it bluntly, they have admitted, with 95% certainty, that their models are junk. Do they not know about the after affects of spin? Spin is what you say as you pee in the wind.
I’ve got a feeling that with the pause in warming, the Arctic looking as though it will freeze earlier this year and no major melt in the Arctic yet that this IPCC report will be the biggest publicly funded Omelette ever.
How can they be 95% confident when they have no clue what caused the last 17 years of (close to) no warming?
Its completely irrational. This ninety-something percent has been drilled into their conscience so many times that they can’t even look at the reality. It would have to be down to 50% in a real world statistical analysis.
Rule 1 . go back to to the original source and check it !
“From Reuters: Drafts seen by Reuters ” emm Reuters, why’s the link go to http://www.trust.org
h/t Tim_channon over on Bishop Hill
– I checked Yep Alister Doyle wrote a a Dec 2012 95% story , which was closed down in the 2nd comment”
– Then Alister Doyle wrote the Aug 2013 new longer story 95%, but mostly the same.
– anyone detect any NEW evidence ?
apologies if the language is too strong. why anyone would place any confidence in anything that comes out of the International Panel of Clueless Cunts is beyond me. surely with each of these reports the fantasy evidence is increasing and factual observation contained within the report is decreasing.
it really is getting to the criminal deception stage,and extremely worrying that not a single public body in any country is doing anything to challenge it.
“buried in a footnote in the Summary for Policymakers, the IPCC admitted that the reported 90% confidence interval was simply based on “expert judgment” i.e. conjecture. ”
Anybody got the link to this?
@bit chilly .. Agree, but I believe you mis-spelled “cults”
– I forgot to say the Dec 2012 Alister Doyle contains the phrase “The draft was shown on a climate change skeptic blog” ..surely he means here or on Donna’s blogs when the AR5 memory sticks were leaked.
– so actually what here on WUWT we are talking about a report based on a leak published here on WUWT in 2012
– Maybe WUWT should have a new thread about AR5 pre-releases Sensitive information
– here’s a Jul 20th 2013 piece from the Economist ” A peek inside the next IPCC assessment“
– Ah “the study by the U.N. panel of experts… say it is at least 95 percent likely that human activities”
– notice the strange words “experts” .instead of scientists & “likely” instead of certain
There is a standard MO of activist PR agencies.
– The activists standard technique is “framing” by planting a meme in the minds of journalists not educated in science (hence pre-releasing stuff before it can be debunked)
– The reports will, be big on “Scientists say” rather than actual “Science says”, cos such journalists easily mix up Opinions with Validated Scientific Evidence.
(The first you can take to the pub, the second you can take to the bank)
Dear IPCC,
Al Gore told me I was going to hell, but, am comforted in the fact that I will be too busy shaking hands with all my friends too notice the heat.
When it finally freezes over, I will be too drunk and have a pretty woman in each arm to feel the cold.
Yours in eternal damnation;
John
Cui Bono, “What volcanoes?”
Very good point.
And while we are talking about things that haven’t any evidence for having happened… did they explain why certainty on man causing global warming rose from 50% to 90% in the doze years from 1995 to 2007?
I mean, that is a major change in confidence. Why?
kramer says:
“Anybody got the link to this?”
At the bottom is is a link to the FAR. In the summary for policy makers, they drop a footnote explaining that the terms “high confidence” etc. are defined in a box in the introduction to the report itself. Going there, you get to the following quote:
Where uncertainty is assessed more quantitatively USING EXPERT JUDGMENT OF THE CORRECTNESS OF the underlying data, models OR ANALYSES, then the following scale of confidence levels is used to express the assessed chance of a finding being correct: very high confidence at least 9 out of 10; high confidence about 8 out of 10; medium confidence about 5 out of 10; low confidence about 2 out of 10; and very low confidence less than 1 out of 10. Where uncertainty in specific outcomes is assessed using expert judgment and statistical analysis of a body of evidence (e.g. observations or model results), then the following likelihood ranges are used to express the assessed probability of occurrence: virtually certain >99%; extremely likely >95%; very likely>90%; likely>66%; more likely than not > 50%;about as likely as not 33% to 66%; unlikely <33%;very unlikely <10%; extremely unlikely <5%; exceptionally unlikely <1%
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_ipcc_fourth_assessment_report_synthesis_report.htm
—-
SEA LEVELS
“Overall our understanding has strengthened,” said Michael
Oppenheimer, a professor at Princeton University, pointing
to areas including sea level rise. An IPCC draft projects
seas will rise by between 29 and 82 cm (11.4 to 32.3 inches)
by the late 21st century – above the estimates of 18 to
59 cm in the last report, which did not fully account
for changes in Antarctica and Greenland.
http://www.dnaindia.com/world/1875410/report-experts-surer-of-manmade-global-warming-but-local-predictions-elusive
Previous Prediction:
18cm to 59cm
1.8mm to 5.9mm trend.
“Full account of Antarctica and Greenland”
Latest Prediction:
29cm to 82cm.
290mm to 820mm
/ 100 years
2.9mm to 8.2mm trend.
However:
1mm mass, trend. x 100 years = 100mm,10cm, 4inches.
http://ibis.grdl.noaa.gov/SAT/SeaLevelRise/documents/NOAA_NESDIS_Sea_Level_Rise_Budget_Report_2012.pdf
stewgreen says:
“Ah ‘the study by the U.N. panel of experts’ . . . notice the strange words ‘experts’ instead of scientists . . . ”
An “expert” is someone who has some demonstrable skill in a subject much greater than that of the average person, with an emphasis on the word “demonstrable.” My opinion is that the term “climate expert” is an oxymoron – kind of like assuming that Carl Sagan and Stephen Hawking are experts in extraterrestrial life and therefore giving their pronouncements as to whether they think intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe special weight. Merely studying a subject or writing scholarly papers on a subject does not make one an expert, else we would all simply defer to theology majors on the existence of God. To be an expert, you have to practically apply what you think you know of a subject in a way that SHOWS that you know what you are talking about, and the only way for climate scientists to do this is to develop an accurate track record of future predictions measured against UNADJUSTED data (because adjusting temperature data begs the question of whether the adjustments are quantitatively accurate.) Meeting this standard is theoretically possible, but it would likely tale the better part of a century.
For myself, I have no problem with the qualitative theory behind CO2 warming the planet – it’s the quantitative part of it where I jump ship.
Hold on a minute, the article says “The panel will try to explain why global temperatures, while still increasing, have risen more slowly since about 1998”.
I’ve read elsewhere that there has been no statistically significant global warming (man-made or otherwise) for 17 years and 6 months.
I wonder what the actual truth is…
Dreadnought, you can view, for example, RSS satellite data for global temperature over the past 15 years here:
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1998/plot/rss/from:1998/trend
Some would attempt to claim that such should be discounted because there was an El Nino then. But El Nino / La Nina events are a large part of how warming or cooling is expressed.
In fact, back at the time, the activist line was:
“Friday, November 7, 1997 […]
El Nino events normally occur roughly every 5 years, and last for between 12 and 18 months. However […] “It appears that we have a very good case for suggesting that the El Ninos are going to become more frequent, and they’re going to become more intense and in a few years, or a decade or so, we’ll go into a permanent El Nino.” […]
“So instead of having cool water periods for a year or two, we’ll have El Nino upon El Nino, and that will become the norm. And you’ll have an El Nino, that instead of lasting 18 months, lasts 18 years,” he said.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/25433.stm
(That didn’t happen of course).
For just about anything of major importance to political battles over climate, though, there are publications with prior history changed, like the examples discussed within http://s24.postimg.org/rbbws9o85/overview.gif (enlarging on further click), so activist groups have graphs where temperature instead rises over the past 15 years.
As with sports participants, confidence/certainty levels will soon exceed 100%.
Mark my words; I am 110% sure of this.
The IPCC cannot have any degree of certainty in view of the lack of a statistical population underlying its climate models.
I know this is an old thread but I saw a slightly different quote for the IPCC leak.
“It is extremely likely that human influence on climate caused more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010”
Instead of “main” they use “more than half”. Actually, the two are about the same but using the word “main” obfuscates an actually number. Once we see the true meaning it is clear that this is a huge step down from AR4. More than half could be 50.00001%. When a scientist uses a number like 50% that is usually the top end of the estimate. It means the data does NOT support any higher value.
In AR4 the attribution for man-made warming was 93% and they were 90% confident.
In AR5 the attribution for man-made warming is 50% and they are 95% confident.
In scientific terms they just admitted that while they are very confident they know what caused a little over 50% of the warming they have no idea what caused the rest. The science only supports confidence in half the total warming.
If we look at any data set we might see anywhere from .4 – .6C of warming over the 60 years used. If only half of that is man made that is only .3C at most. That is a paltry .05C/decade. It will take 200 years to reach just 1C of warming. In other words, there is no basis for any alarmism.