PDA

View Full Version : IPCC: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis



Hàkon
09-28-2013, 08:08 PM
http://img404.imageshack.us/img404/7865/ydo1.png

Headline Statements from the Summary for Policymakers (http://www.ipcc.ch/news_and_events/docs/ar5/ar5_wg1_headlines.pdf)


Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, sea level has risen, and the concentrations of greenhouse gases have increased.

Each of the last three decades has been successively warmer at the Earth’s surface than any preceding decade since 1850. In the Northern Hemisphere, 1983–2012 was likely the warmest 30-year period of the last 1400 years.

Ocean warming dominates the increase in energy stored in the climate system, accounting for more than 90% of the energy accumulated between 1971 and 2010 (high confidence). It is virtually certain that the upper ocean (0−700 m) warmed from 1971 to 2010, and it likely warmed between the 1870s and 1971.

Over the last two decades, the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have been losing mass, glaciers have continued to shrink almost worldwide, and Arctic sea ice and Northern Hemisphere spring snow cover have continued to decrease in extent (high confidence).

The rate of sea level rise since the mid-19th century has been larger than the mean rate during the previous two millennia (high confidence). Over the period 1901–2010, global mean sea level rose by 0.19 [0.17 to 0.21] m.

The atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2), methane, and nitrous oxide have increased to levels unprecedented in at least the last 800,000 years. CO2 concentrations have increased by 40% since pre-industrial times, primarily from fossil fuel emissions and secondarily from net land use change emissions. The ocean has absorbed about 30% of the emitted anthropogenic carbon dioxide, causing ocean acidification.

Total radiative forcing is positive, and has led to an uptake of energy by the climate system. The largest contribution to total radiative forcing is caused by the increase in the atmospheric concentration of CO2 since 1750.

Human influence on the climate system is clear. This is evident from the increasing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere, positive radiative forcing, observed warming, and understanding of the climate system.

Climate models have improved since the AR4. Models reproduce observed continental-scale surface temperature patterns and trends over many decades, including the more rapid warming since the mid-20th century and the cooling immediately following large volcanic eruptions (very high confidence).

Observational and model studies of temperature change, climate feedbacks and changes in the Earth's energy budget together provide confidence in the magnitude of global warming in response to past and future forcing.

Human influence has been detected in warming of the atmosphere and the ocean, in changes in the global water cycle, in reductions in snow and ice, in global mean sea level rise, and in changes in some climate extremes. This evidence for human influence has grown since AR4. It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.

Continued emissions of greenhouse gases will cause further warming and changes in all components of the climate system. Limiting climate change will require substantial and sustained reductions of greenhouse gas emissions.

Global surface temperature change for the end of the 21st century is likely to exceed 1.5°C relative to 1850 to 1900 for all RCP scenarios except RCP2.6. It is likely to exceed 2°C for RCP6.0 and RCP8.5, and more likely than not to exceed 2°C for RCP4.5. Warming will continue beyond 2100 under all RCP scenarios except RCP2.6. Warming will continue to exhibit interannual-todecadal variability and will not be regionally uniform.

Changes in the global water cycle in response to the warming over the 21st century will not be uniform. The contrast in precipitation between wet and dry regions and between wet and dry seasons will increase, although there may be regional exceptions.

The global ocean will continue to warm during the 21st century. Heat will penetrate from the surface to the deep ocean and affect ocean circulation.

It is very likely that the Arctic sea ice cover will continue to shrink and thin and that Northern Hemisphere spring snow cover will decrease during the 21st century as global mean surface temperature rises. Global glacier volume will further decrease.

Global mean sea level will continue to rise during the 21st century. Under all RCP scenarios the rate of sea level rise will very likely exceed that observed during 1971–2010 due to increased ocean warming and increased loss of mass from glaciers and ice sheets.

Climate change will affect carbon cycle processes in a way that will exacerbate the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere (high confidence). Further uptake of carbon by the ocean will increase ocean acidification.

Cumulative emissions of CO2 largely determine global mean surface warming by the late 21st century and beyond. Most aspects of climate change will persist for many centuries even if emissions of CO2 are stopped. This represents a substantial multi-century climate change commitment created by past, present and future emissions of CO2.



You can find the full report and a summary of it here. (http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/#.Ukcnx4YvVP4)


http://img34.imageshack.us/img34/9206/mz3d.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC)

Mason8
10-05-2013, 09:45 PM
With the history of the IPCC, how can anyone take their claims seriously. It is governmental based, not scientific. Also, the setup is biased at best. The work group with the technical portion is instructed to change their report and select data that support the summary for the policy makers. Their terms of reference for the whole report instruct to only use or search for evidence of man made climate change. Other possible factors that have an effect on climate, such as the sun, el Nino, etc. are totally ignored.

The founder of the IPCC is a person who is not a scientist with dubious political connections. Many of their claims as to the number of scientists who worked on and agree with this is grossly exaggerated at best and from their last report, AR4, 1/3rd of the data and papers cited were not peer reviewed. Many more prominent climate scientists who supported the last report also question their work now because of the problems with the models from the previous report that go unresolved. When researched, the 'experts' the contribute to this paper consist mostly of graduate students who are not experts in the field.
Also, with the lull in warming for the last 15 years going unexamined, how can they go from "more than likely" from AR4 to "extremely likely" in AR5?

Jackson
10-05-2013, 10:27 PM
Hmm. While i think it's a good idea to reduce pollution anyway, we seem to be slowly heading in a better direction in some respects with cars for example now much, much cleaner than they used to be. I think it's common sense to do so, whether or not we are causing climactic problems. I think whether or not we are involved in it is the more important issue, as this climactic change is minor compared to many other's in the past. For example a few hundred years ago it was much cooler where i am, several hundred years before that it was much warmer, several hundred years before that much cooler etc. The way the climate looks over the years is a series of big climate shifts (cold to hot to cold) and within these shifts lots of smaller changes.

Pure ja
02-07-2014, 07:42 PM
With the history of the IPCC, how can anyone take their claims seriously. It is governmental based, not scientific. Also, the setup is biased at best. The work group with the technical portion is instructed to change their report and select data that support the summary for the policy makers.


You may be onto something, because a lot of high end sealevel rise estimates have been thrown out of the IPCC AR5 report.
And the Arctic sea ice models are woefully behind the dwindling reality.




Their terms of reference for the whole report instruct to only use or search for evidence of man made climate change. Other possible factors that have an effect on climate, such as the sun, el Nino, etc. are totally ignored.


Anthropogenic and natural warming inferred from changes in Earth’s energy balance

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n1/full/ngeo1327.html#/

Look at Figure 3.
Are you still going to argue that sun and volcanoes and ENSO is not taken into consideration?
Have you actually read the IPCC AR4 report? I have. It has lots of mentions of sun, volcanoes and ENSO.
The earlier IPCC reports as well. For chrissake, already Fourier took the Sun into consideration! How can anyone assess the impact of greenhouse gases without considering the Sun?




The founder of the IPCC is a person who is not a scientist with dubious political connections. Many of their claims as to the number of scientists who worked on and agree with this is grossly exaggerated at best and from their last report, AR4, 1/3rd of the data and papers cited were not peer reviewed.


The papers not peer reviewed were not from the 1st volume, ie. the scientific basis of AGW is covered only by peer reviewed data. The other volumes had some statements taken from non-peer reviewed reports - those were impact assessments, not the scientific basis.

As to the other allegations, you should be satisfied with the list of the Academies of Sciences that have issued statements of support for the IPCC reports. Not a single major Academy of Sciences has not issued their support.




Many more prominent climate scientists who supported the last report also question their work now because of the problems with the models from the previous report that go unresolved.


There are no such 'prominent' climate scientists.
And the only real raised concern is that most of the positive feedbacks are not included (methane clathrates, permafrost, etc.) and thus the report is too conservative and behind the unfolding reality.




When researched, the 'experts' the contribute to this paper consist mostly of graduate students who are not experts in the field.


That is simply libel.




Also, with the lull in warming for the last 15 years going unexamined, how can they go from "more than likely" from AR4 to "extremely likely" in AR5?

There is no lull.
Global climate has continued to warm. In fact, it has accelerated.

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/12/06/the-real-global-warming-signal/

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2014/01/global-temperature-2013/

Pure ja
02-07-2014, 07:45 PM
Hmm. While i think it's a good idea to reduce pollution anyway, we seem to be slowly heading in a better direction in some respects with cars for example now much, much cleaner than they used to be. I think it's common sense to do so, whether or not we are causing climactic problems. I think whether or not we are involved in it is the more important issue, as this climactic change is minor compared to many other's in the past. For example a few hundred years ago it was much cooler where i am, several hundred years before that it was much warmer, several hundred years before that much cooler etc. The way the climate looks over the years is a series of big climate shifts (cold to hot to cold) and within these shifts lots of smaller changes.

You are talking about regional climate.
Global climate has already surpassed holocene maximum.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/09/paleoclimate-the-end-of-the-holocene/