IPCC Report: Global Warming Is `Unequivocal` [Pic+

Submitted by: Squrlz4Sale 3 years ago Science

Scientists say it is 95% certain man is the cause of the Earth"s recent warming.
There are 40 comments:
Male 579
Telll you what believers, if they stop trying to make billions by using climate change "science" to create awful and damaging policy, then maybe I`ll listen. Till then, it seems like a giant scam to me.
0
Reply
Male 1,421
"Quackor: "stop polluting now" would cause an economic breakdown in the whole world, so no thank you."

So you`ll rather risk for an ecological catastrophic than one that makes you lose some amount of abstract concept called money? Risk for a catastrophy that could wipe us humans and our civilization forever lost just to save few bucks.. It`s a question of how to do things better and avoid pollution. Our current system relies on waste, no new products will surface if it doesn`t not create waste in several layers, from producing the raw materials all the way up to final product.

The more i hear from sceptists the more their motivation comes thru: "i don`t want to change my ways to make future better since i`m not a part of it". It`s an excuse for own selfish behavior.
0
Reply
Male 2,855
"stop polluting now" would cause an economic breakdown in the whole world, so no thank you.
0
Reply
Male 1,421
Climate "sceptists" are the most idiotic bunch i`v ever met. It`s like this: There milk on the floor. Sceptists refuse to clean it up before they are 100% they know who did it.

It reall does not matter if climate is warming or cooloing, we need to stop polluting NOW!. What you are doing is unbelievably harmful, sceptists are willing to destroy this planet before they are willing to actually help it survive.

drating bastards, don`t you understand how drating harmful your actions are and if we start doing things like scientist are suggesting, nothing bad happens. We can start doing things more ecologically sound, stop polluting, stop wasting oil by burning it etc etc.

We got two roads ahead. One leads to certain doom, climate change or not. One leads to possible salvation or does nothing. How is that even a question, with two braincells left you know what is right.
0
Reply
Male 36,514
@Musuko42: Scientists are HUMAN ok? They make mistakes! Or commit OUTRIGHT FRAUD for money!

Remember the Piltdown Man fiasco? There`s 1,000s more just like it (but not as famous).

Also: 1,000s of theories were brutally attacked & supressed... only to be prove TRUE later on! It cuts both ways.

One of the greatest astronomers in history was CERTAIN that meteorites did NOT come from outer space... didn`t invalidate the REST of his scientific works now did it?

It`s YOU AGW Zealots who are "all or nothing" about the issue, think about that for a moment... who uses all/nothing, black/white thinking???
NOT us skeptics :-)
0
Reply
Male 2,850
*sigh*

Once again, the skeptics trust the work of scientists when they need to visit the hospital, when they get into a plane, when they tap away at a computer, but suddenly distrust them and accuse them of a conspiracy when the result they produce is not what the skeptics wanted.

FFS, the scientists aren`t creating climate change. They`re just reporting it. Stop shooting the messenger.
0
Reply
Male 36,514
@Kitteh9: Actually, the idea was in the notes part of the other suggestion...

You can read the suggestion notes now? :-) Good!

We`re just `re-heating` the same old arguments! Blowing a lot of `hot air`! I`ve `cooled` to the notion of arguing with religious fanatics... :-P



CO2 has been MUCH higher before... the Earth is still here...



Charts! Everyone has their own charts!
0
Reply
Male 1,293
This is why the 95% was put in, so the ignorant would just repeat it.

What is 95% certain? Well, it`s a wider spread of sensitivities than was 90% certain before.

Where did the 95% come from? Well, it is not documented. Basically it comes from the opinion of a bunch of people. People who have been asked. Largely about their own work. Who`d`a`thought it, eh? People 95% certain that they got it right?

Yeah, as you might guess, it means nothing whatever. It is just propaganda. It`s just put in to make headlines. Like the one above.
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@ NormalFreak: Thanks. I`m happy to discuss the subject with anyone that`s able to discuss it with just a little intelligence and a little respect for the work of the scientists. The only time my fur gets rubbed the wrong way is when people start mocking the climate scientists or accusing them of orchestrating an international conspiracy.

When I`m online here at I-A-B, I have time to waste--but not THAT much time to waste. =^.^=
0
Reply
Male 5,970
@Squrlz4sale

I appreciate you taking the time to explain and on top of that back them up with sources. You have the patience of a saint.
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@ OldOllie: If you`d like to read a good paper on the subject, explaining what I have barely touched on, I`d suggest Shakun et al. in Nature #484, 49-54, 5 Apr 2012.

Hope that helps.
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@ OldOllie: The suggestion that temperature leads CO2 is often made (it`s even addressed in today`s fast-talking video)--and has been addressed by numerous studies. As I stated in my comments about the Milankovitch cycles earlier, the MCs appear to act as a trigger, forcing higher or lower temps, which then affect CO2 levels, which then move temperatures further. It`s part of a complex series of feedbacks, encompassing ocean currents, the Arctic ice sheet and Earth`s albedo, the sequestering of CO2 in the oceans and the release of same by the thawing of permafrost (among many other factors). The key role CO2 plays is that it drives many of these feedbacks and helps spread the warming across the planet.

To suggest that CO2 is affected by temperature but has no role in *affecting* temperature is to ignore both the complexity of the system and the well-understood physics of the greenhouse effect.
0
Reply
Male 15,832
S4S, if you look at a plot of CO2 and temps on a shorter time scale, i.e., where you can see the relationship in greater detail with respect to time, it would lead you believe that warmer temperatures are the cause of higher CO2 levels, not the other way around.



Notice how CO2 levels rise and fall AFTER, not before, the temperature rises and falls.
0
Reply
Male 15,832
[quote]IPCC Report: Global Warming Is `Unequivocal`[/quote]
Vatican report: Existence of God is `Unequivocal`

*yawn*
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@ Ferdyfred: Thanks. If I know a little bit about the topic, it`s primarily because I do something most of the climate skeptics I encounter online don`t: I read books (yes, actual books) and peer-reviewed papers authored by climate scientists. In online discussions with most AGW skeptics, it becomes clear pretty quickly that their understanding of the subject is based solely on partisan blogs and right-wing media, such as *The Daily Mail*.

For anyone interested in reading a good book by a climatologist, I`d suggest The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars by Michael Mann (Columbia, 2012).

Lastly, a correction: At the start of my post regarding the Milankovitch cycles, I stated that the last ice age ended 100,000 years ago. That, of course, should have been *10,000* years ago. My apologies.
0
Reply
Male 13,624
@Squrlz4Sale
For a squiggle you are very knowledgeable
For one grumpy arse, I do hope mother nature finds a way to wipe out the human race, WE are the parasites of Earth, clever yes, well 1 percent of us are, the others just drones
0
Reply
Female 8,044
5Cats "I suggested they go "back to back" eh?"

To whom? Not to me and I posted them.
0
Reply
Male 5,970
You should have just linked the Daily Mails version. How about stop linking the opinion from outsiders that weren`t even involved, and focus on the ACTUAL REPORT I POSTED THAT IS FREE FROM OUTSIDE BIAS. If I wanted to read someone changing the data to fit some preformed agenda I`d go to the sites you link 5cats. I`ll settle for the direct source and base my educated guess on that instead of tabloid talking head right wing blowhards trying their damnedest to distort and deflect.
0
Reply
Male 6,227
(Cont`d)

Bottom line: Not only are temperatures changing too fast for Milankovitch cycles to explain, they`re going in the wrong direction.

Below is a chart showing global temperature as a red line over the past 350,000 years. The data were obtained from a very deep ice core taken from Antarctica. The blue line, which closely follows it, is carbon dioxide. What seems to have happened in the past is that the MCs would trigger a series of reactions--such as the breaking up of ice sheets--that would, in turn, raise CO2 levels by the thawing of permafrost and the release of deep ocean CO2, which would in turn raise temperatures still higher. Earth`s CO2 levels have just passed 400 ppm--which, as you can see, is quite literally off the chart.

Hope this helps.

0
Reply
Male 6,227
(Cont`d)

Could the Milankovitch cycles be responsible for the recent warming of the Earth we`ve been seeing? Well, if the warming we`ve seen in the past 100 years had occurred over a 1,000 to 3,000 year period--that is, at least 10 times slower than it has--the speed would be consistent with past records of the MCs. But even then there remains an insurmountable problem. To see it, one need only look at where the Earth currently is in relation to the three cycles.

1. Eccentricity: ~3%, putting us at the low end of the cycle;
2. Axial tilt: 23.45 deg, putting us at midrange of the cycle;
3. Precession: perihelion is now occurring around the winter solstice, putting us at the low end of the cycle.

Put the three influences together and climatologists tell us that if it weren`t for the influence of greenhouse gases, the Earth`s temperature would be moving in the opposite direction than we observe: we would be cooling.

(Cont`d)
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@ Craig and FerdyFred: Since the last ice age ended over 100,000 years ago, and there are no witnesses, you can imagine that there`s some disagreement as to what caused it to end.

That said, most explanations for why the last several ice ages ended have to do with something called the Milankovitch cycles. This natural process appears to tip Earth`s climate one way or the other and initiates either the beginning or the end of a period of glaciation. The MCs are comprised of three cycles, each related to our planet`s orbit or spin: eccentricity, axial tilt, and precession. Each cycle operates on an independent timescale of tens of thousands of years and they all interact with one another, creating a long cycle of (very) roughly 100,000 years. Note that the temperature changes expressed by the MCs are very gradual--glacial, if you will.

(Cont`d)
0
Reply
Male 13,624
Just a thought - who warmed up the planet after the ice age?
just a ponder ...
0
Reply
Male 36,514
Earliest Snow Since 1986 Hits Crater Lake Oregon

Because all things prove AGW!
It gets warmer? = AGW!
It gets colder? = AGW!
It stays the same? = AGW!

Who can argue with that? They tell us with pin-point accuracy what the weather will be in 50 - 100 YEARS, but got the past 15 years completely WRONG?

The Science! Have faith in it!
0
Reply
Male 36,514
AGW = The New Religion

Complete with dogma, saints, huge temples and sacred rituals! :-) Oh, and infallibility too, just like The Pope!
0
Reply
Male 5,970
@catz

Let`s stick to the facts and the content please. You can read the reports just the same as I can. I`d like to see exactly where you disagree and why.

They give a hypothesis on why they think warming stalled.

I`d love to read where you think their data is flawed and your explanation.

I`m ready Prof 5cats the floor is yours.
0
Reply
Male 36,514
[quote]Is it just me, or is the combination of this post and the one before it extremely funny?...[/quote]
Good eye @Kain1! I suggested they go "back to back" eh? :-)

So it`s gone from 100% Human Caused to 95% Certainty...

15 years of "no warming" = meh!
1 year of low Arctic Ice = ZOMG THE SKY BE FALLING!!

Lolz!

And just look at which side is full of h8ters! Pretty easy to scream nonsense if no one is allowed to ask questions, right @normalfreak2? WHY answer a question when you can just toss poop? So much easier...
0
Reply
Male 5,970
@Craig

Answer is in my comment if you choose to go look and read for yourself. If you disagree with their method please feel free to show where they were at fault. Don`t take my word for it or anyone here read it straight from the source.

Read the Press release Policymaker Release or the actual report yourself.
0
Reply
Male 146
Would one of you climate changers (idiots)please explain to me how the ice age ended (the earth warmed up) with no humans around?
0
Reply
Male 5,970
A total of 209 Lead Authors and 50 Review Editors from 39 countries and more than 600 Contributing Authors from 32 countries contributed to the preparation of Working Group I AR5. For more on how the Working Group I report was prepared Read it yourself from their own writing. Global warming is more than likely and not what the BS version the daily mail is peddling.

Read the report for yourself straight from the scientists involved
0
Reply
Male 5,970
The daily mail version was a joke. No wonder people are mislead.
0
Reply
Male 7,123
Uk is probably going to get a bit colder because of ice melt and disruption to the Gulf Stream so `Climate disruption` is probably a better term than `Global Warming` since so many people seem to consider a local cold spell as proof that 95% of relevantly qualified scientists have joined a conspiracy to, well, ... something sinister.

Step 1: Persuade every significant institute of learning and almost every relevant scientist to fake their data for half a century, play fast and loose with the scientific method and just generally lie that human activity has disrupted the climate. When obviously that couldn`t have happened. Because factoid.

Step 2: ?

Step 3: Profit!




0
Reply
Female 2,415
Waterfront property doesn`t seem like so much of a good idea any more.
@patchouly, damn straight!
0
Reply
Male 7,775
It`s not just Earth that`s warming up though...

Link
0
Reply
Male 4,746
Finally, some sanity. Now that`s settled, can we please start to do something about it? We don`t need to give up technology, but let`s stop letting corporations make all the rules. When those guys see dollar signs, the have no qualms about mowing the rest of us down. That needs to change.
0
Reply
Female 7,838
The Daily Mail had an article today about this report. The headline made out that the IPCC had decided global warming was false- but when you read the fine print to the article they admit the opposite. Just goes to show how cleverly they word the journalistic reports.
0
Reply
Male 1,471
Is it just me, or is the combination of this post and the one before it extremely funny?..

Remember, they`re both talking about the exact same report.
0
Reply
Male 168
HUMANS! HELL YEAH!!!
0
Reply
Male 5,970
We are a mix of Chemistry/physics/Biology. It`s ludicrous to believe if we keep putting poo in the atmosphere it just disappears. YES some of it does get dispersed, some is absorbed by trees.

Anyone that`s against this because they fear a "carbon tax" please. For real? We are our own worst enemies. I`m not for letting politician`s abuse AGW for their own personal gain, just like i`m not for when they abuse the ANTI AGW (big oil). No one is saying we need to go backwards to horse and buggy days but we do need to start looking and implementing different ideas soon or we risk our future as a species.
0
Reply
Male 36
People are fools to believe that humans haven`t been responsible for global warming. What do you expect when the population has increased over 6 billion people in the last 200 years. Add the industrial ages and you get a lot of heat being generated.
0
Reply
Male 6,227
Link: IPCC Report: Global Warming Is `Unequivocal` [Pic+ [Rate Link] - Scientists say it is 95% certain man is the cause of the Earth`s recent warming.
0
Reply