IPCC AR5 leak

[bsalis]

In case you didn't know, a draft of the 5th IPCC Assessment Report (AR5) was leaked. Not sure when the final version is out. I know it's bit old news now. However, many people are still digesting the content.

It will be interesting how they will word things around some of the charts at the end of the Introduction. None of the computer models seem to match the observed temperature record very well in recent years.

[Scotius]

This is about climate changes? Well, for sure no one will man up, and confess they really have very tenuous grasp on the whole "Global warming" shebang. I just love to hear in the news: "You say that this year's summer was cold? Well, yeah - it's getting colder because climate is warming up." *cue eyeroll here*

[Kryten]

This is about climate changes? Well, for sure no one will man up, and confess they really have very tenuous grasp on the whole "Global warming" shebang. I just love to hear in the news: "You say that this year's summer was cold? Well, yeah - it's getting colder because climate is warming up." *cue eyeroll here*

Do you even know what 'climate' is?

[Nibb31]

A draft is a draft, not a definitive report. A 1000-page draft report is bound to have errors. That's why it has been "leaked" to peer-reviewers, so that they can find the errors and correct them.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23755901

[Monkeh]

This is about climate changes? Well, for sure no one will man up, and confess they really have very tenuous grasp on the whole "Global warming" shebang. I just love to hear in the news: "You say that this year's summer was cold? Well, yeah - it's getting colder because climate is warming up." *cue eyeroll here*

How your local temperature varies will depend a lot on your location. Here in the UK it's predicted that global warming will actually make our islands a lot colder. Why? Well it goes like this:

Great Britain, (53.826 degrees north), is actually as far north as Siberia, (77.5 to 50 degrees North).

Great Britain is currently nowhere near as cold, on average, as Siberia.

The Gulf Stream brings lovely nice warm southern waters up to our shores and provides us with a much warmer climate than we should enjoy by latitude alone.

Increasing global temperature means the polar ice caps melt.

This, near freezing, suddenly liquid water floods into the northern Atlantic and starts to disrupt the Gulf stream.

Temperatures in Britain start to mimic those in Siberia.

We freeze our 'nads off.

We complain and blame the government.

We have a nice cup of tea.

So yeah, warming can make you colder, just like the inside of your fridge being nice and cold but have you ever felt around the back?

[Nibb31]

That's why you can usually tell the serious folks from the others by who uses the term "global warming" and who uses "climate change".

[Kryten]

That's not terribly likely. The gulf stream is a very robust system, even pretty extreme variations would be likely to weaken it somewhat rather than stop it. Most simulations show enough warning to do that results in net temperature increase over Europe anyway.

[Monkeh]

I am no expert and stand corrected. We're all toast when the methane reserves under Siberia get released anyway.

How many times more effective at trapping heat than CO2 again?

[SargeRho]

I think between 60 and 80 times as much?

But CO2 is stable, Methane isn't. You can burn Methane as fuel, producing water and CO2, which both are less effective at trapping heat than Methane itself. Also Methane is decomposed by UV Rays. And I think only remains stable in the Atmosphere for 12 years.

There is a far more serious threat, one we know of to have happened before. If the ocean heats up too far, the currents break down, and the oceans stagnate. Lots of living things will die off, which releases the same gas that makes rotten eggs smell the name of which I forgot in extremely high quantities. Result? Everything on the coast dies.

Edited September 17, 2013 by SargeRho

[bsalis]

A draft is a draft, not a definitive report. A 1000-page draft report is bound to have errors.

Yes, it's a draft. However the data and charts are from computer models, and temperature data sets that don't change, such as UAH, NOAA, HADCRUT etc

That's why you can usually tell the serious folks from the others by who uses the term "global warming" and who uses "climate change".

If there is no warming then what is the problem? Even James Hansen has admitted there has been no statistically significant warming in a decade (ref).

The 2007 report predicted 0.2C a decade warming, however it is actually 0.12C according to the data. The draft seems to indicate that the climate sensitivity will be dialed down. The data doesn't really give them a choice.

[SargeRho]

The data indicates that Earth is warming at an accelerating rate, the average temperature, that is. And It's been said before that while some areas will cool, the average temp will go up.

Edited September 18, 2013 by SargeRho

[bsalis]

The data indicates that Earth is warming at an accelerating rate, the average temperature, that is. And It's been said before that while some areas will cool, the average temp will go up.

Really? Do you have references?

HADCRUT 10 year trend says no...

[Drunken Hobo]

Lots of living things will die off, which releases the same gas that makes rotten eggs smell the name of which I forgot in extremely high quantities. Result? Everything on the coast dies.

Hydrogen sulphide, yay!

Anyway, no worries, global warming has been proven false once-and-for-all by this brilliant Daily Mail article: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2415191/Global-cooling-Arctic-ice-caps-grows-60-global-warming-predictions.html

A shiny sixpence for the clever fellow who can spot the mistake in that article.

[SargeRho]

Is it just me, or does the arctic sheet appear to be much thinner, despite covering more surface?

[rkman]

That's why you can usually tell the serious folks from the others by who uses the term "global warming" and who uses "climate change".

Global warming causes climate change. Seriously.

Otoh, PR guru Frank Luntz latched onto the idea that "climate change" sounds less alarming than "global warming" and he advised the Bush administration accordingly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Luntz#Global_warming

[magnemoe]

I think between 60 and 80 times as much?

But CO2 is stable, Methane isn't. You can burn Methane as fuel, producing water and CO2, which both are less effective at trapping heat than Methane itself. Also Methane is decomposed by UV Rays. And I think only remains stable in the Atmosphere for 12 years.

There is a far more serious threat, one we know of to have happened before. If the ocean heats up too far, the currents break down, and the oceans stagnate. Lots of living things will die off, which releases the same gas that makes rotten eggs smell the name of which I forgot in extremely high quantities. Result? Everything on the coast dies.

CO2 is also absorbed, however it hang around far longer than methane so I don't know how important the long term absorption is.

However ocean currents don't break down if it become warmer, if anything they become stronger as they are driven by temperature differences in the sea, yes they might also change so the golf stream could become weaker I admit.

You are probably thinking of the mass extinction 250 million years ago? Well here I guess the ocean currents stopp if the ocean froze over for some years.

Heard about the Siberian traps? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siberian_Traps an volcano the size of western Europe, good chance it was caused by an impact far larger than the dinosaur killer on the other side of the earth.

First earth was frozen because of all the cubic kilometers of ash who was thrown up, then heated because all the co2 but I guess the nuclear winter and lack of sunlight did most damage to life.

Good tips avoid getting hit by anything larger than an dinosaur killer, it might ruin your day.

[Kryten]

HADCRUT 10 year trend says no...

And a single 10 year average obviously eliminates the trend from about 1750 onwards...

Again, 'climate'. Look it up.

[Mr Shifty]

Really? Do you have references?

HADCRUT 10 year trend says no...

Yeah, here's the rest of that trend:

[rkman]

However ocean currents don't break down if it become warmer, if anything they become stronger as they are driven by temperature differences in the sea, yes they might also change so the golf stream could become weaker I admit.

What are you saying? Stronger or weaker?

The Gulf Stream is part of the global 'conveyor belt current'.

The Global Conveyor Belt

http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/kits/currents/06conveyor3.html

"The global conveyor belt is a strong, but easily disrupted process. Research suggests that the conveyor belt may be affected by climate change. If global warming results in increased rainfall in the North Atlantic, and the melting of glaciers and sea ice, the influx of warm freshwater onto the sea surface could block the formation of sea ice, disrupting the sinking of cold, salty water. This sequence of events could slow or even stop the conveyor belt, which could result in potentially drastic temperature changes in Europe."

[Drunken Hobo]

Is it just me, or does the arctic sheet appear to be much thinner, despite covering more surface?

It does look that way, although I'm not sure the pictures are supposed to show thickness anyway.

It's far simpler & the answer is even in the second line of the article "The rebound from 2012’s record low". Last year was the lowest it's been in recorded history, so a "record increase" isn't surprising. 60% growth of something small isn't going to be remarkable, and the ice is still about what it was a couple of years ago!

Their argument is like losing your job, home, car, wife and spending your last pound on a lottery ticket, winning £2 and thinking things are 100% better! Can't make a trend from 2 data points, especially if you ignore the previous 50 points.

[magnemoe]

What are you saying? Stronger or weaker?

The Gulf Stream is part of the global 'conveyor belt current'.

The Global Conveyor Belt

http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/kits/currents/06conveyor3.html

"The global conveyor belt is a strong, but easily disrupted process. Research suggests that the conveyor belt may be affected by climate change. If global warming results in increased rainfall in the North Atlantic, and the melting of glaciers and sea ice, the influx of warm freshwater onto the sea surface could block the formation of sea ice, disrupting the sinking of cold, salty water. This sequence of events could slow or even stop the conveyor belt, which could result in potentially drastic temperature changes in Europe."

I'm saying that yes, ocean currents can change, as you say it might be transistor gate like features who disrupt some currents.

However heating will not stop all ocean currents as SargeRho mentioned.

[bsalis]

Yeah, here's the rest of that trend:

Nice graphs... they also clearly show that there has been no warming in the last 10-15 years. Of which none of the models predicted... and the IPCC is struggling with in AR5. Interestingly (and i'm sure it's no coincidence), those graphs start at the end of the Little Ice Age (LIA). No surprises that temperatures have been rising through natural variation since then. Human CO2 emissions really didn't take off until the Post War Economic boom. Ironically temperatures went down, and it wasn't until the the 70s that they started to go back up again.

What you are actually seeing in those graphs is a long cycle, with a turning turning point at the end of the LIA. Overlaid with another shorter 60-year natural cycle. Notice the 30 year slow declines with 30 year sharper rises.

[rkman]

I'm saying that yes, ocean currents can change, as you say it might be transistor gate like features who disrupt some currents.

However heating will not stop all ocean currents as SargeRho mentioned.

He did say "currents break down", and while it's true that the conveyor currents probably won't stop all together, just a slow down would have a noticeable effect on the climate.

Nice graphs... they also clearly show that there has been no warming in the last 10-15 years.

You have to be really optimistic to make it 15 years. It is 10 years tops, and during the past decades there have been other periods of cooling that turned out not to be indicators of the long-term trend.

http://climate.nasa.gov/key_indicators

Edited September 25, 2013 by rkman