As far as the IPCC AR5 report being less alarming than the IPCC AR4 report I would guess would come down as to what you find to be more alarming to you. In other words, would this not just be subjective in our decision?
Added***
Ottawa Mike, should you consider it demeaning that I noted that you had posted a few a lines of text, that are not shown in context, out of an IPCC report then I can only conclude that you are far too sensitive. I know otherwise. The only thing that bothers you on this is that you are being taken to task in front of your audience and you want to appear to be credible to your audience at all times. Should I cherry pick such data I would fully expect you to point this out to the audience. I am not trying to hide anything and therefore I would not be sensitive on this.
As far as what a person considers to be "alarming" about the IPCC report I correctly stated that this would be subjective as to what the person would consider to be alarming. This is a statement of fact and by no means is directed at you or anyone else. As an example I would consider that if the IPCC report were to show that the Arctic sea ice is trending towards a full recovery, as compared to 1979, then many, if not all, of those interested in exploiting the Arctic regions for all of the natural resources and shipping lanes would be very alarmed to know this. I, however, would breathe a sigh of relief if this was actually the case. What is alarming to you may not alarm me at all. The same is true in reverse. ... Do not pretend as if your feelings are hurt over this. Your attempt to present your illusions might have suffered some damage, but I doubt that your feelings did.
Added****
No, Ottawa Mike, you are the one that fails to realize that even if you have 20 reports to compare it will still be subjective as to which one would be considered to be the most alarming or least alarming. You would first need to define what is to be considered as alarming by you before anyone could offer their opinion based on what you would consider to be alarming. .... Think it through, Ottawa Mike!
Example: Some find it very alarming when the stock markets take a big fall. Others, that have shorted the market, would find it very pleasing that the markets took a big fall. So as to what is to be considered as alarming is purely subjective. ... Do you understand now?
It looks like some skeptics were heard a little more this time. In the last report, Steve McIntyre's call for not hiding the decline was ignored, but they did add in a bit on divergence. Which they then pointed to when the hide the decline e-mail was revealed. James Annan was complaining at that time that they were overstating things.
It looks like his objections carried more weight this time, as well as those of Roger Pielke Jr, who couldn't even get a correction issued for AR4 with regards to hurricanes.
However, there is the issue that 'Armageddon' is now six years closer, and of course the level of emissions is higher than they were expecting. They might as well throw away Working Group 3, as there is no hope of reducing emissions given the increases in China, India, and the rest of the world, so you are stuck with adaptation. That increase was pretty clear then, but a little excusable for AR4. They would have started around 2004-2005, and the emissions numbers are always a few years out of date(Wikipedia was at 2008 until recently, and would still be there if I hadn't updated the numbers), so it wouldn't have been quite so obvious that China was going to takeover as the #1 emitter by the time the report came out.
They have also made some mistakes that require lowering the TCR levels even more, as is clear from Nic Lewis's last paper. You would think the response from climate science would be, 'Yes, we have bought the planet decades, equal to more than the emissions reduction of Kyoto!' Instead, they attack the messenger.
If I recall correctly, AR4 predicted that sea level rise would only be due to thermal expansion. So, how is several metres of potential sea level rise more alarmist than a few centimetres of sea level rise.
Raisin Caine
< In all likelihood we will be off of fossil fuels in the next 50 years without trillions of dollars being spent, by just good old economic factors.>
If we rely on good old economic factors, the price of oil will rise rapidly and the price of the alternatives will be just as high as now. But if we start to switch to new energy now, the price of the new energy sources will start to drop and the price increase of oil will slow down and meet at a much lower level than they would if we rely on good old economic factors. You are quite right that we will not spend trillions of dollars by relying on good old economic factors, but how is spending quadrillions of dollars an improvement over spending trillions of dollars.
I agree. I think they are backing off. They are likely seeing that their predictions were entirely absurd. My prediction is that the next report will be less alarming and they are going to continue to back off and hope they can back up to a more defensible position without being noticed.
C,
It is not that you are wrong, it is that you are SOOOO WRONG. The temp increasing is not the issue. You may pretend that it is, but it is not. In all likelihood we will be off of fossil fuels in the next 50 years without trillions of dollars being spent, by just good old economic factors. If you cannot show a significant rise in the next 100 years, you have NO CASE for making a carbon tax nor any other taxation solution.
I think their mission was to mislead and exaggerate. Then time elapsed and their doom and gloom didn't come to pass so they had to redraw the line in order to still have a reasonable chance to enact their agenda. The cause for them is the primary motivation. The latest AR5 is just them redrawing the line once again because their earlier predictions (e.g lies) were shown to be exaggerated.
Is it just me or does anyone else find it comical that C calls people deniers in the same sentence he denies there has been a pause. Talk about desperate....Jeeez Louise
Its the same recycled garbage it stopped in 1998
and they been doctoring the numbers and graphs since .
if you are using hiatus to infer a pause, then that is wrong, as there has been no pause, only a denier misinforming regarding the actuality of no statistically significant warming of surface temperature
Bottom line is that global temps are still rising
Sea level rise
they are all about the same
There are multiple lines of the evidence that the answer to that question is YES. These include the fact that in AR5, the IPCC acknowledges the following:
- recent “hiatus” in temperatures
- likelihood that medieval temperatures may have been as high as today’s
- unpredicted increase in Antarctic sea ice
- 111 of 114 models had predicted too much warming over recent years
- the low end of equilibrium climate sensitivity is lower
- the high end of transient climate response is lower
- likely sea level rise is not as high as some experts have forecast
- collapses of the Gulf Stream, of Antarctic or Greenland ice sheets or of methane clathrates are “very unlikely”
- there is “low confidence” in the collapse of tropical forests, of boreal forests and of the monsoon, an explosion of greenhouse gases from the Arctic permafrost and an increase in megadroughts
If your answer is NO or THE SAME, please provide your lines of evidence.
