However, even if the 95% certain claim is correct, it doesn't say much. Humans cause at least half of the warming seen so far, means up to half is natural variation. Which means only half of the current temp gain can be extrapolated to see what the overall effect of CO2 is, which means the IPCC estimates of warming are overstated. They need to say at least 75%, 90%, or something like that to stay consistent with alarmism, but they are instead hoping people won't notice.
I kind of wonder why they would have any doubt, unless they believe that some unknown factor be could be causing the warming. I don't know how they would calculate the chances of that being the case.
<- Climategate in 2009 showed emails where actual IPCC scientists harbored private doubts about many aspects of the science.>
What do the emails say about
1. CO2 is a greenhouse gas? http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissio...
2. The laws of thermodynamics? http://physics.about.com/od/thermodynami...
3. Atmospheric CO2 levels are increasing? http://co2now.org/
http://legacy.signonsandiego.com/uniontr...
4. This CO2 is due to the combustion of fossil fuels? http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/200...
5. The Earth's temperature is increasing? http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs...
6. Natural factors which influence climate would be cooling the Earth if not for anthropogenic CO2? http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-w...
<- There have been a spate of climate sensitivity papers which conclude a lower value and some even out of the range of the 2007 IPCC estimates>
Not all scientists agree on climate sensitivity. Stop the presses
<- Climate models have been diverging from data by a greater amount for over a decade now>
I thought that the Sun effected climate.
<- There has been no significant warming since 2007>
I knew that the "no significant warming" goalpost would be moved, but I didn't expect it to reach 2007 until seventeen years after 2007; 2024.
Total PR. Nothing scientific, that is for sure. The whole stunt is PR. We have been saying that for decades.
As someone on this site questioned a couple weeks ago when this was leaked, "How can the UN-IPCC admit the Earth has cooled yet raise the confidence level from 90 to 95%?" (paraphrasing) It just doesn't stand to reason, at least to real scientists.
That confidence level, is apparently a number picked out of a hat containing 91% to 99%.
It is the UN-IPCC's way of saying, "Yah, we know that we have been wrong in the past. We also know that our current presentation is full of baloney. But in the end, we have a 95% certainty that you suckers will pony up more US dollars into our unaccountable slush fund and bend to more tyrannical rules. Ha! Ha! Ha! SUCKERS!"
It is very visible.
For a moment I thought you actually had a sensible and interesting question for a change. But then I got to your repetition of old lies that have been shown to be lies over and over again. So I guess the rest of your question is of the same value. You are not interested in any genuine answers, if you were you would acknowledge them and change your knowledge as a result. The fact that you continue to spout the same well know lies over and over makes your stance clear, you are only here to misinform.
The 95% is the result of an informal discussion between the scientist that the political committee that controls the IPCC demanded. There was no statistical analysis to produce that figure
There is none The UN answer is a world carbon tax
and they give orders to the countrys . Powergrab and
theft . The UN and IPCC extremist are loons .
Wealth distrubtion thats all it is .
I think Ross McKitrick has the best description so far:
"SPM [IPCC AR5 Summary for Policy Makers] in a nutshell: Since we started in 1990 we were right about the Arctic, wrong about the Antarctic, wrong about the tropical troposphere, wrong about the surface, wrong about hurricanes, wrong about the Himalayas, wrong about sensitivity, clueless on clouds and useless on regional trends. And on that basis we’re 95% confident we’re right."
Climate narcisism.
Mike is right. In spite of their previous high confidence, their predictions failed to pan out. They could lower their confidence level, i.e. be honest, but that wouldn't sell their real agenda so they raised it. They don't look at the evidence and make a conclusion to fit the evidence. They make a conclusion and then fit the evidence.
What is the basis for the IPCC confidence level?
Its called a fear of losing ones high paying job and fear that their nazi-like political ambitions will not be realised.
The IPCC Summary for Policymakers for AR5 WG1 has been released this morning as expected: http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGIAR5-SPM_Approved27Sep2013.pdf
Here is the money shot as far as AGW:
"It is extremely likely (95%) that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together." http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGIAR5-SPM_Approved27Sep2013.pdf
This is a fairly significant increase in confidence from the previous SMP for AR4 WG1 in 2007 which stated:
"Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely (90%) due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations."
_________________________________________________________________
The question that me as a skeptic has is the exact one that the InterAcademy Council had as one of many in its 2010 thorough review of the IPCC procedures:
"The IPCC uncertainty guidance urges authors to provide a traceable account of how authors determined what ratings to use to describe the level of scientific understanding (Table 3.1) and the likelihood that a particular outcome will occur (Table 3.3). However, it is unclear whose judgments are reflected in the ratings that appear in the Fourth Assessment Report or how the judgments were determined. How exactly a consensus was reached regarding subjective probability distributions needs to be documented." http://reviewipcc.interacademycouncil.net/report.html
Since the 95% certainty claim is by far the most important to policy makers one would think that the increase from the last report would be painstakingly detailed. However, here are some confounding factors I can think of since 2007:
- Climategate in 2009 showed emails where actual IPCC scientists harbored private doubts about many aspects of the science.
- There have been a spate of climate sensitivity papers which conclude a lower value and some even out of the range of the 2007 IPCC estimates
- Climate models have been diverging from data by a greater amount for over a decade now
- There has been no significant warming since 2007
So this is really a two part question. What factors do you think caused this significant increase in confidence? But even more importantly, where is it documented who participated in this judgement and how was it determined (as requested by the InterAcademy Council recommendations)?
