b. Interest in the AGW issue is waning and it needs some pop for the more than willing MSM media.
c. There's still a 5% "out clause" in case the pause in warming actually does continue.
d. In climate science, up is down and cold is hot and wet is dry (and vice-versa).
e. All of the above.
_______________________________________...
I'm going with e.
_______________________________________...
Edit: After some digging, I think I found the source of the IPCC's confidence. It is derived from this statement: “No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies”. AR5 WG1 SPM, Footnote 16, page SPM-11 http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/...
Current global average warming is 0.4C above the established normal temperature. We accept this as the science. If climate sensitivity difference is 2.6C (4.7C - 2.1C), then where is the sensitivity? Global average temperatures haven't varied much more than 1.5C in thousands of years. That's where the climate sensitivity should be measured! I would think that CO2 warming should be a little more responsive than that especially if the "so-called" science says CO2 is driving temperatures up. Atmospheric warming starts every time the sun comes up. Clouds 'muddy up' those temperature increases on any given day. Haven't you ever seen a forecast that states it will be 80F the very next day and never gets above 70 because of the cloud cover and/or fog?
Is it possible to drive something without a steering wheel?
I think TheRookie and Chem Flunky went to the same school. They base their science on a political organization called the IP CC.
From AR5 : "... In the Northern Hemisphere, 1983–2012 was
likely the warmest 30-year period of the last 1400 years (medium confidence). ..."
Medium confidence?
AR5 : "... For the longest period when calculation of regional trends is sufficiently complete (1901–2012), almost the entire globe has experienced surface warming. ..."
..when calculation of regional trends is sufficiently complete? (Where does this 'not' happen?)
...almost the entire globe has experienced surface warming?
How do they keep getting away with all of their uncertainties and still have a "95% certainty" that humans have caused "Global warming"? (... and I have only skimmed the beginning of AR5's "Summary for Policymakers".)
AR5 : "... Trends have been calculated where data availability permits a robust estimate (i.e., only for grid boxes with greater than 70% complete records and more than 20% data availability in the first and last 10%of the time period). ..."
Robust estimate? Statistical data? Does anyone else "not see" where a 95% confidence level can possibly be achieved?
AR5 : "... There is medium confidence from reconstructions that over the past three decades, Arctic summer sea ice retreat was unprecedented and sea surface temperatures were anomalously high in at least the last 1,450 years. ..."
Medium confidence from reconstructions? Are you kidding me? 95% confidence in what?
Because the IPCC is the main propaganda outlet for the man-made Global Warming scam. It's their job to propagandize and that's what they are doing.
Joseph Goebbels was still rallying his NAZI troops with promises of a glorious final victory in December of 1944. This, with the Russians pouring into Germany on their eastern front and the Allies pouring in on their western front, with all their factories destroyed and their access to oil cut off --- the Germans were defeated only a few months later.
Propagandists never stop propagandizing.
-----------------------
You have misquoted the reports. The IPCC puts a likely level of certainty all the way down to 1.5C not 2.1C. This is lower than previous reports. They have dropped the best estimate climate sensitivity, at least from the Summary for Policymakers.
If I understand what you're quoting correctly (and I admit I may not be understanding it, my degree is in biology, not climate)...
They are essentially saying the primary reason for the rather large range in values coming from models is that they don't quite understand what the cloud feedback is. They're pretty sure it's within a certain range, but because of the complexities (for example, certain kinds of clouds cause warming, and others cause cooling), they can't pin down the cloud feedback any further.
Or, to put it another way, they're basically saying "We're pretty sure about everything major except what clouds will do, and we're pretty sure that clouds will do something in this range of values"
What the 95% is stating is that there is a 95% degree of confidence that the current global warming is due to humane activity. There will never be a 100% degree of confidence that any flight that leaves any airport on any day will reach its destination without a major incident occurring. There is a very high degree of confidence that no such major incident will occur or else people would refuse to board flights. Nothing can be known with absolute certainty, but a 95% degree of confidence in something is about as close as you will get in science. There will never be a 100% degree of confidence that a failed opening of a parachute will result in the skydiver's death. (personally, I would die of a heart attack before I ever hit the ground) Extraordinary events could happen that would allow them to survive such a fall. There have been examples of a parachute not opening before and the skydiver survives because of hitting a deep snowbank or by hitting other objects (trees, for example) that break their fall and lessen their impact with the ground. There is a very high degree of confidence that a failed opening of parachute will cause the skydiver to die, but it is never 100% certain that this will be the case.
The consensus among climate scientists that anthropogenic means are warming our climate is 97% and not 95% percent. A consensus is not the same as the degree of confidence held by each person that holds to the consensus. Those here that have answered in such a foolish manner either do not know of which they speak or they choose to be dishonest in their answer.
A little light reading, for those that wish to learn something - http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMas...
I haven't heard anything about clouds yet. The IPCC did have a press release stating that GW was real and that 95% of attendees were sure that 51% of GW was due to humans..
They added together all the gut-feel and 95% surveyed said "yes".
There is no formal statistical basis for the 95% figure.
They are saying that because it is meaningless but it impresses the mental lightweights. Plus it gives them a hedge, "We didn't really say we were 100% convinced." It is pure propaganda.
They Say Quote
The model spread in equilibrium climate sensitivity ranges from 2.1°C to 4.7°C and is very similar to the assessment in the AR4. There is very high confidence that the primary factor contributing to the spread in equilibrium climate sensitivity continues to be the cloud feedback. This applies to both the modern climate and the last glacial maximum.
Hmm. certain because of clouds, what they say about clouds is.
? Substantial ambiguity and therefore low confidence remains in the observations of global-scale cloud variability and trends. {2.5.7}
? There is low confidence in an observed global-scale trend in drought or dryness (lack of rainfall), due to lack of direct observations, methodological uncertainties and choice and geographical inconsistencies in the trends. {2.6.2}
? There is low confidence that any reported long-term (centennial) changes in tropical cyclone characteristics are robust, after accounting for past changes in observing capabilities. {2.6.3}
I cant seem to work that out (scratch head) they are certain because of clouds, but they don't know how clouds work
