A forthcoming report points lowers estimates on global warming

Top climate scientists admit global warming forecasts were wrong

New report counters climate change scare

Report gives the truth about climate at last

Major New Report on Climate Science Says Global Warming Is Not a Crisis

UN IPCC climate change report a dud

IPCC In Crisis As Climate Predictions Fail

Climate change forecasts wrong UN IPCC

Just show us some graphs, interpret them incorrectly, drag the thread out a few hundreds posts, then go to bed. Sound good enough? HoolaHoopMan

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"]Just show us some graphs, interpret them incorrectly, drag the thread out a few hundreds posts, then go to bed. Sound good enough? KC_Hokie

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"]Just show us some graphs, interpret them incorrectly, drag the thread out a few hundreds posts, then go to bed. Sound good enough? HoolaHoopMan

"Most experts believe that warming of less than 2 degrees Celsius from preindustrial levels will result in no net economic and ecological damage. Therefore, the new report is effectively saying (based on the middle of the range of the IPCC's emissions scenarios) that there is a better than 50-50 chance that by 2083, the benefits of climate change will still outweigh the harm."

Like the scientist that we are we continue to gather data and make adjusment to predictions when necessary. So is all good.

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"] Neat except this time the IPCC report will admit they were wrong and their estimates were too high.KC_Hokie

So you're willing to bet that the IPCC report will conclude that humans have no impact on climate change at all then?  Is that what you're saying?

Like the scientist that we are we continue to gather data and make adjusment to predictions when necessary. So is all good. Master_Live

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"] Oh, so some estimates were off, yet the trend of a warming Earth is still on par and directly correlated to human emissions. Good to know. HoolaHoopMan

So you're willing to bet that the IPCC report will conclude that humans have no impact on climate change at all then?  Is that what you're saying?

They will likely predict more doom and gloom for the future, but will at least have to admit past mistakes. Their models simply didn't match observations and warming was statiscially insignificant.

[QUOTE="Master_Live"]Like the scientist that we are we continue to gather data and make adjusment to predictions when necessary. So is all good. KC_Hokie

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="Master_Live"]Like the scientist that we are we continue to gather data and make adjusment to predictions when necessary. So is all good. HoolaHoopMan

So there will still be warming and climate change, but it may be less than originally stated, now that there are better models and forecasts. Good to know.

I'd like to see a scientist's take on the science, rather than a blogger or news reporters take on leaked info. 

I particularly don't like the phrasing in the WSJ article. 50/50 chance of climate change being good? Um, if you cherry pick the increase of arable land in certain areas and ignore loss in other places, and ignore changes in weather, then you can paint a rosy picture.

 They will admit past predictions have been wrong and CO2 isn't nearly as influential as predicted. They will admit they picked the highest estimates in the past and based their reports on it which resulted in doom and gloom.

They will likely predict more doom and gloom for the future, but will at least have to admit past mistakes. Their models simply didn't match observations and warming was statiscially insignificant.

KC_Hokie

In other words its nothing more than scientists including new data sets to improve climate models for more accurate predictions in the future, while simultaneously still holding true to man made emissions having a measureable effect.  

Go home Hokie, science isn't your forte, or keeping bets on leaving when you're dead fvcking wrong either. 

So there will still be warming and climate change, but it may be less than originally stated, now that there are better models and forecasts. Good to know.

I'd like to see a scientist's take on the science, rather than a blogger or news reporters take on leaked info. 

I particularly don't like the phrasing in the WSJ article. 50/50 chance of climate change being good? Um, if you cherry pick the increase of arable land in certain areas and ignore loss in other places, and ignore changes in weather, then you can paint a rosy picture.

jimkabrhel

But yea I don't expect these same people to all of a sudden say human aren't involved. That would be a bridge too far for now.

Wait - you mean scientists alter models from time to time to incorporate new data? I can't f*cking believe it! 

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]

 They will admit past predictions have been wrong and CO2 isn't nearly as influential as predicted. They will admit they picked the highest estimates in the past and based their reports on it which resulted in doom and gloom.

They will likely predict more doom and gloom for the future, but will at least have to admit past mistakes. Their models simply didn't match observations and warming was statiscially insignificant.

HoolaHoopMan

In other words its nothing more than scientists including new data sets to improve climate models for more accurate predictions in the future, while simultaneously still holding true to man made emissions having a measureable effect.  

Go home Hokie, science isn't your forte, or keeping bets on leaving when you're dead fvcking wrong either. 

The science is catching up to their past doom and gloom predictions which is a good thing.

And they could no longer ignore the elephant in the room.

So scientists are doing exactly what they are supposed to do and updating their models based on new data, while Hokie is proving himself not to be a scientist and still ignoring the data.chessmaster1989

itt.. science at work.

 also.  LOL at "Report gives the truth about climate at last "

 at last?   so if newer data / models come along to challange these findings, what will that be?  more unthruth?  since "at last" we have the truth? 

that's stupid reporting meant to try to back an obvious position.  just report the data, "journalist"

itt.. science at work.comp_atkins

Hokie is proving himself not to be a scientist chessmaster1989

[QUOTE="comp_atkins"]itt.. science at work.KC_Hokie

Normally I like to make fun of and mock the ridiculous nonsense that TC is prone to writing; however, in this case many of you are underselling the potential impact of this update. It is entirely possible that the basic assumptions underpinning the primary models that are used as the basis for the concept of global warming are wrong. Not just slightly off, but potentially wrong. Period.

And this thread is further support for my idea that we need more scientific literacy, in schools, in universities and in the general public. Not only are the articles above cherry-picking pieces from an incomplete picture, but Hokie still takes the contrary position just for shits and giggles.

Normally I like to make fun of and mock the ridiculous nonsense that TC is prone to writing; however, in this case many of you are underselling the potential impact of this update. It is entirely possible that the basic assumptions underpinning the primary models that are used as the basis for the concept of global warming are wrong. Not just slightly off, but potentially wrong. Period.

SUD123456

Sure it's possible. It's also possible that that's the case for our concept of gravity as well.

[QUOTE="SUD123456"]

Normally I like to make fun of and mock the ridiculous nonsense that TC is prone to writing; however, in this case many of you are underselling the potential impact of this update. It is entirely possible that the basic assumptions underpinning the primary models that are used as the basis for the concept of global warming are wrong. Not just slightly off, but potentially wrong. Period.

worlock77

Sure it's possible. It's also possible that that's the case for our concept of gravity as well.

Ignoratio elenchi

Hey everyone! Let's all get cans of spraypaint and shoot them in the air to celebrate!

[QUOTE="SUD123456"]

Normally I like to make fun of and mock the ridiculous nonsense that TC is prone to writing; however, in this case many of you are underselling the potential impact of this update. It is entirely possible that the basic assumptions underpinning the primary models that are used as the basis for the concept of global warming are wrong. Not just slightly off, but potentially wrong. Period.

worlock77

Sure it's possible. It's also possible that that's the case for our concept of gravity as well.

-Nobel Laureate Richard P. Feynman

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="SUD123456"]

Normally I like to make fun of and mock the ridiculous nonsense that TC is prone to writing; however, in this case many of you are underselling the potential impact of this update. It is entirely possible that the basic assumptions underpinning the primary models that are used as the basis for the concept of global warming are wrong. Not just slightly off, but potentially wrong. Period.

KC_Hokie

Sure it's possible. It's also possible that that's the case for our concept of gravity as well.

-Nobel Laureate Richard P. Feynman

It's hilarious that you would quite Feynman, because if you repeated your nonsense to him, he would destroy you intellectually.

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

Sure it's possible. It's also possible that that's the case for our concept of gravity as well.

jimkabrhel

-Nobel Laureate Richard P. Feynman

It's hilarious that you would quite Feynman, because if you repeated your nonsense to him, he would destroy you intellectually.

[QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"] "It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong. "

-Nobel Laureate Richard P. Feynman

KC_Hokie

It's hilarious that you would quite Feynman, because if you repeated your nonsense to him, he would destroy you intellectually.

You really don't get it do you: predictions change when new information if found and new models are made. First you put too much stock in absolutes as a skeptics, then you refuse to change when the science does. You pick out parts that support your argument and don't lool at the whole picture. 

Honestly, take a science course or two and then try to form coherent arguments.

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]

It's hilarious that you would quite Feynman, because if you repeated your nonsense to him, he would destroy you intellectually.

jimkabrhel

You really don't get it do you: predictions change when new information if found and new models are made. First you put too much stock in absolutes as a skeptics, then you refuse to change when the science does. You pick out parts that support your argument and don't lool at the whole picture. 

Honestly, take a science course or two and then try to form coherent arguments.

Will they update their theory...sure. But they admitted they were wrong for all these years and CO2 isn't nearly as influential as they once thought.

These people admitting they were wrong in terms of man-made global warming and CO2 is a big deal. They've been pushing doom and gloom due to man-made global warming for years.

[QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"] After the data doesn't match the predictions....highly doubt that on the issue of man-made global warming. KC_Hokie

You really don't get it do you: predictions change when new information if found and new models are made. First you put too much stock in absolutes as a skeptics, then you refuse to change when the science does. You pick out parts that support your argument and don't lool at the whole picture. 

Honestly, take a science course or two and then try to form coherent arguments.

Will they update their theory...sure. But they admitted they were wrong for all these years and CO2 isn't nearly as influential as they once thought.

These people admitting they were wrong in terms of man-made global warming and CO2 is a big deal. They've been pushing doom and gloom due to man-made global warming for years.

Yeah, stopped reading at "warming will actually be good for the planet."  

There are a few things to note here.  One, the difference between the revised estimate and the previous estimate are small, especially when you consider we're talking about degrees that the planet warms.  This isn't local weather, this doesn't mean it's going to be nicer outside in February, it means the ENTIRE planet is being warmed by that much and this is going to drastically effect local climates and ecosystems.  We're already seeing changes in ocean ecosystems due to acidity killing off certain species (and creating a positive feedback loop in regards to global warming).

Two, part of what is being said is that some of the effects are being delayed.  They're saying that carbon estimated to be going into the air in the next century won't effect gloobal climate right away, they're not saying it won't effect global climate at all.  Furthermore, the carbon that's aready there, the carbon that's going to be there, it's not going away.  If we say "hey, things aren't as bad as we initially thought, so now let's pollute some more!" then we're just going to make things worse, and worse faster.  Ecological processes are already being changed in a way that may be irreversible.  Yes, we may not see the full effect of those changes until a long time down the road, but this is like stopping a freight train, it's not a matter of slamming on the brakes ten feet before you want to stop.  We're doing irreversible damage now, and if we wait until things really start going downhill before we take any action then we won't be able to avoid a lot of very nasty problems.

Three, how are these figures affected by current efforts to reduce carbon emissions?  This could be a case of the chicken or the egg.  Yes, former predictions may be more dire than current predictions, but there has been a growing movement to reduce carbon emissions in recent years, one that was already going on when the initial studies were done, so we could be seeing more optimistic predictions as a result of efforts to reduce carbon emissions.  This shouldn't be "oh, things are getting better so we can all stop worrying about it now," this should be "oh, things are getting better, that means we've been doing a good job reducing carbon emissions and should continue down this path."

Probably something to do with this:

Ahead of IPCC Climate Report, Skeptic Groups Launch Global Anti-Science Campaign

Leading scientists will soon tell the world they're 95% certain that humans are driving global warming. Skeptics are busy trying to sow any doubt.

Conservative groups at the forefront of global warming skepticism are doubling down on trying to discredit the next big report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). In recent weeks, they've been cranking out a stream of op-eds, blogs and reports to sow doubt in the public's mind before the report is published, with no end in sight.

"The goal is to inform the public, scientific community and media that the upcoming IPCC report doesn't have all the science to make informed judgments," said Jim Lakely, a spokesman for the Heartland Institute, a libertarian think tank based in Chicago that has been spearheading the efforts.

The fifth assessment by the IPCC, the world's leading scientific advisory body on global warming, is expected to conclude with at least 95 percent certainty that human activities have caused most of earth's temperature rise since 1950, and will continue to do so in the future. That's up from a confidence level of 90 percent in 2007, the year the last assessment came out.

What Skeptics Are Doing

To try to shape coverage of the findings, the Heartland Institute released a 1,200-page report on Wednesday by the provocatively titled Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC). The 10-year-old coalition of "nongovernment scientists and scholars" disputes the reality of man-made climate change.

Heartland isn't alone in taking pre-emptive swipes against the IPCC.

For months, The Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank in Washington, D.C. co-founded by Charles Koch, has been publishing a series of blog posts and op-eds by Pat Michaels, the organization's director for the Center for the Study of Science, challenging the new IPCC report. In recent weeks, this activity has increased significantly. He has written an op-ed for The Wall Street Journal and been a source for media outlets like Forbes.

Sowing Doubt

For skeptics, keeping the debate alive is exactly the point.

Conservative groups known for attacking global warming science like Heartland, Heritage and Cato have received many millions of dollars from energy companies and sympathetic interests to cast doubt on the science of climate change and the need for policies to curb emissions.

Here's a pretty good piece from the Guardian, really breaks down how the whole climate denial system has operated.  They are the ones who have been shifting their positions as the reality of climate change has become ever more undeniable.

The 5 stages of climate denial are on display ahead of the IPCC report

Three, how are these figures affected by current efforts to reduce carbon emissions?  This could be a case of the chicken or the egg.  Yes, former predictions may be more dire than current predictions, but there has been a growing movement to reduce carbon emissions in recent years, one that was already going on when the initial studies were done, so we could be seeing more optimistic predictions as a result of efforts to reduce carbon emissions.  This shouldn't be "oh, things are getting better so we can all stop worrying about it now," this should be "oh, things are getting better, that means we've been doing a good job reducing carbon emissions and should continue down this path."theone86

Thus, the IPCC had to admit they overestimated CO2 influence on climate.

Interesting graph showing how off the IPCC predictions have been:

[QUOTE="theone86"]Three, how are these figures affected by current efforts to reduce carbon emissions?  This could be a case of the chicken or the egg.  Yes, former predictions may be more dire than current predictions, but there has been a growing movement to reduce carbon emissions in recent years, one that was already going on when the initial studies were done, so we could be seeing more optimistic predictions as a result of efforts to reduce carbon emissions.  This shouldn't be "oh, things are getting better so we can all stop worrying about it now," this should be "oh, things are getting better, that means we've been doing a good job reducing carbon emissions and should continue down this path."KC_Hokie

Thus, the IPCC had to admit they overestimated CO2 influence on climate.

Previous IPCC models estimate rises in CO2 emissions, current models revise those estimates.  Lowered estimates of carbon emissions=less warming.

Tempature has not been flat, this claim has been disproven before.

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"]

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]

 They will admit past predictions have been wrong and CO2 isn't nearly as influential as predicted. They will admit they picked the highest estimates in the past and based their reports on it which resulted in doom and gloom.

They will likely predict more doom and gloom for the future, but will at least have to admit past mistakes. Their models simply didn't match observations and warming was statiscially insignificant.

KC_Hokie

In other words its nothing more than scientists including new data sets to improve climate models for more accurate predictions in the future, while simultaneously still holding true to man made emissions having a measureable effect.  

Go home Hokie, science isn't your forte, or keeping bets on leaving when you're dead fvcking wrong either. 

The science is catching up to their past doom and gloom predictions which is a good thing.

And they could no longer ignore the elephant in the room.

Hokie, half of the links you provided are op-eds or blogs.  Hell even the telegraph article you posted still says the IPCC will conclude that man made global warming is real, even in spite of the new trends being lower than expected.  

Are you still saying that man made global warming is made up?  If you're so sure you should bet your account again.  You were oh so right about the election, amirite?

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]

[QUOTE="theone86"]Three, how are these figures affected by current efforts to reduce carbon emissions?  This could be a case of the chicken or the egg.  Yes, former predictions may be more dire than current predictions, but there has been a growing movement to reduce carbon emissions in recent years, one that was already going on when the initial studies were done, so we could be seeing more optimistic predictions as a result of efforts to reduce carbon emissions.  This shouldn't be "oh, things are getting better so we can all stop worrying about it now," this should be "oh, things are getting better, that means we've been doing a good job reducing carbon emissions and should continue down this path."theone86

Thus, the IPCC had to admit they overestimated CO2 influence on climate.

Previous IPCC models estimate rises in CO2 emissions, current models revise those estimates.  Lowered estimates of carbon emissions=less warming.

Tempature has not been flat, this claim has been disproven before.

The IPCC is finally having to admit this and their models were way off. CO2 isn't nearly as influential as thought.

Interesting graph showing how off the IPCC predictions have been:

KC_Hokie

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"]

In other words its nothing more than scientists including new data sets to improve climate models for more accurate predictions in the future, while simultaneously still holding true to man made emissions having a measureable effect.  

Go home Hokie, science isn't your forte, or keeping bets on leaving when you're dead fvcking wrong either. 

HoolaHoopMan

The science is catching up to their past doom and gloom predictions which is a good thing.

And they could no longer ignore the elephant in the room.

Hokie, half of the links you provided are op-eds or blogs.  Hell even the telegraph article you posted still says the IPCC will conclude that man made global warming is real, even in spite of the new trends being lower than expected.  

Are you still saying that man made global warming is made up?  If you're so sure you should bet your account again.  You were oh so right about the election, amirite?

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]

Interesting graph showing how off the IPCC predictions have been:

HoolaHoopMan

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"] Not sure what planet you've been living on but CO2 levels due to man on earth have been going up for a decade. Temperature has been flat.

Thus, the IPCC had to admit they overestimated CO2 influence on climate.

KC_Hokie

Previous IPCC models estimate rises in CO2 emissions, current models revise those estimates.  Lowered estimates of carbon emissions=less warming.

Tempature has not been flat, this claim has been disproven before.

The IPCC is finally having to admit this and their models were way off. CO2 isn't nearly as influential as thought.

I never said CO2 levels stopped rising, I said their rise has been less than previously predicted.  If previous models estimated the rise in CO2 to be by a factor of ten and new models by a factor of five then the rise in emissions has been less than previously thought and their estimates on eventual warming will be lower.  

Data comes from IPCC reports and satellite data. It's 100% accurate regardless of where it was posted. The IPCC is even admitting it now. Can't deny the data.KC_Hokie

Your very own article is claiming that despite a revision in temperature projections, humans are the main driving factor in recent warming.  So what will the IPCC report say?  

1) That humans are driving the rise in temperature

or 

2) Humans have no effect on the rising temperature.  

Which one Hokie. 

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"]

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"] They will admit they were way off and their models were too. CO2 simply isn't as powerful as they thought and they can't prove how much humans have to do with climate if at all.

The science is catching up to their past doom and gloom predictions which is a good thing.

And they could no longer ignore the elephant in the room.

KC_Hokie

Hokie, half of the links you provided are op-eds or blogs.  Hell even the telegraph article you posted still says the IPCC will conclude that man made global warming is real, even in spite of the new trends being lower than expected.  

Are you still saying that man made global warming is made up?  If you're so sure you should bet your account again.  You were oh so right about the election, amirite?

No it doesn't, you just don't know how to correctly interpret data.

Man-made global warming was over-hyped and it's impacts are minimal. The data shows that. KC_Hokie

So you admit that human emissions have a measurable effect then? 

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]

[QUOTE="theone86"]

Previous IPCC models estimate rises in CO2 emissions, current models revise those estimates.  Lowered estimates of carbon emissions=less warming.

Tempature has not been flat, this claim has been disproven before.

theone86

The IPCC is finally having to admit this and their models were way off. CO2 isn't nearly as influential as thought.

I never said CO2 levels stopped rising, I said their rise has been less than previously predicted.  If previous models estimated the rise in CO2 to be by a factor of ten and new models by a factor of five then the rise in emissions has been less than previously thought and their estimates on eventual warming will be lower.  

And they were still way off. CO2 simple isn't as influential as they once thought.

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"] Man-made global warming was over-hyped and it's impacts are minimal. The data shows that. HoolaHoopMan

So you admit that human emissions have a measurable effect then?