Friday, September 27, 2013

IPCC WG1 announcement

The IPCC WG1 opening session as it happened



Ladies and gentlemen, the choice and shape of the future are ours - Thomas Stocker, WGI co-chair

57 comments:

Anonymous said...

God help us all. What a group of pissant pansies.

Thomas Lee Elifritz said...

Good luck on the god thing, fool.

Real men work the problem.

Anonymous said...

"Real men work the problem."

All progressives and Gaians are testosterone challenged.

IPCC -sick bunch of science fabricators.

Thomas Lee Elifritz said...

I look forward to perusing your own testosterone and steroid addled anonymous contributions to scientific knowledge.

Anonymous said...

Thomas Lee Elifritz - You believe anything that IPCC concludes. If you have anything to do with NASA launches, we are in trouble. Space cadet and fool.

Anonymous said...

Thomas Lee Elifritz,

OK, lets play. Give us your view of CS, and model comparison to observations.

Thomas Lee Elifritz said...

Actually, no, I believe for the most part the IPCC is an unnecessary waste of money. The peer reviewed and gray literate and my own personal observations suffices for me. But I look forward to reviewing your submissions to the Journal of Anonymous Uninformed Citizen Science. I'm sure some jewels of crackpot discourse will lie therein.

Let's talk about NASA launches. NASA and Charlie Bolden will save the world with the SLS and Orion.

Anonymous said...

I believe for the most part the IPCC is an unnecessary waste of money.

I retract my insults. I surmise you are not dumb, just naive.

Sloop said...

anonymous,

What an unspeakable nightmare of rage and fear you must be ensnared in and cannot wake up from, embued with dark, twisted ann rayndian fantasies and psychotic anxieties about all that you really don't understand. These bunnies are wonderful fellows but they are just toying with you as a blood sport. You'd be better served finding some charitable work in your neighborhood that will provide you some genuine contact with the flesh and blood of your neighbors, as well as some fresh air that might disperse the dank odorous smog of confusion and hate that surrounds and suffocates you. Eventually you might even start feeling like a sane human being.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous points out that it is "manning up" by remaining anonymous and tossing substance-free rhetoric bombs . . . excuse me: "bombs".

Anonymous said...

Sloop, thanks for the free psychobabble. Just do honest science and all will be nice. How dare you judge me. Look at the IPCC opening and try to square that with an honest assessment of the current state of affairs. I cannot not imagine a more dishonest summary. Do some introspection Sloop.

Sloop said...

Anon., Re: IPCC's latest report, obviously totally legit, will be useful in terms of its stated purposes.

It is embarrassingly obvious that you have no idea what you're talking about regarding these topics nor I bet at all interested in trying to find your way back to reality.

Sure, who am I to try to discern your personality from a few pointless, fantastical, hate mongering posts, whether they reflect your actual views or those of whomever is paying you. I just don't particularly enjoy reading blog posts from the unhinged. They too often inspire a bizarre mix of amusement and despair about the state of humanity. You utterly lack wit, style, or wisdom; attributes I usually find in abundance in this rabbit borough.
I hope that you just go away. But I supposing such a plea is like poking a stick into the face a hungry, lonely mongrel.

Anonymous said...

Where are the posts of Bernard J and a_ray calling the AR5 authors deniers or calling the report not science? According to them 3C is the best ECS which is not what AR5 has. AR5 only has a range of 1.5 - 4.5. Which means my own view of ECS being <2C is inline with AR5.

Let the personal attacks and sneering begin and cue Chubby Checker,

1

Hank Roberts said...

The main problem I see with the current state of climatological affairs is the lack of competent readership.

Thomas Lee Elifritz said...

How dare you judge me.

Ok, you are an innumerate and illiterate anonymous pissant pansy.

Let the personal attacks and sneering begin

They already started. You are late to the party as usual.

Anonymous said...

"According to them 3C is the best ECS which is not what AR5 has. AR5 only has a range of 1.5 - 4.5.

Said without the slightest hint of irony.

As this AR iteration has no probability distribution for equilibrium climate sensitivity in the material that I've seen to date, a parsimonious interpretation of the range given would be to settle on the mean of the range. I leave it to the numerate readers to determine this value and compare it to your first sentence quoted above.

Of course anyone familiar with the literature would know that there is a positive skew, which might at first blush support your contention that EQS lies below 2°C, but anyone who is familiar with the literature would also know that the <2 values are below the clustering of the modes and the means in the ranges of probability. This is summarised here:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-sensitivity-advanced.htm


There's nothing particularly remarkable in the extension of the AR5 range down to 1.5°C. As many people note it is a consensus document that has to pass the pleasure of all countries participating, and many of them are still stubbornly shying away from the hard truth. Oh, not so much that they are still adhering to the "no warming" or the "it's not humans" memes - only the most recalcitrant industry and ideological denialists are banging that drum - but they are playing the game by stretching the ECS range downward.

And it's worth noting that this is really not a new tactic - read the Skeptical Science link above and you'll see that AR5 is not the first time that 1.5°C has been quoted.

In the current situation is's the wording that reveals some of the political to-ing and fro-ing, and the scientific bet-hedging on likelihoods that was included by way of response. Sou summarises it here.

"Which means my own view of ECS being <2C is inline with AR5."

It seems that you need another history lesson.

Firstly, the original conversation was not specifically about the IPCC AR4 interpretation for ECS, and in my own case I was referring to the range covered by my own reading of the best literature.

Secondly, when you introduced the IPCC range it was for AR4, so the AR5 version was irrelevant to the conversation. Your view was and remains unconcordant with AR4, no matter which of your various reinterpretations of ECS is used. AR5 was the world's worst-kept secret, but it was not the material on which I and others were basing our commentary no matter how much you may have been holding out for its official release.

Third, the only person that you persuaded that you hadn't confused CO2 forcing and ECS was yourself. But that aside, if you really do adhere to the ECS < 2°C (weren't you plumbing for 1.5°C/1.7°C at some point?) you still need to explain on what scientific work you base this, that supercedes the general consensus as summarised by, say, the SkS references linked to above.

The bottom line is that the human cause of global warming is established, as Brer Eli notes, and it is established to the satisfaction of all governments participating in the IPCC. And the weight of best estimation for equilibrium climate sensitivity is still above about 2.5°C, and as far as I can discern there is little or no credible work that changes 3°C as the best estimate.

You can have your cherished, stated opinion - but without any evidence is is as worthless to any discussion of ECS as is the colour of your navel debris.


Bernard J.

a_ray_in_dilbert_space said...

Poor "1", so inumerate he can't even interpret a confidence interval correctly.

Anonymous said...

AR5 has no best estimate. With that big difference between you and AR5 I am surprised you are not mentioning another family funeral for more sympathy.

1

Anonymous said...

Did not even notice the new lies from Bernard J Liar, they are so numerous... jeez.

Our last conversation, where you werer arguing with yourself about ECS and deciding which future funeral you wished to attend, I clearly stated that I was waiting for AR5 to learn the latest. I have. You seem to want to ignore it. According to the report 1.5 is just as likely as 3 or 4 or 4.5. If you do not like that or agree with it take it up with those who are responsible for the report. Stop being a denier with IPCC reports.

1

Ian Forrester said...

WOW, anony 1 either doesn't understand basic statistics or is being completely dishonest:

"According to the report 1.5 is just as likely as 3 or 4 or 4.5"

The report said no such thing. I suggest he reads up on 95% significance, bell shaped curves and percentiles.

As an example, if we say that the height of North Americans lies between 4 feet and 7 feet it does not mean that the likelihood of some one being 4 feet is the same as being 6 feet. There are such thing as averages and medians which are the most likely height for some one picked at random.

Heights plotted against number of people who are that tall will be a bell shaped curve.

Same with temperature sensitivity, there will be a number close to the middle which will be far more likely than either number at the extremities (1.5 and 4.5).

Mal Adapted said...

unnumbered Anonymous troll: " How dare you judge me."

On the Internet, nobunny know your a dog, but everyone knows by your words that you're a fool.

Whatever, a bracing blast of open hostility from the crazy-uncle crowd is always refreshing. Let no denier claim that Rabbet Run censors "skeptics", and let the world see just what kind of people you are.

Anonymous said...

"I clearly stated that I was waiting for AR5 to learn the latest. I have."

Oh, I know that you spoke of AR5, but you also gave a range for equilibrium climate sensitivity, did you not? And it was that statement of climate sensitivity that was germane to the previous discussion.

And if you were waiting for AR5 all along, why did you bother in the first place to say that ECS was <2°C?

I note that you make no specific comment about my observations above, nor about the subsequent comments by others either. Are you conceding that the AR5 ECS range centres around 3°C for a Gaussian distribution, and that you were in that case wr-wr-wrong to say "According to them 3C is the best ECS which is not what AR5 has"?

The curious amongst us are wondering.


Bernard j.

Martin Vermeer said...

> "According to the report 1.5 is just
> as likely as 3 or 4 or 4.5"

Then we're screwed... if (assuming a uniform distribution) the likelihood of ECS being between 3.5 and 4.5 is really 33%, that would be bad, bad news.

The good news of course is that Numero Uno is babbling, as usual.

Anonymous said...

"Equilibrium climate sensitivity is likely in the range 1.5°C to 4.5°C (high confidence), extremely unlikely less than 1°C (high confidence), and very unlikely greater than 6°C (medium confidence)*.

* "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."

Please take it up with those that worked on and released the AR5 about not giving a best estimate for ECS, not me.

If 3C was the best ECS estimate the report would have stated as such.

Deniers.

1

Anonymous said...

"Please take it up with those that worked on and released the AR5 about not giving a best estimate for ECS, not me."

The IPCC actually do give a best estimate, that is implicit in the various ranges that they state. I'll give you a clue - going from 1.5°C to 1°C is a transition from the lower boundary of "high confidence" to "extremely unlikely, whilst going from 4.5°C to 6°C is a transition from the upper boundary of "high confidence" to "medium confidence".

A sharp bunny should be able to figure out what the median and the mode are, and that they aren't <2°C.

Arising from this, spectator bunnies should be able to see that you've stepped away without self-reflection from your original use of the high confidence range, and the from inherent self-contradiction in your original statement that the use implied. And if the spectator bunnies compare the implied measures of average derived above with those of AR4, they would scratch their heads to understand where <2°C comes into a "best estimate".

Just saying.


Bernard J.

Anonymous said...

"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."

Bernard "Thick as a brick" J and Jethro Tull isn't that great either.

1

a_ray_in_dilbert_space said...

Number 1's trip is lifted directly from Matt Ridley--another idjit who couldn't tell you the difference between probabilistic shit and shinola.

Once again, no thought, no originality, no clue.

Anonymous said...

A_ray_in_dumb_ass_space,

Straight from AR5:

"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."

This is about the AR5 and what states about ECS. If you disagree with the above text please contact the IPCC and have them change it. If those 800 scientists thought 3C was the best ECS they would have stated as much, as they have in the past. Not only did they not declare a "best" for ECS they cleared noted that it is no longer possible.

Maybe you should offer your services to the IPCC and in your request let them know what idiots they are for disagreeing with you and being wrong.

Please stop being a denier of AR5.

1

Anonymous said...

"Straight from AR5:

"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."
"

You are failing to distinguish between a cautious statement coloured by the political input from governments with vested and/or ideological interests on the one hand, and various methods for summarising the range of sensitivity studies on the other.

Why do you think that it was possible to come up with a "best estimate" in AR4, but suddenly not in AR5? Why do you think that the probability distribution implicit in the AR5 ranges for various likelihoods (and on which you have remained conspicuously quiet...) is significantly different to that of AR4?

Stay tuned for sensitivity work arising from AR5...

And for what it's worth in my opinion Jethro Tull is a truly great band. Perhaps you don't understand the skill they possess, but that's a reflection on you and not them. Ian Anderson is a talented wordsmith and live in concert the band is fantastic - at least, they were when I saw them in the 80s and 90s. Over ten minutes of Heavy Horses... sublime.


Bernard J.

Anonymous said...

The statement has two parts. First part is the statement that no best estimate can be given the second part provides the reason why. Your speculation as to other reasons are just that, fantasies.

A much better musician and rocker from a far better band once referred to the band in question as Jethro Dull.

1

Turboblocke said...

Back to an earlier post about the IPCC being a waste of money... anyone interested in knowing its budget? About $10 million this year. That's about 0.15 cents per person on the planet. Contribution from the USA is about 1 c per US citizen.
http://www.ipcc.ch/meetings/session35/doc2_budget.pdf

Anonymous said...

"...the second part provides the reason why"

Which is why statistics came to be. Of course the use of statistical procedures is predicated on the a priori assumptions, but taking this into account you still haven't address the points/questions in my previous post.

It really stick in your craw doesn't it, that the most likely value of ECS pans out as being near 3°C.

It sticks in my craw to, but for a very different reason - it means that we've committed the planet to being FUBAR for our children and grandchildren and for generations afterward.

Oh, and for much of the rest of the biosphere...


Bernard J.

Anonymous said...

"that the most likely value of ECS pans out as being near 3°C"

Not according to AR5. You best go correct that report and berate the 800 scientists who contributed to it.

1

Anonymous said...

[...where we came in...]

What do you think is the most likely value for equilibrium climate sensitivity, and how do you arrive at your conclusion?


Bernard J.

Anonymous said...

Sorry Bernard your question has been asked and answered on another thread, no need for you to hijack another.

Please if you have concerns with the AR5 report and its contents or any of the phrasing please contact them.

1

Martin Vermeer said...

Numero Uno,

it's a simple question. What about a simple answer, right here? You could just copy the answer from the other thread, right? Do us all a favour.

Anonymous said...

Another hijacker.

It is simple Martin, go look it up and stop denying the AR5.

1

a_ray_in_dilbert_space said...

The blogger whose IQ is "1" doesn't understand the data. It is actually quite interesting that the data since 2007 seems to have split--half giving a low sensitivity around 2.16, and the other half yielding around 3.6 degrees per doubling. My feeling is that the low sensitivities seem to be associated with assumptions of a rapid equilibration time, while those in the higher mode seem to assume a longer time to reach equilibrium, and so would also include longer-term feedbacks.

Of course, neither 2.16 nor 3.6 is anything to celebrate.

Meanwhile "1" can keep saying, "But this goes up to eleven..."

Martin Vermeer said...

Go look what up, "1"? Be explicit. A link will do fine, provided it points to a single, clear answer.

We like answers around here, not excuses.

Anonymous said...

Here we go again. My understanding of ECS falls within the range of the recent AR5.

Once again RR rodents want to ignore the topic of a post, in this case AR5, and go on some type or "hunt". Typical, predictable, and easily resisted.

Still no comments from all these "smart" "scientific" people about AR5, fascinating. But as I predicted the attacks and twisting did commence and continues.

Thanks for another round of laughs at your predictable responses.

1

Anonymous said...

"Sorry Bernard your question has been asked and answered on another thread, no need for you to hijack another."

No, I am responding to your comment that you would wait until AR5 before offering your understanding of the best estimate of equilibrium climate sensitivity. Well, AR5 is out, and I would like to know your understanding of the best estimate of ECS.

So, is it a parsimonious determination of the midpoint of the "likely" range (the value of which you haven't been able to bring yourself to acknowledge, by the way...), or is it derived from the implied positive skew in the various "likely", "very likely" and "extremely" boundaries presented (how are you progressing with sketching out the curve for that, by the way...)

Not only are you the loneliest numpty but you also seem to be one of the most recalcitrantly ignorant ones. For remedial reading I recommend that you peruse:

http://hot-topic.co.nz/a-physicist-speaks-dessler-on-climate-sensitivity-very-unlikely-to-be-less-than-2oc/

http://www.skepticalscience.com/economist-screws-up-draft-ipcc-ar5-sensitivity.html

and you might learn something, even if it's just by osmosis. No, no, don't thank me - just go and educate yourself, and if you still disagree with the consensus then come back and state your case with defensible references and empirical evidence that refutes the IPCC's understanding.


Bernard J.

Anonymous said...

My understanding of ECS falls within the range of the recent AR5.

If you do not like they way AR5 presents and comments on their range of 1.5 - 4.5 please take it up with them.

What is the relevance of an Skeptical Science blog article written in July? lol.

Again if you, a blog or a physicist disagrees with AR5's range please take it up with them.

1

Martin Vermeer said...

> My understanding of ECS falls within
> the range of the recent AR5.

You call that explicit? Where did you study English?

My understanding is that ECS is most likely 3.0C, and I base it on the bulk of the paleo, instrumental-period and GCM simulation evidence. That too falls within he range of the recent AR5. Now that's explicit for you.

Your turn. Of course if you just don't know, that's OK too. We sort of guessed that already...

Anonymous said...

Martin,

I cannot help you if you fail to take the time to read all the comments on this thread. If you fail to take the time why should I invest any time for you?

1

Gator said...

Master baiter. Just sayin.

Russell Seitz said...

Sloop clearly needs a hobby to go with his horse.

Blood sports and fornication offer outstandingly low carbon footprints and low sensitivity to sea level rise.

Martin Vermeer said...

Excuses excuses. "1" isn't anything if not predictable...

Anonymous said...

Martin,

28/9/13 8:47 AM

You are one lazy or dumb individual. Do you always need your hand held?

1

a_ray_in_dilbert_space said...

1: "You are one lazy or dumb individual. "

Says the guy who can't even be arsed to tell us what he thinks. Hey, 1, did you marry a pregnant woman?

Sad, really. So afraid of being wrong, that he can't ever be right.

Anonymous said...

A_ray,

Lame as always. Not my fault Martin cannot read, nor you for that matter. I cleary stated my answer on ECS in this thread, your ignorance to that fact is not my problem.

When are you going to pull your head out of Dilbert's butt?

To your question, the answer is no.

1

a_ray_in_dilbert_space said...

Ah, no wonder "1" is the loneliest number. It has nothing to offer anyone. Putting aside consideration of imbecilic trolls, there is actually an interesting development in the treatment of sensitivity in AR5--to wit, the distribution has become bimodal--with one mode peaked around 2.16 degrees per doubling and the other around 3.6 degrees per doubling. looking at the actual best values for the various studies, over 90% predict sensitivity between 1.8 and 4.5--so that is where I'd place my 90% CI.

As to the bimodality, what I think is happening is that estimates that assume a rapid equilibration time (e.g. Schwarz 2007) tend to get values that significantly under-estimate sensitivity--in part because the deep oceans seem to come into play and dampen the rate of approach to equilibrium and in part because they miss long-term feedbacks. The studies that avoid this pitfall get a sensitivity around 3.6.

Take home: We might have a bit more time to come up with a fix, but if we don't, our progeny are even more in the soup!

Anonymous said...

Now a_ray, I am sure 1 bunny was accounting for slow processes in his estimate of ECS. Yeah, that's the ticket!
Rib smoking' bunny

Sloop said...

RS,

You're right, I need a better hobby. But if my favorite love-making spot was a Matunuck Beach dune that during hurricane Sandy melted into the over wash and disappeared into the landward coastal lagoon, what's a no-longer-so-young buck to do?

BTW all those dunes lost in Sandy from Mass to NJ that aren't being replaced by billions worth of Army Corp of Engineers dredging and pumping will result in underestimates of future storm surge and inundation by FEMA and even the new Flood Insurance Rate Maps. Better build those house stilts a little taller.

Anonymous said...

ARiDS.

I'm curious about the mention of bimodality. Do you have a reference to any AR5 figures that depict the probability distribution?

I recontructed a sensitivity PDF last night from the range values in the Summary for Policy Makers, and it became apparent that the form implied by those likelihoods is different from previous distributions. I'd say that some of the reason lies in rounding the ranges to increments of half a degree celsius so that non-scientific people can grasp the numbers in ball-park fashion, but there is still a peculiarity of weighting that had me scratching my head. My original approach was to model a unimodal distribution with a positive skew, but the values implied by the IPCC's extremes made me think that the more likely distribution was bimodal, and it's interesting to hear you say the same thing.

I've not yet had time to trawl through the thousands of pages in the AR5 documentation, so any heads-up would be greatly appreciated.


Bernard J.

a_ray_in_dilbert_space said...

Bernard,
What I did was go to the Climate sensitivity page on the AGW Observer site and tabulate the values. I had already done so for Barton Paul Levenson's site, so it was just a matter of adding the new values on the Observer site.

There are a few outliers--predictions of 0.1, 0.26, etc. and on the high side >9, ~6, etc. I tossed the 6 high and 6 low values, leaving me with 68 predictions from which to determine the distribution. The split is right down the middle--half in each mode. One mode is centered at 2.16 degrees per doubling and the other at 3.64 degrees per doubling. There is also an interesting paper by Kirk-Davidoff (2009) there that may be germane. Given what we are learning about sharing of heat with the deep ocean, it appears the equilibration time may be longer than we though.

Russell Seitz said...

Sloop

During one of the hurricanes that hit Martha's Vineyard two decades ago, we crawled out at the height of the storm to discover air bubbling up through the rainwater puddles as the storm surge approached. Some 20 m high dunses liquified shortly therafter, and for the next 24 hours, the area became an island as the two barrier beaches connecting it to MV were severed .

Afterward, we went out to inspect the east cut that had reconnected Squibnocket pond to the sea , and saw an object glinting halfway up one of the tall sand cliffs produced by dune deflation and collapse. Though embedded in a dune we all assumed to be of Pleistocene age, it proved to be a kechup bottle dated April 1953.

muhammad asim said...

Funny Entertainment or Lol Pictures with full of Fun... Entertainment Articles, Entertainment News, Entertainment Pictures, Bollywood, Hollywood and Lollywood Pictures and Videos, Entertainment Latest updates, Hot Entertainment News and Pictures Funny Entertainment Pictures, lol Pictures, Funny Pictures and Much More Fun Only on 1 Current Affairs Network
hotcurrentaffairs.com