In a document of about 30 pages which is a summary for the decision makers in governments around the world, the IPCC people marked the conclusions, we bring them to you verbatim, for the information of the deniers who prepared us for a milky report
The warming of the climate system is unprecedented, and since the 20s many of the observed changes have been unprecedented on scales of decades or even millennia. The atmosphere and the oceans have warmed, the amount of ice and ice has decreased, the sea level has risen and the concentration of greenhouse gases has increased.
To make it easier for political decision makers around the world to understand the report even if they are not climate experts, the editors of the IPCC report highlightedA chapter intended for decision makers the main conclusions of each chapter. Here they are in front of you in a special project.
- Each of the last three decades was warmer than the previous one (as measured by ground temperatures) and warmer than any decade since 1850. In the Northern Hemisphere the period 1983-2012 was almost certainly the warmest 30-year period in the last 1,400 years.
The warming of the oceans dominated the increase in energy stored in the climate system. They are responsible for 90% of the energy accumulated between 1971-2010. - It is very likely that the upper part of the oceans (0-700 meters deep) warmed between the years 1971-2010 and with a high probability also in the hundred years preceding this period.
- Over the decades, the ice sheet in Greenland and Antarctica has lost mass. The continental glaciers continued to shrink almost all over the world and the spring ice in the Arctic sea continued to shrink.
- Sea Level: The rate of sea level rise since the mid-19th century has been greater than the average rate over the previous two thousand years. During the period 1901-2010, the sea level rose by 19 centimeters.
- The carbon cycle and other biogeomechanical cycles: the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2), methane and nitrogen oxides has increased to unprecedented levels on a scale of 800 years. CO2 concentrations have increased by 40% since the beginning of the industrial revolution, mainly as a result of burning mineral fuels and partly also from the change in emissions from land uses. The oceans absorbed almost 30% of the amounts of carbon dioxide, which caused the acidification of the oceans.
- The total radiation balance is positive, and has led to an energy contribution in the climate system. The largest contributor to the overall radiation balance is the concentration of carbon dioxide gas.
Since 1750 man's influence on the climate system is clear. This is manifested in the increase in the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the positive radiation balance, the observed heat and the understanding of the climate system.
The evaluation of the climatic models
- Climate models have improved since the IPCC's fourth report. The models reproduce the pattern of rising temperatures on land, and the trends over decades, including the rapid warming since the mid-20th century and the cooling after strong volcanic eruptions.
- The measured heat levels and the expected changes in them according to the model, including climate feedback and changes in the intensity of global warming in response to past and future forces.
- Human influence is evident in the warming of the atmosphere and oceans, in the change in global water cycles, in the reduction of snow and ice, in the rise of the sea level and in changes in the strength and quantity of giant storms and other extreme weather events. This evidence of human influence has increased since the previous report. It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the warming measured since the middle of the 20th century. The continued emission of greenhouse gases caused further warming and changes in all components of the climate system. Limiting climate change will require sharp and sustained reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.
Forecast for the future - 200 hot years even if we stop all greenhouse gas emissions from today
- The global changes in surface temperatures at the end of the 21st century will almost certainly be one and a half times greater than the average of the years 1850-1900, in some models they will probably even rise by 2 degrees Celsius. According to all scenarios, the warming will continue beyond the year 2100, although varying from decade to decade and not uniformly across all regions.
The last penguins. Illustration: shutterstock - Changes in the global water cycle in response to warming during the 21st century will not be uniform. The contrast in the amount of precipitation between dry and wet areas and between dry and wet seasons will increase, although there will be exceptional areas.
- The global oceans will continue to warm during the 21st century. The heat will penetrate from the surface to the deep sea and affect the ocean current circulation. It is highly probable that the ice cover in the Arctic Ocean will continue to shrink (in terms of area) and become thinner, and the snow cover in the spring in the Northern Hemisphere will shrink during the 21st century, as average temperatures rise. The volume of continental glaciers will also shrink.
- The sea level will continue to rise during the 21st century according to all scenarios it will exceed the average recorded in the years 1971-2010 due to the warming of the oceans and the great loss of mass in glaciers and sea ice sheets.
- Climate change will also affect the processes of the carbon cycle and the excess will increase the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Additional absorption of carbon by the oceans will increase the acidity of seawater. The cumulative emissions of carbon dioxide will determine the degree of temperature increase at the end of the 21st century and beyond. Most models estimate that the effects will last for at least 200 years, even if carbon dioxide emissions are stopped. This represents climate change that will last for hundreds of years due to past, present and future carbon dioxide emissions.
See a report earlier today on the fifth report of the IPCC:
56 תגובות
In Germany, they decided to close sealed reactors and thus caused more carbon emissions. The Green Party is responsible for this "wisdom".
another one
This is not "my side"….
The debates are at the level of how many degrees it will heat up, where it will have more effect and so on. There is no debate about the observational facts, but about their meaning. And here too, the arguments are not big, and they are legitimate.
As opposed to….
I actually meant mainly the pro-warming side.
Why do you think your side of the argument doesn't have any?
another one
exactly!!!!!!!!!! And these are the deniers……
Another one, you don't read the green blog for example.
Not 'warming', 'catastrophic anthropogenic warming'.
No serious scientist "denies" anything. - But there are many non-serious "scientists" who deal more with politics and demagoguery than with science.
another one
Could it be that the reason serious scientists do not deny warming is because there really is warming?
Is there any possibility that this is the reason?
I referred to the wiki page because there are more links from there. Of course you didn't read the links….
In the press = in the press.
You are not a scientist, you are not a researcher, no one is paying you to research anything, and you are not dependent on a scientific authority to publish your research. You do not depend on professors to promote you, and you are not part of an organization that is only relevant if your science is correct.
In the same way I can tell you that I have no money from my skepticism, and I'm guessing that the company from the green blog also has no money that they get just to have their blog.
There is enough money in green energy, solar panels are not free, corn subsidies for biodiesel are not free. Wind farms are not free. And all these studies by the IPCC were not done voluntarily either.
Definately not. I am the first to testify that there is really no money in green energy. Have you seen an advertisement of any green energy body on the science website (not through Google where I have no control)?
Avi Blizovsky
And the scientists in favor, do they work for free? Do they have no motivation to promote their ideas?
No money in a green economy? No interests in a green economy? No personal interests?
After all, if there was no warming, many scientists would be much less relevant.
You can't be a doctor for a disease that doesn't exist, can you?
You reach a situation where only a legitimate scientist can know whether or not there is anthropogenic warming, and any scientist who thinks that maybe the warming is not anthropogenic or that the anthropogenic part is not as significant as the others say ceases to be a legitimate scientist.
I understand something else, more dangerous, that the long hand of the Koch brothers (who are also big contributors to Heartland) reaches not only journalists but also actual scientists and disrupts their opinion and the public perception of science, which they undermine.
Miracles, without knowing too much about who Judith Corey is, I can already understand one thing from this wiki page.
They are hateful and impressively arrogant. Science, you will not find in the pages written by such people.
And it is possible to understand even without knowing a single thing about climate, warming or anything else.
Father, there is a claim here that the organization is actively silencing claims against its agenda, it is quite possible that the floor is indeed crooked, and this is not necessarily an excuse.
You cannot dismiss such claims outright.
There is (almost) no dispute about the data, and they prove that the Earth warmed in two periods, one between 1910 and 1940, and the other between 1980 and 2000. Between 1940 and 1980 there was a period of stability, and since 2001 we are again in a period of stability.
The question is therefore not whether there was warming, but what are the causes of it, and that is what the dispute is about. The fact is that in their report for 2007, the IPCC wrote as follows: "In the next two decades, a warming trend of about two tenths of an increase per decade is expected", and that this forecast was falsified because we are now in a period of stability.
Since the science site is supposed to be a site for scientists or those close to them, the readers must be aware that a scientific theory is tested by its predictive ability. The fact that the prediction came true proves that the theory on which it was based is incorrect. clear and smooth. The theory disproved by the data is the theory that greenhouse gases caused the warming.
There is some dishonesty in that the IPCC people presented the trend for the fifteen years starting with 1998, noted that it was an El Niño year, and stated that the rate of warming in those fifteen years was 0.05 degrees per decade. The fact is that if we examine the rate of change starting in 2001, which was precisely a La Nina year, we will get a trend very, very close to zero (on the negative side).
In their previous report, the IPCC staff compared the forecasts presented in the past to actual data and wrote: "Today, these forecasts can be compared to data indicating an increase at a rate of about two degrees per decade, and this comparison strengthens the confidence in the reliability of the short-term forecasts." They did not make such a comparison in the current report, and this is because they did not want to admit their mistake.
Nissim, you remind me in your eagerness of those who oppose eating meat.
When the actual situation is that it's an F jock that entered your head. And humans have more real problems.
And as usual - there is the other side... http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Judith_Curry
It turns out that she is not a tall woman in a light blue cage....note that she backs the Heartland Institute, the same organization that, among other things, worked with a cigarette company to show that there is no risk of cancer from smoking....
And what's next, will we disband the Association to War Cancer to prevent cancer, and the Football Association to prevent football? Or maybe the universities to prevent other people from being smart (as some 'smart' wrote to me in response to an article on the Daily Capitalist website (because tomorrow's graduates will compete with him for jobs). How far can denial go?
You've probably heard of the dancer who can't dance and claims the floor is crooked.
Judith Carey discusses on her blog CLIMATE ETC the future status of the IPCC.
judithcurry.com/2013/09/28/ipcc-diagnosis-permanent-paradigm-paralysis/
Below is a summary of her words in the aforementioned article, the summary may not be XNUMX percent accurate, I didn't have time to check, but it more or less reflects what she says. Those who want to know more precisely her opinion will read her original article in the link I gave.
Judith Carey's opinion is that now is the time to *dismantle* the IPCC organization (*dismantle* in put down language), because this organization is causing damage to the science of climate research. Instead of dealing with climate problems that can be investigated with reasonable empirical certainty and giving them realistic local solutions, this organization diverts the dealing with theoretical global models that failed to predict, countries that responded to the organization's recommendations created a huge waste of money on idle solutions. This organization interferes with climate science research in a free form (according to the principle of freedom of science) because:
1. It prevents budgets from other climate science research (especially if they contradict the global warming agenda),
2. The organization blocks scientific publications by scientists who do not align with its agenda (to create the appearance of a consensus in climate research).
Her article was published yesterday (on her CLIMATE ETC blog) and has so far received more than 400 comments. There are many comments worth reading.
Guess now the global warming side will declare war on it.
Great, more time. At the current rate I think we can afford another decade or two to analyze the problem.
another one
I see it this way:
- We know that CO2 absorbs energy in the IR range (and we also know how much)
– We know that man emits CO2 like this
- That is why there is a fear of climate change
- We see in the observations the climate change over the years (since then we are crazy to measure)
- There is not a single research institute in the world that claims otherwise.
so
- You have to think about the possible dangers
- You have to think about possible solutions
- In the meantime, everyone in the yard of their home/factory/country should do everything to give time to analyze and understand the problem, and the solutions.
Everything is fine and dandy - except for a collection of charlatans and their idiot believers who think the whole world of science is corrupt. The problem is that there are a lot of idiots...
I don't have a problem with them dealing with it.
It is not clear to me how they can when it is young science on top of young science.
First of all, you need to know how much of the warming is caused by emissions, then you need to guess how much of the damage that will be caused in the future will be caused by the warming.
So you have to try to see how much emissions can be reduced and how much it will cost - and how much of the damage this reduction will prevent. With the avoided damage greater than the price of prevention - so it's a profitable business. If not, then not.
You have to admit that there are also certain advantages in warming up. They should be deducted from the damage.
It should be remembered that the cost and the damage are not equally divided, the one who is more expensive will not necessarily be the one who suffers more damage,
You might be able to convince the Westerners to harm themselves to prevent disasters throughout the Third World, but it will be a little harder to try to convince China, Russia, and India to do it.
another one
So your claim (that there is no convincing evidence) is wrong.
Honey, I'm not the one who claims there is warming. These are the climate experts in the world (in principle, like everyone else).
We know how to give all kinds of scenarios for what might happen. For each scenario, you need to check the probability of it happening, the damage that will be caused, and the price to prevent and/or repair the damage.
You say - leave it, it's a shame to mess with it. A bit irresponsible in my opinion...
At no point did I claim it.
I claim that there is no convincing evidence that there is significant anthropogenic warming.
But I am certainly able to create an argument in which I assume for the sake of argument that you are right, and show what the problem is with something else, ie.
I show that even if you are right about the trend - you still do not know enough about what needs to be done, because knowing that there is warming - is still not enough - you also need an estimate of how much warming, how much additional damage it will cause, how much of this damage you can prevent, and how much It will cost to prevent this damage.
It quickly becomes impossible.
another one
Don't divert the conversation. You claim there is no warming.
Ok - how much of all this damage do you think you can prevent in the future if we manage to save emissions this way and that.
How much will it cost us to save (because these are economic plans - and how much damage will it save - have you come across a single study that gives such a calculation?
point
You don't follow ….. In my opinion, every person can save 10-20 percent of their energy consumption, without any change in their standard of living. And if the effort is small - 30-40 percent. I think this is also true in the industry.
But, as long as people only think about their pink bottoms, it won't happen. And as long as people deny the situation, because it's uncomfortable, or because it needs some training in the establishment, or because they're just retarded, it won't happen either.
Miracles, look how pathetic you've gotten. If you think that turning off a light in a room will have any effect on the planet, you are living in a movie.
If I turn off the light it is to save electricity costs. And not in all kinds of energy nonsense.
another one
In droughts, forest fires, lack of fishing, ecological changes are evident.
You have no idea... but you are determined...
You really need to detach from your agenda. Go study a little. At least read the report.
but no …. The problem is the 95 percent….
Miracles - if I didn't miss something you didn't give a description of any form of damage.
But let's say there are damages, let's say they are associated with warming - let's say their cost is X dollars, for example half a trillion in damages.
Let's say that if we use a set of control reduction solutions - we will have less damage from warming because we prevented part of it - we will have XY damage, let's say that Y is 300 billion.
But the solutions themselves have a cost to the economy. Between people it is taxation for the subsidy, the increase in fuel prices, - food becoming more expensive due to the use of biodiesel and inefficiency due to a more centralized economy all over the world - as a result of this the "treatment" costs Z dollars. If Z is, for example, 400 billion dollars - it means that we lost in total. Because we spent 400 billion to prevent damage of 300 billion.- A bit unwise, right? - That is why it is important to quantify the damage - to estimate how much of it can be prevented by a policy of preventing emissions. Then check if it's worth it.
The problem is that we have no real idea what the damage will be, how much of it will be possible to prevent and in general how to prevent this damage and how much this prevention will cost. It's because we don't really know how fast the temperature will rise, we don't know completely what its connection is to emissions, we don't know how it will actually manifest itself in damages. And we really don't have a solution to prevent emissions without causing significant damage to the economy - except that there are large countries in the world that will not stop for the process of industrialization no matter what - China, Russia and India. that exists - there is not.
The Milky Way has about a million Earth-like stars, at least half of which are older than us
However, there are no transmissions, everything is quiet, wireless silence
And only here is a party
Eating and drinking like there is no tomorrow
There is a website that thought for him, that believes in any version as long as it is not state-owned.
point
And what about turning off the light when you leave the room? Isn't that good too?
You will do anything to push your agenda 🙂 except think, of course….
There are some miracle solutions, and from the solutions you will understand why the whole story started in the first place (hint: it's always power and money) and the dripping on the warming:
1) They will claim that the fuel causes pollution and greenhouse gases, so there will be taxation on fuel
2) They will argue that humans are a significant factor in the emission of PAD and the reduction of the world's population.
3) They will argue that a central government is required and that it is not possible for each country to do what it wants. Then a new world order will be announced.
another one
I described a small part of the damages. I don't understand you - now the problem is how do you handle warming up?
Of course, if you divide it into decades then it won't show that the last decade was more stable.
Damages? What damages? Are these damages greater than the damages that require an emission reduction program to make a difference?
Yes, but the bottom graph shows it's warmer on average than before, stop being smart. And even without this thing - you can clearly see that the heat has already risen and in the best case (in your opinion) it has stabilized at a high level where it continues to cause damage.
This graph shows that there is no significant trend of warming in the last decade.
point
On what basis do you say "someone has an interest in telling us about global warming". It seems to me that you are making an assumption here.
And the warm-up and more should interest the proposed person!!! During my life I have come across two places in the world where climate change - continuous for 40 years that I have known - affects the climate in a distinct way. One place is Central and South Australia. Another place is eastern Canada. I'm not talking about one year and another. I'm talking about a steady trend of climate change over the years.
Regarding the second question. There are 2 types of people. The ones that flow where they are flowed and the ones that don't.
Those who flow with the current, it is quite clear where they will end up (of course those who create the current know, those who flow themselves do not know).
Those who do not flow with the current, they have another 359 degrees of directions to turn to and then the results are varied.
Those who talk about the warming only prove the whole point of brainwashing. They didn't talk about air pollution. the food the water. and the other diseases. They started talking about the warming because they heard something in the media. And in the media, they made sure to put it on their agenda, and that's why they talk about the warming.
They never ask. Why. Why are we talking about it? who decided What are his interests? They just flow with the information that flows.
People deny that their bodies are made of atoms. And also that one day they will die. And countless other scientific facts.
Someone has an interest in telling us about global warming, the only plausible reason is the same desire to drive a global control mechanism. The big problem of humanity is the cancer diseases, and the lack of free time of the average person in the western world. Certainly not some forecast for the temperature in 200 years. So get out of this brainwashing.
The warming should not concern the average person because it is not what bothers them. What bothers him is a corrupt government mechanism and a corrupt media that serves this mechanism.
point
The reason is all the denial surrounding warming. Note that sites, and people, who deny global warming, support aliens, the evil of vaccines, the Kennedy assassination, the (non-)landing on the moon and Bigfoot. Never ask yourself why there is such a correlation?
point
Radon is also a natural gas. And also natural gas is natural gas…….
Stop making false accusations about anyone who earns more than you. It's really irrelevant.
another one
For example here
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/debunking-the-persistent-myth-that-global-warming-stopped-in-1998-20130927-2ui8j.html
What will kill the people is not the warming but the pollution from the factories and I mean chemical pollution (carbon dioxide is a natural gas). What will kill the children is the fluoride and all kinds of other substances that are put in the water under the pretext of the public good. When it is clear that no good grows from this for the public, only evil and trouble (see Cancer). What will kill the children is all kinds of substances that are added to foods. You will never hear a serious discussion about it on TV. You will never hear a serious discussion about what causes cancer.
But you will hear all kinds of nonsense about global warming. As if it is of interest to the owners of the media (let's not forget who controls the media and decides what is broadcast and what is not, it is the capitalists who are the biggest polluters, and the last ones who are interested in warming).
really? Please show me a graph that shows a trend of warming in the last decade.
If it really was like that, there simply wouldn't be so many different models predicting different warmings.
another one
There has been warming in the last decade. What exactly are you talking about???
And again - scientifically we know how much CO2 is emitted and how much energy it absorbs. 1+1=2. that's it.
It's never been a miracle if there is no or no warming (although in the last decade there hasn't been that much warming either)
But how much carbon dioxide causes this warming.
point
Was this summer much nicer than last summer? where? in Israel? The winter was also much more pleasant...that is, warmer. But you choose a short period in a small place to determine what is happening in the world. Interesting method...
Plus Ma'ale will change the world from end to end. But you know better 🙂
I also protest against air pollution. But that's not the point - because it's hard to argue about air pollution (and it's the same pollution that contributes to warming, but I'm having fun....).
And I'm not talking about the warming up!!!! I just get angry that all kinds of idiots/charlatans/fools claim there is no warming - and endanger my children. that's it.
Miracles, this summer was much nicer and cooler than last summer.
So whoever says that there was no summer cooling in Israel is a fool.
Besides, and just so you understand how brainwashing it all is. After all, plus or minus an increase won't really shorten your life, but the air pollution in the cities and on the streets will.
So why don't you protest against air pollution? The answer: Someone up there decided that today we are talking about the warming, so Nissim is talking about it. This is called brainwashing.
point
There may be some truth in what you say. But - the solution is not to say that there is no warming. And whoever says there is no warming - is a liar or a fool.
Who talked about good people who distribute resources equally. Haha if it was like that I would be all for it. The situation is exactly the opposite. The capitalists appropriated all the resources for themselves. Leave everything and see what happened to the Dead Sea.
I do not claim that there is already a world government. I say we are not far from there.
Government exists by solving problems, and if there are no problems then they are created. See Bibi and the taxes, and the intimidation, etc.
Therefore, all global warming is not aimed at the earth. Earth has much bigger problems. such as chemical waste and the like. The goal is to create a problem that will justify the establishment of a global government. See the world currency, and the World Bank and the World Health Organization. These are undemocratic bodies that everyone is against.
Point - this is a classic formulation of a conspiracy theory. If there is a global totalitarian government, it is in the hands of the tycoons who took advantage of globalization and are squeezing the earth's resources and not by well-wishers in any governments that you say want to distribute the resources more fairly.
The purpose of all this warming is to legitimize the creation of a single global government that will regulate the consumption of resources.
Einstein at the time spoke in favor of a worldwide government and he talked about how the Americans are trying to create this little by little, but it was following the world war, and he was probably not aware of the great economic interests that certain people have in such a government.
It is better to have wars and not to have such a government.
Joseph
You missed the biggest extinction of them all…
The report is very clear. It is for the sophisticated. Nature puts a test to every species. He lives in a limited time window and if by the end of the time window he is not mature enough to face the challenges, extinction takes place. In evolution, to my understanding, there were 5 mass extinctions, the last one being that of the dinosaurs, and there were also secondary population reductions. There was a mini ice age in the 16th century that helped the spread of Western culture after it led to famine and population reduction in Europe and America.
The challenges mentioned in the article require a high level of cultural sophistication, while humanity is divided by local interests, and is also immersed in the imagination of a return to religion.
It would be such a shame if the human race, which is not sublime and wonderful at all, but the best around, does not survive.
We don't see today a global leadership with the guts to make a change. We don't see industrial giants like China and India joining the bandwagon.
I only hope that the powers that sustain art, technological innovation will also advance them economically, scientifically and culturally so that the tone in humanity will be ecological solutions out of economic interest. For those who have in hand the creation of fuel from CO2, the creation of fuel from plants, renewable energies with much more efficient silicon cells, non-carcinogenic electric vehicles with long-term batteries, the solution to the problem of lengthening life - pensions, quality of life - will have a decisive technological advantage. I am not at all sure that this is what will happen. The challenge may be too great.