Does this IPCC statement on sensitivity to CO2 sound like settled science or a Monty Python skit?

Question

" This value is estimated, by the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report as likely to be in the range 2 to 4.5 °C with a best estimate of about 3 °C, and is very unlikely to be less than 1.5 °C. Values substantially higher than 4.5 °C cannot be excluded, but agreement of models with observations is not as good for those values."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivity

I keep getting accused of ignoring the science, but honestly what question in Man Made Climate Change is more important than "How much change are we causing?"

I simply cannot read this official answer without imagining John Cleese doing a satiric skit on Government certainty. Can you?

Are there any Believers out there who can understand why this kind of statement would create scientifically justified skepticism?

Answer 1

Their confidence levels are laughable and you would have to be a real gullible buffoon to believe what these clowns claim. They are obviously a politically biased organization that has little to do with science. Their mission was to find any science evidence to support exaggerated claims of a threat that could be used to push their petty political agenda. It isn't any more complicated than that. Anybody that thinks IPCC is just a scienitific organization looking for the truth is delusional. They have to pretend to know how much we are causing and that amount has to be significant enough to warrant government intrusion. They have to try to maximize the exaggeration while fooling enough science illiterate and intentionally ignorant leftist and moderates. It is a balancing game. Even the stupid can't be fooled forever.



Sagebrush, I used to live in South Dakota too. It was often said that if you didn't like the weather, just wait an hour.

Answer 2

The reality is that the IPCC is not--and never was--a scientific body. It is the Inter *Governmental* Panel...emphasis on governmental. The organization is run by representatives chosen by governments. The scientific reports are edited by the government appointees *after* the peer-review process has closed. Various scientific experts over the years have objected (some by resigning) that the public pronouncements by the IPCC's representatives, or the findings in the summaries, have not been supported by the science. This has been true on the basic science, as well as the impacts. Contrary to their public statements, the IPCC processes are not transparent. We now know that the scientists have been conspiring to delete relevant emails; and the IPCC, far from discouraging the process, has instead informed their people that they are immune to FOIA laws (as if the IPCC had the authority to override any law in any country).



The average global temperature over the last decade-plus is running below that of the lower bound of their uncertainty intervals. None of the models correctly predicted the current trend.



They have lead authors choosing which papers to include in the IPCC report sections...who are themselves the authors of the selected reports. They disregard the peer review comments of those who do not agree with the alarmist narrative...with apparent complete immunity. Their summary categories of 'likely', 'very likely', etc. have no scientific basis, and instead are the 'opinions' of the lead authors.



The idea that the IPCC represents an 'objective reading of the facts' is a fraud of incredible proportions. Anyone who takes the output of the IPCC as 'science' is suffering from delusions brought on by a severe case of confirmation bias.



I vote for Monty Python.

Answer 3

You may need to use months as well as decades on finding out the drawing techniques. Nevertheless now you do not have to waste that measure of time to obtain these aptitudes since you can have this unique manual Realistic Pencil Portrait Mastery from here https://tr.im/X7Nje .

Realistic Pencil Portrait Mastery is such as a defeat outline heads you to the specialist level of sensible pen symbol drawing simply inside several months.

Realistic Pencil Portrait Mastery comes with 5 eBook instructions and 5 method maps: How To Draw A Realistic Eye, How To Draw A Realistic Nose, How To Draw Realistic Mouth And Teeth, How To Draw A Realistic Ear and How To Draw Realistic Hair.

With Realistic Pencil Portrait Mastery guide you may also get 100 high-resolution guide pictures (70 mind photographs, 30 facial feature close-ups) in 12 days of exercises.

Answer 4

The IPCC contains all the required skepticism right in its IPCC AR4 report on “Climate Sensitivity and Feedbacks”:



“A number of diagnostic tests have been proposed…but few of them have been applied to a majority of the models currently in use. Moreover, it is not yet clear which tests are critical for constraining future projections (of warming). Consequently, a set of model metrics that might be used to narrow the range of plausible climate change feedbacks and climate sensitivity has yet to be developed.”



The IPCC is basically prescribing policy based on untestable model outputs made by scientific guessing. This creates an uncertainty which is addressed here: http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2011BAMS3139.1

Answer 5

What matters to believers is this, they got the right direction and they're scientist, I mean SCIENTIST! It wouldn't matter to them if tomorrow they said it was going to start cooling but now is our chance to get CO2 levels down because we know from our climate studies that it should be warmer.



I am more convinced that it's a genetic mutation and liberalism seems to be the best indicator that someone has this mutation.

Answer 6

Ignore the science if you must. It's the only way your house of cards can stand

Answer 7

<>



You DO ignore the science, and that's a demonstrable fact. Estimates for climate sensitivity are indeed fairly uncertain, and anyone who pays attention knows that, but all estimates are predicated on the well-established physics showing that not only will a "0.01% rise" in CO2 cause appreciable warming, but that a doubling of CO2 by itself will cause around 1 degree C rise in temperatures. That CO2 is not a "weak GHG", that it is radiatively important in our atmosphere, and that positive feedbacks must dominate on the decadal to millennial timescales based upon records of previous climatic events.



That 2-4.5C is subjectively large isn't any indication that these basic concepts are wrong, and it'd be fallacious reasoning to think it was. It certainly doesn't justify calling AGW a "socialist plot", nor does it justify repeatedly asking whether "a 0.01% rise causes warming?"



<>



Admit what? You do understand where you got that quote from, right? The IPCC AR4? They are the ones who gave the range which you apparently think justifies your "skepticism". Who else should a "admit" anything?



Uncertainty in climate sensitivity is one of many factors used in risk assessments, a step you seem to have ignored entirely.



Ultimately, gcnp is completely right -- yours is not skepticism, and the statement you quote is perfectly reasonable to anyone familiar with science and statistics.



- - - - - - - - - -



<>



This is a normative statement, and should depend on the context and the required precision. If I measure the value of something to be 100 +/- 50 units (2σ), that's a very large spread in terms of whole units. If I measure the value to be 1 +/- 0.5 units (2σ), then I have a far better idea of what the actual value is, even though the error in percent is the same for both.



As I said above, climate sensitivity is still fairly uncertain. There is no denying that, and it's something the climate science community is working very hard to constrain. However, to take the fact that CS is uncertain as justification for doubting whether sensitivity actually lies in the given range, or for doubting the more fundamental aspects of AGW, would be fallacious reasoning. "0.01%" does matter, CO2 is an important GHG, and CS likely lies between 2 and 4.5 C.



As far as Trenberth's statement is concerned, I'm not sure what it has to do with this discussion, but it's quite clear what it actually means when taken in context with what he was discussing at the time -- his latest paper on the Earth's energy budget. Using satellite data, Trenberth had calculated the global energy imbalance to be roughly 0.9 Wm-2. Surface temperatures and upper ocean heat content alone couldn't account for this imbalance over the time period in question, and Trenberth was lamenting over the fact that current observational systems couldn't properly track energy buildup in the Earth-Atmosphere system. Energy *was* building up in the system somewhere due to the energy imbalance, but we have very sparse measurements in very large heat sinks (deep ocean, arctic ocean).



Last Edit:



<>



Really? Because uncertainty is very important in determining risk.



In the end, the CS estimates used to derive the IPCC range come from different groups using very different methods. Paleoclimate reconstructions, instrumental records, observed CS to volcanic eruptions, satellite measurements of dOLR/dT, direct measurements of individual feedbacks, modeling studies which use a fully-coupled AOGCM and others who use a simple two-box model. What they all agree on is that the no feedback response will be ~1 C/2xCO2, and that net feedbacks are positive.



By the way, "missing heat" isn't about models, it's simply an accounting issue. If an energy imbalance in Wm-2 is calculated and observed, then that energy is building up in the system. A small fraction of it goes towards melting ice and warming the atmosphere, but the vast majority goes towards warming the oceans. On short timescales, certain ocean circulations can sequester this heat such that little temperature change is seen at the surface. The oceans, especially below the mixed layer, are poorly sampled.

Answer 8

All that shows is that scientists are honest and critical thinkers (true skeptics).



Any idiot can bi-ch about anything. If you want to make a point here then show how their conclusion is not supported by the data and/or provide an alternative analysis that produces a superior answer.



========



>>I'm saying there ISN'T any conclusion<<



No, you are saying that you either do not like or do not accept the conclusion - and that is just too bad. It is a mathematical conclusion - and it is what it is.



Everything in the science of natural systems is probabilistic - even the speed of light (it was only thought to be constant when our ability to measure it was insufficiently precise).



>>Unless the conclusion is you are certain you don't know.<<



This is, in general, a perfectly acceptable answer - and the researchers would have said so if a mathematical solution was not possible.



=========



edit --



>>@strawman - Engineers use statistics all the time. We just get fired for using ones like +/- 50%<<



Bad example. In engineering your transmitter, you control the design and input variables (which are known and few in number). It's as if you are blaming QC for what is certainly a problem either in design or manufacture.

Answer 9

It does sound like Monty, or perhaps the three stooges...the statement from IPCC, a self-proclaimed, and internationally funded "scientific authority" is obviously based upon an estimate, not on specific scientific data. The vegan "strawman" response was interesting, but shows that he or she has no idea what they are writing bout, and they might want to ask for a refund for the wonderful public high school education they have. These are not statistics which are being reported, they are just estimates, as reported by the quotation, meant to bolster the IPCC's ever decreasing ability to steer public opinion. We call these "Gee Whiz" statements, they are meant to draw attention without giving any real information...this one is just that-worthless.

Strawman/vegan/whatever you are EDIT: Sigh...statistics are not estimates, they are specific mathematical formulas which are utilized to evaluate hard data, estimates are used when you do not have scientific derived studies with hard data. Please, consider not exposing your ignorance here, even though YA is just for fun, there are those who read this who are not able to discern good from bad information.

Answer 10

Dayum, dude, you've flipped me! Those scientist fellows must be complete clowns, and much stupider than the rest of us! All their theories have to be wrong because they can't agree on anything! How stupid! "It could be this, it could be that..." c'mon! What kind of crap is that! They don't even know what theories ARE!!!



Now I'm just a regular person here, and so I know what's what. I got a theory of who is going to win the 4th race at Yonkers Raceway when it's next open, and it's really solid. Phoenix, send me $100 and I'll double it! Guaranteed!! Can't miss!!! Now *that's* the kind of theory you can sink your teeth into! Yessir, guaranteed winnings! Just send me the cash, and we'll be rich!



Now, who's this John Cleese person? I've always looked up to you as a standard for obvious objectivity, true facts, yes, Truth, Justice, and the American Way! Surely you're better than John Cleese at whatever it is he does! After all, you come on here often to enlighten us poor ignorant people, and I thank you from the bottom of my heart for that! The information you spread around is priceless! I'm originally from farm country, and I know just how priceless that is! I mean, where would we be without food.



So don't be discouraged, and don't feel bad. Know that your many fans here realize that you outdo John Cleese every time you write something here. Keep up the good work! Go forward with your head held high. [Just step carefully so you don't slip...]

Answer 11

This is called 'shotgun' estimating (or guessing). No matter what 'value' turns out to be true they are covered.

I lived in South Dakota and we had a weather forecaster who's weather report went something like this everyday. "Tomorrow will be mostly sunny with temperatures ranging in the mid sixties with a possible high of 110 degrees and it could get down to freezing. There is a possibility of a tornado or two with some overcast skies. Rain could be a factor along with a little sleet or snow. Portions of this State will experience extreme hail possibly."

I'll say one thing for him, he was never wrong. He named every possible weather condition as a possibility.

Fortunately a radio station paid him and the taxpayers didn't have to. However, how much did that IPCC report cost us taxpayers? The IPCC sends out a report like this and then asks for more money and to top it off they aren't even embarrassed.

This report is so stupid that it can only be be taken seriously by grade school children, idiots and congressmen.

To say that it is like a Monty Python skit is an insult to Monty Python. But having the narrow choice you have afforded me, I'll have to go with Monty Python.

Answer 12

It would be simpler just to admit they don't know.



http://oregonstate.edu/ua/ncs/archives/2011/nov/new-study-climate-sensitivity-co2-more-limited-extreme-projections

Nor would I toss the notion that all is said and done in that particular area.

Answer 13

All I know is my state has cooled down since 1998, and we are at about the level we were 30 years ago. Obviously the "Models" were not accurate for us. Oh, yes our CO2 did keep rising, though. I love being a "Denier".

Answer 14

You've obviously never read a scientific report. There are never ever single values, there are these things we use called confidence intervals which is a statistical way of estimating the uncertainty in the data. So You'll always see three numbers on any reputable paper using statistics, with the mean given followed by the interval eg in this paper which looks at the relationship between obesity and cancer in Swedish citizens the risk of cancer in the small intestine is 2.8 (meaning an obese individual had 2.8 times more likely to develop cancer than the healthy weight individual in this population) and a confidence interval of 1.6 - 4.5. Since real data always follows distributions, you need to include the CI as it shows that this result while significant is not extremely precise. If the CI was 2.4-3.2 then that is very precise and indicates much less uncertainty in the data.



So what they are saying is that the higher ends of the spectrum have more uncertainty. This is very common in science, and we use the language of uncertainty rather than making concrete statements due to the fact that we are never certain about the data, it merely represents what we have modelled. But then people with no understanding of science misinterpret this to mean the authors don't know what they are talking about, when in fact this is an example of very good science given that they express where they feel the uncertainty is greatest. On rare occasions you see scientific reports with no estimate of uncertainty, and these are examples of bad science.



EDIT- Col Jd statistics ARE estimates. The example I gave is an estimate... it is a risk ratio estimating the risk of cancer in that population. The ones you will be familiar with will be the mean, median, and maybe even standard deviation if you stayed awake long enough. All of these are estimates based on what we observe (the sample population) to predict effects which we cannot observe (in the entire population). Much like the IPCC models are estimates based on what was observed (the forcings from CO2 equivalents and current GHG emissions rates) to predict effects which we cannot observe (the potential warming driven by these GHG emissions in the distant future).



So...best to remain silent and all that...

Answer 15

"Are there any Believers out there who can understand why this kind of statement would create scientifically justified skepticism?"



Not really. But then those who don't see a basis for skepticism in that statement likely understand statistics, uncertainty, and what precisely the IPCC means by phrases like "very unlikely" so I wouldn't let their understanding affect your beliefs in any way.

Answer 16

The IPCC is not a credible source of science. Far too much politics has been found in their "science" for me to believe much of what they say. The above "scientific" statement could have come from an Astrology forum.

Answer 17

I wonder if they excluded all the guesses that were in the negative range?



What a bunch of morons.



With that kind of clarity, I wouldn't be surprised if they're all taking "medical marijuana" for you know... legitimate purposes, dude.