What is your opinion of the very recent report, Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis?

Question

This summary report written for policy makers was released in Paris, France by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) on February 02, 2007. It is available in adobe format at:

http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf

Answer 1

Sorry but this report citing a conclusion was only a summary, the final report is to be released in 6 months. Now this is where it gets tricky, I have seen sections of the full report, and guess what, they point to evidence that contradicts the summary findings. Findings that must be reported because the data was legitimately compiled. Welcome to the world of 'Scientific Spin'. Agenda driven science is bad science. Tragically most non-scientist can't make that distinction. Never look at just a summary report. Because all the facts are not in evidence in them especially with a hot topic issue like Global Warming The real culprit in "global climate change" is the sun: Long-term studies (since 1760) document that fluctuations in the intensity of solar radiation are closely correlated with warming and cooling trends in the Earth's temperature. Anthropomorphic (man made) cause of global warming has not been conclusively established
And yes there are agenda driven Global Warming alarmists these were the same people that were screaming Global Cooling in the 70's 10 years before Kyoto there was the Rio Conference on Climatic Change. at that conference scientist using the computer models predicted a rate of warming twice of that under Kyoto. The media did not hype it so it went largely unnoticed yet in the decade between Rio & Kyoto CO2 emissions skyrocketed. & when the models were tested anew the predicted rate of warming was cut by 1/2, why because models are just scenarios, they are only as good as the parameters that they are given.

Answer 2

The evidence seems overwhelming. They say that a panel of 25 scientists are 90% confident that GW is to blame on humans. However, we must look between the lines. It is standard in studies to use a 95% confidence interval, this study uses a 90% CI. This shows that this study is not credible. What most likely happened is they used a 95% CI, the data was not statistacally significant, and they did not get their desired outcome. Therefore they could not conclude that global warming is man made. If they decreased the CI, it is then likely they employed other methods such as eliminating unwanted data, or substituting data, in order to get the desired results. It would be OK to use a 90% CI if the results at 95% CI are also published. It is common practice, though, to use only a 95%CI. Also, the panel of scientists were politically appointed, so it is likely they have a political agenda. Global warming may very well be man made, but this study does not concur with that hypothesis.

Answer 3

The report is both a powerful, and a strange way of doing science.

Science normally works by slow consensus. When it's a question about how stars form, or what is the structure of DNA, it doesn't matter if it takes 10 years or 100 to arrive at that consensus. It usually doesn't matter how long it takes, science usually arrives at the best answer in its own sweet time. So they write papers. And someone else files a counter-paper. And they go back and forth. And it's not like they all get together and take a vote ... they just slowly all start to agree on the same answer. That's how consensus works. That's how science normally works.

But in the case of global warming, the scientists realize that they don't have the luxury of taking their sweet time. Politicians don't understand a "slow consensus" process ... they need a "vote". I.e. there are actually some policymakers who still think that scientists *prove* things, and therefore would avoid difficult decisions by saying that the scientists are in "disagreement."

In other words, this was the frog-in-the-pot-of-water problem. Even as year by year the scientific consensus has been growing, at no point is a government willing to DO anything different than it did last year, or five years ago.

This report is an important step. It is scientists saying "Hey politicians! Wake up! We scientists are supposed to be the slow over-cautious skeptics. That's what we do. But you politicians have the ability, and the DUTY to act when we tell you something!"

This was the scientists getting up, taking a vote, and saying, the evidence is solid enough for us to urge politicians to act. It may even be too late as it is.

Answer 4

The Earth's climate has been warming for the last 10,000 years. Yes, believe it or not, there was a period called the ICE AGE and it melted all on it's own. They didn't have SUV's 10,000 years ago. And the real incovenient truth is that the Earth's climate fluctuates on its own regardless of what humans do... You can't change the whether tomorrow so I don't know why so many people think they can change it 50 years into the future. The meterologists can barely predict the weather in the next few days. I don't know why so many people think you can predict the weather in 50 years.

Answer 5

The sea level data looks sloppy.

Table SPM-0 (sea level rise) shows an increased rate after 1993, but note "a" says that the rate of rise before 1993 is from tide gages while the rate after 1993 is satellite data. In the paragraphs below they say, "Whether the faster rate for 1993 to 2003 reflects decadal variability or an increase in the longer-term trend is unclear", but they never consider the possibility that the difference is due to the change in how it was measured. It may or may not be, but they should have at least checked that and reported the result.

The text goes on to say that, "There is high confidence that the rate of observed sea level rise increased from the 19th to the 20th century", but no 19th century data is given.

But it is only a summary; the complete report may have better data. I'll wait and see.

Answer 6

The 2500 scientists of the IPCC considered natural cycles, solar variation, volcanoes etc. They looked at all the data. And they said the problem is clearly us. Let me repeat that. They considered and evaluated data concerning solar variation. That data and evaluation are even in the 21 page summary. The people who are claiming that is the reason for global warming haven't read the document and are flat wrong.

The scientists draft said "virtually certain". Some politicians led by China insisted on changing that language to "very likely". The scientists agreed because getting a unanimous report was more important than the exact words. The report is unanimous. Anthropomorphic effects on climate have been conclusively established.

The IPCC just released a 21 page summary, loaded with data. Coming in a few weeks is the 1600 page report. The IPCC report is the biggest scientific paper ever, with the most data, the most authors, and the most peer review, in the history of science. It is the very pinnacle of hard scientific research. The last paper to hold that title was the last IPCC report in 2001. You can look at that one here.

http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/online.htm...

Science does not get any more solid than this. Ignoring this report is exactly like claiming we never went to the moon.

Oh, people here do that too.

Answer 7

I have read it (the summary) and there is really nothing new in it. There is one interesting point, however, that everyone seems to have missed.

The best estimate for global temperature increase under the worst case scenario is +4 degrees C. This is only 1 degree above the prehistoric interglacial highs infered from various ice core data. This would seem to imply that the most likely effect of man made green house gas emissions over the next century will be 1 degree in the worst case.

Answer 8

Since the full report for 2007 is not out yet, I read the 2001 report.

Here's a very interesting chart:
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig2-22.htm

Be sure to note the time scale - 400,000 years in the past... long before man started burning things... and it's a clear pattern of up and down temps, and we're in one now.

I didn't see that mentioned in the 2007 summary, did you?

Also, I didn't see any mention of natural, long-term cycles in the earth's orbit - did you?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles

But... they are scientists and therefore are incapable of making errors, and their motivations are above questioning. So I guess I'm just an idiot for not understanding why the summary ignored this evidence. I'm sure there's a good scientific reason.

Answer 9

Thanks for the link! Very helpful.
I have been reading some of the comments on various questions about global warming on Y!A. I've come to the conclusion that people are religiously dogmatic about their stand on the subject. Rather than resorting to facts they resort to insults.
I can see with my own eyes that our climate is changing dramatically on a global level but I can also see that it's much easier to believe that this is NOT unusual and just part of a natural cycle.
I hope that is true. I hope that this is just another cycle that we are misinterpreting as unusual.
What I find amazing is how easily so many people are ready to adopt the government line without actually doing some research. Seems they'll do anything to be allowed to continue their over-consumption of the planets limited resources.
It's irrelevant whether the climate is changing or not! The point is we consume TOO MUCH. We live like FAT, SPOILT PIGS and there is no justification for that! America is THE MOST WASTEFUL, MOST POLLUTING nation IN THE WORLD.
Global warming or not; AMERICA IS ACTING LIKE A PIG and needs to learn not to be so selfish and wasteful. You are all BETTER THAN THAT!

PS: bob. YOU ARE SO RIGHT! Very eloquently explained. You're my hero!

PPS: What's all this nonsense about scientists' "agenda"!? What agenda? They are doing their job of stating the facts and their implications. The only "agenda" is the governments efforts to HIDE THE TRUTH!
WORK IT OUT, PEOPLE!

Answer 10

Thanks for the link...I've heard the news reports, but there is no substitute for the actual product.
I am glad to see some solid science on the matter. Now if people could feel more trust in the scientists. I feel like we are in some dumb movie...the scientists are giving a clear warning but no one is listening because they don't or just won't trust them. In about two minutes, disaster strikes and everyone cries, "We should have listened to the smart guys!"
Another great site: The Arctic Climate Impact Statement. Good explanation of how climate changes are already occurring, and quite dramatically too, in the polar regions.