Is the official view on climate change starting to turn?

Question

'Ten Year Climate Model Unveiled' - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6939347.stm - This is a new climate model created by the Hadley Centre that for the first time adds in certain natural climate forcings i.e. from ocean currents - quote - 'researchers said that the influence of natural climatic variations were likely to dampen the effects of emissions from human activities between now and 2009.' - this leads to much less warming over the next decade than previously predicted. (quote) 'The latest assessment from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), said that human activity was "very likely" causing the world to warm' - anyone who's familiar with the IPCC's line will be surprised by the words 'very likely', because they're lukewarm in comparison to their former steadfast assertions r.e. our absolute responsibility for causing GW.

So is this new model and the IPCC's apparent climb-down the first signs that officialdom may be softening their view of manmade GW?

Answer 1

I really think that they can have all there graphs and charts but no-one really knows if this is a natural occurrence or not and also these sorts of big climate changes have happened in the past so why not again i think they should stop pretending they know whats going on because i honestly think they haven't got a clue

Answer 2

There are many factors that can attribute to hair recession or massive hair fall and you need to find out which one exactly is responsible for the problem you are having now. Of course male pattern baldness is still the most common cause, but, for instance, if you are a woman things are deinitely different! This is the reason why you will need to really dig down and see the source of your problem.

Other causes of hair loss may include (both in men and women): severe mental or emotional stress, excessive use of coloring or bleaching agents, traction alopecia or excessive strain on the scalp due to braiding or corn rowing, hormonal changes, alopecia areata or hair loss due to autoimmune diseases, and many more. Each of these conditions will require a different approach in order to achieve success regardless of whether you're going to be using conventional or natural methods.

In my opinion it's much better to use natural methods as opposed to conventional ones, they're cheaper, have less to no side effects, and often more effective.

A good way of regaining your full head of healthy natural hair is well described on this guide: http://hairagain.toptips.org

Answer 3

The official view on climate change hasn't changed, it's actually got somewhat more pessimistic.

The reason we're now able to produce shorter term models is down to a better understanding of the factors that affect climate change. This better understanding has shown that previous assessments have understated the effects of climate change. This will be explained in more detail in the next IPCC report due out in November (IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, Working Group 3, Mitigation of Climate Change).

Climate is about long term trends, weather is about short term trends. The Hadley model will go some way to bridging the gap and provide important information for policy makers. At the same time it will be a useful tool in the climatologists toolkit.

It's not particularly clear in the BBC report but what the model shows is that for the next couple of years the world will continue to warm but for a short time there will be a larger natural contribution than there has been of late. There's no suggestion that the world will cool, global warming will cease or that humans won't be the primary contributor.

One aspect highlighted by the 10 year model that is causing concern is that warming over the next decade is predicted to be greater than previously forecast. It mentions this in a roundabout way in the BBC report when it talks of five record breaking years in the next decade and of temperatures that are expected to rise 0.3°C, this is up from the 0.2°C previously predicted and up from the 0.177°C based on current rises.

Answer 4

Look, they never really back down from the Ozone hole cause either, and if you have follow the case, you will notice that the ones responsible to set the alarm on the CFC`s where Chemists and not even Geologist, so how in hell they could understand what was going on?? But for the GW theory, they know that they need climatologist, geologist and oceanographist, as well as many other fields to come to a good conclusions! And since those fields have barely learn how to share knowledges, it will still take a while before they put the earth in front of their academic credits...

Answer 5

Did you read the whole article? It also says:

"But over the decade as a whole, they project the global average temperature in 2014 to be 0.3C warmer than 2004."

and

"On a 10-year timescale, both natural internal variability and the global warming signal (human induced climate change) are important; whereas looking out to 2100, only the global warming signal will dominate."

So, if natural climate variations temporarily dampens the effects of human emissions, does that mean IPCC is wrong and we don't have to do anything about our emissions?

I don't know about you, but my timescale is a little longer than until 2009.

Answer 6

Of course the view is going to change. Climate change is a scientific phenomenon and as such it is constantly being researched. New theories and hypotheses are developed and new patterns found as scientists look further into it. When scientists change their views it is because they have learned more information, it is isn't "softening their view" because science is not politics.

Answer 7

Maybe it is a different report writing policy? There are some reports I would accept 'very likely' as being just as much a basis for action than a bald assertion and this may well be one.

Answer 8

Sounds perfectly consistent with the data the IPCC has published. The language isn't a worry at all. Scientists never speak in the kind of absolute terms the contrarians do. If you read more scientific articles you would know this.

Answer 9

i could % to describe the objective of the verbal substitute is to not alienate environmentalists, yet fairly the seek for the justifications to describe why this a set of zealous devotion of people yet are blind to this type of subject count. those of you would be able to desire to experience any care pertaining to to the planet and its descendants ought to of course worried approximately that.

Answer 10

I don't know that it is as much a climb down as it is a better attempt to simulate all factors, not just the man-made components. It emphasizes the importance of healthy skepticism and is the PROPER response to criticism, rather what you've seen on display here in trying to dismiss the latest gaffe by Hansen, et al.

BTW, parrot, wrong again..."very likely" is still 90% or greater in AR4. http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4_UncertaintyGuidanceNote.pdf
Attention to detail is a good thing...