Global Warming: Am I reading this right? IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4)?

Question

I'm doing a book report and using the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) where it says on the summary for policy makers on page 6. I think i'm reading the wrong graph, (I hate graphs), but its the one that says "Global Average Temperature" and is a steep slant upward. I looked to the left it looks down on the left as much as it is up on the right. But the numbers are real small on the side (.5 degrees). Is this right? Global warming means .5 degrees?

Ok, so if it is .5 - .6ish right now, I look over to the left and its minus .5, I don't understand, I don't remember anyone talking about global freezing......Please help or maybe I have writers block. SHould I back up and talk about global freezing first? I don't understand what caused this?

I'm confused, its from 1850 to 2006 & the guy below brought up a good point, about margin of error, its not cited and it is so small i had to take a double take, I still don't understand what could have caused 1850 - 1940 to be minus half a degree lower. Was this huge? What caused it? I don't get it, I'm so stressed and this is going to suck up my whole weekend!! This looks like

Townie, I can't just say it is huge in my book report, why is it huge? Is there some documentation somewhere that says .5 is huge because that means x, y z??

and back to my point about the minus .5 degrees, was that huge? If so........x,y,z?? I'm kinda stuck because I can't just quote inconvenient truth either.

I still don't understand what the effect of the minus half a degree had on us. Is warming worse than cooling? If so, i understand 90% of the world's ice is in ANTARTICA where the temperature is -37 C, so its not effected by global warming, therefore if the less glacial north pole melts there will be no effect. My point is, if global warming represent half of a degree change in over 150 years, half being minus half and the later being over half, what has history taught us about the minus half that makes the other half so devestating?

Mr. Hanky!!! Wicked cool text!! Finally something i can use!!!AAAAAAAH, thank you thank you thank you.....!!!!!!! SO wait, this says that it's actuall trending cooler?and the hottest days were around 8000 - 8500 years ago? This graph doesn't look like we're at a "tipping point" like al gore said at all, we've been bouncing around this level for millenia...now i'm really confused.

http://www.socialtext.net/wired-mag/index.cgi?what_causes_ice_ages

I'm freeking loosing it!! Mr. Hanky, based on this diagram, it looks like 8000 years ago, we were about at 2 (vs half a degree). I can't believe this chart, Al Gore didn't say anything about this in his movie we watched in class, he didn't even mention that it was half a degree, i'm totally in shock and want to understand more about this research. This chart isn't even in the IPCC report, also, why is it that IPCC would exclude the core samples and use the Atmosphere-Ocean General Circulation Models which they say are credible in some areas and less so in others rather than emperical data??

Is this really global warming? or Is this Status quo HEEEEEEELP!!

Mr. Hanky, in the freqently asked questions "Is the Current Climate Change Unusual Compared to
Earlier Changes in Earth’s History?"

The main reason for the current concern about climate change is the rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration (and some other greenhouse gases), which is very unusual for the Quaternary
(about the last two million years).

The IPCC report says Ice Cores can't measure this...so, basically, I shouldn't care about the point 5 plus or minus variation, I should worry about the CO2, so I'm going to revise my initial report to be concerning CO2 and figure out where to go from there.....

I don't understand rain, the world has fluctuated several degrees for the past 8500, besides the issues isn't the climate as stated in the IPCC report, but the data showing the suprised increase in CO2. I decided to focus on this alone since climate change is obviously something that's happend for centeries. I can't quote tv shows btw. NEways, I appreciate your help.

Answer 1

Hi James. Try this and see if it helps…

Look at the left-hand scale and move the 0.0 down about 3 marks so that it is level with the left-hand end of the line in the graph. Thus, the temperature change in 1850 is 0.0°C. If you do that you’ll find that the right-hand end of the line in the graph will be at a point that’s about 8 marks above 0.0. Since each mark on the scale represents 0.1°C that means that the Global Average Temperature in 2006 was about 0.8°C higher than it was in 1850.

And yes, I’m pleased to say it really *is* that small; only 0.8°C in 156 years. Scary stuff, huh?

Sarcasm on…

But don’t worry, if you scroll down to page 13 of the report, you’ll find Table SPM-3 which shows projected temperature change (and sea level rise) for the end of the 21st century and that’s predicting anything up to 6.4°C. Now that’s much more like it, isn’t it? Of course, it’s only a guess and the eventual rise probably won’t be anything like that, and a bunch of experts in forecasting say that the IPCC’s forecasting methods were so flawed that they’re meaningless (http://www.forecastingprinciples.com/Public_Policy/WarmAudit31.pdf ), but hell, nobody really cares how bad the science is, so you can go ahead and quote it.

In fact, don’t feel restricted by what the report says – none of the Global Warming Alarmists are – go ahead and quote whatever figure springs to mind. 8.0°C? Fine. 10.0°C? Even better.

Same goes for sea level rise. The report’s highest estimate is .59m – that’s about 23 inches, but don’t let that hold you back. 30” inches is a much rounder figure, or how about going with good old Al Gore and quote 240 inches! How cool does that sound? You might get an Oscar if you exaggerate that much!

Just remember the golden rule with Global Warming: it’s *such* a crisis that you are *allowed* to lie about it as much as you want. So just make it all up, everybody else does.

Sarcasm off…

Answer 2

"The Executive Summary seems to be a political statement..." Gasp. It's almost like the authors were under the impression that the Executive Summaries were intended for policy makers. Truly inexcusable. And anyway, you're talking about a report put together by many, many individuals. That document you link to has 186 pages of comments, all in regards to one single chapter of one section of AR4. This isn't breaking news. Were you really under the impression that no one ever offered a personal opinion or expressed disagreement about some aspects of the report? You really think that is what people mean when they talk about a consensus?

Answer 3

You might throw in a few common sense questions in your "book" report about a political paper written by a small number of politicians and scientists who know the outcome before even writing it.

You have already hit on a major problem for the GW alarmists. Maybe .5 degrees is a lot in the grand scheme of things, but how can we measure .5 degrees 100 years ago? If temperature measurements weren't accurate to tenths of a degree 100 years ago, how can you compare 2 different sets of data with varying degrees of precision? How can we compare global temperatures today to very spotty temperature measurements 100 years ago? Does the IPCC acknowledge the HUGE mistake NASA made in around 10 years worth of data? If the last 10 years of data was WRONG by .17 degrees, how can we know the data prior to that is correct? (An anti-GW scientist found the mistake and NASA begrudgingly corrected it - in other words, the GW alarmists didn't even realize their data was bad FOR 10 YEARS!) Considering the GW alarmists claim the planet has warmed .5 - .6 degrees, is their science "good" if they can reduce the warming by around 30% with one error?

A little critical thinking can't hurt any book report unless you have a teacher that is trying to spread the AGW propaganda and will penalize you for coming to your own conclusion. Always remember, a scientific consensus is NOT scientific fact and that those in a scientific consensus will ridicule those who question their "facts."

Answer 4

Please look at the -.5 degree C to +.5 degree C change over a 30 year period in the IPCC report and compare it to the many thousands of years of data collected from the Vostok ice core samples. Note that the average temperature of the planet has been up to 4 degrees C hotter and up to 10 degrees C cooler than the current average. Also note the major changes in sea level (130 meter), ice ages, and warm ages. Climate change is inevitable and is driven by a number mechanisms that we do not yet fully understand.

http://www.socialtext.net/wired-mag/index.cgi?what_causes_ice_ages

Answer 5

Discovery Channel said Quote only 1 degree difference in temp. will mess up the worlds atmosphere. were in it now! even el nino is getting scary because it's gonna start bouncing back and forth instead of circling the world. Your answer is 1 degree!!!! 5 degree world wide were all dead. in 20 years the polar bear might just be in your text book. Ask discovery for question like this one. become an A student, help to save our world. it's all we have!

Answer 6

Absolutely correct. Climate change is in the tenths of a degree, something the GW advocates try to hide.
That is why they seldom use graphs with legends or calibrations.

A quick timeline of the NY Times climate reporting:
Sept 18, 1924: "McMillian reports signs of a new ice age."

Mar 27, 1933: "America in longest warm spell since 1776; temperature line records a 25 year rise."

May 21, 1975: "Scientists ponder why world's climate is changing; a major cooling widely considered to be inevitable."

Dec 27, 2005: "Past hot times hold few reasons to relax about new warming"


The first Earth Day was celebrated on April 22, 1970, amidst hysteria about the dangers of a new ice age.


“The cooling has already killed hundreds of thousands of people in poor nations,” wrote Lowell Ponte in his 1976 book “The Cooling.”

If the proper measures weren’t taken, he cautioned, then the cooling would lead to “world famine, world chaos, and probably world war, and this could all come by the year 2000.”

There were more warnings. The Nov. 15, 1969, “Science News” quoted meteorologist Dr. J. Murray Mitchell Jr. about global cooling worries. “How long the current cooling trend continues is one of the most important problems of our civilization,” he said.

If the cooling continued for 200 to 300 years, the earth could be plunged into an ice age, Mitchell continued.

Six years later, the periodical reported “the cooling since 1940 has been large enough and consistent enough that it will not soon be reversed.”

Here is truth about global warming:
Global warming is one-half of the climatic cycle of warming and cooling.
The earth's mean temperature cycles around the freezing point of water.
This is a completely natural phenomenon which has been going on since there has been water on this planet. It is driven by the sun.
Our planet is currently emerging from a 'mini ice age', so is
becoming warmer and may return to the point at which Greenland is again usable as farmland (as it has been in recorded history).
As the polar ice caps decrease, the amount of fresh water mixing with oceanic water will slow and perhaps stop the thermohaline cycle (the oceanic heat 'conveyor' which, among other things, keeps the U.S. east coast warm).
When this cycle slows/stops, the planet will cool again and begin to enter another ice age.

It's been happening for millions of years.

The worrisome and brutal predictions of drastic climate effects are based on computer models, NOT CLIMATE HISTORY.
As you probably know, computer models are not the most reliable of sources, especially when used to 'predict' chaotic systems such as weather.

Global warming/cooling, AKA 'climate change':
Humans did not cause it.
Humans cannot stop it.

Answer 7

Most IPCC reports use the 30 years from 1961 to 1990 as the base period for comparison purposes. Graphs showing how global temperatures have changed are ploted in relation to the deviation from this 30 year mean.

So if a value is 0.6, it means the temp is 0.6°C warmer than the 30 year average. If you want to do a quick conversion to actual temps then add 14°C.

- - - - - - - - - - - - -

RE YOUR ADDED DETAILS

I have the report in front of me, on page 6 are three graphs entitled Changes in Temperature, Sea Levels and Northern Hemisphere Snow Cover - is this what you're looking at?

If so then it's as per my original answer, I'll explain in a little more detail.

The first graph shows temp changes with the right hand scale going from -0.7°C to +0.7°C (the only values marked are 0.5, 0 and -0.5 but the graph extends beyond the marked values) and the left hand scale going from 13.3°C to 14.7°C (again, with only three marked values).

The left hand scale shows the deviation from the global mean temperatures during the period 1961 to 1990, any negative value means that the year in question was colder trhan the average over this 30 year period, any positive value means it was warmer.

The grey dots on the graph show the values for each year, the curved black line plots the five year average and the blue shaded area shows the margin or error.

Take the first dot on the graph, this represents the values for 1850. On the left hand scale it corresponds to a value of -0.4°C, this means that in 1850 the global temperature was 0.4°C colder than than the global average temp for the period 1961 to 1990. On the right had scale the figure is 13.6°C, this is the absolute value and shows that in 1850 the average global temp was 13.6°C.

The black line represents the five year average, this has a value slightly higher than the figure of 1850, this is because 1850 was slightly cooler than the surrounding years (you can see on the graph that each of the following years were slightly warmer). The five yhear average has a value of approx -0.4°C and an absolute value of approx 13.6°C

The blue shading for 1850 extends from approx -0.3°C to -0.5°C, this is the margin of error and you'll see that it's approx ± 0.1°C from the five year average.

Hope this helps clairify it.

Answer 8

The average global temperature has increased by about 0.6°C (Celsius, not Fahrenheit) over the past 30-40 years, yes.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2005/ann/global-blended-temp-pg.gif

For such a short time period, this is a very large temperature increase.

*edit* The value of 0ºC on the graph is the average temperature from 1961-1990. This simply means that a value of -0.5 is half a degree Celsius below the average from 1961-1990, it doesn't mean it was freezing. You could shift the graph just as easily to have it go from 0 to 1°C instead of -0.5 to +0.5. If it makes you feel better, ignore that side of the graph and just look at the absolute average temperature around 13-15°C (probably on the right axis of the graph).

What matters is the slope of the graph - the fact that the average global temperature has been rapidly increasing. That's your global warming.

Answer 9

It's about 3/4 of a degree. And that small change has done severe damage to the Arctic ice cap and the Arctic ecology.

If it gets to 2-3 degrees it will cause severe economic damage in rich countries (coastal flooding and damage to agriculture) and human damage in poor ones (starvation due to damage to agriculture).

The bottom line is that our modern civilization, with massive coastal development and intensive agriculture, is very sensitive to even samm temperature changes. We're not like nomads who can simply move to a better place.

More details here:

http://www.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUSL052735320070407
http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM6avr07.pdf

Mt Zion crusader - 99+% of the scientists in the world are laughing stock?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

Most every world leader are laughing stock?

http://news.aol.com/story/_a/nearly-100-countries-signal-support-for/n20070803131809990005

Most CEOs are laughing stock?

http://money.cnn.com/2007/01/22/news/companies/climate_emissions/index.htm

Or are a few deniers, led by a science fiction writer and an ex-tobacco lobbyist, laughing stock?

A real no brainer for me.

Answer 10

Probably less than any reasonable margin of error.

It's nonsense.

They are laughing stock.