Sentences with phrase «which ipcc»

IPCC has been myopically fixating on the recent «blip» in our climate (measured since 1850, but with emphasis starting around 1976), trying to tie it to another «blip» in atmospheric CO2 (measured since 1958, with some somewhat questionable ice core data before 1958), which IPCC is assuming has come from anthropogenic sources.

One of the areas in which the IPCC has come in for criticism concerns its use of data from non-peer-reviewed sources such as the WWF report in which originated the erroneous Himalayan melting date of 2035.

The only surprise that he held his hand up to passing on speculation which the IPCC presented as properly peer reviewd scientific research.

To these we add the CO2 feedback, which IPCC (2007, ch.7) separately expresses not as W m — 2 ° K — 1 but as concentration increase per CO2 doubling: [25, 225] ppmv, central estimate q = 87 ppmv.

We have made explicit the identities, interrelations, and values of the key variables, many of which the IPCC does not explicitly describe or quantify.

According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's June 2008 report «Climate Change and Water» precipitation will very likely, which the IPCC defines as more than a 90 percent probability, increase in tropical and high - latitude regions and will likely (more than 66 percent probability) decrease in subtropical and low - to mid-latitude regions.

It is of no little significance that the IPCC's value for the coefficient in the CO2 forcing equation depends on only one paper in the literature; that its values for the feedbacks that it believes account for two - thirds of humankind's effect on global temperatures are likewise taken from only one paper; and that its implicit value of the crucial parameter κ depends upon only two papers, one of which had been written by a lead author of the chapter in question, and neither of which provides any theoretical or empirical justification for a value as high as that which the IPCC adopted.

Modeled projections such as those upon which the IPCC's entire case rests have long been proven impossible when applied to mathematically - chaotic objects, such as the climate, whose initial state can never be determined to a sufficient precision.

This is the year in which membership of the Green Party has doubled; the year in which the IPCC made it clearer than ever that we have to completely give up fossil fuels by 2050 or face catastrophic climate consequences; the year in which climate change made itself more than evident as temperatures in Europe hit their highest since the 1500s.

If you don't like the IPCC, you can always read of the primary literature, which the IPCC basically collects and summarizes.

«I don't know», «we haven't found it yet», «we need to reopen the debate» or «we need 10 years of consistent study» (the mantra of GWB, stated at a time which the IPCC had been in formation for 9 years...) is insufficient and merely returns back to the reliance on the problem of induction or, even less noble, a simple cop - out.

There may, therefore, be a good reason why, contrary to the projections of the models on which the IPCC relies, temperatures have not risen for a decade and have been falling since the phase - transition in global temperature trends that occurred in late 2001.

You've used a couple simple equations which the IPCC has included on climate sensitivity (in equilibrium) and forcing due to greenhouse gases (but not aerosols) and, apparently, assumed that those were the published methodology.

Thus zero ice equates to a 0.7 deg C rise in Global Temps above the 1986 - 2005 average which IPCC AR5draft table 12.2 sees as occurring 2016 - 35 (for all RCPs bar RPC8.5).

I'm also not sure which IPCC you are referring to.

The first concerned the disappearance of glaciers in the Himalayas, which the IPCC erroneously said could happen by 2035.

If this is intended as some sort of defense of MBH98, or indeed any of the dendroclimatology on which the IPCC has depended since TAR, I'm afraid it fails, since Rapp's semi-plagiarism or whatever is irrelevant to the actual criticisms by M&M, Wegman, and the NAS report — the latter two endorsing the M&M analysis, which was based on statistical methodology.

The medieval warm period has been established as, well, warm; something which the IPCC once denied via.

It goes on to the estimates of the total net feedbacks, especially that of clouds, which IPCC models estimate is strongly positive, conceding, however, that «cloud feedbacks remain the largest source of uncertainty».

Further, the attempt to portray an disagreement between model and observed trends ignores directly relevant factors by which the IPCC took that discrepancy into account.

Andrew wrote: «People who signed up for the review process have been perfectly free to make legitimate criticisms» -------------------------------------------------------------- Yes, which the IPCC can then choose to ignore.

And what I would like to do is debate the science on which the IPCC has based their claims.

However, it is consistent with the otherwise puzzling aspect of AR4 in which the IPCC asks us to believe in CAGW without providing evidence of same.

This paper suggests that the CMIP5 models» (which IPCC relies upon) predicted US SW temperature sensitivity to the GHG has been significantly overestimated by about a factor of two.

Did you mean Nic Lewis computation does confirm the uncertainty which the IPCC attributed to its temperature data and that his computation even excludes a bias due to unknown unknowns or unknown knowns?

This is not the first occasion in which IPCC authors have arbitrarily excluded Law Dome d18O.

The way in which the IPCC has communicated its findings is therefore fully appropriate.»

The evidence is produced by the scientific studies on which the IPCC reports rely, instead.

The term of the TFB is normally the same as the term of the IPCC Bureau, and its members are elected at the same Session at which the IPCC Bureau is elected, unless decided otherwise by the Panel.

What, I wondered, would be the result if warming resumes at 0.265 ºC / decade — the rate during 1984 - 1998, which the IPCC identifies as the 15 - year period with the most rapid warming?

Also, the climate forcings which the IPCC list are laughable.

A suspicion thus gains ground that the way in which the IPCC synthesises, generalises and checks its findings may systematically favour adverse outcomes in a way that goes beyond just serving the needs of policymakers.

Indeed, when an investigation was done to determine how many full time equivalents (bureaucratise for «people») EPA has with actual first hand knowledge on how to use the kind of GCMs upon which the IPCC relied, the answer was half a person (a person half time).

The so called «spaghetti» graphs used in figure 2 above are interesting, but their range of variability (excepting Moberg et al) remain almost as limited as their iconic predecessor the «Hockey stick» produced by Dr Michael Mann et al and from which the IPCC third assessment report graphic from 2001 was derived.

For one thing, as I've said before, the economic models from which IPCC and others draw these numbers are just this side of wild guesses, based on assumptions about economic growth, resource prices, and technological development decades in the future.

But over the last century, during which the IPCC claims the world experienced more rapid warming than any time in the past two millennia, the world did not experience significantly greater trends in any of these extreme weather events.

Annan argues that the use of an expert prior constrains ECS in a more likely way than the uniform prior which the IPCC favored in this analysis.

We might have a scenario in which the IPCC — or example — suggested that the 2100 day might be 0.5 to 5.5 C higher than today.

IMHO a 0.007 % change in the atmospheres composition over 50 + years of which the IPCC says 95 % comes from natural causes, isn't significant.

The innocuous - sounding change introduced in AR4 and reported by Nicholas Lewis reflects the more general methodological guidelines under which IPCC reports tend to function: «If reality does not fit the model, ignore reality.

As can be seen from the graph, the IPCC models projected warming of around 0.2 °C per decade for the first two decades of this century (a projection, which IPCC also clearly stated in a separate paragraph of its AR4WR1 SPM report for a range of SRES emission scenarios).

They do feel free to dispute some of the findings and to dispute the «high confidence» (which is based on nothing but «expert opinion») in which IPCC holds a number of questionable conclusions.

Nic Is it not true that the harsh reality is that the output of the climate models which the IPCC rely's on on their dangerous global warming forecasts have no necessary connection to reality because of their structural inadequacies.

...» the Bode feedback - amplification equation upon which the IPCC relies for two - thirds of its projected warming from CO2 was not the appropriate equation.»

Nic Lewis made this point about Forster and Gregory, which the IPCC subsequently applied a uniform prior assumption that S had equal probabilities of lying between 0 and 18.5 deg C, thus skewing the original data.

Though he is willing to confirm that the the equation is indeed logarithmic, so that each additional molecule of CO2 has less forcing effect than its predecessors, he is less sure about the coefficient, which the IPCC has already reduced by 15 % (it was 6.3 in the 1990 and 1995 reports).

Thus there is no positive feedback upon which the IPCC stakes their claim that any carbon dioxide warming will be magnified.

In the laboratory strict adherence to the methods and procedures of science is required, which the IPCC failed.

The process by which the IPCC reports were generated were not based on reaching a consensus of qualified contributors.

Here is a list of eight major modeling faults for which IPCC should be held to account.»