If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Climatologist)   In breaking climate news, a leak shows that the IPCC's upcoming report allows that the Sun may well be warming the planet, their models suck, they were wrong about enhanced severe weather, and they double-dipped in the guacamole   (wattsupwiththat.com) divider line 41
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

2886 clicks; posted to Geek » on 02 Feb 2013 at 11:52 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-02-02 01:36:38 PM  
3 votes:
So question.. how many of you who were so eager to snark at the source actually clicked through for the actual papers about halfway through?
2013-02-02 08:05:18 AM  
3 votes:
Uh huh.  Well, I don't have a leaked copy, but I do know what was in the last one and I have second and third hand knowledge of this one, so...

Sun may well be warming the planet

Yeah, it's about 1-2% of the overall forcing.  Relatively insignificant.

their models suck

All models suck, but some are useful.  Oh yeah, and the reason the models "suck" is that every single model in the last report undershot the ice loss in the Arctic and the to-date warming.  From what I understand, there was a model for the 3rd IPCC that got the rate of current ice loss right.  It was tossed for being too extreme and considered to be excessively alarmist that could derail even further the debate.

they were wrong about enhanced severe weather

This could mean so many things.  The number of tropical cyclones are up, but this was a relatively stable year in the Atlantic, so only one major hurricane.  We've averaged 18 storms in the Atlantic for the last 13 years.  That's beyond absurd.  Tornadoes were down last year, but that's because it didn't farking rain in the middle of the country for months.  Other studies have shown that while total snowfall is decreasing in many places, very strong winter storms that dump very large amounts of snow, over a foot, have been happening more frequently.

they double-dipped in the guacamole

Nobody is that much of an asshole.
2013-02-02 06:29:12 PM  
2 votes:
Yeah, I've heard that, but it's not true. Let me be straight with you and tell you what the competitors won't:

The sun couldn't POSSIBLY affect climate in ways we can't predict. It's not like the sun is an insanely giant, volatile factory of nuclear fire that periodically blasts out multi-million-mile jets of radioactive plasma or anything. I mean, that's what stars are. Duh.

No, clearly it's your light bulbs specifically that are dooming us all.

I know money's tight - these light bulbs are like $12 each, plus they emit an eerie, sickening glow that (thanks to the work of soviet scientists) slowly drains your will to live - but we're running a special this week: buy 100 carbon credits, and earn points towards the purchase of new light bulbs, plus get 10% off these guilt-free, recycled cloth tote bags!
2013-02-02 03:35:13 PM  
2 votes:

FLMountainMan: I think much of the backlash is not that the data is wrong, it's what the data is being used to justify. I have no doubt the earth is warming unnaturally. Absolutely none. But I'm staunchly opposed to mandating a ton of wilderness-space-eating, grossly-inefficient "renewable" energy generators to supposedly fight it. Because it's not going to do a damn thing. Even the most pie-in-the-sky estimates have it as a 0.2 degree effect.

And I also think lumping in every effort to fight pollution or preserve wilderness space as somehow "fighting global warming" is stupid and short-sighted. Marketing the banning of PCBs, for example, as some sort of effort to fight global warming, instead of focusing on birth defects, cancer rates, etc.... means that most people will (erroneously) discredit your campaign every time a blizzard rolls through.


Hmm, the "pie-in-the-sky" estimates are probably closer to a 4 or 5 degree increase (if not more - I'm too lazy to look them up).

But, it's certainly heartwarming* to see that you staunchly oppose any effort to move towards sustainable energy, and I certainly won't make the mistake of mistaking your desire to preserve wilderness space as somehow fighting global warming, because that would be stupid and short-sighted of me. The smart, far-sighted answer is to recognize that the best solution to any problem is to do nothing, and assume it won't matter. I'm glad we're on the same page.


/oops, nope, that's just more global warming.
2013-02-02 02:03:53 PM  
2 votes:
It won't matter. After years of having farktards on this site cram every stat down our unbelieving throats, nothing under the stars is going to change their collective minds. They're absolutely convinced that global warming is man made, and that it's magically delicious. They're crazy ass zealots and will continue to believe what they want to believe.
So, f*ck it. Two coins in a bucket.
2013-02-02 02:03:00 PM  
2 votes:
I discount everythingon Watt's Up? by at least 80-90%. It is not a trusted, reliable source. It is a denialist blog, one of the most active and prominent propaganda organs of the conspiracy theorists and cranks and denialists.

A leaked report the size of a phone book is an indigestible lump unless you are one of the few people in the world who are paid to read and understand this stuff in detail, so outrageous claims can be made with general impunity, with confidence that few people will have the time to examine and refute them.

However, there is one important element in this post that touches on my personal life experience as a lowly drudge in Sector 7G of the Canadian Government.  I have worked in many departments and agencies and I have dealt with many reports and memos, so I have a grip on the administrative, political and editorial process.

The leaker of this report makes a case for his actions and I believe I am competent to comment on that without reading the whole report ten times.

His case is first that this is a taxpayer-funded document (not US-taxpayer alone, however and not exclusively taxpayers of any country or group of countries, seeing as it is the United Nations that supports the IPCC, a UN agency). He claims that this means the public has a right to read the report, which is true, and that it is in the public domain, which may or may not be true.

Both of these claims, although true in a broad sense, once the report is published, do not justify his actions.

As a Government employee I swore an oath of allegeance to the Queen and to her Government. I promised to keep Her Secrets and Her Government's Secrets. A report is only public domain when it is published, and the taxpayer, God bless her, does not have a right to read Government secrets until the government releases them. I have not got the right to divulge those secrets until they are declassified, and even though I know that most secret documents are only temporarily secret, I still have no right to publish them.

Most of the documents I have seen with a classification above Protected B (which are documents with personal or company informaion in them that might cause inconvenience or harm to persons or organizations if it fell into the wrong hands) are either things which don't need a classification (about 25% of our documents are over-classified for no good reason) or which need a classification only during the period of time between first draft and release.

I don't know all the details, but most documents are subject to laws which tell us whether to classify them, and for how long. We have some documents that are classified for mere hours and others that are classified for 75 years plus the usual period of retention. These will be kept for as much of a century before they go to the power plant to be burned to heat Parliament and a few other government sites.

It is true that taxpayers contribute indirectly to the UNO but it is not a justification for publishing classified UNO reports while they are still subject to being edited, cancelled or buried by the UNO for perfectly good reasons.

The leaker's attempt to rationalize and justify his actions is BS.

Furthermore, there are two types of people who leak documents to the enemies of their organization or to the press. They are distinguished by their mentality, attitude and motives.

The first type is the insider who believes in the organization, its management and its mandate. They find something wrong (corruption or error or a major incident) and they publicize it because they believe it is in the interest of the public, the organization, and ultimately management to know about it.

These people are often surprised and hurt if senior management doesn't want to hear what they have to say. After many years perhaps, or perhaps a whole career of trying to focus attention on problems they deem to be hurting their beloved employer, they may go public and make accusations and release materials.

The second type is the guy who doesn't trust the organization, management, or even the public sometimes. This type of person expects trouble and pursues it. They want to make things hot, whether to settle personal scores or to expose the organization as a great evil. They tend to be cranks, conspriacy theorists, and other types who have a bone to pick with the organization that employs the. Creationists, zero energy cranks, climate denialists, and many other types of crank, conspiracist, or activist tend to be this second type. Some are nothing more than conservatives or liberals who don't like the party in office, or communists, fascists, or what not.

The author of this leak reveals himself to belong to this second class of leaker by accepting the conspiracy theories about the IPCC. He makes claims of dishonesty, cover-up, the standard issue story line. He is not a climate scientist concerned with error or corruption, he is a denialist mole or else a denialist deep in "enemy" territority, married to a minority report that has little chance of expression because it is fundamentally rejected by the majority of the report writers, editors, and even many of the political officers sent by governments such as the US, Saudi Arabia, Russia, Canada, etc., to edit he political statement and crush any language or facts that displease the political leaders or contradict or weaken their political positions.

I don't who it was that leaked the CRU emails--nobody does--but it is likely that this person or persons was the same type of leaker--opposed to the position of the majority and the organization.

In this case, the leaker gives himself away while trying to justify himself through his arguments to justify leaking, and his language and assumtions about the IPCC, its scientists and other actors, and his role in this.

NO REPORT is in the public domain until it is written. Secrecy is a necessary element in working on new products. You may be up to your eyeballs in leaks, some real, some phoney, some authorized, some criminal, about the next iPhone or the next movie starring Whozit, but government and scientific reports are far more important than the plot of the next kaboom-kaboom spy adventure. It is not in the public interest for every fight among writers, editors, scientists or politicians to be public. Negotiation is impossible on the public stage, whether you are negotiating a peace treatty or the language of a report on tooth paste effectiveness.

This is a highly politicized issue because the interests of Big Oil, Big Coal, Big Gas, Big Automobiles, and Big Tobacco and Big Asbestos are involved (it was Big Tobacco and Big Asbestos that did the ground work creating the propaganda methods, machinery and money flows to discredit government and private science and they maintain a major and active interest in discrediting science and scientists generally, not just those who point out that tobacco is a poison and asbestos is deadly to people who breath it into their lungs, as well as harmful to those who merely touch it).

As for the report itself, Watt's Up? seems to be making mountains of molehills. They will not convince those of us who believe that scientists are by and large honest and that global climate change is real and largely a question of human inputs and human decisions for the future. They don't have to convince their own True Believers who already hate science, often for reasons that have nothing to do with energy or climate, such as Creationists, Republican allegeance, or what not.

The IPCC reports have acknowledged a role for solar radiance in climate forcing. It is small. What is more, the way the Sun affects climate is poorly understood and thus doubtful, while the greenhouse effect has been established beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt since the term "effet de serre" or "greenhouse effect" was coined by Joseph Fourier in the 1820s.

The thing is, a small, poorly understood contribution to global warming which may not even matter seeing as the Sun's radiation increases do not match the timing of warming, while the other, stronger and better known effects such as GHG forcing do, means that even if there has been a minor shift in language to acknowledge greater solar forcing, it really doesn't amount to a hill of beans except as a propaganda tool against those who have yet to make up their minds and who are hampered by not having any.
2013-02-02 02:01:20 PM  
2 votes:
While this "breaking climate news" is more than a month and a half old, I don't recall if we had a proper thread about it.
2013-02-04 03:59:22 PM  
1 votes:

Damnhippyfreak: As far as I remember, brantgoose is in Canada, where the titular head of state or Sovereign remains the Queen of England. No pond-crossing required.

/the more you know


I didn't know your boyfriend lived in Canada, my bad.
2013-02-04 03:54:56 PM  
1 votes:

Mugato: GeneralJim: Nothing is as important in science as not rocking the boat.

You have the exact opposite position of what science is about.


Given that your reading comprehension is so nonexistent that you can't process basic sarcasm, no rational person should be listening to you regarding a document with words more than four letters long.
2013-02-04 03:47:28 PM  
1 votes:

HighZoolander: Even if you just factored in the typical waste disposal problem with nuclear, I suspect 200 acres would not be nearly enough. Plus it seems like it would be much easier to decommission a wind farm than a nuclear site, if we later decide we want to use the land for something else.


With rationale like that, it is a wonder that no one believes you! That's the most sound research I've ever seen from a church of global warming member.
2013-02-04 03:44:41 PM  
1 votes:

IlGreven: But again, if I were to trust anyone, I'd trust the direct source, rather than those who only cite them.  IOW, You don't trust Al Gore or Christopher Monckton directly, you trust the scientist that Gore or Monckton cited.  And you'll find that again and again, it's more likely that a scientist will call out Monckton (and Watts) more often than they'll call out Gore (mainly because Gore has already said his piece.)

/Meanwhile, the Republican-controlled panels on climate change invited Monckton to give a dissertation on a certain paper...instead of the scientist who actually wrote the paper.
//Those guys need to be divested of their power post-haste.


If you have politicians like Al Gore as sources instead of scientists, you probably have no idea what you're talking about.
2013-02-04 03:41:46 PM  
1 votes:

HighZoolander: But, it's certainly heartwarming* to see that you staunchly oppose any effort to move towards sustainable energy


You know people don't know what they're talking about when they using nonsense terms like "sustainable energy".
2013-02-04 03:36:02 PM  
1 votes:

TsukasaK: The consensus is that climate is changing. Okay; that much is clear.

The big questions remaining then:

* Is this a bad thing
* Can we or should we do anything about it


The consensus has always been that it is changing. Climate is always changing.

It isn't a bad thing, in fact, it may end world hunger by opening up more farmland.

Can we and should we do something about it are two very different questions. We could fire off a ton of nukes or dump tons of different chemicals into the air to do something about it. Those things are "possible" scenarios. Should we try to break a system that has been running fine for millions of years and will continue to millions of years after we are gone? Probably not. Then again, if we don't, it may mean extinction for us like the dinosaurs.
2013-02-04 03:27:44 PM  
1 votes:

brantgoose: As a Government employee I swore an oath of allegeance to the Queen and to her Government. I promised to keep Her Secrets and Her Government's Secrets. A report is only public domain when it is published, and the taxpayer, God bless her, does not have a right to read Government secrets until the government releases them. I have not got the right to divulge those secrets until they are declassified, and even though I know that most secret documents are only temporarily secret, I still have no right to publish them.


Sorry, can't hear you over the FREEDOM over on this side of the pond.

YOU BLOODY WANKER.
2013-02-04 03:25:17 PM  
1 votes:

TsukasaK: So question.. how many of you who were so eager to snark at the source actually clicked through for the actual papers about halfway through?


They quote the IPCC report version 1, but call the IPCC report version 5 an invalid source. Silly liberals.
2013-02-04 03:23:11 PM  
1 votes:

Mugato: People who deny the majority of the scientific communities view on global warming do so either because they fear it will affect them financially or because they're toeing the party line. End of argument.


The "majority of the scientific community" in this case is the IPCC, who now says the sun controls 40%-70%+ of temperature in their new report.
2013-02-04 03:20:26 PM  
1 votes:

GAT_00: Sun may well be warming the planet

Yeah, it's about 1-2% of the overall forcing.  Relatively insignificant.


The new report says 40% to 70%.
2013-02-03 07:28:59 AM  
1 votes:

Mugato: People who deny the majority of the scientific communities view on global warming do so either because they fear it will affect them financially or because they're toeing the party line. End of argument.


Or, they are scientists who realize that if even 1% disagree, that's HUGE. How many scientists would disagree that force equals mass times acceleration? Zero. Zip. Nada. None. THAT'S consensus.

/scientist
2013-02-02 07:19:06 PM  
1 votes:

GeneralJim: Nothing is as important in science as not rocking the boat.


You have the exact opposite position of what science is about.
2013-02-02 06:58:45 PM  
1 votes:
IlGreven:
/P.T. Barnum also sounded convincing when he sold the egress to the untrained eye.


Well, at least that actually was an egress.  The IPCC practices neither science nor transparency, despite their vehement claims.
2013-02-02 06:44:28 PM  
1 votes:

TsukasaK: What is a layman to do? The documents linked in that article are greek to me and would be to the great majority of the population.


Take more seriously positions supported from higher up the pyramid?
people.virginia.edu


However, telling paradigm-shifting visionary from pseudoscience crackpot is generally a hard problem.

TsukasaK: How energy policy affects jobs, the economy, and the environment, are a different matter altogether.


I'd also suggest keeping in mind the difference between science -- assessments of what IS going on -- and of politics and social engineering -- assessments of what OUGHT to be done. The more sensible seeming folks appear willing to let you draw your own conclusions as to whether the expected outcome is a "bad" thing.
2013-02-02 06:09:19 PM  
1 votes:
TsukasaK:
So question.. how many of you who were so eager to snark at the source actually clicked through for the actual papers about halfway through?


It doesn't matter.  Being referenced in a blog that doesn't spew the party line renders the science invalid.   Don't believe me?  Just watch....
2013-02-02 06:05:41 PM  
1 votes:
Mugato:
People who deny the majority of the scientific communities view on global warming do so either because they fear it will affect them financially or because they're toeing the party line. End of argument.


Yes, like all those damned Heliocentrists, evolutionists, believers in invisible organisms causing sickness, and quantum mechanics.  Nothing is as important in science as not rocking the boat.
2013-02-02 05:49:55 PM  
1 votes:
The site may be an "out there" site, but the report does in fact state the IPCC modeling sucks and that they aren't right.  Its a new prediction every time and they never account for solar activity like they should.
2013-02-02 05:28:30 PM  
1 votes:
Holy cow...

Not to take away from your usual bullshiat, but you actually lost the green AW font, <b>GeneralJim</b>? I am impressed!
2013-02-02 05:23:26 PM  
1 votes:
GAT_00:

Uh huh. Well, I don't have a leaked copy, but I do know what was in the last one and I have second and third hand knowledge of this one, so...

Sun may well be warming the planet

Yeah, it's about 1-2% of the overall forcing. Relatively insignificant.



Well, that WOULD be, if you weren't yanking it out the wrong orifice.  According to NASA, their estimate is that 25% of the 1.10 K warming of the last century is due to solar variability.  That is, solar activity accounts for 0.275 K.  When you consider that the 1600-year cycle has been adding approximately 0.76 K per century since before the industrial revolution, together they account for all but 0.065 K of the warming, which probably IS due to anthropogenic sources.
2013-02-02 05:04:46 PM  
1 votes:

NFA: While I'm not personally on the global warming boat, if that website told me the sun would rise in the east, I would look out the window to check, before I believed them.


A reasonable approach, and it makes you one of the (literally) more liberal people here; you will at least consider it.  The general consensus seems to be that if it appears in a publication with which one does not agree, it is false, irrespective of the evidence.   In Soviet America, If does not appear in Pravda, comrade, did not happen.  In this case, the report is also listed on a major network.  Best of all though, we'll see the new IPCC report when it is issued.
2013-02-02 04:53:18 PM  
1 votes:

FLMountainMan: Since we're lazily snarking away with false dichotomies (slacktivism at its finest) - Yeah, you're completely right. We should be building 22,000 acre wind farm power plants that at peak capacity offer as much power as a 200 acre nuclear plant. Sure. Sounds great.


maxheck: 200 square miles enough for you?

I would be more willing to listen to the nuclear fans if only...


Even if you just factored in the typical waste disposal problem with nuclear, I suspect 200 acres would not be nearly enough. Plus it seems like it would be much easier to decommission a wind farm than a nuclear site, if we later decide we want to use the land for something else.

FLMountainMan: And, by the way, I meant what we can actually change (specifically, if Western countries fully implemented Kyoto what the actual net effect on temperature would be), not the actual increase in global temperature. (Never mind for a moment that carbon emissions have actually decreased more in the non-Kyoto West than the Kyoto West, that's an argument for another day). Why you interpreted it that way, when combined with my label as "pie-in-the-sky" is puzzling, but it's the Net, misinterpretation is the norm.


Yep, I did misinterpret that, if this is what you meant. As for why? Um, the thought of pie in the sky getting warmer was pretty distracting... (I like pie)
2013-02-02 04:31:38 PM  
1 votes:
And, by the way, I meant what we can actually change (specifically, if Western countries fully implemented Kyoto what the actual net effect on temperature would be), not the actual increase in global temperature.  (Never mind for a moment that carbon emissions have actually decreased more in the non-Kyoto West than the Kyoto West, that's an argument for another day).  Why you interpreted it that way, when combined with my label as "pie-in-the-sky" is puzzling, but it's the Net, misinterpretation is the norm.
2013-02-02 04:30:50 PM  
1 votes:

TsukasaK: IlGreven: ...that's why the untrained eye isn't and shouldn't be used to make decisions on climate change. And those who are in power who willfully remain untrained eyes should be removed from the decision-making process.

That's just it though; it's not humanly possible for every politician (or heck, every voter) who is voting one way or another to be a subject matter expert in whatever it is they're voting for. There are too many subjects and not enough people or hours in the day.


But again, if I were to trust anyone, I'd trust the direct source, rather than those who only cite them.  IOW, You don't trust Al Gore or Christopher Monckton directly, you trust the scientist that Gore or Monckton cited.  And you'll find that again and again, it's more likely that a scientist will call out Monckton (and Watts) more often than they'll call out Gore (mainly because Gore has already said his piece.)

/Meanwhile, the Republican-controlled panels on climate change invited Monckton to give a dissertation on a certain paper...instead of the scientist who actually wrote the paper.
//Those guys need to be divested of their power post-haste.
2013-02-02 02:58:36 PM  
1 votes:

TsukasaK: What is a layman to do? The documents linked in that article are greek to me and would be to the great majority of the population.


Useful summary of what the trained eyes are seeing, courtesy of the journal Science.
2013-02-02 02:47:36 PM  
1 votes:
<b>TsukasaK</b>:

It may sound snarky and elitist, but there may be reasons why trained people weigh forth on topics that require training and aren't easly grasped.. Cancer therapy, electrical repair, climatology...
Stuff like that.
2013-02-02 02:38:34 PM  
1 votes:

TsukasaK: From an untrained eye, both "sides" here, those who say climate change is human caused and those who say it isn't, seem to both have convincing arguments.


...that's why the untrained eye isn't and shouldn't be used to make decisions on climate change. And those who are in power who willfully remain untrained eyes should be removed from the decision-making process.

/P.T. Barnum also sounded convincing when he sold the egress to the untrained eye.
2013-02-02 02:31:57 PM  
1 votes:

St_Francis_P: log_jammin: St_Francis_P: Nice blog; but until I see an authoritative YouTube video on the subject, I'm remaining skeptical.

here you go.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQ3PzYU1N7A

The experts have spoken; let there be no further doubt!


He's not an expert, but he actually reads what the experts write, unlike anyone that goes to Watts' site or listens to Lord Bugeye.
2013-02-02 02:11:36 PM  
1 votes:
TsukasaK:

So question.. how many of you who were so eager to snark at the source actually clicked through for the actual papers about halfway through?

Oooh! Oooh! I did! How about you?

Here's a hint: It doesn't say what the Fark headline does.

"2. Observation of Changes in the Climate System
29
30 Widespread changes in the atmosphere are observed across spatial and temporal scales. Strong evidence
31 has emerged that the physical and biogeochemical state of the oceans has changed during the past forty
32 years. Important parts of the cryosphere, in particular the extent and volume of snow and ice, have changed
33 over the latter half of the 20th century. Paleoclimate archives provide quantitative information on the range
34 of naturally driven changes in the climate system on time scales from centuries to millions of years.
35
36 AR4 concluded that warming of the climate system is unequivocal. New observations, longer data sets, and
37 more paleoclimate information give further support for this conclusion. Confidence is stronger that many
38 changes, that are observed consistently across components of the climate system, are significant, unusual or
39 unprecedented on time scales of decades to many hundreds of thousands of years.
40

10 Figure SPM.1: Multiple observed indicators of a changing global climate. Each line represents an independently
11 derived estimate of change in various large-scale quantities from the atmosphere, the cryosphere, the land, and the
12 ocean. In panels where individual datasets overlap, the datasets have been normalized to a common period of record.
13 Anomalies are relative to the mean of 1981-2000 (panels a and b), 1971-2000 (panel c), 1961-1990 (panels e and f),
14 and the year 1971 (panel h). Panel c provides the 13-year running mean of the March-April Snow Cover Extent (SCE)
15 anomaly for the full observational record, and June SCE (x's) for the satellite period only. Full details of the datasets
16 shown here are provided in the Supplementary Material to Chapters 2 and Chapter 4. Where available, uncertainties in
17 the observations are indicated by a shaded range. {Figure 2.15, Figure 2.19, Figure 2.24, Figure 3.2, Figure 3.13, Figure
18 4.3, Figure 4.19}.
19
20
21 • The global combined land and ocean temperature data show an increase of about 0.8°C over the period
22 1901-2010 and about 0.5°C over the period 1979-2010 when described by a linear trend. The warming
23 from 1886-1905 (early-industrial) to 1986-2005 is 0.66 [0.60 to 0.72] °C5 (see Figure SPM.1). The
24 warming since 1901 is generally greater over land than oceans and greater in mid-to-high latitude
25 regions. {2.4.3}
26
27 • It is virtually certain that globally the troposphere has warmed and the lower stratosphere has cooled
28 since the mid 20th century (see Figure SPM.1). There is at best medium confidence in the rates of these
29 changes and their vertical structure. {2.4.4, Table 2.8}
30
31 • Confidence in global precipitation change over land is low prior to 1950 and medium afterwards
32 because of incomplete data coverage. Precipitation data indicates little change in the global mean since
33 1900, which is a revision from previous assessments. {2.5.1, Figure 2.28}
34
35 • The mid-latitudes and higher latitudes of the northern hemisphere show an overall increase in
36 precipitation from 1900-2010, however confidence is low because of much uncertainty in the data
37 records for the early 20th century. Insufficient evidence exists to define a long-term temporal change of
38 precipitation in the mid-latitudes of the southern hemisphere. Precipitation in the tropics has likely
39 increased over the last decade, reversing the drying trend that occurred from the mid-1970s to mid-
40 1990s. {2.5.1, Figure 2.28}
41
42 • It is likely that, in a zonal mean sense, large-scale atmospheric circulation features have moved
43 poleward: since the 1970s the tropical belt has widened, storm tracks and jet streams have shifted
44 poleward, and the polar vortex has contracted. {2.7}.
45
46 Changes in many extreme weather and climate events have been observed, but the level of confidence in
47 these changes varies widely depending on type of extreme and regions considered. Overall the most robust
48 global changes are seen in measures of temperature {FAQ 2.2, 2.6} (see Table SPM.1).

No, it still says we're farked.
2013-02-02 12:50:50 PM  
1 votes:
I like Sun models.


4.bp.blogspot.com


/Boobies
2013-02-02 12:25:16 PM  
1 votes:
Your blog sucks, AND old news is so exciting? Wow, that's a lot of fail right there, subby.

The global warming deniers may be pants-on-head retarded, but at least with their pants up there, they'll stay dry the longest. The rest of us will be wading though rising oceans, cursing our soggy pants, but the deniers will be smug, with dry pants upon their noggins.
2013-02-02 08:41:24 AM  
1 votes:
Breaking news on December 13, 2012... on a conspiracy blogsite.
2013-02-02 08:27:38 AM  
1 votes:
Nice blog; but until I see an authoritative YouTube video on the subject, I'm remaining skeptical.
2013-02-02 07:49:36 AM  
1 votes:
yourblogsucks.jpg
2013-02-02 06:35:50 AM  
1 votes:
yep... that website looks completely legit... I'm thinking it's right up there with the Gray Lady...
 
Displayed 41 of 41 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report