http://au.news.yahoo.com/technology/a/19142224/ipcc-climate-change-report-human-role-in-global-warming-now-even-clearer/

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) says there is now a 95 per cent probability that humans are responsible for global warming.

The figure, in the IPCC's Fifth Assessment Report, which was released in Stockholm on Friday, is a 5 per cent increase from the panel's 2007 landmark report.Â

More than 600 scientists and researchers contributed to the fifth assessment report, which is the result of almost seven years' work by scientists and policymakers.

It is based on more than 50,000 contributions from around the world, and an exhaustive peer review process.Â

Government representatives from member nations haggled with the panel's scientists long into the night over the precise wording of the report.Â

The report summary says the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has risen by 40 per cent since the pre-industrial era.

The report presents a number of different scenarios of how climate change may unfold over the next century.

The majority of the modelling points to a global mean sea-level rise of between 26 and 82 centimetres by 2100.

The worst case scenario is for a sea level rise of 98cm.

The majority of climate models point to a mean temperature rise of around 2 degrees Celsius. The smallest predicted temperature rise is 0.3C and the largest rise is 4.8C.

"Many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia," IPCC chairperson Rajendra Pachauri said.

"What we've seen since 1901 is a 19 centimetre rise, and a range again for the coming century of between 0.28 metres - or 28 centimetres - and 98 centimetres.

So still no irefutable cold concrete evidence to directly link global warming to man made carbon emmissions, just OH ITS LIKELY,


But I dont think it will slow down the global warming propaganda machine here in australia, were alot of these climate change zealots and it sympathizers buy and absorb all the propaganda garbage about it.

Interesting to note the way they present information. When they want to present a bias view - the IPCC will use percentage and when it wants to gloss over issues it will present it in absolute numbers

Example are highlighted

(1) 95% probability that humans are responsible

but it seems to gloss over its margin of error

(2) Temperature between 0.3C to 4.5C - that's a margin of error over 1400%

(3) Sea level increase between 26cm and 98cm - a margin over 250%


If the science is 95% correct - then why is the IPCC trying to gloss over these errors?

If the errors are at 1500% - then their claims of 95% responsibility is credible???

There seems to be a lot more evidence to support no man made global warming, how anyone can not be a least a little sceptical is beyond me.

How can you take a closer look at the IPCC AR5 report of it's not even available until tomorrow afternoon?

Just a translation: 95% certain = dead cert likely
                           

Maqqa wrote on Sep 29^th, 2013 at 10:54am:

Interesting to note the way they present information. When they want to present a bias view - the IPCC will use percentage and when it wants to gloss over issues it will present it in absolute numbers Example are highlighted (1) 95% probability that humans are responsible but it seems to gloss over its margin of error (2) Temperature between 0.3C to 4.5C - that's a margin of error over 1400% (3) Sea level increase between 26cm and 98cm - a margin over 250% If the science is 95% correct - then why is the IPCC trying to gloss over these errors? If the errors are at 1500% - then their claims of 95% responsibility is credible???

The error includes different emission scenarios. If you can predict whether or not China and the US eventually cut their emissions, on what timetable and by how much, then the error would be much lower.  How's your crystal ball?

Question - Did this thread start off somewhere else?

muso wrote on Sep 29^th, 2013 at 11:31am:

Maqqa wrote on Sep 29th, 2013 at 10:54am: Interesting to note the way they present information. When they want to present a bias view - the IPCC will use percentage and when it wants to gloss over issues it will present it in absolute numbers Example are highlighted (1) 95% probability that humans are responsible but it seems to gloss over its margin of error (2) Temperature between 0.3C to 4.5C - that's a margin of error over 1400% (3) Sea level increase between 26cm and 98cm - a margin over 250% If the science is 95% correct - then why is the IPCC trying to gloss over these errors? If the errors are at 1500% - then their claims of 95% responsibility is credible??? The error includes different emission scenarios. If you can predict whether or not China and the US eventually cut their emissions, on what timetable and by how much, then the error would be much lower.  How's your crystal ball? Question - Did this thread start off somewhere else?

Yes, it started out in the SPIN Politicians Suck section!

What I want to ask muso is,

What are you going to be defending now.....???

The missing heat is in the deep ocean layers (3000 metres) like you've been doing for the past few months.

OR

Like the IPCC AR5 report suggests the missing heat is in the upper layers of the ocean (700 metres).

So which one is it going to be muso......????

That's what happens when you put your faith in junk science........!!!!

Maqqa wrote on Sep 29^th, 2013 at 10:54am:

Interesting to note the way they present information. When they want to present a bias view - the IPCC will use percentage and when it wants to gloss over issues it will present it in absolute numbers Example are highlighted (1) 95% probability that humans are responsible but it seems to gloss over its margin of error (2) Temperature between 0.3C to 4.5C - that's a margin of error over 1400% (3) Sea level increase between 26cm and 98cm - a margin over 250% If the science is 95% correct - then why is the IPCC trying to gloss over these errors? If the errors are at 1500% - then their claims of 95% responsibility is credible???

Let's face it Maqqa, neither You, nor the liberals, nor indeed most Politicians are remotely interested in whether the weather/Climate claims are credible nor who is responsible.

It simply boils down to what you can get away with, in the short to medium term, to further your own self-interests & those self-interests of your constituency/supporters!

Oh & btw, the parameters/leways/margins of error OR whatever you want to call them, are best guestimates, of the best qualified & they are certainly acceptable, when you consider the massive number of unknowns & unknowables involved & the length of time (50-100 years+) involved. Their best guesses, are certainly better placed to prove up to be correct, much more likely to be correct, than the self-interest SPINSIN statements that come from You & all of our "friendly" Pollies?

Compare the complexities of Climate Change science over those massive periods of time, then consider that Oil Prices spiked by some 1500%, over only 8-10 years & no Politician/Economist came emotely close to predicting anything like what actually happened between the late 1990's & 2008.

Also, you & your Political "friends", will claim great "surprise", when the Global & OZ Economy continue to slow & indeed collapse, WHICH WILL BE YOUR USUAL SPIN & Bullsh!t!!!    

Ajax wrote on Sep 29^th, 2013 at 12:34pm:

What I want to ask muso is, What are you going to be defending now.....??? The missing heat is in the deep ocean layers (3000 metres) like you've been doing for the past few months. OR Like the IPCC AR5 report suggests the missing heat is in the upper layers of the ocean (700 metres). So which one is it going to be muso......???? That's what happens when you put your faith in junk science........!!!!

It took about 10 pages of explanation for you to realise that you were out by a factor of one million.

It took about 3 pages for you to realise that precision and accuracy were totally different things.

How many pages does it take to explain that  most heat will always be in the top layer, but the action of increased storms is to increase the depth of the mixing layers so that more heat than expected is locked up in deeper ocean levels.

Do I really have to explain it again?

(This is something that my dog understands instinctively. )

You haven't read the IPCC report, Ajax. From your posts so far, it's totally beyond you.

muso wrote on Sep 29^th, 2013 at 1:50pm:

Ajax wrote on Sep 29th, 2013 at 12:34pm: What I want to ask muso is, What are you going to be defending now.....??? The missing heat is in the deep ocean layers (3000 metres) like you've been doing for the past few months. OR Like the IPCC AR5 report suggests the missing heat is in the upper layers of the ocean (700 metres). So which one is it going to be muso......???? That's what happens when you put your faith in junk science........!!!! It took about 10 pages of explanation for you to realise that you were out by a factor of one million. It took about 3 pages for you to realise that precision and accuracy were totally different things. How many pages does it take to explain that  most heat will always be in the top layer, but the action of increased storms is to increase the depth of the mixing layers so that more heat than expected is locked up in deeper ocean levels. Do I really have to explain it again? (This is something that my dog understands instinctively. ) You haven't read the IPCC report, Ajax. From your posts so far, it's totally beyond you.

So now you having a bet both ways......?????

Good one dude how can you lose.

When global warming stopped they quickly switched to climate change...again cant lose with that one.

Don't bother trying to understand Ajax. I'd explain it but I don't have time to waste on 10 pages of explanation for you.

Learn the basics.