Thread: Australia mean sea levels and IPCC report

From the horse mouth :


UN-backed report spotlights links between global warming and extreme weather

Quote:
18 November 2011 –
A United Nations-backed report confirms the link between climate change and current trends in extreme weather such as floods and heat waves, and warns that existing measures, even in developed countries, are not enough to cope with the severity of these events.

The report, whose summary was approved today by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in Kigali, Uganda, reveals that high and low daily temperatures have risen on a global scale due to the rise of greenhouse gases, causing an increase in floods, heat waves, droughts, and other extremes associated with damage caused by high sea levels and heavy precipitation.

End of Quote

The Australian and other newspaper are continuing to mislead the readers

Originally Posted by Chucaro

The Australian and other newspaper are continuing to mislead the readers

And the UN have never misled people

Jeff

Originally Posted by Jeff

And the UN have never misled people

Jeff

Oh well I guess that you think like Abbott, Jones, Bolt and others, science is wrong, and may be good idea to close the CSIRO as well

Originally Posted by Chucaro

.....The Australian and other newspaper are continuing to mislead the readers

Given the owners' track record, I think that's a given.

When the "science" is "backed" by those who "fund" the scientists ... and "nothing" can be held up for discussion because "we" (they) are right and it's not open for negotiation or an opposite opinion ...

... common sense tells one that something is rotten in the state of denmark.

But we already knew that.

Why would the scientists bite the hand that feeds them ? Gotta ensure that next round of funding and continuing tenure of ones employment.

Jeff's entitled to his opinion, as am I, but to cast dispersions by comparison with others who may think differently to yourself, makes you just as bad as those who tell us it IS because they SAY it is and it's not open for discussion.

Science has gotten it wrong plenty of times before, and will get it wrong plenty of times again.

Why close the CSIRO ? ... they do a dam site more than climate science ... oh, that's right, if we don't agree with one thing they do/claim, then it stands to reason that we must disagree with EVERYTHING they claim or do .. !!??

Yes, I know, opions are like rseholes ... everybody's got one.

Originally Posted by Fluids

...................................Why would the scientists bite the hand that feeds them ? Gotta ensure that next round of funding and continuing tenure of ones employment...................

So, there's a global conspiracy amongst scientists to mislead the worlds population so that the scientists own careers are protected ?

Originally Posted by Fluids

...................................Yes, I know, opions are like rseholes ... everybody's got one.

Opinions are one thing, facts are something quite different.

Casting aside the absurd notion that scientists globally are a bunch of self seeking con artists with no integrity, I think you'll find that global warming / climate change is proven beyond scientific doubt.

As you say, people are entitled to their own (informed or otherwise) opinion. I'm sure the same people that think the US didn't land on the moon, that the CIA shot JFK and that flying saucers regularly visit Wycliffe Well in the NT will firmly believe that climate change/global warming is just another global conspiracy. A story engineered to delude the worlds populace to the benefit of the US industrial/military hegemony or whatever. But these poor people are harmless and have no credibility and that's the way it should be.
There are of course those who know better but deny the facts for personal or political gain. These are the dangerous ones and pose a far greater risk than an imagined scientific conspiracy.

Deano

I am just reading the summary report which does not seem to match the rhetoric in the press release.

The strongest evidence appears to be that there are more hot days and fewer cold nights, but there does not seem to be any strong agreement as to what that means for floods , cyclones etc.

IMHO, this is the most credible assessment of climate change so far and seems an enormous backtrack from previous doomsday scanarios put forward by the IPCC..

There have been statistically significant trends in the number of heavy precipitation events in
some regions. It is likely that more of these regions have experienced increases than decreases,
although there are strong regional and subregional variations in these trends. [3.3.2]
There is low confidence in any observed long-term (i.e., 40 years or more) increases in tropical
cyclone activity (i.e., intensity, frequency, duration), after accounting for past changes in
observing capabilities. It is likely that there has been a poleward shift in the main Northern and
Southern Hemisphere extra-tropical storm tracks. There is low confidence in observed trends in
small spatial-scale phenomena such as tornadoes and hail because of data inhomogeneities and

inadequacies in monitoring systems.

There is medium confidence that some regions of the world have experienced more intense and
longer droughts, in particular in southern Europe and West Africa, but in some regions droughts
have become less frequent, less intense, or shorter, e.g., in central North America and
northwestern Australia. [3.5.1]
There is limited to medium evidence available to assess climate-driven observed changes in the
magnitude and frequency of floods at regional scales because the available instrumental records
of floods at gauge stations are limited in space and time, and because of confounding effects of
changes in land use and engineering. Furthermore, there is low agreement in this evidence, and

thus overall low confidence at the global scale regarding even the sign of these changes

There is evidence that some extremes have changed as a result of anthropogenic influences,
including increases in atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases. It is likely that
anthropogenic influences have led to warming of extreme daily minimum and maximum
temperatures on the global scale. There is medium confidence that anthropogenic influences have
contributed to intensification of extreme precipitation on the global scale. It is likely that there
has been an anthropogenic influence on increasing extreme coastal high water due to increase in
mean sea level. The uncertainties in the historical tropical cyclone records, the incomplete
understanding of the physical mechanisms linking tropical cyclone metrics to climate change,
and the degree of tropical cyclone variability provide only low confidence for the attribution of
any detectable changes in tropical cyclone activity to anthropogenic influences. Attribution of

single extreme events to anthropogenic climate change is challenging.

There is medium confidence that some regions of the world have experienced more intense and
longer droughts, in particular in southern Europe and West Africa, but in some regions droughts
have become less frequent, less intense, or shorter, e.g., in central North America and
northwestern Australia. [3.5.1]
There is limited to medium evidence available to assess climate-driven observed changes in the
magnitude and frequency of floods at regional scales because the available instrumental records
of floods at gauge stations are limited in space and time, and because of confounding effects of
changes in land use and engineering. Furthermore, there is low agreement in this evidence, and
thus overall low confidence at the global scale regarding even the sign of these changes. [3.5.2]
It is likely that there has been an increase in extreme coastal high water related to increases in

mean sea level.

I don't how this gels with the Australian data
Regards Philip A

The maximum confidence on my mind that if I disagree with an economic advice given lefties and greenies