IPCC Projection Narrows Temperature Increase Range For 2100 - Reuters

[hatrack]

SYDNEY - The world's top climate scientists are slightly less pessimistic in their latest forecasts for global warming over the next 100 years, the Australian newspaper reported on Saturday.

A draft report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change obtained by the newspaper says the temperature increase could be contained to two degrees Celsius by 2100, if greenhouse gas emissions were held at current levels. (Ed. - emphasis added)

A three-degree Celsius rise in the average global daily temperature is projected if no action is taken to cut emissions.

The panel's Draft Fourth Assessment report narrows the band of predicted temperature rises by 2100 to 2-4.5 degrees Celsius, from 1.4-5.8 degrees in the previous assessment in 2001. Sea levels are now forecast to rise by between 14 cm (5.5 in) and 43 cm (17 in).

EDIT

http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/37943/story.htm

Uh, does anyone out there see any evidence of GHG levels being held at current levels? :eyes:

[Viking12]

1. This article is disturbingly inaccurate...

Apparently, the newspaper grossly misrepresents what the draft report actually states. The AR4 draft report narrows the error range of climate sensitivity (2 X CO2) NOT the range of net change by 2100 as reported.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/09/chinese-whispers-in-australia/

Guess who owns the newspaper that started circulating the story?

[Buzz Clik]

2. Slight variations in wording can have important impacts.

From one of the first papers to carry the article and first posted http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x66557">here:

Science tempers fears on climate change

Matthew Warren

September 02, 2006

THE world's top climate scientists have cut their worst-case forecast for global warming over the next 100 years.
A draft report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, obtained exclusively by The Weekend Australian, offers a more certain projection of climate change than the body's forecasts five years ago.

For the first time, scientists are confident enough to project a 3C rise on the average global daily temperature by the end of this century if no action is taken to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

The Draft Fourth Assessment Report says the temperature increase could be contained to 2C by 2100 if greenhouse gas emissions are held at current levels.

In 2001, the scientists predicted temperature rises of between 1.4C and 5.8C on current levels by 2100, but better science has led them to adjust this to a narrower band of between 2C and 4.5C. Text

Regardless, the new report is certainly reeling in some of the wild projections.

[Viking12]

3. Given that you haven't read the new report...

..and the the leaks of the report are coming from FoxNews, I find it mystifying that anyone can claim, "the new report is certainly reeling in some of the wild projections".

[Buzz Clik]

4. LOL! Still looking to pick a fight with anyone who doesn't pull the plow.

As would be clear to anyone who actually read my words, I was basing my analysis on the information available.

You be sure to correct me when you can prove me wrong.

[Viking12]

5. Just pointing out that you're writing checks you can't cash.

I did actually read your words. You made a very broad claim about the content of AR4 that is completely unsupportable. The way educated debate works is that you need to prove your claims; you can't because the report will not be released for another 6 months.

[Buzz Clik]

6. For the third time: I'm commenting on the information in the article.

You are the one making projections you cannot support.

I'm sorry that the articles don't support the notion that Corporate America will be killing us tomorrow. Maybe you can find some crackpot at some university who supports your position.

[Viking12]

7. For the third time: You're commenting worthless information

You are the one making projections you cannot support.

I've made no projections. Got any other arguments against imaginary positions? Oh yeah, you do, the aforementioned unidentified "wild projections" supposedly "reeled in".

I'm sorry that the science doesn't support your position that the world is fine and dandy. Maybe you can find some crackpot at Fox News who supports your position. Oh heck, you've already done that.

[Buzz Clik]

8. You cannot prove a word you've said,

... yet that is exactly your complaint of me.

But, because it is soooooo important to you: "You win." :eyes:

[Nihil]

9. Don't feed the ...

... :think: ... "Fox News Echo Chamber" ...?

[Buzz Clik]

10. Just in case anyone is taken in by this nonsense:

From this link: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/09/chinese-whispers-in-australia

is this quote:

We decided months ago that we would not comment on leaks of the draft of the upcoming IPCC report (due Feb 2007) but we are prepared to correct obvious errors. The ongoing revisions of the text and the numerous drafts make any such commentary, let alone conclusions drawn from it, pretty pointless.

Viking12, I highly suggest you adopt the words above and stop engaging in pointless arguments when you have no facts.

And just for the record, your website substantiates my position: the draft report is reeling in wild projections.

[Viking12]

11. You have a serious reading comprehension problem...

Only a complete idiot could cite a line that states "make any such commentary, let alone conclusions drawn from it, pretty pointless" and then continue by drawing the conclusion that "the draft report is reeling in wild projections."

[Buzz Clik]

12. This is only going to get worse for you...

Directly from the website you quoted:

The principle error in the latest 'exclusive' is that the writer confuses a tightening of the estimate of climate sensitivity to 2xCO2 (as discussed here) with projections of climate change in 2100.

That's called "reeling in wild projections." You don't think so? Then read on, again from the website http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/03/climate-sensitivity-plus-a-change/">you quoted:

Almost 30 years ago, Jule Charney made the first modern estimate of the range of climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2. He took the average from two climate models (2ºC from Suki Manabe at GFDL, 4ºC from Jim Hansen at GISS) to get a mean of 3ºC, added half a degree on either side for the error and produced the canonical 1.5-4.5ºC range which survived unscathed even up to the IPCC TAR (2001) report. Admittedly, this was not the most sophisticated calculation ever, but individual analyses based on various approaches have not generally been able to improve substantially on this rough estimate, and indeed, have often suggested that quite high numbers (>6ºC) were difficult to completely rule out. However, a new paper in GRL this week by Annan and Hargreaves combines a number of these independent estimates to come up with the strong statement that the most likely value is about 2.9ºC with a 95% probability that the value is less than 4.5ºC.

Yep. That's called tightening the uncertainty and reeling in wild projections. Are you going to argue with your own source? Then send them an email.

[Viking12]

13. Umm, where have I seen that before??

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x66636#66858

Wow. You're either totally confused or completely dishonest. What information are your relying on? The FoxNews story as you claim in posts #2, #4, #6, & #8 or the RealClimate information in #12. Because the so-called "wild projections" to which you refer in 2,4,6,8 are different than the so-called "wild projections" in #12. Move the goal posts much? Is that what you're supposed to do when you get called for using RW propganda terms such as "wild projections"?

[skids]

14. Ayep.

Fortunately, and moreover expediently, his comprehension is not required. :hi:

[Buzz Clik]

15. skids, Viking12: Exactly what is your argument?

Viking12 is caught up in some infinite loop in which he repeats my postings, and then tells me I have no reading comprehension.

skids transfers his stream of insults from another thread, but is arguing about nothing.

Truly, guys: what the hell is your beef?