Climate change report: “extremely likely” humans are responsible
27/09/2013 10:23am
Human activity has caused at least half of climate change in the last half century, hundreds of scientists say. They are 95% certain of this, the surest they’ve ever been, says a United Nations report published Friday.
That activity? Driving cars, running power plants on coal and oil, torching swathes of forestland and debris; anything involving burning carbon-based fuels and emitting greenhouse gasses.
The Assessment Report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is the benchmark study on global warming published every few years. Nearly 1,000 researchers from around the world work on the document, which then undergoes review by about as many scientists.
The IPCC released a summary report Friday and plans to post the full version, roughly 2,500 pages, online on Monday.
This year’s report further strengthens the suspicions scientists have already ascertained.
Saving the coral reefs Scottish salmon fisheries imperiled
In 2007, the climate researchers were already 90% sure people were behind a seemingly small rise in global average temperature of about half a degree Celsius (1 degree Fahrenheit) that has already notched up extreme weather events such as heat waves, droughts and flooding.
The effects they are already causing are expected to increase for a century or more, the report reads. Weather catastrophes, previously called storms of the century, are on their way to striking every 20 years or even more frequently.
This means, unfortunately, we could see more EF5 tornadoes like the one that ground up Moore, Oklahoma, stronger and more floods like those that inundated Colorado towns, another Sandy or Katrina or two in our lifetimes, more crops wiped out by drought, larger forests consumed by roaring wildfires.
The Arctic ice cap could melt nearly completely in summer, and sea levels would continue to rise. In the Antarctic, the ice cap could continue to increase slightly.
And if greenhouse gas emissions continue to climb as they have, the resulting temperature rise and its deadly effects would get even worse, the report says.
The 2013 Assessment Report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change brings together the latest research from top scientists around the field. It contains a “summary for policymakers” aimed at guiding politicians and lawmakers worldwide on decisions regarding the environment over the next several years.
The document released Friday explains the physical behind climate change.
The U.N. panel releases a report every five or six years. Friday’s report is the culmination of work by over 250 authors from 39 countries and was subject to an extensive review process involving more than 1,000 experts.
More than 850 expert authors from 85 countries contributed research for the full report, which will be released in three stages through April. The first, on the physical science behind climate change, accompanies the summary for policymakers. The second, expected in March, will cover “impacts and vulnerabilities” of climate change; the third, on mitigation efforts, is set to go out in April.
Critics of the report
Despite the overall breadth of the scientific expertise involved, and the extensive review and approval process, the IPCC Assessment Reports spark quite a few criticisms, from both climate change believers and skeptics.
Skeptics claim the IPCC exists only to produce further evidence supporting the idea of man-made climate change while ignoring opposing research. But climate change activists, and many climate scientists, believe that the IPCC’s consensus-seeking policy produces conclusions and estimates that are too conservative.
Another often-cited critique of the report is that, due to its size and lengthy approval process, it is already outdated by the time it is released. Several important studies already have been published in the past year in the constantly evolving science of climate change that will not be included in this assessment.
Despite the critics, this week’s document will serve as a major measuring stick for the current state of the world’s climate and what type of change is in store.
The summary for policymakers will be available Friday at www.climatechange2013.org.
– CNN
Comments
Latest Video
VIDEO: RainWatch: Northern rain, then powerful high next week, but more rain next weekend?
A weak area of low pressure will move across the upper North Island this weekend and bring more welcome rain…
Related Articles
Weekend Newsfeed: Northern low. High pressure returning.
We’ve got a few moving parts to our weather over the weekend – but plenty of dry weather around too….
VIDEO: RainWatch: Northern rain, then powerful high next week, but more rain next weekend?
A weak area of low pressure will move across the upper North Island this weekend and bring more welcome rain…
VIDEO: A weak low for NZ on Saturday, high pressure next week
A low will move over the North Island on Saturday and fall apart – bringing patchy rain and showers across…
Add new comment
Peter Cunningham on 23/09/2019 4:39am
ERROR – My concluding sentence belonged in another posting (Had to go into town and lost train of thought) CORRECTED>>
What a sad day it is that society has been so polarised that people both hate each other and have lost the ability to communicate and argue fairly.
Let’s get to the ducks guts of the issue – please tell me why I am wrong.
CO2 & ENERGY:
The ONLY solution to not only CO2 and other by-products of combustion is to minimise to their production and that is to use modern inherently/passively safe nuclear. The stockpiles of decommissioned nuclear warheads in USA alone can be used in modern nuclear processes to power the ENTIRE world for over 500 years and end up with waste that will TOTALLY degrade in 320 years.
Clearly that is not made known – and “Greens” are the cause. Instead they pursue:
HYDRO: Floods valleys and destroys entire ecosystems and is effective only in places with regular rainfall and geology to support the forces involved in dams (I am a civil engineer)
SOLAR: When connected to a grid solar is manageable but disruptive.
FANS: Ditto – but transient and totally disruptive.
Both solar and fans sit on the back of necessary baseload and topping generation and can NEVER EVER be more than an expensive nuisance duplication.
The UN by it’s own admission has a vested interest in it’s global tax. The $100 billion annual harvest to “redistribute wealth” comes from the scam and lies – fed by the ignorant, manipulated masses.
So when will Weather Watch verify what I have said and if you can’t, then ask me and I will provide the information for you to create INFORMATION to balance the UN Agendas.
Reply
Peter Cunningham on 23/09/2019 4:29am
What a sad day it is that society has been so polarised that people both hate each other and have lost the ability to communicate and argue fairly.
Let’s get to the ducks guts of the issue – please tell me why I am wrong.
CO2 & ENERGY:
The ONLY solution to not only CO2 and other byproducts of combustion is to minimise to their production and that is to use modern inherently/passively safe nuclear. The stockpiles of decommissioned nuclear warheads in USA alone can be used in modern nuclear processes to power the ENTIRE world for over 500 years and end up with waste that will TOTALLY degrade in 320 years.
Clearly that is not made known – and “Greens” are the cause. Instead they pursue:
HYDRO: Floods valleys and destroys entire ecosystems and is effective only in places with regular rainfall and geology to support the forces involved in dams (I am a civil engineer)
SOLAR: When connected to a grid solar is manageable but disruptive.
FANS: Ditto – but transient and totally disruptive.
Both solar and fans sit on the back of necessary baseload and topping generation and can NEVER EVER be more than an expensive nusance duplication.
But instead – you people poison minds – young and old, and as such are the most dangerous of people on this planet.
Reply
Guest on 30/09/2013 9:09am
“The Arctic ice cap could melt nearly completely in summer, and sea levels would continue to rise. ”
No they won’t, even if all the Arctic ice melted tomorrow it would have no effect on sea level. It’s already floating and has displaced its own weight already. Ever heard of a guy called Archimedes. Chuck a block of ice in a bath, wait until it melts and see if the water level rises, it won’t.
Reply
Guest on 30/09/2013 9:55am
…actually it’s a sheet of sea ice about 3 metres thick, not an ‘ice cap’!…
Reply
Guest on 28/09/2013 2:12am
Another report via CNN and the IPCC both owners and staff with a vested interest in one side.
Just as the west scrambles to get non existent evidence blame Assad for using chemical weapons against his own people, the IPCC again scramble to gather any evidence that blames Humans for the climate changing and which has warmed little over the past decade.
Their own evidence showed that they were incorrect in assumptions and computer theories that Armageddon was upon us. The Glaciers are still containing ice, the Arctic ice sheet is growing, the climate has not warmed as much as the IPCC predicted etc etc – at the end of the day the science is flawed and money is being wasted in the battle to stop Mummy Nature doing her thing.
Shall we start disecting Agenda 21 to see how the UN and the nasties that drew this up are viewing us Humans? This agenda is part of the huge plan to rob the lot of us in the name of protecting the Planet.
Humans will still be here in 100 years and I would be confident in building a house close to the sea even though the loonies say sea levels will rise by metres by then………..Yeah right!!
All written by a non offensive and brand fee bloke.
Cheers.
Reply
Guest on 27/09/2013 7:51pm
…the LIES continue!
Reply