Thread: IPCC report questions

Hi, I read the IPCC report recently, have a couple questions:

1. In the IPCC report, they mention that there’s not enough evidence to know with high confidence whether global warming increases the occurrence of natural disasters. If the global warming trend continues, is there potential for natural disasters / volcanic eruptions / etc. to bring some balance back? What factors would influence this? Or can balance only be brought back through natural removal of the various gases in the atmosphere over many years (depending on type of gas)?

2. Is there potential in the future for natural sinks to increase their intake of CO2, thereby offsetting some of the effects of global warming? There was a mention in the IPCC report that natural sinks have been increasing their intake somewhat, but I didn’t really understand the cause of this

Thanks

By natural disaster they probably mean hurricanes. Wind speeds are more powerful when sea surface temperatures are warmer. Stronger hurricanes winds mean more powerful hurricanes. Volcanism isn't really affected by changes in the atmosphere.

Natural heat sinks, mainly the ocean, have increased their level of CO2 uptake. Which is the reason they are falling in pH and becoming more acidic. However the oceans surface layers are thought to be saturated so their CO2 absorption is slowing. More acidic oceans is another major problem with increasing CO2 concentration.

Here's an interesting recent article:

The Global Warming Establishment Needs More than Cosmetic Fixes

Originally Posted by BumFluff

By natural disaster they probably mean hurricanes.

Hurricanes are one, though increased wind share over the tropics might offset some of the increases due to warmer water temperatures. Sea level rise would make the effects worse even if there wasn't a change in frequency or strength of tropical storms.

Another is severe thunderstorms including flash flooding, large hail, and tornadoes they produce. Just of several papers see (Del Genio, A.D., M.-S. Yao, and J. Jonas, 2007: Will moist convection be stronger in a warmer climate? Geophys. Res. Lett., 34, L16703, doi:10.1029/2007GL030525.)

Drought severity as some places become more arid which not only means water shortages but more wild fires.

Originally Posted by nb123

\

2. Is there potential in the future for natural sinks to increase their intake of CO2, thereby offsetting some of the effects of global warming? There was a mention in the IPCC report that natural sinks have been increasing their intake somewhat, but I didn’t really understand the cause of this

Thanks

One example is the warming arctic. The potential exists that a warmer arctic will sink more CO2 as plants are able to proliferate. Sadly, measurements thus far indicate that the reverse is happening, and a warming arctic is creating a positive feedback in which frozen tundra is decaying more rapidly, and releasing CO2.

Originally Posted by free radical

Originally Posted by nb123

\

2. Is there potential in the future for natural sinks to increase their intake of CO2, thereby offsetting some of the effects of global warming? There was a mention in the IPCC report that natural sinks have been increasing their intake somewhat, but I didn’t really understand the cause of this

Thanks

One example is the warming arctic. The potential exists that a warmer arctic will sink more CO2 as plants are able to proliferate. Sadly, measurements thus far indicate that the reverse is happening, and a warming arctic is creating a positive feedback in which frozen tundra is decaying more rapidly, and releasing CO2.

But there is still no conclusive evidence that it is AGW, and plenty to show it is natural warming.

Actually, it's the opposite of that, but we've been through this multiple times in your more than 900 posts here, Wild Cobra. You've been shown mistaken at every turn, and yet you continue to repeat the same tired assertions.

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Originally Posted by free radical

Originally Posted by nb123

\

2. Is there potential in the future for natural sinks to increase their intake of CO2, thereby offsetting some of the effects of global warming? There was a mention in the IPCC report that natural sinks have been increasing their intake somewhat, but I didn’t really understand the cause of this

Thanks

One example is the warming arctic. The potential exists that a warmer arctic will sink more CO2 as plants are able to proliferate. Sadly, measurements thus far indicate that the reverse is happening, and a warming arctic is creating a positive feedback in which frozen tundra is decaying more rapidly, and releasing CO2.

But there is still no conclusive evidence that it is AGW, and plenty to show it is natural warming.

Furthermore to the previous post, your comment has little relevance to my post.

So interestingly， IPCC reports absolutely has many uncertainties. Thus just because of this oblige us to do more researchs to make them clear in the future.

Originally Posted by eco-soil

So interestingly， IPCC reports absolutely has many uncertainties. Thus just because of this oblige us to do more researchs to make them clear in the future.

Yes, and they pawn them off as doom and gloom.

Until the IPCC fully recognizes the effects of warming by solar variations, and shows clear proof of their stated scares, I simply laugh at them.

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Until the IPCC fully recognizes the effects of warming by solar variations...

Except... as has been pointed out to you... repeatedly... they have.


Also, just as an FYI - In science, there is no such thing as "clear proof." It's about the most accurate model of nature based on the data available. The available data HAS accounted for solar variation, and deemed it unable to explain the trend. The available data points to the trend being the result of human activity.

Originally Posted by inow

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Until the IPCC fully recognizes the effects of warming by solar variations...

Except... as has been pointed out to you... repeatedly... they have.

Think about it. They only rate greenhouse gasses as a high level of understanding. They are full of s41t. Solar forcing and many other aspects of warming are given a low scientific understanding. I'm sorry, but that tells me they are making things up.

Are you telling me that their low understanding of solar forcing is adequate for you?

I disregard your foundational premise as it is wholly invalid.

Originally Posted by inow

I disregard your foundational premise as it is wholly invalid.

Did I misrepresent any facts about the IPCC's stated understanding?

It sure would be nice if you checked your bias at the door and look at facts.

Since when is your opinion that they have a "low understanding of solar forcing" a fact?

Originally Posted by inow

Since when is your opinion that they have a "low understanding of solar forcing" a fact?

My God...

It's right in the IPCC report!

Not my opinion, but what they claim!

-delete accidental double post-

Oh, dear christ. You're hopeless.

Originally Posted by inow

Oh, dear christ. You're hopeless.

I see you're looking in a mirror again. A conversation works better when you talk to someone other than yourself.

Please. Where does the IPCC say that they have a good understanding or solar forcing? I just showed you where they say they have a low understanding.

This side bar doesn't haven't anything to do with the original question in the report.

Hello everyone,I'm hoping to discuss climate change without the use of the words believer and denier, as I feel that these terms are unscientific and detract from what could be a valuable and educational discussion.My first question: is climate change an immediate threat that we have to do something about? If so what can we do?

Originally Posted by RobinM

My first question: is climate change an immediate threat that we have to do something about? If so what can we do?

What time scale would you consider to be "immediate"?

We just started a thread over the most recent report. Please direct comments there rather than reopen three year old thread.