Do statements from the IPCC like this justify panic for global warming....i mean, "climate change"?

Question

00.... really? so how did the original ice age end? And how did it start?

Answer 1

Well it is our falt...for if you look at the two non human causes to global warming you find...the green house effect and the sunspot cycle two processes that have been occuring for billions of years...WE are the ones who through the green house effect off of balance...and the sunspot cycle is an 11 year cycle that has been happening since the beginning of time...and has not had such an affect as this...

Answer 2

Essentially your question is "does 'more likely than not' equate to 'slightly greater than 50/50?" The answer is no. More likely than not equates to >50%. That could be 51%, that could be 99%. The statement itself doesn't specify.

Answer 3

Well, your paraphrase is totally wrong. Last statement they made was that they are over 90% sure and this was just the number they could all agree when. And since then there has been more evidence accumulated.

Answer 4

The correct translation is:

'It is 50-66% likely that humans activity has directly or indirectly contributed to a change in precipitation patterns causing more droughts and more floods since the 1970s.'

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report...

To answer your question, statements *like* this from the IPCC do justify *concern* about global warming, yes.  You've chosen one statement out of many.

*edit* you need to look up the definition of 'vague'.  When the IPCC specifies that something is between 50-66% likely, that is the exact opposite of being vague.

Answer 5

Panic (n) A sudden, overpowering terror.

Panic never solves any problem, so perhaps "call to action" would be a much more appropriate response.  But you might consider reading the other +30,000 pages of the IPCC report before jumping to any conclusions.  Panic may indeed be the right response ;-)

Edit:

> 90% probability = "very likely"

From IPCC Technical Summary:

"It is very likely that the sustained rate of increase in the combined radiative forcing from these greenhouse gases of about +1 W m–2 over the past four decades is at least six times faster than at any time during the two millennia before the Industrial Era,"

"make it very likely that the observed long-term changes in CH4 are due to anthropogenic activity"

"Large summer warming in the Antarctic Peninsula region very likely played a role in the subsequent rapid breakup of the Larsen B Ice Shelf in 2002 by increasing summer melt water"

"The Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheets taken together have very likely contributed to the sea level rise of the past decade. It is very likely that the Greenland Ice Sheet shrunk from 1993 to 2003, with thickening in central regions more than offset by increased melting in coastal regions"

Future trend "Warm spells / heat waves: Frequency increases over most land areas"

"It is very likely that average NH temperatures during the second half of the 20th century were warmer than any other 50-year period in the last 500 years"

"It is very likely that anthropogenic greenhouse gas increases caused most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century."

There's a lot more, but unless you're willing to read the report yourself there's no point in posting it here.

Edit 2:

LOL. Do you even know what the word "anthropogenic" means?  It means caused by humans.  My quotes most certainly do attribute the global warming to humans.

And if you don't like the 'summary' (not sure what you think you're inferring from that) quotes, then you can easily find the same statements and many more in the full report. It's available on-line (free) in PDF format, so you can even search for statements like this yourself and read them in context. Here's the link (have fun):

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report....

Answer 6

This is just one issue, one impact.  And it's a greater than 50% chance it's true.

On the basic question; "Is global warming caused by man?" the IPCC says that it's greater than 95% to be true.  The scientists original draft said 99%, but political edits from the US and China changed that to 95%.

There's no need to panic, there is a strong need to take action.  Most every world leader agrees.  They're not about to risk their country on a 100:1 shot this isn't happening.

Answer 7

That wording implies that the probability that humans have contributed to the trends in droughts and rains is somewhere between 50% and 66%, but that it is definitely above 50%.  See here:

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report...

p-23

If the probability were truly only slightly above 50%, and uncertain, it would be stated as "about as likely as not."  The point is that the IPCC is saying that if you were betting, put money down on droughts and heavy rains becoming more severe due to anthropogenic climate change.

If you are going to interpret something, you ought to read what the definitions are rather than project what you want them to be.

p.s.  I hate Dana because he types faster than I do.

Answer 8

Just remember that the IPCC is a hand-picked conglomeration who shared the same agenda.  Their results are flawed due to UN and inner peer directives.  It's a large body, but most have no input into the final papers which are scrutinized word by word by a few, select 'leaders'.

Their findings are regularly disputed, and the IPCC is generally held in low esteem by others in the scientific community.