Early IPCC Reports

The prevailing uncertainties in the prediction of likely future changes of climate, particularly on regional scales, therefore represent a major difficulty in pursuit of the task given to Working Group II.

Any predicted effects of climate change must be viewed in the context of our present dynamic and changing world.

The precise prediction of climate change at regional level is subject to great uncertainty. Prediction of precipitation changes is particularly uncertain

Work on improving regional predictions using the palaeo-analog method continues in Russia and other countries.

The question of the validity of the technique of palaeoanalog for the prediction of regional climate change needs further debate. Although palaeo-data concerning past cliiiiates are of great value, clear analogs from the past
which can be applied to future climate changes have not yet been identified. In the further work of the IPCC, all methods of regional climate prediction should be reviewed and assessed on a continuing basis.

Uncertainties in the predictions of climate change, particularly those concerning timing, magnitude and regional patterns of climate change, are associated with
imperfect knowledge of:
* future rates of man-made emissions;
* how these will change the atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases (GHG); and
* the response of climate to these changed concentrations.

The only prediction horizon of proven reliability is that provided by weather forecast models extending for days or, at most, weeks into the future.

One of the major goals of climate impact assessment, especially concerning aspects of future climatic change, is the prediction of future impacts. A growing number of model projections has become available on how global climate may change in the future as a result of increases in greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations (eg see IPCC 1990a)

The testing of predictive models is, arguably, the most critical stage of an impact assessment. Most studies rely almost exclusively on the use of models to estimate future impacts. Thus, it is crucial for the credibility of the research that model performance is tested rigorously.

Validation involves the comparison of model predictions with real world observations to test model performance. The validation procedures adopted
depend to some extent on the type of model being tested.

A critical consideration for conducting impact experiments is the time horizon over which estimates are to be made. Three elements influence the time horizon selected: the limits of predictability, the compatibility of projections and whether the assessment is continuous or considers discrete points in time.

No method yet exists of providing confident predictions of future climate. Instead, it is customary to specify a number of plausible future climates

Predicted global warming may increase the ozone concentration in this and other metropolitan areas and increase the extent of this pollution as well (Ando 1991).

Improved prediction of potential future hydrological regimes (including estimates of changes in soil moisture and groundwater availability) continues to be a critical need for agricultural impact studies. Recent work on climate change scenarios suggests that the frequency of heavy rainfall events at almost all latitudes may increase with global warming, while the numbers of raindays in
mid latitudes may decrease

In contrast, predictions based on palaeoclimate analogs show a significant rise in productivity in Russia for a doubling of atmospheric COj (Sirotenko et al. 1990), especially when direct COj effects are taken into account (Menzhulin 1992).

Peat dynamics is a key element in the prediction of future climate change.

However, specific regional changes in precipitation and runoff are as yet impossible to predict with any degree of confidence

The task of predicting regional hydrologic and water management consequences of climate change is a formidable one. At present, we can offer Only a semblance of consensus on insights about how certain managed and
uncontrolled watersheds could respond under a variety of climate change scenarios.

Rogers essentially concluded that even if the GC M models were scientifically well grounded and their prediction considered perfect, the information provided is largely peripheral to practical engineering decisions.

One of the most important aspects of climate change is the impact of the predicted (IPCC 1990b) sea-level rise on coastal and marine ecosystems. The ecological situation will change, the life cycle of many organisms will be
disturbed, and a decrease in the habitat of sea animals and/or their redistribution will occur.

Relative sea-level rise is the net effect of tectonic uplift or subsidence, eustatic change due to continental ice melt, winds and ocean currents, plus expansion or contraction of the water column. During the Holocene (last 10 000 years) in Jamaica, for example (Hendry 1992), maximum sealevel rise is- 0.27 cm/year, or less than half the 0.6 cm/year implied by the IPCC. (1990b); in the last 3000 years sea-level rise has been almost nil. Al l other things being equal, 0.6 cm/year (35 cm between 1990 and 2050) is expected to place an unusual stress on coastal ecosystems.

Climate change involves much more than sealevel rise and temperature increase; precipitation, evaporation, humidity, wind velocity, hurricanes, cloudiness, solar irradiance, ocean currents, waves, mixing, riverine input
etc, are all important variables. If precipitation changes (for example) are markedly underesfimated, the impact on agriculture and coastal ecosystems could be far more important than sea-level and/or temperature rise.

IBdaMann wrote:
Can anyone dig up early IPCC reports, like say the Third reports from 2001?

I remember reading them back in the day, but I find that the IPCC keeps adjusting and modifying and changing their outlook ... and burying previous reports.

I'd really like to scrutinize the wording of their early "predictions." If anyone can find them, please post them here.

boreallfor wrote:2001? Wow, so you've worked for the oil industry a long time

IBdaMann wrote:

boreallfor wrote:2001? Wow, so you've worked for the oil industry a long time

Why the extreme envy of those who work for petroleum and other science-based industries? Why the lashing-out trolling in response to requests for IPCC documents?

One can only conclude that you are extremely embarrassed at the scientifically illiterate basis of your WACKY religious Climate dogma.

GasGuzzler wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

boreallfor wrote:2001? Wow, so you've worked for the oil industry a long time

Why the extreme envy of those who work for petroleum and other science-based industries? Why the lashing-out trolling in response to requests for IPCC documents?

One can only conclude that you are extremely embarrassed at the scientifically illiterate basis of your WACKY religious Climate dogma.

Apparently there's no all time records highs being broken today so the orgasm is over for boreallfor. By the way Mr. Boreallfor, the highest temperature ever recorded here in the United States was in 1936. When do we start to warm?

IBdaMann, those quotes are some real gems! What jumps out at me is the honesty about uncertainty. So that begs the question...what technology? What new revelation? What new techniques? What IS it that allows for so much certainty today versus back then?

What changed besides the amount of money and power involved?

GasGuzzler wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

boreallfor wrote:2001? Wow, so you've worked for the oil industry a long time

Why the extreme envy of those who work for petroleum and other science-based industries? Why the lashing-out trolling in response to requests for IPCC documents?

One can only conclude that you are extremely embarrassed at the scientifically illiterate basis of your WACKY religious Climate dogma.

Apparently there's no all time records highs being broken today so the orgasm is over for boreallfor. By the way Mr. Boreallfor, the highest temperature ever recorded here in the United States was in 1936. When do we start to warm?

IBdaMann, those quotes are some real gems! What jumps out at me is the honesty about uncertainty. So that begs the question...what technology? What new revelation? What new techniques? What IS it that allows for so much certainty today versus back then?

What changed besides the amount of money and power involved?

James___ wrote: Anchorage broke it's all time high by 5°. Guess you don't read the paper.

From the Anchorage Daily Express
December 02, 2017 of the 1989 record cold

From Homer to Barrow, the temperatures fell each day. Fairbanks experienced six consecutive days where the high temperature was no warmer minus-40. On Jan. 25, much of the state received a light break when a storm system in the Gulf of Alaska stirred the air over the state somewhat. In Fairbanks it warmed to 33 below.

But we hadn't seen anything yet. A dome of extremely cold air moved from Alaska's north slope to the western interior on January 26th. As Thoman, then stationed in Nome, reported, records toppled at every weather station west of a line from Manley Hot Springs to Lake Minchumina. That same day, the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner announced that an Alaska milestone was in jeopardy: "The Weather Service predicts Alaska's state record low of 80 below, recorded January 23, 1971 at Prospect Creek on the Dalton Highway, is likely to fall this week, possibly even today."

James___ wrote: One reason why climate change is accepted is because of glacial melt. I like to think that ice melts as it warms and water freezes as it cools.

James___ wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

boreallfor wrote:2001? Wow, so you've worked for the oil industry a long time

Why the extreme envy of those who work for petroleum and other science-based industries? Why the lashing-out trolling in response to requests for IPCC documents?

One can only conclude that you are extremely embarrassed at the scientifically illiterate basis of your WACKY religious Climate dogma.

Apparently there's no all time records highs being broken today so the orgasm is over for boreallfor. By the way Mr. Boreallfor, the highest temperature ever recorded here in the United States was in 1936. When do we start to warm?

IBdaMann, those quotes are some real gems! What jumps out at me is the honesty about uncertainty. So that begs the question...what technology? What new revelation? What new techniques? What IS it that allows for so much certainty today versus back then?

What changed besides the amount of money and power involved?

Anchorage broke it's all time high by 5°. Guess you don't read the paper. One reason why climate change is accepted is because of glacial melt. I like to think that ice melts as it warms and water freezes as it cools.