Actually there are plenty of findings of ECS of 2 C or below, including the lead authors of IPCC AR5 (2 C ECS best estimate).
The accepted science is that ECS will likely be in that range somewhere, but anywhere in that range still falls
within the accepted science. The empirical data trends towards the very low end of the range,
while the models trend towards the mid to high end.
Which is more likely to happen, that which is observed, or that with is assumed?
Yes, there are a couple. And you fully accept them because.... you like the result.
But the bulk of science clearly does not agree, and your position is that the high end of the range won’t happen.. and that’s not science. It’s fantasy.
Yes, there are a couple. And you fully accept them because.... you like the result.
But the bulk of science clearly does not agree, and your position is that the high end of the range won’t happen.. and that’s not science. It’s fantasy.
I accept them because they come up with the same type of numbers I come up with when I run the numbers.Yes, there are a couple. And you fully accept them because.... you like the result.
But the bulk of science clearly does not agree, and your position is that the high end of the range won’t happen.. and that’s not science. It’s fantasy.
I accept them because they come up with the same type of numbers I come up with when I run the numbers.
It really is not that complicated, you insist that the IPCC prediction for ECS is 3 C,
in reality the IPCC said they were unable to arrive at a best estimate of ECS.
The Scientist who were the lead authors of AR5 came up with a best estimate for ECS of 2 C,
but that number did not make it into the report.
The models, loaded with overestimated assumptions are running hot.
The conclusions drawn from the empirical data seem to be grouping between 1.5 and 2C.
How is the climate most likely to respond, in the same way it has responded in the past,
or some new response that has not been observed in the existing record?
I thought it might be fun to add in the .89 C 2017 data point to their graph.The science says that an ECS of 2 degrees or less is LESS likely than it was in 2013, when the IPCC was published, too!
Since you seem to have only read one paper on this, by Otto, et al, which wasn’t even a study...just a one page opinion piece, you probably don’t know the literature well.
The Royal,Society can teach you:
http://royalsociety.org/~/media/pol.../27-11-2017-Climate-change-updates-report.pdf
Page 6 and 7, if you actually deign to open it.
No. Because you pretend that 1.5 is the most likely value, when clearly the midpoint of the range is most likely, and the high point is just as likely as the low (if not higher, based on lots of studies).
So that’s a great example of one area where you disagree with the accepted science, but pretend that you don’t because you argue the low end is probable.
Also, the societies made their statements specifically to support the IPCC, because deniers like you keep muddying the waters and trying to instill doubt about the very clear conclusions...as you demonstrate quite clearly in this very thread!
Guy in armchair ‘runs the numbers’.
Guess the Royal Society didn’t pick,up on your anonymous message board post so they could put it in their review.
That’s denial in a nutshell. Your ‘numbers’ aren’t what science is saying, so you deny the science.
When I run the numbers, they only have to satisfy myself, I am looking to validate, or invalidate claims.Guy in armchair ‘runs the numbers’.
Guess the Royal Society didn’t pick,up on your anonymous message board post so they could put it in their review.
That’s denial in a nutshell. Your ‘numbers’ aren’t what science is saying, so you deny the science.
When I run the numbers, they only have to satisfy myself, I am looking to validate, or invalidate claims.
Since the IPCC is not making a fixed claim, but rather defining a large range, the actual claim cannot be invalidated,
but portions of the claim can be.
There is insufficient unknown warming to support the high gain factors necessary for an ECS between 3 and 4.5C.
This is not disagreeing with the IPCC, because again they published a range.
Yeah, too bad there is no evidence to back up that claim, and it is pretty much the total opposite of how the IPCC actually works.Oh, I understand how Science is supposed to work.
Theory, Test, refine, test, refine, ect.
The IPCC's failing with science is that they started with an outcome, and adjusted the inputs to make that outcome.
Oh, the ironyTAR had the most uncertainty with ECS, but necessary amplified feedback is not supported by the data,
yet some how the range of the predicted warming did not go down.
Now they are showing the same range, but with a higher portion from emission uncertainty.
The reality is that our climate is quite sensitive to CO2 -- especially given how long it can stay in the atmosphere. It can take anywhere from 20 to 200 years for most of it to dissolve or otherwise mitigated... while some of it can remain in the atmosphere for millennia.The reality is that our climate is not all that sensitivity to added CO2, and long before CO2 emissions will become an issue,
we will have solved the real problem, which is energy.
I guess you didnt bother to look at the Royal Society post.
But why would you. You 'ran the numbers'.
Denier.
So the lower range of ECS dropped from 2C in AR4 to 1.5 C in AR5,AR5 expanded the range to 1.5 to 4.5°C, to reflect some more recent studies based on past
observations, but with no best estimate given.
lolI pity you for seeing the AR5 as worthy as a Bible.
Right, and the fact that you understand Trump so little this far into the game indicates that you never will.Not just random thoughts that come out of his mouth without encountering any sort of thinking on the way and then he says he has never said what he said then? OK.
If the IPCC actually works opposite of "Theory, Test, refine, test, refine, ect." then they need to be shut down.Yeah, too bad there is no evidence to back up that claim, and it is pretty much the total opposite of how the IPCC actually works.
Please post some evidence that the feedbacks exits to create an ECS of 3 C or higher.The reality is that our climate is quite sensitive to CO2 -- especially given how long it can stay in the atmosphere. It can take anywhere from 20 to 200 years for most of it to dissolve or otherwise mitigated... while some of it can remain in the atmosphere for millennia.
If we are addressing the wrong problem, it is worth pointing out that we have not done proper problem analysis.As to "solving energy," first of all that requires humans to actually do something about it. We're slowly improving, by adding sustainable generation, but we aren't moving fast enough right now to prevent many of the effects. And of course, fusion has been 20 years away... and always will be. Fission has all sorts of problems and environmental effects, and improvements like MSR are decades out (and almost certainly won't be all they are cracked up to be).
And of course, fighting the science really doesn't help. Denying the impact of emissions encourages people to take as long as they like to switch to lower emissions energy and lower consumption... or not switch at all. Denying the impact of sea level rise leaves people unprepared for its effects. Nor do I see who is helped by bashing scientists because they say things you don't want to hear.
lol
Nope, sorry, that's not how this works.
The IPCC basically reviews the work performed by a variety of scientists, and does its best to put it together as a digest primarily for policy makers. As a result, it's as good a summary as we are going to get about what scientists know about the climate. The panel has certainly made mistakes, but given the volume of research they're going through, they have an excellent track record.
In contrast, the denialists can only offer blogs that mostly offer willful obfuscations, petty objections, misrepresentations and errors, all the while turning a blind eye to the massive corporate and financial issues pushing for policies and claims friendly to entrenched fossil fuel insterests, with the tiniest bit of legitimate scientific dissent thrown in. Somehow, that just isn't terribly persuasive.
lolIf the IPCC actually works opposite of "Theory, Test, refine, test, refine, ect." then they need to be shut down.
:roll:Please post some evidence that the feedbacks exits to create an ECS of 3 C or higher.
Or, we've done the right analysis. The problem is that the emissions we generate, combined with a variety of other factors like clear-cutting forests, building in vulnerable areas etc, is going to cause harm to humans around the world, and the environment as a whole. Seems pretty straightforward.If we are addressing the wrong problem, it is worth pointing out that we have not done proper problem analysis.
Yes, good thing that climate change is a real problem.Wasting resources on a minimal to non existent problem is limiting our ability to address the real problems.
Yes, that counts as "fighting the science." And you've done nothing to prove your claim.I am not fighting the Science, but rather trying to show the irrelevancy of it.
egadsCO2 might be an issue if we could get into to 4480 ppm range, I have serious doubts we can get to 560 ppm.
aaand as you've been shown many times, sea level rise is accelerating. It's currently around 3.4mm/yr and growing. You can even see it on a basic chart.The Sea level, is raising, but has been raising fairly steadily for 2 centuries....
lol
Do you not read your own words? I'm objecting to "The IPCC's failing with science is that they started with an outcome, and adjusted the inputs to make that outcome."
And again.. The IPCC doesn't actually do the scientific work. They collect and evaluate the work of scientists around the world.
:roll:
As you well know, the feedbacks depend on the inputs. To put it mildly, you haven't provided anywhere near enough parameters to provide an intelligible response.
Or, we've done the right analysis. The problem is that the emissions we generate, combined with a variety of other factors like clear-cutting forests, building in vulnerable areas etc, is going to cause harm to humans around the world, and the environment as a whole. Seems pretty straightforward.
Yes, good thing that climate change is a real problem.
Yes, that counts as "fighting the science." And you've done nothing to prove your claim.
egads
We're already over 400ppm, and the rate of accumulation in the atmosphere is accelerating. 560ppm is certainly possible. Human beings have never lived when CO2 levels were this high. We may soon have CO2 amounts higher than the planet has had in millions of years.
aaand as you've been shown many times, sea level rise is accelerating. It's currently around 3.4mm/yr and growing. You can even see it on a basic chart.
And yes, higher global temperatures are causing more glacial loss, as well as expanding the ocean, we're already seeing impacts like more intense storms and more frequent flooding in coastal areas. It's not good.
All this stuff you're saying is just denying the abundant evidence that climate change is a serious problem, and every day that we delay will make the problem worse. Worse yet, you provide pretty much no evidence for your claims -- you just ignore the evidence that's presented, and complain that everyone's got it wrong.
Yeah, too bad there is no evidence to back up that claim, and it is pretty much the total opposite of how the IPCC actually works.
I am sure that for Chevron, Exxon, Shell and the rest, their science is telling them the same thing. So...why deny it ?
Do you see the IPCC finding anything that would shut them selves down?Do you not read your own words? I'm objecting to "The IPCC's failing with science is that they started with an outcome, and adjusted the inputs to make that outcome."
And again.. The IPCC doesn't actually do the scientific work. They collect and evaluate the work of scientists around the world.
We have an input, the .2 C of natural warming before 1940.As you well know, the feedbacks depend on the inputs. To put it mildly, you haven't provided anywhere near enough parameters to provide an intelligible response.
I am not sure we have done proper problem analysis, since CO2 is not a big issue.Or, we've done the right analysis. The problem is that the emissions we generate, combined with a variety of other factors like clear-cutting forests, building in vulnerable areas etc, is going to cause harm to humans around the world, and the environment as a whole. Seems pretty straightforward.
Climate change could be a real problem, we do not know,Yes, good thing that climate change is a real problem.
Being skeptical of outrageous unsupported claims of Anthropogenic Climate Change, should be expected of all scientist.Yes, that counts as "fighting the science." And you've done nothing to prove your claim.
Consider that it took a completely unrestrained effort 167 years to increase CO2 levels by 127 ppm.We're already over 400ppm, and the rate of accumulation in the atmosphere is accelerating. 560ppm is certainly possible. Human beings have never lived when CO2 levels were this high. We may soon have CO2 amounts higher than the planet has had in millions of years.
It would be very difficult to show sea level acceleration, in most of the tide gauges around the world,aaand as you've been shown many times, sea level rise is accelerating. It's currently around 3.4mm/yr and growing. You can even see it on a basic chart.
We are seeing glacial loss, and some of it is likely related to higher temperatures, as well as many other factors.And yes, higher global temperatures are causing more glacial loss, as well as expanding the ocean, we're already seeing impacts like more intense storms and more frequent flooding in coastal areas. It's not good.
We are seeing glacial loss, and some of it is likely related to higher temperatures, as well as many other factors.
More intense storms is questionable, and the general sea levels are raising naturally so one would expect
that those who have been building in vulnerable areas to be affected.
I disagree.
We have seen ice loss on the arctic ocean and tiny ice loss of glaciers but the world ice mass has increased as can be shown using the day length data.
Oh, God, not this again! Once you get a bee in your bonnet about something, you become immune to any sort of rational argument. This has already been done to death. But (sigh) go on then. Show us the day length data, and explain why it means that world ice mass is increasing.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?