In the short time I've been here I seen several say the accept AGW but think it's not going to be a problem. The IPCC says 1.5 above pre-industrial times is bad and 2 is really bad. I was wondering for those that think it's not a problem, is there some increase that you think it would become a problem? I apologize if this has already been beat to death.
https://www.ipcc.ch/organization/organization.shtmlNo it isn't.
You are free to interpret the Charter of the IPCC as you see fit, but if they Found CO2 had minimal impact,The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is the leading international body for the assessment of climate change. It was established by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) in 1988 to provide the world with a clear scientific view on the current state of knowledge in climate change and its potential environmental and socio-economic impacts.
When one peels away all the layers, the concepts of AGW is stated in the IPCC'sNo, you're projecting, although you mix very little actual science with a huge amount of uninformed/misinformed amateur opinion.
That's just the no-feedback Planck physics response.
That's not subjective, it's based on observations, paleo evidence, modelling, and physics.
There is the 1.2°C direct response I stated, and it lists the amplified feedbacks as a belief,If the amount of carbon dioxide were doubled instantaneously,
with everything else remaining the same, the outgoing infrared
radiation would be reduced by about 4 Wm−2. In other words, the
radiative forcing corresponding to a doubling of the CO2 concentration
would be 4 Wm−2. To counteract this imbalance, the
temperature of the surface-troposphere system would have to
increase by 1.2°C (with an accuracy of ±10%), in the absence of
other changes. In reality, due to feedbacks, the response of the
climate system is much more complex. It is believed that the
overall effect of the feedbacks amplifies the temperature increase
to 1.5 to 4.5°C. A significant part of this uncertainty range arises
from our limited knowledge of clouds and their interactions with
radiation.
The IPCC originally targeted 2 C, as the level to stay below to avoid the really catastrophic impacts of AGW.
Earth Will Cross the Climate Danger Threshold by 2036 - Scientific American Why not quote the IPCC then?
You have been corrected on this false claim several times, but keep on making it. No, the literature shows the best estimate for ECS (equilibrium climate sensitivity) still centres around about 3C despite a couple of outlying papers. I even provided a google scholar search for climate sensitivity papers since 2013 that you clearly ignored.I have read much of the IPCC report.There are many papers that find lower ECS sensitivity, Curry, Lindzen, Otto, ect.
And you know the AR5 report did not include a Best Estimate for ECS.
I'll post it again although you'll probably ignore it again:
Since all the models start with a set of assumptions, and most of those assumptions vary from model to model,
There may not be any relevance between the models, and so no statistical significance as to how many models said what.
https://www.ipcc.ch/organization/organization.shtml
You are free to interpret the Charter of the IPCC as you see fit, but if they Found CO2 had minimal impact,
there would be need for an IPCC.
When one peels away all the layers, the concepts of AGW is stated in the IPCC's
Key concepts in Climate Science document
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/pdf/tar-01.pdf
There is the 1.2°C direct response I stated, and it lists the amplified feedbacks as a belief,
a belief with an enormous uncertainty range of 3 °C.
The feedbacks are based on assumptions and models, mostly on the assumption that the warming observed from 1978 to 1998
would continue at that rate, it did not!
I have read much of the IPCC report.
Since all the models start with a set of assumptions, and most of those assumptions vary from model to model,
There may not be any relevance between the models, and so no statistical significance as to how many models said what.
I don't usually read or link to blogs, but try to keep to published papers.You've shown you can't even read something really basic like the GISS FAQ, or RSS FAQ, let alone the IPCC WG1 report or the literature, so you just make **** up or repeat rubbish from climate truther blogs.
Except for all the submerged coastlines, extinct animals, and disrupted precipitation patterns.
My concern is for the wildlife which are the innocent victims to mankind's destructive nature, AGW just being a small part of this, mankind its self will adapt and survive as we have other major global changes in our history.
My biggest gripe is with many of the people who advocate global measures to curtail mans contribution to GW. While I greatly support a persons effort to minimize their impact on the earth in all aspects what I generally see is people who will only make token efforts themselves and proclaim their great achievements to saving the planet while advocating greater changes or sacrifices be mandated onto others. My view is until you are willing to make the sacrifices and put in the effort yourself then you really have no right to expect anything of anyone else. In short, for the 99% of people I have met, **** or get off the pot.
Yeah, sure you 'keep to published papers'... a couple that have been in misrepresented on climate truther blogs. You ignore everything else.I don't usually read or link to blogs, but try to keep to published papers.
It still comes down to CO2 will cause some warming (1.2°C), and they think that
warming will be amplified through feedbacks to cause additional warming.
They can model it all they want, but if the models do not match the observed data, the models are in error.
The longer the time frame the lower the warming per decade looks.
So from 1970 to 2014, the GISS has a delta of .73 °C over 4.4 Decades or .166 °C per decade.
Various combinations of years causes the per decade rate to move from low of under .1 °C per decade
to greater than .3 °C per decade, What does this say?
For one thing it says the signal to noise ratio in the GISS data set is all over the place.
It also says any numbers out past the second digit are meaningless.
And you just keep ignoring the data that disagrees with your dogma.Yeah, sure you 'keep to published papers'... a couple that have been in misrepresented on climate truther blogs. You ignore everything else.
{{{snore}}} same old same old
You go where your ideology leads. You won't even do a search of the literature, either because you are too lazy, or perhaps for fear that you might actually 'see' 'data' that refutes your ideology.And you just keep ignoring the data that disagrees with your dogma.
I have to go where the data leads, and from what I have seen the data shows
the ECS of CO2 to be roughly 1.8 °C.
People can speculate about how the warming will accelerate, but so far that is not supported in the data,
unless they include the El Nino events which are known to not be CO2 related.
(El Nino have been observed since the 1500's)
Your posts sound like prayers....repeated over and over again.
It is good that you have faith in your dogma, because that is about all that supports it.Your posts sound like prayers....repeated over and over again, but with no basis in science.
It is good that you have faith in your dogma, because that is about all that supports it.
When even the abused data of the GISS shows a major shift in the temperature trend, it must be difficult for you to deny it.
Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs
yet you still try!
I just have the data, which shows there are more variables than are accounted for in the models.{{{snore}}} Got any science to go with your climate trutherisms and dishonesty?
{{{snore}}} Got any science to go with your climate trutherisms and dishonesty?
I just have the data, which shows there are more variables than are accounted for in the models.
It is warming, just not in the way they predicted. The warming has both a seasonal and a diurnal asymmetry,
that was not accounted for in the models.
Despite the best efforts of the GISS, they have been unable to contort the data sufficiently to move the warming
into the alarmist range.
Long term (1970 to 2014) the warming is in the .166 °C per decade range, with fairly clear signs of deceleration.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
This is not as close as it seems to the modeled prediction of .21 °C per decade,
and many times less than the .565 °C per decade needed to Mann's unbelievable prediction
in Scientific American.
At the .166 °C per decade rate we are on track for an ECS of about 1.8 °C, about 2070.
But that is predicated on if we keep using fossil fuels for transport, and I think that likelihood is even less plausible,
than the concept of catastrophic AGW.
Data is simply data, nothing more, nothing less.So your answer is: No, you have no science to go with your climate trutherisms, dishonesty and pseudoscience ramblings. Glad you made that abundantly clear.
I just have the data, which shows there are more variables than are accounted for in the models.
It is warming, just not in the way they predicted. The warming has both a seasonal and a diurnal asymmetry,
that was not accounted for in the models.
Despite the best efforts of the GISS, they have been unable to contort the data sufficiently to move the warming
into the alarmist range.
Long term (1970 to 2014) the warming is in the .166 °C per decade range, with fairly clear signs of deceleration.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
This is not as close as it seems to the modeled prediction of .21 °C per decade,
and many times less than the .565 °C per decade needed to Mann's unbelievable prediction
in Scientific American.
At the .166 °C per decade rate we are on track for an ECS of about 1.8 °C, about 2070.
But that is predicated on if we keep using fossil fuels for transport, and I think that likelihood is even less plausible,
than the concept of catastrophic AGW.
Of course they did, that is why the GISS has been pointing out this or that monthAnd yet the scientists who study this didn't notice.
Funny that.
Of course they did, that is why the GISS has been pointing out this or that month
is the hottest on record. It is because there is no real AGW news to report.
If not for the El Nino warming, there has only bee minor warming in the GISS,Except...all the warming!
If not for the El Nino warming, there has only bee minor warming in the GISS,
and almost none in the Hadcrut4, RSS, and UAH data sets, since 2001
Sea Surface,
Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs
HadCrut4,
Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs
UAH
Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs
Even the GISS had a steep slope change.
Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs
Oh, I just noticed, you're the author of this thread, what was it again, oh yes:
Not to make too much of a fine point about it, why don't you take a flying leap?
Given that this is reasonable question can you answer my reasonable question;
How long does that temperature data have to come in at lower than the lowest case predictions of the IPCC for you to think that AGW is not a problem? Another 10 years? 20 years? 60 years?
There are many factors at play, some may be within Human control.
The IPCC has a job, that job is to find evidence of Human caused Climate change,
If none exists they will be out of a job, so they find it everywhere they look.
Part of the issue with AGW is that they intermix actual science with quite a bit of subjective opinion.
For the Science part, Doubling the CO2 level from 280 to 560 ppm, will likely cause warming of about 1.2 C.
One of the assumptions is that humans are actually capable of doubling the CO2 level.
We are roughly 43 % of the way towards doubling the CO2 level, but the easy oil is mostly gone.
The remaining oil will be much more expensive and difficult to extract.
The subjective portion of the IPCC position is that the 1.2 C from the extra CO2,
Will be amplified through feedbacks to produce somewhere between minor and exceptional additional warming. (1.5 to 4.5 C)
The IPCC originally targeted 2 C, as the level to stay below to avoid the really catastrophic impacts of AGW.
On the other side of the equation, the warmer earth with more CO2 is causing the plant hardiness zones to expand,
and the planet is greening up.
Keep in mind the same math that says burning one pound of fuels makes 3 pounds of CO2, works the other way.
It takes 3 pounds of CO2 to make one pound of biomass.
We have enough energy, it is just is not in costs effective portable format.
Those evil oil companies, after corporate profits will save us all.
With surplus power from wind and solar, a Modern refinery can make carbon neutral fuel from air and water,
it just will cost the equivalent of about $90 a barrel to do so.
As the current surplus declines (and it will) the price will climb, and we will likely start to see carbon neutral fuel at the pumps.
It is really not important for AGW, but solves any problems with AGW as a byproduct of solving our real problem of energy storage.
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?