The whole premise is based on a fallacy, global temperatures have not stopped rising or even slowed down increasing much if at all.
99% of scientists who study the matter agree and know better then that bbc blog.
Conservative Myths: Why are conservatives always proven wrong?
- Thread starter Lovehobby
- Start date
99% of scientists who study the matter agree and know better then that bbc blog.
That's not what the IPCC reported. Perhaps the IPCC has become part of the vast, right-wing conspiracy. :biggrin1:The whole premise is based on a fallacy, global temperatures have not stopped rising or even slowed down increasing much if at all.
http://judithcurry.com/2014/01/06/ipcc-ar5-weakens-the-case-for-agw/
Really? from same;That's not what the IPCC reported. Perhaps the IPCC has become part of the vast, right-wing conspiracy. :biggrin1:
http://judithcurry.com/2014/01/06/ipcc-ar5-weakens-the-case-for-agw/
The IPCC AR5 conclusion on climate sensitivity is stated as:
Equilibrium climate sensitivity is likely in the range 1.5°C to 4.5°C (high confidence), extremely unlikely less than 1°C (high confidence), and very unlikely greater than 6°C (medium confidence)
It is significant that the AR5 does not cite a best estimate, whereas the AR4 cites a best estimate of 3oC. The stated reason for not including a best estimate in the AR5 is the substantial discrepancy between observation-based estimates of ECS (lower), versus estimates from climate models (higher). Figure 1 of Box 12.2 in the AR5 WG1 report shows that 11 out of 19 observational-based studies of ECS show values below 1.5oC in their ranges of ECS probability distribution.
Hence the AR5 reflects greater uncertainty and a tendency towards lower values of the ECS than the AR4.
Sea ice
The IPCC AR5 reports the following trends in sea ice:
Continuing the trends reported in AR4, the annual Arctic sea ice extent decreased over the period 1979–2012: the rate of this decrease was very likely between 3.5 and 4.1% per decade.
It is very likely that the annual Antarctic sea ice extent increased at a rate of between 1.2 and 1.8% per decade between 1979 and 2012.
Chapter 10 on Attribution states:
Anthropogenic forcings are very likely to have contributed to Arctic sea ice loss since 1979. There is low confidence in the scientific understanding of the observed increase in Antarctic sea ice extent since 1979, due to the incomplete and competing scientific explanations for the causes of change and low confidence in estimates of internal variability.
Yes, really. The IPCC confirmed there has been a 15-year pause and that it was not what the models predicted.Really?
While the IPCC offered a number of possible explanations for the pause (which is expected to continue), it didn't adequately address the question as to how the models got it wrong.
Oddly, in its summary for policy makers, the IPCC's confidence in its predictions of utter doom increased (from 90 per cent confidence in the last report to 95 per cent confidence in this one).
I'm not sure how that works. Normally, if an organization makes predictions and the predictions are completely wrong, one would expect the level of confidence in the predictions to go down -- not up!
If they offer possible explanations, then that should address the question why the model got it 'so' wrong. When and where extreme events like hurricane Katrina, massive forrest fires, volcanic eruptions, and the expected west coast massive earthquake (if is not in question, just when) are events that models are hard pressed to predict in a particular 15 year time frame, hindsights help a lot. Even events like massive oils spells at sea can affect the climate through its affect on the oceans chemistry and the wildlife within. The prediction are only completely wrong, although I would debate that, in that cherry picked 15 year timeframe, and we've been over those problems of that in past threads.Yes, really. The IPCC confirmed there has been a 15-year pause and that it was not what the models predicted.
While the IPCC offered a number of possible explanations for the pause (which is expected to continue), it didn't adequately address the question as to how the models got it wrong.
Oddly, in its summary for policy makers, the IPCC's confidence in its predictions of utter doom increased (from 90 per cent confidence in the last report to 95 per cent confidence in this one).
I'm not sure how that works. Normally, if an organization makes predictions and the predictions are completely wrong, one would expect the level of confidence in the predictions to go down -- not up!
The problem, of course, is that the predictions called for significant increases in the Earth's temperature during that time frame. So the cherry picking point doesn't matter.The prediction are only completely wrong, although I would debate that, in that cherry picked 15 year timeframe, and we've been over those problems of that in past threads.
Moreover, the fact is the models were wrong, regardless of the explanations (Ed Davey conceded as much in his BBC interview). So to go back to Groggy's original point, why is it a "crime" to be skeptical?
If anything, the climate researchers should be more forthcoming about the well-known challenges with the models. Failing to acknowledge the problems feeds the belief that the agenda is driven by political goals rather than science.
So the timeframe has been modified, but to the end result. Healthy skepticism is good, certainly not a crime, but uneducated skepticism could be dangerous. By the time it's debunked behind any doubt, it could be too late t correct or even slow down.The problem, of course, is that the predictions called for significant increases in the Earth's temperature during that time frame. So the cherry picking point doesn't matter.
Moreover, the fact is the models were wrong, regardless of the explanations (Ed Davey conceded as much in his BBC interview). So to go back to Groggy's original point, why is it a "crime" to be skeptical?
If anything, the climate researchers should be more forthcoming about the well-known challenges with the models. Failing to acknowledge the problems feeds the belief that the agenda is driven by political goals rather than science.
They don't have to be that forthcoming as there are a whole slew of bloggers and web site with those arguments, and the climatologist already have enough to do
The models aren't wrong, there has been no pause.Moreover, the fact is the models were wrong, regardless of the explanations (Ed Davey conceded as much in his BBC interview). So to go back to Groggy's original point, why is it a "crime" to be skeptical?.
Did you not understand that 2013 was the fourth warmest year on record for the world?
In no place did the IPCC say that climate change or global warming has paused.
Actually, it did report findings that confirmed the pause.In no place did the IPCC say that climate change or global warming has paused.
http://www.businessweek.com/news/20...ower-pace-hardens-opinions-on-need-for-change
It's also interesting to read the recent comments by Dr. Don Easterbrook, one of the few climate researchers to accurately predict what was going to happen. He is apparently not impressed with the models' predictions of huge increases in warming.
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article...ho-got-it-right-predicts-20-more-years-global“When we check their projections against what actually happened in that time interval, they’re not even close. They’re off by a full degree in one decade, which is huge. That’s more than the entire amount of warming we’ve had in the past century. So their models have failed just miserably, nowhere near close. And maybe it’s luck, who knows, but mine have been right on the button,” Easterbrook told CNSNews.com.
"Failed just miserably" is a perfect description of how the models performed.
You are looking at press releases from the fossil fuel industry.Actually, it did report findings that confirmed the pause.
http://www.businessweek.com/news/20...ower-pace-hardens-opinions-on-need-for-change
It's also interesting to read the recent comments by Dr. Don Easterbrook, one of the few climate researchers to accurately predict what was going to happen. He is apparently not impressed with the models' predictions of huge increases in warming.
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article...ho-got-it-right-predicts-20-more-years-global
"Failed just miserably" is a perfect description of how the models performed.
I'll accept your arguments if you can find quotes from the IPCC, not from fossil fuel funded media.
Again, you refuse to acknowledge that 2013 was the 4th warmest year in record, showing that your argument is wrong.
Every news outlet on the planet reported that the IPCC's report said the temperature increase from 1998 to 2012 was only 0.05 degrees.I'll accept your arguments if you can find quotes from the IPCC, not from fossil fuel funded media.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/sep/21/climate-change-ipcc-fossil-temperature
If you want to go through the IPCC report to try to convince yourself that every news outlet on the planet got it wrong, be my guest. I have better things to do with my time.
As for your statement that you're not necessarily prepared to "accept" the real-world scientific evidence, so be it.
What the report said on either side of you point puts it in context.Every news outlet on the planet reported that the IPCC's report said the temperature increase from 1998 to 2012 was only 0.05 degrees.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/sep/21/climate-change-ipcc-fossil-temperature
If you want to go through the IPCC report to try to convince yourself that every news outlet on the planet got it wrong, be my guest. I have better things to do with my time.
As for your statement that you're not necessarily prepared to "accept" the real-world scientific evidence, so be it.
The oceans are warming up like a giant heat sink not seen in human history, that will initially lead to death of the bottom of the food chain, krill and plankton. The ocean is also approaching an anoxic state that will have many life forms in the oceans die off. Likewise with acidification.In addition, scientists have tackled the apparent recent slowing of global warming observed by meteorologists around the globe. According to the new IPCC report, temperatures rose by about 0.15C a decade for the latter half of the last century. Since 1998, however, that rise has been reduced to only 0.05C. The observation has been seized upon by global warming deniers who say it is evidence that climate change is slowing down and may halt.
But experts reject this claim. In fact, satellite measurements of the solar radiation entering the atmosphere, compared with the radiation being reflected back into space, show there has been no change in the rate of Earth's warming. Most researchers believe that changes in sea currents may be taking heat deep into oceans.
"The heat is still coming in, but it appears to have gone into the deep ocean and, frustratingly, we do not have the instruments to measure there," said Professor Ted Shepherd of Reading University. "Global warming has certainly not gone away."
That's a possibility, although certainly not proven.The oceans are warming up like a giant heat sink not seen in human history, that will initially lead to death of the bottom of the food chain, krill and plankton. The ocean is also approaching an anoxic state that will have many life forms in the oceans die off. Likewise with acidification.
If we accept that theory, it still means we are concluding that the models -- which predicted huge increases in the Earth's surface temperatures -- were completely wrong.
95% certainty from 99% of scientists who study the issue.That's a possibility, although certainly not proven.
Oh, and here's another article from the Guardian that says the pause in warming is not happening.
Note that its more recent then your article.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2014/jan/23/climate-change-global-warming-2013-warmest-years-el-nino
and for bonus, here's a post on the heating of oceans.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/09/what-ocean-heating-reveals-about-global-warming/
It has been proven that the ocean are approaching the anoxic state and acidifying. Readings are not that hard to take, high school student are taught how to measure acidity, and these exercises and have been done over the last 30 years that I know of.That's a possibility, although certainly not proven.
If we accept that theory, it still means we are concluding that the models -- which predicted huge increases in the Earth's surface temperatures -- were completely wrong.
The models are not completely wrong. They just need tweaking, based on new findings, not thrown out all together. Do some reading on the Great Ocean Conveyor and on Lake Green in New York state. This is not new stuff.
Last edited:
Based on the current evidence, I would say they need a hell of a lot of tweaking, since 98 per cent of them failed to predict the "pause" under any scenario. As Dr. Easterbrook said, they have "failed just miserably."The models are not completely wrong. They just need tweaking, based on new findings, not thrown out all together.
Personally, I don't have any problem with people continuing to do research. What I fail to understand, given the current results, is why it is a "crime" to be skeptical.
The Guardian story that I posted was on the IPCC's report. It sounds like you're now rejecting the evidence in the IPCC's report.Oh, and here's another article from the Guardian that says the pause in warming is not happening.
Since the pause is a single error, then the tweaking is minor. The fact that so many missed the mark has more to do with them sung much the same data. Being a a skeptic is not a crime, but being an ill- informed skeptic is just not good and could prove lethal.Based on the current evidence, I would say they need a hell of a lot of tweaking, since 98 per cent of them failed to predict the "pause" under any scenario. As Dr. Easterbrook said, they have "failed just miserably."
Personally, I don't have any problem with people continuing to do research. What I fail to understand, given the current results, is why it is a "crime" to be skeptical.
The Guardian story that I posted was on the IPCC's report. It sounds like you're now rejecting the evidence in the IPCC's report.
A number of other findings were bang on an and worrying.
The report also highlights the striking rate at which sea ice has disappeared from the Arctic. This is shrinking at a rate of between 3.5% and 4.1% every decade. "Satellite measurements began 35 years ago and show dramatic reductions have continued since then," said Professor Jonathan Bamber of Bristol University. Nor is this a recent phenomenon, he added.
"One recent study found a way to assess sea ice cover in the Arctic over the past 1,600 years. At no point in that time were levels found to be as low as they are today. The current drop is probably the handiwork of human beings."
Key holing a finding and claiming it throws the whole report in question is just folly,a d potentially dangerous. What harm is dome by taking measures to reduce CO2 and toxic emissions?Global surface temperatures have risen by almost a degree in the last century. Sea levels have risen, while snow and ice cover has dropped significantly. Coral reefs are being destroyed and weather patterns are becoming wilder and less predictable. And the major cause of this climatic mayhem is now clear. It is the work of humans, who are burning ever increasing amounts of fossil fuel and have raised carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere by 40% in the past 250 years.
The belief that man-made carbon dioxide emissions affect the Earth's climate is pretty central to the theory. The climate researchers all said the evidence would be confirmed in their predictions that we would see huge increases in the Earth's surface temperatures. The fact that those predictions were wrong is pretty central.Key holing a finding and claiming it throws the whole report in question is just folly,a d potentially dangerous. What harm is dome by taking measures to reduce CO2 and toxic emissions?
The Earth's climate is very complex. The idea that computer models could predict the impact of man-made carbon dioxide emissions has always required a gigantic leap of faith. Even more so today, given the evidence.
That said, some policy measures are better than others.
I have huge problems with throwing billions of dollars away on renewable energy. But I have no objections at all to reducing our use of coal-fired plants through alternatives such as gas plants and nuclear.
My concerns about global warming have more to do with the credibility of research that is used to advance political agendas. Even if I support some of the goals, it doesn't mean I should overlook the dubious research that's being used to promote the agenda.
... and so far the only thing they got wrong was the time line. Over the long term the temperature is rising and continuing to rise and the ability of a successful rebound, meaning the humans surviving the rebound, is getting less and less likely. Not something to laugh at.The belief that man-made carbon dioxide emissions affect the Earth's climate is pretty central to the theory. The climate researchers all said the evidence would be confirmed in their predictions that we would see huge increases in the Earth's surface temperatures. The fact that those predictions were wrong is pretty central.
The Earth's climate is very complex. The idea that computer models could predict the impact of man-made carbon dioxide emissions has always required a gigantic leap of faith. Even more so today, given the evidence.
That said, some policy measures are better than others.
I have huge problems with throwing billions of dollars away on renewable energy. But I have no objections at all to reducing our use of coal-fired plants through alternatives such as gas plants and nuclear.
My concerns about global warming have more to do with the credibility of research that is used to advance political agendas. Even if I support some of the goals, it doesn't mean I should overlook the dubious research that's being used to promote the agenda.
Last edited:
The fossil fuel industry already spends $1 billion annually on propaganda and Canada's insurance industry says we had $3 billion worth of extreme weather damage last year in Canada.I have huge problems with throwing billions of dollars away on renewable energy. But I have no objections at all to reducing our use of coal-fired plants through alternatives such as gas plants and nuclear.
.
The AIG says the Global cost in 2011 for extreme weather was $100 billion.
http://www.aig.com/Chartis/internet/US/en/IPG%20Real%20Estate%20Climate%20Change%20Paper_tcm3171-488915.pdf
Spending a few billion to stop it from getting worse makes a lot of sense.
Meanwhile Harper has the PMO fronting an organization that trying to take environmental groups to the CRA to have their charitable status removed.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/7-environmental-charities-face-canada-revenue-agency-audits-1.2526330
How many more billions in damage have to happen before you start thinking its ok to spend some to stop it?
