Report Climate change ipcc

[Methuselah]

I didn't know you deny evolution, MIA; I was certain you do not. Sorry if I've misjudged you, but seeing as you so readily admit it, what can else can I say?

PS: I haven't read Sir Isaac Newton's Principia either...

[Midlands Ice Age]

2 hours ago, Ed Stone said:

I didn't know you deny evolution, MIA; I was certain you do not. Sorry if I've misjudged you, but seeing as you so readily admit it, what can else can I say?

PS: I haven't read Sir Isaac Newton's Principia either...

Ed..

 Go ahead treat yourself...

 Read Chapter 9 and  see who is in denial about this 'settled science'.

MIA

[Methuselah]

20 minutes ago, Midlands Ice Age said:

Ed..

 Go ahead treat yourself...

 Read Chapter 9 and  see who is in denial about this 'settled science'.

MIA

So...now your claiming to know more about uncertainty and error than everyone-else? I dunno, when added to your self-confessed omniscience on all other subjects, your position as the world's foremost climate scientist must make you a true polymath? The People's Polymath?

Have the IPCC's predictions moved outside their projected margins-of-error yet? If not, be sure to let me know when they do...I'll be all ears!

[Midlands Ice Age]

1 hour ago, Ed Stone said:

So...now your claiming to know more about uncertainty and error than everyone-else? I dunno, when added to your self-confessed omniscience on all other subjects, your position as the world's foremost climate scientist must make you a true polymath? The People's Polymath?

Have the IPCC's predictions moved outside their projected margins-of-error yet? If not, be sure to let me know when they do...I'll be all ears!

Ed..

 The good news is that each level of the IPCC report has decreased the lower level of warming.

The early reports quoted around 2.8C - 3.0C. We now see them discussing 1.5C.

Not much difference.? 

Ed  - I am no polymath, I just use my own judgement when looking at data.

The situation is not 97% resolved, as I have heard you repeat.

AGW is a fact, how it impacts the world's climate is not. 

 The following are just a few points I could raise (and there are others). They do not require a detailed knowledge of climate science in order to be able to understand that their effects will have major impact in these models. Also please be aware that these models are just as  complicated compared to the current weather forecast models. You are fully aware of the small differences necessary for a big change in them.

I promised you an example of just one unknown that they are using parameters to define.

It concerns the Arctic Sea Ice extent, and the time it becomes blue water..

We all know that this affects the albedo of the Arctic.

This is fed into the GCM's as either actual data,. and then they use maths to -

a) identify the trend.

b) forecast the future

Now my question is, how accurate and what method do they use and how accurate can that be?  It causes a large amount of implicit error and accuracy of the final forecast output.

I show you some from 3 years ago, compared to today's new expectations.

    Watch carefully how the date varies between 2015 and 2024.

and the new chart produced after the inclusion of the latest data  with what would appear to be realistic statistical measurements of this decline.The 'new' forecast has moved out from 2032 to 2036.

 

What on earth would the parameter be that feeds the resultant calculations through to the next appropriate GCM Module?.

A whole range of numbers could (and I believe should)  be produced dependent upon the statistical model chosen.

However - of note is that the dates have lengthened.

Do you really believe that the above would leave the resultant forecast result unaffected?

 

Yet another well known area which is covered in detail in the report is that of clouds and water vapor.

Both high level  and low level clouds are treated individually as the have been found to have different (opposite) affects in terms of their heat reflection and retention. Have they researched this accurately enough to be able to get it right?. I very much doubt it as the scientists are only just starting to look at them, in any detail. Clouds can be found at any level. Another case for generalisation and yet more 'Parameterisation'. I think so, according to Chapter 9.

The height of the cloud has major impacts on the temperature at the surface, and on  the rate of heat transfer in the stratosphere.

It also ignores any high level compounds in the stratosphere which may or may not be   'triggered'  during different  types of forcing from our sun's cycles.  

Yet another area is that of 'Aerosols' .

These  are not understood at all.

They are explained to be items such as soot, output from Volcanos, and the like, and other unknown substances which appear in the atmosphere.

They have no real idea of what will happen to these levels in the future.

They have used past history to decide on these parameters (by standardisation). They are used as a 'buffer' to be used to try and make the output look something like the history. As soon as this 'bucket'  looks reasonable then they assume they have correctly standardized the models, But what happens if the changes are associated with another natural factor (such as the AMO), which has not yet  been sufficiently researched to add it into the models. Quite possible as the overall affect of the AMO is neutral over its full cycle.

How have the models handled the oceanic effects such as the PDO and the major ENSO oscillations? 

Everyone knows they affect the earth's temperature.  The latest models I have seen were adding in a fixed gain or loss of about 0.3C every 10 or 15 years. This is parameterisation in the extreme!. 

 

All the above (and there are many more) were picked up by reading Chapter 9, and by reading other new scientific literature.

I can tell you that trying to digitise the above accurately,   would be an extremely  lucky guess if they have it correct.

It also leaves much room for adjustment to personal preferences.

As I say, for now do not treat them as 'Gospel'.

MIA 

 

 

 

 

. 

 

 

Edited October 15, 2018 by Midlands Ice Age

[Methuselah]

All that, and still you've nothing useful to say...I'd be more surprised if expectations didn't change with time.

[Gray-Wolf]

Were the early reports not saying they expected warming to be 3c by 2100?

Is this report not saying that staying below 1.5c is a must or we set ourselves on a pathway we could no longer alter and will become ever more costly in both money and lives?

 

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

On 08/10/2018 at 14:13, weirpig said:

With a rather bleak outlook being issued by leading scientists  of global proportion  will the deadline of 12 years really be feasible to keep the temperature to within 1.5c   or is it to late.  with countries such as China,USA consuming at such a high rate  is the Earth about to change for good?.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/08/global-warming-must-not-exceed-15c-warns-landmark-un-report

It’s been 10-12 years for decades.....seriously questionable.  

 

BFTP

Edited October 15, 2018 by BLAST FROM THE PAST

[reef]

2 minutes ago, BLAST FROM THE PAST said:

It’s been 10-12 years for decades.....utter nonsense

 

BFTP

As opposed to ignoring warming altogether and basing everything on solar cycles?

I've never read such utter rubbish in this section as the last few pages in here. It's about time people started posting to the rules of the climate area and backing up their claims with actual scientific evidence rather than waffle.

As was asked a few pages back, just what would those on the other side of the argument need to see before they changed their minds? No-one has answered that one yet I see.

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

Sea levels flooding islands, NYC under water, total ice free arctic, etc etc etc as catastrophically scaremongered....none of it is anywhere near happening....Or it’s put back decades....yawn

 

BFTP

[Methuselah]

39 minutes ago, BLAST FROM THE PAST said:

Sea levels flooding islands, NYC under water, total ice free arctic, etc etc etc as catastrophically scaremongered....none of it is anywhere near happening....Or it’s put back decades....yawn

BFTP

Why do deniers feel the need to stretch the truth to the point where it exceeds its elastic limit?

[4wd]

8 minutes ago, Ed Stone said:

Why do deniers feel the need to stretch the truth to the point where it exceeds its elastic limit?

In what way, it's hardly in dispute that practically none of the warming predictions of doom have happened. 
But every time there' any mildly inconvenient weather event the media bandwagon blames it on climate change, because the indoctrination has been going on for a quarter century now.

[BornFromTheVoid]

58 minutes ago, BLAST FROM THE PAST said:

Sea levels flooding islands, NYC under water, total ice free arctic, etc etc etc as catastrophically scaremongered....none of it is anywhere near happening....Or it’s put back decades....yawn

 

BFTP

You predicted that the sky would permanently consist of yellow polka dots, criss-crossed by unicorns with rainbows emanating from their rear ends by 2015, and yet I've only seen a handful of unicorns to date. I guess we should ignore everything you say about anything. /s

(see, we can do silly fake predictions and make believe observations too!)

[Paul]

Unfortunately, some seem to be muddling what's printed in the media with scientific reports and evidence. To be honest though, in some cases, it's hard to tell if that's a genuine misunderstanding or willfully using whatever supposed 'evidence' is available to try to make one point or another.

The simple facts do remain though, the vast majority of the climate science community is in agreement on this subject. So those who want to disagree really need to find a bit more than just opinion or tenuous, faintly ridiculous stabs at providing 'evidence' such as saying that because media stories about agw have been wrong in the past, then so must all of the science be too.

I'm all for debate, in fact I'd like to see a more open debate in here because it at least gives those with an interest in the science to explain it, discuss it and learn more about it. But not to the extent where it's a total free for all with nothing more than opinion pulled out of thin air, or random unscientific 'evidence' provided as fact. The onus needs to be on those with differing views to provide considered reasoning, hopefully backed up with evidence from legitimate sources so it can be discussed as such.

[Midlands Ice Age]

1 hour ago, reef said:

As opposed to ignoring warming altogether and basing everything on solar cycles?

I've never read such utter rubbish in this section as the last few pages in here. It's about time people started posting to the rules of the climate area and backing up their claims with actual scientific evidence rather than waffle.

As was asked a few pages back, just what would those on the other side of the argument need to see before they changed their minds? No-one has answered that one yet I see.

Reef.

Does not IPCC  V5  Chapter 9 Report constitute actual scientific evidence?.

Everything I have written is taken from that document.

The link is below -

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/

 If I have misinterpreted you could let me know?

It is a very interesting read for all people who are interested in the topic of climate change and gives a good idea as to the complexities contained in trying to rationalise and model it.

MIA

 

[Sugarloaf80]

I feel an immense sense of grief about the impacts of climate change and environmental destruction in general. I wonder if those that feel we cannot impact our environment are aware that we have dried out seas, are causing the 6th mass extinction, rainforest destruction, coral bleaching, plastic pollution not to mention climate change.  It is clear we impact the Earth and it is clear we will be leaving it environmentally in a far worse state than we inherited it. We all know deep down in our unconscious the harm we are doing and I believe it is hurting us whether we recognise it or not. Grief can lead to lead to denial, anger, depression and all of these can be seen on this forum. On this forum we all share a common interest and passion for nature and the forces it creates and the beauty, wonder and power it demonstrates. I think we all know deep down inside that we cannot just keep on living, exploiting nature the way we are and that at some point something is going to give. Hopefully at least we can all agree on that.

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

On 09/10/2018 at 15:11, Paul said:

Am a bit of a loss with this debate. Firstly, because I don't get the name-calling and mudslinging, how does that help?

But secondly and more importantly, I just can't understand how much more evidence some people need? Surely when there's enough consensus amongst virtually all of the worlds leading experts on a subject, then that should be enough to convince all but those who have made up their minds and aren't interested in the science, evidence etc?

But maybe I'm wrong here, so for those deniers out there (I'm not going to use the word sceptics, because being sceptical can surely only last so long, and faced with the mountain of evidence, it has to be impossible to remain sceptical any longer?), what more do you need, what piece of evidence is missing for you right now? Is there anything a climate scientist could show or explain to you to answer the questions you still have?

I get that there will be differing global temperature forecasts, and how natural climate cycles may effect the over-riding trends etc etc. So for those who agree with the principle of AGW but are wondering about the finer details, this isn't aimed at you so much, although, we can probably safely assume the worlds leading experts haven't missed that stuff when looking into all of this prior to putting the IPCC and other reports together! 

When they get it so wrong Paul errr yes we should question. ‘Denier’ usage from the host...hmmm,

 

BFTP

 

Edited October 20, 2018 by BLAST FROM THE PAST

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

On 15/10/2018 at 22:02, Ed Stone said:

Why do deniers feel the need to stretch the truth to the point where it exceeds its elastic limit?

A comment well beneath you Pete...well I thought so anyway

 

BFTP

[Methuselah]

20 hours ago, BLAST FROM THE PAST said:

A comment well beneath you Pete...well I thought so anyway

BFTP

That's hardly fair, Fred...I'm sure I've both seen and heard the Minister for Silly Fonts claim that the globe is cooling?

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

32 minutes ago, Ed Stone said:

That's hardly fair, Fred...I'm sure I've both seen and heard the Minister for Silly Fonts claim that the globe is cooling?

Just see you as the more unbiased commentary Pete, you never normally commit in public no matter your true ‘feelings’. That’s all mate.....keep that mantra

 

BFTP

[nad]

On ‎15‎/‎10‎/‎2018 at 23:08, Midlands Ice Age said:

Reef.

Does not IPCC  V5  Chapter 9 Report constitute actual scientific evidence?.

Everything I have written is taken from that document.

The link is below -

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/

 If I have misinterpreted you could let me know?

It is a very interesting read for all people who are interested in the topic of climate change and gives a good idea as to the complexities contained in trying to rationalise and model it.

MIA

 

 

Hi MIA, thanks for the link.  A tardy response I know, but I don't visit he Blogiverse very often.

Regarding the use of parameters, I found the section “Climate Model Development and Tuning” interesting. It informs us that when developing climate models, some processes have to be parameterized either because they are too complex, or they happen over too small a time scale or area, such as clouds.  Also there will always be a trade off between model resolution and computer resources; the smaller grid or more time steps that are included, the more the computing requirement increases.  Another use of parameters is in establishing what the initial state of the system, much the same as with Numerical Weather Prediction models.

All the separate model components such as the atmosphere model, oceans model, sea ice model and land models are finally combined into a climate model. The model then undergoes a tuning phase. It is at this stage you can get such things as compensating errors, where two or more errors combine to give what appears to be the correct answer. I know from experience, although not from developing climate models, that these types of errors can be quite awkward to debug.

 

Here is a quote from the section.

>>The requirement for model tuning raises the question of whether climate models are reliable for future climate projections. Models are not tuned to match a particular future; they are tuned to reproduce a small subset of global mean observationally based constraints. What emerges is that the models that plausibly reproduce the past, universally display significant warming under increasing green­house gas concentrations, consistent with our physical understanding. <<

 

To me the report seems quite thorough and open when discussing the shortcomings of using parameters in climate models. As to the question of whether they are accurate enough to base policy decisions on, I will leave that decision to others.  

NAD

 

[nad]

For those that like this sort of thing there is a nice table in the Supplemental Material of formulae giving the radiative forcing for some common greenhouse gasses.

I hadn't seen them in this sort of ready reckoner form  before, sorry if I am treading on old ground.

Looking at he latest concentration of Carbon Dioxide I see it is at 407ppm and taking pre-industrial as 280 ppm we get 5.35(ln407 - ln280) = 2.00 W/m2 a nice round number.

A doubling of CO2 gives 5.35(ln560 -  ln280) = 3.7 W/m2,

NAD

 

 

[Midlands Ice Age]

59 minutes ago, nad said:

 

Hi MIA, thanks for the link.  A tardy response I know, but I don't visit he Blogiverse very often.

Regarding the use of parameters, I found the section “Climate Model Development and Tuning” interesting. It informs us that when developing climate models, some processes have to be parameterized either because they are too complex, or they happen over too small a time scale or area, such as clouds.  Also there will always be a trade off between model resolution and computer resources; the smaller grid or more time steps that are included, the more the computing requirement increases.  Another use of parameters is in establishing what the initial state of the system, much the same as with Numerical Weather Prediction models.

All the separate model components such as the atmosphere model, oceans model, sea ice model and land models are finally combined into a climate model. The model then undergoes a tuning phase. It is at this stage you can get such things as compensating errors, where two or more errors combine to give what appears to be the correct answer. I know from experience, although not from developing climate models, that these types of errors can be quite awkward to debug.

 

Here is a quote from the section.

>>The requirement for model tuning raises the question of whether climate models are reliable for future climate projections. Models are not tuned to match a particular future; they are tuned to reproduce a small subset of global mean observationally based constraints. What emerges is that the models that plausibly reproduce the past, universally display significant warming under increasing green­house gas concentrations, consistent with our physical understanding. <<

 

To me the report seems quite thorough and open when discussing the shortcomings of using parameters in climate models. As to the question of whether they are accurate enough to base policy decisions on, I will leave that decision to others.  

NAD

 

Thank you NAD 

It really is detailed read, and gives (even for non-computer people) an insight into the climate issues still to be resolved.  

I had thought that everyone on here had already read it, judging by the comments of the people who expressly believe in it.

When I read it I was shocked that they were admitting as  to how much knowledge is still missing, and their relative shortcomings. That really was a plus for me that these people were allowed to express in detail what is still required to be known about our climate before one can consider the models to be realistic.

The overall summary (produced by politicians for politicians) will never discuss the real issues as regards their accuracy.

I guess most people on here will also stop at that point. 

From the way you speak, I guess you are/were involved in the NWP models?.

I am glad that you pointed out the uncertainty that is introduced by 'back modelling', particularly where parameters are concerned.

As you say any errors can be(are?) (such as in  clouds) reversed by changing other parameters (such as aerosols) in order to produce an accurate representation of history, but will give wildly inaccurate values when projected forward.

I cannot wait for the next version of the main IPCC report (scheduled for 2021?).

MIA

Edit - Just seen your latest post. Yep it is interesting that we are at that point.

 

[Derecho]

On 20/10/2018 at 21:41, BLAST FROM THE PAST said:

When they get it so wrong Paul errr yes we should question. ‘Denier’ usage from the host...hmmm,

 

BFTP

 

Anything to back up your post or are you just going to post stupid one liners with absolutely no context whatsoever? You complain that the arctic sea ice isn't gone yet but that isn't forecast until the 2030s in the IPCC report. You say that sea levels haven't flooded New York yet but that won't happen till later in the century.

Have you actually bothered to read the IPCC report or are you seeking to misinform? I'd have some respect for you if backed up your arguments with scientific literature but you don't. I may not agree with some of the things MIA writes but he posts in more detail. Your posts are just eccentric one liners.

Climate change deniers are the flat earthers of the 21st century, skeptics I have time for. Those who write fake statements and misinform and flat out deny everything in front of them will be laughed at or pitied in 100 years time.

Scientists will get overlooked, told they are part of some money gravy train (despite the fact I was skint at the end of my PhD) whilst the oil barons and politicians intentionally seek to put out misleading information so they fill up their own fat wallets.

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

2 hours ago, Quicksilver1989 said:

Anything to back up your post or are you just going to post stupid one liners with absolutely no context whatsoever? You complain that the arctic sea ice isn't gone yet but that isn't forecast until the 2030s in the IPCC report. You say that sea levels haven't flooded New York yet but that won't happen till later in the century.

Have you actually bothered to read the IPCC report or are you seeking to misinform? I'd have some respect for you if backed up your arguments with scientific literature but you don't. I may not agree with some of the things MIA writes but he posts in more detail. Your posts are just eccentric one liners.

Climate change deniers are the flat earthers of the 21st century, skeptics I have time for. Those who write fake statements and misinform and flat out deny everything in front of them will be laughed at or pitied in 100 years time.

Scientists will get overlooked, told they are part of some money gravy train (despite the fact I was skint at the end of my PhD) whilst the oil barons and politicians intentionally seek to put out misleading information so they fill up their own fat wallets.

So NYC will be flooded later this century.....ok...so when it doesn’t happen then will it be next century?  Your posts are I have a PhD so I MUST BE RIGHT.  No thanks but thank you got trying.....am willing to alter course if we don’t see very meridional jetstream and a cooling trend with extreme winters over next 12 years.

And the Earth isn’t flat and what a statement/allegation,.....should be beneath a ‘scientist’

my thoughts and reasoning are well known, I’ll not get into a further slanging match as the terms ‘Denier’ and flat Earther are both inflammatory and desperate.  Evidence will prove the point....and not ‘later’ this century....

BFTP

 

Edited October 30, 2018 by BLAST FROM THE PAST

[Derecho]

42 minutes ago, BLAST FROM THE PAST said:

So NYC will be flooded later this century.....ok...so when it doesn’t happen then will it be next century?  Your posts are I have a PhD so I MUST BE RIGHT.  No thanks but thank you got trying.....am willing to alter course if we don’t see very meridional jetstream and a cooling trend with extreme winters over next 12 years.

And the Earth isn’t flat and what a statement/allegation,.....should be beneath a ‘scientist’

my thoughts and reasoning are well known, I’ll not get into a further slanging match as the terms ‘Denier’ and flat Earther are both inflammatory and desperate.  Evidence will prove the point....and not ‘later’ this century....

BFTP

 

If sea defenses aren't invested in then regular flooding over parts of the Eastern US is a very realistic possibility, its already beginning to happen in parts of Florida and elsewhere such as the Maldives...

Nothing in science is ever 100% correct but when 97.2% of the scientific community agree that climate change is man made then there is clearly something going on. People who study this subject devote their lives to it so I'd expect an expert opinion to be more valid then my own. How would you like it if someone told you that you were crap at your job every day? despite working hard, sacrificing other things in your life and wondering what its all for? It's easy to say such things on a weather forum but you wouldn't say it to my face.

You seem to be placing all your assumptions on a meridional jet stream to prove yourself correct but 2010 had a very meriodional jet stream and was the warmest year on record at the time. There is a world outside the UK...

Edited October 30, 2018 by Quicksilver1989