Jump to content
Holidays
Local
Radar
Windy?
weirpig

Report Climate change ipcc

Recommended Posts

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?:D

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?:D

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

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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!:good:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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!:good:

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.

Rs69Vim.gif     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.gw5FTvz.gifThe '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 by Midlands Ice Age
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by BLAST FROM THE PAST
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   1 member

×