Jump to content
Holidays
Local
Radar
Snow?
Sign in to follow this  
weirpig

Report Climate change ipcc

Recommended Posts

12 minutes ago, Quicksilver1989 said:

Completely agree with your post and sorry if what I said came across a bit too strong. It's not really a problem on here, it's much worse on social media, especially Facebook where you can't attach figures onto the posts of group pages. That makes it especially difficult because I think good Figures are the best way to get the science across.

I think outreach is one of the things I enjoy most about science, I'd love to do it more often as I think science definitely needs more of it. I even remember in education the first time I came across a weather lesson was when I was 18 in college and that was just a lesson on cold and warm fronts which hardly made up any marks in my geography paper! The only way I learnt about meteorology was following the model output threads for a couple of years beforehand.

So more defintely needs to be done. When I first heard about climate change I was sceptical because I thought it was depressing and I held on whatever hope that it may not be too bad. Sadly as I studied about climate change more and more, my concerns grew. We really need progress soon 🙁

This is a crucial point - becoming ‘woke’ (hate that term but hey it works) to climate change means going through a dramatic shift in thinking - it’s not pleasant realising all the reassurances previously held are based on untrue expectations and facing the grave reality of a world warming scarily quickly.

I can totally understand why sceptics cling onto their beliefs - it’s more convenient and means they can still do all the wreckless things they shouldn’t be doing without the guilt or the need to mitigate.

Having the backup of figures to prove the reality is essential, but also being reasonable and supportive to anyone yet to enter - or going through - that process of the belief-shift is also critical.

I can think of many, many anxious nights after having read this or that report thinking “no there must be some misunderstanding”. There isn’t, we need to look after the planet, because up until now we’ve not been doing.

There’s still hope and a world of options to change our behaviour etc. once you’ve made it and overcome your own scepticism, but you have to come to terms with some sobering s**t first 💩

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IIRC back in the mid noughties the paid deniers made it plain that those who followed them should 'disrupt' any climate debate they encountered so as to make it unpleasant for anyone looking in.

We all know what this meant in here!

15 years later and this is what you still see, be it in comments of MSM , be it in forums like this, be it in blog comment sections be it wherever?

The work done by XR has again raised the profile of AGW and the dangers it poses to our continuance, as is, on this planet?

Expect a backlash of hard core deniers again trying to disrupt any discussion on every platform!

 

Just seen weirpig's post so I'd like update his CO2 rate to 410ppm+ and rising.

 

The rate we have pumped GHG's into the atmosphere is over ten times the speed of release we see in the PETM so 'Yes' we are playing 'catchup' with the potential temp current levels of GHG demands we see?

When we look at the Arctic this year we see Extent/Area at record low levels and likely to remain so for all of April.

Weather up there has not been that of a 'perfect melt storm synoptic' yet still we sit lower than any other year including the 'perfect melt storm' year!

 

Since the flip of the Pacific naturals , back in 2014, to a positive sign ( augmenting AGW) we have witnessed top 5 global temps each year. The Southern Hemisphere just saw a record warm summer season so what do we , in the N. Hemisphere think our summer will end up being for us?

With record global warmth and the Pacific areas impacted by the flip in the Interdecadal  Pacific Oscillation (IPO) now flooding the Bering/Beaufort side of the Arctic basin how do folk think melt season will go this year?

To be record low at this time of years means stretches of open water early in the season so warming potentially higher than ever before. We will see a 'ring of fire' develop around the remaining ice that will rapidly melt out any ice floated into those regions.....

So what do we think a 'blue Ocean event' will mean for global temps/circulation?

Change is here and the cascade events will only become ever more impacting as we move forward

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
20 minutes ago, weirpig said:

as i understand it the current level  is around 400ppm   which is around the same amount as in the  Pliocene era  many millions years ago.   The only difference was that Temps at the time were much higher  which caused  the Artic to melt and cause much higher sea levels.   I often wondered why the difference in Temps were so different to now?.   It seems that however  there could well be a lag in the effects of the ppmm    and we are not seeing the true effects this will come some years after.  The question i pose is this.  Global warming isnt going to be solved in the next few years  infact by the time the world gets its act together  i expect PPMM levels to be much higher.  If eventually we do meet our current targets (which is a big if)   Then allowing for a lag effects  we may already be doomed.    As there been any scientific papers published  that state that levels will drop to acceptable levels if we reduce our carbon levels?  or is a case that the damage as been caused  and that co levels will continue to rise  ( as natural progression)  and 400ppmm is now just our new starting point 

Here's my suggestion, Mark: way back then, the continents were not arranged as they are now, giving rise to an entirely different set of both oceanic and wind currents...?

image.thumb.png.5bb658be70d0418b78c4e3dbae4d0c52.png

Edited by Ed Stone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Ed Stone said:

Here's my suggestion, Mark: way back then, the continents were not arranged as they are now, giving rise to an entirely different set of both oceanic and wind currents...?

image.thumb.png.5bb658be70d0418b78c4e3dbae4d0c52.png

I understand that Pete.  But i suppose my question was  how sure are the experts  that  if we do reduce our CO emisions  will the levels drop to acceptable levels?.  could there possibly a tipping point that we have already passed  that we have done so much damage already that this is now our base level.  maybe we will slow down the rises  but natural co emmisions will still cause it   rise  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
46 minutes ago, weirpig said:

as i understand it the current level  is around 400ppm   which is around the same amount as in the  Pliocene era  many millions years ago. 

Yup the mid Pliocene (3-4 million years ago is seen as a particularly important period to study due to CO2 levels being similar to that of today.

 The only difference was that Temps at the time were much higher  which caused  the Artic to melt and cause much higher sea levels.   I often wondered why the difference in Temps were so different to now?.   It seems that however  there could well be a lag in the effects of the ppmm    and we are not seeing the true effects this will come some years after. 

This is a concern that the Arctic is slow at responding to the levels of CO2 increase currently seen, although it is already the fastest warming area of the planet. That highlights the need for action now. The mid - Pliocene is a period covering a million years whilst our CO2 emissions have increased rapidly to the same level over 150 years. The level of arctic warming seen from the proxies in this period may be particularly high due to Milankovitch cycles which aren't a worry for us at the moment. So it may add a bit uncertainty as to how dramatic arctic warming could be.

So this effectively underlines the importance of doing something now. 1.5C-2C is seen as a threshold for dangerous warming because runaway effects (tipping points) are at risk of being breached.

The question i pose is this.  Global warming isnt going to be solved in the next few years  infact by the time the world gets its act together  i expect PPMM levels to be much higher.  If eventually we do meet our current targets (which is a big if)   Then allowing for a lag effects  we may already be doomed.    As there been any scientific papers published  that state that levels will drop to acceptable levels if we reduce our carbon levels?  or is a case that the damage as been caused  and that co levels will continue to rise  ( as natural progression)  and 400ppmm is now just our new starting point 

There will undoubtably be lag which is likely to be why 1.5C-2C is seen as a reference point. There will be consequences as a result but we can overcome them. Leave it too long and we are in deep trouble. I'd like to comment more but I haven't studies paleoclimate to as much of a detailed extent as more recent climate. The period I've studied most outside modern times is the Eemian 5e which was another warm period but that was sparked by Milankovitch cycles. They occur on timescales of thousands of years lol. The closest we can get to our CO2 increase is the PETM which I believe took place over thousands of years. This coincided with a mass extinction, thought to be triggered by a release in methane emissions spiking the warming even more.

Edit: I forgot to mention the other key thing is what happens to our ocean and land carbon cycles, if they remain a sink it would be easier to get back towards a cooler climate state, if not then we would obviously need to find more ways of trapping CO2 ourselves.

 

Edited by Quicksilver1989

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, weirpig said:

I understand that Pete.  But i suppose my question was  how sure are the experts  that  if we do reduce our CO emisions  will the levels drop to acceptable levels?.  could there possibly a tipping point that we have already passed  that we have done so much damage already that this is now our base level.  maybe we will slow down the rises  but natural co emmisions will still cause it   rise  

It would be better if you didn't, Mark...yours truly copied entirely the wrong image!!!:wallbash::fool:

I knew I should have googled 'Plasticine'!:gathering:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I retain an open mind on climate change and if any change is because of human and industrial activity.

But there are plenty of scientists who argue against both climate change and/or global warming caused by humans and our by-products, such as CO2 omissions. Should they be deemed wrong or barmy or something else? To be ignored or 'allowed' in on the debate? A huge list on wiki. 

Thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Bristle boy said:

I retain an open mind on climate change and if any change is because of human and industrial activity.

But there are plenty of scientists who argue against both climate change and/or global warming caused by humans and our by-products, such as CO2 omissions. Should they be deemed wrong or barmy or something else? To be ignored or 'allowed' in on the debate? A huge list on wiki. 

Thoughts?

Genuine question, what would like to see clarification on before moving either way?

Wiki does have a list of those who have expressed some skepticism but quite a few of those are studying other subjects, geology for example I couldn't really comment on because I don't know much about that area. Climate change is also complex and therefore those who study it to the greatest extent are likely to have the most knowledge to assess the situation. Skepticism is healthy though but only if its for the sake of further knowledge.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_who_disagree_with_the_scientific_consensus_on_global_warming

I don't really rate Piers Corbyn as a scientist though lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Bristle boy said:

I retain an open mind on climate change and if any change is because of human and industrial activity.

But there are plenty of scientists who argue against both climate change and/or global warming caused by humans and our by-products, such as CO2 omissions. Should they be deemed wrong or barmy or something else? To be ignored or 'allowed' in on the debate? A huge list on wiki. 

Thoughts?

But are they climate scientists? If one had severe chest-pains, would one visit an MD or a botanist?:oldgrin:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Devonian said:

She gets it, my god she gets it! 👍

 

i cant argue with anything she says.  But will anything dramatic happen?.  I really doubt it.  I cannot see any of the guidelines being met   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

The fact may's chair remained unoccupied for the duration highlights Greta's problem with 'the powers that be'?

Corbyn may well have positioned himself where only the Greens once stood and his party spoken fine words but we have had plenty of 'fine words' these last 3 decades yet here we still are facing a potential 'existential crisis'.

Even XR have been invited for talks with govt. but then we've seen what talking with the current shower leads to haven't we?

 

Sadly I'm still of the opinion that this will be a 'bottom up' affair with the people being the ones to drive change via direct action?

In the 90's we saw politicians falling over themselves to claim 'Green credentials' and it was no more than aa cynical vote catching ruse. The people will not allow this to happen again so I hope XR reps stand strong and take no B.S. when they meet with govt.!

I bang on about Yamal this coming summer but we have seen 2 papers over recent weeks both highlighting how much GHG's are to be released ( from the top 3m of permafrost studied) and how big an issue NOX suddenly is with 12 times the amount of this '300 times as powerful as CO2 ' gas is entering our atmosphere as we believed.

Hopefully the 'big event' which tips the public over into becoming active in their demands will not cost too many lives but fully scare the carp out of those who learn of it? Yamal would give us this ( whilst peeing off Putin as his natural gas reserves empty and his trade with the east collapses)

Edited by Gray-Wolf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, weirpig said:

i cant argue with anything she says.  But will anything dramatic happen?.  I really doubt it.  I cannot see any of the guidelines being met   

You're nae a fan of 'guidelines' either then, Mark? Politicians do love guidelines, don't they? That way, they can talk the talk whilst leaving the walking to others...

Aye, you can call me 'cynical'!

PS: A stonking win, for your mob tonight, would be great!:yahoo:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Ed Stone said:

But are they climate scientists? If one had severe chest-pains, would one visit an MD or a botanist?:oldgrin:

LOL...

But you do go to Hansen and Attenborough most days for climate science?

MIA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Midlands Ice Age said:

LOL...

But you do go to Hansen and Attenborough most days for climate science?

MIA

We would hear what they have come to understand but I'm sure most folk , like us, would also then look at the biblio and check the papers/studies/data they brought to us?

Do you think we do not know what we're doing after 30 yrs of investment or are you saying we are mindless enough just to 'soak up' every bit of carp that floats by us???

How many , on this board, came in here as teens and are now MSC or above in climate science on the back of the grounding they found in here?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Midlands Ice Age said:

LOL...

But you do go to Hansen and Attenborough most days for climate science?

MIA

I'm pretty sure Hansen was a climate scientist?

Unless you are referring to the football pundit Alan Hansen? Remember his comment on the Man United team in 1995? "You never win anything with snowflakes". Look how that turned out....

As for Attenborough he has been campaigning about the issues for years and raising awareness after educating himself about the issue. 97% is a very high consensus for a scientific subject.

Do you think someone who has interests in oil is going to care about what is best for climate when their own huge amounts of wealth may take a hit? I don't think so.

 

Edited by Quicksilver1989

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

here is a genuine question..how much does science know really about the climate of our planet..the atmosphere..past climate etc??..lets be honest we still struggle to model and predict the weather on a week to week basis..to model the climate in 30 or 100 years time has to include a lot of guess work and assumptions..that may be completely wrong. Nothing in science is ever a done deal and never will be ..we will never know everything about everything..all we know is the climate has warmed dramatically esp in the last 40-50 years in areas that have kept accurate records..we believe the major cause is CO2...but could there be something else that's is driving this warming..that we just haven't found or have completely missed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Bristle boy said:

I retain an open mind on climate change and if any change is because of human and industrial activity.

But there are plenty of scientists who argue against both climate change and/or global warming caused by humans and our by-products, such as CO2 omissions. Should they be deemed wrong or barmy or something else? To be ignored or 'allowed' in on the debate? A huge list on wiki. 

Thoughts?

There's only a handful of scientists with any strong climate related credentials that dispute that we're causing all or at least the vast majority of the warming, and most of those don't actively research and publish much anymore and are fundamentalist Christians and/or far right/libertarian (which goes some way to explaining their out of kilter views). 
There's similar levels of certainty wrt humans driving climate change as there is in evolution.  Also,there are no climate scientists, that I'm aware of, that dispute the GhG theory, only the magnitude positive feedback mechanisms.

If the list you're referring to is the Oregon petition, just do a little reading up on it. There are so many flaws in it it's quite humourous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, cheeky_monkey said:

here is a genuine question..how much does science know really about the climate of our planet..the atmosphere..past climate etc??..lets be honest we still struggle to model and predict the weather on a week to week basis..

Weather and climate are 2 different things. Climate is the weather averaged out over a period of 30 years or more and the models only predict a few days at different locations. Global average temperatures are far more representative with regards to the amount of heat in the Earth's atmosphere and vary to a much smaller degree. You are therefore comparing apples and oranges.

to model the climate in 30 or 100 years time has to include a lot of guess work and assumptions..that may be completely wrong. Nothing in science is ever a done deal and never will be ..we will never know everything about everything..all we know is the climate has warmed dramatically esp in the last 40-50 years in areas that have kept accurate records..we believe the major cause is CO2...but could there be something else that's is driving this warming..that we just haven't found or have completely missed?

I think the GHG theory is very sound though and we have proxy records going back much further that also show a link between CO2 and temperature variations. A picture of the CO2 effect can be seen here:

image.thumb.png.107c80ae58837d7501a4fbc416a83041.png

If you want to test it out, walk into a greenhouse on a sunny day 🙂. Alternatively Venus shows the GHG effect to much more of an extreme. If solar was responsible then global temperatures would have started dropping after 1985 (the grand maximum). However as you rightly acknowledge global temperatures have warmed dramatically in the last 40 years.

In fact we can be confident of global temperatures in the past 150 as we have sufficient land and ocean coverage for calculations. Station data has been homogenised and validation has been obtained by parallel measurements (direct comparisons between new observation methods and old), so I'm not sure what more can be done.

There are still some uncertainties left over due to coverage and potential sampling issues, but looking at the below picture it is pretty comprehensive?

image.thumb.png.991e285888186cea0dc8d1a6ad49c57e.png

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, cheeky_monkey said:

here is a genuine question..how much does science know really about the climate of our planet..the atmosphere..past climate etc??..lets be honest we still struggle to model and predict the weather on a week to week basis..to model the climate in 30 or 100 years time has to include a lot of guess work and assumptions..that may be completely wrong. Nothing in science is ever a done deal and never will be ..we will never know everything about everything..all we know is the climate has warmed dramatically esp in the last 40-50 years in areas that have kept accurate records..we believe the major cause is CO2...but could there be something else that's is driving this warming..that we just haven't found or have completely missed?

The planet as a whole has warmed a large amount, this is certain and not limited to just the areas with long term instrumental records. It's like if everything in your freezer is thawing, but you claim you don't know if it really is warming because the thermostat is only using the temperature in one part of the freezer!

We'd have to discard and re-evaluate centuries of physics and question loads about what we think we know of the universe, if it turns out the CO2 hasn't been causing warming.
We can literally measure the energy entering the earth's atmosphere from the sun and what is leaving the planet, using ground based sensors and satellites. We can not only detect that more is entering than is leaving (the planet's energy budget is out of balance which means we are certain to warm more) but we can detect, to a reasonable degree of accuracy, the specific energy wavelengths that are being blocked from leaving the atmosphere and tie those to CO2 and other GhGs.

Basically, the science behind all of this stuff, from the models, the the basic physics and optics, the paleoclimate data and the physical evidence and observations we have nowadays, all point to the same thing. Humans are responsible for the climate warming and it's going to get worse before it gets any better. How much worse it gets depends on the steps we take now.

This is why most climate scientists are so certain and the calls for action are growing louder and louder. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Midlands Ice Age said:

LOL...

But you do go to Hansen and Attenborough most days for climate science?

MIA

To whom would you suggest I go? Piers Corbyn?🤣 Nigel Lawson?🤣 Lord Monckton?🤣 Anthony Watts?🤣 Donald Trump?🤣 Nigel Farage?🤣 Your good self, even?:oldgood:

Edited by Ed Stone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HI ya guys..

 Back after quite a delay with my eyes. 

I had bi-focal lens fitted and it takes up to 6 weeks to get the focus back roughly correct again.

 

I have read the last couple of pages and see that my posting have been mis-represented.

I seem to be being classified by you guys as a 'science denier'.

I am nothing of the sort,

I obtained a degree in Chemistry and specialised in Organic Chemistry. I looked at the proteins in the stomach for my thesis and specialised on Tryptophan.

I spent 30years in my career specialising on computer programming and analysis  in  and around large and complex systems,   and in the last 10 years of my career I concentrated on modelling.

 

Why is the above relevant?

Well I am not a climate 'science' denier.

I have read extensively IPCCC Rel 5 reports in the areas of the predicted short, medium and long term temperature changes (Chapters 10-12)   and also the Evaluation and use of the models Chapter 9. 

As a result I  'believe' is that we will end up with between a 1.2 and 2.0C increase in temperature by 2100.

I enclose a copy of the key chart from the long term discussion  (below)..

 

As can be seen (and taking the modelled 'science' as being correct), it is not expected that we will see any significant divergence from the 4 scenarios shown (RCP's 2.6,4.5, 6.0 and 8.5), until around 2030 (2025 at the very earliest). 

Recent history (last 5-10 years) has indicated that the temperature is currently trending at around the RCP 4.5 environment, (call  it  4-5), and this is with a very substantial EL Nino  during this period.  (I am sure we have all seen the recent charts from GISS, NASA,  HADCRUT, UAH and RSS (as produced by people like Roy Spencer). If not then they should be referenced easily.

These RCP scenarios 'indicate' an actual warming of between 1.5 and just over 2.0C for  around the year 2100. 

At the current levels of temperature and CO2 increase it is still impossible to tell which temperature pathway we are on.

All recent reports published (with a climate extinction flavour) use RCP8.5 as their basis.

This is currently  no justification (apart from politics) for using this as the 'correct' prediction.

 

Now , all the above is based upon official IPCC 'science', as shown in the latest IPCC reports, and the latest actual temperatures.  .

 

Paul suggests that (I)?,(so called deniers),  will never change my mind. However I will,  assuming that the temperature profiles  in 5 -10 years correspond with a 'worrying' scenario.  In my opinion it is too early to be able to justify. Perhaps that is my scientific scepticism coming to the fore.

Re the above - and this is where my background in modelling is relevant. 

I have previously explained that with (still)  around 30 parameters in use in the models, they should not be regarded as being capable of producing accurate forecasts.

A post I sent some while ago detailing relevant material had the details removed by a Mod.   

Experience has taught me that widely differing results can be obtained by changing just one parameter.  Changing 30  in order to try and produce our recent temperature and profile history, and  then to use this to try and forecast the future does not inspire me (yet) with the sort of confidence in the models displayed by many believers in CAGW -  I assume with no  knowledge of modelling.

My understanding is that there are still around 25 in use in the next release of the report next year. 

My experience with models tells me that there are still large sections of the models that rely on approximations (parameters) in order to obtain a prediction.   I still have the feeling that a temperature increase of around 2.0C would be beneficial for the earth and particularly humanity.

Some on here would rather believe a 15 year old schoolgirl, and the diatribes by XR,   than to trust people who have been removed (or had to resign)  from their jobs ((such as Peter Ridd, Judith Curry, etc),and Roy Spencer and others)  who despite  their 35 years of actual research in the area, claim that the science was/is  not yet sufficiently understood.  

I am afraid that I agree with them. It may not make me popular on here, but I reserve the right to hold my views. 

The above gives my 'take' on where I/we are today.. It may not agree  with many on here. I felt that my opinions where being mis-represented, and therefore claimed the right of response..

I promise Paul that I will say no more, and to not to discuss the subject further.

MIA 

Screenshot 2019-04-24 12.21.09.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Midlands Ice Age said:

I obtained a degree in Chemistry and specialised in Organic Chemistry. I looked at the proteins in the stomach for my thesis and specialised on Tryptophan.

I spent 30years in my career specialising on computer programming and analysis  in  and around large and complex systems,   and in the last 10 years of my career I concentrated on modelling.

 

Why is the above relevant?

Well I am not a climate 'science' denier.

Still not relevant though, just because I study climate doesn't mean I know anything about stomach proteins.

I have read extensively IPCCC Rel 5 reports in the areas of the predicted short, medium and long term temperature changes (Chapters 10-12)   and also the Evaluation and use of the models Chapter 9. 

As a result I  'believe' is that we will end up with between a 1.2 and 2.0C increase in temperature by 2100.

Do you expect us to cut down on CO2 emissions within the next 10 years then?

I enclose a copy of the key chart from the long term discussion  (below)..

 

As can be seen (and taking the modelled 'science' as being correct), it is not expected that we will see any significant divergence from the 4 scenarios shown (RCP's 2.6,4.5, 6.0 and 8.5), until around 2030 (2025 at the very earliest). 

Recent history (last 5-10 years) has indicated that the temperature is currently trending at around the RCP 4.5 environment, (call  it  4-5), and this is with a very substantial EL Nino  during this period.  (I am sure we have all seen the recent charts from GISS, NASA,  HADCRUT, UAH and RSS (as produced by people like Roy Spencer). If not then they should be referenced easily.

But this isn't based off just the past 10 years but a lot longer. Global temperatures now are roughly 0.25C to 0.35C warmer then 10 years ago so where does the assumption that we are only going to warm up to +2.0C at most if things stay as they are. As it stands at the moment we are doing slightly worse then the worst case scenario!

All recent reports published (with a climate extinction flavour) use RCP8.5 as their basis.

This is currently  no justification (apart from politics) for using this as the 'correct' prediction.

What evidence have you got to back up that statement? As I said earlier we are currently going through the top end of the scenarios...

Now , all the above is based upon official IPCC 'science', as shown in the latest IPCC reports, and the latest actual temperatures.  .

Paul suggests that (I)?,(so called deniers),  will never change my mind. However I will,  assuming that the temperature profiles  in 5 -10 years correspond with a 'worrying' scenario.  In my opinion it is too early to be able to justify. Perhaps that is my scientific scepticism coming to the fore.

I don't know what more could convince you but at least you are willing to change your mind. My concern is people would have said the exact same thing 10 years ago and will be happy to wait until it is too late.

Re the above - and this is where my background in modelling is relevant. 

I have previously explained that with (still)  around 30 parameters in use in the models, they should not be regarded as being capable of producing accurate forecasts.

Have you worked on their models yourself, there have been proven to accurately predict past variations in temperature as shown in the below Figure.
image.thumb.png.4e6db80dd851947e164523d0fae66128.png

You can read more about it here: https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models-intermediate.htm

There have been so many studies which have looked into this but you don't provide any studies that cast any doubt on the findings.

Experience has taught me that widely differing results can be obtained by changing just one parameter.  Changing 30  in order to try and produce our recent temperature and profile history, and  then to use this to try and forecast the future does not inspire me (yet) with the sort of confidence in the models displayed by many believers in CAGW -  I assume with no  knowledge of modelling.

But climatologists themselves do have lots of experience of modelling, it's all I ever did for my thesis! Besides parameters themselves are changed and then the standard deviations of those different models are used to calculate the uncertainty estimate!

My understanding is that there are still around 25 in use in the next release of the report next year. 

My experience with models tells me that there are still large sections of the models that rely on approximations (parameters) in order to obtain a prediction.   I still have the feeling that a temperature increase of around 2.0C would be beneficial for the earth and particularly humanity.

Some countries may disagree with that statement...

Some on here would rather believe a 15 year old schoolgirl, and the diatribes by XR,   than to trust people who have been removed (or had to resign)  from their jobs ((such as Peter Ridd, Judith Curry, etc),and Roy Spencer and others)  who despite  their 35 years of actual research in the area, claim that the science was/is  not yet sufficiently understood.  

Ageism again, just because Greta is younger then you doesn't make her stupid. WRT Peter Ridd I have read the thesis his student produced and it is the worst I've ever seen. He also has connections with oil surprise surprise. Are you willing to disregard the 97% for the 3% who may well have vested interests.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Midlands Ice Age said:

...

Experience has taught me that widely differing results can be obtained by changing just one parameter.  Changing 30  in order to try and produce our recent temperature and profile history, and  then to use this to try and forecast the future does not inspire me (yet) with the sort of confidence in the models displayed by many believers in CAGW -  I assume with no  knowledge of modelling.

My understanding is that there are still around 25 in use in the next release of the report next year. 

My experience with models tells me that there are still large sections of the models that rely on approximations (parameters) in order to obtain a prediction.   I still have the feeling that a temperature increase of around 2.0C would be beneficial for the earth and particularly humanity.

Some on here would rather believe a 15 year old schoolgirl, and the diatribes by XR,   than to trust people who have been removed (or had to resign)  from their jobs ((such as Peter Ridd, Judith Curry, etc),and Roy Spencer and others)  who despite  their 35 years of actual research in the area, claim that the science was/is  not yet sufficiently understood.  

I am afraid that I agree with them. It may not make me popular on here, but I reserve the right to hold my views. 

The above gives my 'take' on where I/we are today.. It may not agree  with many on here. I felt that my opinions where being mis-represented, and therefore claimed the right of response..

I promise Paul that I will say no more, and to not to discuss the subject further.

MIA 

Screenshot 2019-04-24 12.21.09.png

I don't think anyone suggest you shouldn't have you say? I welcome your views. Mostly you're polite too (see below tho)

Anyway, it's good your eyes are improved 👍

Wrt prediction, if you think they are unreliable, why might they not underestimate warming?

Wrt Peter Ridd - aiui his specialism is corals.

Your description of XR is noted. I have to say someone close to me has been to the XR events in London - she, and afaict they, don't do diatribes.  My god, some of the criticisms of XR I've seen - now they ARE diatribes, and the best 'quality' ones too!

 

 

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
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...