Jump to content
Cold?
Local
Radar
Snow?

Report Climate change ipcc


Recommended Posts

Just now, Hocus Pocus said:

So if a man believes in god his credentials aren’t worth the paper they’re written on, wow confirmation bias of what I just said above.

Also Judith has produced numerous articles for previous IPCC reports yet remains sceptical of the modelled ( that’s the key word here ) outcomes at the higher end of temp rises. 

So we now have a situation which sees the uncertainties in global temperature projections being replaced with a “We’ve only got 12 years before temps breach the 1.5c threshold, you couldn’t make it up perhaps they are after all these are algorithms we’re talking about right not a set in stone prediction.

I await the next twelve years with a wry smile on my face and will comeback to this then.?

If a man shows no problem dismissing evidence and experts in order to believe an objectively false idea, it's makes me question his reasoning abilities. Does it not make you question his reasoning? Or is the only thing that matters is he supports your viewpoint?
As for Judith Curry producing numerous articles for the IPCC, I doubt that. A reviewer, perhaps. But it's not that difficult to be a reviewer.

Complained about for using uncertainty ranges - complained about when they don't! Also, what's been released is the summary for policy makers i.e., a dumbed down version that non-experts can understand and take away the important points from. The full report will have more detail, uncertainty ranges and more stuff to complain about.

Every year we get predictions of cooling.
It will cool when the PDO turns negative X
It will cool when solar activity declines X
It will cool when the AMO turns negative X
It will cool when a have a prolonged solar minimum X
It will cool when scenario A, B, C or D happens...

Instead we keep warming, and warming, and warming. I see no reason, given the basics physics of the climate, recent trends, computer models, paleoclimate data, etc, that this warming will cease. 1.5C above pre-industrial during the 2030s? Easily more sensible, likely and evidence based than any climate denier theories. 

Though I guess 12 years+ gives plenty of time for more excuses as to why we're not cooling to be dreamed up!

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 806
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

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 ev

The IPBES Global Assessment on biodiversity was released yesterday at https://www.ipbes.net/ and makes grim reading. It lists climate change as an increasing factor in the state of life on our planet.

It's amazing really how you continue to miss the point, I don't think anyone is saying climate change isn't caused by humans in some way, but it's not the sole cause, there are other factor at play, s

Posted Images

Take it up with Judith she’s very approachable you know, this mountain of evidence you keep,referring to only highlights that we're warming just like we did back during the MWP/RWP (  arguments about whether it was global or not for another thread ). 

 

Also whose mentioned cooling per se we know we’re still in a warming trend but what does that mean it’s all down to man or not? Whilst on the subject I do believe the AMO is a big player, in NH temps at least so combined with the projected Grand Solar Minimum we should get a good idea on just how significant mans role in warming is at least.

 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Back in the 2000s, deniers were trumpeting the state of the solar cycles as being responsible for 1998's record warmth (anything as long as it ain't CO2 was the MO?); cooling will start, they insisted, as soon as we approach the upcoming Grand Minimum...But cooling hasn't started; warming hasn't slowed. Ergo, the sun has lost its place, as the latest in a long line of deniers' holy grails...

BTW, the globe was warmer than now, back in the time of the Permian extinction event!:good:

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Hocus Pocus said:

Take it up with Judith she’s very approachable you know, this mountain of evidence you keep,referring to only highlights that we're warming just like we did back during the MWP/RWP (  arguments about whether it was global or not for another thread ). 

 

Also whose mentioned cooling per se we know we’re still in a warming trend but what does that mean it’s all down to man or not? Whilst on the subject I do believe the AMO is a big player, in NH temps at least so combined with the projected Grand Solar Minimum we should get a good idea on just how significant mans role in warming is at least.

 

That's not how these things work! You made the claim that she's produced numerous articles for the IPCC, so the onus is on you to prove that! Any claim made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Other than, say the basic physics of the greenhouse effect, there have been countless studies that have shown CO2 and other GhGs are the main driver of climate change. Every major scientific institution on the planet doesn't support the position that human activity is now the dominant force driving climate change because it feels right. They support that position because of the evidence! For example, one way you can determine if CO2, for example, is causing warming is to look at the energy entering and exiting the Earth's atmosphere. The first things that's noticed is that there is more entering than exiting, which means warming is inevitable. You can then look at the specific wavelengths of energy, because particular materials absorb particular wavelengths. So when you examine the energy wavelength associated with CO2, you can detect a big drop in that energy leaving the atmosphere. That energy then contributes to warming and is directly associated with CO2.
Here's one paper that shows this, but there are loads more to be found with a quick search: https://www.nature.com/articles/35066553

And that's just one line of evidence. Just because climate denier sites don't like to talk about this stuff, doesn't mean it doesn't exist!

Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, BornFromTheVoid said:

That's not how these things work! You made the claim that she's produced numerous articles for the IPCC, so the onus is on you to prove that! Any claim made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Other than, say the basic physics of the greenhouse effect, there have been countless studies that have shown CO2 and other GhGs are the main driver of climate change. Every major scientific institution on the planet doesn't support the position that human activity is now the dominant force driving climate change because it feels right. They support that position because of the evidence! For example, one way you can determine if CO2, for example, is causing warming is to look at the energy entering and exiting the Earth's atmosphere. The first things that's noticed is that there is more entering than exiting, which means warming is inevitable. You can then look at the specific wavelengths of energy, because particular materials absorb particular wavelengths. So when you examine the energy wavelength associated with CO2, you can detect a big drop in that energy leaving the atmosphere. That energy then contributes to warming and is directly associated with CO2.
Here's one paper that shows this, but there are loads more to be found with a quick search: https://www.nature.com/articles/35066553

And that's just one line of evidence. Just because climate denier sites don't like to talk about this stuff, doesn't mean it doesn't exist!

Denier sites........ Judith Curry is a climate scientists held in the highest esteem for goodness sake and who mentioned that man isn’t responsible for some of the warming, he’s not responsible for all by the way but at a best guesstimate around 0.4c of the present warming trend.

That still doesn’t answer what caused the warming during the RWP/MWP, we can’t just dismiss naturals and lay all our eggs into one basket. Yes CO2 levels are contributing to SOME of our warming how much  probably the above you but hot we get is the answer that still remains uncertain despite the nonsense above.

Edited by Hocus Pocus
  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Ed Stone said:

Back in the 2000s, deniers were trumpeting the state of the solar cycles as being responsible for 1998's record warmth (anything as long as it ain't CO2 was the MO?); cooling will start, they insisted, as soon as we approach the upcoming Grand Minimum...But cooling hasn't started; warming hasn't slowed. Ergo, the sun has lost its place, as the latest in a long line of deniers' holy grails...

BTW, the globe was warmer than now, back in the time of the Permian extinction event!:good:

CO2 isn't a singular driver. 350m years ago CO2 levels were around 4,000 ppm. It's currently 409 ppm. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Astral Goat Juice said:

CO2 isn't a singular driver. 350m years ago CO2 levels were around 4,000 ppm. It's currently 409 ppm. 

Ah another old chestnut.

If climate scientists were claiming CO2 was the only driver of climate, then high CO2 during glacial periods would be problematic. But any climate scientist will tell you CO2 is not the only driver of climate.  Climatologist Dana Royer says it best: "the geologic record contains a treasure trove of 'alternative Earths' that allow scientists to study how the various components of the Earth system respond to a range of climatic forcings." Past periods of higher CO2 do not contradict the notion that CO2 warms global temperatures. On the contrary, they confirm the close coupling between CO2 and climate.

These throwaway lines from deniers continue to be spouted as a diversionary tactic and just as swiftly kicked into touch. They do so simply out of desperation at their inability to produce credible scientific evidence to contradict the overwhelming consensus.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed AGJ! Water vapour is a big GHG too. We've raised the atmosphere ability to hold water vapour by over 7% so that would suggest a &% increase in its 'warming' of the planet?

Then we have areas that used to harmlessly deflect incoming energy back into space that now harvests over 90% of that energy.?

So we are in a position where more energy is available and an atmosphere more able to hold onto that energy once reemitted as I.R.?

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

Back in the 2000s, deniers were trumpeting the state of the solar cycles as being responsible for 1998's record warmth (anything as long as it ain't CO2 was the MO?); cooling will start, they insisted, as soon as we approach the upcoming Grand Minimum...But cooling hasn't started; warming hasn't slowed. Ergo, the sun has lost its place, as the latest in a long line of deniers' holy grails...

BTW, the globe was warmer than now, back in the time of the Permian extinction event!:good:

What's your point, regarding the last sentence?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, knocker said:

Ah another old chestnut.

If climate scientists were claiming CO2 was the only driver of climate, then high CO2 during glacial periods would be problematic. But any climate scientist will tell you CO2 is not the only driver of climate.  Climatologist Dana Royer says it best: "the geologic record contains a treasure trove of 'alternative Earths' that allow scientists to study how the various components of the Earth system respond to a range of climatic forcings." Past periods of higher CO2 do not contradict the notion that CO2 warms global temperatures. On the contrary, they confirm the close coupling between CO2 and climate.

These throwaway lines from deniers continue to be spouted as a diversionary tactic and just as swiftly kicked into touch. They do so simply out of desperation at their inability to produce credible scientific evidence to contradict the overwhelming consensus.

What other particles are humans pumping into the atmosphere that contribute to human made global warming more than CO2! 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, SteveB said:

What other particles are humans pumping into the atmosphere that contribute to human made global warming more than CO2! 

Question for you Steve. Do you believe you're seeing something that the thousands of climate scientists aren't in all of this? If so, why do you think they're missing it?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Astral Goat Juice said:

CO2 isn't a singular driver. 350m years ago CO2 levels were around 4,000 ppm. It's currently 409 ppm. 

Something of interest might be the faint young sun paradox

Basically, the sun has brightened over time (1% per 100m years). If we went back a billion years ago, with our current atmospheric make-up, the planet would freeze due to the low solar output, despite the greenhouse gasses.
This means that 350 million years back, the sun was 3.5% dimmer and the atmosphere required much more CO2 and other GhGs to avoid icing over (ignoring other internal factors that influence the climate!).

When you consider that the change in solar output between the Maunder minimum and now is thought to be only 0.1%, a 3.5% drop is truly planet changing.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, SteveB said:

What's your point, regarding the last sentence?

Simply that making a song-and-dance over historical/prehistorical warm/cold periods has no relevance (apart from CO2 being the initial driver in both situations) is always a lost cause, when it comes to point-scoring...AGW is not part of any natural cycle.

Link to post
Share on other sites

http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/archive/ci/30/i12/html/12learn.html

The faint young sun paradox is something I find quite interesting. There's a theory that the Earth's initial first atmosphere was in the region of 50-70bar and through a combination of sputtering and carbonate deposition over time has gradually dropped to today's 1bar - and may continue falling slowly in the future.

I'm not sure if a study has been done on this, but it would be interesting to know how 400ppm of Carbon dioxide affects temperature now versus 350mya when atmospheric pressure was potentially much higher. Could it be with a thinner atmosphere now that Carbon dioxide has a larger net effect on warming than before?

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

Question for you Steve. Do you believe you're seeing something that the thousands of climate scientists aren't in all of this? If so, why do you think they're missing it?

A question with a question for an answer....  my question was a genuine question, which I hoped would get an answer from one of the more knowledgeable climate change academics on here (you included of coarse Paul)

Edited by SteveB
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, SteveB said:

A question with a question for an answer....  my question was a genuine question, which I hoped would get an answer from one of the more knowledgeable climate change academics on here! 

I guess that's what happens after spending years fielding rhetorical (or just plain daft?) 'questions' from deniers? 

The trouble with you lot is that you never listen to the answers you are given...

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Ed Stone said:

I guess that's what happens after spending years fielding rhetorical (or just plain daft?) 'questions' from deniers? 

The trouble with you lot is that you never listen to the answers you are given...

That's not really answering the question either, I fear for any young students who are studying human made climate change, who dare ask such a simple question, if that's the kind of answer they would keep getting.

 

As you like to call us 'basically stupid' because I don't believe climate change is all down to humans, maybe you could educate rather than belittle.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, SteveB said:

That's not really answering the question either, I fear for any young students who are studying human made climate change, who dare ask such a simple question, if that's the kind of answer they would keep getting.

 

As you like to call us 'basically stupid' because I don't believe climate change is all down to humans, maybe you could educate rather than belittle.

I would rather hope that any real young students would ask questions and then digest the answers; they would I hope have a genuine thirst for knowledge?

IMO, those who repeatedly ask the same questions, but never once take note of the answers they receive, are not real students: they have no desire to learn, merely to superficially pass themselves off as being clever...

Creation 'Science' comes immediately to mind.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, BornFromTheVoid said:

Something of interest might be the faint young sun paradox

Basically, the sun has brightened over time (1% per 100m years). If we went back a billion years ago, with our current atmospheric make-up, the planet would freeze due to the low solar output, despite the greenhouse gasses.
This means that 350 million years back, the sun was 3.5% dimmer and the atmosphere required much more CO2 and other GhGs to avoid icing over (ignoring other internal factors that influence the climate!).

When you consider that the change in solar output between the Maunder minimum and now is thought to be only 0.1%, a 3.5% drop is truly planet changing.

Yes that is essentially the point

Until recently, CO2 levels during the late Ordovician were thought to be much greater than 3000 ppm which was problematic as the Earth experienced glacial conditions at this time. The CO2 data covering the late Ordovician is sparse with one data point in the CO2 proxy record close to this period - it has a value of 5600 ppm. Given that solar output was around 4% lower than current levels, CO2 would need to fall to 3000 ppm to permit glacial conditions. Could CO2 levels have fallen this far? Given the low temporal resolution of the CO2 record, the data was not conclusive.

Research examining strontium isotopes in the sediment record shed more light on this question (Young 2009). Rock weathering removes CO2 from the atmosphere. The process also produces a particular isotope of strontium, washed down to the oceans via rivers. The ratio of strontium isotopes in sediment layers can be used to construct a proxy record of continental weathering activity. The strontium record shows that around the middle Ordovician, weatherability increased leading to an increased consumption of CO2. However, this was balanced by increased volcanic outgassing adding CO2 to the atmosphere. Around 446 million years ago, volcanic activity dropped while rock weathering remained high. This caused CO2 levels to fall below 3000 ppm, initiating cooling. It turns out falling CO2 levels was the cause of late Ordovician glaciation.

 

Edited by knocker
  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, SteveB said:

That's not really answering the question either, I fear for any young students who are studying human made climate change, who dare ask such a simple question, if that's the kind of answer they would keep getting.

 

As you like to call us 'basically stupid' because I don't believe climate change is all down to humans, maybe you could educate rather than belittle.

When you ask a question that you already know the answer too, or which is simple to find the answer to (we're not pumping any other particles into the atmosphere that's contributing more to global warming than CO2), the question comes across as disingenuous and you kinda increase the chances of not getting the response you were after. 

For the record, young students appear to be managing just fine!

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

IMO, those who repeatedly ask the same questions, but never once take note of the answers they receive, are not real students: they have no desire to learn, merely to superficially pass themselves off as being clever...

The modern, social media driven, term for that kinda questioning is "sealioning"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning

Edited by BornFromTheVoid
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it may help also if you show your initial understanding of the climate system when asking a question?

So we could have " we know CO2 traps , and holds, I.R. energy in the atmosphere but are there any other particles we produce that do similar?"

We might then say 'soot' can cause issues both a a particle in the atmosphere but also as it is washed out onto ice cover so darkening it and speeding its melt...... See! that worked didn't it?

You could maybe say " We know CO2 warms the planet but do we do anything that might balance that out?" and we'd say " well the sulphates we produce when we burn dirty fossil fuels can act the same way they do when eruptions put them in the atmosphere. Sadly they are short lived so any 'dimming' they produce is fleeting unless we continuously replace them ( unlike CO2 that has hundreds of years of impact before the carbon cycle reclaims it and takes it out of the atmosphere)...." again , that seems to work?

I think you needed to have spent 2 decades embattled with the paid deniers and their unwaged lasky's to 'get' how PTSD folk so abused become. So many phrases/questions that to you appear innocent are in fact 'triggers'. I do not think we look for excusing just empathy and understanding?

As I see things 'We' lost and the deniers won so no matter that we poured our heart into defending the science/enlightening the lurkers it was all to no avail and we now find ourselves on the slow countdown ( 12 yrs did the IPCC give us to act decisively?) .

Even though we were trounced and the planet kept on polluting, business as usual, the deniers were out in force once the latest ,strong worded, report came out. As if they needed to bother. The planet will not act. We saw as much over the past two decades did we not?

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ed Stone said:

I would rather hope that any real young students would ask questions and then digest the answers; they would I hope have a genuine thirst for knowledge?

IMO, those who repeatedly ask the same questions, but never once take note of the answers they receive, are not real students: they have no desire to learn, merely to superficially pass themselves off as being clever...

Creation 'Science' comes immediately to mind.

You guy's are something else.... 

I can't be bothered.....

 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Gray-Wolf said:

I think it may help also if you show your initial understanding of the climate system when asking a question?

So we could have " we know CO2 traps , and holds, I.R. energy in the atmosphere but are there any other particles we produce that do similar?"

We might then say 'soot' can cause issues both a a particle in the atmosphere but also as it is washed out onto ice cover so darkening it and speeding its melt...... See! that worked didn't it?

You could maybe say " We know CO2 warms the planet but do we do anything that might balance that out?" and we'd say " well the sulphates we produce when we burn dirty fossil fuels can act the same way they do when eruptions put them in the atmosphere. Sadly they are short lived so any 'dimming' they produce is fleeting unless we continuously replace them ( unlike CO2 that has hundreds of years of impact before the carbon cycle reclaims it and takes it out of the atmosphere)...." again , that seems to work?

I think you needed to have spent 2 decades embattled with the paid deniers and their unwaged lasky's to 'get' how PTSD folk so abused become. So many phrases/questions that to you appear innocent are in fact 'triggers'. I do not think we look for excusing just empathy and understanding?

As I see things 'We' lost and the deniers won so no matter that we poured our heart into defending the science/enlightening the lurkers it was all to no avail and we now find ourselves on the slow countdown ( 12 yrs did the IPCC give us to act decisively?) .

Even though we were trounced and the planet kept on polluting, business as usual, the deniers were out in force once the latest ,strong worded, report came out. As if they needed to bother. The planet will not act. We saw as much over the past two decades did we not?

Thank you Gray-wolf, A suburb answer.

 

I also like the theory regarding solar output & solar dimming that Knocker mentioned.

Edited by SteveB
  • Like 2
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
×
×
  • Create New...