Jump to content
Cold?
Local
Radar
Snow?

Report Climate change ipcc


Recommended Posts

  • 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

46 minutes ago, Snipper said:

How many trees do I need to plant in my back garden to compensate for one new Chinese coal fired power station?

The idea that it's down to individual actions to combat CO2 output is silly, I agree. We can make every sacrifice we can, but it won't amount to much if the big changes don't come from the top down. The main influence we can have on global warming is through our voting and pressuring of politicians.


Saying that, China's renewable energy generation is growing faster than their coal use, so at least they're trying to do something.

Link to post
Share on other sites

When they were still babes I used to tell my kiddies to focus on their feet when climbing hills and not to permanently stare at the height of the hill and become disheartened.

Its is the same here with AGW .

Baby steps but all in the same direction.

You'll be pleasantly surprised by how far we have come when you do look up to check our progress.

Cutting down meat consumption is something that is both good for you and our planet! 

Why not start there and introduce a couple of veggie nights a week?

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, BornFromTheVoid said:

Apply your sceptical mind to that graph - imagine it was posted by someone that believed AGW was serious. How might you critique it? What questions might you ask?
Go on, give it a try!

I would decide that the models were incorrect. Especially since they have been standardised by means of historical data on 3 occasions already.

The models are still in their infancy.

They still have 30 parameters to represent physical processes.

These 'parameters' have been calculated using the last 30 years of data, when natural warming is also assisting the warming.

 I would infact tend disregard them, until they can be regarded as accurate. 

 MIA

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Gray-Wolf said:

 

Why not start there and introduce a couple of veggie nights a week?

Currently undergoing over 6 weeks of radiotherapy so anything much containing fibre is a complete no. Things coming to pass at a rapid rate. Any tips about clogging things up a bit?  Don’t mind/like vegetables (politicians aside) but like meat as well.  

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

I would decide that the models were incorrect. Especially since they have been standardised by means of historical data on 3 occasions already.

The models are still in their infancy.

They still have 30 parameters to represent physical processes.

These 'parameters' have been calculated using the last 30 years of data, when natural warming is also assisting the warming.

 I would infact tend disregard them, until they can be regarded as accurate. 

 MIA

Blimey MIA - by the time you regard them as accurate, we'll all be over one-hundred-years-old!⚰️

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Midlands Ice Age said:

I would decide that the models were incorrect. Especially since they have been standardised by means of historical data on 3 occasions already.

The models are still in their infancy.

They still have 30 parameters to represent physical processes.

These 'parameters' have been calculated using the last 30 years of data, when natural warming is also assisting the warming.

 I would infact tend disregard them, until they can be regarded as accurate. 

 MIA

You state a lot of things that are contrary to what I've heard, as though they are facts - yet not a single bit of evidence to back any of them up.
Mind adding some data or references?

Such as for you 30 parameters, based on 30 years of warming and natural warming in the last 30 years.

If you respond with an essay that doesn't provide any data or sources, I will ignore it however!

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

You state a lot of things that are contrary to what I've heard, as though they are facts - yet not a single bit of evidence to back any of them up.
Mind adding some data or references?

Such as for you 30 parameters, based on 30 years of warming and natural warming in the last 30 years.

If you respond with an essay that doesn't provide any data or sources, I will ignore it however!

BFTV...

 Thanks for a realistic response.

 Do I detect an attempt to call my bluff?

You clearly do not know my background.

The data has been extracted from the document you hold most dear  -

The Official IPPC v5 Report.

You can get access here from this link - 

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

The section is the Section entitled     

'Evaluation of Climate Models'... It is Chapter 9 (more than 100 pages roughly of the report).

I understood that you and others on here would have read and understood it judging by the comments made on here.

Now as a user and writer of computer models, for a career, I spent 2 or 3 days going through the whole of chapter 9. I also have printed it out which does help to understand it all. 

It takes a long time.

So - I will give you the reference as a link and leave the details for yourself to sort out.

However to give you a clue I will simply include the following quote  which gives a clue to the unknown complexities, but the whole section is riddled with assumptions and unknowns which are eventually  parameterised to produce the desirable results.

----------------------------------------------------------------

9.1.3.1 Parameterizations

Parameterizations are included in all model components to represent processes that cannot be explicitly resolved; they are evaluated both in isolation and in the context of the full model. The purpose of this section is to highlight recent developments in the parameterizations employed in each model component. Some details for individual models are listed in Table 9.1.

----------------------------------------------------------------
 

Can I also add that there are about 15 different components in most of the models.

I think you guys have little ideas of the complexities in the writing and building of these attempts at predicting the future.

I spent quite a bit of time going through it all (yes I read the whole lot! - sad isn't it)l.. there are some places which document some of them and others in different other places.

I hope you do not expect me to explain it all in a post on this forum.

I will leave you to interpret it, since that is what you called for.

I am amazed at the amount of trust in the models displayed by the people on here.

Can I also add that I am a believer in models, but I know how even one small error in one part can have really dramatic effect elsewhere.

My summary (and advice) is treat the models (at the moment) with  caution. 

 I am awaiting the new version of the IPPC next version with interest. 

MIA

 

Edited by Midlands Ice Age
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly as expected, not a single relevant link (just one to the main body of the IPCC report, which is thousands of pages long!), source or piece of data to support your position. Just a rambling essay on how the establishment are wrong and you are right.

I'm certain there are plenty of members that will be enamored by your baseless pontificaions.  Suppose that's all that matters, reality can take a back seat!

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

Exactly as expected, not a single relevant link (just one to the main body of the IPCC report, which is thousands of pages long!), source or piece of data to support your position. Just a rambling essay on how the establishment are wrong and you are right.

I'm certain there are plenty of members that will be enamored by your baseless pontificaions.  Suppose that's all that matters, reality can take a back seat!

I fail to see just how having spent one's career writing computer programs bestows someone an in-depth understanding of climate science...? 

But what is abundantly clear is that folks like being told what they want to hear: AGW threatens the future occurrence of super-severe European winters and, above all else, that particular holy grail must forever remain untarnished.

Then again, deniers always want 'proof' -'proof' that in fifty years' time, X, Y or Z will happen...Science doesn't work that way. Though clairvoyance might??‍♂️

PS: I once spent years learning calculus, but it never made me an expert in Brane Theory!

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

I fail to see just how having spent one's career writing computer programs bestows someone an in-depth understanding of climate science...? 

But what is abundantly clear is that folks like being told what they want to hear: AGW threatens the future occurrence of super-severe European winters and, above all else, that particular holy grail must forever remain untarnished.

Then again, deniers always want 'proof' -'proof' that in fifty years' time, X, Y or Z will happen...Science doesn't work that way. Though clairvoyance might??‍♂️

PS: I once spent years learning calculus, but it never made me an expert in Brane Theory!

Ed...

 

Having spent a lifetime solving problems such as this, I know what is required to resolve these sorts of computing problems.

Do you?

To me it indicates that the 'climate modelling' has a long way to go before it can be regarded as accurate enough for use as a long-term forecast vehicle.

Just try reading Chapter 9 of the above report. (this applies to BFTV also).

It gives a strong indication as to the work which is still unknown an which is required to be performed.

I would say that the modelling of climate is now roughly where the modelling of day to day forecasting was in the early to mid 1990's.

To get an idea of the error still implicit in these models, just look at the variations produced (even in todays forecast charts) as demonstrated by the ensemble sets by just changing slightly an initial starting condition.

850tempuk_324_ps_slp.png.55e52ab959b2b8691764e99de7a97193.pngTo even believe that the forecast for 2100 can be even close to be correct is, since as you say it is a question of clairvoyance.

MIA 

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, BornFromTheVoid said:

Exactly as expected, not a single relevant link (just one to the main body of the IPCC report, which is thousands of pages long!), source or piece of data to support your position. Just a rambling essay on how the establishment are wrong and you are right.

I'm certain there are plenty of members that will be enamored by your baseless pontificaions.  Suppose that's all that matters, reality can take a back seat!

BFTV...

My post was not about who believes what in this debate, it is trying to establish the truth as to where we actually stand with regard to the current status of climate science. I am (still) a scientist. Not a person who is trying to convert others. 

Your post is one of 'I do not want to learn anything' that may affect my views. 

If you have read my post I have told you to read the whole of Chapter 9. (not the whole report!).

I even gave you a quote to which section of the report Section 9.1.3.1 to find the data.

It even gives you a table in which to find the data.

 

Do you really want me to spell it all out for you?

My reply above gave you exactly what you requested. The data I refer to is all in this section of the report (Chapter 9).

 

Can I ask if you have ever read more than just the political overview?

That is what the (what  you call the)   'establishment',  want you to believe.

 

To find out where we actually stand today in this regard, you must burrow down into what the 'techies' are saying. 

This is where you can get more of an idea as to where we actually stand with regard to climate science forecasting.

Believe me, we are a long way from having an accurate idea.

I am hoping that the next report (IPCC V6, due to 2021) will have resolved some of the issues that are raised in this Chapter of the report.   

MIA

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Midlands Ice Age said:

Ed...

 

Having spent a lifetime solving problems such as this, I know what is required to resolve these sorts of computing problems.

Do you?

To me it indicates that the 'climate modelling' has a long way to go before it can be regarded as accurate enough for use as a long-term forecast vehicle.

Just try reading Chapter 9 of the above report. (this applies to BFTV also).

It gives a strong indication as to the work which is still unknown an which is required to be performed.

I would say that the modelling of climate is now roughly where the modelling of day to day forecasting was in the early to mid 1990's.

To get an idea of the error still implicit in these models, just look at the variations produced (even in todays forecast charts) as demonstrated by the ensemble sets by just changing slightly an initial starting condition.

850tempuk_324_ps_slp.png.55e52ab959b2b8691764e99de7a97193.pngTo even believe that the forecast for 2100 can be even close to be correct is, since as you say it is a question of clairvoyance.

MIA 

If you don't grasp the science/realities/potentialities of climate change itself, then no amount of 'other' stuff will ever compensate for that situation...You could have a PhD in the most advanced branch of mathematics/computing yet invented, and it'd still make little difference; it's the science (and the fundamental understanding of that science) that matters...Which is, to put it simply, why I'd always put the opinions of reputed scientists before those of programmers...

But, as a dedicated Climate Change Denier, you'll only ever do what you've always done: accept only that which supports your own particular point of view - and, I nearly forgot, attempt to disparage/besmirch all those who don't want to accept your opinions as facts.

 

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

If you don't grasp the science/realities/potentialities of climate change itself, then no amount of 'other' stuff will ever compensate for that situation...You could have a PhD in the most advanced branch of mathematics/computing yet invented, and it'd still make little difference; it's the science (and the fundamental understanding of that science) that matters...Which is, to put it simply, why I'd always put the opinions of reputed scientists before those of programmers...

But, as a dedicated Climate Change Denier, you'll only ever do what you've always done: accept only that which supports your own particular point of view - and, I nearly forgot, attempt to disparage/besmirch all those who don't want to accept your opinions as facts.

 

What are we denying exactly may I ask?

Theres a lot of denying going on this thread for sure but it’s not from those posing questions.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

There appear to be different schools of scepticism about man-made global warming. I'll (very roughly) categorise them as follows:

1. The Earth isn't warming: it's all a hoax.

2. The Earth is warming, but it can all be ascribed to some agent other than increasing concentrations of atmospheric Carbon Dioxide (e.g. Solar activity, Ocean cycles, changes in land use, etc).

3. The Earth is warming, and part of that warming is caused by increasing concentrations of atmospheric Carbon Dioxide, but it's overstated and the rest is down to other agents.

1. might be described as the "Trump air-tight apartment" school, and I'm assuming no-one here actually holds that position.

2. is to ignore the basic physics of radiative transfer and the energy balance of the Earth.

3. I'm supposing is the most widely held sceptic position on here. But if one holds this position, then the onus on them is to demonstrate what contribution is made by those other agents and to what degree. Not in a qualitative arm-waving sense, but in a quantitative sense (as the many contributors to the IPCC report have done). If anyone can do that and it stands up to robust scrutiny, then it will be welcomed by everyone. But that hasn't happened yet. As we stand the Earth is currently in the decreasing tilt phase of the Milankovitch cycle, so we should be in a long-term decreasing trend of temperature, but we aren't so...

FWIW, I don't like the term 'denier' so I don't use it. It's clearly meant to evoke comparisons with Holocaust denial, and I think that is unreasonable in this context.

 

 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Yarmy said:

There appear to be different schools of scepticism about man-made global warming. I'll (very roughly) categorise them as follows:

1. The Earth isn't warming: it's all a hoax.

2. The Earth is warming, but it can all be ascribed to some agent other than increasing concentrations of atmospheric Carbon Dioxide (e.g. Solar activity, Ocean cycles, changes in land use, etc).

3. The Earth is warming, and part of that warming is caused by increasing concentrations of atmospheric Carbon Dioxide, but it's overstated and the rest is down to other agents.

1. might be described as the "Trump air-tight apartment" school, and I'm assuming no-one here actually holds that position.

2. is to ignore the basic physics of radiative transfer and the energy balance of the Earth.

3. I'm supposing is the most widely held sceptic position on here. But if one holds this position, then the onus on them is to demonstrate what contribution is made by those other agents and to what degree. Not in a qualitative arm-waving sense, but in a quantitative sense (as the many contributors to the IPCC report have done). If anyone can do that and it stands up to robust scrutiny, then it will be welcomed by everyone. But that hasn't happened yet. As we stand the Earth is currently in the decreasing tilt phase of the Milankovitch cycle, so we should be in a long-term decreasing trend of temperature, but we aren't so...

FWIW, I don't like the term 'denier' so I don't use it. It's clearly meant to evoke comparisons with Holocaust denial, and I think that is unreasonable in this context.

 

 

Agree with essentially everything there. The only thing I'd add is that calling them "sceptics" is an insult to actual sceptics. Climate contrarian is another common term I see used. Hard to know what to call them.
I shall scold myself for slipping back into the habit of using the term denier though! 

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

If you don't grasp the science/realities/potentialities of climate change itself, then no amount of 'other' stuff will ever compensate for that situation...You could have a PhD in the most advanced branch of mathematics/computing yet invented, and it'd still make little difference; it's the science (and the fundamental understanding of that science) that matters...Which is, to put it simply, why I'd always put the opinions of reputed scientists before those of programmers...

But, as a dedicated Climate Change Denier, you'll only ever do what you've always done: accept only that which supports your own particular point of view - and, I nearly forgot, attempt to disparage/besmirch all those who don't want to accept your opinions as facts.

 

Ed...

I do have a degree in a straight science actually. One doesn't need just an understanding of computing and computer programming, in that you are correct,   Climate science is just another science, although one doesn't have to have such stringent training to be held in wide regard.  Do you know how many of the people you do hold in high regard have actually got a climate science education qualification?

Yarmy's post above is a balanced one. I am clearly and absolutely ( in his definition) in the 3rd camp. Ie I accept that the climate is currently warming. It is the extent of the warming which is being caused by CO2  which I dispute.  I am a sceptic that controlling CO2 will ultimately save the earth.

Using Yarmy's technique there are three degrees of 'believers'.

1) Those who think that CO2 is the controlling element of our climate.  (the control knob theorists, who are religious in their belief that the only way to save the earth is to stop people using oil at all costs).  They accept everything that is being told to them (normally they are 'greenies' ) without any question. Normally they do not understand in detail what is happening in the climate.

2) Those who accept that CO2 is causing a large part of the warming , but are prepared to wait and see where the next few years take them. Typically they keep quiet; they have some understanding of climate science (though not the computing side), and think it best to  accept what they are told, by the IPCC.

3) Those that accept that CO2 is causing some warming, and are happy to go along with the group think. They are not totally convinced that it will be necessary to 'change the world'.

So, I place myself in both categories of the 3rd groupings.

I suspect that at least 80% of people come in one or other of these 2 categories.

Where I differ from others (and yourself in particular), is that I have an understanding of the complexities and effects that this complexity will have on the output of the model analysis, born through 30 years of being a computer specialist ending with being called a computer systems 'architect'.  This has given me  more of an understanding of what these models are attempting to perform. Currently they are no-where near getting a pass mark.  

Have you actually looked at the uncertainties as expressed in the IPCC document? 

I can see I will have to produce a more in depth report of what is in there!!

MIA. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Yarmy said:

There appear to be different schools of scepticism about man-made global warming. I'll (very roughly) categorise them as follows:

1. The Earth isn't warming: it's all a hoax.

2. The Earth is warming, but it can all be ascribed to some agent other than increasing concentrations of atmospheric Carbon Dioxide (e.g. Solar activity, Ocean cycles, changes in land use, etc).

3. The Earth is warming, and part of that warming is caused by increasing concentrations of atmospheric Carbon Dioxide, but it's overstated and the rest is down to other agents.

1. might be described as the "Trump air-tight apartment" school, and I'm assuming no-one here actually holds that position.

2. is to ignore the basic physics of radiative transfer and the energy balance of the Earth.

3. I'm supposing is the most widely held sceptic position on here. But if one holds this position, then the onus on them is to demonstrate what contribution is made by those other agents and to what degree. Not in a qualitative arm-waving sense, but in a quantitative sense (as the many contributors to the IPCC report have done). If anyone can do that and it stands up to robust scrutiny, then it will be welcomed by everyone. But that hasn't happened yet. As we stand the Earth is currently in the decreasing tilt phase of the Milankovitch cycle, so we should be in a long-term decreasing trend of temperature, but we aren't so...

FWIW, I don't like the term 'denier' so I don't use it. It's clearly meant to evoke comparisons with Holocaust denial, and I think that is unreasonable in this context.

 

 

Yarmy..

 A valid post.

I think you must realise  that what you are suggesting I should do is impossible to achieve.  (to quantitively/ qualitatively give you an answer to how much currently is natural warming) and how much is CO2 induced. The two things are intertwined.

Chapter 9 of the IPCC report gives many of the unknowns that need to be addressed before this can be achieved.

How many people on here have actually looked at Chapter 9 of the IPCC report? Have you?

How many people have just read the political overview?

As per your understanding of where the earth stands today. My understanding is that we are in a gap between 2 ice ages, and the Sun's cycles are relevant.

Certainly the next ice is imminent, but it may be 1K to 5K years away.

The Milankovitch Cycles certainly dictate that we should be cooling. But not yet at the time when we would expect that it would overpower any other warming trends. We know that the rhythms of the earth have always never allowed a straight line signal to take control, until it becomes well established..

How do you explain the warmings of the 3rd century BC (Greeks), the Roman warming and the Middle  age warming periods?

As far as I am aware they were not impacted by CO2. Also how does one explain  the little Ice Age, within the modern AGW theories?

All the above occurred whilst the Milankovitch Cycle was starting in the down swing.

I feel that we need to understand and define more certainly many of the climate effecting factors discussed in Chapter 9, before we (I?)  can feel comfortable with the forecast warming currently being accepted as the normal  by many believers.  

 

MIA  

  

 

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

 

PS: I once spent years learning calculus, but it never made me an expert in Brane Theory!

Oh yes calculus. Hadn’t a clue what was going on but once you knew how to do it it made an easy answer in maths exams. Most people didn’t even attempt them. 

Had absolutely no need to use it since. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

22 hours ago, Snipper said:

Currently undergoing over 6 weeks of radiotherapy so anything much containing fibre is a complete no. Things coming to pass at a rapid rate. Any tips about clogging things up a bit?  Don’t mind/like vegetables (politicians aside) but like meat as well.  

Snipper..

 Just seen this.

I was  told to eat a lot of pasta when I was in a similar position (I had a Stoma bag) so even  more unpleasant.!!!

Good luck'.

I have just been given the 'all clear' after 7 years so I have a lot to thank the surgeons in the NHS for.

MIA

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Midlands Ice Age said:

 

Snipper..

 Just seen this.

I was  told to eat a lot of pasta when I was in a similar position (I had a Stoma bag) so even  more unpleasant.!!!

Good luck'.

I have just been given the 'all clear' after 7 years so I have a lot to thank the surgeons in the NHS for.

MIA

Many thanks for your comments. I’m avoiding stuff that I can. 

I am being zapped because my PSA reading started going up 5 years after having a radical prostectomy. Got 3 more sessions to go. I am now feeling really fatigued. Sitting in a chair I feel not too bad but if I get up and do anything much feel really wacked. Never been one to sit in a chair. NHS has been really good. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I did try to outline how Anthro climate change deniers deal with IPCC reports so I hope I did so above in this thread?

The pattern is to disregard the new report but then rely heavily on the preceding report to show why you disagree with the new one.

Thing being that only 5 years earlier they were disregarding the report they are now holding up as 'proof' as to why the new report is 'faulty'........

I did a number on such when TAR5 came out and TAR4 was being held up as definitive by Anthro climate change Deniers.

And around we go again.

I will make a prophecy that the same will happen come the next IPCC report and that this report will be held up as 'definitive' by the anthro climate change deniers.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Gray-Wolf said:

I did try to outline how Anthro climate change deniers deal with IPCC reports so I hope I did so above in this thread?

The pattern is to disregard the new report but then rely heavily on the preceding report to show why you disagree with the new one.

Thing being that only 5 years earlier they were disregarding the report they are now holding up as 'proof' as to why the new report is 'faulty'........

I did a number on such when TAR5 came out and TAR4 was being held up as definitive by Anthro climate change Deniers.

And around we go again.

I will make a prophecy that the same will happen come the next IPCC report and that this report will be held up as 'definitive' by the anthro climate change deniers.

GW..

 What you are suggesting is that the main purpose of the IPCC latest report. - How we achieve +1.5C will become the next base for future reports.

You do realise that each release of a report has seen a reduction in the minimum figure?

To me it is all relevant to show that the models are getting closer to  realism.

MIA

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Midlands Ice Age said:

Ed...

Where I differ from others (and yourself in particular), is that I have an understanding of the complexities and effects that this complexity will have on the output of the model analysis, born through 30 years of being a computer specialist ending with being called a computer systems 'architect'.  This has given me  more of an understanding of what these models are attempting to perform. Currently they are no-where near getting a pass mark.  

Have you actually looked at the uncertainties as expressed in the IPCC document? 

I can see I will have to produce a more in depth report of what is in there!!

MIA. 

And there was me thinking that complexity and chaos were inherent parts of any deeply interconnected system. And, I'm also thinking that the world's leading climate scientists are very aware, too; knowledge of complexity is hardly the sole preserve of computer nerds...Ergo, uncertainty is also inherent

IMO, if Deniers' 'educative aspirations' were truly genuine, they'd have no need for scary demons: they'd concentrate on what is knowable, not on meandering expositions into the 'unknown'...?

I look forward to perusing your upcoming 'in depth report' with baited breath!?️

PS: My use of the term 'denier' has nothing to do with the Holocaust...For example, what should one call a person who denies the fact of evolution? A nutter??

 

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

And there was me thinking that complexity and chaos were inherent parts of any deeply interconnected system. And, I'm also thinking that the world's leading climate scientists are very aware, too; knowledge of complexity is hardly the sole preserve of computer nerds...Ergo, uncertainty is also inherent

IMO, if Deniers' 'educative aspirations' were truly genuine, they'd have no need for scary demons: they'd concentrate on what is knowable, not on meandering expositions into the 'unknown'...?

I look forward to perusing your upcoming 'in depth report' with baited breath!?️

PS: My use of the term 'denier' has nothing to do with the Holocaust...For example, what should one call a person who denies the fact of evolution? A nutter??

 

So ..

 You have not looked at the Chapter of the report, have never been involved in large computer projects and yet you are trying to impune that I am a 'nutter', and that you have more 'nous' in this area than me.

My, my  how desperate one gets. (see below)

I suppose I must be making progress since I was told by BFTV not to produce a diatribe, now you want to know the nuts and bolts.

I will refrain, for now, in producing a 'potted' version of it.  As it will just not get read by people like yourself, and I have other things to do.. 

It  is long and very complicated, and the simplicity you refer to in your postings is definitely not incorrect. If you insist, I will see when I have a couple of days. The situation is extremely complex, and the 'political' overview does not contain much of any relevance (in this area), as it just wants to pass on what it wants too.

Take it is read that there are many areas of climate science that it is not yet possible to model correctly, and that they substitute with parameters. I have counted over 30  (and stopped at that point),

There are many tables involved and they will give you some idea as I indicated in my reply to both yourself and BFTV.

Why not try and read the Chapter yourself?

You seem like a guy who is reasonably logical and it should prove very interesting and enlightening as to where we are today  (as of 3 years ago!).

Must go now, but I can reasonably quickly give you a typical example of why there is an inherent real problem with modelling in this area and how the end result can easily be wrong. I  should have more time later.

 

However to see the current reaction and why there was hardly any reaction in the press this weekend, I will enclose a precise and link to the Washington Post.

Quote of major points in the article ...

 

solve global warming

By Robert J. Samuelson
Columnist
October 14 at 7:34 PM

If there were any doubt before, there should be none now. “Solving” the global climate change problem may be humankind’s mission impossible. That’s the gist of the latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the U.N. group charged with monitoring global warming.

Unless we make dramatic reductions in greenhouse-gas emissions (carbon dioxide, methane and others), warns the IPCC, we face a future of rapidly rising temperatures that will destroy virtually all the world’s coral reefs, intensify droughts and raise sea levels. We need to take action immediately, if not sooner.

It’s not clear how this would be done. The reality is that global carbon emissions are rising, not falling. Emissions today are about 60 percent higher than in 1990, according to the World Bank.

What is to be done?

My own preference is messier and subject to all the above shortcomings. I would gradually impose a stiff fossil-fuel tax (producing not a 10 or 15 percent price increase but a doubling or maybe a tripling of prices) to discourage fossil-fuel use and encourage new energy sources. In addition, some of the tax revenue could reduce budget deficits and simplify income taxes. With luck, a genuine breakthrough might occur: perhaps advances in electric batteries or storage. That would make wind and solar power more practical.

Endquote

link to total article

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/were-on-mission-impossible-to-solve-global-warming/2018/10/14/518acff8-ce34-11e8-a360-85875bac0b1f_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.2ddafd9d9e6f 

This guy is getting desperate (is that how you feel?)

MIA

 

Edited by Midlands Ice Age
  • Like 1
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...