Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Gray-Wolf

Climate change 2020; events/incidents

Recommended Posts

Interesting comments by Lorenzo Polvano the lead professor at Colombia University.... 

"The results highlight the importance of the Montreal Protocol, which has been signed by nearly 200 countries, say the authors. “Climate mitigation is in action as we speak because these substances are decreasing in the atmosphere, thanks to the Montreal Protocol,” said Lorenzo Polvani, lead author of the study and a professor in Columbia’s Department of Applied Physics and Applied Mathematics. “In the coming decades, they will contribute less and less to global warming. It’s a good-news story.”

He seems to be expecting (anticipating/predicting) a period of very reduced warming, if not a cooling  ahead, particularly at the poles.

But with a 50% factor quoted for sea ice and a one third factor for temperatures, this paper should not be dismissed lightly. 

But who will claim they were correct?

 

 Back to sea ice reporting - but something to keep at the back of ones mind.

MIA

Edited by Midlands Ice Age

Share this post


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

Interesting comments by Lorenzo Polvano the lead professor at Colombia University.... 

"The results highlight the importance of the Montreal Protocol, which has been signed by nearly 200 countries, say the authors. “Climate mitigation is in action as we speak because these substances are decreasing in the atmosphere, thanks to the Montreal Protocol,” said Lorenzo Polvani, lead author of the study and a professor in Columbia’s Department of Applied Physics and Applied Mathematics. “In the coming decades, they will contribute less and less to global warming. It’s a good-news story.”

He seems to be expecting (anticipating/predicting) a period of very reduced warming, if not a cooling  ahead, particularly at the poles.

But with a 50% factor quoted for sea ice and a one third factor for temperatures, this paper should not be dismissed lightly. 

But who will claim they were correct?

 

 Back to sea ice reporting - but something to keep at the back of ones mind.

MIA


I'm surprised (well, not really) that you are so enthusiastic about this paper. The results are entirely derived from global climate model simulations from 1955 to 2005.

If you accept the results from this study, does that mean you accept the output from climate models in general? That your bashing of climate models for years and years has come to an end?

Share this post


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

Interesting comments by Lorenzo Polvano the lead professor at Colombia University.... 

 

He seems to be expecting (anticipating/predicting) a period of very reduced warming, if not a cooling  ahead, particularly at the poles.

 

As BFTV points out this report covers forcings ending on 05' (before we saw Science collectively scratch its head as to the extent/area drop of 07?)

Maybe the 'faux pause' fits your bill but the recent global temp years since 2014 appear to show a rapid increase in global rate in change of temp with last year near challenging a 'Super Nino' year for top spot?

It is no accident that I gave over any thought of helping avert the catastrophe we now face back in 2014.....

I've just enjoyed an hour sat in the warm January Sun ..... not many times I've experienced/enjoyed such..... I wonder what the rest of this year holds for our Hemisphere?

I know one thing, if we do not see rainfall damp off the drying Moor then by late March, should we see a settled dry start to spring, we WILL see extensive Moorland blazes once again!....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the above guys...

My arguments with the models have always been that they can be retrofitted to make any historical data look accurate by using enough variables (parameters). ( I used to do it for a living), but it does not alter the fact that they can (and do) use this method to  replicate history, and then expect to be able to forecast accurately using the same  model and parameters, but it still does not mean that they are anywhere near correct.!

My estimate is another 10-15years before they should be accepted.

It is in future prediction that the models can be judged, and which I find untrustworthy because of their inabilities in forecasting (OK predicting).

I have no 'power' in this game, and for the last decade I have accepted that CO2 will cause AGW   warming. 

I think (rather than my position), it is your positions that need to be examined 

For instance -

Do you accept this new modelled scenario?.   Since it is based upon the same models that have been used to  show extreme warming, and which now give a real hope that the more extremist CAGW predictions may well be avoided.

The model used does not attempt to predict the future, but simply uses the data available to state what the impact would have been today if things had remained the same. Do you accept that models can predict the current? 

A lot more research is taking place into the affects of these new chemicals. They can be controlled much more easily than any CO2 and CH4, which have large natural sinks..  The more 'dangerous' ones are  being identified today. Most of them can be identified by satellite and  can be 'stopped', within a few months.  

Do you not rejoice that this report is showing an approach that we can all accept?

OR, because it is based upon models, should we reject it? 😜🤔

OK - back to monitoring the increasing Arctic ice extents.

MIA

 

Edited by Midlands Ice Age

Share this post


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

QUANTIFYING HUMAN-INDUCED TEMPERATURE IMPACTS ON THE 2018 UNITED STATES FOUR CORNERS HYDROLOGIC AND AGRO-PASTORAL DROUGHT

https://ametsoc.net/eee/2018/3_Williams0187.pdf

Press release

https://www.news.ucsb.edu/2020/019761/warmer-dryer-browner

Thankyou for that, I passed through that area (and the 4 state crossroads), last September and everywhere was brown. There were thunderstorms aplenty, but some were so convective, you could see a line where the rain was stopping falling and going back up before it even reached the parched soil.

There are some parts of the States where civilisation is moving out, some have had enough and the kids arent staying anyway. New Mexico, bottom end of Colorado, Texas, many many empty, abandoned properties and businesses....some look like they just turned the lights off one evening and never bothered coming back.

Never mind, Donald will keep the miners in jobs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...