The stuff I'm seeing seems to suggest that we're now on an *inevitable* warming trajectory, short of massive climate engineering projects.
So surely it's a safe bet to set a mild warming target, with a proviso about large scale climate engineering?
Printable View
The stuff I'm seeing seems to suggest that we're now on an *inevitable* warming trajectory, short of massive climate engineering projects.
So surely it's a safe bet to set a mild warming target, with a proviso about large scale climate engineering?
some warming will happen, already has.
the graph i linked too has a variety of options, based on what humans do, that graph is updated every few years based on what has happened, and what is predicted to happen, thats all im saying.
hint: always bet on the worlds smartest scientists.
Freeman Dyson is a skeptic. If you want smart, he is one of the world's smartest. Michael Mann lost his lawsuit to Tim Ball, and could not/choose not to produce any data to support his hockey stick graph, where as Tim Ball did. James Hansen could not contradict any thing John Christy said in a court of law, when John Christy said banning all CO2 in the USA would not produce a noticeable change in the world climate (.01 degrees total change.) using the models projections.Quote:
hint: always bet on the worlds smartest scientists.
The Experts eh, like Santer, Trenberth, Mann, Cook well.... Here is a small sample of your experts and their positions. Very small.
Quote:
Hi Tom
How come you do not agree with a statement that says we are no where close to knowing where energy is going or whether clouds are changing to make the planet brighter. We are not close to balancing the energy budget. The fact that we can not account for what is happening in the climate system makes any consideration of geoengineering quite hopeless as we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not! It is a travesty!
Kevin
Quote:
[Email 0071 from Michael Mann] pointed out to him that we certainly don’t know the GLOBAL mean temperature anomaly very well, and nobody has ever claimed we do (this is the question he asked everyone). There is very little information at all in the Southern Hemisphere on which to base any conclusion.
Quote:
[Ed Cook] So, at this stage I would argue that the Medieval Warm Period was probably
a global extra-tropical event, at the very least, with warmth that was
persistent and probably comparable to much of what we have experienced in
the 20th century. However, I would not claim (and nor would Jan) that it
exceeded the warmth of the late 20th century. We simply do not have the
precision or the proxy replication to say that yet. This being said, I do
find the dismissal of the Medieval Warm Period as a meaningful global event
to be grossly premature and probably wrong. Kind of like Mark Twain's
commment that accounts of his death were greatly exaggerated. If, as some
people believe, a degree of symmetry in climate exists between the
hemispheres, which would appear to arise from the tropics, then the
existence of a Medieval Warm Period in the extra-tropics of the NH and SH
argues for its existence in the tropics as well. Only time and an enlarged
suite of proxies that extend into the tropics will tell if this is true.
Quote:
Email 4195
Tim, Chris, I hope you're not right about the lack of warming lasting till about 2020.
...
I seem to be getting an email a week from skeptics saying where's the warming gone. I know the warming is on the decadal scale, but it would be nice to wear their smug grins away.
Quote:
ClimateGate FOIA grepper! - Email 636
Solution 1: fudge the issue. Just accept that we are Fast-trackers and can therefore get away with anything.
[Hat tip: M. Hulme]
Email 5175-Tom Wigley - 2004
In any simple global formula, there should be at least two clearly identifiable sources of uncertainty. One is the sensitivity (d(melt)/dT) and the other is the total available ice. In the TAR, the latter never comes into it in their analysis (i.e., the 'derivation' of the GSIC formula) -- but my point is that it *does* come in by accident due to the quadratic fudge factor. The total volume range is 5-32cm, which is, at the very least, inconsistent with other material in the chapter (see below). 5cm is clearly utterly ridiculous.
Email 5054, Colin Harpham, UEA, 2007
I will press on with trying to work out why the temperature needs a 'fudge factor' along with the poorer modelling for winter.
Email 1461, Milind Kandlikar, 2004
With GCMs the issue is different. Tuning may be a way to fudge the physics. For example, understanding of clouds or aerosols is far from complete - so (ideally) researchers build the "best" model they can within the constraints of physical understanding and computational capacity. Then they tweak parameters to provide a good approximation to observations. It is this context that all the talk about "detuning" is confusing. How does one speak of "detuning" using the same physical models as before? A "detuned" model merely uses a different set of parameters that match observations - it not hard to find multiple combinations of parameters that give the similar model outputs (in complex models with many parameters/degrees of freedom) So how useful is a detuned model that uses old physics? Why is this being seen as some sort of a breakthrough?
Email 1047, Briffa, 2005
We had to remove the reference to "700 years in France" as I am not sure what this is , and it is not in the text anyway. The use of "likely" , "very likely" and my additional fudge word "unusual" are all carefully chosen where used.
Email 723, Elaine Barrow, UEA, 1997
Either the scale needs adjusting, or we need to fudge the figures...
Briffa_sep98 code
;****** APPLIES A VERY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION FOR DECLINE*********
;
yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]
valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,$
2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor
if n_elements(yrloc) ne n_elements(valadj) then message,'Oooops!'
Now, I realize there were some HUGE issues with the dataset - it was a total clusterfuck. I have been over their work, if not in detail, in volume. The record keeping and dataset of the past is hand written, not very accurate, in several different units of measure, and incomplete. That being said, everything I have said about the past data, well, your experts said also. The reason I said some of those things is because I knew that even they didn't have it figured out as much as you think they do.Quote:
Email 2711
European instrumental temperatures in summer are going to be revised downwards (by about 0.4 deg C for periods before 1850), so the mid-lat of the NH reconstructions should reflect this new work which is either in press or submitted.... I can't see how better proxy reconstructions are going to help constrain the models with the carbon cycle feedbacks. This must be related to better forcing histories, but how do we know we have these right? Can we somehow say from proxy/model comparisons that if they don't agree that well that it is down to the forcing, the model physics or the proxy data? If we could reduce the dimensionality of the problem then this might help. Volcanoes are a high-frequency response, so should be doable with shorter time slices. Solar and carbon cycle feedbacks are more low-frequency, so harder to constrain. I seem to floundering a bit. I keep coming back to the long European instrumental records and the wealth or proxy data we have for the continent. We can better test the proxy methods here and we can look at some teleconnections in detail with long records, and follow these through with similar analyses with the models...[Phil Jones]
:)
No disagreement here.Quote:
some warming will happen, already has.
As for the bet, how about this:
Use the Patrick Brown and Ken Caldeira paper. The RCP options. The one Steve linked to used that with some empirical data. The graph Gordon linked to was the RCP projections.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repres...ation_Pathways
The original Hansen paths were very close to these also. RCP2.6 is the curve I suspect we will follow with the climate, while the RCP4.5 path or RCP6 path is the one that we will actually do, with outputs high in carbon till 2040 or so when we start using more nuclear reactors.Quote:
" RCP2.6, RCP4.5, RCP6, and RCP8.5, are named after a possible range of radiative forcing values in the year 2100 relative to pre-industrial values (+2.6, +4.5, +6.0, and +8.5 W/m2, respectively)."
Now, for the dataset for empirical: I am game for satellite and weather balloons and GHCN/GISS stations rated 1-2, and raw GHCN data. Pick 2? Average of the two?
Any other metrics? Air level? Ocean rate of raise?
Local 6 pack? Shoot, just meet up at an event and you can get that from me! Ha! Have a preference? Ales, scotch, IPA?
Lets not wait till 2038 - 5-10? If it is just a 6 pack though, lets make it a yearly if we end up at the same place. That's a decade worth of it if I fail. :)
if you think this bet can be settled in a year, then im afraid you don't understand what you are betting on.
also the fusion GPS testimony is damning.
for over 9 months they worked for republicans doing oppo research on trump, found out all his financial crimes, and reported it to the GOP.
republicans have known that trump is guilty of money laundering, breaking magyiski act, tax fraud, and other finical crimes since before he was even a candidate for president. and almost a year before any democrat knew such information even existed.
jesus, republicans are either that fucking stupid, they assume there base is that fucking stupid, or they really don't care about treason.
Let me requote from above:Quote:
The stuff I'm seeing seems to suggest that we're now on an *inevitable* warming trajectory, short of massive climate engineering projects.
So surely it's a safe bet to set a mild warming target, with a proviso about large scale climate engineering?
The Models show 'Inevitable' warming - lots of scary, but then, the models all have shown more than is there.Quote:
Hi Tom
How come you do not agree with a statement that says we are no where close to knowing where energy is going or whether clouds are changing to make the planet brighter. We are not close to balancing the energy budget. The fact that we can not account for what is happening in the climate system makes any consideration of geoengineering quite hopeless as we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not! It is a travesty!
Kevin
Here is the previous link with one change. It has the HADCRUTv4 dataset included. Hadcrut shows more warming than the satellites, but nothing comes close to the models!
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-conte...sfc-vs-obs.jpg
And again, cleaner:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-conte...xplanation.png
as sated, the models, when fed the proper data, have no issue "predicting" what happened.
as pointed out, its the human carbon gas assumptions that are the reason models predict higher warming. since we actually released less carbon gasses than assumed, that means the warming will be less.
And further data collected vs the graph you used earlier:
http://www.euanmearns.com/wp-content...R4_HadCRUT.png
Again, the data is not tracking with the models. Even on your graph. (shrugs) That is just what is happening.
And no, we did not release less CO2 than predicted. It was spot on in fact. Maybe you were confused by the US emissions vs China? First predictions:
https://www.carbonbrief.org/how-scie...ach-400pm-2016
https://www.carbonbrief.org/wp-conte..._LatestCO2.png
Here is shows the US releasing less, but China taking up the slack and running with it:
http://climateparis.org/wp-content/u...W-fm-GDP-s.png
I can understand the confusion there, but your statement is incorrect.