Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)Thread (merg

Re: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)Thread (

Unread postby americandream » Fri 07 Nov 2014, 03:54:42

jupiters_release wrote:
americandream wrote:(which is unlikely given that capitalism is founded around our base instincts)


You make it sound like people are born capitalistic. 8O :lol:


Not reading analytically is one example.
americandream
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 8650
Joined: Mon 18 Oct 2004, 03:00:00

Re: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)Thread (

Unread postby dohboi » Fri 07 Nov 2014, 04:52:07

'a sudden surge in our objective capacities'

Would that involve, essentially, world-wide revolution?
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 19990
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 04:00:00

Re: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)Thread (

Unread postby americandream » Fri 07 Nov 2014, 05:08:29

dohboi wrote:'a sudden surge in our objective capacities'

Would that involve, essentially, world-wide revolution?


That would naturally follow. However, an articulate and persuasive class of leadership would be a necessity. One that could function beyond the immediate and functional parts of our persona....shelter, security, sex, power...with a vision to contemplate a world where modernity serves needs and not wants....but at a sophisticated level where needs are contemplated within the evolutionary context. Leaders who can appeal across race and reaction Who can accurately and concisely detail the risks to the species in conforming to a system which has harnessed modernity to serve the subjective and Instinctive. This needs to happen yesterday as the march of unreason gathers pace at this crucial time.
americandream
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 8650
Joined: Mon 18 Oct 2004, 03:00:00

Re: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)Thread (

Unread postby dohboi » Fri 07 Nov 2014, 05:48:36

Any sign of any such leaders on the horizon?
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 19990
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 04:00:00

Re: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)Thread (

Unread postby americandream » Fri 07 Nov 2014, 05:52:37

dohboi wrote:Any sign of any such leaders on the horizon?


No. If anything stupidity is at unprecedented levels in our leadership. We are on the slippery slope I am afraid.
americandream
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 8650
Joined: Mon 18 Oct 2004, 03:00:00

Truth about IPCC model global warming projections

Unread postby regardingpo » Sat 22 Oct 2016, 05:40:58

IPCC model global warming projections have done much better than you think

Global warming since 1990 has fallen within the range of IPCC climate model projections

"global climate models generally simulate global temperatures that compare well with observations over climate timescales ... The 1990–2012 data have been shown to be consistent with the [1990 IPCC report] projections, and not consistent with zero trend from 1990 ... the trend in globally-averaged surface temperatures falls within the range of the previous IPCC projections."



What about the Naysayers?
In the weeks and months leading up to the publication of the final 2013 IPCC report, there has been a flood of opinion articles in blogs and the mainstream media claiming that the models used by the IPCC have dramatically over-predicted global warming and thus are a failure. This narrative clearly conflicts with the IPCC model-data comparison figure shown above, so what's going on?

These mistaken climate contrarian articles have all suffered from some combination of the following errors:
1) Publicizing the flawed draft IPCC model-data comparison figure
2) Ignoring the range of model simulations
3) Cherry Picking


That's an article from 2013, but since then we've had even faster warming:
Hottest September on Record Basically "Locks In" 2016 as Hottest Year: NASA
Don't follow this link: http://bit.ly/2dtWSrZ
User avatar
regardingpo
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 106
Joined: Thu 20 Aug 2015, 15:36:52

Re: Truth about IPCC model global warming projections

Unread postby Plantagenet » Sat 22 Oct 2016, 06:58:00

2015 was up .1 degree from the previous record and 2016 will be up .1 degree from 2015.

The planet is now warming up much faster then it did in the 20th century 8)
Never underestimate the ability of Joe Biden to f#@% things up---Barack Obama
-----------------------------------------------------------
Keep running between the raindrops.
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 26616
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).

Re: Truth about IPCC model global warming projections

Unread postby onlooker » Sat 22 Oct 2016, 07:14:20

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... te-change/

But one thing is certain: Several fundamental projections found in Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports have consistently underestimated real-world observations, potentially leaving world governments at doubt as to how to guide climate policy.
"We are mortal beings doomed to die
User avatar
onlooker
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 10957
Joined: Sun 10 Nov 2013, 13:49:04
Location: NY, USA

Re: Truth about IPCC model global warming projections

Unread postby dissident » Sat 22 Oct 2016, 08:13:56

onlooker wrote:https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-the-ipcc-underestimated-climate-change/

But one thing is certain: Several fundamental projections found in Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports have consistently underestimated real-world observations, potentially leaving world governments at doubt as to how to guide climate policy.


These world governments are run by congenital idiots if they cannot form policy based on this information. When the water is up to your knees and rising you don't just stand there because you don't know how high it will go. That would be breathtakingly retarded.
dissident
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 6458
Joined: Sat 08 Apr 2006, 03:00:00

Re: Truth about IPCC model global warming projections

Unread postby onlooker » Sat 22 Oct 2016, 08:19:36

Dissident, the govts. are hardly doing anything. The Climate Accords have been nothing but shams intended to appease the masses. Even if they did start doing something now, all indications are that we have triggered feedbacks and runaway global warming has been unleashed. Of course your expert insights are appreciated if you disagree with my assessment.
"We are mortal beings doomed to die
User avatar
onlooker
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 10957
Joined: Sun 10 Nov 2013, 13:49:04
Location: NY, USA

Re: Truth about IPCC model global warming projections

Unread postby dissident » Sat 22 Oct 2016, 08:31:17

onlooker wrote:Dissident, the govts. are hardly doing anything. The Climate Accords have been nothing but shams intended to appease the masses. Even if they did start doing something now, all indications are that we have triggered feedbacks and runaway global warming has been unleashed. Of course your expert insights are appreciated if you disagree with my assessment.


I agree with you. There is no serious mitigation. There is talk theater and delay, delay, delay. We don't even have a serious response to fossil fuel production decline. The desire for life in the business as usual bubble is overwhelming.
dissident
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 6458
Joined: Sat 08 Apr 2006, 03:00:00

Re: Truth about IPCC model global warming projections

Unread postby KaiserJeep » Sat 22 Oct 2016, 09:07:09

Yet the most accurate dataset that we have, the integrating thermometers of Earth-facing satellites, do not show any warming above that of the simple, more or less linear trend of +0.0119 degrees C per year. That's total warming of +0.44 degrees C over the 37-year observation period since 1979.

There is no BS in these measurements. The visible hemisphere of the globe has an integrated temperature that is directly proportional to the amount of infrared radiance or Gray Body Radiation it emits. (Gray Bodies are the term applied to objects in space which have an albedo somewhere between a perfect Black Body, which absorbs all solar radiance, and a perfect White Body which reflects all solar radiance and absorbs none.) This trumps any point source surface temperature measurements and however these multiple point source measurements get combined to produce the average global temperature. Most of the added heat ends up in the Tropical oceans, since they catch more sunlight than do land masses, and since the angle of incidence in the solar radiation is neared to 90 degrees in the Tropics. The distribution of the heat changes from day to day because of air and water currents, and because the ocean areas in Tropical zones are much larger than in Arctic zones, and a fraction of one degree cooling in Tropical oceans may result in several degrees of warming in Temperate and Arctic ocean areas.

Meanwhile, the multiple point source measurements of surface air temperatures (which is what most of you consider to be the way to calculate "global temperatures") show an average increase which is lagging the changes in ocean temps as the slow ocean currents take the solar heat from the Tropics, through the Temperate zones, to the Arctic zones. Heat is also transported in air currents, which are much faster than ocean currents. But for basic reasons of thermodynamics, the globe is always taking whatever amount of solar radiance it gets, and distributing it across the entire surface of the planet. The most easily observed changes are occurring in the Arctic and sub-Arctic areas, which contain plants and animals that are the most sensitive to temperature change.

As the average global temperature rises, the atmospheric content of carbon dioxide increases, because carbon dioxide is a lagging response to temperatures, and does not drive temperature change. Meanwhile, the multiple point source measurements of surface air temperatures show statistical increases following a period that is properly called a "Notch Delay", since it is more or less a fixed period.

All of which provides an alternative explanation for all the "indisputable evidence of AGW", which is a combination of words that climatologists pretty much avoid, and web wienies use all the time in places like PO.com, one of the obscure places where oddball personalities collect to marinate in mutual and shared angst.

Which incidentally, I find to be a great disappointment. I would prefer to marinate in the angst of fossil fuel depletion, particularly petroleum depletion, which I view as a real and imminent form of Doom. This is the central theme of PO.com, which most of you ignore in favor of off-topic AGW/CC angst and Doom hysteria, which I believe is overblown reaction to natural changes in surface temperatures, caused by a complex relationship between such temperatures and the solar radiation which varies over centuries due to reasons of orbital mechanics, called Milankovitch cycles.
KaiserJeep 2.0, Neural Subnode 0010 0000 0001 0110 - 1001 0011 0011, Tertiary Adjunct to Unimatrix 0000 0000 0001

Resistance is Futile, YOU will be Assimilated.

Warning: Messages timestamped before April 1, 2016, 06:00 PST were posted by the unmodified human KaiserJeep 1.0
KaiserJeep
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 6094
Joined: Tue 06 Aug 2013, 17:16:32
Location: Wisconsin's Dreamland

Re: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)Thread (

Unread postby KaiserJeep » Sat 22 Oct 2016, 13:28:06

I mean to say as the average global temperature rises. It is no secret that I believe that due to the Milankovitch cycles, the global temperature is rising and will keep rising for centuries, on the long term average. Climate varies for innumerable reasons, all quite natural. The rate of overall temperature increase is variable, the sum of all the constituent components, some of which can overcome the slowly increasing solar capture of heat - and this allows for brief cooling cycles.

The rising global temperatures increase carbon dioxide content via a number of processes, some at the surface, some below the oceans, and some far above the surface.

The greatest one may be that the equilibrium rate of carbon dioxide capture in warmer Southern oceans is disturbed. Warmer waters tend to favor smaller free-floating algaes which capture less carbon dioxide nearer the surface, versus the slower growing species which form at deeper depths in larger but much sparser clumps when water temps are not quite so high. These are the stuff of future petroleum booms after cooking on the ocean floor for a geological age.

Likewise the warmer Arctic waters have their methane capture equilibriums disturbed. Four molecules of methane and 23 molecules of water form a solid methane clathrate which precipitates onto the ocean floor. But if the waters warm, methane is captured (sequestered) at a lower rate as clathrate formation is reduced and more free atmospheric methane is the result. However, free atmospheric methane (a powerful GHG) disassociates into water vapor and carbon dioxide in the presence and capture of sunlight at upper altitudes. The water vapor precipitates out again as carbon dioxide gas and as solid water (snow) or liquid water (fog/rain) and the overall change is that methane is reduced, carbon dioxide increased, the greenhouse effect is reduced (because you traded methane for a weaker GHG carbon dioxide), and the whole cycle is slightly exothermic, releasing even more heat than would captured sunlight alone.

These are simply two of the most dominant carbon dioxide sources over the oceans. Other carbon dioxide sources over land primarily include reduced vegetation due to agriculture and deforestation. The less greenery busily capturing carbon, the more free atmospheric carbon. As temperatures and drought areas increase, the carbon capture rates plunge, and free carbon dioxide increases. (Note also that - over land in any case - the actions of mankind in reducing vegetation, and breathing for that matter, increase atmospheric carbon dioxide, without any burning of FF's - but we do that as well.)

There has always been an observed lag between the temperature increases and the free carbon dioxide, one that AGW modellers have struggled mightily to explain. There is no actual mystery involved, it is simple causality - higher temperatures result in higher atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, be it over land or sea.
KaiserJeep 2.0, Neural Subnode 0010 0000 0001 0110 - 1001 0011 0011, Tertiary Adjunct to Unimatrix 0000 0000 0001

Resistance is Futile, YOU will be Assimilated.

Warning: Messages timestamped before April 1, 2016, 06:00 PST were posted by the unmodified human KaiserJeep 1.0
KaiserJeep
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 6094
Joined: Tue 06 Aug 2013, 17:16:32
Location: Wisconsin's Dreamland

Re: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)Thread (

Unread postby dohboi » Sat 22 Oct 2016, 14:51:21

Perhaps it is best to just leave these two to stroking each others delusions. Maybe then they'll leave the adults alone to consider actual science on other threads??
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 19990
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 04:00:00

Re: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)Thread (

Unread postby KaiserJeep » Sat 22 Oct 2016, 15:24:05

dohboi, (note no mocking derivative of your user name) and in all seriousness, why does it matter so desperately to you or anybody else here, what others believe?

I have told you that I do believe in the very real and imminent Doom of fossil fuel depletion. So we are in agreement that TEOTWAWKI is coming, and fairly soon, and we differ only on minor details.

I have said that the world is warming, and I have always thought that this was fairly obvious, being both a student of History and various fields of Science (capital "S" out of deference for the deity most of you worship).

It would seem that you and most people who argue the AGW and CC topics on the www don't actually have the academic credentials to have a valid opinion on this topic, unless you are a climatologist by trade, with at least doctoral levels of academic credentials in the field of climate.

I don't claim that my opinion on this matter is worth any more than any of you, because I'm a computer designer by trade, I lack the specific credentials needed as well. My lone academic credential is a BSEE earned in 1977 at one of the better computing schools at that time.

I also frequently make the point that the whole argument is moot anyway. I do believe that. The world is warming, and there is no conceivable way that mankind can slow or reverse the warming, whatever the cause.

My mind is not closed to the concept that you AGW fanboys may be correct as most of yours appear to be closed to the possibility that myself and the bare few others that hold minority opinions on this matter, may also be correct. You also tend to express your thoughts in absolutes and certainties - hardly the way a true scientist or a climatologist would talk. They understand something that you would not, which is that in the absence of an environment where we could perform an easily described experiment (i.e. a second identical planet where the humans remained dumb apes and we never burned any fossil fuels or emitted any more carbon than did a chimp or a baboon) in full compliance with the Scientific Method (in capitals because it is the most important tool of all sciences) there can NEVER be any certainty in this matter.

I do in fact mean NEVER. Even if the debate moves into orbit and the last few men on the ISS are having it as they contemplate the dead Earth below, we still won't know whether the Earth cooked for natural reasons, or the burning of FF's.

Get used to the idea, because you will never get to say "I was right, I told you this would happen!". Not ever.
KaiserJeep 2.0, Neural Subnode 0010 0000 0001 0110 - 1001 0011 0011, Tertiary Adjunct to Unimatrix 0000 0000 0001

Resistance is Futile, YOU will be Assimilated.

Warning: Messages timestamped before April 1, 2016, 06:00 PST were posted by the unmodified human KaiserJeep 1.0
KaiserJeep
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 6094
Joined: Tue 06 Aug 2013, 17:16:32
Location: Wisconsin's Dreamland

Re: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)Thread (

Unread postby dohboi » Sat 22 Oct 2016, 15:34:44

Liars gotta lie.

Don't let me get in your way.
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 19990
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 04:00:00

Re: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)Thread (

Unread postby KaiserJeep » Sat 22 Oct 2016, 15:45:01

To everybody else: Note that I was respectful and asked serious and sober questions, and he returned insults.

Use this behavior in your evaluation of both of us, and never mind what ever your own beliefs are on the topic of AGW. There are people who respect the thoughts and beliefs of others, who behave with decorum and manners, and then there are those who do not.
KaiserJeep 2.0, Neural Subnode 0010 0000 0001 0110 - 1001 0011 0011, Tertiary Adjunct to Unimatrix 0000 0000 0001

Resistance is Futile, YOU will be Assimilated.

Warning: Messages timestamped before April 1, 2016, 06:00 PST were posted by the unmodified human KaiserJeep 1.0
KaiserJeep
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 6094
Joined: Tue 06 Aug 2013, 17:16:32
Location: Wisconsin's Dreamland

Re: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)Thread (

Unread postby dohboi » Sat 22 Oct 2016, 15:59:50

When people are losing and have a losing position, they have to shift the topic, so they focus on the manerism with which their opponent makes his case. A logical fallacy, of course. This is what we see here. Nice try.
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 19990
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 04:00:00

Re: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)Thread (

Unread postby kiwichick » Sun 23 Oct 2016, 07:02:34

best to leave idiots like kj alone......the co2 has already cooked their brains
User avatar
kiwichick
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2267
Joined: Sat 02 Aug 2008, 03:00:00
Location: Southland New Zealand

PreviousNext

Return to Environment, Weather & Climate

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 69 guests