Reply With Quote
Something like this, probably:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ja...ling-the-heat/
So, its out. When are Darrin and others going to post their critiques of the AR5 Summary for Policy Makers which basically says the exact same thing AR4 said? Are you waiting on your favorite talking heads to tell you what to think?
Here's the link for anyone interested. I'll save you some time, though. It says Climate Change is real, has not stopped, and is a serious challenge for humans going forward. You know, the same that scientists have been saying for decades.
http://www.climatechange2013.org/report/
Something like this, probably:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ja...ling-the-heat/
The equilibrium climate sensitivity quantifies the response of the climate system to constant radiative forcing on multi-century time scales. It is defined as the change in global mean surface temperature at equilibrium that is caused by a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Equilibrium climate sensitivity is likely in the range 1.5°C to 4.5°C (high confidence), extremely unlikely less than 1°C (high confidence), and very unlikely greater than 6°C (medium confidence)16. The lower temperature limit of the assessed likely range is thus less than the 2°C in the AR4, but the upper limit is the same. This assessment reflects improved understanding, the extended temperature record in the atmosphere and ocean, and new estimates of radiative forcing. {TFE6.1, Figure 1; Box 12.2}
No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies.
Lol
Can you explain to us what that means, Darrin? I'd love to hear it in your words.
Seriously?
I have addressed things in the AR5. Not my fault you don't realize it.
Is it a surprise to anyone the summary says what it does?
In other news, a tree fell in the woods.
Ross McKitrick nails it
SPM in a nuts : Since we started in 1990 we were right about the Arctic, wrong about the Antarctic, wrong about the tropical troposphere, wrong about the surface, wrong about hurricanes, wrong about the Himalayas, wrong about sensitivity, clueless on clouds and useless on regional trends. And on that basis we’re 95% confident we’re right.
...
Last edited by boutons_deux; 09-28-2013 at 09:10 AM.
lol, thinkprogress
Answer: Yes.
Ross McKitrick nails it
Yes, Ross McKitrick the economist sure put that global collection of hundreds of scientists in their place.
Yes, the guy who destroyed the hockey stick.
Answer: Yes.
Why are you making fun of yourself?
I just love giving you the opportunity to make me look foolish, Darrin. Thats why even the people you agree with think you're the biggest fool in this forum. Remember?
In fairness, I think that distinction goes to WC.
Manny would believe the IPCCCP if they said they sky was yellow.
WC: dumb and dated.
http://ideas.time.com/2013/09/27/wha...port-concedes/
Mostly sums up my take.
The only thing we can know for certain is that we will continue to learn more and ac ulate more data. Revisit it in another ten years, and we will hopefully get better at it.
What hasn't changed:
The most conservative option is to moderately try to limit CO2 until we know a bit more about what it is doing.
Anybody who thinks we should do nothing is an idiot who understands neither the science, nor economics underlying that policy option.
Good article.
Absolutely terrible article, RG. His bullet points are all wrong and show why it is nearly impossible to discuss this subject with a layperson and have them understand it properly. Also, there's definitely a false equivalency going on here with the characterization of "the middle road". Just because there is a set of people who decry everything doesn't mean that meeting them at some middle point is appropriate.
I'll critique the bullet points later but I don't have time at this moment. They're all severely flawed viewpoints on the data being presented.
I'll try to help
http://www.skepticalscience.com/
And, this, from the final draft SPM, was removed from the final version of the SPM.
Models do not generally reproduce the observed reduction in surface warming trend over the last 10 –15 years
I guess thats why they call it a draft.
Global average surface temperatures (as in air temps) have not risen greatly in the past but this is not the same as the planet has not warmed. For one, not every 10-15 year period is created equal. Short term variability can wreck havoc on these time scales and the increase was not supposed to be a linear increase but rather one which will have decades with various levels of temperature increase or even decrease.Global average temperatures did not rise at all for the last 15 years. “Models do not generally reproduce the observed reduction in surface warming trend over the last 10 –15 years.” This was a fact skeptics were vilified for pointing out just two years ago.
Furthermore, ocean heat content is more important as a measure of increasing energy within the system and its climbing with no hiatus. When you use indirect measurements involving the extent of the cryosphere you also see there is no hiatus. The models are not meant to function on 10 year time scales but rather on longer periods because they don't do a good job of capturing short term variability. I've posted this dozens of times before.
The reason for the hiatus is the abundance of La Nina's (especially strong ones) during this period. This is mirrored in the oceanic heat content rise and there have been papers that have come out that are attribution studies and show this. There's a really new paper that actually incorporates this into the CIMPS5 models and is able to reproduce the temperature trend of the past more accurately as the models are told what ENSO phase to use as opposed to having them try to figure it out on their own. Obviously we can't do this for the short term future as we don't know what the ENSO phase will be but over the long term it won't matter.
So the IPCC is not saying that it hasn't warmed. At all.
First off, the author is an idiot. Saying that climate sensitivity can't be calculated and then gives a range of values? SMH. The IPCC got rid of their qualitative catagory of best estimate but the range is still there as he gives it.Climate sensitivity (the amount of warming likely to be caused eventually, if carbon dioxide levels double) can no longer even be calculated. “No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies.” The bottom end of the range of probable climate sensitivity has been lowered, however, from 2 degrees Celsius to 1.5 degrees Celsius, while the top end remains the same: 4.5 degrees Celsius. This broadens the range of possible outcomes—that is, increases the uncertainty.
This shows a complete misunderstanding of probability distributions. This is what I mean you can't just give the data to laymen because they don't know what to do with it. When the IPCC gives you a range, they're not applying an equal probability to each value in that range are either 1.5 or 4.5 as likely as the values near 3? Absolutely not. While its not a simple distribution of probabilities its also not equal by any stretch of the imagination. Climate sensitivity is also given for a doubling of CO2. Its not the range of temperature increases.
See above. 1 is virtually impossible given that we're already nearly there.Transient climate response (the actual warming likely to be experienced by around 2080 if carbon dioxide levels have doubled from pre-industrial levels by that time) is now thought to be less than they thought four years before. It is now thought to be in the range 1 to 2.5 degrees Celsius, rather than 1 to 3 degrees Celsius.
The idea that the models got the Arctic right by accident is no where to be found in any IPCC do entation but is just an example of really piss poor editorializing that has no basis in fact what so ever. First of all, the Arctic and Arctic are similar but are also incredibly different due to land distribution in each hemisphere and at the poles. We KNOW that each hemisphere reacts and lags differently (Google the bipolar seesaw).Antarctic sea ice increased, instead of decreasing as predicted: “Most models simulate a small downward trend in Antarctic sea ice extent, albeit with large inter-model spread, in contrast to the small upward trend in observations.” This is awkward. If the models get the Antarctic wrong, then maybe they got the Arctic right by accident.
Furthermore, Antarctica is absolutely losing ice. There is a mass loss down there due to ice melt but its on land and not in sea. Yet the author doesn't mention that but instead tries to paint it as though climate scientists have no idea whats going on at the South Pole.
The big concession is the one the one IPCC cannot quite bring itself to be explicit about: the failure of the models to match reality. The text of the summary released today says: “The long-term climate model simulations show a trend in global-mean surface temperature from 1951 to 2012 that agrees with the observed trend (very high confidence). There are, however, differences between simulated and observed trends over periods as short as 10 to 15 years.” Yet a chart in the draft of its full report, due out on Monday, tells a very different story, of actual temperature measurements over the past 23 years falling below the projections made on each of four previous occasions. Its own chart says, in other words, that it is unlikely that the models are right.
I'm not sure what chart he's referring to, but not all the models are above the current temperature trend. The chapter on model evaluation clearly has models which have projected lower temperature increases to this point than what we've seen. Furthermore, the models have also under estimated other key components such as cryosphere losses and sea level increases. What is happening is that the models are failing to accurately capture the distribution of energy in the system over the short term which is something they were never intended to do.
Long term climate model simulations are not meant to give you a forecast for 5,10,15, or even 20 years down the line outside of a range which we currently still fall in. So not only is this guy flat out lying about what the charts say he's also lying about all the models overestimating the current temperatures. Its most - no doubt - but there's a reason that these reports give ranges and not specific figures.
Thats a really terrible article. There's so much wrong with it.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
