Science/Environment The Carbon Debate, pt III

[HairyO]

which 1980s predictions did you have in mind?



http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...g-a-1981-temperature-projection/#ITEM-11398-0

who is this "we" that you speak of?

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and..._first_assessment_1990_wg1.shtml#.T6CiCdnox8E

The problem with the projections is that they get the temperature increases mostly correct, but their predictions are based on CO2 increases *WAY* less than we actually saw. So they get it right by accident. The temperatures have basically followed the "BAU" case, while the CO2 increases have been 25% greater year in, year out.

When you look at CO2 levels based on their increased "Worst Case" scenarios, then they are only about 40% out on their predictions. Now, to be fair, that is pretty decent for such a long period. But how much weight do we lend to models which are that wrong?

As for the "we"... pretty much every green group in the world. Rail against CSG and GM foods, while demanding action on climate change.

 

[Long Live HFC]

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and..._first_assessment_1990_wg1.shtml#.T6CiCdnox8E

The problem with the projections is that they get the temperature increases mostly correct, but their predictions are based on CO2 increases *WAY* less than we actually saw. So they get it right by accident. The temperatures have basically followed the "BAU" case, while the CO2 increases have been 25% greater year in, year out.

When you look at CO2 levels based on their increased "Worst Case" scenarios, then they are only about 40% out on their predictions. Now, to be fair, that is pretty decent for such a long period. But how much weight do we lend to models which are that wrong?

so, is it your position that because the models are imperfect, then AGW isn't a thing?

As for the "we"... pretty much every green group in the world. Rail against CSG and GM foods, while demanding action on climate change.

sure, i was just making sure you weren't referencing this little black duck

 

[Bleeeeeeeeep]

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...wont-rule-out-dumping-renewable-energy-target

On Monday the Australian quoted several unnamed conservative MPs who want to ditch the RET, arguing it would help sharpen the Coalition’s attack on Labor’s plan to lift renewable energy to 50%.

 

[HairyO]

so, is it your position that because the models are imperfect, then AGW isn't a thing?

Not at all. It may well be a thing and it may well be serious. But based on estimates to-date, its nothing like what we have been told over and over that it will be. Im not sure if true, but I have read that even the modern models are using fundamentally the same foundations used by the original models which we have seen over 20 to 30 years to not be true. Which I find concerning.

I will say that I would much rather we focus on issues of today. It shouldnt just be about carbon dioxide. We should be focussing on pollution. Up to 1 million people a year are dying in China from pollution. That is insane. We have trash piling up in the oceans killing who-knows how many fish/birds/other mammals at a time when we are being told fish stocks are now starting to seriously decline.

And of course the biggest issue. Population.

But anyway...

 

[Long Live HFC]

Not at all. It may well be a thing and it may well be serious. But based on estimates to-date, its nothing like what we have been told over and over that it will be. Im not sure if true, but I have read that even the modern models are using fundamentally the same foundations used by the original models which we have seen over 20 to 30 years to not be true. Which I find concerning.

honestly, i think if you delve into the literature you'd be surprised re the quality the models.

The figure below from the 2013 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report compares the global surface warming projections made in the 1990, 1995, 2001, and 2007 IPCC reports to the temperature measurements.

Since 1990, global surface temperatures have warmed at a rate of about 0.15°C per decade, within the range of model projections of about 0.10 to 0.35°C per decade.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/ipcc-global-warming-projections.htm

 

[HairyO]

honestly, i think if you delve into the literature you'd be surprised re the quality the models.



https://www.skepticalscience.com/ipcc-global-warming-projections.htm

What they ignore is actual CO2 output being far greater than predicted, when they made those temperature predictions.

I could say that tomorrow it will be 20c because it is going to rain. If it ends up being 20c but there is no rain, my prediction is not correct. Nor is it half correct. It is incorrect. I said that because of the rain, the temperature would be a certain number. I was wrong.

They said temperature increase of X% based on CO2 increases of Y%. Instead we got temperature increase of X% based on CO2 increases if 2Y%.

They were not correct, nor were they half correct. They were incorrect. If you put actual CO2 emissions in to their models then you end up with temperature predictions far greater than we had.

 

[Long Live HFC]

They said temperature increase of X% based on CO2 increases of Y%. Instead we got temperature increase of X% based on CO2 increases if 2Y%.

They were not correct, nor were they half correct. They were incorrect. If you put actual CO2 emissions in to their models then you end up with temperature predictions far greater than we had.

well there are papers from 2 or 3 years ago which question whether climate sensitivity to CO2 is as high as previously thought. haven't heard anything recently, though. there's also the question of the ocean c02 sink and how well it is understood vs surface temperatures.

do you have some examples re these models? i know researchers run many, many types of scenarios all with different inputs/assumptions, but i haven't heard this " consistent 200% c02 underestimation" claim before.

 

[HairyO]

well there are papers from 2 or 3 years ago which question whether climate sensitivity to CO2 is as high as previously thought. haven't heard anything recently, though. there's also the question of the ocean c02 sink and how well it is understood vs surface temperatures.

do you have some examples re these models? i know researchers run many, many types of scenarios all with different inputs/assumptions, but i haven't heard this " consistent 200% c02 underestimation" claim before.

The 1990 IPCC report i posted had a number of scenarios which are often present in these sorts of modelling reports.

Business as usual
Increasing rates of CO2
Decreasing rates of CO2

The actual temperature followed Business as Usual but the actual CO2 followed the increasing rates. To date a number of possible reasons have been proposed.

A common one is oceans hiding it but modern mapping of deep ocean temps show little change.

The one thing the models refuse to consider is their CO2 forcings calcs being overly sensitive.

 

[Long Live HFC]

The 1990 IPCC report i posted had a number of scenarios which are often present in these sorts of modelling reports.

Business as usual
Increasing rates of CO2
Decreasing rates of CO2

The actual temperature followed Business as Usual but the actual CO2 followed the increasing rates. To date a number of possible reasons have been proposed.

A common one is oceans hiding it but modern mapping of deep ocean temps show little change.

The one thing the models refuse to consider is their CO2 forcings calcs being overly sensitive.

yeah i had a look at that when you previously posted it, but i can't find the examples to which you refer (i looked at chapters 1, 3 and 4).

chapter 1 notes c02 ppm of 353 and describes an increase of approx 1.8 ppm per year. in 2017 its about 404, so that gives us an increase in ~26 years of approx 2 ppm/year.

scientific american states that

Projection: In 2001, the IPCC offered a range of fossil fuel and industrial emissions trends, from a best-case scenario of 7.7 billion tons of carbon released each year by 2010 to a worst-case scenario of 9.7 billion tons.

Reality: In 2010, global emissions from fossil fuels alone totaled 9.1 billion tons of carbon, according to federal government's Earth Systems Research Laboratory.

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

but this kind of estimate still doesn't seem to be what you're talking about?

also, do we expect there to be a linear relationship between c02 concentrations and temperature, over relatively short timeframes? i didn't think so but could be wrong.

 

[Grin]

Global warming sceptics, Anti Vacc crazies

Utter w***ers, the lot of them.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

The 1990 IPCC report i posted had a number of scenarios which are often present in these sorts of modelling reports.

Business as usual
Increasing rates of CO2
Decreasing rates of CO2

The actual temperature followed Business as Usual but the actual CO2 followed the increasing rates. To date a number of possible reasons have been proposed.

A common one is oceans hiding it but modern mapping of deep ocean temps show little change.

The one thing the models refuse to consider is their CO2 forcings calcs being overly sensitive.

Can't think why CO2 dissolved in water would cause any warming.

 

[medusala]

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...wont-rule-out-dumping-renewable-energy-target

On Monday the Australian quoted several unnamed conservative MPs who want to ditch the RET, arguing it would help sharpen the Coalition’s attack on Labor’s plan to lift renewable energy to 50%.

No surely not. Since when come out with rational policies?

 

[Lebbo73]

which 1980s predictions did you have in mind?



http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...g-a-1981-temperature-projection/#ITEM-11398-0

who is this "we" that you speak of?

I love it when you post doctored graphs. How about you fix that pink worm, your favourite colour btw, to show an accurate portrayal of the data? It should be virtually horizontal from the late 90's and the pink worm was mysteriously halted several years short!

 

[Lebbo73]

Global warming sceptics, Anti Vacc crazies

Utter w***ers, the lot of them.

The feeling is more than mutual. Especially when you keep finding out that you are becoming crazier as the years pass. 20 years have passed and virtually no warming. The IPCC are starting to panic.

 

[Long Live HFC]

I love it when you post doctored graphs. How about you fix that pink worm, your favourite colour btw, to show an accurate portrayal of the data? It should be virtually horizontal from the late 90's and the pink worm was mysteriously halted several years short!

lol, * you're a dumb campaigner.

 

[Lebbo73]

lol, **** you're a dumb campaigner.

Once again, another insult but you cannot prove your case. Just more voodoo science. Take your posts to the appropriate conspiracy thread.

 

[kwikfix]

Most extreme global warming yet

Cardrona gets mid-summer snow dump

Ski field workers in the South Island have been left scrambling to get their winter gear on and clear the roads after this weekend's wild weather left a record dumping of snow.

Cardrona Ski Field, located in the Central Lakes District between Queenstown and Wanaka, usually becomes a hive for adrenaline junkies during the summer, offering activities like mountain biking and carting.

But the mountain was closed Sunday morning, the 'weather bomb' bringing with it the most snow they've ever seen fall in January.

http://www.newshub.co.nz/home/new-zealand/2017/01/cardrona-gets-mid-summer-snow-dump.html

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Most extreme global warming yet

Cardrona gets mid-summer snow dump

Ski field workers in the South Island have been left scrambling to get their winter gear on and clear the roads after this weekend's wild weather left a record dumping of snow.

Cardrona Ski Field, located in the Central Lakes District between Queenstown and Wanaka, usually becomes a hive for adrenaline junkies during the summer, offering activities like mountain biking and carting.

But the mountain was closed Sunday morning, the 'weather bomb' bringing with it the most snow they've ever seen fall in January.

http://www.newshub.co.nz/home/new-zealand/2017/01/cardrona-gets-mid-summer-snow-dump.html

Is it really?

 

[Long Live HFC]

Once again, another insult but you cannot prove your case.

you're kidding right?! i've lost count of the number of times i've embarrassed you on these forums. it always ends with you running away to lick your wounds. and when you eventually return, it's always to throw things from the sidelines rather than actually discuss the topic. because ultimately, even you realise you don't have even a grade-school level of understanding re AGW and get smashed everytime you try and pretend otherwise.

i've actually already crushed you re your pathetic statistical "methodology" on display today, yet here you are, again, still bleating the same bullshit. if i did so again, you'd only be back again in a few weeks or months after you've finishing licking those wounds. yawn.

 

[Long Live HFC]

Most extreme global warming yet

Cardrona gets mid-summer snow dump

Ski field workers in the South Island have been left scrambling to get their winter gear on and clear the roads after this weekend's wild weather left a record dumping of snow.

Cardrona Ski Field, located in the Central Lakes District between Queenstown and Wanaka, usually becomes a hive for adrenaline junkies during the summer, offering activities like mountain biking and carting.

But the mountain was closed Sunday morning, the 'weather bomb' bringing with it the most snow they've ever seen fall in January.

http://www.newshub.co.nz/home/new-zealand/2017/01/cardrona-gets-mid-summer-snow-dump.html

honestly, how stupid are you?

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Can't think why CO2 dissolved in water would cause any warming.

Water is a sink for carbon, so it can only absorb so much

The acidfication of the waters caused by the co2 however is a concern for the effect of corals and sealife

 

[Lebbo73]

you're kidding right?! i've lost count of the number of times i've embarrassed you on these forums. it always ends with you running away to lick your wounds. and when you eventually return, it's always to throw things from the sidelines rather than actually discuss the topic. because ultimately, even you realise you don't have even a grade-school level of understanding re AGW and get smashed everytime you try and pretend otherwise.

i've actually already crushed you re your pathetic statistical "methodology" on display today, yet here you are, again, still bleating the same bullshit. if i did so again, you'd only be back again in a few weeks or months after you've finishing licking those wounds. yawn.

The temperature graph has gone sideways. Any reasons for this with rising CO2 levels or just more supposed big noting.
Btw, I didn't run away. I just ignored the bs you continue to spew on these forums.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Water is a sink for carbon, so it can only absorb so much

The acidfication of the waters caused by the co2 however is a concern for the effect of corals and sealife

Yeah. Look at the post i was responding to.

 

[Long Live HFC]

The temperature graph has gone sideways. Any reasons for this with rising CO2 levels or just more supposed big noting.

there's several levels of stupidity here.

1. you (deliberately) cherry pick a record-breaking temperature year (1998) as your starting point, which was a year with a fierce el nino effect. regardless, you still ignore the moderate warming since that year anyway, helped along this time by another el nino period. please draw your "sideways" temperature trend:

maybe you want to draw your short-term "horizontal" trend between 2 el nino outliers, 1998 and 2014-16?

or maybe this one?

2. anyone without s**t for brains, realise that global warming isn't a matter of each year being hotter than the previous. go and find a paper that says otherwise

so even if your partisan "pause" was actually a thing, guess what? that says absolutely nothing about longterm trends. according to your "methodology", the world has been pausing for many, many years. this is literally you:

3. there isn't a linear relationship between C02 ppm and short-term temperature variability, nor is C02 the only factor in climate trends. look at the above graph again- see how many times the yearly data points go down? dickhead.

4. that "pink line" you sooked about initially? likely represents the 5-year average or similar, and isn't a "doctoring" of the data.

Btw, I didn't run away. I just ignored the bs you continue to spew on these forums.

uh huh. we all know the truth, coward. run away.

 

[Lebbo73]

there's several levels of stupidity here.

1. you (deliberately) cherry pick a record-breaking temperature year (1998) as your starting point, which was a year with a fierce el nino effect. regardless, you still ignore the moderate warming since that year anyway, helped along this time by another el nino period. please draw your "sideways" temperature trend:

maybe you want to draw your short-term "horizontal" trend between 2 el nino outliers, 1998 and 2014-16?

or maybe this one?

2. anyone without s**t for brains, realise that global warming isn't a matter of each year being hotter than the previous. go and find a paper that says otherwise

so even if your partisan "pause" was actually a thing, guess what? that says absolutely nothing about longterm trends. according to your "methodology", the world has been pausing for many, many years. this is literally you:

3. there isn't a linear relationship between C02 ppm and short-term temperature variability, nor is C02 the only factor in climate trends. look at the above graph again- see how many times the yearly data points go down? dickhead.

4. that "pink line" you sooked about initially? likely represents the 5-year average or similar, and isn't a "doctoring" of the data.

uh huh. we all know the truth, coward. run away.

We all know your graphs are full of bs when a simple Google search says that global temperatures have increased by 0.8°C since 1880. However, you produce doctored graphs that say 2016 has increased by over 0.5°C in 1 year.