A Climate Alarm, Too Muted for Some

ScienceRocks

Democrat all the way!
Mar 16, 2010
59,455
6,793
1,900
The Good insane United states of America
A Climate Alarm, Too Muted for Some

This month, the world will get a new report from a United Nations panel about the science of climate change. Scientists will soon meet in Stockholm to put the finishing touches on the document, and behind the scenes, two big fights are brewing.

In one case, we have a lot of mainstream science that says if human society keeps burning fossil fuels with abandon, considerable land ice could melt and the ocean could rise as much as three feet by the year 2100. We have some outlier science that says the problem could be quite a bit worse than that, with a maximum rise exceeding five feet.

The drafters of the report went with the lower numbers, choosing to treat the outlier science as not very credible.

In the second case, we have mainstream science that says if the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere doubles, which is well on its way to happening, the long-term rise in the temperature of the earth will be at least 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit, but more likely above 5 degrees. We have outlier science that says the rise could come in well below 3 degrees.

In this case, the drafters of the report lowered the bottom end in a range of temperatures for how much the earth could warm, treating the outlier science as credible.

Climate change skeptics often disparage these periodic reports from the United Nations, claiming that the panel writing them routinely stretches the boundaries of scientific evidence to make the problem look as dire as possible. So it is interesting to see that in these two important cases, the panel seems to be bending over backward to be scientifically conservative.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/10/science/a-climate-alarm-too-muted-for-some.html?_r=0

I'll stick with my 1.1-1.5c more warming by 2100 ;)
 
The past predictions concerning the Arctic Ice have all been on the very conservative side. The speed at which the ice is melting far exceeds the prediction made a generation ago. The increase in extreme weather events predicted for mid-century is already here. And the present predictions do not take into account the potential feedbacks from methane clathrates in the ocean or the production of methane from the permafrost areas in North America and Siberia.
 
I'll stick with my prediction that if the earth is a couple degrees warmer nothing will really happen.
 
In the second case, we have mainstream science that says if the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere doubles, which is well on its way to happening, the long-term rise in the temperature of the earth will be at least 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit, but more likely above 5 degrees. We have outlier science that says the rise could come in well below 3 degrees.

Total absolute bullshit

Show me one repeatable lab experiment where you get anything near these results or its a lie

It's simple to add 800PPM CO2 to a test tank, lets see it raise temperature ANYTHING much less 3+ degrees
 
A Climate Alarm, Too Muted for Some

This month, the world will get a new report from a United Nations panel about the science of climate change. Scientists will soon meet in Stockholm to put the finishing touches on the document, and behind the scenes, two big fights are brewing.

In one case, we have a lot of mainstream science that says if human society keeps burning fossil fuels with abandon, considerable land ice could melt and the ocean could rise as much as three feet by the year 2100. We have some outlier science that says the problem could be quite a bit worse than that, with a maximum rise exceeding five feet.

The drafters of the report went with the lower numbers, choosing to treat the outlier science as not very credible.

In the second case, we have mainstream science that says if the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere doubles, which is well on its way to happening, the long-term rise in the temperature of the earth will be at least 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit, but more likely above 5 degrees. We have outlier science that says the rise could come in well below 3 degrees.

In this case, the drafters of the report lowered the bottom end in a range of temperatures for how much the earth could warm, treating the outlier science as credible.

Climate change skeptics often disparage these periodic reports from the United Nations, claiming that the panel writing them routinely stretches the boundaries of scientific evidence to make the problem look as dire as possible. So it is interesting to see that in these two important cases, the panel seems to be bending over backward to be scientifically conservative.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/10/science/a-climate-alarm-too-muted-for-some.html?_r=0

I'll stick with my 1.1-1.5c more warming by 2100 ;)

To be fair --- most of the objectionable drama and hysteria in the IPCC reports comes from the fact that NON-Science reviewers have a large say in the abstracts, summaries, and press releases..

Many science guys who WERE part of the IPCC science team have complained that they didn't recognize their own contributions after the poli-sci rodents got done gnawing on them..

The run-up to this new report has been panic and dread for the warmers. They HAVE to put a throttle on the hype for now...
 
The past predictions concerning the Arctic Ice have all been on the very conservative side. The speed at which the ice is melting far exceeds the prediction made a generation ago. The increase in extreme weather events predicted for mid-century is already here. And the present predictions do not take into account the potential feedbacks from methane clathrates in the ocean or the production of methane from the permafrost areas in North America and Siberia.

I've had Abraham, Trakar, Mamooth, and Oroman tell me that "NO ONE is claiming that today's "extreme weather" is attributed to GW.. Would you guys huddle up and get the story straight?? Or are U the ONLY nutcase that wants to blame every forest fire on GW-ing?

You do know that methane calthrates used to exist in the permafrost of Texas right? And those melted many moons ago?? What's left is a miniscule addition to the atmos compared to historical releases.
 
I'll stick with my prediction that if the earth is a couple degrees warmer nothing will really happen.

Right, 'cause "predictions" based on ignorant denial of reality have such a great track record. LOLOL.

Actually the warming since 1850 has been closer to tracking the "CO2 only forcing" model WITHOUT all the hysteria and guessing of the AGW "amplification" crowd.. Especially if the flattening of the surface temps continues for another decade..

The "CO2 only" calculations expect 1.2degC from 250ppm to 500ppm.. If that were the extent of the ACTUAL warming --- it would never beat Honey Boo Boo to the evening news..
 

Forum List

Back
Top