climate sensitivity

[CrusaderFrank]

Whaaat? You hold me responsible for what OldRocks posted?

I hold your responsible for not recognizing an obvious typo, yes.

You actually believed scientists said "Oops, we were off by a factor of 30 on climate sensitivity, no biggee", and then you went off on an idiot rant based on that stupid belief.

Nobody with a brain would have believed that. They would have said "That seems very wrong. I better go check the source."

30% to 50% is a fucking absurd range that should be easily tested and verified with lab results.

Where's the lab work, Sparky?

 

[polarbear]

Whaaat? You hold me responsible for what OldRocks posted?

I hold your responsible for not recognizing an obvious typo, yes.

You actually believed scientists said "Oops, we were off by a factor of 30 on climate sensitivity, no biggee", and then you went off on an idiot rant based on that stupid belief.

Nobody with a brain would have believed that. They would have said "That seems very wrong. I better go check the source."

Nobody with a brain would have believed that. They would have said "That seems very wrong. I better go check the source."
Is that what they said when they ( the entire IPCC cluster fuck) all copied the line that the Himalayan glaciers will be gone in 2035 ?

 

[Crick]

The actual comment suggested it was likely that by 2035 they would have shrunk from 500,000 km^2 to 100,000 km^2; an 80% decrease. The source was a non-reer reviewed 2005 report published by the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) which included the following text:

"In 1999, a report by the Working Group on Himalayan Glaciology (WGHG) of the International Commission for Snow and Ice (ICSI) stated: “glaciers in the Himalayas are receding faster than in any other part of the world and, if the present rate continues, the livelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 is very high”. Direct observation of a select few snout positions out of the thousands of Himalayan glaciers indicate that they have been in a general state of decline over, at least, the past 150 years. The prediction that “glaciers in the region will vanish within 40 years as a result of global warming” and that the flow of Himalayan rivers will “eventually diminish, resulting in widespread water shortages” (New Scientist 1999; 1999, 2003) is equally disturbing."

The 1999 'New Scientist' article was also not peer reviewed. It was based on an interview with the chair of the Working Group on Himalayan Glaciology (not IPCC), Syed Hasnain. And, as Skeptical Scientist points out: it was buried deep in the Working Group II section (which focuses on Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability with a regional emphasis). It was not one of the key features included in the Technical Summary, the Summary for Policymakers or the Synthesis Report. The 2035 prediction was not included in the Working Group I section (focusing on the Physical Science with more of a global emphasis) which was solidly based on peer reviewed research.

And, so, what DID peer reviewed research say about Himalayan glaciers at the time?

The ice mass over the Himalayas is the third-largest on earth, after the Arctic/Greenland and Antarctic regions (Barnett 2005). There are approximately 15,000 glaciers in the Himalayas. Each summer, these glaciers release meltwater into the Indus, Ganges, and Brahmaputra Rivers. Approximately 500 million people depend upon water from these three rivers (Kehrwald 2008). In China, 23% of the population lives in the western regions, where glacial melt is the principal water source during dry season (Barnett 2005).

On-site measurement of glacier terminus position and ice core records have found many glaciers on the south slope of the central Himalaya have been retreating at an accelerating rate (Ren 2006). Similarly, ice cores amd accumulation stakes on the Naimona'nyi Glacier have observed it's losing mass, a surprising result due to its high altitude (it is now the highest glacier in the world losing mass) (Kehrwald 2008).

While on-site measurements cover only a small range of the Himalayas, broader coverage is achieved through remote sensing satellites and Geographic Information System methods. They've found that over 80% of glaciers in western China have retreated in the past 50 years, losing 4.5% of their combined areal coverage (Ding 2006). This retreat is accelerating across much of the Tibetan plateau (Yao 2007).

 

[polarbear]

The actual comment suggested it was likely that by 2035 they would have shrunk from 500,000 km^2 to 100,000 km^2; an 80% decrease. The source was a non-reer reviewed 2005 report published by the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) which included the following text:

"In 1999, a report by the Working Group on Himalayan Glaciology (WGHG) of the International Commission for Snow and Ice (ICSI) stated: “glaciers in the Himalayas are receding faster than in any other part of the world and, if the present rate continues, the livelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 is very high”. Direct observation of a select few snout positions out of the thousands of Himalayan glaciers indicate that they have been in a general state of decline over, at least, the past 150 years. The prediction that “glaciers in the region will vanish within 40 years as a result of global warming” and that the flow of Himalayan rivers will “eventually diminish, resulting in widespread water shortages” (New Scientist 1999; 1999, 2003) is equally disturbing."

The 1999 'New Scientist' article was also not peer reviewed. It was based on an interview with the chair of the Working Group on Himalayan Glaciology (not IPCC), Syed Hasnain. And, as Skeptical Scientist points out: it was buried deep in the Working Group II section (which focuses on Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability with a regional emphasis). It was not one of the key features included in the Technical Summary, the Summary for Policymakers or the Synthesis Report. The 2035 prediction was not included in the Working Group I section (focusing on the Physical Science with more of a global emphasis) which was solidly based on peer reviewed research.

And, so, what DID peer reviewed research say about Himalayan glaciers at the time?

The ice mass over the Himalayas is the third-largest on earth, after the Arctic/Greenland and Antarctic regions (Barnett 2005). There are approximately 15,000 glaciers in the Himalayas. Each summer, these glaciers release meltwater into the Indus, Ganges, and Brahmaputra Rivers. Approximately 500 million people depend upon water from these three rivers (Kehrwald 2008). In China, 23% of the population lives in the western regions, where glacial melt is the principal water source during dry season (Barnett 2005).

On-site measurement of glacier terminus position and ice core records have found many glaciers on the south slope of the central Himalaya have been retreating at an accelerating rate (Ren 2006). Similarly, ice cores amd accumulation stakes on the Naimona'nyi Glacier have observed it's losing mass, a surprising result due to its high altitude (it is now the highest glacier in the world losing mass) (Kehrwald 2008).

While on-site measurements cover only a small range of the Himalayas, broader coverage is achieved through remote sensing satellites and Geographic Information System methods. They've found that over 80% of glaciers in western China have retreated in the past 50 years, losing 4.5% of their combined areal coverage (Ding 2006). This retreat is accelerating across much of the Tibetan plateau (Yao 2007).

So much b.s. could only come from idiots that said this:
from the IPCC report:
Glaciers in the Himalaya are receding faster than in any other part of the world (see Table 10.9) and, if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate. Its [sic] total area will likely shrink from the present 500,000 to 100,000 km2 by the year 2035 (WWF, 2005).
Which you conveniently left out because at that "present" the glaciers in the Himalaya were nowhere near 500 000 km^2, the correct figure was 33 000 km^2 at that (present) time. So it wasn`t just 1 fuckup. the 2035 instead of 2350 that they all sheepishly agreed to when that garbage was published
Each time these frauds get caught in a lie they try and "Clinton" their way out of it

 

[Old Rocks]

Himalayan glaciers

 

[Old Rocks]

not just the himalayan glaciers

 

[Old Rocks]

Alaska

 

[skookerasbil]

Nobody alive knows with any degree of certainty about climate sensitivity. We have some theories..........that's all we have. We have a long, long time to go to make any scientific determination about how sensitive the climate is.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Alaska

^ Pre "Global Warming"

Q. How much must we lower CO2 from the current 409PPM in order to eradicate Global Warming?

A. $15 Trillion

 

[SSDD]

Alaska

^ Pre "Global Warming"

Q. How much must we lower CO2 from the current 409PPM in order to eradicate Global Warming?

A. $15 Trillion

Lowering CO2 won't eradicate climate change...it will just effectively redistribute 15 trillion dollars in the most wasteful manner possible.

 

[skookerasbil]

Alaska

^ Pre "Global Warming"

Q. How much must we lower CO2 from the current 409PPM in order to eradicate Global Warming?

A. $15 Trillion

Lowering CO2 won't eradicate climate change...it will just effectively redistribute 15 trillion dollars in the most wasteful manner possible.

Isnt it funny...........the most vocal supporters of spending trillions on combating climate change are ALSO the one's who scream the loudest about the plight of the poor. I mean...........how amusing is that?