Global Warming of 1.5C

[Sunsettommy]

You mean like this?

The non-link link generates a 404 error.

But, let's assume it's a genuine quote. Please state, in your own terms, what it means, and pay close attention to the meaning of "climate state" in your elaboration. Thanks in advance!

It is a genuine quote as you can see HERE IN THE FINAL DRAFT

The IPCC has been deleting portions like this from their website, it is a typical behavior of political organizations. That is why I saved this to preserve what they originally published.

If you know terms such as the following:

Falsification, Verification, Scientific Method, Replication, Chaos, Testability, you would know this statement "Future Climate States" is pseudoscience. However their entire statement is a rational one since modeling far into the future exercises has no credibility since it is NOT part of validating science research. Models are not data or evidence, they are assumptions on what they think might be.

Scientific Method is a far better way to run your research with, that way you can realize in real time whether your initial hypothesis is a good one or not. Can't do that with modeling scenarios to year 2050, 2100 and 3100.

 

[Olde Europe]

you would know this statement "Future Climate States" is pseudoscience.

So, no explanation as to what the quote is saying, nor any indication you know what "climate states" means, and why it's so difficult to predict them. Instead we get a slew of diversion ranging from the usual paranoia to pseudo-scientific blab and a nice little picture you found on google.

 

[Sunsettommy]

you would know this statement "Future Climate States" is pseudoscience.

So, no explanation as to what the quote is saying, nor any indication you know what "climate states" means, and why it's so difficult to predict them. Instead we get a slew of diversion ranging from the usual paranoia to pseudo-scientific blab and a nice little picture you found on google.

You are being irrational, since what you ask for is already answered in the paragraph. Since they say climate is COUPLED NON LINEAR and CHAOTIC, not possible to be making FUTURE LONG TERM PREDICTIONS with confidence.

The Scientific Method picture makes clear you have to do your science research in real time or you have no idea if the hypothesis is working or not. Far into the future climate modeling scenarios are NOT in real time, therefore not possible to test/verify if a Hypothesis is working.

How can you be so ignorant?

 

[Olde Europe]

You are being irrational, since what you ask for is already answered in the paragraph. Since they say climate is COUPLED NON LINEAR and CHAOTIC, not possible to be making FUTURE LONG TERM PREDICTIONS with confidence.

The Scientific Method picture makes clear you have to do your science research in real time or you have no idea if the hypothesis is working or not. Far into the future climate modeling scenarios are NOT in real time, therefore not possible to test/verify if a Hypothesis is working.

How can you be so ignorant?

Yep, as was to be expected, that is not what they are saying. Moreover, you don't understand how models are being tested. Instead of explaining what "climate states", the central term of your quote, means, you are alleging "pseudo-science", also without an explanation. So now, having your inability to explain your own quote exposed, and still fail to notice the difference between research and predictions, you have to resort to attacks. Thanks. Come back when you've done your homework and begin to understand your quote.

 

[Sunsettommy]

you would know this statement "Future Climate States" is pseudoscience.

So, no explanation as to what the quote is saying, nor any indication you know what "climate states" means, and why it's so difficult to predict them. Instead we get a slew of diversion ranging from the usual paranoia to pseudo-scientific blab and a nice little picture you found on google.

You are being irrational, since what you ask for is already answered in the paragraph. Since they say climate is COUPLED NON LINEAR and CHAOTIC, not possible to be making FUTURE LONG TERM PREDICTIONS with confidence.

The Scientific Method picture makes clear you have to do your science research in real time or you have no idea if the hypothesis is working or not. Far into the future climate modeling scenarios are NOT in real time, therefore not possible to test/verify if a Hypothesis is working.

How can you be so ignorant?

You are being irrational, since what you ask for is already answered in the paragraph. Since they say climate is COUPLED NON LINEAR and CHAOTIC, not possible to be making FUTURE LONG TERM PREDICTIONS with confidence.

The Scientific Method picture makes clear you have to do your science research in real time or you have no idea if the hypothesis is working or not. Far into the future climate modeling scenarios are NOT in real time, therefore not possible to test/verify if a Hypothesis is working.

How can you be so ignorant?

Yep, as was to be expected, that is not what they are saying. Moreover, you don't understand how models are being tested. Instead of explaining what "climate states", the central term of your quote, means, you are alleging "pseudo-science", also without an explanation. So now, having your inability to explain your own quote exposed, and still fail to notice the difference between research and predictions, you have to resort to attacks. Thanks. Come back when you've done your homework and begin to understand your quote.

YOU have yet to show how I am wrong, despite my reasoned replies that was conductive to discussion. You have yet to discuss anything, while I made a point you completely ignored about how to do credible science research.

You hilariously write:

"Moreover, you don't understand how models are being tested."

Modeling scenarios to year 2050, 2100 and 3100 are testable?



Here is the FULL quote, you refused to read:

"Explore more fully the probabilistic character of future climate states by developing multiple ensembles of model39 calculations. The climate system is a coupled nonlinear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of 40 future climate states is not possible. Rather the focus must be upon the prediction of the probability distribution of41 the systems future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions. Addressing adequately the42 statistical nature of climate is computationally intensive and requires the application of new methods of model43 diagnosis, but such statistical information is essential"

bolding mine

None of it testable as I have been pointing out.

You are veering deeply into the twilight zone here with your stupidity.

 

[SSDD]

o The global climate has changed relative to the pre-industrial period, and there are multiple lines of evidence that these changes have had impacts on organisms and ecosystems, as well as on human systems and well-being (high confidence)

Observed, measured evidence? Lets see it.

o Human-induced global warming has already caused multiple observed changes in the climate system (high confidence).

Observed, measured evidence? Lets see it.

[

o Trends in intensity and frequency of some climate and weather extremes have been detected over time spans during which about 0.5°C of global warming occurred (medium confidence).

Observed, measured evidence? Lets see it.

o Several regional changes in climate are assessed to occur with global warming up to 1.5°C as compared to pre-industrial levels, including warming of extreme temperatures in many regions (high confidence)

Observed, measured evidence? Lets see it.

o Robust1 global differences in temperature means and extremes are expected if global warming reaches 1.5°C versus 2°C above the pre-industrial levels (high confidence)

Observed, measured evidence? Lets see it.

o Climate models project robust1 differences in regional climate between present-day and global warming up to 1.5°C2 , and between 1.5°C and 2°C2 (high confidence), depending on the variable and region in question (high confidence). Large, robust and widespread differences are expected for temperature extremes (high confidence)

Observed, measured evidence? Lets see it.

o Limiting global warming to 1.5°C would limit risks of increases in heavy precipitation events on a global scale and in several regions compared to conditions at 2°C global warming (medium confidence).

Observed, measured evidence? Lets see it.

o Limiting global warming to 1.5°C is expected to substantially reduce the probability of extreme drought, precipitation deficits, and risks associated with water availability (i.e., water stress) in some regions (medium confidence)

Observed, measured evidence? Lets see it.

o Risks to natural and human systems are expected to be lower at 1.5°C than at 2°C of global warming (high confidence).

Observed, measured evidence? Lets see it.

All models, all the time...no actual observed, measured evidence to support any of those claims...wild assed guesses and alarmist claptrap....nothing more as evidence by your impending failure to deliver the first piece of observed, measured evidence to support any of those "oh so confident" claims....

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You are being irrational, since what you ask for is already answered in the paragraph. Since they say climate is COUPLED NON LINEAR and CHAOTIC, not possible to be making FUTURE LONG TERM PREDICTIONS with confidence.

The Scientific Method picture makes clear you have to do your science research in real time or you have no idea if the hypothesis is working or not. Far into the future climate modeling scenarios are NOT in real time, therefore not possible to test/verify if a Hypothesis is working.

How can you be so ignorant?

Yep, as was to be expected, that is not what they are saying. Moreover, you don't understand how models are being tested. Instead of explaining what "climate states", the central term of your quote, means, you are alleging "pseudo-science", also without an explanation. So now, having your inability to explain your own quote exposed, and still fail to notice the difference between research and predictions, you have to resort to attacks. Thanks. Come back when you've done your homework and begin to understand your quote.

Yep, as was to be expected, that is not what they are saying.

Enlighten us.

 

[skookerasbil]

"An IPCC special report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5C above pe-industrial levels and related greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development and efforts to eradicate poverty."

The IPCC has released a report during the workup towards AR6 with inputs from all three Working Groups and including a Summary for Policy Makers (SPM). I aim this thread at those who consistently express concern about the cost of measures to reduce GHG emissions and those who minimize the magnitude of the the threat.

The full report may be viewed at Global Warming of 1.5 ºC —

Below are the opening bullets to the SPM

Understanding Global Warming of 1.5°C4
A.1 Human activities are estimated to have caused approximately 1.0°C of global warming5 above pre-industrial levels, with a likely range of 0.8°C to 1.2°C. Global warming is likely to reach 1.5°C between 2030 and 2052 if it continues to increase at the current rate. (high confidence) (Figure SPM.1) {1.2}

A.1.1 Reflecting the long-term warming trend since pre-industrial times, observed global mean surface temperature (GMST) for the decade 2006–2015 was 0.87°C (likely between 0.75°C and 0.99°C)6 higher than the average over the 1850–1900 period (very high confidence). Estimated anthropogenic global warming matches the level of observed warming to within ±20% (likely range). Estimated anthropogenic global warming is currently increasing at 0.2°C (likely between 0.1°C and 0.3°C) per decade due to past and ongoing emissions (high confidence). {1.2.1, Table 1.1, 1.2.4}

A.1.2 Warming greater than the global annual average is being experienced in many land regions and seasons, including two to three times higher in the Arctic. Warming is generally higher over land than over the ocean. (high confidence) {1.2.1, 1.2.2, Figure 1.1, Figure 1.3, 3.3.1, 3.3.2}

A.1.3 Trends in intensity and frequency of some climate and weather extremes have been detected over time spans during which about 0.5°C of global warming occurred (medium confidence). This assessment is based on several lines of evidence, including attribution studies for changes in extremes since 1950. {3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.3.3}

Forgot something s0n....you cant predict future climate using computer models. Well.....so says the IPCC anyway. Think it's kinda material to your post don't ya think?

You mean like this?

That is correct sir!

Funny.....the climate crusaders routinely cite IPCC measurements but NEVER mention that the same IPCC states publically that they cannot predict the future climate with any degree of certainty.






@www.whosfakingit.com

 

[skookerasbil]

You mean like this?

The non-link link generates a 404 error.

But, let's assume it's a genuine quote. Please state, in your own terms, what it means, and pay close attention to the meaning of "climate state" in your elaboration. Thanks in advance!

Everyone and their brother who's not a matrix dweller knows that the IPCC stated in the mid-90's that computer models were worthless in predicting the future climate. The link has been posted up about 450,000 times in this forum. Find it yourself s0n!

 

[skookerasbil]

You mean like this?

The non-link link generates a 404 error.

But, let's assume it's a genuine quote. Please state, in your own terms, what it means, and pay close attention to the meaning of "climate state" in your elaboration. Thanks in advance!

It is a genuine quote as you can see HERE IN THE FINAL DRAFT

The IPCC has been deleting portions like this from their website, it is a typical behavior of political organizations. That is why I saved this to preserve what they originally published.

If you know terms such as the following:

Falsification, Verification, Scientific Method, Replication, Chaos, Testability, you would know this statement "Future Climate States" is pseudoscience. However their entire statement is a rational one since modeling far into the future exercises has no credibility since it is NOT part of validating science research. Models are not data or evidence, they are assumptions on what they think might be.

Scientific Method is a far better way to run your research with, that way you can realize in real time whether your initial hypothesis is a good one or not. Can't do that with modeling scenarios to year 2050, 2100 and 3100.

Ahhh.....there is no such thing as objective truth to these progressive bozos....entire existence is about information fakery. And they know it too.....

 

[IanC]

You are being irrational, since what you ask for is already answered in the paragraph. Since they say climate is COUPLED NON LINEAR and CHAOTIC, not possible to be making FUTURE LONG TERM PREDICTIONS with confidence.

The Scientific Method picture makes clear you have to do your science research in real time or you have no idea if the hypothesis is working or not. Far into the future climate modeling scenarios are NOT in real time, therefore not possible to test/verify if a Hypothesis is working.

How can you be so ignorant?

Yep, as was to be expected, that is not what they are saying. Moreover, you don't understand how models are being tested. Instead of explaining what "climate states", the central term of your quote, means, you are alleging "pseudo-science", also without an explanation. So now, having your inability to explain your own quote exposed, and still fail to notice the difference between research and predictions, you have to resort to attacks. Thanks. Come back when you've done your homework and begin to understand your quote.

GHGs can impart a warming influence but they are not the only factor. They are not even the most important factor.

The chaotic nature of climate change means that unknown influences and combinations of factors cause unknowable changes of variable magnitude.

Small variance in the type or timing in cloud formation can easily offset the small GHG influence .

 

[Olde Europe]

GHGs can impart a warming influence but they are not the only factor. They are not even the most important factor.

The chaotic nature of climate change means that unknown influences and combinations of factors cause unknowable changes of variable magnitude.

Small variance in the type or timing in cloud formation can easily offset the small GHG influence .

Of course, GHGs are the most important factor, by far, driving the current change in climate. There's little by way of "unknown influences" - meaning in theory most influences are known, uncertainties notwithstanding. What we don't know is when exactly the feedback loops we're triggering, as temperatures on earth are rising, are kicking in. Cloud formation is a minor influence, and, as far as I have seen, no one of any stature in the climate science community expects it to overwhelm or reverse the energy imbalance humans have caused.

 

[Crick]

You are being irrational, since what you ask for is already answered in the paragraph. Since they say climate is COUPLED NON LINEAR and CHAOTIC, not possible to be making FUTURE LONG TERM PREDICTIONS with confidence.

The Scientific Method picture makes clear you have to do your science research in real time or you have no idea if the hypothesis is working or not. Far into the future climate modeling scenarios are NOT in real time, therefore not possible to test/verify if a Hypothesis is working.

How can you be so ignorant?

Yep, as was to be expected, that is not what they are saying. Moreover, you don't understand how models are being tested. Instead of explaining what "climate states", the central term of your quote, means, you are alleging "pseudo-science", also without an explanation. So now, having your inability to explain your own quote exposed, and still fail to notice the difference between research and predictions, you have to resort to attacks. Thanks. Come back when you've done your homework and begin to understand your quote.

GHGs can impart a warming influence but they are not the only factor. They are not even the most important factor.

The chaotic nature of climate change means that unknown influences and combinations of factors cause unknowable changes of variable magnitude.

Small variance in the type or timing in cloud formation can easily offset the small GHG influence .

What unknown influences and factors Ian? How can you say that GHGs are not the most important factor if you have no idea what might be more important? You don't have evidence that there are any other factors. The total warming may be calculated from the ToA data and there is no significant missing forcing factor. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[skookerasbil]

"An IPCC special report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5C above pe-industrial levels and related greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development and efforts to eradicate poverty."

The IPCC has released a report during the workup towards AR6 with inputs from all three Working Groups and including a Summary for Policy Makers (SPM). I aim this thread at those who consistently express concern about the cost of measures to reduce GHG emissions and those who minimize the magnitude of the the threat.

The full report may be viewed at Global Warming of 1.5 ºC —

Below are the opening bullets to the SPM

Understanding Global Warming of 1.5°C4
A.1 Human activities are estimated to have caused approximately 1.0°C of global warming5 above pre-industrial levels, with a likely range of 0.8°C to 1.2°C. Global warming is likely to reach 1.5°C between 2030 and 2052 if it continues to increase at the current rate. (high confidence) (Figure SPM.1) {1.2}

A.1.1 Reflecting the long-term warming trend since pre-industrial times, observed global mean surface temperature (GMST) for the decade 2006–2015 was 0.87°C (likely between 0.75°C and 0.99°C)6 higher than the average over the 1850–1900 period (very high confidence). Estimated anthropogenic global warming matches the level of observed warming to within ±20% (likely range). Estimated anthropogenic global warming is currently increasing at 0.2°C (likely between 0.1°C and 0.3°C) per decade due to past and ongoing emissions (high confidence). {1.2.1, Table 1.1, 1.2.4}

A.1.2 Warming greater than the global annual average is being experienced in many land regions and seasons, including two to three times higher in the Arctic. Warming is generally higher over land than over the ocean. (high confidence) {1.2.1, 1.2.2, Figure 1.1, Figure 1.3, 3.3.1, 3.3.2}

A.1.3 Trends in intensity and frequency of some climate and weather extremes have been detected over time spans during which about 0.5°C of global warming occurred (medium confidence). This assessment is based on several lines of evidence, including attribution studies for changes in extremes since 1950. {3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.3.3}

Oh look another attempt to debase good science research with a bunch of unfalsifiable climate models, that are assumptions/estimated without real data and far into the future.

Why do you keep ignoring The Scientific Method?

Why do you get so easily smitten with unfalsifiable claims?

Oh look.... Shiny object.....

Crick likes to tout things without using any cognitive thought... If the IPCC says its true he runs with it and fails to think for himself.. All but one of the pontificates can be shown certifiably false and the last one is so veg no one can prove or disprove it.

Everything the paper spouts is from a model that has no predictive power.. thus its garbage...

What's that Confucius saying? "When words no longer have meaning, men lose their liberty". Progressives never stop for a moment to consider the consequences of all the fakery.

When we get to playing Cowboys and Liberals, they'll be reconsidering!

 

[Wyatt earp]

"An IPCC special report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5C above pe-industrial levels and related greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development and efforts to eradicate poverty."

The IPCC has released a report during the workup towards AR6 with inputs from all three Working Groups and including a Summary for Policy Makers (SPM). I aim this thread at those who consistently express concern about the cost of measures to reduce GHG emissions and those who minimize the magnitude of the the threat.

The full report may be viewed at Global Warming of 1.5 ºC —

Below are the opening bullets to the SPM

Understanding Global Warming of 1.5°C4
A.1 Human activities are estimated to have caused approximately 1.0°C of global warming5 above pre-industrial levels, with a likely range of 0.8°C to 1.2°C. Global warming is likely to reach 1.5°C between 2030 and 2052 if it continues to increase at the current rate. (high confidence) (Figure SPM.1) {1.2}




A.1.1 Reflecting the long-term warming trend since pre-industrial times, observed global mean surface temperature (GMST) for the decade 2006–2015 was 0.87°C (likely between 0.75°C and 0.99°C)6 higher than the average over the 1850–1900 period (very high confidence). Estimated anthropogenic global warming matches the level of observed warming to within ±20% (likely range). Estimated anthropogenic global warming is currently increasing at 0.2°C (likely between 0.1°C and 0.3°C) per decade due to past and ongoing emissions (high confidence). {1.2.1, Table 1.1, 1.2.4}

A.1.2 Warming greater than the global annual average is being experienced in many land regions and seasons, including two to three times higher in the Arctic. Warming is generally higher over land than over the ocean. (high confidence) {1.2.1, 1.2.2, Figure 1.1, Figure 1.3, 3.3.1, 3.3.2}

A.1.3 Trends in intensity and frequency of some climate and weather extremes have been detected over time spans during which about 0.5°C of global warming occurred (medium confidence). This assessment is based on several lines of evidence, including attribution studies for changes in extremes since 1950. {3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.3.3}

Junk science no accurate global data ....




.

 

[Crick]

What makes you say that?

 

[IanC]

What unknown influences and factors Ian?

Hahahahaha. I understand what you mean. Still, it's pretty funny.

I already gave two examples of factors that are poorly understood and very difficult to model because the scale is small.

 

[Crick]

What makes you think there are unknown factors with greater magnitudes than anything known?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

"An IPCC special report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5C above pe-industrial levels and related greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development and efforts to eradicate poverty."

The IPCC has released a report during the workup towards AR6 with inputs from all three Working Groups and including a Summary for Policy Makers (SPM). I aim this thread at those who consistently express concern about the cost of measures to reduce GHG emissions and those who minimize the magnitude of the the threat.

The full report may be viewed at Global Warming of 1.5 ºC —

Below are the opening bullets to the SPM

Understanding Global Warming of 1.5°C4
A.1 Human activities are estimated to have caused approximately 1.0°C of global warming5 above pre-industrial levels, with a likely range of 0.8°C to 1.2°C. Global warming is likely to reach 1.5°C between 2030 and 2052 if it continues to increase at the current rate. (high confidence) (Figure SPM.1) {1.2}

A.1.1 Reflecting the long-term warming trend since pre-industrial times, observed global mean surface temperature (GMST) for the decade 2006–2015 was 0.87°C (likely between 0.75°C and 0.99°C)6 higher than the average over the 1850–1900 period (very high confidence). Estimated anthropogenic global warming matches the level of observed warming to within ±20% (likely range). Estimated anthropogenic global warming is currently increasing at 0.2°C (likely between 0.1°C and 0.3°C) per decade due to past and ongoing emissions (high confidence). {1.2.1, Table 1.1, 1.2.4}

A.1.2 Warming greater than the global annual average is being experienced in many land regions and seasons, including two to three times higher in the Arctic. Warming is generally higher over land than over the ocean. (high confidence) {1.2.1, 1.2.2, Figure 1.1, Figure 1.3, 3.3.1, 3.3.2}

A.1.3 Trends in intensity and frequency of some climate and weather extremes have been detected over time spans during which about 0.5°C of global warming occurred (medium confidence). This assessment is based on several lines of evidence, including attribution studies for changes in extremes since 1950. {3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.3.3}

Send it to the Chinese Embassy!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

For a start...

o The global climate has changed relative to the pre-industrial period, and there are multiple lines of evidence that these changes have had impacts on organisms and ecosystems, as well as on human systems and well-being (high confidence)

o Human-induced global warming has already caused multiple observed changes in the climate system (high confidence).

o Trends in intensity and frequency of some climate and weather extremes have been detected over time spans during which about 0.5°C of global warming occurred (medium confidence).

o Several regional changes in climate are assessed to occur with global warming up to 1.5°C as compared to pre-industrial levels, including warming of extreme temperatures in many regions (high confidence)

o There is no single ‘1.5°C warmer world’ (high confidence).

o Robust1 global differences in temperature means and extremes are expected if global warming reaches 1.5°C versus 2°C above the pre-industrial levels (high confidence)

o Climate models project robust1 differences in regional climate between present-day and global warming up to 1.5°C2 , and between 1.5°C and 2°C2 (high confidence), depending on the variable and region in question (high confidence). Large, robust and widespread differences are expected for temperature extremes (high confidence)

o Limiting global warming to 1.5°C would limit risks of increases in heavy precipitation events on a global scale and in several regions compared to conditions at 2°C global warming (medium confidence).

o Limiting global warming to 1.5°C is expected to substantially reduce the probability of extreme drought, precipitation deficits, and risks associated with water availability (i.e., water stress) in some regions (medium confidence)

o Risks to natural and human systems are expected to be lower at 1.5°C than at 2°C of global warming (high confidence).

See the Executive Summary for elaboration on these points and more.

That's great! What are the Chinese going to do about this?