|
Trabisnikof posted:The IPCC models have overestimated atmospheric warming to a statistically significant degree, that's one of the updates in the 2013 report, but underestimated ocean warming. Regardless of the refinement of a complex model, the overall conclusions are only projected with greater confidence with each revision. I don't even know how this can possibly even be a discussion that is happening. There is a fight on whether to lie? To do the very thing that critics have claimed to be happening all along? The mere fact that this is a discussion being had just adds credibility to those claims.
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2013 09:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 04:13 |
|
|
Kafka Esq. posted:Let me ask you a question, which you and other "lukewarmists" should be able to answer. Where do you think the temperature will be in 2100? I don't know, but it seems that the catastrophic warming we have been told will happen/has already reached tipping point/is to late to do anything about will not occur in anything like the time frames predicted. want me to pull a number out of my arse? 1.5 degrees Theantero posted:Huh I wonder what this guy has to say. See that's your strawman right there, apart from mouth breathers posting in comments sections, no one has been saying that global warming literally isn't happening and CO2 doesn;t effect the atmosphere. All the main climate sceptics are "Lukewarmers" And since you obviously didn't make it to the end of the article re: sweet grantmanna quote:In response to a comment by Tom Whipple, challenging my "gravy train" remark, I wrote the following:
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2013 10:19
|
|
|
Hmm $79b in 24 years, he says? That's $3.3b a year. Why, that's almost a third of what the US spends on fossil fuel subsidies!
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2013 13:06
|
|
|
squeakygeek posted:The "myth" presented at that page is the reality according to this recent paper from Nature Climate Change. Did you actually read that page? Yes, warming for this decade was overestimated. That's stated in the link I gave and I don't think anyone is denying that. The point of the graph is to show that the overestimation in the context of predictions by deniers and lukewarmists, which are all much more inaccurate, some hilariously so. Illuminti posted:All the main climate sceptics are "Lukewarmers" They were deniers a few years back. I guess moving from "climate change isn't happening" to "okay well it is but it's not going to be so bad" is a step forward. Isn't the next step "well poo poo it's bad but there's nothing we can do about it anyways"? Uranium Phoenix fucked around with this message at 13:30 on Oct 8, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2013 13:24
|
|
|
Illuminti posted:I don't know, but it seems that the catastrophic warming we have been told will happen/has already reached tipping point/is to late to do anything about will not occur in anything like the time frames predicted. want me to pull a number out of my arse? 1.5 degrees I'm glad to see that you pulled the lowest number published by the IPCC out of your rear end. Yes, it is considered 66% likely for surface temperatures to be at or over 1.5 degrees hotter by 2100. They also consider it 90% likely that it will be below 6 degrees. That means there is a one in ten chance of VERY CATASTROPHIC warming to happen. You're surely okay with betting on lukewarm, but are you really okay with betting on the latter? To be clear, the former is like betting on rock when paper and scissors mean really bad things happen to you if you're not prepared. Betting on lukewarm is going to allow money-interests to pick up the phone and scare their Congressmen. They have lobbyists and astroturfing campaigns. They can go on cable news and obfuscate the issue to death. How are we supposed to separate that from your "lukewarm" support for actual science?
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2013 14:22
|
|
|
Illuminti posted:And since you obviously didn't make it to the end of the article re: sweet grantmanna I do admit though, claiming that climate science is corrupt and biased because  sceptics don't get any money is pretty hilarious. (The actual reason sceptics don't get funding is because they're charlatans  )
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2013 14:28
|
|
|
Uranium Phoenix posted:Did you actually read that page? Yes, warming for this decade was overestimated. That's stated in the link I gave and I don't think anyone is denying that. So the conclusion of the page was opposite the "myth" and "fact" at the top? No, I didn't read it, it's too long--and if they did actually end up admitting the myth then I guess it would be a silly thing to read anyway. quote:The point of the graph is to show that the overestimation in the context of predictions by deniers and lukewarmists, which are all much more inaccurate, some hilariously so. How is that in any way relevant?
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2013 18:40
|
|
|
Illuminti posted:See that's your strawman right there, apart from mouth breathers posting in comments sections, no one has been saying that global warming literally isn't happening and CO2 doesn;t effect the atmosphere. All the main climate sceptics are "Lukewarmers" That's a (hilarious) term I've only heard fairly recently. First it was no, there's no warming trend, now there is but nothing to worry about guys. First it was no, humans don't affect this, these are all natural variations - after all the planet used to be a lot hotter!!! Now there's an acknowledgement that the huge amounts of CO2 humans are pumping out does in fact cause warming, but the effect is nothing to worry about guys. First people using 'warmists' as a slur, implying adherence to dogma - now they're adopting it as a personal label, reframing it as a neutral way of describing people who acknowledge AGW (but of course! Who would argue otherwise?!) but adapted to reflect their more 'moderate' position. We were with you on this the whole time guys, us 'lukewarmists' and you 'warmists'! This is how it's going to be all the way out - scientists actually doing scientific research and developing understanding of the incredibly complex system we live in, and trying to formulate and build models that more accurately describe what's happening and what will happen in the future. And the 'sceptics' will be right there the whole time, decrying all the scientific basis and the work and its imperfections and the drive to improve it, dragging their heels and saying 'NO IT'S ALL WRONG'. While constantly moderating their own position so they're always following a safe distance behind, embracing aspects of climate science when they're too widely accepted by the public to be argued against, touting this acceptance of long-stablished knowledge as a sign of their neutrality and integrity, The True Scientists of pure reason. The Untainted Ones.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2013 19:05
|
|
|
Illuminti posted:And since you obviously didn't make it to the end of the article re: sweet grantmanna I like this line of reasoning. Could we now compare with defense spending and the extent to which the military-industrial complex effects research, as well as all the fossil fuel money in the same stream? Then perhaps we could do a legitimate risk analysis for what these investments are attempting to mitigate? We could even use the NAE, NSF and Joint Chief of Staffs risk assessments and strategic outlook for this in the US, rather than IPCC. Then we could look and see how investment stacks up against what are actually considered risks. We could look and see where such investments are aligned with directly profiting from such risks as well and compare that to the alleged 'profit stream' related to climate science. Then we could look at the overall picture and see how the investments correlate with the strategic risk analysis. I wonder what we would find?
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2013 19:38
|
|
|
I read that Rational Optimist piece and sent Matt Ridley a brief and fairly pissy note calling him out for not allowing comments, which seems like a really asinine move given a topic that is totally controversial and cries out for debate. Ironic when everyone on both sides is bitching about cherrypicking that he would be cheerfully cherrypicking the comments he's feels safe to address, particularly after all the truck-sized holes in that lovely WSJ piece a couple of weeks ago
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2013 20:46
|
|
|
squeakygeek posted:No, I didn't read it, it's too long The forefront of informed scepticism right here, folks. I know linking SkS is pretty standard in this thread, but they have a pretty good rebuttal of Ridley here.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2013 21:13
|
|
|
The New Black posted:The forefront of informed scepticism right here, folks. It's not like a significant amount of effort was put into pasting the link in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2013 22:29
|
|
|
Paper Mac posted:I'd agree that they should actually address specific evidence in their criticisms of existing models, though. I'll bite. As a bit of background: I build and run simulation models professionally, but I am not a climate scientist and I am not familiar with the technical details behind climate modeling. However, I am very familiar with the best practices behind simulation modeling and I have witnessed countless mistakes in making predictions using these models. Some of these mistakes are very basic and are from people much more experienced in my field and more intelligent than myself - even among experts there are many people who are bad at this. I am convinced of global warming caused by human injection of CO2 into the atmosphere, and at no point in my adult life did I ever deny this. I firmly believe that global warming will effect change in weather patterns around the world and said change is necessarily bad in that it will require some form of local adaptation by people to mitigate its effects. I believe that climate scientists are equally at risk of placing too much predictive value on their models as my colleagues are, and that the scientific media (as with all media) will tend to under-report the uncertainties present in these predictions. I'll start with an exhibit that was recently discussed here. With little knowledge specific to climate modeling, I can already point out a couple of things that are immediately suspect with the image:  The first is not a problem with the models themselves, but with the presentation of the results. The outputs of multiple models are shown here covering a wide enough time range that it must contain both hindcasts and forecasts. There is no demarcation between the two, and that is inherently dishonest. This is not the first time I've seen hindcasts wiggle into the data in this thread. I know Arkane has called people out on it in the past - something that should be embarrassing to everyone posting in this thread (sadly, he very occasionally makes valid points that go ignored here). I found this unfortunate response in that very exchange: Uranium Phoenix posted:Hindcasting is a way of validating a model. The fact that it can accurately reconstruct past data lends credence to its ability to predict future trends. In general, the following advice is useful for evaluating any type of stochastic modeling:
One of the individual models in the graph predicts that the year 2060 will have significantly more sea ice than 2059 or 2058. Other models make similar predictions for different years. Making specific predictions far into the future is a classic sign of overfitting the data. Why, exactly, did that model predict that 2060 would be a good ice year compared to the years immediately before it? Why are the projections so noisy in general? Climate, being a superset of weather, is inherently stochastic and the output projection for a particular year should be the mean or median of a large number of simulations. It should be expected to be roughly smooth from year to year, with perhaps some smooth multi-year hills or valleys corresponding to probabilistic predictions about periodic climate patterns like el-nino or solar cycles. Those hills and valleys should get progressively less intense as you look further into the future as their random nature starts to blend together. With no a priori knowledge I would actually put my money on the best fit curve, not the IPCC model mean. Uranium Phoenix posted:I'm going to post this again, since I think it's relevant: These IPCC projections are better than the sea ice ones above and show no obvious overfitting, although I am suspicious in the uptick in the AR4 projection starting in 2010. Why is the Lindzen model so tightly correlated to the observed result? I'm assuming it's some form of hindcast and isn't an actual denier prediction, but its inclusion still hurts the honesty of the exhibit because it implies after-the-fact cherry-picking. I'd be tempted to say the same for the inclusion of the McLean "model" because global temperature data is noisy enough that a one year projection being wrong doesn't usually say anything useful, but McLean appears to be an established skeptic and the prediction is so bad (6.5 standard deviations away from the actual result) that it pretty much lends itself to being cherry-picked the day the prediction was made.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2013 23:16
|
|
|
Eyes Only posted:These IPCC projections are better than the sea ice ones above and show no obvious overfitting, although I am suspicious in the uptick in the AR4 projection starting in 2010. That is pretty obvious evidence of a projection which includes solar cycle predictions. 2010 is when the current solar cycle was predicted to end its period of minimum activity and begin increased solar activity.  edit: Solar Cycle 24 has been a much weaker solar cycle than last one, weakest since Solar Cycle 16 fermun fucked around with this message at 23:42 on Oct 8, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2013 23:38
|
|
|
Strudel Man posted:Hm. They retroactively tweaked the FAR model for this graph. Pretty significantly, too - chopping 20% off the temperature increase because the climactic sensitivity to CO2 is now known to be lower than they thought at the time. Seems a little bit deceptive. It's deceptive to change a model to account for new data? How in the ever-loving gently caress do you imagine science works?
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2013 23:39
|
|
|
Eyes Only posted:I'll bite. I appreciate the post, you obviously thought about it a lot, but I don't think you're making criticisms of the evidence underlying the broad consensus about ACC, but rather about the way it's communicated. I might be misunderstanding, if you are suggesting that specific assumptions or parameters of models substantially contributing to that consensus are inaccurate/incorrect. Paper Mac fucked around with this message at 23:51 on Oct 8, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2013 23:48
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:It's deceptive to change a model to account for new data? How in the ever-loving gently caress do you imagine science works? Updating the models for AR4 to reflect new understanding of climactic sensitivity to CO2? Science. Scaling down the FAR projection so that it better matches data that came after it, and then presenting that as a demonstration of its predictive validity? Deceptive. Strudel Man fucked around with this message at 00:16 on Oct 9, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2013 00:11
|
|
|
Eyes Only posted:To use an example, I could intentionally fit an artic sea ice model using the prices of some arbitrary combination of stocks on some arbitrary dates or the winner of some conveniently selected sporting events and get a much better hindcast than any legitimate climate model could ever achieve. However, it would have zero predictive value because Google's stock price on July 22nd and the number of points the Patriots score in week 3 have little to do with artic sea ice. Someone posted this overview earlier, you should probably have a look through it: http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/09/why-trust-climate-models-its-a-matter-of-simple-science/ quote:One surprisingly common misconception about climate models is that they’re just exercises in curve-fitting. The global average temperature record is fed into the model, which matches that trend and spits out a simulation just like it. In this (mistaken) view, having a model that compares well with reality is a necessary outcome of the process. This doesn’t demonstrate that climate models can be trusted to usefully project future trends, but this line of thinking is mistaken for several reasons. You're making weird assumptions about how the models operate. They're designed to simulate physical processes on a massive scale, not to bleep bloop and spit out a graph that fits by any means necessary. There are parameters in there that are in place of localised processes that can't be mechanically modelled yet (or that a particular model doesn't work with), so the updated data those parameters work with is folded back into the model, but that doesn't mean every facet of the simulation is reworked to fit to a curve. Hell, on that graph there's more variation in the historical results than there is in the future predictions - where's the curve fitting? I mean you say yourself that this is basically your field and you have a lot of professional concerns about their methodology... but you don't seem to have actually looked into their methodology? You're just looking at a few graphs? Why not look into the work they're doing and what the different models take as their approach? Doesn't it interest you?
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2013 00:28
|
|
|
squeakygeek posted:It's not like a significant amount of effort was put into pasting the link in the first place. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2013 01:14
|
|
|
Eyes Only posted:The first is not a problem with the models themselves, but with the presentation of the results. The outputs of multiple models are shown here covering a wide enough time range that it must contain both hindcasts and forecasts. There is no demarcation between the two, and that is inherently dishonest. This is not the first time I've seen hindcasts wiggle into the data in this thread. I know Arkane has called people out on it in the past - something that should be embarrassing to everyone posting in this thread (sadly, he very occasionally makes valid points that go ignored here). I found this unfortunate response in that very exchange: The second paragraph there is not entirely true. Hindcasting is a useful way to disqualify models, and we have to do that, because so many modeling centers put out crappy models. In the paper I'm currently working to publish, I used 36 model scenarios from 20 centers, and eliminated all but 14 to work with for future scenarios, because they were too far fetched. Some models showed September sea ice extent around 4 million sq km in 1980 (the real value in 1980 was closer to 8 million, and we didn't see anything under 5 million until the past decade). However, yes, this is the bottom line: Eyes Only posted:All models are wrong, some models are useful. It generally helps to be pessimistic about the accuracy of your models. While I didn't program this, I did help design it. This includes 5 models that we selected for analysis, although most of what I'm working with in my paper is using 14 models (however, that's really hard to load in this app, too much data). If you have a really keen eye, you might notice our observed data (there's a checkbox for it at the bottom) doesn't match up exactly with what you'll see on NSIDC's main page. We used the NASA bootstrap algorithm sea ice data, from NSIDC's data vault, which while slightly different, gives the same general idea. Malgrin fucked around with this message at 01:58 on Oct 9, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2013 01:52
|
|
|
There's no "general science" thread so I figured I'd post this here since it has positive implications for the planet's future. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24429621
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2013 02:41
|
|
|
rivetz posted:If it makes you feel better, you come off no more or less lazy as you would have if he'd typed it all by hand I wasn't suggesting people should type out links instead of pasting them. What I meant was, you shouldn't post a link to a long document and expect people to take the time to read it if you aren't willing to take a moment to point out the most important bits. Anyway, pardon me for making the dumb, lazy assumption that a page that starts like this:  intends to debunk a myth that the models have overpredicted temperature rise. I have no idea where I could have gotten that idea from.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2013 07:00
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:There's no "general science" thread so I figured I'd post this here since it has positive implications for the planet's future. It's not clear that it has many implications at all: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3505076&pagenumber=32#post420320495
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2013 07:40
|
|
|
Paper Mac posted:It's not clear that it has many implications at all: Man, that's disappointing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2013 07:50
|
|
|
Eyes Only posted:These IPCC projections are better than the sea ice ones above and show no obvious overfitting, although I am suspicious in the uptick in the AR4 projection starting in 2010. Why is the Lindzen model so tightly correlated to the observed result? I'm assuming it's some form of hindcast and isn't an actual denier prediction, but its inclusion still hurts the honesty of the exhibit because it implies after-the-fact cherry-picking. I'd be tempted to say the same for the inclusion of the McLean "model" because global temperature data is noisy enough that a one year projection being wrong doesn't usually say anything useful, but McLean appears to be an established skeptic and the prediction is so bad (6.5 standard deviations away from the actual result) that it pretty much lends itself to being cherry-picked the day the prediction was made. The Lindzen line correlates well with the observed result because it's not a model, it's what a model based on a prediction he made in 1989 that any warming would not exceed natural variability might look like. Natural variation is about 0.2 degrees per century, so yeah, it's basically a hindcast using ENSO, sun, volcanic etc. with a 0.02 decadal warming trend. I mean you're correct that the denier "models" they contrast the IPCC with aren't really very good for comparison because they're mostly just lines drawn through the occasional isolated predictions of skeptics. But I think that's sort of the point. The skeptics are so busy trying to poke holes in the IPCC estimates that they haven't come up with any proper models of their own to compare with the IPCC ones.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2013 08:06
|
|
|
squeakygeek posted:I wasn't suggesting people should type out links instead of pasting them. What I meant was, you shouldn't post a link to a long document and expect people to take the time to read it if you aren't willing to take a moment to point out the most important bits.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2013 09:20
|
|
|
The New Black posted:The Lindzen line correlates well with the observed result because it's not a model, it's what a model based on a prediction he made in 1989 that any warming would not exceed natural variability might look like. Natural variation is about 0.2 degrees per century, so yeah, it's basically a hindcast using ENSO, sun, volcanic etc. with a 0.02 decadal warming trend. If sceptics think that the models are no good at predicting future climate, what makes you think they would attempt to make their own? If i'm reading tea leaves and claiming it predicts the future and you say it's bollocks, I can't then call you out by saying "well you show me your better method for reading tea leaves then"
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2013 10:22
|
|
|
Illuminti posted:If sceptics think that the models are no good at predicting future climate, what makes you think they would attempt to make their own? If i'm reading tea leaves and claiming it predicts the future and you say it's bollocks, I can't then call you out by saying "well you show me your better method for reading tea leaves then" I guess it depends on whether they think that because these particular climate models are no good or because climate models in general are no good.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2013 10:56
|
|
|
That sounds like s/he's denying that models have any predictive utility at all w/ respect to climate.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2013 11:10
|
|
|
Strudel Man posted:No, it's deceptive to say that past models accurately projected to the present, and then to back it up by presenting something different than what those models actually projected. I disagree. The point is to compare the models predictive validity sure - but if you've found an error in the parameters that are supplied, something usually derived from experiment and observation, then it's completely rational to represent them with the correct parameters, even if the incorrect parameter was used when the model results were first presented. The message isn't "Look how accurate we were in 1980, it's look how more accurate the models we use now are than the ones we used then". To compare: Let's pick a really simple model, such as a model for the position at time t on an object dropped from rest. The first model could be represented as a simple F=mg equation. The second model would be one that's a little more complicated that takes the variation of acceleration with altitude into account. The third model could include frictional forces as well. If we discovered an improvement in resolution of our constant for earth's gravity, in the time between the development of model 1 and 2, it'd be completely reasonable to use this improved value in all models when comparing their predictive power. DeathMuffin fucked around with this message at 11:24 on Oct 9, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2013 11:16
|
|
|
Illuminti posted:If sceptics think that the models are no good at predicting future climate, what makes you think they would attempt to make their own? If i'm reading tea leaves and claiming it predicts the future and you say it's bollocks, I can't then call you out by saying "well you show me your better method for reading tea leaves then" I don't get to be a part of the scientific astrophysics community by just posting blog entries about how I don't like dark matter and how all the predictions about it have been wrong so maybe it doesn't exist.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2013 11:20
|
|
|
TACD posted:If deniers / lukewarmists / whoever think that the entire methodology of forecasting using models is flawed they need to come up with a very compelling argument for why this is so, and given that many models have already been used successfully it'd better be pretty drat convincing. I don't think I've seen anybody seriously claim that modelling fundamentally can't work, and therefore (as The New Black said) they should come up with their own rigorous models (or some other forecasting tools) that fix whatever problems they perceive exist in all the others if they expect to be a serious part of the discussion. I'm not saying modelling isn't useful and established. It's more an case of the climate not being understood enough to make predictions with the certainty the IPCC does and policy being based on it. If you can point me towards a something that has been modelled that has the complexity, size and difficulty of recording data accurately that the climate has, that has successfully used models to predict the future with the certainty of the IPCC models then please do. Many models have been used successfully yes, but none of the climate models managed to predict a pause in atmospheric warming. That's a pretty big miss isn't it? Now, yes you could say that allows the models to be adjusted to take new information into account. Or you could say that the old models were not fit to make predictions of future climate, certainly not with such claimed certainty. In AR5 they show that up until 2005ish only 8% of the deep ocean was having it's temperature recorded, yet apparently you can confidently add this info to the models and they get even more accurate...
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2013 12:11
|
|
|
Good replies all, especially Malgrin. I'll sift through them tonight.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2013 12:48
|
|
|
rivetz posted:I'm gonna go ahead and recommend that if you're going to contribute to a science-related discussion, you should be prepared to digest long tricky paragraphs laden with those infuriating multi-syllabic words; if that surpasses your attention span as a reader, you should probably refrain from contributions to this thread until AGW for Dummies hits the shelves. I didn't read one thing because it had an obvious problem right from the start. I guess that makes me an illiterate and you can just call me an idiot and ignore everything I say if that's convenient for you.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2013 15:25
|
|
|
There was quite a long discussion about drought and crop failures some pages back. Not picking Paper Mac out for any particular reason, but i just jumped back and found this as an example of what people were saying Paper Mac posted:This just isn't true, there are dozens of models which are dedicated to predicting drought frequency due to climate change and they're all predicting much dryer hydrogeology in most of the crop-growing regions that matter. What do you think about the about the AR5's change of assement for drought? From AR4 to AR5 they have gone from "Likelihood of a human contribution to observed trend" has gone from AR4's "More likely than not" to AR5's "Low confidence" and "Likelihood of future trends" has gone from "Likely" in early 21st century and late 21st century to "Low confidence" in early 21st and to "Likely (medium confidence ) on a regional to global scale" in the late 21st century Now I'm sure you won't be surprised that it seems to me they are backing off from the scaremongering they've been engaged in as it becomes apparent that their confidence in their models has been misplaced. But the most interesting bit is the low confidence that humans have contributed the the observed trend in droughts. Now I know weather is not climate, but I was under the impression that droughts would be one of the key indicators of global warming and that the droughts in America and Australia were often pointed to as examples of this. But if the IPCC has low confidence that we're causing droughts that seems like quite the retreat.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2013 15:35
|
|
|
squeakygeek posted:I didn't read one thing because it had an obvious problem right from the start.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2013 15:36
|
|
|
squeakygeek posted:I didn't read one thing because it had an obvious problem right from the start. I guess that makes me an illiterate and you can just call me an idiot and ignore everything I say if that's convenient for you. See if you had read it, you'd know that the article admits that the observed temperatures were lower than the exact projections made by the models. However, nobody ever claimed that that wasn't the case. The point is that the projections are within the uncertainty range of observed temperatures, even if you don't adjust the model for the natural cooling over the period from ENSO etc., or the lower than expected GHG emissions. The point being that the statement "The IPCC overestimate temperature rise" is simplistic and misleading, not that the best guess IPCC projections for the last few years haven't exceeded observed temperatures. Key quotes from the assessment of AR4: quote:The IPCC AR4 Scenario A2 projected rate of warming from 2000 to 2012 was 0.18°C per decade. This is within the uncertainty range of the observed rate of warming (0.06 ± 0.16°C) per decade since 2000, though the observed warming has likely been lower than the AR4 projection. As we will show below, this is due to the preponderance of natural temperature influences being in the cooling direction since 2000, while the AR4 projection is consistent with the underlying human-caused warming trend.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2013 16:49
|
|
|
Illuminti posted:What do you think about the about the AR5's change of assement for drought? From AR4 to AR5 they have gone from The AR5 WGI report (which is presumably what you are referring to), makes dozens of assessments about specific lines of evidence. Many relevant effects are predicted with high confidence, so I'm not sure what you're talking about.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2013 17:36
|
|
|
I am probably mistaken, but the drought predictions aren't exactly based on 'weather'. They are based in the behavior of moisture in the air with a heated atmosphere. Water stays aloft for shorter periods and is therefore carried shorter distances. The effect of this is that wet places are wetter and dry places are dryer. Attention tends to be on the melting 'ice caps', but the melt off of the Himalayans is equally serious and also contributes to increased drought conditions throughout the footprint of that water shed. This is already fairly well documented in Western China.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2013 18:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 04:13 |
|
|
Also isn't the El-Niño-Southern-Oscillation largely responsible for global drought/monsoon patterns? I read Mike Davis' book Late Victorian Holocausts, but the history was more interesting to me than the science (for once) and I don't remember whether ENSO is the primary factor driving rainfall rates in a particular year, or just a significant contributing factor.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2013 18:17
|
|
