2013 IPCC Climate Change Report Leak - Warming predictions changed from previous

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
Denny Crane said:
In the 70s, the consensus was we were about to have a new ice age.
Click to expand...

Denny Crane said:
You don't have to educate me about science in the 1970s, I was around back then, were you? In the 1970s, they were using things like ice cores and tree rings and other measures of climate/global warmth. Computer models, too. As much as we see crap blasted in the news about AGW these days, there was as much about the coming ice age back then.
Click to expand...

How does this prove that there was a consensus of global cooling in the 70s? I'm sorry, your anecdotal evidence doesn't convince me.

I did a little fact-checking and the results don't jibe with your argument. http://books.google.com/ngrams/grap...70&year_end=1981&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=
 
Don't know it helps your case either.

One prolific writer wrote about warming.
 
julius said:
Still, does the idea of changing potentially 3 degrees in under 100 years alarm you?

Hell, let's just say 1 degree. Doesn't that make you think it's more serious than deniers let on?
Click to expand...

10 degrees in 100 years is even more alarming!!! I'm alarmed!!!

My model suggests 10 degrees. If it proves to be inaccurate, I'll just say that the model has changed.
 
PapaG said:
10 degrees in 100 years is even more alarming!!! I'm alarmed!!!

My model suggests 10 degrees. If it proves to be inaccurate, I'll just say that the model has changed.
Click to expand...

Your model doesn't agree with my model. Tell me how to fix the formulae or to change the data so I get the alarming result!
 
Masbee said:
Estimated Increases in Temperature 70 years from now:

2007 Report:
Very Likely warming of 1 to 3 degrees Celsius.

2013 Report:
Likely warming of 1 to 2.5 degrees Celsius.
Click to expand...

If you want Americans to care or even to read the report, make it relevant to their existence (not 70 years from now), and use Fahrenheit rather than Celsius.
 
We can disrupt as many ecosystems as we want so long as we can prove those climate scientists wrong on the exact amount of degrees they predicted.
 
hoojacks said:
We can disrupt as many ecosystems as we want so long as we can prove those climate scientists wrong on the exact amount of degrees they predicted.
Click to expand...

You are making a moral argument.

That is fine as long as you recognize when you switch from being a pragmatist to a moralist.

And then understand, that many people will not agree with the proposition: It is inherently immoral for humans to impact their environment.
 
Masbee said:
You are making a moral argument.

That is fine as long as you recognize when you switch from being a pragmatist to a moralist.

And then understand, that many people will not agree with the proposition: It is inherently immoral for humans to impact their environment.
Click to expand...

Most people are shortsighted. And I AM being pragmatic. Our massive disruption of multitudes of ecosystems will come back to haunt us sooner than later.
 
hoojacks said:
Most people are shortsighted. And I AM being pragmatic. Our massive disruption of multitudes of ecosystems will come back to haunt us sooner than later.
Click to expand...

Massive disruption of multitudes of ecosystems is called EVOLUTION.

Survival of the fittest, right?
 
hoojacks said:
Most people are shortsighted. And I AM being pragmatic. Our massive disruption of multitudes of ecosystems will come back to haunt us sooner than later.
Click to expand...

Maybe, but you have to be specific.

What exactly will haunt us?

You do realize that earth, all by itself, periodically decimates most living things - you know, for shits and giggles.
 
Masbee said:
Maybe, but you have to be specific.

What exactly will haunt us?
Click to expand...

Off the top of my head:

The introduction of trillions of plastic particles into the environment puts stress on ecosystems, especially in the ocean. This, plus overfishing, threatens the livelihood of millions of people as well as their main source of protein.

Untested pesticides have led to colony collapse of honeybees. I don't think I need to tell you that bees are important to Earth's ecosystems.

Ridding our crops of their biodiversity leaves our food vulnerable to disease and parasites that could wipe an entire species of crop. It's happened before (potatoes, bananas).

Like it or not, all of humanity relies on ecosystems working and being self replenishing. Environmentalism for me isn't about "saving the earth" since the earth will be here long after we're gone. It's about humanitarianism. Much of the world still has a direct connection to the environment that has been strained due to our disruption of ecosystems.
 
Denny Crane said:
Seriously.

Why wouldn't we as much a part of the ecosystem as lions or birds or trees or insects?

We wouldn't be the first species to radically alter the Earth. ~2.5B years ago, bacteria converted much of the earth's atmosphere to oxygen.

Or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_species
Click to expand...

What are we contributing to ecosystems? Parking lots? How do we fit into the various cycles that have to run smoothly in order for an ecosystem to be self sufficient? By taking out as many natural resources as possible?

WHY DONT WE HAVE A RIGHT TO THOSE GODDAMNED LIONS ECOSYSTEM? WE ARE PIONEERS AFTERALL
 
hoojacks said:
What are we contributing to ecosystems? Parking lots? How do we fit into the various cycles that have to run smoothly in order for an ecosystem to be self sufficient? By taking out as many natural resources as possible?

WHY DONT WE HAVE A RIGHT TO THOSE GODDAMNED LIONS ECOSYSTEM? WE ARE PIONEERS AFTERALL
Click to expand...

We breathe, we eat, we shit, we mate. Those are contributions to ecosystems. We spread fertilizer, we cross pollinate plants, we cross breed animals, we plant trees. Those are contributions to ecosystems.

Ecosystems are not self sufficient. The fossil record is full of species that no longer exist and that were around before the first man. There have been billions of different species on the earth in history, and only 50M still survive. Extinction is a part of nature.
 
Denny Crane said:
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/05/21/the-1970s-ice-age-scare/

"Almost every major climate organization endorsed the 1970s ice age scare, including NCAR, CRU, NAS, NASA – as did the CIA."

Lots of pictures of newspaper and magazine articles that can't be erased by deleting or editing WWW pages.
Click to expand...

It seems many people fell victim to media hype but how does this show a consensus? As far as official endorsement, scientists from these organizations may have thought there was another ice age coming but that doesn't equal official endorsement by those organizations.

Where is this scientific consensus you refer to? There wasn't even consensus in the media. For example:

New York Times articles:
“Scientist ask why world climate is changing; major cooling may be ahead” (Sullivan 1975a)
“Warming trend seen in climate; two articles counter view that cold period is due” (Sullivan 1975b).
Books:
The Cooling (Ponte 1976)
Hothouse Earth (Wilcox 1975)

Where was the scientific consensus?

As I mentioned, a review of scientific literature from that time shows there were 6 times as many scientists predicting a warming rather than a cooling planet. LINK
 
bluefrog said:
It seems many people fell victim to media hype but how does this show a consensus? As far as official endorsement, scientists from these organizations may have thought there was another ice age coming but that doesn't equal official endorsement by those organizations.

Where is this scientific consensus you refer to? There wasn't even consensus in the media. For example:

New York Times articles:
“Scientist ask why world climate is changing; major cooling may be ahead” (Sullivan 1975a)
“Warming trend seen in climate; two articles counter view that cold period is due” (Sullivan 1975b).
Books:
The Cooling (Ponte 1976)
Hothouse Earth (Wilcox 1975)

Where was the scientific consensus?

As I mentioned, a review of scientific literature from that time shows there were 6 times as many scientists predicting a warming rather than a cooling planet. LINK
Click to expand...

As I mentioned, your sample size is too puny.

The articles you link are attempts to rewrite history. I get that, do you?

It's a sorry thing they didn't take a vote on it, like all good science is done.
 
The funny thing is that from ~1940 to ~1980, temperatures cooled so the alarmists were talking about global cooling and an ice age. Now after a similar amount of time of mostly warming (the last 10-15 years debatable), they're talking about global warming and fire and brimstone.

One thing is certain, they really want action!
 
Denny Crane said:
As I mentioned, your sample size is too puny.

The articles you link are attempts to rewrite history. I get that, do you?

It's a sorry thing they didn't take a vote on it, like all good science is done.
Click to expand...

Sample size is too puny? Your blog link has 21 news articles. The report I linked to has reviewed 71 scientific papers. Do you have a better source?

Scientist voted with their published research. The history you remember doesn't agree with the facts that have been presented.

Your assertion that there was a consensus is just plain wrong.
 
bluefrog said:
Sample size is too puny? Your blog link has 21 news articles. The report I linked to has reviewed 71 scientific papers. Do you have a better source?

Scientist voted with their published research. The history you remember doesn't agree with the facts that have been presented.

Your assertion that there was a consensus is just plain wrong.
Click to expand...

71?

The consensus crowd talks about 12,000 reviewed papers.

Lots of dollars to pay for all that!
 
Remember when you changed the software for this message board?

You improved your model? What a failure you are!!!
 
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/0707.1161

By showing that (a) there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects, (b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet, (c) the frequently mentioned difference of 33 degrees Celsius is a meaningless number calculated wrongly, (d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately, (e) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical, (f) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified.
 
Denny Crane said:
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/0707.1161

By showing that (a) there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects, (b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet, (c) the frequently mentioned difference of 33 degrees Celsius is a meaningless number calculated wrongly, (d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately, (e) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical, (f) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified.
Click to expand...

http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S021797921005555X

In this journal, Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner claim to have falsified the existence of an atmospheric greenhouse effect.1 Here, we show that their methods, logic, and conclusions are in error. Their most significant errors include trying to apply the Clausius statement of the Second Law of Thermodynamics to only one side of a heat transfer process rather than the entire process, and systematically ignoring most non-radiative heat flows applicable to the Earth's surface and atmosphere. They claim that radiative heat transfer from a colder atmosphere to a warmer surface is forbidden, ignoring the larger transfer in the other direction which makes the complete process allowed. Further, by ignoring heat capacity and non-radiative heat flows, they claim that radiative balance requires that the surface cool by 100 K or more at night, an obvious absurdity induced by an unphysical assumption. This comment concentrates on these two major points, while also taking note of some of Gerlich and Tscheuschner's other errors and misunderstandings.
 
bluefrog said:
Nice deflection.

Admit it, your assertion that there was a consensus was wrong.
Click to expand...

I think you miss the point.

I can claim consensus if you can. For the same reasons.
 
bluefrog said:
http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S021797921005555X

In this journal, Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner claim to have falsified the existence of an atmospheric greenhouse effect.1 Here, we show that their methods, logic, and conclusions are in error. Their most significant errors include trying to apply the Clausius statement of the Second Law of Thermodynamics to only one side of a heat transfer process rather than the entire process, and systematically ignoring most non-radiative heat flows applicable to the Earth's surface and atmosphere. They claim that radiative heat transfer from a colder atmosphere to a warmer surface is forbidden, ignoring the larger transfer in the other direction which makes the complete process allowed. Further, by ignoring heat capacity and non-radiative heat flows, they claim that radiative balance requires that the surface cool by 100 K or more at night, an obvious absurdity induced by an unphysical assumption. This comment concentrates on these two major points, while also taking note of some of Gerlich and Tscheuschner's other errors and misunderstandings.
Click to expand...

Defensive spin. I like it!
 
hoojacks said:
Off the top of my head:

The introduction of trillions of plastic particles into the environment puts stress on ecosystems, especially in the ocean. This, plus overfishing, threatens the livelihood of millions of people as well as their main source of protein.

Untested pesticides have led to colony collapse of honeybees. I don't think I need to tell you that bees are important to Earth's ecosystems.

Ridding our crops of their biodiversity leaves our food vulnerable to disease and parasites that could wipe an entire species of crop. It's happened before (potatoes, bananas).

Like it or not, all of humanity relies on ecosystems working and being self replenishing. Environmentalism for me isn't about "saving the earth" since the earth will be here long after we're gone. It's about humanitarianism. Much of the world still has a direct connection to the environment that has been strained due to our disruption of ecosystems.
Click to expand...

This is a thread about the the IPCC's upcoming Climate Change report. The Climate Change report is about the idea that large increases in human carbon emissions will cause the average temperatures to increase. These temperature increases will have impacts on the environment.

All this other stuff you are talking about is not what this thread is about. Stay on topic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top