Climate Change Science [Strictly Moderated]

SCIENCE DISCUSSION ONLY

Geology, Geophysics, Oceanography, Meteorology etc.

Moderators: Calilasseia, ADParker

Re: Climate Change Science [Strictly Moderated]

#921  Postby Macdoc » Oct 29, 2018 2:37 pm

OK
If the expectation is for the future rate to be markedly different from the current rate, what's the cause?


You didn't read the paper did you? Just dismissed it as crank. Nor did you read the IPCC 1.5C report where the graph indicates 2034 without taking into account the decadal oscillation which could shift that forward into late 2020.

It has been covered off by other publications

Paris 1.5°C target may be smashed by 2026: A change to a positive ...
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 184929.htm
May 8, 2017 - A change to a positive phase of the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation ... These were both periods that saw rapid increases in global average .

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 184929.htm

snip
"Even if the IPO remains in a negative phase, our research shows we will still likely see global temperatures break through the 1.5°C guardrail by 2031," said lead author Dr Ben Henley.

"If the world is to have any hope of meeting the Paris target, governments will need to pursue policies that not only reduce emissions but remove carbon from the atmosphere.


and the poor coverage of the Arctic by the IPCC publications puts them wrong footed tho the 1.5c Report converges better.

In addition course the rate of emissions has been going up after an encouraging pause so there is no firm ground to project even if all other factors remained the same.

Global carbon dioxide emissions surged to record levels the year after the landmark 2016 Paris climate agreement was signed.

Energy-related emissions climbed 1.4 percent to 32.5 gigatons in 2017, the International Energy Agency reported yesterday in its annual survey of global carbon levels. The increase is the equivalent of adding 170 million cars to the road, the agency said.

The uptick—coming on the heels of the major international climate deal—signals an abrupt end to several years of stagnant emissions growth and raises questions about the world’s commitment to reducing carbon levels.

“It’s not good news,” said Rachel Cleetus, policy director for the climate and energy program at the Union of Concerned Scientists. “It certainly is a sign that we have a great deal of work to do to meet the commitments that countries made in Paris to limit emissions and the harmful effects of climate change.”

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... nt-signed/

There is especially no expectation of reversing that with the dumpf at the wheel and the election of a right winger in Brazil does not bode well for controlling emissions.

There is a dismaying rise in nationalism which makes any sort of a Manhattan level effort to curb emissions in a global framework an increasingly distant chance.

The chance of 1.5 C increase as late as the 2040s is now pretty much non-existent barring major volcano activity.

•••••

and Hermit ...piss off unless you have something of climate science value to offer. If individuals in the first world offset the way I do then part of the issue would be resolved.
Travel photos > https://500px.com/macdoc/galleries
EO Wilson in On Human Nature wrote:
We are not compelled to believe in biological uniformity in order to affirm human freedom and dignity.
User avatar
Macdoc
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 14958
Age: 71
Male

Country: Canada/Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Climate Change Science [Strictly Moderated]

#922  Postby OlivierK » Oct 29, 2018 8:46 pm

Macdoc wrote:OK
If the expectation is for the future rate to be markedly different from the current rate, what's the cause?


You didn't read the paper did you? Just dismissed it as crank. Nor did you read the IPCC 1.5C report where the graph indicates 2034 without taking into account the decadal oscillation which could shift that forward into late 2020.

I did read the abstract, but the paper itself is paywalled. I didn't dismiss it as "crank", that's entirely your own invention. I've reported your posts in the past for chronically mischaracterising my position on climate change. Do I need to start again?

The paper says we're headed for 1.5C sooner than the established consensus. That could be due to several factors: that we're (i) starting from closer than we thought, (ii) we're warming faster than we thought, or (iii) that warming will accelerate starting Real Soon Now. The IPO turning positive would be a factor contributing to (iii), but in the past has not produced warmings of the magnitude required to draw the conclusions drawn by the paper, so I'm wondering if the authors, or yourself, propose a contribution from (i) or (ii).

The graph you refer to as from the IPCC 1.5C report is in fact a third party graph that claims to use the IPCC 1.5C report data. It does indeed show 1.5C by 2034, but it also shows 1.18C by 2018, which is about 0.15C higher than most estimates of current warming. That's about a decade's worth of warming, so it makes sense that that graph shows 1.5C about a decade earlier than most, which is an example of how an earlier forcast of 1.5C could be due to explanation (i) above, rather than (iii).

Hence my questions.

So why don't you have a go at answering them?

I'd be genuinely interested in (a) what your position actually is, and (b) whether, despite all your chest-beating and claims of expertise, you actually CAN answer such simple questions with direct answers, because I'm genuinely starting to have my doubts whether your technical familiarity with the subject even stretches that far; or whether your interest is entirely on an emotional/activist level (nothing wrong with that). Every time you're asked for specifics, you reply with bluster. If you do that again here, the natural conclusion would be that you're not in possession of the fairly fundamental facts requested. I'm not sure you have it in you to surprise me with honest answers.
User avatar
OlivierK
 
Posts: 8488
Age: 52
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Climate Change Science [Strictly Moderated]

#923  Postby Macdoc » Nov 04, 2018 6:26 pm

Prepare for turbulence ...please fasten your seat belts.
Good read on the stalling systems and the the impact on extreme weather

Climate Change and Extreme Summer Weather Events – The Future is still in Our Hands
Filed under: Aerosols Arctic and Antarctic Climate impacts Climate Science Greenhouse gases heatwaves — mike @ 31 October 2018


http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... our-hands/
Travel photos > https://500px.com/macdoc/galleries
EO Wilson in On Human Nature wrote:
We are not compelled to believe in biological uniformity in order to affirm human freedom and dignity.
User avatar
Macdoc
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 14958
Age: 71
Male

Country: Canada/Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Climate Change Science [Strictly Moderated]

#924  Postby LucidFlight » Nov 24, 2018 4:36 pm

A Grave Climate Warning, Buried on Black Friday
In a massive new report, federal scientists contradict President Trump and assert that climate change is an intensifying danger to the United States. Too bad it came out on a holiday.

Most significantly, the National Climate Assessment—which is endorsed by nasa, noaa, the Department of Defense, and 10 other federal scientific agencies—contradicts nearly every position taken on the issue by President Donald Trump. Where the president has insisted that fighting global warming will harm the economy, the report responds: Climate change, if left unchecked, could eventually cost the economy hundreds of billions of dollars per year, and kill thousands of Americans to boot. Where the president has said that the climate will “probably” “change back,” the report replies: Many consequences of climate change will last for millennia, and some (such as the extinction of plant and animal species) will be permanent.


https://www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/576589/

Oh, and the assessment, of course:
https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/
OFFICIAL MEMBER: QUANTUM CONSTRUCTOR CONSCIOUSNESS QUALIA KOALA COLLECTIVE.
User avatar
LucidFlight
RS Donator
 
Name: Charley
Posts: 10329
Male

Country: UK/US/AU/SG
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Climate Change Science [Strictly Moderated]

#925  Postby newolder » Feb 06, 2019 1:08 pm


Upcoming Live Events (all times Eastern)

Friday, Feb. 6, 11:30 a.m.: Media teleconference on 2018 global temperatures. Live streaming audio of the teleconference will be available on this page. Climate experts from NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) will provide the annual release of global temperatures data and discuss the most important climate trends of 2018. The teleconference participants are:

Gavin Schmidt, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York
Deke Arndt, chief of the global monitoring branch of NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information in Asheville, North Carolina

More @ NASAlive link
Geometric forgetting gives me loops. - Nima A-H
User avatar
newolder
 
Name: Albert Ross
Posts: 5847
Age: 8
Male

Country: Feudal Estate number 9
Print view this post

Re: Climate Change Science [Strictly Moderated]

#926  Postby chango369 » Feb 11, 2019 12:21 am

chango369 wrote:I ran into this while surfing around.

http://www.globalwarmingindex.org

Bookmarking today's GWI:

gwi20171121.jpg
gwi20171121.jpg (18.69 KiB) Viewed 192 times


I happened to catch it flipping the hundredth digit.

gwi20190211.png
gwi20190211.png (5.21 KiB) Viewed 192 times
“Government is the Entertainment division of the military-industrial complex.”

Frank Zappa
User avatar
chango369
 
Name: Chris
Posts: 1395
Age: 59
Male

Country: думфукистан
Cuba (cu)
Print view this post


Previous

Return to Earth Sciences

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest