- Joined
- 30 June 2008
- Posts
- 15,586
- Reactions
- 7,466
A Glimpse at Our Possible Future Climate, Best to Worst Case Scenarios
Posted on 13 February 2013 by dana1981
Recently there has been widespread discussion that perhaps the Earth's climate is not quite as sensitive to increasing atmospheric CO2 as climate scientists previously believed, which would be good news, because it would give us more time to reduce human greenhouse gas emissions before the worst climate change impacts are triggered. The case for a most likely equilibrium climate sensitivity of around 2.5 °C average surface warming in response to a doubling of CO2, as opposed to 3 °C, is not yet very compelling, but it is certainly a possibility. In fact, the value could very plausibly be anywhere between 2 °C and 4.5 °C.
This begs the question, what might the future climate look like in best case, most likely case, and worst case scenarios? To answer this question, we will examine how much warming we can expect under various human greenhouse gas emissions scenarios if the real-world equilibrium climate sensitivity turns out to be 2 °C (best case), 3 °C (most likely case), or 4.5 °C (worst case). There is a relatively small chance that the sensitivity could be lower than 2 °C or higher than 4.5 °C, especially if we consider very long timescales in which slow feedbacks can kick in, and the so-called "Earth System Sensitivity" may be in the range of 6 °C surface warming in response to doubled CO2.
Nevertheless, for our purposes here we will limit ourselves to the 2–4.5 °C likely equilibrium sensitivity range. But first we have to investigate at what temperatures we expect various climate consequences to be triggered.
...You re Unbelievable
A NEW report declaring mainstream climate science as settled....
thanks for the compliment, Explod...
From the link I provided earlier about claims of the science being settled:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...-gillard-advised/story-fn59niix-1226061130074
Quantum physics had its detractors/deniers leading to the famous following quote from renowned scientist Max Planck.
“A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”
― Max Planck, Scientific Autobiography and Other Papers
It is good to see that Nick Minchin is retiring. One less opponent. One less old man who can't get his mind around it. Good riddance.
Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies. By contrast, a strong majority of the 1,077 respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a very serious problem.
The survey results show geoscientists (also known as earth scientists) and engineers hold similar views as meteorologists. Two recent surveys of meteorologists (summarized here and here) revealed similar skepticism of alarmist global warming claims.
A generation from now, people will laugh at this, just as they do now when people look back at the Quantum Theory "skeptics".
Quantum mechanics has been extremely successful. How can you oppose a theory that always gets the right answers?
I consider the methods of quantum mechanics fundamentally unsatisfactory. I want to say straight away, however, that I will not deny that this theory represents an important, in a certain sense even final, advance in physical knowledge.... Probably never before has a theory been evolved which has given a key to the interpretation and calculation of such a heterogeneous group of phenomena of experience.... In spite of this, however, I believe that the theory is apt to beguile us into error in our search for a uniform basis for physics, because, in my belief, it is an incomplete representation of real things, although it is the only one which can be built out of the fundamental concepts of force and material points (quantum corrections to classical mechanics). The incompleteness of the representation leads necessarily to the statistical nature (incompleteness) of the laws.
This dopey anchor asked an astroscientist if Global Warming had anything to do with the Asteroid crashing in Russia.
She must be somebody's goyle.
gg
My basic objection to all of this Climate Hysteria, is that it is just that.
Hysteria.
Looking in to the future on the basis of modelling.
Science is science.
The Climate mob basically have decided that we will warm and are hell bent on modelling to prove their point.
This is unscientific.
They ignore and denigrate the contra evidence/findings.
gg
Considering how competitive academics are I'm sure there'd been at least one by now who would have submitted a peer reviewed article claiming that GW was wrong and be willing to have his model and conclusions pen to be analysed by anyone willing to take the time.
If the public was more aware that roughly 97% of scientists believe the data points towards GW, I wonder how that would affect public perception???
There is no such thing as climate change denial
In a sense, there is no such thing as climate change denial. No one denies that climate changes (in fact, the most common climate myth is the argument that past climate change is evidence that current global warming is also natural). Then what is being denied? Quite simply, the scientific consensus that humans are disrupting the climate. A more appropriate term would be “consensus denial”.
There are two aspects to scientific consensus. Most importantly, you need a consensus of evidence – many different measurements pointing to a single, consistent conclusion. As the evidence piles up, you inevitably end up with near-unanimous agreement among actively researching scientists: a consensus of scientists.
A number of surveys of the climate science community since the early 1990s have measured the level of scientific consensus that humans were causing global warming. Over time, the percentage of climate scientists agreeing that humans are causing global warming has steadily increased. As the body of evidence grows, the consensus is getting stronger.
Two recent studies adopting different approaches have arrived at strikingly consistent results. A survey of over 3000 Earth scientists found that as the climate expertise increased, so did agreement about human-caused global warming. For climate scientists actively publishing climate research (79 scientists in total), there was 97% agreement.
This result was confirmed in a separate analysis compiling a list of scientists who had made public declarations on climate change, both supporting and rejecting the consensus. Among scientists who had published peer-reviewed climate papers (908 scientists in total), the same result: 97% agreement.
Expect to see reference to dissenting non-experts who appear to be highly qualified while not having published any actual climate research. Fake expert campaigns are launched with disturbing regularity. Recently, a group of NASA retirees issued a press release rejecting the consensus. While possessing no actual climate expertise, they evidently hoped to cash in on the NASA brand.
A prominent Australian fake expert is Ian Plimer, the go-to guy for political leaders and fossil fuel billionaires. He hasn’t published a single peer-reviewed paper on climate change.
There should be many cases of cherry picking but how do you identify a genuine cherry pick? When a conclusion from a small selection of data differs from the conclusion from the full body of evidence, that’s cherry picking. For example, a common cherry pick of late is the myth that global warming stopped over the last 16 years. This focus on short periods of temperature data ignores the long-term warming trend. Importantly, it also ignores the fact that over the last 16 years, our planet has been building up heat at a rate of over three Hiroshima bombs worth of energy every second. To deny global warming is to deny the basic fact that our planet is building up heat at an extraordinary rate.
Oh brother! Basilio that article was just asinine.
Cuummoorn there Pal, some more explanation of dismissal for us dummies needed here ?
It uses political logic and hypocrisy... IOW is plainly illogical to the logical. It also uses the discredited 97% figure.
How was it and who discredited the 97% figure?
And the hypocrisy ?
You see there is no point going through this all over again. You just haven't been paying attention to the debate.
Hint... you won't find these things in the propaganda pieces you read.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?