Which IPCC Scenario is your guess?

[wayneL]

sure - any large molecules - H-O-H, O-C-O , CH4, etc cause ghg effect.
where O2 doesn't for instance.

- so what are you planning to do about water vapour. ?
I mean what's your point here?

The point is about butterfly wings, hurricanes, and chaos... and the futility of guessing which guess a committee full of VIs guessed.

 

[2020hindsight]

The effect of water vapour - are they aware of it?
- the third point on that blue jpeg back on post #8 is that "water vapour is increasing" - so I think you can safely assume that people like the UK Met office (who claim to know what they're doing with weather forecasting) have built into their models the fact that water vapour is relevant to the final greenhouse effects.

Think I noticed there in their report that methane CH4 turns to water vapour in the stratosphere - so I think we can rest assured that they're onto it.

The starting point for this thread?
I guess you could argue that this thread concentrates on the six main IPCC options (albeit the freedom to choose "other") as the starting point. THESE ARE OPTIONS ON HOW MEN (en masse and in their 21st century numbers ) WILL BEHAVE. These are options / guesses if you like on how coordinated and green we will be in our approach to this alleged "problem" - and that would apply for real or imaginary. Will the USA become better environmental citizens of the world for example - or continue as selfish environmental vandals raping the planet of resources? etc.

The accuracy of their predictions?
They (IPCC) seem pretty confident, but I concede there are other scientists who disagree. IF they are accurate, then we get the temperature effects of2.8degC etc. If you wish, maybe vote for a human response similar to eg A1B (seems to be the commonly assumed "middle road" scenario ) but WITHOUT necessarily agreeing that it will be as bad as they predict

Heck - vote for "other" if you wish, and say that you don’t trust scientists - quote Y2K as reference maybe.

As for the risk of overestimating the threat? - We will hopefully rein in the current use of fossil fuels, (or don’t we care that we are using it at a totally unsustainable rate - (ANY rate cannot be sustained all that long anyway )
We will become more environmentally aware - surely a good thing for critters, pollution of all types. Even reduce the global temp by a fraction hopefully (even if not as much as claimed), surely can't hurt.

If you're saying that global COOLING is a serious risk, then we will have the systems and the committees to act on that as well - if and when it becomes a problem (right now, there aren't too many people very alarmed about too much cooling I wouldn't have thought - just ask the Vics fighting about half a dozen massive bushfires). I mean the arctic polar cap is melting bigtime.

By the way, the predicted temp increase at the north and south poles are respectively higher and lower that the average (see graphs)

Meanwhile here's the effect of what 2deg, 3deg etc will have on the planet , the reefs, the islands, etc ... on the mudcrabs, on weather patterns ... on countries like Bangladesh etc

Let's suppose we JUST look at Bangladesh - let's try to minimise their difficulties with some frugality (a cause which you champion - goon on you) AS WELL AS serious talk with the USA on getting them on board.

Finally , here's that youtube on the flooding of the Thames again - a bit closer to home for you these days. My guess is that people in the vicinity of those dykes holding back the Channel at the mouth of the Thames would prefer to go the cautious route :2 twocents

 

[wayneL]

Well there wasn't much evidence of GW here yesterday... I was doing burnouts in the Hummer to try and get some more CO2 out there... and I drove to the pub afterwards.

 

[noirua]

Not all seas are rising in temperature or at least not all of the same sea is. Some parts are reducing the amount of ice formation but other parts are still increasing.

Sun spots are the problem and the sun, our sun, is reported as having never been so active as it has been in the last 60 years.

This link may well explain that the sun is the problem and not the burning of coal and oil: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3869753.stm

 

[2020hindsight]

Well there wasn't much evidence of GW here yesterday... I was doing burnouts in the Hummer to try and get some more CO2 out there... and I drove to the pub afterwards.

Wayne, So are you saying that weather bureau don't predict things exactly ? lol (just a jest)

Interestingly enough, I don't see any indication on those IPCC projections, of europe cooling due to the Gulf Stream slowing down (which it apparently has several times throughout history - and rather abruptly) and indeed Europe would become cold in that eventuality. - refer the attached youtube(s) "Britain in for Ice Age within 20 years". Strange the fact you have to cool things down to avoid a (local) iceage.

Call it "self-equilibrating" if you wish - trouble is the pendulum is massive and takes a few hundred years to crank the bloody Gulf Stream "conveyor" up again.

There would be environmental (oops) refugees from UK by the thousands !!!

Heck, We would be able to charge $15 instead of $10 maybe

Why an Ice age may come to Britain within 20 yrs - Pt 1 of 4 etc
............. (watch all 4 as you wish ... http://www.youtube.com/results?sear...+come+to+Britain+within+20+yrs+&search=Search

PS I meant to add this to previous post.
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=221988&highlight=mattering#post221988

(The lady works for "Project THAMES 2100" - but (I'm fairly sure) she is talking about 2050)
5 Disasters Waiting to Happen: Thames Flood Risk

"the barrier was biggest in the world - has protected London for 20 years."

 

[wayneL]

Why an Ice age may come to Britain within 20 yrs

It actually arrived yesterday. But thanks to my efforts with the Hummer, I've delayed it for another 20 years.

 

[noirua]

So are you saying that weather bureau don't predict things exactly ?


Interestingly enough, I don't see any indication on those projections, of europe cooling due to the Gulf Stream slowing down ( which it apparently has several times throughout history - and rather abruptly) and indeed Europe would become cold in that eventuality.

Call it "self-equilibrating" if you wish - trouble is the pendulum is massive and takes a few hundred years to crank the bloody Gulf Stream "conveyor" up again.

There would be economic refugees from UK by the thousands !!!

Good grief 2020, there is a chance I might still be around in 20 years time. Make it 30 years and I'm sure to be out of here by then.

If anyone pays me, I'm quite happy to do my forecast for the next 20 years. You can have a cold, hot or neutral outcome, sunny, windy, storms or even giant icebergs crashing on to beaches near Darwin and Perth. Giant meteorites landing on Iran, Russia etc., or plenty of rain falling on Australia, all at night.
In other words, I doubt most of these reports.

 

[2020hindsight]

Not all seas are rising in temperature or at least not all of the same sea is. Some parts are reducing the amount of ice formation but other parts are still increasing.

Sun spots are the problem and the sun, our sun, is reported as having never been so active as it has been in the last 60 years.

This link may well explain that the sun is the problem and not the burning of coal and oil: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3869753.stm

noi - I've read similar before, and I disagree. In fact we are at a low in solar activity -

in about 4 years it will be MUCH MUCH worse - in fact one of the worst solar activity years in recent history.

That's one of the reasons I would bet that it's gonna get hotter in the near future at least (beyond that I have to trust the experts who I think make the most sense - although I agree that a few disagree with IPCC)

Finally, some fairly credible people seem to be convinced we should do something . .. : 2 twocents
Sir David Attenborough: The Truth About Climate Change

 

[2020hindsight]

Good grief 2020, there is a chance I might still be around in 20 years time. Make it 30 years and I'm sure to be out of here by then.

If anyone pays me, I'm quite happy to do my forecast for the next 20 years. You can have a cold, hot or neutral outcome, sunny, windy, storms or even giant icebergs crashing on to beaches near Darwin and Perth. Giant meteorites landing on Iran, Russia etc., or plenty of rain falling on Australia, all at night.
In other words, I doubt most of these reports.

noi let's pretend
a) we're scientists
b) we are also managers of the planet - so called Lords of Creation if you wish - although the rate we are demoloishing the planet, you'd never guess

Then shouldn't a good manager act when he sees a purple patch on the horizon?

or are you implying that don't you care if it's past your life span?

Ahh - if you're referring to the options in the poll - then the intent (if you read the first - or maybe the second post in particular) is as follows

"how ecologically friendly, frugal, fossil-fuel-dependant, and coordinated in our efforts do you see "mankind-en-masse" being in the (near) future and for the rest of the 21st century?" and (I guess) effective or otherwise even if we do act (one for the sceptics)"

The intent of the poll is to guess MAN's response,

not necessarily the earths response to that . ok?

 

[2020hindsight]

How much better for the world if, when Noah was out rounding up the animals, that man had somehow missed the boat?

 

[noirua]

How much better for the world if, when Noah was out rounding up the animals, that man had somehow missed the boat?

Very good 2020, at some stage humans will leave this planet and head for outer space. Starship Enterprise and Deep Space 9. I suppose I'm a bit annoyed at arriving here several thousand years too early.

I did post sometime ago that I got off a bus once and it crashed into a house a few hundred metres down the road on a bend, only a few seconds afterwards.
I suppose I'm a get off in time type of person. Doesn't always work with shares though, unfortunately.

 

[2020hindsight]

Not all seas are rising in temperature or at least not all of the same sea is. Some parts are reducing the amount of ice formation but other parts are still increasing.

Sun spots are the problem and the sun, our sun, is reported as having never been so active as it has been in the last 60 years.

This link may well explain that the sun is the problem and not the burning of coal and oil: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3869753.stm

http://www.ips.gov.au/Solar/1/6
compare 2012 to 2007

You'll also see the 11 year cycle in sunspot activity (as discovered by Galileo)

See the graph below... you'll see that we are currently near the bottom of a trough of solar activity.- oops low was this year - we are about to head upwards

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunspot

A minimum in the eleven-year sunspot cycle took place in 2007 [1] and the start of Cycle 24 is expected in 2008.

next read about predictions for the next couple of years
http://www.physorg.com/news86010302.html

Evidence is mounting: the next solar cycle is going to be a big one. Solar cycle 24, due to peak in 2010 or 2011 "looks like its going to be one of the most intense cycles since record-keeping began almost 400 years ago," says solar physicist David Hathaway of the Marshall Space Flight Center. He and colleague Robert Wilson presented this conclusion last week at the American Geophysical Union meeting in San Francisco.
Their forecast is based on historical records of geomagnetic storms.

As I say, I'm betting it will get hotter in the near future.

 

[2020hindsight]

.... This link may well explain that the sun is the problem and not the burning of coal and oil: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3869753.stm

noi,
last one on this ... promise .. (for now lol)
that article of yours clarifies this better..... don't forget it's from July 2004, and a few thousand solar flares have gone into the ether since then . ...

By the way I think we both misquoted that article somewhat..
a) solar activity is high now - averaged - (but will still get higher after peak in the next 4-5 years - see below)
b) they suggest that fossil fuel is augmenting solar effects

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3869753.stm

But the most striking feature, he says, is that looking at the past 1,150 years the Sun has never been as active as it has been during the past 60 years.

Over the past few hundred years, there has been a steady increase in the numbers of sunspots, a trend that has accelerated in the past century, just at the time when the Earth has been getting warmer.

The data suggests that changing solar activity is influencing in some way the global climate causing the world to get warmer.

Over the past 20 years, however, the number of sunspots has remained roughly constant, yet the average temperature of the Earth has continued to increase.

This is put down to a human-produced greenhouse effect caused by the combustion of fossil fuels.

This latest analysis shows that the Sun has had a considerable indirect influence on the global climate in the past, causing the Earth to warm or chill, and that mankind is amplifying the Sun's latest attempt to warm the Earth.

Then there's this one from 2003 ...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3220559.stm

According to the latest estimates of that uncertain science - predicting future solar activity - the next solar minimum should be in 2006 rising to a maximum in 2010.

In fact maximum in 2012 (not 2010) - and (as posted elsewhere) next cycle is allegedly gonna be worst in 400 years of records