Am I still allowed to question climate change?

[unbeliever]

"Am I still allowed to question climate change?"

 

Yes. Just as you are allowed to question whether the earth is flat or round and even present some made up pseudo-science as "proof".

 

Don't expect to be taken seriously.

 

 

The use of this false analogy discredits you more than it does my position.

[El Cid]

The use of this false analogy discredits you more than it does my position.

 

You accept some of the science. You have an inbuilt bias to be an unbeliever. Do you accept that bias?

[Flexo]

The use of this false analogy discredits you more than it does my position.

 

No idea, mate. I can't make head or tail of your posts.

 

We have scientists for complicated things like this and they are telling us that the link between man's emissions and climate change is indisputable, that it's occurring at the worse end of the predictions and we have very little time left.

 

If you say you can advance the science and somehow change the conclusions, then get your papers published and peer reviewed. That's how science works.

[Robin-H]

Noooooooo!

Nothing I have said is inconsistent with the IPCC reports.

If the CO2 sensitivity is toward the low end of the estimated range we barely have a problem.

If it's toward the high end we're not doing enough.

It makes all the difference and it's determined by the net feedback.

 

How can you speak so emphatically on the subject before learning these basic facts? Are you one of these people who would favour deindusrialisation anyway and just use climate change as an excuse?

 

The CO2 sensitivity is in the IPCC reports so assuming you've read them they'll have already answered your question.

 

They say the likelihood of it being in the low range is 'very unlikely' and warming is much more likely to be in the 2-4.5 °C range. Anything above 6°C and it goes to 'very unlikely' again.

 

Trying to stop the warming from going above 2°C is what all the current efforts are based on, which is at the low end of the likely scenario.

[El Cid]

They say the likelihood of it being in the low range is 'very unlikely' and warming is much more likely to be in the 2-4.5 °C range. Anything above 6°C and it goes to 'very unlikely' again.

 

Trying to stop the warming from going above 2°C is what all the current efforts are based on, which is at the low end of the likely scenario.

 

We need to get away from true or false, and build more defenses, make plans for the future.

[unbeliever]

The CO2 sensitivity is in the IPCC reports so assuming you've read them they'll have already answered your question.

 

They say the likelihood of it being in the low range is 'very unlikely' and warming is much more likely to be in the 2-4.5 °C range. Anything above 6°C and it goes to 'very unlikely' again.

 

Trying to stop the warming from going above 2°C is what all the current efforts are based on, which is at the low end of the likely scenario.

 

 

Finally somebody who cares about the facts and what the scientists actually say. Thank you.

 

You're referring I think to the 90% confidence range, which is a reasonable range to use. But climate sensitivity is sensitivity per doubling of the CO2 concentration. Therefore what you say would only be fully correct if the policy target was to allow CO2 to exactly double.

 

In fact the policy target is to allow much less than a doubling so that even if CO2 sensitivity is toward the top end of the IPCC range the total temperature change would be kept below 2ºC.

 

To other recent posters, the generalities of the science are not so complex that you can't come to understand them. I'm not asking you to evaluate the fortran 90 climate models or anything. Just to have a general understanding of the quantitative conclusions and the associated summary for policy makers.

It's not wise to attempt to patronise or otherwise insult people who have taken the trouble to become so much more informed on a matter.

[tinfoilhat]

Noooooooo!

Nothing I have said is inconsistent with the IPCC reports.

If the CO2 sensitivity is toward the low end of the estimated range we barely have a problem.

If it's toward the high end we're not doing enough.

It makes all the difference and it's determined by the net feedback.

 

How can you speak so emphatically on the subject before learning these basic facts? Are you one of these people who would favour deindusrialisation anyway and just use climate change as an excuse?

 

---------- Post added 06-01-2017 at 09:16 ----------

 

 

I think Trump says such things because it causes people to massage his ego.

 

Because that's exactly what I said - I want to deindustrialise everything. Good job.

 

I'm not a scientist or an expert, you are and you still don't know it all either.

[Robin-H]

Finally somebody who cares about the facts and what the scientists actually say. Thank you.

 

You're referring I think to the 90% confidence range, which is a reasonable range to use. But climate sensitivity is sensitivity per doubling of the CO2 concentration. Therefore what you say would only be fully correct if the policy target was to allow CO2 to exactly double.

 

In fact the policy target is to allow much less than a doubling so that even if CO2 sensitivity is toward the top end of the IPCC range the total temperature change would be kept below 2ºC.

 

 

I believe it is the uncertainty in the predictions that is cause for caution. The temperature change purely due to the radiative forcing by CO2 doubling is easy to calculate, however the feedback systems (albedo, permafrost melting, water vapour etc etc) are vastly more complicated to estimate.

 

It is true that the current policy aims are to cap CO2 at below double the pre-industrial rate (280ppm) (I think the pre-industrial level is the benchmark?) but it is also true that 2°C of warming for CO2 double is at the low end of the predictions.

 

The majority of the models produce warming of above 2°C for CO2 doubling. It would therefore be very risky for policy to allow a doubling of CO2, as while this could produce warming of 2°C, it could equally (with the same likelihood) produce warming of 4.5°C.

 

If therefore also follows that a 2°C of warming could be reached well before CO2 levels reach double the preindustrial levels, and so it seems prudent to me to cap levels at a lower value.

 

The uncertainty is exacerbated by the fact that the observations the scientists have used (in part) to estimate the climate sensitivity come from a time when the earth was cooler than today - therefore some of the feedback loops would not have been as applicable then.

[petemcewan]

Robin- H

 

 

https://e-reports-ext.llnl.gov/pdf/306528.pdf

 

The modelling in this piece of research makes it pretty clear that inertia and denialism is not an option -even with the declared uncertainties.

 

Can you please explain to me what the following means:

 

"to atmosphere (upper panel) and from ocean to atmosphere (lower panel). Negative

values represent fluxes into land and ocean. Land fluxes are reduced to half when the

climate change is doubled and ocean fluxes are insensitive to climate change in our

model." (Figure Captions. Fig 2 ). I don't quite get it.

 

 

Under D. Trump's leadership I wonder what will happen to the funding of future climate research.

Edited January 6, 2017 by petemcewan

[unbeliever]

I believe it is the uncertainty in the predictions that is cause for caution. The temperature change purely due to the radiative forcing by CO2 doubling is easy to calculate, however the feedback systems (albedo, permafrost melting, water vapour etc etc) are vastly more complicated to estimate.

 

It is true that the current policy aims are to cap CO2 at below double the pre-industrial rate (280ppm) (I think the pre-industrial level is the benchmark?) but it is also true that 2°C of warming for CO2 double is at the low end of the predictions.

 

The majority of the models produce warming of above 2°C for CO2 doubling. It would therefore be very risky for policy to allow a doubling of CO2, as while this could produce warming of 2°C, it could equally (with the same likelihood) produce warming of 4.5°C.

 

If therefore also follows that a 2°C of warming could be reached well before CO2 levels reach double the preindustrial levels, and so it seems prudent to me to cap levels at a lower value.

 

The uncertainty is exacerbated by the fact that the observations the scientists have used (in part) to estimate the climate sensitivity come from a time when the earth was cooler than today - therefore some of the feedback loops would not have been as applicable then.

 

 

This is all consistent with what I have been trying to say, but you worry about different unknowns from me.

What I always come back to is that there is a real human cost to reducing CO2 aggressively, which we're supposed to neglect.

 

I have never understood why we don't take the French approach and decarbonise through nuclear. I've looked into this in great detail and I can only conclude than a great many commentators and green politicians want to preserve the issue to push their wider agenda rather than simply solving it (which is what nuclear does).