Climate Change VI - Warmists and their Demise

[fred smith]

It'd be easier to explain cricket to Americans than science to Mr Smith.

Interesting. Did you NOT post the IPCC table? and is the MOST LIKELY scenario not an average of 0.6 degrees C? and there are no figures available for sealevel rise for that scenario but I have gone to the next one which starts at 0.18 and the following are 0.2. I went to an average of 0.3 on the table that YOU provided from YOUR all precious and wonderful IPCC report. Does one need to be a scientist to ask you to back up the information that you have provided? and given that it shows no catastrophic result at all, does that really mean that you have made any kind of logical argument at all? or am I missing something important here? relevant?

Again, are you suggesting that you agree with Morner/Gray that there are NO sealevel rises NOW but that there MAY be in the future and if so are you saying you agree with the MOST LIKELY assessment of the IPCC in which case 0.3 is more than generous of me no?

Perhaps you should try explaining cricket to me after all as you have done a shitass job of doing so on the sealevel increases. Play Ball!

[cfimages]

It'd be easier to explain cricket to Americans than science to Mr Smith.

Interesting. Did you NOT post the IPCC table?

Yes I did.

and is the MOST LIKELY scenario not an average of 0.6 degrees C?

No it's not.

Read it for yourself instead of making off-the-wall assumptions. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_dat ... ns-of.html

[BigJohn]

The main point here is that there is a scientific process for looking at scientific phenomena. The IPCC may not be perfect but it is the best we've got. As time goes by, more data will be acquired, flawed processes and models discarded, better ones adopted. Things will become clearer and clearer with regards to AGW. The results of Gray and Morner will doubtless be considered by the 1st working group, as will other evidence such as a weaker atmospheric warming trend of late.

As I said earlier, I hope the deniers are right! I hope we are not screwing things up for ourselves. And I think a healthy does of skepticism is a good thing. But ranting on about international conspiracies? Lame! Pretending to be better at interpreting climate science - notoriously complex - than the IPCC? Lame!

[Jack Burton]

fred, note this footnote:

Models used to date do not include uncertainties in climate-carbon cycle feedback nor do they include the full effects of changes in ice sheet flow, because a basis in published literature is lacking. The projections include a contribution due to increased ice flow from Greenland and Antarctica at the rates observed for 1993 to 2003, but these flow rates could increase or decrease in the future. For example, if this contribution were to grow linearly with global average temperature change, the upper ranges of sea level rise for SRES scenarios shown in Table SPM.3 would increase by 0.1 to 0.2 m. Larger values cannot be excluded, but understanding of these effects is too limited to assess their likelihood or provide a best estimate or an upper bound for sea level rise.

what I still don't understand is your simple comeback, let future unknown undeveloped technology solve our problems. Your confidence, while admirable, does not conjure or create science. How ironic.

[fred smith]

Fine... 0.18 to 0.59 equals 0.78, let's put that average at the worst case scenario at 0.377 meters. Sorry for forgetting the 0.077. How remiss of me.

I am quaking quaking QUAKING in my boots. A whole FOOT of sealevel increase in the next 100 years. SCARY

[fred smith]

Models used to date do not include uncertainties in climate-carbon cycle feedback nor do they include the full effects of changes in ice sheet flow, because a basis in published literature is lacking. The projections include a contribution due to increased ice flow from Greenland and Antarctica at the rates observed for 1993 to 2003, but these flow rates could increase or decrease in the future. For example, if this contribution were to grow linearly with global average temperature change, the upper ranges of sea level rise for SRES scenarios shown in Table SPM.3 would increase by 0.1 to 0.2 m. Larger values cannot be excluded, but understanding of these effects is too limited to assess their likelihood or provide a best estimate or an upper bound for sea level rise.

Translation: We don't know.

[Chris]

If we don't know, isn't it better to err on the side of caution and NOT mess up the environment, than to gamble the survival of our species on the assumption that polluting the planet won't cause harm? After all, we do depend on the environment for our very survival.

[fred smith]

UN's Climate Bible Gets 21 'F's on Report Card

all 18,531 references cited in the 2007 IPCC report were examined
5,587 are not peer-reviewed
IPCC chairman's claim that the report relies solely on peer-reviewed sources is not supported
each chapter was audited three times; the result most favorable to the IPCC was used
21 out of 44 chapters contain so few peer-reviewed references, they get an F
43 citizen auditors in 12 countries participated in this project
full report card here
detailed results here

as posted previously...

Still trust in the peer-reviewed IPCC? is this the best that we have? and would you like to revisit the information on the number of political appointees who are not climate scientists involved in the review/writing process of the report? Either having climate scientists and ONLY climate scientists involved is important or it is not. YOU choose and then let me know.

So we don't know? Okay. I may be able to control your destiny one day so you should give me all your money now. Better safe than sorry because you never know. Right?

[Jack Burton]

Fine... 0.18 to 0.59 equals 0.78, let's put that average at the worst case scenario at 0.377 meters. Sorry for forgetting the 0.077. How remiss of me.

I am quaking quaking QUAKING in my boots. A whole FOOT of sealevel increase in the next 100 years. SCARY

the report is from 2007, there's been improvements on observations and theory since then, and per the footnote I highlighted, the IPCC did caution that its estimates do not take into account ice dynamics, the understanding of which has improved since then. it appears the general consensus now is avg 3 ft up to 2100 (maybe max. 6 ft), but let me find the arguments for that and link, right now still reading up.

[fred smith]

the report is from 2007, there's been improvements on observations and theory since then, and per the footnote I highlighted, the IPCC did caution that its estimates do not take into account ice dynamics, the understanding of which has improved since then. it appears the general consensus now is avg 3 ft up to 2100 (maybe max. 6 ft), but let me find the arguments for that and link, right now still reading up.

So we are using IPCC reports or we are not. THIS is the latest IPCC report and it shows an average of 0.377 meters rise.

You still do not know and neither does anyone else.

Again, we have gotten a long way away from the original argument but no one has conceded. All the discussion here would seem to indicate to me that we are all in agreement now that there have been NO sealevel rises since 1993. Yes?

Anyone got anything to disprove Morner/Gray?

Jack: Still waiting for the reason why only ONE scientist could be named and all of your evidence is subject to a $39.95 fee to access. Got anything else? Surely with all the information out there we don't need to rely on this one site?