Slashdot Mirror
Earth Will Likely Be Much Warmer In 2100 Than We Anticipated, Scientists Warn (vice.com)
According to a new analysis of the most realistic climate models to date, global temperature rise by 2100 could be 15 percent higher than the highest projections from the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). What this means is that cuts in greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide (CO2) will have to be even greater than expected to meet the Paris climate target of keeping global warming to less than 2 degrees Celsius. Motherboard reports: The world is a long way from making sufficient emission reductions to meet the Paris climate targets to begin with -- nevermind cutting out another 15 percent. But there's some good news, too. Both rich and poor countries have begun to move away from coal and oil, the two biggest CO2 sources, according to many energy analysts. Patrick Brown is a researcher at the Carnegie Institution for Science in Pasadena, California, a co-author of the study published Wednesday in Nature. "Our results imply 15 percent less cumulative emissions than previously calculated [are needed] in order to stay below 2 degrees Celsius," he told me. Brown and co-authors focused on finding out what future warming might be, using only the climate models that best replicate observations over the last 15-20 years. On a business-as-usual emissions trajectory, they found that the mean global temperature rise would be 4.8 degrees Celsius by 2100, compared to the IPCC estimate of 4.3 degrees Celsius. The latter estimate is considered catastrophic for our planet, and would lead to sea level rise of over 30 feet, potentially putting the homes of 600 million people underwater.
2m is _huge_. Just think of all of the coastal cities whose street level is within that height difference.
Sea level rises in response to climate forcing take time, they don't happen the instant that the atmosphere gets hotter. And it's a curve that accelerates with time (most of the rise is backloaded).
Our models predicting a curvature have been proven wrong every year since 1993 when we started satellite tracking of sea level rise. The actual data shows an impressively linear 3mm per year. There is no evidence refuting that linear rise. There is no evidence supporting the model's prediction of a curvature.
It is likely going to be much higher co2 emissions because massive numbers of new coal plants are still going in. China continues to add 30-50 GW of new coal plants each year just in China. At the same time, they are adding 100+ GW of new coal plants in other nations. Then on top of that, they are exporting their coal which is some of the worst in the world. Then add in trump trying to save coal in America. We will not add more coal here, but we will likely increase export. The only good part is that it is much cleaner than China's, but it will still pollute heavily regardless.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
It's only the highest temperature ever in the 2000s if you scrub out the actual highest temperature ever in the 1920s by saying the metering back then wasn't accurate. Except the metering were analog readings. That's the whole reason of "conspiracy" with the East Anglia data breech where it was revealed they dropped the inconvenient data to show warming. If you don't have warming, you don't need research, you don't need funding, and you don't have reasons to take from the rich nations to give to the poor.
Here you can see for yourself:
http://geology.com/sea-level-r...
Zoom up on the coasts of the US while toggling between 0m and 2m.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Funny, we just ended an 11 streak of no hurricanes in the US. Tornado activity continues to trend down. Antarctica is accumulating snow and ice mass faster than it's losing it. Methane has been increasing steadily since the 50s and Russia, the source of that permafrost was massively down in the 2000s, and still not close to the peak back in 1990. So that's all four of four of your "checked" predictions that are actual failures, not successes.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
I am comparing actual data to their dire predictions made 20 years ago and calling them on their shit. And, I will be the denier.
The IPCC has done exactly this for years. The real outcomes have typically fallen in the "expected" to "bad" ranges, occasionally approaching the "worst case scenario" outcomes.
The data have always fallen on the "bad" end of the scale. In fact, they've put some effort into figuring out why things like ice melt and sea rise consistently end up worse than the predicted mid-range. You may see some improbable claims on occasion, but overall the climate shift has exceeded predictions. Comparing old predictions to new data has consistently shown one thing: the level of alarm is justified, and perhaps it should be higher.
When the expectations are bad outcomes and you consistently meet or exceed those expectations, you need to change what you're doing.
---
According to the latest ruleset, this post should be modded as Vorpal Flamebait +5.
Climate sensitivity to CO2 is about half to one third of what the IPCC models claim it is. That's what the actual data says. Nobody is denying that CO2 isn't a "greenhouse gas", just that it is not the most dominant one (water vapor and methane trounce it) and that its impact is vastly overrated (this study, for one). However, it's easy to regulate economies based upon their CO2 emissions, so it is convenient to force massive wealth transfers, such as the Paris Accord was to do (where China, the leading emitter of CO2, got to get away with just saying it will address the CO2 issue in 2030 - not that it will start now, or do anything after 2030, just consider it).
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
This Bullshit is why the Alarmists are doubted all the time.
The authors expose how PSMSL data-adjusters make it appear that stable sea levels can be rendered to look like they are nonetheless rising at an accelerated pace.
The data-adjusters take misaligned and incomplete sea level data from tide gauges that show no sea level rise (or even a falling trend). Then, they subjectively and arbitrarily cobble them together, or realign them. In each case assessed, PSMSL data-adjusters lower the earlier misaligned rates and raise the more recent measurements. By doing so, they concoct a new linearly-rising trend.
Perhaps you should read and grasp the links you show.
The hurricane link is about hurricanes thad made _landfall_ in the _USA_
It ignores all other hurricanes, that did not make landfall, all taifoons etc. or Orkans.
You link about ice in Antarctica is also moot. The article claims that bottom line - due to global warming - there ends up more snow. Ice is melting a very little bit slower than it is repaxed by snow.
Befor that article researchers estimated Antarctica would contribute about 0.27mm sea level ride per year.
Now they estimate it is reducing the sea level rise by anout 0.23mm per year. The difference is 0.6mm in sea leacel rise: were they don't know from where it is comming
Oops, that was not the bullshit you wanted to tell us, right?
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
The trend over the last 20 to 25 years is definitely down. Not just for those that land (which tend to also follow the, for lack of a better word, trend), but for all, even those which dissipate over the ocean.
As far as Antarctica, what study shows the mass of snow and ice is not accumulating? it's gaining - not losing. In every single study you'll find that covers the entire continent (not just cherry-picked little areas).
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
I had a similar experience but from a physical chemistry perspective. When you look at the IR+RAMAN spectra for CO2 and H2O it becomes clear that there is absolutely no amount of CO2 that will cause significant warming (the peaks from CO2 are already highly saturated, meaning adding more isn't going to make it any warmer--like having 50 washrags stacked on your chest and trying to get warm by stacking 50 more directly on top of them, where H2O is like a blanket).
Any observed warming can be easily explained with water vapor concentrations, which have also been increasing. The method to deal with that kind of warming doesn't involve shutting down all industry in the world and instituting global communism. In fact, since H2O is in such a tight equilibrium that warming can be fixed in a few days if it becomes bad enough that we have to do it.
You might want to read these articles about why your "CO2 is saturated" argument is wrong:
A saturated gassy argument
A saturated gassy argument - Part II
Also, I'm curious how you think we can fix the warming in a few days by doing something about water vapor? With over 70% of the planet covered by water I don't see any way of significantly affecting the level of water vapor in the atmosphere.
No, the trends are not down.
You are an idiot
You are an double idiot because you don't even grasp your own language.
We have three kinds of trends: flat, increase, decrease. E.g. we could have an increase of rents by about 10% over 3 years as a trend.
Suddenly we have only 7% over a course of 3 years. So the trend decreased (the trend is down) but the direction of the trend, an increase of rent has not changed at all.
As the amount of tropical storms has increased decade after decade, I don't see a change in the trends direction. Perhaps in its speed? No idea, I don't need to know how quickly the rate of devestating storms is increasing.
I ditched my stocks of Muenchner Rueck decades ago. (I guess you don't know who/what that company is ... but that does not matter)
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Please plot the number of storms and cyclones since, say, 2000. Then do a linear fit (since AGW proponents love linear fits). You'll find the trendline is negative. Using this data, then plotting the number of tropical cyclones, I get a linear fit of -0.2436X+19.203 - that is a negative slope. Doing so for the number of tropical storms, and hurricanes results in slopes that are also negative (-0.0918x+16.039 and -0.08846x+8.1373, respectively). That would indicate a declining number of events since 2000, correct?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Combined, Antarctica (~90%) and Greenland (10%) contain ~99% of all freshwater on Earth. Antarctica is increasing its total ice mass. And surprisingly to many, Greenland is as well. Now, the other 1% of freshwater - all those glaciers - may be losing, but they are offset by what is happening on the two main ice sheets. Overall, the world seems to be accumulating ice in spite of localized losses, meaning the global climate is towards ice accumulation whilst local weather may be towards ice loss.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!