Such as Al Gore's claim — made in his UN speech — that Arctic ice will disappear by 2013.
I usually try to ignore people with Gore derangement syndrome but if I knew you personally I'd be willing to bet you $1000 that you couldn't find a transcript of any Gore speech where he said anything close to that. It sounds like a conflation of one British scientist saying in 2007 "At this rate the sea ice will be gone by 2013" (which is true if that rate continued but few scientist thought it would) and Gore saying sea level would rise 20 feet if all of the Greenland ice sheet were to melt (also true).
What I heard is the range for sensitivity expanded some but the center hasn't moved much. IIRC it went from 2 - 5.5C in the AR4 to now 1.5 - 6C in the AR5. That doesn't sound like the overestimated it. The change doesn't make much difference.
Of course it's a truism that all models are wrong because it's impossible to fully model the real world. The real question is are the results useful? But climate models are better than any other method we have to predict climate. The scientists who use these models are well aware of their limitations and take that into account when they release the results. Gavin Schmidt, one of the leading scientists in climate modeling just wrote a post on his blog titled On mismatches between models and observations. It's very open about the difficulties of climate modeling. Even if you think RC is climate change propaganda you ought to read it because there's lots of ammunition in there for you to pick at climate models with.
Despite all the vitriol directed at him Michael Mann's infamous hockey stick graph is still standing
Are you suggesting that because people keep using his graph, his graph is therefore correct? Just wait and see if it appears again in the next IPCC report. I guarantee you it won't be seen for dust.
I'm suggesting that other researchers have done the same work Mann did to produce his graph using different sets of proxies than Mann used and using different techniques and they produce graphs unrelated to the original hockey stick graph that are in close agreement with it.
They probably won't use Mann's original graph in the upcoming IPCC report since it's 15 years old now but they may use one produced more recently that will show essentially the same thing. For instance they may refer to this graph from the Marcott et. al. 2013 paper which supports Mann's graph.
Despite all the vitriol directed at him Michael Mann's infamous hockey stick graph is still standing and has been well supported by subsequent work by other researchers. Yet Mann is still attacked on the basis that the HSG has been disproved.
Jones did make that statement yet there is no evidence that he has been successful. In fact the specific paper(s) he was referring to in that comment did get a mention (not favorably) in the IPCC AR4 report from 2007.
I'd like to see the specific evidence that "climate models have overestimated the effect of increasing CO2 on the temperature of the Earth's atmosphere by a factor of two". From the evidence I've seen atmospheric temperatures are still within the 95% confidence envelope of the climate model projections for the A1B scenario which is the one closest to the real world changes.
The primary reason to keep papers out of peer reviewed journals is that they are poor science that would waste the time of people in the field to read and respond to. When I see evidence that they are keeping out papers doing sound science then I'll get concerned.
if the quantity of carbonic acid increases in geometric progression, the augmentation of the temperature will increase nearly in arithmetic progression.
To further quote the Wikipedia article on Arrhenius:
The following equivalent formulation of Arrhenius' greenhouse law is still used today:
[delta]F = [alpha] Ln(C/C_0)
Here C is carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration measured in parts per million by volume (ppmv); C_0 denotes a baseline or unperturbed concentration of CO2, and F is the radiative forcing, measured in watts per square meter. The constant alpha has been assigned a value between five and seven.
Based on information from his colleague Arvid Högbom (sv), Arrhenius was the first person to predict that emissions of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels and other combustion processes were large enough to cause global warming. In his calculation Arrhenius included the feedback from changes in water vapor as well as latitudinal effects, but he omitted clouds, convection of heat upward in the atmosphere, and other essential factors. His work is currently seen less as an accurate prediction of global warming than as the first demonstration that it should be taken as a serious possibility.
Some warmists got so carried away they proposed such a high positive feedback number that the earths environment was inherently unstable. Any warming would result in uncontrolled positive feedback, ending only when the oceans have all boiled.
That's a straw man argument because scientists have not predicted that the positive feedbacks would lead to runaway warming, just a new, higher equilibrium point.
The deviation from reality, though, seems systematic. Nearly all the models predicted warming greatly exceeding what we've witnessed over the past 15 years or so.
Here is a graph comparing the CMIP3 model output (the basis of the IPCC AR4 chapter on model projections in 2007) to the actual temperatures of the 3 major instrumental temperature records including the 95% confidence range. You'll notice that while a bit below the central projection temperatures are still well within the expected range. The full article is here.
We'll be better off in 100 years with the most advanced tech we can produce between then and now, regardless of any climate change.
That assuming the effects of anthropogenic climate change are not so bad they will cause the downfall of our advanced technical civilization. There's no proof that's a safe assumption at this point. I realize that humans are very inventive and resourceful but major climate change has caused the downfall of other great civilizations in the past. It could happen to us.
That statement is simply false. The ice sheets on Greenland and Antarctica are both losing ice. The only part of the cryosphere that's gained some ice is the Antarctic sea ice and that's such a small part of it you can practically ignore it.
73.6 meters is a bit high because ice is ~9% less dense than water and as sea level rises the ocean spreads out some so the area increases but our calculation ignored the ice in the Greenland ice sheet and other lesser ice sheets and glaciers so saying greater than 60 meters for all of the ice melting is an accurate and conservative statement.
I think the most logical way a phaser on disintegrate setting could work would be some effect that neutralizes the strong nuclear force. Then whatever you hit with it would just disintegrate to a cloud of quarks.
Well, the known causes of natural climate change point toward slow cooling so human causes are probably more than 100% of the cause of the warming. Both are still operating but anthropogenic causes are overwhelming the natural causes lately.
A BBC story reported that one croyologist said in late 2007 or early 2008 "At the rate it's going the Arctic could be ice free by 2013." In 2007 the Arctic sea ice extent minimum was 4,140,000 km^2, 22% or 1,190,000 km^2 less than the previous record low.so yes, at that rate it could have been gone by 2013. No one asked him if he thought that would actually happen though and most of his colleagues would have called it ridiculous. Latching on to that is really just a case of quote mining and ignoring the larger context.
Slashdot Mirror
Such as Al Gore's claim — made in his UN speech — that Arctic ice will disappear by 2013.
I usually try to ignore people with Gore derangement syndrome but if I knew you personally I'd be willing to bet you $1000 that you couldn't find a transcript of any Gore speech where he said anything close to that. It sounds like a conflation of one British scientist saying in 2007 "At this rate the sea ice will be gone by 2013" (which is true if that rate continued but few scientist thought it would) and Gore saying sea level would rise 20 feet if all of the Greenland ice sheet were to melt (also true).
I first read that as "if millions of high carbine Americans 'adapt' then catastrophe might be averted".
What I heard is the range for sensitivity expanded some but the center hasn't moved much. IIRC it went from 2 - 5.5C in the AR4 to now 1.5 - 6C in the AR5. That doesn't sound like the overestimated it. The change doesn't make much difference.
Of course it's a truism that all models are wrong because it's impossible to fully model the real world. The real question is are the results useful? But climate models are better than any other method we have to predict climate. The scientists who use these models are well aware of their limitations and take that into account when they release the results. Gavin Schmidt, one of the leading scientists in climate modeling just wrote a post on his blog titled On mismatches between models and observations. It's very open about the difficulties of climate modeling. Even if you think RC is climate change propaganda you ought to read it because there's lots of ammunition in there for you to pick at climate models with.
Are you suggesting that because people keep using his graph, his graph is therefore correct? Just wait and see if it appears again in the next IPCC report. I guarantee you it won't be seen for dust.
I'm suggesting that other researchers have done the same work Mann did to produce his graph using different sets of proxies than Mann used and using different techniques and they produce graphs unrelated to the original hockey stick graph that are in close agreement with it.
They probably won't use Mann's original graph in the upcoming IPCC report since it's 15 years old now but they may use one produced more recently that will show essentially the same thing. For instance they may refer to this graph from the Marcott et. al. 2013 paper which supports Mann's graph.
Despite all the vitriol directed at him Michael Mann's infamous hockey stick graph is still standing and has been well supported by subsequent work by other researchers. Yet Mann is still attacked on the basis that the HSG has been disproved.
Jones did make that statement yet there is no evidence that he has been successful. In fact the specific paper(s) he was referring to in that comment did get a mention (not favorably) in the IPCC AR4 report from 2007.
I'd like to see the specific evidence that "climate models have overestimated the effect of increasing CO2 on the temperature of the Earth's atmosphere by a factor of two". From the evidence I've seen atmospheric temperatures are still within the 95% confidence envelope of the climate model projections for the A1B scenario which is the one closest to the real world changes.
The primary reason to keep papers out of peer reviewed journals is that they are poor science that would waste the time of people in the field to read and respond to. When I see evidence that they are keeping out papers doing sound science then I'll get concerned.
Of course it's more complicated than that but they're not going to change that number by more than 15% or 20%.
Ok, in 1896 Svante Arrhenius wrote:
if the quantity of carbonic acid increases in geometric progression, the augmentation of the temperature will increase nearly in arithmetic progression.
To further quote the Wikipedia article on Arrhenius:
The following equivalent formulation of Arrhenius' greenhouse law is still used today:
[delta]F = [alpha] Ln(C/C_0)
Here C is carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration measured in parts per million by volume (ppmv); C_0 denotes a baseline or unperturbed concentration of CO2, and F is the radiative forcing, measured in watts per square meter. The constant alpha has been assigned a value between five and seven.
Based on information from his colleague Arvid Högbom (sv), Arrhenius was the first person to predict that emissions of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels and other combustion processes were large enough to cause global warming. In his calculation Arrhenius included the feedback from changes in water vapor as well as latitudinal effects, but he omitted clouds, convection of heat upward in the atmosphere, and other essential factors. His work is currently seen less as an accurate prediction of global warming than as the first demonstration that it should be taken as a serious possibility.
That was nearly 120 years ago.
See what I mean.
Indeed.
Some warmists got so carried away they proposed such a high positive feedback number that the earths environment was inherently unstable. Any warming would result in uncontrolled positive feedback, ending only when the oceans have all boiled.
That's a straw man argument because scientists have not predicted that the positive feedbacks would lead to runaway warming, just a new, higher equilibrium point.
Hint: We are NOT in an ice age.
By the scientific definition we certainly are in an ice age and will be until the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have melted away.
The deviation from reality, though, seems systematic. Nearly all the models predicted warming greatly exceeding what we've witnessed over the past 15 years or so.
Here is a graph comparing the CMIP3 model output (the basis of the IPCC AR4 chapter on model projections in 2007) to the actual temperatures of the 3 major instrumental temperature records including the 95% confidence range. You'll notice that while a bit below the central projection temperatures are still well within the expected range. The full article is here.
We'll be better off in 100 years with the most advanced tech we can produce between then and now, regardless of any climate change.
That assuming the effects of anthropogenic climate change are not so bad they will cause the downfall of our advanced technical civilization. There's no proof that's a safe assumption at this point. I realize that humans are very inventive and resourceful but major climate change has caused the downfall of other great civilizations in the past. It could happen to us.
That statement is simply false. The ice sheets on Greenland and Antarctica are both losing ice. The only part of the cryosphere that's gained some ice is the Antarctic sea ice and that's such a small part of it you can practically ignore it.
The greenhouse effect theory will be 200 years old in another decade. Fourier first talked about it in 1824.
When they can't attack the science they attack the Mann (or Gore or Phil Jones, etc.).
Yes, I'm certain. Here's the math.
To simplify I'll just look at the ice on Antarctica.
Volume of the Antarctic ice sheet: ~26,500,000 km^3
Area of the worlds oceans: ~360,000,000 km^2
26,500,000 km^3 / 360,000,000 km^2 = 0.0736 km = 73.6 meters.
73.6 meters is a bit high because ice is ~9% less dense than water and as sea level rises the ocean spreads out some so the area increases but our calculation ignored the ice in the Greenland ice sheet and other lesser ice sheets and glaciers so saying greater than 60 meters for all of the ice melting is an accurate and conservative statement.
When the ice caps disappear London will be under more than 60+ meters (200 feet of water).
If the energy coming in at the top of the atmosphere is less than the energy leaving at TOA the Earth is going to heat up. It really is that simple.
I think the most logical way a phaser on disintegrate setting could work would be some effect that neutralizes the strong nuclear force. Then whatever you hit with it would just disintegrate to a cloud of quarks.
Well, the known causes of natural climate change point toward slow cooling so human causes are probably more than 100% of the cause of the warming. Both are still operating but anthropogenic causes are overwhelming the natural causes lately.
A BBC story reported that one croyologist said in late 2007 or early 2008 "At the rate it's going the Arctic could be ice free by 2013." In 2007 the Arctic sea ice extent minimum was 4,140,000 km^2, 22% or 1,190,000 km^2 less than the previous record low.so yes, at that rate it could have been gone by 2013. No one asked him if he thought that would actually happen though and most of his colleagues would have called it ridiculous. Latching on to that is really just a case of quote mining and ignoring the larger context.
Way to take the idea that humans are a factor in climate change to it's ridiculous conclusion. Reductio ad absurdum(b).
Must have been Unimogs.