mike
Member
Posts: 54
|
Post by mike on Nov 1, 2013 21:49:33 GMT -5
Some corrections:
Gore said 20 ft not 20 metres. He did not associate this with a specific timeline. I believe he said in the near future which could mean almost anything. This figure was, I believe, based on all or a large fraction of the polar ice caps melting which no one expects to happen by the end of the century. Gore is not a contributor to IPCC. His pronouncements should not be conflated with theirs.
IPCC says this about future sea level (source: RealClimate):
"For an unmitigated future rise in emissions (RCP8.5), IPCC now expects between a half metre and a metre of sea-level rise by the end of this century. The best estimate here is 74 cm. (29 inches).
On the low end, the range for the RCP2.6 scenario is 28-61 cm rise by 2100, with a best estimate of 44 cm (17 inches). Now that is very remarkable, given that this is a scenario with drastic emissions reductions starting in a few years from now, with the world reaching zero emissions by 2070 and after that succeeding in active carbon dioxide removal from the atmosphere. Even so, the expected sea-level rise will be almost three times as large as that experienced over the 20th Century (17 cm). This reflects the large inertia in the sea-level response – it is very difficult to make sea-level rise slow down again once it has been initiated. This inertia is also the reason for the relatively small difference in sea-level rise by 2100 between the highest and lowest emissions scenario (the ranges even overlap) – the major difference will only be seen in the 22nd century."
|
|
|
Post by Blarney Rubble on Nov 1, 2013 23:45:21 GMT -5
"Gore said 20 ft not 20 metres." Actually he has given different estimates at different times. In October 2009 he told the Leaders in Dubai Business Forum in Dubai: "The North Pole ice cap is 40 percent gone already and could be completely and totally gone in the winter months in the next 5 to 10 years "If the North Pole were to melt it could increase sea levels by 67 metres." In his Nobel Prize acceptance speech, Gore claimed that Arctic sea ice would be gone "in as little as 7 years". That was six years ago. Sea ice levels are currently normal. As for sea levels, these are very tricky to calculate, since they vary locally depending on season, weather, moon distance, storms and a number of other factors. You can see the most up-to-date as well as historical sea level measurements at: www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/map.htmlAnalysis of this data indicates that there has been no significant rise in global sea levels (in fact the data shows that there has been no rise at all). And here: scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/southpacific.pdfis a comprehensive study into sea level in the Pacific, focusing on the islands alleged to be most at risk fro rising sea levels. Conclusion? "The sea level records obtained have all been assessed by the anonymous authors of the official reports as indicating positive trends in sea level over all 12 Pacific Islands involved since the study began in 1993 until the latest report in June 2010. In almost all cases the positive upward trends depend almost exclusively on the depression of the ocean in 1997 and 1998 caused by two tropical cyclones. If these and other similar disturbances are ignored, almost all of the islands have shown negligible change in sea level from 1993 to 2010, particularly after the installation of GPS leveling equipment in 2000."
|
|
mike
Member
Posts: 54
|
Post by mike on Nov 2, 2013 10:05:16 GMT -5
"The North Pole ice cap is 40 percent gone already and could be completely and totally gone in the winter months in the next 5 to 10 years "If the North Pole were to melt it could increase sea levels by 67 metres."
I would really like to see the original transcript of this statement since it makes absolutely no sense. There is no ice cap at the north pole. An ice cap by definition is ice sitting on land and there is no land at the north pole. If Gore said this he misspoke. If the north pole were to melt the change in sea level would be very small since it is floating ice and we all understand Archimedes. If by "north pole" he was somehow meaning Greenland then that's an entirely different case, but Greenland is not at the north pole.
In any case, as already stated, Gore is not a spokesman for or contributor to the IPCC and I'm not particularly interested in what he did or did not say four years ago.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 2, 2013 13:47:52 GMT -5
And......
|
|
|
Post by Blarney Rubble on Nov 2, 2013 14:27:26 GMT -5
But the oceans are not rising, Lily, and the water temperature hasn't increased. You're proposing theories to account for claims that have no basis in fact.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 2, 2013 14:41:36 GMT -5
And yes, Lily, sea level is rising at the rate of 4-8 inches per century (not 20 meters, as Al Gore claimed), and it has been for a couple of centuries now. That's because the earth is still emerging from a mini ice age. It has nothing at all to do with CO2 emissions. That's the problem with not registering. See, right here somebody posed as you, Blarney, with this above post.
|
|
|
Post by raybar on Nov 2, 2013 14:54:29 GMT -5
"Talking to Zak about global warming is a bit like discussing evolution with a creationist. Why bother?" That's rather an idiotic statement, isn't it? Discussing global warming with me is nothing at all like discussing evolution with a creationist. Did you say that because you thought it sounded clever? It doesn't. Only an idiot would (and did) agree with you. Evolution is a proven scientific theory. Not only is global warming not a proven scientific theory, there IS no global warming. Talking to Zak about global warming is like talking to a creationist about evolution because, like creationists, - his views are in direct opposition to virtually the entire scientific community that studies this subject - the scientific views he rejects are based on many lines of evidence which compliment and reinforce one another and all point to the same conclusions - he says that there is no evidence - he says that it is not happening at all This is exactly like creationists. Saying that talking to him about global warming is like talking to a creationist about evolution is an observation, not an insult.
|
|
|
Post by Blarney Rubble on Nov 2, 2013 14:55:25 GMT -5
Not rising beyond the normal, natural rate. I would have thought that that was implicit, since we're having the same discussion. But actually, while I assumed that the oft-quoted "4-8 inches per century" figure was probably accurate, the actual measurements - and especially the more recent (and more accurate) satellite measurements - don't appear to show any rise at all. In either case there is no evidence at all of abnormal or "catastrophic" sea level rise.
|
|
|
Post by Blarney Rubble on Nov 2, 2013 17:14:41 GMT -5
"- his views are in direct opposition to virtually the entire scientific community that studies this subject" No, they are not. They are in opposition ONLY to those scientists who contribute to the IPCC, or who are sponsored by governments who support the IPCC. Thousands of scientists not affiliated with the IPCC reject "climate change". "- the scientific views he rejects are based on many lines of evidence which compliment and reinforce one another and all point to the same conclusions" No, they do not. That is a false statement. It is certainly true that the climate scientists and organizations that are in receipt of generous sponsorship from their governments to find evidence supportive of AGW reinforce each other. However, most of the evidence they present is based on theoretical and computer models, not on actual measurements. The global temperature has not gone up in almost 18 years, and the peak in the 90s can be explained in terms of solar activity. "- he says that there is no evidence" No, I do NOT say there is no evidence. I say the evidence is so weak as to be reasonably dismissed. "- he says that it is not happening at all" Well, even the IPCC concedes that there has been no warming for 18 years. That's why they changed the name of their theory from "global warming" to the catchall term "climate change". "This is exactly like creationists. Saying that talking to him about global warming is like talking to a creationist about evolution is an observation, not an insult." In fact the very reverse is true. Belief in "climate change" is a religion akin to creationism: its adherents are unwilling to answer questions or discuss the science (because, they say, it is "settled"); they are unable to tolerate any criticism of their views; they censor and block the publication of views from scientists who disagree with them; and they believe in a theory for which there is absolutely no solid scientific evidence whatsoever. People who believe in "climate change" do not believe in it because of the scientific evidence (because that's largely comprised of theoretical and computer models and subject to individual interpretation). They believe in it because they don't understand human nature (ie, that researchers who are financially and emotionally committed to proving a specific proposition are always going to find evidence which, they believe, supports their proposition), and because it has the official backing of governments - ie, it has the weight of "authority" behind it. Read more: unfacts.freeforums.net/thread/355/happened-global-warming?page=3#ixzz2jWkid0Nz
|
|
|
Post by Blarney Rubble on Nov 2, 2013 17:28:17 GMT -5
And by the way, I have been arguing against the AGW theory for over 20 years now. I didn't believe in it when it was first mooted, and I am now more convinced than ever that it is complete nonsense.
The "Warmists" told us, 20 years ago, that we would see the effects of global warming within a decade. Well, that was more than TWO decades ago. Is it warmer now than it was in 1990? No. Is the sea level higher? No. Have polar bears become extinct? No, their numbers are at a record high. Has snow become "a rare event", or "a thing of the past"? No. Are there more hurricanes, tornadoes etc now than in 1990? No. Have any of the "endangered" Pacific islands sank under the sea? No. In fact NONE of the predictions made by global warming alarmists twenty plus years ago have materialized. And that's the simple truth.
|
|
|
Post by Blarney Rubble on Nov 2, 2013 19:16:28 GMT -5
Oh, and another by the way. I noted that this latest IPCC report contained the very interesting statement that in their opinion there was now "95% certainty" that man-made CO2 was causing "climate change" (as distinct from "global warming", since there has been no warming). Previously, of course, they claimed to be 100% certain of a causal link between CO2 levels and "climate change". Now they're 95% sure. Shouldn't they be more sure, rather than less sure, given that they've carried out years of additional research? Seems to me that they're giving themselves wiggle room.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 2, 2013 19:39:42 GMT -5
Here's an article on "How Do They Measure Sea Level." Quite frankly, personally I don't really care. As far as I'm concerned most of the time message boards are mainly verbal jujitsu matches. Best outcome is to learn something new. science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/earth/oceanography/question356.htmEdit: In case it was not noticed, it says that satellites have the same problem with measuring sea levels as any other method.
|
|
mike
Member
Posts: 54
|
Post by mike on Nov 3, 2013 16:12:08 GMT -5
IPCC Attribution statement in AR5 Summary for Policymakers It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together. The best estimate of the human-induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period.
In IPCC speak I understand extremely likely means about 95% probability.
IPCC Attribution statement in AR4 Summary for Policymakers (i.e. the previous report to the current one) Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.
Here I understand very likely to mean about 90% probability.
Thus their wiggle room has decreased 5%.
Also please note the reference is to the observed increase in global average surface temperature, not to climate change.
|
|
|
Post by Blarney Rubble on Dec 9, 2013 22:05:33 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Roger (over and out) on Dec 30, 2013 9:00:18 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Roger (over and out) on Apr 10, 2014 19:16:43 GMT -5
"Climate change is rubbish" - NASA scientist, Professor Les Woodcock
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 11, 2014 14:06:25 GMT -5
According to some cursory web search this guy's a professor for Chemical Thermodynamics. I can't find any indication that he has ever been involved with the field of climate research, however.
Maybe you can help me out here?
|
|
|
Post by Roger (over and out) on Apr 11, 2014 17:40:22 GMT -5
The president of the IPCC is a railway engineer. Al Gore has no qualifications in any science at all. And they got the Nobel prize for their environmental work. A professor with a PhD in Chemical Thermodynamics - who also worked for NASA - would understand the physics of "climate change" a helluva lot better than these two bozos, and, I would guess, better than most of the "researchers" who contribute papers to the IPCC.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 14, 2014 15:23:20 GMT -5
[edit]
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 14, 2014 15:33:04 GMT -5
The president of the IPCC is a railway engineer. Whom are you talking about? The IPCC is co-chaired by Christopher Field and Vicente Barros, as you can check on their website: www.ipcc-wg2.gov/organization/Field is a biologist. Barros is a meteorologist and a former professor of climatology. Are you confusing them with someone else?
|
|
|
Post by Roger (over and out) on Apr 14, 2014 15:39:16 GMT -5
The chairperson on the IPCC is Rajendra K. Pachauri. And his qualifications are in railway engineering.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 15, 2014 9:22:17 GMT -5
And the rest of the organization doesn't matter because...?
|
|
|
Post by Roger (over and out) on Apr 15, 2014 10:24:21 GMT -5
First, because it's a political initiative (the clue is in the first "I") not a scientific one, founded (by Margaret Thatcher) with the specific aim of finding evidence in support of man-made global warming. Every researcher who submits a report to the IPCC is in receipt of government funding. If they didn't find evidence to support MMGW, their funding would end.
Second, the organization doesn't matter because it publishes ONLY data that support MMGW. Data that are not supportive of MMGW - and data that disprove the theory - are not accepted for publication in the IPCC's annual report (or in any IPCC publication). It isn't hard to make a case for a theory if you disregard all the evidence against it.
Third, the claims made by the IPCC are almost entirely based on computer model projections, not on actual physical measurements. A computer model can only give predictions based on the information programmed into it. The CRU (which runs these computer models) refuses to make this information public, claiming that it is copyright. In other words they can be as selective as they like as to the data they base their models on, and they have already been caught "massaging" the data.
Fourth, the IPCC has made a number of predictions based on these computer models over the last 20 years. Not one of these predictions has proved accurate. They have a 20 year track record of being wrong about every claim they've made.
Fifth, actual measurements made in the real world contradict every claim that is being made by IPCC.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 16, 2014 15:58:27 GMT -5
First, because it's a political initiative (the clue is in the first "I") not a scientific one, founded (by Margaret Thatcher) with the specific aim of finding evidence in support of man-made global warming. Every researcher who submits a report to the IPCC is in receipt of government funding. If they didn't find evidence to support MMGW, their funding would end. Doesn't almost every university or public research institution in the Western world receive "government funding" in some way?
|
|
|
Post by Roger (over and out) on Apr 16, 2014 16:25:29 GMT -5
Of course. To carry out unbiased research. Not to find evidence in support of a specific theory. Research into "global warming" is unique in that funding is only forthcoming to researchers (and institutions) who produce evidence supportive of the theory. Bear in mind also that, until MMGW was mooted, most researchers in the fields of environmentalism, ecology, earth sciences etc., found it very difficult to get grants. Environmentalism was one of the most underfunded areas of research. Now these researchers have buckets of cash thrown at them - as long as they continue to come up with the "right" answers. And again, research that is not supportive of MMGW is not considered for publication by the IPCC.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 21, 2014 9:54:56 GMT -5
Of course. To carry out unbiased research. Not to find evidence in support of a specific theory. Trying to find evidence in support of a specific theory is one way to carry out unbiased research. How else are you going to verify a theory to begin with? So the hundreds of people doing research for right-wing/corporate think tanks in order to disprove global warming aren't getting any money for their work? That does indeed sound like a horribly unfair deal to me! Is the IPCC the only institution that publishes academic papers?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 21, 2014 9:58:35 GMT -5
So I guess based on your thorough research, we must assume that the Cato Institute is not only not paying its researchers, it also refuses to publish the studies it conducted in order to attempt to disprove global warming. www.cato.org/research/50/studies
|
|
|
Post by Roger (over and out) on Apr 21, 2014 13:15:31 GMT -5
Some Cato scholars (academics who, for the most part, have no qualifications in climate science) accepted the global warming thesis some years ago. Others, however, did not. The majority of Cato scholars do not now accept MMGW or "climate change". In fact the Institute has been attacked for its skeptical stance on this issue.
In response to the Worldwatch Institute Report in May 2003, in which the WI claimed a link between global warming and extreme weather, the Cato Institute made this response:
More recently, the Cato Institute has been even more scathing of global warming alarmist claims. In 2009, the Cato Institute took out a full page newspaper ad in response to Barack Obama's claim that: "Few challenges facing America and the world are more urgent than combating climate change. The science is beyond dispute and the facts are clear." The Cato Institute made the following statement:
The majority of Cato Institute scholars reject the MMGW hypothesis.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 21, 2014 16:14:55 GMT -5
I take it that you retract your earlier claim that there are no institutions who are funding anti-GW research? Research into "global warming" is unique in that funding is only forthcoming to researchers (and institutions) who produce evidence supportive of the theory.
|
|
|
Post by Roger (over and out) on Apr 21, 2014 16:30:55 GMT -5
I made no such claim. I said research into global warming is unique in that funding is only forthcoming to researchers and institutions who produce evidence supportive of the MMGW theory. I never claimed that there are no institutions funding anti-GW research. But in any event reports contradicting or disproving MMGW are being actively suppressed by governments and by the IPCC. Any researcher who found evidence disproving MMGW would find it virtually impossible to get his or her findings published. And, crucially, they would not be accepted for publication or inclusion in the annual IPCC report, which is the only government-endorsed report.
|
|