Four degrees of warming 'likely'

[JohnWho]

Not sure this is the right forum:

Four degrees of warming 'likely'

Quote:In a dramatic acceleration of forecasts for global warming, UK scientists say the global average temperature could rise by 4C (7.2F) as early as 2060.

The Met Office study used projections of fossil fuel use that reflect the trend seen over the last 20 years.

and

Dr Betts and his colleagues emphasise the uncertainties inherent in the modelling, particularly the role of the carbon cycle.

[Sunsettommy]

Quote:The Met Office study used projections of fossil fuel use that reflect the trend seen over the last 20 years.

Seems dumb because there is this thing called a cooling trend going on 8 years,and still more to come.

Quote:Key to the Met Office calculations was the use of projections showing fossil fuel use continuing to increase as it has done for the last couple of decades.

That is it?

ROFLMAO!

Quote:Dr Betts and his colleagues emphasise the uncertainties inherent in the modelling, particularly the role of the carbon cycle.

But he said he was confident the findings were significant and would serve as a useful guide to policymakers.

What you really mean is that you are an ass kissing sycophant,drooling for more research money.

Then we come to the wild eyed guesses:

Quote:The model finds wide variations, with the Arctic possibly seeing a rise of up to 15C (27F) by the end of the century.

Western and southern parts of Africa could warm by up to 10C, with other land areas seeing a rise of 7C or more.

In its 2007 assessment, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said the average warming by the end of the century would probably lie between 1.8C and 4C (3.2-7.2F), though it did not rule out the possibility of larger rises. 

Based on another unverified climate model.

They guys have a real science degree?

[Richard S Courtney.]

Sunsettommy:

You ask:

"They guys have a real science degree?"

So, you may be interested in an Expert Peer Review Comment I provided on the First Draft of the most recent IPCC so-called scientific report (AR4:  2007).  It was ignored by those who prepared the Second Draft, but I copy it below.

Richard

Page 2-47 Chapter 2 Section 2.6.3 Line 46
Delete the phrase, “and a physical model” because it is a falsehood.

Evidence says what it says, and construction of a physical model is irrelevant to that in any real science. 

The authors of this draft Report seem to have an extreme prejudice in favour of models (some parts of the Report seem to assert that climate obeys what the models say; e.g. Page 2-47 Chapter 2 Section 2.6.3 Lines 33 and 34), and this phrase that needs deletion is an example of the prejudice. 

Evidence is the result of empirical observation of reality. 
Hypotheses are ideas based on the evidence. 
Theories are hypotheses that have repeatedly been tested by comparison with evidence and have withstood all the tests. 
Models are representations of the hypotheses and theories. 

Outputs of the models can be used as evidence only when the output data is demonstrated to accurately represent reality.  If a model output disagrees with the available evidence then this indicates fault in the model, and this indication remains true until the evidence is shown to be wrong.

This draft Report repeatedly demonstrates that its authors do not understand these matters.  So, I provide the following analogy to help them.  If they can comprehend the analogy then they may achieve graduate standard in their science practice.

A scientist discovers a new species.
1. He/she names it (e.g. he/she calls it a gazelle) and describes it (e.g. a gazelle has a leg in each corner).
2. He/she observes that gazelles leap. (n.b.  the muscles, ligaments etc. that enable gazelles to leap are not known, do not need to be discovered, and do not need to be modelled to observe that gazelles leap.  The observation is evidence.)
3. Gazelles are observed to always leap when a predator is near.  (This observation is also evidence.)
4. From (3) it can be deduced that gazelles leap in response to the presence of a predator. 
5. n.b. The gazelle’s internal body structure and central nervous system do not need to be studied, known or modelled for the conclusion in (4) that “gazelles leap when a predator is near” to be valid.  Indeed, study of a gazelle’s internal body structure and central nervous system may never reveal that, and such a model may take decades to construct following achievement of the conclusion from the evidence.

(Having read all 11 chapters of the draft Report, I had intended to provide review comments on them all.  However, I became so angry at the need to point out the above elementary principles that I abandoned the review at this point:  the draft should be withdrawn and replaced by another that displays an adequate level of scientific competence).

[Richard111]

Here is another emotional tale of species under threat. Read this report.

Quote:Since 1997, nearly 1,200 new species have been discovered, many that cannot be found anywhere else, said Dekila Chungyalpa, director of WWF's Greater Mekong Program.

But the rapid pace of development in the Mekong region, coupled with the effects of climate change, are threatening to drive the species into extinction, Chungyalpa said.

"As we become familiar with more species in the region, our understanding of climate change and how it impacts these new species is changing," she said.

Chungyalpa said conservative estimates by the WWF project a 1-meter rise in sea level on the delta's coastline over the next decade, which will affect not only marine life, but also people who rely on the delta as a source of sustenance and employment, she said.

Just for fun I worked out how much heat is needed to melt enought ice to raise sea levels by 1 metre in 10 years.

It works out that you will need the energy that would boil rather more than 3,000,000,000 (yep, three billion) 1.5 litre kettles of water EVERY SECOND FOR THE NEXT 10 YEARS.

[mcclane]

"Their computer models also factored in new findings on how carbon dioxide is absorbed by the oceans and forests. "

ooooh, and we all know how 'accurate' the greenie computer models are. ;D

What a load of nonsense.  First, I like how they use the word 'likely', I can bet the greenies will turn that statement around into "4 degrees of warming for sure". 

It is high time people like us speak out and fight back against the greenies before it is too late.  I've noticed alot of cherry picking data has been conveniently leaked to the media the closer we are to copenhagen.

[Mike Davis]

Richard111:
We are now invoking the name species when referring to SUB species of course this has been going on since the beginning of ECO-ALARMISM> It seems that the bug outside my house today is a new species because it evolved from the species that was here last month and is unlike the bug of the same name outside your house. My species is called bug92009tnusa and your species is called bug909uk. Now when these bugs die another 2 species go extinct. My sister told me about a situation where the eco groups wanted to count toads in a region and went to do the count but heard no toads so they reported the toads with their unique name were extinct. However the people in that region were confused because they thought the toads were growing in population because they seemed to hear more toads. They contacted the grant agency requesting an investigation which found the original counters counted the toads during the day and the toads only make noise at night. Yes the toads were increasing and the recount confirmed what the residents knew. Of course there are toads all over the world but this SUB_species that lived in a small region count as an entire species to the ECO groups.
There was a warm springs that was closed to the public because the little fish that lived there were a sub species that it was thought could be in danger of extinction and that was in the early 70s. I liked to go to that spring! >
Richard S. Courtney:
I agree the entire report should have been rewritten if not the entire group disbanded which is the only future course of action that will restore confidence in science. Thhese people are taling all of science down with them unless scientists disown this type of charade.

We can look forward to 2.5 months of increasing alarm propaganda. Each report with less supporting evidence because they think they can say anything and be believed.

[mcclane]

[quote author=Mike Davis link=topic=262.msg1833#msg1833 date=1254271938]
Richard111:
We are now invoking the name species when referring to SUB species of course this has been going on since the beginning of ECO-ALARMISM> It seems that the bug outside my house today is a new species because it evolved from the species that was here last month and is unlike the bug of the same name outside your house. My species is called bug92009tnusa and your species is called bug909uk. Now when these bugs die another 2 species go extinct. My sister told me about a situation where the eco groups wanted to count toads in a region and went to do the count but heard no toads so they reported the toads with their unique name were extinct. However the people in that region were confused because they thought the toads were growing in population because they seemed to hear more toads. They contacted the grant agency requesting an investigation which found the original counters counted the toads during the day and the toads only make noise at night. Yes the toads were increasing and the recount confirmed what the residents knew. Of course there are toads all over the world but this SUB_species that lived in a small region count as an entire species to the ECO groups.
There was a warm springs that was closed to the public because the little fish that lived there were a sub species that it was thought could be in danger of extinction and that was in the early 70s. I liked to go to that spring! >
Richard S. Courtney:
I agree the entire report should have been rewritten if not the entire group disbanded which is the only future course of action that will restore confidence in science. Thhese people are taling all of science down with them unless scientists disown this type of charade.

We can look forward to 2.5 months of increasing alarm propaganda. Each report with less supporting evidence because they think they can say anything and be believed.
[/quote]

sounds similiar to the polar bears.  The inuits know that the polar bear population is increasing, but the eco-idiots insist the polar bear population is under threat thanks to global warming.

Hmmm, some group living down south who has never seen snow except in a textbook can claim for certain that polar bear population is down and dare argue against the locals about that ??

[Derek]

Please excuse my below light hearted reply,
Richard S. Courtney's post above makes very sad reading to the state of "things".

So, I hope the four degrees forecast ain't right, the last time that happened (about two thousand years ago)
we were successfully invaded by the Italians (for some time [and they wern't delivering pizza..]) here in the UK...

Coincidentally, I have just returned from a trip to Torridon, in the Scottish Highlands (beautiful - even when it's raining...). We spent some time looking at the landscape, and happened across some tourist information pamphlets. Interestingly one pamphlet (current I think - I'll get the correct date of the pamphlet later) said that previously the Highlands were covered in deciduous forest (I assume "dwarf oak", etc), but over the last two thousand years as it had got colder and wetter, consequently the forest had literally been drowned out by the increased rainfall and replaced by the present peat bogs.
So, according to the pamphlet warmer equals dryer according to and for the Scottish landscape, and colder has been considerably wetter for the Scottish Highlands.
Given the MWP effected Scotland, then this cuts down rather dramatically the period that the cooling of the climate and drowning of the forests occurred over. Inescapably, the natural climate variation in Scotland over the thousand years (at most - probably less) from from 2,000 to 1,000 BP was rather considerable (the vegetation changed from "forest" to "bog"). Cooling and getting wetter overall, that did not do Scotland's land much good apparently, and no doubt had a knock on effect to the amount of human life it could support.
Maybe this was a "natural" preemptive punishment for all those Scots that would later drive SUVs, and four wheel drive vehicles..

We did notice one or two other things as well, such as Torridon being the centre of the illicit distilling prevalent in Scotland untill the 1930s, and the damned bracken and sheep. We now refer to bracken as Napoleonic weed, or Napoleon's weed, but that will be explained in a new thread, when I get chance to type it.

[Mike Davis]

After the Italians took up residence when the weather turned to a cooler time the Germanic peoples Anglo Saxons decided to take up residence of your island and apparently they forgot to return home after their holiday :laugh:. The MWP was not as warm as the RWP so the Flora from the RWP would not have been able to reestablish. I believe there is still a few degrees to go before the flora from the MWP can start to reestablish and the temperatures need to be consistent for about 500 years to resemble either of those periods. This short 22 year period is not even a blip compared to historic records and would not even be recorded in the paleo data that some are attempting to show as proof that the globe has warmed. Look at the smoothing Al Goreithim they used in the papers to determine historic temperature records. The after the proxy data ended they use a different smoothing Al Goreithim for recent measurements. I have an issue with historic records that seem to change with each passing month.