quote Originally posted by NickD3.4: http://reason.com/archives/...imate-models#comment

That article is utter garbage.

The article starts off by showing an IPCC graph that shows observed warming is within model projections:


Then the article compares the IPCC graph to a graph from a study authored by known deniers Christy and Spencer. The Christy and Spencer graph shows 73 different climate models projections and actual observations. At first there's a stark contrast between projected and observed until you realize Christy and Spencer's sleight of hand.

The IPCC graph shows surface temperatures. Christy and Spencer didn't use data of surface temperatures, or the lowest layer in the atmosphere nor did they use global averages in temperature. They cherry picked a tiny subset of data in the middle of the troposphere (TMT) and totally ignored a massive body of empirical evidence that contradicts them. The TMT data used in this comparison is problematic for a number of reasons. First, they're using a tiny subset of data and comparing it to a larger more robust set. Second, the stratosphere which is the level of atmosphere above the troposphere is cooling. This cooling bleeds into the upper and middle troposphere giving the data erroneous bias. Third, TMT is controversial data because there is no general agreement among the groups that have studied it. SPOILER ALERT: Christy and Spencer's adjustments to the data leaves their data with the least amount of warming. Shocking, I know...
UAH is Christy and Spencer:

Source.

Compare the differences between groups above to the result of various robust surface temperature records that agree with one another:

Source.

quote Originally posted by Formula88:

If you take a glass of water and dump it on the floor do you have more water?

Arctic sea ice volume is in rapid decline. It's misleading to only look at two years of data, but hey you have a theme going here.
"Monthly averaged ice volume for August 2013 was 5,800 km3. This value is 66% lower than the mean over this period, 76% lower than the maximum in 1979, and 0.8 standard deviations below the 1979-2013 trend."

Source.

"Recovery!" - except not really.

Back to the topic of the thread:
IPCC model global warming projections have done much better than you think

[This message has been edited by FlyinFieros (edited 10-16-2013).]

The polar bears all dying has been the global warming crowds tv commercial thats been on tv now for several years. It was proven they used someone elses footage to prove their point. They lost all the credibility at that point as far as im concerned.

as for the idea that the artic ice is bigger in area but not as deep, so its still a loss dont work either. In fact, that would contribute to more global cooling than heating. Anytime you have a larger area thats white, more heat is reflected. Therefore even if the ice is 2" deep, its still white and reflecting all the suns heat away from the earth. Thats one reason houses and RVs are generally white...it keeps them cooler.

quote Originally posted by rogergarrison: The polar bears all dying has been the global warming crowds tv commercial thats been on tv now for several years. It was proven they used someone elses footage to prove their point. They lost all the credibility at that point as far as im concerned.

'Twas brillig, and the slithy toves. Did gyre and gimble in the wabe...

quote Originally posted by rogergarrison: as for the idea that the artic ice is bigger in area but not as deep, so its still a loss dont work either. In fact, that would contribute to more global cooling than heating. Anytime you have a larger area thats white, more heat is reflected. Therefore even if the ice is 2" deep, its still white and reflecting all the suns heat away from the earth. Thats one reason houses and RVs are generally white...it keeps them cooler.

At least that made some sense, but I think that you are on "thin ice", as far as your reasoning here.

The European Space Agency's Cryosat-2 satellite (launched in 2010) uses radar to measure the thickness of the Arctic sea ice.

For those who want to know more about the Cryosat data:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/s...environment-23964372

IPCC models predicted

1. inundated islands.......hasn't happened
2. desimated polar bear population........hasn't happened
3. increased hurricane activity.........hasn't happened
4. the polar icecap to disappear........hasn't happened
5. There has been no net increase in the earth's temperature for 17 years

The 60% increase in ice coverage this year over last year is not a result of Global Warming.

For several million square miles of ocean salt water to freeze means a whole lot of cold and not much warmth

The earth's temperature ocelates continually and the move downward can be anticipated to happen after a cycle of warming.

We'll know more next summer and given how it goes over decades, I expect this is not a one off, but rather the start of a trend, but we will see.

In the meanwhile, the lies of East Anglia, the exaggerations and false prophecies of Al Gore, and David Suzuki, and the forecasting of the IPCC have all been proven to be wrong.

Arn

quote Originally posted by Arns85GT: IPCC models predicted 1. inundated islands.......hasn't happened 2. desimated polar bear population........hasn't happened 3. increased hurricane activity.........hasn't happened 4. the polar icecap to disappear........hasn't happened 5. There has been no net increase in the earth's temperature for 17 years

Repeating the same thing over and over again does not make it true. Despite several requests, you have yet to provide any citations to substantiate your claims.

I don't mean to pick on you here, so don't take this personally.

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: can we trust them? well probably not....but, I would trust them over those who mislead to protect their own interests.

Personally, I think the IPCC falls into the "those who mislead to protect their own interests" category. Remember, if global warming were disproved, the IPCC would have no reason to exist.

quote if they are wrong? no biggie, is it? if they are right? are your descendants gonna be allowed into the 1%'ers lifeboat habitats? nope. not one of the nut swingers.

This is reminiscent of the argument to convert to Christianity. If you convert and there's no God, then no big deal, right? But if you don't convert and there is, you go straight to Hell.

That's right, folks. We need to join the Church of Global Warming Climate Change, or we will go straight to Environmental Hell.

quote and, in fact - gotta remember that "they" WANT a good solid decimation of the population. and everyone here is included on that wish list.

BTW, I'm one of "them".

[This message has been edited by Blacktree (edited 10-17-2013).]

quote Originally posted by Blacktree: Personally, I think the IPCC falls into the "those who mislead to protect their own interests" category. Remember, if global warming were disproved, the IPCC would have no reason to exist.

That's just fantasy.

The IPCC formulates their reports using the findings from researchers around the globe. The researchers are employed and paid by national agencies like NASA and NOAA (in the U.S.) and scores of universities. Even by some corporations and private ventures. The idea that MMGW caused by the greenhouse gases that are currently being emitted could be scientifically disproved without many more years of additional research is laughable. No one who is in any way familiar with the scientific "state of play' would ever say that.

And what if the scientific assessment of the magnitude of MMGW were to be reduced? Entities around the world (such as but not limited to national governments) aren't going to stop monitoring the climate. Everyone, everywhere, whatever they do or however they live, is affected by climate. There might be a displacement of funding away from climate science and into other areas of scientific research, but it would be a gradual transition. As climate scientists reach the end of their careers and retire, their ranks would not be completely refilled, since the next generation of scientists would mostly have other interests.

[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 10-17-2013).]

quote Originally posted by Marvin McInnis: Repeating the same thing over and over again does not make it true. Despite several requests, you have yet to provide any citations to substantiate your claims.

My house in Belize is feet from the beach. its exactly the same distance to the water it was when it was built over 100 years ago by my grandparents.

The polar bear theory has been proven to be a total lie. The fact that places now have hunting seasons is enough to back that up by itself.

Far as I remember, this summer only had a couple of hurricanes, and those were basicly thunder/wind storms, of little consequence.

I can simply see theres still plenty of ice on the polar caps.

There were in fact a large number of record breaking COLD temps in the last few years. Our summer here had a record low number of days above 90*. I really dont remember any days over 100* this year.

quote Originally posted by rogergarrison: My house in Belize is feet from the beach. its exactly the same distance to the water it was when it was built over 100 years ago by my grandparents. The polar bear theory has been proven to be a total lie. The fact that places now have hunting seasons is enough to back that up by itself. Far as I remember, this summer only had a couple of hurricanes, and those were basicly thunder/wind storms, of little consequence. I can simply see theres still plenty of ice on the polar caps. There were in fact a large number of record breaking COLD temps in the last few years. Our summer here had a record low number of days above 90*. I really dont remember any days over 100* this year.

Your observations may or may not be valid, but they are beside the point.

The point is:

1. Did IPCC models predict: "inundated islands"?
2. Did IPCC models predict: "desimated [sic] polar bear population"?
3. Did IPCC models predict: "increased hurricane activity"?
4. Did IPCC models predict: "the polar icecap to disappear"?

Those were Arns85GT's claims, which lacked (and still lack) substantiation.

By the way, where is your place in Belize? My wife and I hjave close friends who built a small hotel on Ambergris Cay, on the south side of San Pedro. Nicest (and friendliest) place I've been in the Caribbean. The massive barrier reef less than a mile offshore does a lot to protect the islands against short term changes. Landing at the San Pedro airport is always a hoot; the runway ends right in the middle of town.

[This message has been edited by Marvin McInnis (edited 10-17-2013).]

quote Originally posted by Marvin McInnis: Your observations may or may not be valid, but they are beside the point. The point is: 1. Did IPCC models predict: "inundated islands"? 2. Did IPCC models predict: "desimated [sic] polar bear population"? 3. Did IPCC models predict: "increased hurricane activity"? 4. Did IPCC models predict: "the polar icecap to disappear"? Those were Arns85GT's claims, which lacked (and still lack) substantiation.

1: http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccrepo...g2/index.php?idp=671
2: http://www.ipcc.ch/publicat...g2/en/ch4s4-4-6.html
3: http://www.ipcc.ch/publicat...n/ch10s10-3-6-3.html
4: http://www.global-greenhous...IPCC-4th-Report.html


...and as for the topic of the ice receding: http://www.appinsys.com/glo.../gw_4ce_glaciers.htm

quote Originally posted by Mickey_Moose: 1: http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccrepo...g2/index.php?idp=671 2: http://www.ipcc.ch/publicat...g2/en/ch4s4-4-6.html 3: http://www.ipcc.ch/publicat...n/ch10s10-3-6-3.html 4: http://www.global-greenhous...IPCC-4th-Report.html [/URL]

Nice links, was it your intention to help point out the difference in what others have claimed and what the IPCC actually said?

[This message has been edited by newf (edited 10-17-2013).]

quote Originally posted by Mickey_Moose: 1: http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccrepo...g2/index.php?idp=671

IPCC predicts 0.18m - 0.59m sea level rise by 2099, and warned that a 0.80m rise could inundate 2/3 of the Marshall Islands.

In other words, they are predicting future inundation. They did not predict that islands would already be flooded, like Arn is claiming.

quote 2: http://www.ipcc.ch/publicat...g2/en/ch4s4-4-6.html

That link claims that "..an overall decline in the size of the total [polar bear] population of more than 30% within the next 35 to 50 years." In other words, a future threat, not that the population would be decimated already.

quote 4: http://www.global-greenhous...IPCC-4th-Report.html

They predicted this by the summer of 2100, not current times like Arn is claiming.

quote Originally posted by newf: Nice links, was it your intention to help point out the difference in what others have claimed and what the IPCC actually said?

Just saying - according to the IPCC it will be around a 100 years (50 for the polar bears) before we can prove them right (or wrong) - HOWEVER it is NOT the gloom and doom that people are saying that is happening right now. In fact the earth is constantly evolving and over a large time scale who is to say what is happening right now is 100% directly the result of man when there are no detailed records like we have now prior to the existence of man (or even 1000 years ago)?

The fact is, the IPCC only has a theory (and is based mostly on only the last 30 years of data) and they are all bent out of shape and running around saying that the world is coming to an end and that the world's governments needs to spend trillions of dollars to fix this problem which for all intents may not really exist.

Should governments pass laws to restrict pollution? Probably, but they should not be spending stupids amounts of money on hair brained 'schemes' like carbon capture and storage without knowing the long term effects. Our history is full of things that were a "good idea" but only to became a real problem many years later.

I doubt that it will take another 87 years (from 2013 to 2100) to develop confidence in whether the trends are going towards the high (bad) end of the IPCC's projections for 2100, or towards the low (not so bad) end of the IPCC's range. Not even half that long.

Money that is invested in alternative energy sources--wind,hyrdo (not just gi-normous dams but less familiar schemes like energy from ocean tides and river currents), solar, biofuel, nuclear--all that displaces some of the money that would otherwise be invested in securing additional energy from the carbon-intensive fuels (coal, oil, natural gas). So it's not like every billion dollars that is spent on alternative energy sources comes straight off the top of the global economy.

As far as CCS--capturing carbon dioxide from fossil fuels and storing it underground--the number of large scale CCS projects (global) declined from 75 to 65 in 2012.

Which way is more hazardous? Testing and improving the CCS technology (which Mickey_Moose is calling "harebrained") gradually, starting now (already started, actually)--or waiting 30 more years, finding out that the trending is towards the high (bad) end of the ranges projected by the IPCC, and then launching a crash program to implement as much CCS as possible, as rapidly as possible?

Slowdown in global effort to capture carbon emissions
http://america.aljazeera.co...issionstakeshit.html

[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 10-18-2013).]

quote Originally posted by Mickey_Moose: ... the world's governments needs to spend trillions of dollars to fix this problem which for all intents may not really exist. Should governments pass laws to restrict pollution? Probably, but they should not be spending stupids amounts of money on hair brained 'schemes' like carbon capture and storage without knowing the long term effects. Our history is full of things that were a "good idea" but only to became a real problem many years later.

I agree that CCS seems, at least intuitively, like a bad idea. Seems unlikely there wouldn't be some future side effect of pumping all this carbon underground, not to mention it has to waste a lot of energy.

Eventually reality will goad us all into agreeing on the scientific analysis of our situation. It's the solutions that we will have a hard time agreeing on. Me too! I don't trust our government or our corporations to make the right decisions and anyway I'm not 100% certain what measures make the most sense except for converting from fossil fuels to clean renewable energy. That's a no brainer. It can't be done immediately so the sooner we start the better. I was recently offered solar cells at 50 cents a watt and they seem to be still coming down so I'm hopeful. Thirty years ago it was $10 a watt.

[This message has been edited by dratts (edited 10-18-2013).]

Im off of Utila Bay, near Roatan. We have an internation airport too with DC3 service to Tegucigalpa, lol.

quote Originally posted by dratts: Eventually reality will goad us all into agreeing on the scientific analysis of our situation. It's the solutions that we will have a hard time agreeing on. Me too! I don't trust our government or our corporations to make the right decisions and anyway I'm not 100% certain what measures make the most sense except for converting from fossil fuels to clean renewable energy. That's a no brainer. It can't be done immediately so the sooner we start the better. I was recently offered solar cells at 50 cents a watt and they seem to be still coming down so I'm hopeful. Thirty years ago it was $10 a watt.

Agreed! Renewable energy will keep going down in price, and soon it will be cheaper than fossil fuels. After all, the marginal (fuel) cost of renewables is zero or near zero.

For a while we will still need baseload power which is perfect for nuclear, while solar will tend to absorb peak loads that occur during the day when demand and generation are both higher. So far there hasn't been a breakthrough in power storage which solar and wind would require to replace baseload systems.

quote Originally posted by rogergarrison: Im ... near Roatan.

I'm confused, Roatan is in Honduras, nor Belize. My map shows only two significant islands near Roatan, and both of them are in Honduras, too.

[This message has been edited by Marvin McInnis (edited 10-18-2013).]

You are correct, they are in Honduras, but I do all my business in Belize (banks, etc) and its just as close. Plus...everyone knows where Belize is, no one knows where Honduras is. There are tons of islands all around the area. When my grandparents were alive Belize was called British Honduras.

[This message has been edited by rogergarrison (edited 10-18-2013).]

quote Originally posted by rogergarrison: When my grandparents were alive Belize was called British Honduras.

I know. It was still British Honduras when I finished college. The colonial history of Belize is why Spanish and English are both the official languages there, and at least in San Pedro both are spoken interchangeably.

I remember my first trip to Ambergris Cay, in the early '90s. Belize was still formally at war with Guatemala, next door to the west, although a shot hadn't been fired in years. But upon landing in Belize City I observed several sandbagged machine gun emplacements along the runway, manned by British soldiers ... an apparent legacy of the former colonial relationship. Welcome to Belize!

[This message has been edited by Marvin McInnis (edited 10-19-2013).]