IPCC | Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis 32

[cmoreride]

Climate change is widespread and intensifying
says the latest IPCC report.
It underscores the urgency of strong,
sustained cuts in greenhouse gas emissions.

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/

 

[SnTMan]

Another view:

Warming predicted by The Models is overstated per Science! magazine.

Regards,

Mike

The problem with sloppy work is that the supply FAR EXCEEDS the demand

 

[1503-44]

SnTman Yes. The extreme yr 2100 prediction curve by CMIP study was overestimated by a whopping 0.8C Hardly another view at all, but to be fair, you confused the reports. The new adjusted models, corrected by the IPCC report referenced by the OP, unfortunately after the CIMP report was published, still predict higher values than those made for the 2013 publication. Reducing uncertainty is hardly a cause for celebration. Nothing there is going to put out the fires, nor reclaim Greenlands massive ice loss this year,

So the IPCC team will probably use reality—the actual warming of the world over the past few decades—to constrain the CMIP projections. Several papers have shown how doing so can reduce the uncertainty of the model projections by half, and lower their most extreme projections. For 2100, in a worst-case scenario, that would reduce a raw 5°C of projected warming over preindustrial levels to 4.2°C. It’s good news for the modelers—but also a clear, and dismaying, sign that global warming has gone on long enough to help chart its own path, says Aurélien Ribes, a climate scientist at France’s National Centre for Meteorological Research. “Observations now provide a clear view for what climate change will be.”

You should at least skim the article before posting a link.

 

[GregLocock]

"Reducing uncertainty is hardly a cause for celebration"

Oh, is increasing uncertainity a cause for celebration? (well, it is for the usual suspects)


Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

 

[1503-44]

Missed the point entirely, or changing the subject?

 

[SuperSalad]

50% uncertainty of having a heart attack tomorrow is better than being certain that you will.

What? No it isn't.

If I am going to have a heart attack tomorrow, which is entirely unaffected by the existence of the prediction; I'd rather have the certain prediction at hand than the 50% uncertain prediction to go by.

Andrew H.

http://www.MotoTribology.com

 

[JoshPlumSE]

Missed the point entirely, or changing the subject?

I think Greg was taking issue with the tone of your response to SnTman. Not sure that the tone of his post (or SuperSalad's) is much better though.

It seems silly to harp on a minor point about reducing uncertainty.... It makes you all look more argumentative than thoughtful. I enjoy all of your takes a lot. Because you have all made thoughtful, and rational points in the past. But, this thread is not the best example.

 

Code Red.

We can't tech our way out of this.

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."

 

[rb1957]

If burning FF is the worst thing "ever", then why aren't we building more nukes ? why aren't we spending more on fusion research (the only IMH/AO long term energy solution) ?

Why are we looking into more energy intensive solutions (to problems that don't really exist) ... like urban air taxis, or supersonic/ballistic travel ?

But I tire of this ...

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

 

[1503-44]

Thanks Josh.

I think you may have misunderstood my first comment? "The extreme yr 2100 prediction curve by CMIP study was overestimated by a whopping 0.8C", which I meant to be fecitious, as the rest of my post I think made clear. If CIMP made an 18% plus error on an extreme case prediction they made for the year 2100, 79 years into the future, IMO that's indeed an extremely good result. Exactly as you say, I have no problem with a little minor uncertainty, especially when its in the extreme case and 79yrs in the future. But that was the CIMP report. The subject report already adjusted that projection down. Consequently SnT's headline was wrong and misleading and he mixed up the reports, finally getting everything backwards. It looks to me that he actually read nothing in either report, simply linking some contradictory headline to throw some shade. I dont know. What else could it be.

The other person's comment (actually both of them) also had nothing to do with the thread's subject, but rather picking up my statement "uncertainty is nothing to celebrate" and try to get some milage (?) on that for some reason unknown to myself. Perhaps I should have just let that useless comment die unanswered, but I dont like to see any question mark go unanswered.

I guess I just need to get used to seeing and ignoring the many thoughtless 1 to 2 5 line "comments" having nothing to do with the subjects common to this forum. It seems to happen all the time. I'll be happy to delete my responses to those useless comments, so I think I will do just that. Good idea. Thanks

I'll let me original comment stand as is.

 

[JoshPlumSE]

I don't think I mis-understood anything. By tone, I was referring to what could be interpreted as a "patronizing" tone. "whopping 0.8C" and "you should at least skim the article before posting a link".

That's the type of tone I think others may have been responding to. Regardless, even if the others want to quibble about silly details (which are irrelevant to your main point), I was mostly suggesting that you not engage in an argument on such silly details.

I just saw this "news" article in my news feed. Not much there really. But, I thought I'd share because its the first "counter-point" to the IPCC report that I've seen.

Honestly, it's not much of a counter-point as it doesn't go into any details or facts, just quotes someone who doesn't have much respect for the IPCC or their report. That being said, this guy does effectively communicate a point of view that many have in response to a lot of "alarmism" that we see reported (and frequently unchallenged).

This is what the U.N. does every three to five years and it’s essentially—you don’t have to trust the science. They’re asking you to trust institutions and this is a political lobbying arm of the United Nations that pretends to be a science panel. They were started in 1988. Their goal is to scare everyone to convince you into "climate action." Al Gore has said these reports are "torqued up." How else do you get the attention of policymakers? One of the lead authors on this report actually says he hopes it impacts the way people vote.

https://www.foxnews.com/media/green-fraud-un-climate-change-report

Better is the "5 points" summary that FoxNews linked to from that page. A quick summary that doesn't seem to take one side or the other, just tells us in very quick blurbs what the report actually said. I found this to be pretty informative.... Honestly, gave me a little more confidence in the IPCC report than I would have otherwise had.

https://www.foxnews.com/world/un-report-climate-change-5-things-know

 

[1503-44]

Thanks for the links, but unfortunately, or rather fortunately,
Fox news has been banned in the UK by the independent watchdog, because of the typical things you mentioned and their incessant dodgy news stories and "right wing propaganda".

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=fox+news+banned+in+uk&t=brave&ia=web

I read both reports myself, so no worries. I think I will pass on the Fox News right wing slant.

Sorry you didn't like my tone, but I thought it was appropriate under the circumstances, specifically because IMO, the uncertainty wasn't significant at all. 18%, extreme curve, 79yrs in future. In my book, that's still gold standard, errors included.

 

[rb1957]

well so much for "free speech" ! I'm not advocating for Fox News, but I will defend their right to their opinion ...

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

 

[JoshPlumSE]

Actually, I didn't mind the tone at all. I was just explaining why others may have been responding with a bit of an argumentative attitude.

FWIW, I do kind of laugh at the idea of "% uncertainty" for this sort of thing.

Fox new opinion personalities are VERY slanted. No arguments there. But, there is a stark difference between their straight news reports and their opinion shows. Huge!!

Granted, I understand the sanctions or such by the UK. Their whole business model is based on the blurring between opinion and news. I should note that this model has been copied by MSNBC and (to a lesser extent) CNN.

 

[1503-44]

They're always argumentative and usually without anything relevant to add to the conversation. They're probably used to that tone by now.

Fox: I just think there are better sources than one that has actually been banned in UK. UK is way more tolerant than most western countries. And I'm not looking for opinions, except perhaps occassionally from trusted sources. Netflix. Actually I prefer a combination of Al Jazeera, DW and NHS for general news coverage, except for what AlJ won't say about Turkey. CNN has too many elitist commercials and is entirely too focused on USA world view, which hardly recognizes Canada and Mexico.

Otherwise I thought both reports were good. I can't make projections into next month with better uncertainty, never mind 79yrs.

 

[SnTMan]

My response, while taking the opposite view, is no different than the OPs' who has a track record of posting a link to some climate change point or another and then disappearing.

I expect I'm done with it.





The problem with sloppy work is that the supply FAR EXCEEDS the demand

 

well so much for "free speech" ! I'm not advocating for Fox News, but I will defend their right to their opinion ...

Fox's exercise of 'free speech' is literally killing people. They are well aware that their 'opinions' are lies.

While I'm on the subject of avoidable deaths, Drumpf has the blood of at least 200,000 on his tiny little hands.

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."

 

[JoshPlumSE]

While I'm on the subject of avoidable deaths, Drumpf has the blood of at least 200,000 on his tiny little hands.

Not the thread or the forum for this type of comment. Not unless your saying that Trump's got 200,000 deaths on his hands related to his Global Warming / Carbon Emission policies.... shaking my head.

I don't mind your comment on Fox News because it was at least relevant to this thread.

 

We were on the subject of fake news, and it's all part of the same cancerous zeitgeist.
Or maybe forum decorum is more precious than actual lives...

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."

 

[1503-44]

I'm willing to trust UK's actions on calling FOX down. They realised that free speech isn't what Fox is about. Banning them was the most severe action they could possibly take. Quite serious. Well done UK.

I for one appreciate the links that the OP posts. Some I find interesting, others not so much. Same as my posts. My links may be of interest to some. The uninterested are free to click "next thread". And all visitors are free to appear and disappear at will. Where's the problem. I do appreciate thoughtful responses and do my best to answer serious questions as best I can. Flippant, irrelevant, basically thoughtless one liners is another story, not that I don't get caught up in bashing them from time to time, but only because I think they deserve it.

Thanks again Josh, for getting me out of that loop up there.

Back to the real topic please.
Anyone still have something relevant to say?