Since observations are around 1.3C per century I guess being wrong by a factor of 4 is not as bad as being off by an order of magnitude.
Then the talking head proceeds to make the same gross error denialists make by citing not even accumulations, but emissions.
Meanwhile, greenhouse forcing growth peaked in 1987 and has declined ( even with the emergence from poverty by China ) to a relatively stable growth rate:
Since observations are around 1.3C per century I guess being wrong by a factor of 4 is not as bad as being off by an order of magnitude.
Like the difference between weather and climate you seem to have trouble distinguishing between last century and this century and the past and the future. These are easy concepts. What elementary school did you attend? That might explain it.
Once again I have a strong suspicion that 'Eunice' is not female. Aside from certain masculine stylistic hints, it's almost always males who present the grossly idiotic straw men to which Eunice is partial.
Newsflash Einstein, the rate of growth of atmospheric CO2 concentration, and hence of its forcing, can be continuously decreasing - or even zero - and the absolute value of each would still increase and lead us to crispy toast at the end of the journey.
Please learn the difference been derivatives and their integrals - they tell us different things. By your logic terminal velocity is harmless...
Anderson deems it 'likely' that temperatures will rise 4 C by "2050 to 2100"
2050 - 2014 = 36
4/36 = .111 degree C/ year
.111 X 10 = 1.1 C / decade
What is the first decade of the three remaining before 2050, or the 8 remaining before 2100 in which anybunny , Anderson included, expects to see a whole 1 degree delta T, and why ?
Where his paper on the likelihood of staying within 2C is published. AR5 doesn't think that's really a feasible outcome. Of course, AR5 was after the talk.
In 2012 he could point to that one paper and say there is some probability of hitting 4C, on current emissions trajectory, by mid century. I haven't checked whether AR5 discusses the Betts et al paper, though. Maybe it's since been shown to no longer be a valid result?
I don't know what he thinks is likely now. Maybe someone should ask him (or Betts, etc.)?
Here's the money shot: http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/369/1934/67/F7.large.jpg
Do note that ~19.00 the curve he showed (hockey stick in shape?) was for emissions. He stated 'it could be for anything with humans'.
This key point was made by Gus Speth in his latest book, where he used that shape to track about a score of indicators, and used them throughout the book as optics.
So note the shape. Now look in some population biology texts for curves of growth for organisms. That's right: the curves never continue unabated.
The AR5 results would seem consistent with Anderson's assertions. Per Fig. 12.5 in the report, it looks like high-emission (i.e., high forcing, in the new lingo) potentially leads to 4C rise over pre-industrial by 2065-2070 (2 sigma)
All of the Greenland Ice Sheet is moving, and we are not even to 1C yet. If the GIS goes down or sideways, sea level goes up. We do not need to invoke temperature rise for real AGW effects and impacts.
Arctic permafrost is thawing at current temperature and the peat is being converted to methane. Again, this is at less then 1C. Now carbon emission reduction is harder.
Albedo feedback has started due to reduced snow and ice cover. With reduced ice on the Barents and East Greenland seas, it is more likely that the GIS will stay warm enough to move.
And, there is more heat in the pipeline from the tropical oceans to the Arctic. We are an impatient species and have not given the climate time to come into equilibrium either with the heat in the system or the carbon in the atmosphere. the carbon already in the atmosphere will produce more warming over time. We do not need any more global warming to keep the GIS flowing into the ocean, but we are going to get more warming.
Again sea level rise and ice dynamics are honestly considered, I have doubts that our global industrial economy can survive 20 years of 1C warming.
In spring of 2014, the Emperor is still not wearing a stitch of clothing.
UPDATE: The spambots got clever so the verification is back. Apologies
Some of the regulars here are having trouble telling the anonymice apart. Please add some distinguishing name to your comment such as Mickey, Minnie, Mighty, or Fred.
Sobering stuff. BTW - it's "Kevin" Anderson, not "Kenneth".
ReplyDeleteCorrected. Thanks
ReplyDeleteHee-hee.
ReplyDelete6C per century?
Since observations are around 1.3C per century I guess
being wrong by a factor of 4 is not as bad as being off
by an order of magnitude.
Then the talking head proceeds to make the same gross error denialists
make by citing not even accumulations, but emissions.
Meanwhile, greenhouse forcing growth peaked in 1987 and has declined
( even with the emergence from poverty by China ) to a relatively
stable growth rate:
http://ej.iop.org/images/1748-9326/8/1/011006/erl459410f5_online.jpg
If one wants to be seen as being on the side of 'science' one should
not lie about it.
Now, go and take your anti-xylotics.
Eunice.
Since observations are around 1.3C per century I guess being wrong by a factor of 4 is not as bad as being off by an order of magnitude.
ReplyDeleteLike the difference between weather and climate you seem to have trouble distinguishing between last century and this century and the past and the future. These are easy concepts. What elementary school did you attend? That might explain it.
Alas poor Eunice...
ReplyDeleteIt appears that what is being plotted in your link, as any bunny can plainly see, is the annual change, delta F, in the CHG forcing...
A flat line would represent a monotonically increasing radiative forcing...
I suppose that we can take some solace in that it is not accelerating untowardly...
Out of curiosity, are you that naive or are you being deliberately mendacious?
Once again I have a strong suspicion that 'Eunice' is not female. Aside from certain masculine stylistic hints, it's almost always males who present the grossly idiotic straw men to which Eunice is partial.
ReplyDeleteNewsflash Einstein, the rate of growth of atmospheric CO2 concentration, and hence of its forcing, can be continuously decreasing - or even zero - and the absolute value of each would still increase and lead us to crispy toast at the end of the journey.
Please learn the difference been derivatives and their integrals - they tell us different things. By your logic terminal velocity is harmless...
Anderson deems it 'likely' that temperatures will rise 4 C by "2050 to 2100"
ReplyDelete2050 - 2014 = 36
4/36 = .111 degree C/ year
.111 X 10 = 1.1 C / decade
What is the first decade of the three remaining before 2050, or the 8 remaining before 2100 in which anybunny , Anderson included, expects to see a whole 1 degree delta T, and why ?
Discuss
The talk was in 2012 and the 4C by mid century was based on Betts et al from 2010:
ReplyDeletehttp://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/369/1934/67.full
from this:
http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/369/1934.toc
Where his paper on the likelihood of staying within 2C is published. AR5 doesn't think that's really a feasible outcome. Of course, AR5 was after the talk.
In 2012 he could point to that one paper and say there is some probability of hitting 4C, on current emissions trajectory, by mid century. I haven't checked whether AR5 discusses the Betts et al paper, though. Maybe it's since been shown to no longer be a valid result?
I don't know what he thinks is likely now. Maybe someone should ask him (or Betts, etc.)?
Here's the money shot:
http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/369/1934/67/F7.large.jpg
Cheers,
Adam
Do note that ~19.00 the curve he showed (hockey stick in shape?) was for emissions. He stated 'it could be for anything with humans'.
ReplyDeleteThis key point was made by Gus Speth in his latest book, where he used that shape to track about a score of indicators, and used them throughout the book as optics.
So note the shape. Now look in some population biology texts for curves of growth for organisms. That's right: the curves never continue unabated.
Best,
D
The AR5 results would seem consistent with Anderson's assertions. Per Fig. 12.5 in the report, it looks like high-emission (i.e., high forcing, in the new lingo) potentially leads to 4C rise over pre-industrial by 2065-2070 (2 sigma)
ReplyDeletehttp://www.climatechange2013.org/images/figures/WGI_AR5_Fig12-5.jpg
Let's bring the story forward.
ReplyDeleteAll of the Greenland Ice Sheet is moving, and we are not even to 1C yet. If the GIS goes down or sideways, sea level goes up. We do not need to invoke temperature rise for real AGW effects and impacts.
Arctic permafrost is thawing at current temperature and the peat is being converted to methane. Again, this is at less then 1C. Now carbon emission reduction is harder.
Albedo feedback has started due to reduced snow and ice cover. With reduced ice on the Barents and East Greenland seas, it is more likely that the GIS will stay warm enough to move.
And, there is more heat in the pipeline from the tropical oceans to the Arctic. We are an impatient species and have not given the climate time to come into equilibrium either with the heat in the system or the carbon in the atmosphere. the carbon already in the atmosphere will produce more warming over time. We do not need any more global warming to keep the GIS flowing into the ocean, but we are going to get more warming.
Again sea level rise and ice dynamics are honestly considered, I have doubts that our global industrial economy can survive 20 years of 1C warming.
In spring of 2014, the Emperor is still not wearing a stitch of clothing.