How Bad Is Global Warming?

[justdrew]

what I don't get is how Ben can think that we can increase all these greenhouse gases and not have an effect. Does he not "believe" in the greenhouse effect?

[Ben D]

Drew a disreputable Septic Skeptic broke his oath and leaked this portion of the still actively being compiled draft of AR 5. Watts published an edited version, leaving out the most important details, which "clear minded" Ben was unaware of when he posted it.

Tasmanian Devil or Hungry Ghost, which is it...

What did Watts leave out Iam? Or rather Alec Rawls, he worked on AR5 and was the one that leaked it.

[DrEvil]

I'm just going to quote myself here, with some extra bolding:

Figure 1.4: [PLACEHOLDER FOR FINAL DRAFT: Observational datasets will be updated as soon as they become available] Estimated changes in the observed globally and annually averaged surface temperature (in C) since 1990 5 compared with the range of projections from the previous IPCC assessments.

So, Ben: Your graph is showing the old projections, which is clearly stated in the draft report, but you keep pretending it shows the current projections that will be in the final report.

As for this:
Same thing as Drew, stop wasting my time with spurious stuff that changes nothing...

I pointed out that the graph you posted is a placeholder with missing data.

Edit:

Or rather Alec Rawls, he worked on AR5 and was the one that leaked it.

Alec Rawls didn't work on it. He signed up as a volunteer reviewer (which anyone can do), by the looks of it for the specific purpose of obtaining the draft and leaking it, in other words - in bad faith.

[Joe Hillshoist]

Really? I always imagined him to to one of the last of the vanishing breed of Tasmanian Devils!

That's me actually, not him.

[Ben D]

what I don't get is how Ben can think that we can increase all these greenhouse gases and not have an effect. Does he not "believe" in the greenhouse effect?

Drew, it does have an effect, but not as much as the climatologists theorized, if it did the the actual temperatures would be falling within the margin of error the computer models based on the greenhouse effect predict,...savvy?

[justdrew]

what I don't get is how Ben can think that we can increase all these greenhouse gases and not have an effect. Does he not "believe" in the greenhouse effect?

Drew, it does have an effect, but not as much as the climatologists theorized, if it did the the actual temperatures would be falling within the margin of error the computer models based on the greenhouse effect predict,...savvy?

THEY ARE

what the fuck is wrong with you people?

stop reading the bullshit batshit denialist crap you're spoonfeeding yourself and pay some attention to the experts who actually dedicate their lives to this research for fucks sweet sake.

http://phys.org/news/2012-12-pair-global.html

what's more: let's assume for a sec you're right, and the sun/cosmic rays are responsible, if that were true, wouldn't it then remain imperative to do what we could to reduce the greenhouse effect in order to deal with the warming anyway?

The fucking ice caps are fucking melting for gawds sakes, what's it going to take?

why in hell are you people so hell bent on and HATEFUL toward climate scientists? It's disgusting, and you're all fed by paid liars and ignorant jackasses.

[Ben D]

I'm just going to quote myself here, with some extra bolding:

Figure 1.4: [PLACEHOLDER FOR FINAL DRAFT: Observational datasets will be updated as soon as they become available] Estimated changes in the observed globally and annually averaged surface temperature (in C) since 1990 5 compared with the range of projections from the previous IPCC assessments.

So, Ben: Your graph is showing the old projections, which is clearly stated in the draft report, but you keep pretending it shows the current projections that will be in the final report.

As for this:
Same thing as Drew, stop wasting my time with spurious stuff that changes nothing...

I pointed out that the graph you posted is a placeholder with missing data.

It is the latest AR5 draft, that was made clear. Of course the final AR5 publication will be based on later accumulated data, but we're discussing the data already available,..the future will reveal all.

But the fact of the matter is that some of the actual temperature are outside the predictions as of the time that data was put together for analysis,..no one can change that ever,..the current and past AGW models are not accurate.

[Ben D]

what I don't get is how Ben can think that we can increase all these greenhouse gases and not have an effect. Does he not "believe" in the greenhouse effect?

Drew, it does have an effect, but not as much as the climatologists theorized, if it did the the actual temperatures would be falling within the margin of error the computer models based on the greenhouse effect predict,...savvy?

THEY ARE

what the fuck is wrong with you people?

stop reading the bullshit batshit denialist crap you're spoonfeeding yourself and pay some attention to the experts who actually dedicate their lives to this research for fucks sweet sake.

http://phys.org/news/2012-12-pair-global.html

Drew, this is definitely the last post to you,...the AR5 IPCC graph I have posted for you to see that the AGW models based on greenhouse gases do not accurately predict the global temperatures,..this result now trumps every other claim past or present including your own understanding of it based on previous data where the correlation did appear to confirm the greater forcing of greenhouse gases in global warming,..get over it, global temperatures have not increased over the last 16 years despite the ever increasing volumes of greenhouse gases over the period.

[justdrew]

then why is all the ice melting?

[Ben D]

then why is all the ice melting?

At the Arctic, ice is getting less, in the Antarctic, ice has been growing continuously over the same period,...there is a bi-polar connection. However the ice loss in the Arctic is greater than the growth in the Antarctic, so this means there has been higher regional temperatures in the Arctic even while there are lower temperatures in the Antarctic.

The world is between ice ages and so global temperature will deviate around some level which is presently around 15 degree C, but there are great temperature differential seen on a regional basis. (For example, the US probably had a record hot year in 2012, but when the global level for 2012 comes out, it will not be a record as other regions had a colder than normal year.)

Over the last 160 years, the global temperature has increased by 0.8 degree C so this would cause an incremental change in the rate glacier melt in those regions where the regional temperatures reflected this increase.

Hope this helps...

[Ben D]

So, Ben: Your graph is showing the old projections, which is clearly stated in the draft report, but you keep pretending it shows the current projections that will be in the final report.

I missed addressing this point DrEvil,..these projections are set in concrete, they are the yard stick on which to evaluate the accuracy of the computer model predictions.

The whole scientific world is watching how these climate models perform against reality, they will not go away,...as much as Hansen et al would like them too. It was just fortuitous that in the context of the steep increase in global temperature prior to 1996/7, that there was reasonable correlation between temperature projection and actual measurement and that was when the world stood up and took notice.

Now the newer projections that come on line in time are based on modifying the model to better fit the real temperature so as to attempt to more accurately predict future temperature. So the the sequence of FAR, SAR, TAR, and AR4 would represent thee evolutionary attempts to fine tune the AGW computer models. But over the last 16 years, the global temperatures have remained around the same level, and subsequently the deviation from projections has increased until now when they fall completely outside.

Remember these computer models are based on AGW greenhouse gas forcing, which gases have been growing at least at the rate as pre-1997, and this lack of correlation between the increase in CO2 levels over the last 16 years and the global temperature over the same period highlight the shaky credibility of AGW theory at this time.

On Edit..oh and btw, when the AR5 projections are finalized, all those temps that fall outside the present model projections will fit inside its shaded area.

[Joe Hillshoist]

Joe, you are out of your depth...

What you need to do is look at the projections of the AGW computer models of global temperature to see how well they stand up against actual global temperature. If they do track, then the AGW science is validated, if they don't, then they modify the model to see if it tracks in future, and again and again. This graph shows four different models and the black dots show actual recorded global temperature and show that the actual temperature is outside projections of all computer models. Iow, none of the present AGW models track actual global temperature so they are wrong.

No they don't. they clearly show many of those observable temps within the range of the predictions. Thats why there is a coloured area not a coloured line for the projections isn't it? And if a dot fits within the colour line then doesn't that mean the observed temkp is within the range of the IPPC predictions. There may be outlying low temps observed in a couple of years but the clear majority are within the coloured area, which is the predicted range (isn't it?). If those coloured patches mean something other than the range of predicted temps what is it?.

And please show me on that graph where you get your 0.4 to 0.5 degree C increase after 1996/7 which sits at around the 0.4 degree C anomaly mark?

The graph doesn't show anything 16 years after 1997 so I can't actually do that.

However in 1993 the temp was 0.1 deg higher, in 2009 it was around 0.4 - 0.5 deg higher. In 1992, it was just under 0.1 and over 0.4 16 years later. In 1996 it was around 0.2 deg and 14 years later in 2010 it was over 0.5 deg.

So perhaps 0.3 to 0.5 deg higher, not 0.4 to 0.5 as I stated originally.

Still significantly higher tho and consistently higher throughout the naughties. You may say there hasn't been any warming for particular periods in the last 10 years, but that really means nothing as those periods are way to short to mean anything useful or meaningful.


I'm curious as to what graph you're looking at cos the one I'm looking at shows temps within the predicted range except for a few outklying low temps - so in what way does that mean the models are inaacurate? They are accurate enough to show a consistant increase in temps over time, and are accurate enough to show most of the reading within their range. maybe at the lower rend of the range but still within it. Since 2000 only one year has its observed temps in the grey area below the predictions. That was 2008.

Where some temps are below the AR4 predictions they are out by between 0.01 and 0.03 of a degree. So what you're saying is basically that because the temp rose by between 0.01 and 0.03 of a degree less than the latest prediction we should ignore all climate science modelling.

When it comes to that sort of logic you are right, I am out of my depth.

Thankfully.

[Ben D]

No they don't. they clearly show many of those observable temps within the range of the predictions

Joe, by implication, those observable temps that are not included in the many you observed that were within the range of predictions, do not fall within the range of the predictions. Understood!

You said..

And there has been clear increases in temps over the last 16 years, Its consistently 0.4 to 0.5 of a degree hotter than it was 16 years ago. Have a look at the graph.

And I said... please show me on that graph where you get your 0.4 to 0.5 degree C increase after 1996/7 which sits at around the 0.4 degree C anomaly mark?

And now you said..

The graph doesn't show anything 16 years after 1997 so I can't actually do that.

Exasperating is the word...

Btw Joe, you may as well accept it, the Met Office has officially admitted that there has been no significant warming over the last 16 years, they put it at 0.03 degree C, which can be statistically equated with zero when you consider the margin of error of the measurement that greatly exceeds 0.03 degrees.

[justdrew]

http://earthsky.org/earth/uk-met-office-responds-global-warming-did-not-stop-16-years-ago

http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/10/14/met-office-in-the-media-14-october-2012

and let me just say again, now that I've looked into this even more, none of that temp anomalies data contains ANY data about ocean/ice temps, which I'll continue to insist must be absorbing a lot of energy that otherwise would have shown up in faster warming of surface air temps. I haven't found an 'authority' saying so yet but I'm not a part or full time climate researcher.

[Joe Hillshoist]

No they don't. they clearly show many of those observable temps within the range of the predictions

Joe, by implication, those observable temps that are not included in the many you observed that were within the range of predictions, do not fall within the range of the predictions. Understood!

Yeah, but so what?

Are you expecting models to be 100% accurate all of the time?

That is not gonna happen.

You said..

And there has been clear increases in temps over the last 16 years, Its consistently 0.4 to 0.5 of a degree hotter than it was 16 years ago. Have a look at the graph.

And I said... please show me on that graph where you get your 0.4 to 0.5 degree C increase after 1996/7 which sits at around the 0.4 degree C anomaly mark?

And now you said..

The graph doesn't show anything 16 years after 1997 so I can't actually do that.

Exasperating is the word...

Yeah cos the graph doesn't have 2011 or 2012 figures. So ... perhaps I should have said "over the last 16 years shown on the graph...." Its exasperating cos the 2010 observed temps are between 0.5 and 0.6 degrees hotter than the baseline, and the 1994 ones, (16 years earlier), were between 0.1 and 0.2. Thats a difference of between 0.3 and 0.5 degrees, over a 16 year period up until the last measurement on the graph. I never said from 96/97 - I said 16 years ago. I was referring to the last 16 years on the graph you provided - which show an increase of up to 0.5 of a degree, I'm sure you can see thru my poor grammar to recognise the point I was making - the one about that graph showing an increase in observable temps of up to 0.5 degrees over the last 16 years of data.

Btw Joe, you may as well accept it, the Met Office has officially admitted that there has been no significant warming over the last 16 years, they put it at 0.03 degree C, which can be statistically equated with zero when you consider the margin of error of the measurement that greatly exceeds 0.03 degrees.

The met office also said they'd recording a 0.12 to 0.15 degree increase from 1979 to 2011 and that they thought that trend was more indicative of a rise on temperatures over long periods of time. They specifically said the last 16 years, which showed warming at a far slower rate - 0.03 to 0.05 deg, not just 0.03 deg, was too short a period to make a judgement about long term trends, especially given that every decade for more than 30 years has been hotter than the previous one. Ie 2000s were hotter than 1990s which were hotter than 1980s. Which were the hottest decade on record.

So since 1979 there has been an increase of on average 0.4 to 0.5 degrees a decade, even allowing for the 2000s where the increase was there, but smaller.

You have said you accept behind the idea that CO2 causes warming, and I don't think anyone here arguing with you thinks computer modelling is perfect or that it will be 100% accurate all of the time, yet you are claiming that because it isn't 100% accurate all the time there's no such thing as climate change.

Your position doesn't hold up.