Go Back  HuntingNet.com Forums > Non Hunting > Politics
An Interesting Article on Climate Change >

An Interesting Article on Climate Change

Politics Nothing goes with politics quite like crying and complaining, and we're a perfect example of that.

An Interesting Article on Climate Change

Old 02-13-2020, 04:28 PM
  #1  
Giant Nontypical
Thread Starter
 
flags's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: CO Born but working in Athens, TX for now.
Posts: 7,764
Default An Interesting Article on Climate Change

February 11, 2020

Climate Science does about-face, dials back 'worst-case scenario'

By Anthony Watts

A comment published last week in Nature, a leading scientific journal, has thrown a monkey wrench into hundreds of studies and media stories that previously predicted dire climate consequences in the future due to increased carbon dioxide (CO2) in our atmosphere.

The consequences were predicted by a computer model called Representative Carbon Pathways (RCP), and the worst-case scenario model, RCP8.5, had been cited more than 2,500 times in scientific journals and in hundreds of media stories as the primary need for "urgent action" on climate. Predictions from the RCP8.5 model suggested maximum global temperature increases of nearly 6C (10.8F) by the year 2100, shown in Figure 1.


In the original scientific paper, RCP8.5 had just a slim 3-percent chance of becoming reality. Since climate alarmists (and some climate scientists) prefer to preach future doom to spur action, the predictions of RCP8.5 have become known as the "business-as-usual" scenario, even though it was nowhere close to that.

However, in a stunning walk-back, climate scientist Zeke Hausfather of the Breakthrough Institute bucked the climate consensus and said the RCP8.5 worst-case scenario is unlikely to happen. The reason? We can't get there, given how much fossil fuel is being used now. The model assumes a 500-percent increase in the use of coal, which is now considered highly unlikely, since coal use has dropped significantly, as seen in Figure 2.


With this new information that excludes the worst-case RCP8.5 scenario, rather than predicting a future world that warms by 6C (10.8F), climate alarmists will go to the next lower scenario, RCP6, with warming by 2100 around 3C (5.4F).

In typical climate alarmist fashion, however, the two authors of this Nature article say the lower temperatures due to this drop-off of coal use and the exclusion of RCP8.5 aren't guaranteed. What's the reason? Well, scientists are still uncertain how sensitive global temperatures are to a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere. The value showing climate sensitivity, known as the Charney Sensitivity, still isn't known for certain — even though it's more than 40 years after it was first introduced in 1979 by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences (chaired by Jule Charney). Charney estimated climate sensitivity to be 3C (5.4 F), give or take 1.5C (2.7F).

Without knowing the true climate warming response to increased CO2, essentially, all climate models become a crapshoot. It is a glaring illustration of just how imprecise climate science really is.

But get this: new climate models are being used for the next set of major projections due from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change next year, known as AR6. Those models are said to show that temperatures are more sensitive to CO2 than previously thought.

Because of AR6, the higher numbers of the worst-case scenario are likely to be back on the table, along with continued calls for climate action in the form of reductions, alternate tech, and carbon dioxide taxation.

here is another fly in the ointment: even if the atmosphere turns out to be more sensitive to CO2 than they thought, it is unlikely that the world will ever get to a doubling for CO2 in the atmosphere — the level on which climate sensitivity estimates are based.

Climate scientist Dr. Roy Spencer did a model calculation the same week as this new Nature article was released and discovered something very surprising. Using data from the Energy Information Administration (EIA) projecting that energy-based emissions of CO2 will grow at 0.6 percent per year until 2050, Spencer plugged that data into a climate model. With the reasonable EIA assumptions regarding CO2 emissions, the climate model does not even reach a doubling of atmospheric CO2, but instead reaches an equilibrium CO2 concentration of 541 ppm in the mid-2200s.

Spencer writes:
[T]he result is that, given the latest projections of CO2 emissions, future CO2 concentrations will not only be well below the RCP8.5 scenario, but might not even be as high as RCP4.5, with atmospheric CO2 concentrations possibly not even reach a doubling (560 ppm) of estimated pre-Industrial levels (280 ppm) before leveling off. This result is even without future reductions in CO2 emissions, which is a possibility as new energy technologies become available."
The RCP4.5 scenario suggests a range of warming of about 1.7–3.2C (3–5.8F), which doesn't constitute a "climate emergency" and may even be beneficial to humankind. After all, humanity didn't do well during cold periods in history, and another global ice age would certainly be ruinous.

With this broad uncertainty about what the future climate will be, the bottom line on climate science predictions is well served by the great Yogi Berra, who famously said, "It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future."

Read more: https://www.americanthinker.com/blog...#ixzz6DsqPBpQo







Last edited by flags; 02-13-2020 at 04:52 PM.
flags is offline  
Old 02-13-2020, 08:03 PM
  #2  
Nontypical Buck
 
Mickey Finn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Michigan
Posts: 3,848
Default


How dare you!
Mickey Finn is offline  
Old 02-14-2020, 03:32 AM
  #3  
Boone & Crockett
 
Oldtimr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: south eastern PA
Posts: 12,231
Default

Please do not post that miserable child's photo again. That is a terrible thing to look at early in the morning. The left is trying to make a hero out of a big mouthed kid.
Oldtimr is offline  
Old 02-14-2020, 05:14 AM
  #4  
Nontypical Buck
 
Mickey Finn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Michigan
Posts: 3,848
Default

Originally Posted by Oldtimr View Post
Please do not post that miserable child's photo again. That is a terrible thing to look at early in the morning. The left is trying to make a hero out of a big mouthed kid.
Sometimes, humor has to be a little mean. Sorry if I upset your morning.

ATB
Mickey Finn is offline  
Old 02-14-2020, 06:33 AM
  #5  
Typical Buck
 
rogerstv's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: West Central Illinois
Posts: 951
Default

Great post Mickey !!
rogerstv is offline  
Old 02-14-2020, 10:12 AM
  #6  
Super Moderator
 
CalHunter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern California
Posts: 16,835
Default

So climate change science is changing, just like the climate.
CalHunter is offline  
Old 02-14-2020, 10:31 AM
  #7  
Boone & Crockett
 
Oldtimr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: south eastern PA
Posts: 12,231
Default

Someone should tell that to the snot noses kid who thinks she is in a position to lecture adults by parroting a bunch of left wing chicken little adults to zip her lips.

Last edited by Oldtimr; 02-14-2020 at 11:46 AM.
Oldtimr is offline  
Old 02-14-2020, 11:36 AM
  #8  
Giant Nontypical
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location:
Posts: 5,709
Default

I think this article very well manifests one of the things that makes me MOST sceptical about the "human beings are causing global warming" proposition. For short, this is called "anthropogenic global warming" -- AGW.

To the extent AGW is based on solid science . . . it must in fact be science. Science is inherently quantifiable. If you can't quantify it . . . you don't have science. And part of quantifying is defending your numbers. This has long been a weak point of AGW. If all the ice caps melt sea levels may rise 200 to 300 feet. OK. Assuming those numbers are defensible . . . .under what scenario does all ice melt? I assume in this as well as other predictions -- for example weather forecasting -- what are the bounding probabilities? Is this a 20% probability scenario? I understand 10% of people who climb Mount Everest die. If this is true, then there is a 10% probability that you will die if you attempt to climb Mount Everest. A lot of people disregard the 10% chance of death and climb Mount Everest. So, if the chance that the worst case scenario occurs and all the ice melts, is this a 1% probability scenario, a 5% probability, 20% probability, or 50% probability? What are the assumptions of the model? As the quoted article indicates, the assumptions aren't always good. Sometimes new scientific information becomes available that affects the model. Are those findings adapted into the model and scenarios reprojected? I remember a few years back there was some significant scientific finding that the effect of clouds on reflecting solar energy were more dramatic than previously understood. The upshot was that global warming would proceed at about 1/3 the rate as formerly thought. Was this incorporated into the simulations? I don't think it was. By the way, I do not remember the specifics of this example, but the key thought was that I just did not believe that the new findings were put into the simulation models.

It is worth pointing out that there are really only two pathways of grappling with AGW. One path is through observing current conditions: measuring temperatures. Another pathway is simulation. It needs to be remembered that the simulation is just that -- a simulation. It is only as good a simulation -- a predictor of the future -- as the model underlying the simulation is. For my money, the approximately flat-line of global temperatures for the last 20 years in the face of continued significant growth of CO2 emissions . . . that is not explained by the models. That is a problem for the simulation pathway.
Alsatian is offline  
Old 02-14-2020, 09:17 PM
  #9  
Nontypical Buck
 
Mickey Finn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Michigan
Posts: 3,848
Default

Originally Posted by CalHunter View Post
So climate change science is changing, just like the climate.
Change is the only constant.

Originally Posted by Oldtimr View Post
Someone should tell that to the snot noses kid who thinks she is in a position to lecture adults by parroting a bunch of left wing chicken little adults to zip her lips.
I make fun. But I kind of think, she is being manipulated by adults who should know better.
Mickey Finn is offline  
Old 02-14-2020, 09:33 PM
  #10  
Nontypical Buck
 
Mickey Finn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Michigan
Posts: 3,848
Default

Originally Posted by Alsatian View Post
I think this article very well manifests one of the things that makes me MOST sceptical about the "human beings are causing global warming" proposition. For short, this is called "anthropogenic global warming" -- AGW.

To the extent AGW is based on solid science . . . it must in fact be science. Science is inherently quantifiable. If you can't quantify it . . . you don't have science. And part of quantifying is defending your numbers. This has long been a weak point of AGW. If all the ice caps melt sea levels may rise 200 to 300 feet. OK. Assuming those numbers are defensible . . . .under what scenario does all ice melt? I assume in this as well as other predictions -- for example weather forecasting -- what are the bounding probabilities? Is this a 20% probability scenario? I understand 10% of people who climb Mount Everest die. If this is true, then there is a 10% probability that you will die if you attempt to climb Mount Everest. A lot of people disregard the 10% chance of death and climb Mount Everest. So, if the chance that the worst case scenario occurs and all the ice melts, is this a 1% probability scenario, a 5% probability, 20% probability, or 50% probability? What are the assumptions of the model? As the quoted article indicates, the assumptions aren't always good. Sometimes new scientific information becomes available that affects the model. Are those findings adapted into the model and scenarios reprojected? I remember a few years back there was some significant scientific finding that the effect of clouds on reflecting solar energy were more dramatic than previously understood. The upshot was that global warming would proceed at about 1/3 the rate as formerly thought. Was this incorporated into the simulations? I don't think it was. By the way, I do not remember the specifics of this example, but the key thought was that I just did not believe that the new findings were put into the simulation models.

It is worth pointing out that there are really only two pathways of grappling with AGW. One path is through observing current conditions: measuring temperatures. Another pathway is simulation. It needs to be remembered that the simulation is just that -- a simulation. It is only as good a simulation -- a predictor of the future -- as the model underlying the simulation is. For my money, the approximately flat-line of global temperatures for the last 20 years in the face of continued significant growth of CO2 emissions . . . that is not explained by the models. That is a problem for the simulation pathway.
Well, I'm not a climate scientist. I understand that the earth is warming up. Not as much in our area as the rest of the world which is curious. As most of the worlds decisions get made in and around the beltway and New York.

But, excepting that the earth is warming. How much of this is caused by human activity? Certainly, scientists tell us that the earth warms and cools on it's own schedule. And sometimes giant meteor's crash into us and change everything. Okay, that's the way it is.

There really isn't a good reason not to clean up our act. Too limit or even eliminate our over all carbon footprint. But if we don't in eleven years it's going to be too late? It's not reasonable to think we can get the third world, China, the Russians, and Central Europe to stop burning coal let alone fossil fuels in general. If we could, the turmoil and upheaval that it would cause would certainly equal the climate refugees they are warning us about.

So, be sure your mower is in good tune. Switch to a four stroke boat motor if you have not already. Change your furnace filters regularly, and recycle your trash.Then you will have done your part.

ATB
Mickey Finn is offline  

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.