Climate change not as threatening to planet - Scientists got their modelling wrong

a reply to: PublicOpinion

You need to find a source that shows/discuss more than just the abstract, as hopefully you know, the abstract doesn't let one employ critical thinking as much as access to pertinent data from the study.

The actual increase in temperatures was 0.9 degrees versus 1.3 degrees--that's almost a 45% difference in reality versus projections.

More percentage difference in assumptions/projections versus reality or new projections (based on reality being correct, projections being incorrect) can be found in my post here, but I'll quote:

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
So, iff'n my math-uh-matical skills are working, not only were the models wrong (compared to new models...let that sink in), they were wrong by 343% concerning the available "carbon budget," and the time frame for said "budget" to be reached by between 400% and 667%.

I mean, feel free to disregard this and how wrong it shows those models to be, but I'll continue with the reality that actual observations trump projections every time, and I will continue to disregard a theory based on the proven reality that, in general, AGW theorists and associated science always seems to be over-inflated as to how severe warming and the impact of humans are on the natural process of climate change.

But, yes, the fact that they still scream for immediate action now OR ELSE was not lost on me.

#MindTheHyperbole

a reply to: SlapMonkey

NASA is not good enough for you?

www.nasa.gov...

Immediate action was taken on CFCs and Freon, however one can argue that DuPont's patent and monopoly on freon was up, so they lobbied for action to ban it.

This may not be new to me. I can't recall the specific study(s), but they said it was cooling and would temporarily slow the pace of warming in the next couple decades. However this is misleading, since it'll pick up the pace later on. The carbon we emit isn't going to disappear. The oceans are taking in heat and co2, threatening its life, including corals.

EDIT: Found a link in my old favorites from 2009:
www.theguardian.com - Sceptics seize on climate cooling model...

Professor Latif suggested that the long-term warming trend could be masked - perhaps for as long as 10 or 20 years - by a temporary cooling caused by natural fluctuations in currents and temperatures called the North Atlantic oscillation. "Thereafter," he told the Today programme, "temperatures will pick up again and continue to warm."

a reply to: jrod

Honestly, no, just because they're NASA doesn't mean that they are always correct or have it all figured out.

But, kudos for attempting to appeal to authority--always one of my favorite logical fallacies used in the AGW debate.

And regardless, CFCs are much more easily proven to be an issue to one layer in our atmosphere compared to blaming CO2 (and CH4, to a lesser extent) for setting the world on a course for certain doom, all because of us demon humans. But even then, the "hole" in the ozone wasn't even understood to be a naturally occurring cycle of "opening" and "closing" until well after the hyperbole and alarmism started.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

So NASA and NOAA got it wrong along with thousands of independent universities, but Anthony Watts, the Heartland Institute(who are funded by oil conglomarates) got it right?

I am not appealing to authotity, I am appealing to reason.

In your eyes, the overwhelming majority of people who study this got it wrong but a handful of billionaires with fossil fuel interests and the think tanks they fund got it right?

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Linking to another paywall now? No, thanks. Here's something we both can have a look at.

...
In 2015, Grubb said the massive scale and speed of carbon cuts needed to meet the 1.5C target were “incompatible with democracy”.
...
“A lot of people said 1.5C is simply not possible,” said Allen. But the new work revealed that for a 66% chance of meeting the 1.5C target in 2100, the budget is 240bn tonnes of carbon, assuming that other greenhouse gases such as methane are also controlled. This means the target could be met if strong action is taken. The scientists also warned that carbon cuts need to happen sooner rather than later, starting with countries strengthening their Paris pledges in 2018.

www.theguardian.com...

Another piece from a control freak for control freaks, granted. But still... it's not that they've got their modelling wrong or global warming would be less threatening. Think more leeway after "updating" and "patching" the old models with actual data. Nothing entirely new or revolutionary, I'm neither shocked nor impressed.

There's something else being entirely overlooked. Tons of methane are released rather uncontrolled on a daily basis, thanks to global warming btw. And sadly, they didn't include this fact in said study. Did they? What do you think, will the "increased budget" get utterly slamdunked by methane next season of this year?

Politicised KoolAid for the "democracy" and clowns with suits on a melting glacier, is it worth the fuzz? Probably not.

#Yawn

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: jrod

Honestly, no, just because they're NASA doesn't mean that they are always correct or have it all figured out.

But, kudos for attempting to appeal to authority--always one of my favorite logical fallacies used in the AGW debate.

And regardless, CFCs are much more easily proven to be an issue to one layer in our atmosphere compared to blaming CO2 (and CH4, to a lesser extent) for setting the world on a course for certain doom, all because of us demon humans. But even then, the "hole" in the ozone wasn't even understood to be a naturally occurring cycle of "opening" and "closing" until well after the hyperbole and alarmism started.

The ozone later does have natural variation but human activity was having a massive affect on it that was only reduced by action to reduce CFC emissions.

Pretty sure there is a lesson in there somewhere with regard climate change.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: PublicOpinion

You need to find a source that shows/discuss more than just the abstract, as hopefully you know, the abstract doesn't let one employ critical thinking as much as access to pertinent data from the study.

The actual increase in temperatures was 0.9 degrees versus 1.3 degrees--that's almost a 45% difference in reality versus projections.

No, you need to look at what the authors of the paper say - not what those who havent read it falsely claim it says

Myles Allen had the following letter published in the Daily Mail yesterday (21st Sept) in response to a misleading opinion piece penned by a UK MP ..

"Graham Stringer MP misrepresents our study to claim global temperatures are not rising as fast as predicted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climaste Change (IPCC) and suggests that action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is therefore no longer urgent. Our study supports the IPCC's 2013 prediction that temperatures in the 2020s would be 0.9c to 1.3c above pre-industrial levels. Indeed, warming appears already to be moving into that range. Our study updated estimates of how much carbon dioxide we can still emit while expecting global temperatures to remain below the Paris Climate Agreement goal of 1.5c. To achieve this goal, emission reductions would need to begin immediately and reach zero in less than 40 years time. It is not right to suggest our results reduce the urgency of reducing greenhouse gas emissions."

(My emphasis)

(copied and posted on my news blog for future reference)

originally posted by: ScepticScot
The ozone later does have natural variation but human activity was having a massive affect on it that was only reduced by action to reduce CFC emissions.

Right, from what I read, something like 80+% of CFCs in the atmosphere are (or were) human-created. That was relatively proveable and easily mitigated--one cause, one solution. Simple.

Pretty sure there is a lesson in there somewhere with regard climate change.

Climate change (the entire thing, not just human-affected) is so complex that we don't even know for certain the main drivers of the changes, the catalysts that put the changes in motion, how one small part can cause a butterfly effect, if it's mainly the oceans or the sun or cow farts or fossil fuels, etc.

You can pretend that there's a lesson, and of course we should limit the unnaturally-released things that we throw into nature as much as possible, but the two issues--CFCs' effect on ozone and man-made catalysts of climate change--are completely different, both in complexity and our understanding.

a reply to: AndyMayhew

Nothing that you just wrote negates what I pointed out.

Here's where employing critical thinking matters: What you quoted says that we're "already starting to be moving into that range," meaning that we have barely breached the 0.9-degree rise. What you quoted also verifies that some models showed that we would already be 1.3-degrees higher than pre-industrial levels, therefore, when I claim that there is a 45% difference between observed rise (just hitting the low end of that range) and predictions (as much as 0.4-degrees higher than actual measurements), I'm just pointing out how wrong some of the models were--wrong almost by half!

Sure, some of the models that predicted a 0.9-degree rise may be correct, but even then, no one can prove how much of that rise is a direct result of the culmination of burned fossil fuel versus natural warming, which we were already doing--they can estimate based on models and data, but that's not the same thing as what I'm talking about.

There is nothing detrimental or magical about breaching a 1.5-degree average increase as far as the earth is concerned. It's been there and beyond before, and been just fine. Humans will have to adapt, but we've done it numerous times before as a species, and we can do it again.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

In both cases there was clear scientific evidence showing the affect humanity was having, disputed mainly by vested interests. To that extend I think they are very comparable.

There really isn't any controversy that man is affecting the climate. The exact level of affect, the potential impact and what the solutions could & should be are if course debatable.

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: SlapMonkey

There really isn't any controversy that man is affecting the climate. The exact level of affect, the potential impact and what the solutions could & should be are if course debatable.

But that's the thing: The bolded part IS the controversy, from both sides and the government's approach to it. I have a very hard time finding anyone on the extreme side of things that says burning fossil fuels and the like has absolutely zero effect on the climate.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: SlapMonkey

There really isn't any controversy that man is affecting the climate. The exact level of affect, the potential impact and what the solutions could & should be are if course debatable.

But that's the thing: The bolded part IS the controversy, from both sides and the government's approach to it. I have a very hard time finding anyone on the extreme side of things that says burning fossil fuels and the like has absolutely zero effect on the climate.

There are a number of people on this site who believe global warming is a myth.

a reply to: ScepticScot

I said that I have a hard time finding them, not that they don't exist. I've seen a few, but I disregard them as quickly and easily as I disregard those who are on the opposite extreme of the spectrum.

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
a reply to: Bluntone22

Yeah, they dream up an answer...and then go looking for the question.

It's confirmation bias of the highest order.

The only ones doing that are the "AGW is fake" crowd. Example. This thread misrepresenting a study and all the people not bothering to read it and see that it isn't saying what the Telegraph or OP are saying it says.

originally posted by: ScepticScot
There are a number of people on this site who believe global warming is a myth.

Who? I haven't seen anybody on this site that believes global warming is a myth.

I've seen plenty of people that believe man is not the sole or primary cause of any measured warming though.

big difference.

originally posted by: bronco73

originally posted by: ScepticScot
There are a number of people on this site who believe global warming is a myth.

Who? I haven't seen anybody on this site that believes global warming is a myth.

I've seen plenty of people that believe man is not the sole or primary cause of any measured warming though.

big difference.

Not really.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: AndyMayhew

Nothing that you just wrote negates what I pointed out.

Here's where employing critical thinking matters: What you quoted says that we're "already starting to be moving into that range," meaning that we have barely breached the 0.9-degree rise. What you quoted also verifies that some models showed that we would already be 1.3-degrees higher than pre-industrial levels, therefore, when I claim that there is a 45% difference between observed rise (just hitting the low end of that range) and predictions (as much as 0.4-degrees higher than actual measurements), I'm just pointing out how wrong some of the models were--wrong almost by half!.

Its not what I said, its what one of the authors of the paper said. And you have immediately misquoted him!

Current warming is +0.9c which DOES mean we are already within the predicted range of 0.9c-1.3c predicted for 2020-2029.

Just because we havent hit the highest range predicted for next decade, before we even get there, doesnt make the prediction wrong!

(I predict that during the 2020s you will drink between 7 and 12 bottles of beer a week on average. If in 2016 you only drank 7 bottles, is my prediction disproven?)

a reply to: AndyMayhew

Ah, yes, I did inadvertently swap "seem" with "starting" in there...odd, as I'm usually the one to pick up on misquotes.

Regardless if we're "starting to be" at the 0.9-degree increase, or we "seem to be" hitting the 0.9-percent increase, the implications of the comment remain the same (well, except for what he said leaves room for doubt, whereas what I said would be more definitive).

As for the rest of it, I'll concede a major issue on my behalf--I read "by 2030" in the paper abstract as "by 2020," since I'm heard "the 2020s" relatively often. It's a simple mistake, but one that matters.

So, to the point of the temperature, I'll concede that it's possible that the predictions have a chance of being correct (since we're not there yet, we have no idea as to where we'll be in 2029). But the reality remains that, in other areas, the predictions were woefully overstated, and some projected timelines of no return have been pushed back by 400% to over 600%.

And that begs the question--if CO2 is causing the warming to be on path with projections, why has the CO2 limit been increased by so much in this revision, and the timeline of CO2 emissions been pushed from 3-5 years to about 20 years? It seems to me that, if CO2 was such the problem as is posed in the AGW theory, limits and timelines would remain the exact same if the temperature rise is exactly as predicted (which I still have some concerns with the wording that Mr. Allen used...the use of "seems" was most likely purposeful, IMO).

Thoughts on that? If you reply, you won't see a response from me until Monday, most likely.