8 ms·

> Climate science is nowhere near that accurate The range is accurate enough to know the problems. We even know that the effects will have a very long time spa

by acqq 11y ago

> Climate science is nowhere near that accurate The range is accurate enough to know the problems. We even know that the effects will have a very long time span, certainly longer than a few hundred years during which we've released so much CO2. Those that demand "accuracy" expect to receive one line and not the range. Which less changes how much our children will suffer, and even less for children of our children, only more for us who are old enough to die before the bigger effects come. "After me the floods" is immensely selfish to those that follow us. > And we also scientifically know that CO2 concentrations during most of the last few hundred million years were much higher than now. To compare, that "much higher" state was before dinosaurs went extinct and the modern mammals started to develop! The fossil fuels now burned needed exactly these hundreds of millions of years to form. The immense part of that is already now burnt in just around hundred years. Note the difference in magnitudes. And comparing the change of the CO2 concentrations with the known temperature variation, we can expect even much worse changes than very conservative(!) IPCC predictions: http://robertscribbler.com/2014/04/11/world-co2-averages-touch-402-2-ppm-daily-values-in-early-april-102-ppm-higher-than-at-any-time-in-last-800000-years/ http://robertscribbler.com/2014/04/11/world-co2-averages-tou...

pdonis 11y ago
> The range is accurate enough to know the problems. I disagree. The model predictions don't match the actual data. > We even know that the effects will have a very long time span No, we have models that say that, but the model predictions don't match the actual data. > that "much higher" state was before dinosaurs went extinct and the modern mammals started to develop! CO2 was much higher then, yes. But it was also much higher during a good part of the Cenozoic. > The fossil fuels now burned needed exactly these hundreds of millions of years to form. No, they didn't. They formed during the Carboniferous period, a small part of the total time period during which CO2 was much higher than it is now. Also, CO2 was much higher than it is now for a long time after the Carboniferous, when the fossil fuels had already formed. > comparing the change of the CO2 concentrations with the known temperature variation, we can expect even much worse changes than very conservative(!) IPCC predictions Only if you assume, incorrectly, that CO2 changes caused the temperature changes during the ice ages and interglacials. But the CO2 changes during the ice ages and interglacials happened after the temperature changes.
- Oletros 11y ago
  > I disagree. The model predictions don't match the actual data Source for that?
  - pdonis 11y ago
    The IPCC AR5 admits it--and then tries to argue that it doesn't matter, because their conclusions aren't based on the models, they're based on "expert judgment" or something like that.
    - Oletros 11y ago
      Can you put a link to your claim?
      - pdonis 11y ago
        The IPCC AR5 Summary for Policymakers is here: http://www.climate2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf http://www.climate2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pd... A discussion of the key admissions (and how the IPCC tried to obfuscate them), including specific references to the AR5 SPM, is here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/09/the-ipcc-discards-its-models/ http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/09/the-ipcc-discards-its-...
        acqq 11y ago
        So the claims as you specify them are those of Barry Brill not the IPCC: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Brill https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Brill "New Zealand politician and a lawyer." "He was also involved with the New Zealand Climate Science Education Trust, a charitable organisation that, according to the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA), appears to have been set up solely to take court action against them. The trust lost two court cases against NIWA and on both occasions, was ordered to pay costs. NIWA has put the trust into liquidation and as of 2014 was considering to pursue Brill and another trustee for the owed money.[7]" His claims are, of course, a distortion of what really happened, and are based on what he and those like him call the "hiatus." Which is also misinterpretation of the curve of the temperature change, and which those especially liked before the last two years that broke most of the records. I see only the agenda there, and again, scientific illiteracy.

by acqq 11y ago

pdonis 11y ago

> The range is accurate enough to know the problems. I disagree. The model predictions don't match the actual data. > We even know that the effects will have a very long time span No, we have models that say that, but the model predictions don't match the actual data. > that "much higher" state was before dinosaurs went extinct and the modern mammals started to develop! CO2 was much higher then, yes. But it was also much higher during a good part of the Cenozoic. > The fossil fuels now burned needed exactly these hundreds of millions of years to form. No, they didn't. They formed during the Carboniferous period, a small part of the total time period during which CO2 was much higher than it is now. Also, CO2 was much higher than it is now for a long time after the Carboniferous, when the fossil fuels had already formed. > comparing the change of the CO2 concentrations with the known temperature variation, we can expect even much worse changes than very conservative(!) IPCC predictions Only if you assume, incorrectly, that CO2 changes caused the temperature changes during the ice ages and interglacials. But the CO2 changes during the ice ages and interglacials happened after the temperature changes.

Oletros 11y ago
> I disagree. The model predictions don't match the actual data Source for that?
- pdonis 11y ago
  The IPCC AR5 admits it--and then tries to argue that it doesn't matter, because their conclusions aren't based on the models, they're based on "expert judgment" or something like that.
  - Oletros 11y ago
    Can you put a link to your claim?
    - pdonis 11y ago
      The IPCC AR5 Summary for Policymakers is here: http://www.climate2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf http://www.climate2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pd... A discussion of the key admissions (and how the IPCC tried to obfuscate them), including specific references to the AR5 SPM, is here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/09/the-ipcc-discards-its-models/ http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/09/the-ipcc-discards-its-...
      - acqq 11y ago
        So the claims as you specify them are those of Barry Brill not the IPCC: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Brill https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Brill "New Zealand politician and a lawyer." "He was also involved with the New Zealand Climate Science Education Trust, a charitable organisation that, according to the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA), appears to have been set up solely to take court action against them. The trust lost two court cases against NIWA and on both occasions, was ordered to pay costs. NIWA has put the trust into liquidation and as of 2014 was considering to pursue Brill and another trustee for the owed money.[7]" His claims are, of course, a distortion of what really happened, and are based on what he and those like him call the "hiatus." Which is also misinterpretation of the curve of the temperature change, and which those especially liked before the last two years that broke most of the records. I see only the agenda there, and again, scientific illiteracy.