Environment & Energy

OKIsItJustMe

(21,875 posts)

80. Are you familiar with any models that call for rapid cooling?

Sat Feb 11, 2012, 10:59 PM

Feb 2012

Are you familiar with any models that call for maintaining the same temperature?

At this point, the models predict a range, from too much warming (>2°C over 2000 temperatures by 2100) to way too much warming.

http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/Celsius+estimate+climate+change+2100+study/6138445/story.html

[font face=Times,Times New Roman,Serif][font size=5]2 Celsius is low estimate for climate change by 2100: study[/font]
[font size=4]World could be 5 degrees hotter by century's end[/font]

Agence France-Presse February 11, 2012

[font size=3]French scientists unveiling new estimates for global warming said the 2 C goal enshrined by the United Nations was "the most optimistic" scenario left for greenhouse-gas emissions.

The estimates, compiled by five scientific institutes, will be handed to the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) for consideration in its next big overview on global warming and its effects.

The report - the fifth in the series - will be published in three volumes, in September 2013, March 2014 and April 2014.

The French team said that by 2100, warming over pre-industrial times would range from 2 to 5 C.

…[/font][/font]

How much more precision do you need before you believe action is called for?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

82 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Lying With Charts, Global Warming Edition [View all] xchrom Jan 2012 OP

Here's another look at the switcheroo. immoderate Jan 2012 #1

+1 xchrom Jan 2012 #2

Steps are dangerous. Don't trip on the steps. Viking12 Jan 2012 #3

Excellent! Bookmarked. Thanks. Jim__ Jan 2012 #5

That bad boy is going on the sticky, next edit. Dead_Parrot Jan 2012 #6

Good. It will be happy there. immoderate Jan 2012 #7

Some links would be useful, I think.. Dead_Parrot Jan 2012 #8

There is another dishonesty in the top extracted graph. tabatha Jan 2012 #4

Both graphs are derived from annual temperature anomolies Viking12 Jan 2012 #9

She means the trend line is skewed Dead_Parrot Jan 2012 #10

Huh? It's not at all clear that's what she meant... Viking12 Jan 2012 #11

Good point about cherry picking the start point Viking12. The Croquist Feb 2012 #13

Because all the satellite data prior to then shows no warming? XemaSab Feb 2012 #35

The reverse guardian Jan 2012 #12

"Global Warming Has Stopped"? How to Fool People Using "Cherry-Picked" Climate Data OKIsItJustMe Feb 2012 #14

Yes, the warming is unmistakable Nederland Feb 2012 #15

Riddle me this: why, then, is the arctic ice in severe decline, as is shown in this graph? XemaSab Feb 2012 #16

When temperatures rise, ice melts Nederland Feb 2012 #24

When ice melts... albedo changes. joshcryer Feb 2012 #27

It certainly does Nederland Feb 2012 #33

"Not that much" doesn't account for many variables. joshcryer Feb 2012 #37

Do you have a point? Nederland Feb 2012 #44

So we should just hang out and wait to see XemaSab Feb 2012 #47

You have not indicated how much warming you believe we will see over the next 100 years. joshcryer Feb 2012 #48

I am a firm believer that this is happening and it's gonna be hardcore when it really hits XemaSab Feb 2012 #51

So why is the temperature rising? XemaSab Feb 2012 #28

Increasing CO2 for one Nederland Feb 2012 #34

"Not a whole lot" - you're sure about that, are you? GliderGuider Feb 2012 #17

Yup Nederland Feb 2012 #18

Well, thank goodness we can stop worrying about this then. GliderGuider Feb 2012 #19

Tell James Hansen yourself Nederland Feb 2012 #23

Inflection points and non-linear responses are common discussion topics in climate change circles. GliderGuider Feb 2012 #26

You used the word "unpredictable" GG Nederland Feb 2012 #31

I used it in relation to particular behviours of the system, not the system overall. GliderGuider Feb 2012 #40

Then please tell me what aspects are predictable Nederland Feb 2012 #50

That's odd. You complain when I say the changes are unpredictable GliderGuider Feb 2012 #53

I agree with your summary Nederland Feb 2012 #56

You're right. The Y-axis on the graph I linked is all screwy XemaSab Feb 2012 #20

The scale of the y axis is massive here. joshcryer Feb 2012 #29

Massive compared to what? Nederland Feb 2012 #32

That's a 6% increase. joshcryer Feb 2012 #36

Spread out over how many years? Almost 50? Nederland Feb 2012 #38

No, it doesn't. It's like having 190,000 1GW nuclear power plants. joshcryer Feb 2012 #39

Stop using irrelevant comparisons Nederland Feb 2012 #42

Hmmm� I believe you misunderstand� OKIsItJustMe Feb 2012 #43

And how does that fact Nederland Feb 2012 #45

It�s reasonably straightforward OKIsItJustMe Feb 2012 #52

If it is reasonably straightforward... Nederland Feb 2012 #57

People have been creating climate models for years OKIsItJustMe Feb 2012 #60

Yes, models are getting better Nederland Feb 2012 #65

Are you familiar with any models that call for rapid cooling? OKIsItJustMe Feb 2012 #80

The term "massive" is subjective. Obviously I can only make a persuasive argument. joshcryer Feb 2012 #49

Persuasive arguments usually don't involve subjective terminology. Nederland Feb 2012 #66

I provided an objective graph. joshcryer Feb 2012 #67

The trend is also unmistakable OKIsItJustMe Feb 2012 #21

Exponential Growth? Nederland Feb 2012 #22

The trend lines certainly predict exponential XemaSab Feb 2012 #25

I said nothing about ice melt (nt) Nederland Feb 2012 #30

Clearly, temperatures cannot increase exponentially forever OKIsItJustMe Feb 2012 #41

The IPCC does not agree with you Nederland Feb 2012 #46

Sadly, the IPCC report was too optimistic OKIsItJustMe Feb 2012 #54

You raise an interesting point Nederland Feb 2012 #55

Document that claim kristopher Feb 2012 #58

I�d be interested to see that documented as well OKIsItJustMe Feb 2012 #59

Here you go Nederland Feb 2012 #61

Here is an example sourced from RealClimate Nederland Feb 2012 #62

So the 1988 models are shitty XemaSab Feb 2012 #63

What will it take? Nederland Feb 2012 #64

Let's see. How about I'll say "We're jumping the gun on this hysteria" XemaSab Feb 2012 #70

A simple question Nederland Feb 2012 #75

I think it's both XemaSab Feb 2012 #77

And yet, it's still well within the AR4 range. joshcryer Feb 2012 #68

Actually it is not Nederland Feb 2012 #72

Given the uncertainties in modeling I think it's fairer to go with the spread. joshcryer Feb 2012 #73

Yes warming has happened Nederland Feb 2012 #74

And, if that happens, instead of saying "improve the models"... joshcryer Feb 2012 #78

Did you ask Gavin why he picked #1? GliderGuider Feb 2012 #76

Good point, I should ask him Nederland Feb 2012 #79

He answers emails, he's quite friendly. joshcryer Feb 2012 #81

I posted the question in the blog comments Nederland Feb 2012 #82

How about a link to the discussion you are referencing? kristopher Feb 2012 #69

It's the latest post on RealClimate, they've done this every year... joshcryer Feb 2012 #71