Climate Change: How Much? How Soon?

dcraig1

Experienced member
1,604 243
In September 2009, there was a conference at Oxford University to consider the implications of substantial climate change. It was titled "4 Degrees and beyond". The conference papers are available here:

http://www.eci.ox.ac.uk/4degrees/programme.php

The paper by Dr Richard Betts of the Met Office Hadley Centre reported on the likely extent of climate change. Some projections for the "business as usual" emissions scenario (IPCC A1F1) are shown in the attached images. They are truly frightening.

The first chart shows the range of warming projections on a year by year basis, and the map shows the regional projected warming across the planet by the 2090's. Notice the 8C-10C warming over the Amazon. It is these regional effects that could be disastrous.

Betts concluded that 4C warming by 2070 is the most likely outcome, with 4C by 2060 as the likely worst case.

The current global CO2 emissions are closely following the IPCC A1F1 scenario.

A 2009 MIT study makes very similar findings to the Hadley work:

http://globalchange.mit.edu/pubs/abstract.php?publication_id=990
 

Attachments

Last edited:

Adamus

Experienced member
1,898 97
Have you ever compared trading to climatology? I think we traders have got it easy. We only have to get it right 51% of the time, whereas climate scientists are considered failures if they get it wrong at all. Yet the climate is just if not more complicated as the markets in terms of influencing factors. I wonder if any of the climatologists ever stopped to think that where bad news is concerned, the messengers tend to get shot!
 

oiltanker

Established member
955 89
given ice age cycles are 100k .20 years chart is nothing. how much are the volcanoes putting up?

its all bogus tub thumping by those looking to make money out of it or those who want to be cult leaders in the maurice strong model. :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: maiden22

dcraig1

Experienced member
1,604 243
given ice age cycles are 100k .20 years chart is nothing. how much are the volcanoes putting up?
If you are referring to CO2, volcanoes emit on average 130 times LESS CO2 than is generated by human activities according to the US Geological Survey. You are perhaps referring to absurd claims by crank denialist Ian Plimer. Despite having his manifestly wrong assertions about volcanoes repeatedly pointed out to be absolute nonsense, he refuses to retract them. Now why would somebody who claims to be a scientist want to persist in telling porkies? Perhaps it is because his denialism has no other foundation.

its all bogus tub thumping by those looking to make money out of it or those who want to be cult leaders in the maurice strong model. :)
Conspiracy theory trash. It is the science that matters.
 

maiden22

Established member
675 91
Now why would somebody who claims to be a scientist want to persist in telling porkies?
Good question - why don't you email CRU and ask them. Better get a response quickly though - emails have a strange habit of going missing, so I'm told.

If they don't know, you could try asking the Hockey Team.

If you've got any spare time left, let's have a few more "projections" - they're so convincing and realistic. Like 4 degrees over the next 60 years!
 

dcraig1

Experienced member
1,604 243
Good question - why don't you email CRU and ask them. Better get a response quickly though - emails have a strange habit of going missing, so I'm told.

If they don't know, you could try asking the Hockey Team.
Stop making things up. These false accusations are no better than, and are just as baseless as Plimer's nonsense about volcanoes.

If you actually want to learn something about the study of paleoclimate you could start with the NOAA site instead of repeating stupid sound bites like "Hockey team", go to http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/paleo.html where a large number of paleo studies (with data) are publicly available. The consensus view from multiple studies from multiple types of temperature proxies supports Mann's hockey stick. No amount of sleazy mud slinging is going to change that situation.

And in case you didn't now, two inquiries have exonerated Jones and the CRU, a 2006 investigation of Mann's work by the US National Academy supported Mann's findings and a Penn State University investigation exonerated Mann. RIP climategate.
 

maiden22

Established member
675 91
Stop making things up. These false accusations are no better than, and are just as baseless as Plimer's nonsense about volcanoes.

If you actually want to learn something about the study of paleoclimate you could start with the NOAA site instead of repeating stupid sound bites like "Hockey team", go to http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/paleo.html where a large number of paleo studies (with data) are publicly available. The consensus view from multiple studies from multiple types of temperature proxies supports Mann's hockey stick. No amount of sleazy mud slinging is going to change that situation.

And in case you didn't now, two inquiries have exonerated Jones and the CRU, a 2006 investigation of Mann's work by the US National Academy supported Mann's findings and a Penn State University investigation exonerated Mann. RIP climategate.
RIP Climategate? Afraid not, but we can go into these "inquiries" if you really want to.

Anyway, there's really no need for you to get so upset. I'd advise you take some of your medication (it's important to take it everyday, even if you feel fine) and go and lie down for a bit. You'll feel a lot better. And if not, well you know what they say - it's five o' clock somewhere, so don't feel bad about cracking open a cold one.

Your side has decided to ignore the evidence and carry on regardless, so chill out. There's just too much invested to worry about the truth, so they'll keep going, don't you worry. Maybe the whole thing will get derailed by economic (if not scientific) reality, but that should take a long time, so enjoy yourself. There's no need to come on forums and start shouting at people.
 
Last edited:

maiden22

Established member
675 91
Try this - it might help you:



Don't worry about the title - I know it says "for dummies", and you're probably thinking that you're not a dummy. True enough, but you're not that far behind them and you have to stretch yourself in order to grow.
 

maiden22

Established member
675 91
Peer - Reviewed apparently, which is a shame but still. No sticks:

http://www.c3headlines.com/2010/05/peerreviewed-research-unprecedented-global-warming-during-medieval-period-boreholes-reveal.html

Way back in 1997, researchers published a paper that was based on data from 6,000 plus borehole sites from all the continents. The reconstructed temperatures clearly showed a Medieval Period warming that was, and is, unprecedented. The data also makes clear that subsequent warming began well before the growth of human CO2 emissions and this natural rebound would obviously lead to temperatures similar to the Medieval Period.

A year later, the infamous Mann hockey-stick temperature chart was published to wild acclaim by the IPCC and AGW-centric activists. So popular did the Mann chart become, the 6,000+ borehole chart was completely ignored since its data refuted the Mann study. The borehole scientists then decided to re-publish their study with primarily only the blue-side (the typical AGW-favored data cherry-picking) of the chart below. This repackaged borehole study became accepted by the AGW-centric scientists as it seemed to support their cause and the Mann's hockey-stick.


"The authors searched the large database of terrestrial heat flow measurements compiled by the International Heat Flow Commission of the International Association of Seismology and Physics of the Earth's Interior for measurements suitable for reconstructing an average ground surface temperature history...Based on a total of 6,144 qualifying sets of heat flow measurements obtained from every continent of the globe, they produced a global climate reconstruction, which, they state, is "independent of other proxy interpretations [and] of any preconceptions or biases as to the nature of the actual climate history."...From their reconstruction of "a global climate history from worldwide observations," the authors found strong evidence that the Medieval Warm Period was indeed warmer than it is now."

"Quite suddenly, the same borehole authors - Pollack, Huang, Shen published a new, two-page-long paper in Nature: it appeared in October 1998. The paper contained a rather different graph than the graph from 1997...The new paper was using temperatures and 358 sites only instead of the 6000 sites used in 1997 (94 percent of sites eliminated) and it has erased 19,500 years out of 20,000 years (97.5 percent of the time interval eliminated) from the paper written in 1997 in order not to contradict Mann et al....That's what they call "independence". Moreover, if someone wanted to extend the record as far as possible while avoiding any hints of a warmer period in the past such as the medieval warm period, he would have made the same cut: 500 years ago. What a coincidence."


 
Last edited:

maiden22

Established member
675 91
Here's the hockey stick broken in two:

http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/McKitrick-hockeystick.pdf

In 10,000 repetitions on groups of red noise, we found that a conventional PC algorithm almost never yielded a hockey stick shaped PC1, but the Mann algorithm yielded a pronounced hockey stick-shaped PC1 over 99% of the time.

"Physicist Richard Muller of Berkeley studied our work last year and wrote an article about it:

[The findings] hit me like a bombshell, and I suspect it is having the same effect on many others.
Suddenly the hockey stick, the poster-child of the global warming community, turns out to be an artifact of poor mathematics.
"

Now Craig, let's do the usual. You dismiss this by dribbling about prer-revue, denialisatoion and conspitoracies, ignoring all the valid points raised. :LOL:

Then the smackdown she come. :cool:

You then post a graph showing a projected rise in temperatures of 100 degrees.

More smackdown to follow.
 
Last edited:

dcraig1

Experienced member
1,604 243
Here's the hockey stick broken in two:

http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/McKitrick-hockeystick.pdf

In 10,000 repetitions on groups of red noise, we found that a conventional PC algorithm almost never yielded a hockey stick shaped PC1, but the Mann algorithm yielded a pronounced hockey stick-shaped PC1 over 99% of the time.

"Physicist Richard Muller of Berkeley studied our work last year and wrote an article about it:

[The findings] hit me like a bombshell, and I suspect it is having the same effect on many others.
Suddenly the hockey stick, the poster-child of the global warming community, turns out to be an artifact of poor mathematics.
"
Gavin Schmidt and Caspar Amman have dealt with McKitrick in 2005: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/02/dummies-guide-to-the-latest-hockey-stick-controversy/

Other reconstructions using Mann's data (freely available for years) using different techniques show much the same thing as do climate reconstructions using other proxies (see the NOAA site liked above).

Why do you find the need to regurgitate long debunked stuff from McKitrick? Pathetic.
 

dcraig1

Experienced member
1,604 243
Peer - Reviewed apparently, which is a shame but still. No sticks:

http://www.c3headlines.com/2010/05/peerreviewed-research-unprecedented-global-warming-during-medieval-period-boreholes-reveal.html

Way back in 1997, researchers published a paper that was based on data from 6,000 plus borehole sites from all the continents. The reconstructed temperatures clearly showed a Medieval Period warming that was, and is, unprecedented. The data also makes clear that subsequent warming began well before the growth of human CO2 emissions and this natural rebound would obviously lead to temperatures similar to the Medieval Period.

A year later, the infamous Mann hockey-stick temperature chart was published to wild acclaim by the IPCC and AGW-centric activists. So popular did the Mann chart become, the 6,000+ borehole chart was completely ignored since its data refuted the Mann study. The borehole scientists then decided to re-publish their study with primarily only the blue-side (the typical AGW-favored data cherry-picking) of the chart below. This repackaged borehole study became accepted by the AGW-centric scientists as it seemed to support their cause and the Mann's hockey-stick.

"The authors searched the large database of terrestrial heat flow measurements compiled by the International Heat Flow Commission of the International Association of Seismology and Physics of the Earth's Interior for measurements suitable for reconstructing an average ground surface temperature history...Based on a total of 6,144 qualifying sets of heat flow measurements obtained from every continent of the globe, they produced a global climate reconstruction, which, they state, is "independent of other proxy interpretations [and] of any preconceptions or biases as to the nature of the actual climate history."...From their reconstruction of "a global climate history from worldwide observations," the authors found strong evidence that the Medieval Warm Period was indeed warmer than it is now."

"Quite suddenly, the same borehole authors - Pollack, Huang, Shen published a new, two-page-long paper in Nature: it appeared in October 1998. The paper contained a rather different graph than the graph from 1997...The new paper was using temperatures and 358 sites only instead of the 6000 sites used in 1997 (94 percent of sites eliminated) and it has erased 19,500 years out of 20,000 years (97.5 percent of the time interval eliminated) from the paper written in 1997 in order not to contradict Mann et al....That's what they call "independence". Moreover, if someone wanted to extend the record as far as possible while avoiding any hints of a warmer period in the past such as the medieval warm period, he would have made the same cut: 500 years ago. What a coincidence."

Lets see what Huang et al published in 1998:



The fruit loop blogger concludes that the entirely different findings were because of a conspiracy, offering no evidence whatsoever of said conspiracy. A far more likely explanation is that the previous reconstruction was just wrong. And in particular bore hole reconstructions become more and more problematic the further back you go.

We should also mention the fact that the graph shown by the blogger was doctered by Monckton http://rabett.blogspot.com/2006/11/singing-different-tune.html

And what do the other reconstructions by different researchers, using different methods and different proxies show:



The hockey stick stands
 

maiden22

Established member
675 91
Gavin Schmidt and Caspar Amman have dealt with McKitrick in 2005: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/02/dummies-guide-to-the-latest-hockey-stick-controversy/

Other reconstructions using Mann's data (freely available for years) using different techniques show much the same thing as do climate reconstructions using other proxies (see the NOAA site liked above).

Why do you find the need to regurgitate long debunked stuff from McKitrick? Pathetic.
Er, no they didn't. And real climate supports the hockey stick? Do you even know what real climate is? :LOL::LOL::LOL:
 
AdBlock Detected

We get it, advertisements are annoying!

But it's thanks to our sponsors that access to Trade2Win remains free for all. By viewing our ads you help us pay our bills, so please support the site and disable your AdBlocker.

I've Disabled AdBlock