Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by mr_f

As an aside, I don't want anyone else to be confused that the model used by Lomborg is the model on which future climate projections are based. MAGICC is a very useful tool that can be used to quickly assess various emission pathways. But it is a very simple model that you can easily run on your laptop.

False, and you appear to be intentionally trying to deceive here.

""MAGICC is a coupled gas-cycle/climate model that has been used in all Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports to produce projections of future global mean temperature and sea level change. Version 5.3 reproduces the results given in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4).

In addition, Magicc was designed to be used precisely as Lomborg used it: "This tool can be used to: evaluate the consequences of different mitigation policies". In other words, to evaluate what happens if the carbon reduction goals of Pars are met. The answer is: virtually nothing happens, at least to temperature. Lots happens as a result of the diversion of resources that could actually do something useful for humanity, but that's about it.

Magicc is a simplified model but one that produces the same results as much more complex models, so suggesting that it produces some kind of inaccurate result when used as compared to more complex models is specious.

But your post inadvertently agrees with something I have felt for some time. Let's assume that Magicc were an inaccurate toy even though climate modelers would disagree with you. Since it produces the same results as the models you suggest are superior, if you are correct in your appraisal of it, then all the IPCC models are inaccurate toys. And it is on the results of inaccurate toys that warmists want to turn the world economy upside down. Brilliant.

Model for the Assessment of Greenhouse-gas Induced Climate Change, and a Regional SCENario GENerator (MAGICC/SCENGEN ) (Version 5.3) | Climate Planning

[SailOar]

International Cryosphere Climate Initiative

Thresholds

Policy makers and the general public alike now largely accept that the Arctic, Antarctica and many mountain regions already have warmed two-three times faster than the rest of the planet. What is less understood, outside the scientific community, is that the very nature of the cryosphere – regions of snow and ice – carries dynamics that once triggered, in some cases cannot be reversed, even with a return to lower temperatures or CO2 levels. “Thresholds and Closing Windows: Risks of Irreversible Climate Change,” seeks to convey a message from IPCC AR5 and key cryosphere research since then: that at current commitment levels or INDCs, humanity faces very high risk of crossing certain irreversible thresholds in its cryosphere regions – setting into motion changes that cannot be stopped or reversed, in some cases not without a new “Little Ice Age”, and perhaps not even then. The only way to prevent these dynamics from beginning is to make sure temperatures never rise that high.

Read the report here (PDF)

In connection with the release of the print version of “Thresholds” at the Paris climate talks on December 9, a group of the Report reviewers and other leading scientists called for greater reductions to avoid crossing these dangerous thresholds in “cryosphere” – snow and ice – regions, taking out an ad in The Guardian newspaper to express their concern. “This can set into motion very long-term changes that cannot be stopped or reversed, even if temperatures later decrease,” they note. “Some changes, such as committed sea-level rise from the great polar ice sheets, cannot be reversed short of a new Ice Age.”

The 23 scientists, a majority of them IPCC AR5 authors, called on pledges leading to temperatures under two degrees – and preferably, under 1.5 degrees over pre-industrial for the best chance of limiting these risks. Click here to see the “Losses on All Human Timescales” call.

Presentations:

Introduction to Cryosphere Risks (.ppt) *Please note .pptx files cannot be opened in Firefox. You must use “Save As” or Google Chrome to view these presentations.

Anders Levermann – Ice Sheets (large .ppt)

George Kaser – Mountain Glaciers (.pptx) *Please note .pptx files cannot be opened in Firefox. You must use “Save As” or Google Chrome to view these presentations.

Susan Natali – Permafrost (.pptx) *Please note .pptx files cannot be opened in Firefox. You must use “Save As” or Google Chrome to view these presentations.

Dirk Notz – Arctic Sea Ice (.pdf)

.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by SailOar

International Cryosphere Climate Initiative

You should save yourself some time and just buy a robot to do your cutting and pasting for you.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by mr_f

I did not miss it. I read it before I posted. I provide the critique for others to judge, because we may not all share your opinion that Lomborg's response was "effective". I have read the studies cited by the critique I posted, as well as others that come to similar projections.

Since the critique you posted was an opinion piece and since it referenced a single study that resolves to a 404 page not found error on the Climatetracker website I think you might be overstating the breadth of professional skepticism regarding Lomborg's results. True, warmists don't like it when their data is fed into their models and produce a result that disrupts the meme, but that is just science in action. Ward's critique is not science, but opinion, which is why it is clearly labeled as opinion. "Please note: the article represents the views of the author and not those of the British Politics and Policy blog nor of the LSE."

Originally Posted by mr_f

I do not share your pessimism. Don't get me wrong, the Paris agreement is far short of where it should be, but the best way to solve a problem is to get started.

Sometimes that is true and sometimes not. Depends on how serious the problem is, what the cost of the solution is, and how effective the solution would be. In the case of AGW, the effects appear to be almost entirely beneficial and the models developed by warmists to show how much and how horrible a bit of warming will be have all failed. So the problem doesn't appear to be well understood and in fact may not be a problem at all. But we do have a reasonable handle on the cost of the solution you argue for and it is tremendous. And, based on the IPCC and UN's own data, we know how effective the solution will be and that is that it will not be effective at all, unless you think 1/5th of a degree of temperature mitigation is worth spending trillions on.

Originally Posted by mr_f

From one of the other studies that have projected the impact of the Paris agreements, some thoughts on what would happen if we didn't start now:

Please cite that 'study'. I can't find it, but if you can I would like to look at it.

Originally Posted by mr_f

That study, by the way, comes to the conclusion that the Paris agreements put us on a path to limit the warming to 2.7C, far more reduction than Lomborg suggests. But also far less than anyone wanted to achieve.

Look, we both agree that the Paris agreement is not nearly enough (as do every assessment I have read). I just don't think picking one single outlier study among many is the best way to assess its impacts.

It isn't an 'oulier' study. It is the only one I know of that uses the quantifiable reductions of Paris and inputs that reduction into the IPCC model designed to evaluate the impact of that reduction and comes up with a value. In this case, 1/5th of a degree difference over the next 85 years.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by mr_f

You and I clearly have a different definition of what "anytime soon" means.

(I realize that 500 is not quite double 280, but it doesn't take much imagination to estimate what the rest of that graph would look like.)

You're confused about the term "climate sensitivity" apparently. It doesn't mean a doubling of CO2 since the pre-industrial baseline. It means an emergent value of IPCC models that show how much warming there will be if CO2 doubles over the NEXT 100 years.

And if the near perfect correlation to world population to CO2 is an indicator of future levels of CO2, then no, we won't see a doubling of CO2 anytime soon.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Delfin

Great. Then based on the near perfect correlation over time between human population and atmospheric CO2, and the near 100% failure rate of climate models driven by other assumptions we can conclude that the atmospheric CO2 rate of increase will start declining as a result in a declining rate of growth of world population.

And, we won't have to spend trillions on pointless alternative energy schemes or carbon regulation to accomplish this task.

Time to close the thread - problem solved.

In a field of thousands, it doesn't make much sense to be completely invested in the interpretation of ONE specialist, but deniers don't like to build (or even recognize) "consensus", so it's not unusual.

mr_f has once again provided the straight goods. I will add just one thing: 2100 is just a benchmark, not the endpoint. The difference AFTER 2100 will be more dramatic. If we do get a handle on this problem by 2100, CO2 concentrations could conceivably start to come down after 2100; without action they will continue to climb. Our action now sets the stage for the next few centuries, not just the next 84 years.

It seems newhaul and kenomac share your delusion that trillions are about to be wasted to accomplish nothing. It simply won't unfold like that; governments will propose action to be taken over their terms, they will be re-elected or defeated as the public assesses their performance, new findings and improved models will give us better tools, and the private sector will get off their backsides and make money from it. All of this is starting to happen, even against a headwind of organized opposition.

"Oh but we'll adapt". Of course whenever we ask a denier or skeptic to tell us what adaptation will look like, or cost... crickets. The truth is, their action plan for adapting to AGW is the same as their plans for addressing pollution, poverty, universal health care: nothing.

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by Delfin

You should save yourself some time and just buy a robot to do your cutting and pasting for you.

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by SailOar

International Cryosphere Climate Initiative

.

Did you serve a apprenticeship under Jack to study the fine art of cut and paste?

[mr_f]

Originally Posted by Delfin

False, and you appear to be intentionally trying to deceive here.

""MAGICC is a coupled gas-cycle/climate model that has been used in all Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports to produce projections of future global mean temperature and sea level change. Version 5.3 reproduces the results given in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4).

In addition, Magicc was designed to be used precisely as Lomborg used it: "This tool can be used to: evaluate the consequences of different mitigation policies". In other words, to evaluate what happens if the carbon reduction goals of Pars are met. The answer is: virtually nothing happens, at least to temperature. Lots happens as a result of the diversion of resources that could actually do something useful for humanity, but that's about it.

Magicc is a simplified model but one that produces the same results as much more complex models, so suggesting that it produces some kind of inaccurate result when used as compared to more complex models is specious.

But your post inadvertently agrees with something I have felt for some time. Let's assume that Magicc were an inaccurate toy even though climate modelers would disagree with you. Since it produces the same results as the models you suggest are superior, if you are correct in your appraisal of it, then all the IPCC models are inaccurate toys. And it is on the results of inaccurate toys that warmists want to turn the world economy upside down. Brilliant.

Model for the Assessment of Greenhouse-gas Induced Climate Change, and a Regional SCENario GENerator (MAGICC/SCENGEN ) (Version 5.3) | Climate Planning

I am well aware of what MAGICC is, and what it is used for. I have a copy on my laptop.

I suggest you try to run any of the models from CMIP5 (the most recent set of Earth system model experiments for IPCC) on your laptop. Good luck with that.

You love to try to twist peoples words. You think it makes you look smart. It does not. I never suggested it was an inaccurate toy. In fact, my exact words were "very useful tool". It should not however be confused with the models making the projections.

[mr_f]

Originally Posted by Delfin

Since the critique you posted was an opinion piece and since it referenced a single study that resolves to a 404 page not found error on the Climatetracker website I think you might be overstating the breadth of professional skepticism regarding Lomborg's results. True, warmists don't like it when their data is fed into their models and produce a result that disrupts the meme, but that is just science in action. Ward's critique is not science, but opinion, which is why it is clearly labeled as opinion. "Please note: the article represents the views of the author and not those of the British Politics and Policy blog nor of the LSE."

Sometimes that is true and sometimes not. Depends on how serious the problem is, what the cost of the solution is, and how effective the solution would be. In the case of AGW, the effects appear to be almost entirely beneficial and the models developed by warmists to show how much and how horrible a bit of warming will be have all failed. So the problem doesn't appear to be well understood and in fact may not be a problem at all. But we do have a reasonable handle on the cost of the solution you argue for and it is tremendous. And, based on the IPCC and UN's own data, we know how effective the solution will be and that is that it will not be effective at all, unless you think 1/5th of a degree of temperature mitigation is worth spending trillions on.

Please cite that 'study'. I can't find it, but if you can I would like to look at it.


It isn't an 'oulier' study. It is the only one I know of that uses the quantifiable reductions of Paris and inputs that reduction into the IPCC model designed to evaluate the impact of that reduction and comes up with a value. In this case, 1/5th of a degree difference over the next 85 years.

The critique I posted was published along side his article in the journal. The editors of the journal did not feel it was just a whacky opinion.
Comment on []Impact of Current Climate Proposals’ - Ward - 2016 - Global Policy - Wiley Online Library

I apologize that you have trouble with the internet, I was able to easily find the referenced study and read it.

It is, by definition, an outlier study, as there are several other projections, and only one making the claims that Lomborg is.

[mr_f]

Originally Posted by Delfin

You're confused about the term "climate sensitivity" apparently. It doesn't mean a doubling of CO2 since the pre-industrial baseline. It means an emergent value of IPCC models that show how much warming there will be if CO2 doubles over the NEXT 100 years.

I suggest you do some further reading on this subject. You are confused.

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

Did you serve a apprenticeship under Jack to study the fine art of cut and paste?

[Kenomac]

Sailoar,

Cute cartoon. I seem to be one of the few participants on this thread who's unbothered and not at all worried about global warming. In fact... I embrace it!

Come on over to the dark side...... Or should I say sunny side?

No stress.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by mr_f

The critique I posted was published along side his article in the journal. The editors of the journal did not feel it was just a whacky opinion.
Comment on []Impact of Current Climate Proposals’ - Ward - 2016 - Global Policy - Wiley Online Library

I apologize that you have trouble with the internet, I was able to easily find the referenced study and read it.

It is, by definition, an outlier study, as there are several other projections, and only one making the claims that Lomborg is.

Some more assessment of Lomborg.

Bjorn Lomborg’s article in The Telegraph argues that “global warming causes about as much damage as benefits”, in blatant disagreement with available scientific evidence, while the author does not offer adequate evidence to support his statements. Upon inspection of the references cited by Lomborg, it turns out that he misrepresents the studies he cites according to their authors (in violation of the Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics).

While Lomborg argues in favor of more balanced climate reporting, the scientists who have reviewed this article conclude Lomborg himself fails to balance the available evidence that adverse impacts of climate change overwhelm the positive ones.

Analysis of Bjorn Lomborg's "...in many ways global warming will be a good thing" - Climate Feedback

On 4 April 2016 the US Global Change Research Program released a comprehensive overview of the impact of climate change on American public health. In an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, Bjorn Lomborg criticizes the report as unbalanced. Ten scientists analyzed the article and found that Lomborg had reached his conclusions through cherry-picking from a small subset of the evidence, misrepresenting the results of existing studies, and relying on flawed reasoning.

http://climatefeedback.org/evaluatio...treet-journal/

A consortium of scientists is trying to set the on-the-record record straight about climate change.

Climate Feedback, a website founded and run by French scientist Emmanuel Vincent, lets climate scientists weigh in about climate change stories in the media.

Readers can visit the site to see what scientists thought of articles about climate change in a wide variety of publications, with past critiques examining pieces in outlets like Rolling Stone and The Wall Street Journal.

More than 100 volunteer scientists can point out what they see as errors or misleading characterizations directly on the article via annotation software.

Some of these critiques have resulted in article corrections, as Agence France-Press says was the case with a Telegraph piece claiming Earth soon would be smacked by a miniature Ice Age.

[Kenomac]

Jack,

Why don't you take the time to express YOUR own opinion? The cut and paste stuff gets.......... b.....o......r..........i...............n......... .....................g