TOT: global warming threat cancelled

This is from the recent IPCC report. It seems that a reduction in Arctic sea ice is now left as the only credible result of AGW.
http://www.d-boss.com/IPCC/catastrophe_2013.jpg
How come the BBC hasn't reported this?
Bill
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Could you leave your endless whinging about the BBC in uk.tech.digtital- tv, please. Thanks.
--
(\_/)
(='.'=)
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mike Tomlinson wrote:

Well, that was only a little mention, not the point of the post. What do you think to the IPCC data I reproduced? It's from the recent report, though somewhat hidden away for some reason.
Bill
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

So what exactly is the site you linked to?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
It has, I heard it on Radio 4 some days agowhen the reprt first came out. However as i understand it we are still in a Warming phase since the last big Ice age, and no matter what you may believe, anything we can do to stop the gradual warming is worth the effort.
Maybe this Fusion thing reported a few days back will be the saviour. Brian
--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
"Bill Wright" < snipped-for-privacy@invalid.com> wrote in message
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 05/10/2013 09:29, Brian Gaff wrote:

The big flaw with that idea is that nobody can provide solid scientific proof of what is causing the warming. IMO that means we should be preparing for the changes, not hoping that we have made the right guess about what to try to stop it. That is assuming of course, that the Russians, who are the only people whose projections of global temperature have been anywhere near correct in this century, are wrong and we are not about to go into a cooling phase.
Colin Bignell
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Nightjar wrote:

Perhaps the Russians are the only ones in this area doing real science.
--
Terry Fields


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 05/10/2013 15:19, Terry Fields wrote:

It still seems pretty likely to me that we are going to go into a cooling phase eventually. Interestingly, the Russians have much to gain from warming, much to lose by the next ice age. Perhaps this is why they see cooling as the threat.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 05/10/2013 15:19, Terry Fields wrote:

Perhaps you could point to a peer reviewed article (in English) that explains the Russian position (that we are headingfor/or in a cooling phase? No! I thought not.
--
Roger Chapman

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 06/10/2013 18:08, Roger Chapman wrote:

30 or 40 years ago there were many papers and ideas that were entering a mini ice-age.
I recall a Horizon program detailing positions of planets in the solar system and the consequential distance between the Earth and Sun over time, plus the cyclical nature of the Sun to explain some of the historical perturbations in temperature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 06/10/2013 18:08, Roger Chapman wrote:

How about this Russian Scientist? Apologies for the reference, but it just happens to be first hit on Google
http://www.express.co.uk/news/science-technology/387971/Scientist-predicts-earth-is-heading-for-another-Ice-Age
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Surely it's all about the relative time-frames? We are heading for another ice age (thousands of years) but warming is a more immediate problem and will dominate in the short time-frame - ie next 100 years.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 07/10/2013 08:37, Bob Martin wrote:

That is when the Russians are predicting we will see significant cooling. Their hypothesis is that global temperature is linked to the sunspot cycle and that we are now moving into a Maunder Minimum. The result of that will be another mini ice age, lasting at least several decades. Based upon their hypothesis, about a decade ago they predicted that warming would start to slow before cooling sets in, with the turning point arriving around 2012.
The main alternative hypothesis, that global temperature is linked to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, was then predicting that temperatures would continue to rise for the foreseeable future.
The Russian prediction is quite close to what has actually happened.
Colin Bignell
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 07/10/13 09:28, Nightjar wrote:

They are obviously therefore deniers and funded by big oil interests.

--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc’-ra-cy) – a system of government where the least capable to
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 07/10/13 08:37, Bob Martin wrote:

Well you say that. But the reality is that there is litle conclusive evidence either way.
--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc’-ra-cy) – a system of government where the least capable to
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 06/10/2013 20:26, newshound wrote:

A newspaper report that includes:
"Russian scientist Dr Habibullo Abdussamatov, of the St Petersburg Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory, painted the Doomsday scenario saying the recent inclement weather simply proved we were heading towards a frozen planet."
Now it is always dangerous to rely implicitly on the accuracy of what we read in the papers but if that is an accurate observation of the scientist's view of the immediate future then he deserves to be ignored for confusing weather with climate.
My previous post was actually specifically aimed at Terry who is often more than a little reluctant to reveal his evidence.
--
Roger Chapman

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Roger Chapman wrote:

I'm struggling to find a Russian peer-reviewed paper where the authors have had to use a Nature Trick or miss bits off a graph to hide the decline. However, please note that what I wrote above was a suggestion, not a statement of fact. You might like to consider whether the manoeuvres mentioned reflect pragmatic showmanship or a desire to hang on to a well-paid job, so won't count as science.
Have a look at this graph from a decade ago:
http://ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/245.htm#fig66
It basically says we know FA about most known forcing effects - and the state of knowledge since then hasn't improved much. It's a dismal picture. If the Russians don't believe the CO2 approach then their view might well be better founded than those that claim the science is settled. After all, the sum of all those effects (bar Solar) could easily sum to zero, leaving Solar as the dominant forcer - and this is what the Russians seem to be saying, and what could account for the current plateau. Various parts of the Solar System also seem to be warming, and they don't have human activity to blame - but they have Solar effects in common.
--
Terry Fields


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 07/10/2013 17:13, Terry Fields wrote:

Ah, Mike's trick - to substitute real average temperatures when the tree ring record suddenly went tits up. Not the wisest thing to do while not shouting what had been done from the treetops but nothing like as heinous as the actions of the dishonest deniers who immediately turned the evidence on its head and pretended that the tree ring record gave the correct temperatures and the real temperatures were a fraud.
What the recent results from the tree ring data do is to cast doubt on the temperatures generated from this particular form of proxy data.
The Merkins have 2 independently derived temperature records and much more besides that are accessible on the Internet. I have failed to find anything remotely similar from the Russians. It doesn't help of course that I don't speak Russian but I suspect that doesn't make much difference in this case.

A very low scientific understanding of solar forcing but you have overlooked the other end of the graph where there is a high level of scientific understanding. Included are the usual suspects, CO2 and CH4 which, apart from the high level of understanding have a much larger influence than most of the other factors.
--
Roger Chapman

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Roger Chapman wrote:

I'm sorry, but you can't say that with justification. Just because the CO2/CH4 etc are claimed to have a HL understanding doesn't mean that all their effects and interactions are known; all it means is that they are thought to be better understood than the considerable majority of effects of which VL is understood. The latter may in fact dominate, they may sum to zero, but we don't know enough to say so. What we can say, with increasing justification, is that the CO2/CH4 etc approach is inadquate on its own as it fails as a predictive mechanism; and it may not be difficult to see the reasons for this.
However, if the Russians claim that Solar effects account for all the warming, and the coming cooling, then that hints at some or all of the other VLs, or interactions among them, might render the CO2/CH4 etc effects of no consequence as they are balanced out.
--
Terry Fields


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 07/10/13 18:54, Terry Fields wrote:

And there are plenty of possible ways this could be so.
IIRC the unweighted climate siensituvity to CO2 is anbout 0.2 degrees C. So all other thngs being equal that is how much difference doubling CO2 would have. I.e. utterly insginifficant.
In order to make CO2 fit late 20th century warming, they had to invent positive feedabck. that pushe dte senitoveity to CO2 up by a factr of TEN.
IN simple terms because CO2 physics didnt fit the warming, they simply multiplied it by ten untl it did. And got suitably scary predictions out of it.
No actual mechansim has ever been proved to give this amplification.
Ergo the logical process was 'assume its all CO2, and add an unknown multipler to fit the data'.
Consider two possible alternatives.
It was never CO2 at all, it was simply an unknown factor.
There might also be unknown negative feed-back reducing the effect CO2 has.
Logically either of the above scenarios are equally plasuible.
Now the sun of and by itself does not produce the actual insolation variation needed to fit the changes in temeperature observed over the late 20th century.
And that proved to be a stumbling block. Thats where teh cludists came along and propsed a linkahge between teh susn electro magnituc field, and sunspost and cosmic ray density etc that could modulate cloud cover.
Clouds are not modelled at all well by the IPCC but there are distinct correlations showing up in satellite data that link cloud cover to annual temparuture fluctuaions and so on. And you can calculate that quite small variatonson in average cloud cover can easily acount for all of the observed warming, and more.
so an entirely different possible mechanism exists for global warming. Variations in clouds.
Now consider the feedback issue. The thesis of hte IPCC is that small drivers in temnperature cerate large effects because if some positive feedback. But if that were so the climate would have been wildly unstable in the holocene. For example natural cloud variability would have led to massive temperature changes. Ergo there is no positive feedback operating, and the positive feedback is wrong. In fact its far more likely that a warmer earth carries more warm water vapour up into the stratosphere where it can radiate to space well beyond most of the CO2, turn into ice, and fall as cold rain, with the intermediate clouds providing a sun screen. I.e. the feedabck in the water cycle is in fact negative.
And MASSIVELY negative, making the effect of CO2 emissions utterly and totally irrelevant. ALL of the so called insulating properties of CO2 are meaningless if the dominant heat loss is not from the planets surface but from cloud tops above (most of) the atmosphere. The greenhouse has holes in the roof...
The logical next step then is to say 'well what could have caused the temperatures to climb between 1970 and 2000' and the obvious answer would be 'anything that reduced low cloud cover, or increased high cloud cover'. (Thin high clouds tends to not affect sun coming in, but stop some heat escaping at night). The opposite happens for thicker low clouds whch tend to stop the daytime heat more than they stop the loss at night)
some human candidates that could be in the mix are the REDUCTION in pollution as the West cleaned up its air in the 1950-1970 timescale. Or the injection of contrails into the high atmosphere by a massive increase in air traffic.
Then you have the cosmic ray boys, who pose a linkage between the suns MAGNETIC fields somewhat associated with solar flares susnpots and the like, and linked to perhaps multi-decadal cycles in the suns heliosphere affected by the tidal pull of the planets. These modulate cosmic ray activity at the earths surface and the propsition by Svesnsmark and others is that this modulates the propensity to form cloud nuclei. You can map teh historic densiity of cosmic rays in te reasonably near past by the production of radioactive elements in the atmosphere - carbon 14 and IIRC beryllium - which show historic variations in density.
And Svensmark likes to point out that the warm and cold periods in the deep past seem to coincide with times the solar system crossed the plane of the galaxy, where a higher density of cosmic rays might be expected.
So there is no shortage of competing climate theories and the science is far from being settled, looking even more uncertain that it ever has.
If you want a multi-chapter summary there is one produced as a counter to the IPCC 'the science is settled' report and its here:
http://www.templar.co.uk/downloads/CCR-II-Full.pdf
The main conclusion being that the REAL science hasn't got a clue, beyond being 95% certain that CO2 is NOT the main driver of recent climate change. Nor probably any other human activity.
But of course that MUST mean its written by well funded climate deniers doesn't it?
--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc’-ra-cy) – a system of government where the least capable to
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.