| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
clv101
Site Admin
Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 6163
Location: Bristol
|
 Posted: Mon Jun 20, 2011 3:09 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| RGR wrote: | | ...the concept that it won't be as bad for some places as others is a valid concept. |
I would suggest there will be climate winners and losers. However since we've spent quite a long time optimising civilization for the climate distribution of the recent past, any change is more likely to be negative than positive.
+2C and -2C, both negative if your optimised for the current temperature, same with precip, more or less could be negative.
But sure, in some circumstances, the specific change that occurs will improve matters.
_________________
PowerSwitch on Facebook | The Oil Drum | Twitter | Blog |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
RalphW
Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 3529
Location: Cambridge
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 20, 2011 3:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I've asked this before - Why are the so many chemistry graduates on Powerswitch?
- a chemistry graduate. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RGR
Banned
Joined: 07 Dec 2007
Posts: 2034
Location: Rocky Mountains, USA
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 20, 2011 3:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="clv101"]
Last edited by RGR on Fri Aug 12, 2011 6:10 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RGR
Banned
Joined: 07 Dec 2007
Posts: 2034
Location: Rocky Mountains, USA
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 20, 2011 3:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="RalphW"]
Last edited by RGR on Fri Aug 12, 2011 6:10 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RalphW
Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 3529
Location: Cambridge
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 20, 2011 3:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Snow in June is not unusual in the UK
http://www.dandantheweatherman.com/Bereklauw/latesnow.html
including 1976 which was the year of our worst ever drought.
My parents say they got married in June 1946 in a hailstorm, weather so dark their wedding pictures failed to come out.
I remember hearing reports of snow drifts metres deep lasting days in June, back in the 1920s or 1930s, but I haven't found online references yet.
Don't confuse weather and climate. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RalphW
Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 3529
Location: Cambridge
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 20, 2011 3:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| RGR wrote: |
Good question. Most forums I am familiar with back into the mid 2000's tended to be computer geeks of one sort or another. But anyone with a background in a science is better than the usual forum denizens of...dare I say...less well informed posters? |
Wow! a compliment from RGR!
But I think you have inadvertently answered my question, Watson style.
Back in the 1980s there was a glut of Chemistry graduates in the UK as Thatcherism took hold, and many of them retrained in computing using government grants. That matches with the Powerswitch demographic being heavy on 40-something male geeks.
- a chemistry graduate retrained as a computer geek
Last edited by RalphW on Mon Jun 20, 2011 3:39 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pepperman
Joined: 10 Oct 2010
Posts: 444
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 20, 2011 3:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| RGR wrote: | Actually, I think it is as likely to be good, as it is bad. Certainly in the past global warming has had a huge positive effect for mankind, but I am willing to consider that the future will only have a 50/50 good/bad possibility mix. This is a point which seems to not be particularly stressed among the climate changer enthusiasts.
Does anyone speculate on why most climate changers tend to not mention this any more than possible? Is it a "scream the nastiest message you can to get your message across and generate more funding" approach to the topic? |
Large swathes of Asia and Africa, which also have the highest populations, have the least developed agricultural systems, are least able to adapt etc etc etc are not going to get better due to warming.
The comfortable and affluent north will get a little bit more comfortable (if a lot less predictable) while the struggling and poor south will struggle even harder.
Funny that climate deniers never manage to make that leap of the imagination and only seem to consider how their own situation will change. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
An Inspector Calls
Banned
Joined: 27 Jan 2011
Posts: 965
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 20, 2011 4:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Pepperman wrote: | | An Inspector Calls wrote: | | I don't buy the statement that all of the present temperature rise has been caused by increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. |
Congratulations, your views align with the views of the world's climate scientists summarised in AR4:
| Quote: | | Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations. It is likely that there has been significant anthropogenic warming over the past 50 years averaged over each continent (except Antarctica). |
|
Well thank you. Let's just hope AR4 is a better effort than what they made in 1990. (Bound to get a winner one day)
0.3 K warming; no wonder I can't get the ice in my G&Ts to last. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RGR
Banned
Joined: 07 Dec 2007
Posts: 2034
Location: Rocky Mountains, USA
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 20, 2011 5:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| RalphW wrote: |
Don't confuse weather and climate. |
Last edited by RGR on Fri Aug 12, 2011 6:10 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RGR
Banned
Joined: 07 Dec 2007
Posts: 2034
Location: Rocky Mountains, USA
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 20, 2011 5:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="An Inspector Calls"]
Last edited by RGR on Fri Aug 12, 2011 6:11 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pepperman
Joined: 10 Oct 2010
Posts: 444
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 21, 2011 9:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
Errr before you get too excited, the blog that this is hotlinked from quotes from the IPCC's report in 1990:
"Based on the IPCC Business as Usual scenarios, the energy-balance upwelling diffusion model with best judgement parameters yields estimates of global warming from pre-industrial times (taken to be 1765) to the year 2030 between 1.3°C and 2.8°C, with a best estimate of 2 0°C This corresponds to a predicted rise from 1990 of 0.7-1.5°C with a best estimate of 1.1C."
So the graph takes the rate from pre-industrial times to 2030 and applies it to the period from 1990. But if you were to apply the IPCC's forecast from 1990 of 0.7°C - 1.5°C it would be bang on the money. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pepperman
Joined: 10 Oct 2010
Posts: 444
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 21, 2011 9:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| This is the simultaneously highly amusing and depressing thing about climate change denial. There's a whole raft of websites dispensing blog science which is utter crap but they uncritically lap it up because it confirms their pre-existing beliefs. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pepperman
Joined: 10 Oct 2010
Posts: 444
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
An Inspector Calls
Banned
Joined: 27 Jan 2011
Posts: 965
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 21, 2011 10:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Pepperman wrote: | | This is the simultaneously highly amusing and depressing thing about climate change denial. There's a whole raft of websites dispensing blog science which is utter crap but they uncritically lap it up because it confirms their pre-existing beliefs. |
A bit like the crap you're spouting now.
If you go down the blog, you'll find a post of the actual 1990 IPCC prediction, which is not linear. The writer explains the very reasonable use of the linear extrapolation for the 1990-2011 period: | Quote: | “Based on the IPCC Business as Usual scenarios, the energy-balance upwelling diffusion model with best judgement parameters yields estimates of global warming from pre-industrial times (taken to be 1765) to the year 2030 between 1.3°C and 2.8″C, with a best estimate of 2 0°C This corresponds to a predicted rise from 1990 of 0.7-1.5°C with a best estimate of 1.1C. “
Prediction: 1990 to 2030 –> 0.7 - 1.5 degrees C
T = T(1990) + 0.0275*deltaY
Assuming a linear extrapolating to May 2011:
T(2011) = T(1990) + 0.58 (maximum of 0.79 and minimum of 0.37)
|
And no, the IPCC predictions do not appear to be anywhere remotely close to 'on the money' as you claim. The rise to 2011 has been nowhere near the range of IPCC predictions. Their failure might have been even worse had the blog writer added a dose of exponentiallity to his trend!
http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=2208 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
biffvernon
Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 13918
Location: Lincolnshire
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 21, 2011 11:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
Beware the graph whose vertical axis does not start at zero. Be especially wary of the CO2 concentration graph with a vertical axis that starts way above the pre-industrial level of ~270ppm.
_________________
http://www.transitiontownlouth.org.uk |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
