Ipcc report 2013

[ginjawarrior]

since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. ..............we have not been observing for millennia.

The atmosphere and ocean have warmed....no. Not the oceans

Continued emissions of greenhouse gases will cause further warming and changes.....Not what the WG1 is saying. Not what the data are showing. Hdden somehow. Yes?


I could go on and the submission is FULL of conclusions before evidence, via pick choose for the Anti-Big-Oil agenda. Is likely? Not so likely, somewhat likely?

And I still say so what?

Look at the other side. What if civilization could not withstand the ice age without adding a bit of warming? Say we are warming the planet. OK? Fine.

Maybe we should keep warming it. Ever think of that? Maybe that is a good thing. That is the problem with the foregone conclusions.

- we don't the climate system
- we then don't know why this extra heat (4 H-bombs a second or some such panic) is not going in....Hidden?
- maybe we are not looking at it correctly.....like cold Fusion? No there, there when we look at the Method.
- maybe we are all wrong again, and we really are cooling, and the previouosly observed warming was the "glitch."
- maybe this some deep cycling rogue wave, a little heating catching up from the last Ice Age

AND MAYBE, warming is the best for humans. We tend to be very lucky monkeys. And we make our own luck without knowing, all the time. Read history.

WHAT IF< warming is good,. we need it and we are trying to kill ourselves by stopping it?. Seems very highly likely given the Black Heart of Man.

That is what Method could explore in the absence of politics and rip-off and pay back on Big Oil.

been hitting the bong hard today doer? Or is that the bottle?

Your rantings making less sense than usual

 

[heckler73]

As to the first the confidence levels are listed at the bottom of second page labelled "introduction"

Basically they're saying there's some evidence points one way but more evidence is needed to say for certain

seems an open and honest account of the evidence at hand


As to the second they have lowered the lower range by .5c because sensitivity was not as first predicted. is it not science doing what science should and adjusting according to the data held at the time

I'd be suspicious if they turned round and said the previous numbers were exactly perfect and even with better measurements nothing is changed even down to 0.00000001c

Well, that's somewhat generous of you to give them a pass for those issues.
But I see a larger problem in the grand scheme via that statement. Remember those forcing equations? Lambda was the climate sensitivity. If they have low confidence for quantifying the effect of radiative forcing changes, then how can their "model" be given much weight in a definitive sense?

This is something I've seen come up from other places as a complaint; the lack of definitive enumeration for lambda. In fact, they widened their error range now.
However, that's a problem with summaries; they don't have the detail required. All one can offer in this case is speculative opinion.

In the meantime, I got my grubby mitts on a copy of an excellent book, Introduction to Climate Modeling by Thomas Stocker, which is (at least) helping me to understand intermediate Thermodynamics from the climatologist's perspective. The beginning of ch. 2.4 is quite beautiful in its derivation of the main "feedback" equations (which I would post, but the image loading is still not working)

 

[Doer]

Well, that's somewhat generous of you to give them a pass for those issues.
But I see a larger problem in the grand scheme via that statement. Remember those forcing equations? Lambda was the climate sensitivity. If they have low confidence for quantifying the effect of radiative forcing changes, then how can their "model" be given much weight in a definitive sense?

This is something I've seen come up from other places as a complaint; the lack of definitive enumeration for lambda. In fact, they widened their error range now.
However, that's a problem with summaries; they don't have the detail required. All one can offer in this case is speculative opinion.

In the meantime, I got my grubby mitts on a copy of an excellent book, Introduction to Climate Modeling by Thomas Stocker, which is (at least) helping me to understand intermediate Thermodynamics from the climatologist's perspective. The beginning of ch. 2.4 is quite beautiful in its derivation of the main "feedback" equations (which I would post, but the image loading is still not working)

Well, it is obviously why they launched 3 working groups. They didn't need no stinkin' details and were sure WG-1 had the slam dunk.

And back in Carl Segan's day they discounted Cloud and Precession effects with this Low Confidence, bullshit.

And now they have to peddle harder on a smaller tricycle going backwards. And it looks stupid.

Heck you are following this stuff. You are reading and seeing where they begin the Dazzle...this is all CYA now.

They look like idiots to the actual climate science practice.
But, these idiots plan on spending Billions to distroy the urban heat bubble.

These heat bubble I always thought would be a good thing in a Ice Age.

When the WG-1 finding didn't happened, the back wheel. WG-3 said, "I am a horse." No.
But, WG-3, "WHAT CAN WE DOOOOOOOO?????" now drives the horror show buggy.

The Cart before the Horse. Bad science.

 

[heckler73]

They look like idiots to the actual climate science practice.
But, these idiots plan on spending Billions to distroy the urban heat bubble.

These heat bubble I always thought would be a good thing in a Ice Age.

I don't know much about this Ice Age idea (although I'm absorbed by cyclic phenomena) so I suppose that is possible, perhaps under the conditions of weakening magnetic fields (but what's the mechanism beyond that?)

However, the full draft is out. NOW is the time for nitpicking the denizens of ivory towers. I'll be digesting ch. 8 Anthropogenic and Natural Radiative Forcing today.
So far, I see some questions being answered.

1) How many people decide the consensus?
Answer:13 lead authors, 2 lead coordinators, 3 review editors, and 23 people to say "Yes Sir/Ma'am !".

Fantastic!

 

[Doer]

I don't know much about this Ice Age idea (although I'm absorbed by cyclic phenomena) so I suppose that is possible, perhaps under the conditions of weakening magnetic fields (but what's the mechanism beyond that?)

However, the full draft is out. NOW is the time for nitpicking the denizens of ivory towers. I'll be digesting ch. 8 Anthropogenic and Natural Radiative Forcing today.
So far, I see some questions being answered.

1) How many people decide the consensus?
Answer:13 lead authors, 2 lead coordinators, 3 review editors, and 23 people to say "Yes Sir/Ma'am !".

Fantastic!

You are just now knocking on nature's door. Ice Ages happen, regardless. But, you surely knew that.

Our Family of Homo Sapiens dominated and grew into culture, civilization, etc in the last Ice Age. They are like street cars.
And Ice Ages can take civilization, with no urban heat bubbles.

And some predict is was at one point, (not every time) so extreme the Ice reached pole to pole.

Our buddies at Skeptical Science again. We are sometimes skeptically jaundiced of the same things, sometimes not. They have facts and wrong conclusions, imo.

"It can therefore be concluded that with CO2 concentrations set to continue to rise, a return to ice age conditions seems very unlikely. Instead, temperatures are increasing and this increase may come at a considerable cost with few or no benefits."

Except holding off a Damn Ice Age Killer of Mankind. No benefit to that. This idiots are cheering for an Ice Age and say Big Oil killed the ancient cycle.

Oh no WE didn't!

 

[heckler73]

And some predict is was at one point, (not every time) so extreme the Ice reached pole to pole.

Our buddies at Skeptical Science again. We are sometimes skeptically jaundiced of the same things, sometimes not. They have facts and wrong conclusions, imo.

"It can therefore be concluded that with CO2 concentrations set to continue to rise, a return to ice age conditions seems very unlikely. Instead, temperatures are increasing and this increase may come at a considerable cost with few or no benefits."

Except holding off a Damn Ice Age Killer of Mankind. No benefit to that. This idiots are cheering for an Ice Age and say Big Oil killed the ancient cycle.

Oh no WE didn't!

Yes, I'm familiar with the snowball Earth hypothesis, and I have no reason to doubt it. I am also familiar with these interglacial periods you show in the chart. I just never cared enough to look at the details of the cycle.

But looking at it now, two things strike me:
1) the negative period in the cycle appears to be lengthening
2) What caused those drastic falls in temperature? I find it difficult to fathom a sudden fade of the sun as being the cause.

This is one reason I've been finding Scafetta's research fascinating. I think he's onto something with the idea of Non-linear resonance (but is it gravity or EM as the underlying cause?)... However, I don't feel the Jovian cycles are enough to explain all of it, although they sure have one helluva correspondence to the ~60 year cycle discussed earlier.

Which leads to the question of what galactic (if not solar system) phenomena have a correspondence to the interglacial cycles?

 

[Doer]

Yes, I'm familiar with the snowball Earth hypothesis, and I have no reason to doubt it. I am also familiar with these interglacial periods you show in the chart. I just never cared enough to look at the details of the cycle.

But looking at it now, two things strike me:
1) the negative period in the cycle appears to be lengthening
2) What caused those drastic falls in temperature? I find it difficult to fathom a sudden fade of the sun as being the cause.

This is one reason I've been finding Scafetta's research fascinating. I think he's onto something with the idea of Non-linear resonance (but is it gravity or EM as the underlying cause?)... However, I don't feel the Jovian cycles are enough to explain all of it, although they sure have one helluva correspondence to the ~60 year cycle discussed earlier.

Which leads to the question of what galactic (if not solar system) phenomena have a correspondence to the interglacial cycles?

Cycles beyond cycles. There are 30 million year cycles that are the Solar galactic orbit path, like that warped phonograph record, and not round.

That orbit, is like the Earth's is not circular but another precessing ellipsoid, gently swapping major and minor axis over 10s of millions of years.

Solar observation has already uncovered some very startling cycles. We perhaps don't know all things about the Sun, yet.
<wink>

These are just a few of the cycles we know. And we think there could be 11 dimensions. Gravity swapping is proposed via the Higgs Field, perhaps. Is that another cycle?

Is man's presence and adaptability, part of the natural cycle? But, of course.

 

[Doer]

Oh, and I would not put too much attention on the fine details of any of those deep history graphs. It is all extrapolated from ice core, sea floor cores, etc.

What I find most interesting on that particular view is the temp drops are quite steep, and without recovery. It is almost a straight ride to Ice, each time. Then some inter-warming, and then saw notching down to Cold.

Not this time.

For what ever reason of cycles and cycles, this time we are not plunging off. More a steady band, these last 10,000 years.

 

[Dr Kynes]

Yes, I'm familiar with the snowball Earth hypothesis, and I have no reason to doubt it. I am also familiar with these interglacial periods you show in the chart. I just never cared enough to look at the details of the cycle.

But looking at it now, two things strike me:
1) the negative period in the cycle appears to be lengthening
2) What caused those drastic falls in temperature? I find it difficult to fathom a sudden fade of the sun as being the cause.

This is one reason I've been finding Scafetta's research fascinating. I think he's onto something with the idea of Non-linear resonance (but is it gravity or EM as the underlying cause?)... However, I don't feel the Jovian cycles are enough to explain all of it, although they sure have one helluva correspondence to the ~60 year cycle discussed earlier.

Which leads to the question of what galactic (if not solar system) phenomena have a correspondence to the interglacial cycles?

1 ) i suspect that the variations in the ice core samples is not necessarily a result of a deepening or shortening of the cycle itself, but older records are less "fresh" and thus are not as accurate.

2 ) the vartiuations are due to unequal distribution of land masses on the earth's surface, and as a result greater area of sea surface which can be warmed, and thus retains that heat as the precession swings the other way, resulting in gradual cooling, until the tipping point hits and then shit freezes over quick, with a similar result in the thawing, this can be seen in rivers and lakes every winter.

waters remain liquid until winter is well entrenched and then they freeze over rapidly, when spring comes, theice and snowpack dont melt evenly, but gradually warm until they melt suddenly.

put some water in the freezer and youll see, the cooling happens gradually until it hits the freeze point then the time between the first ice crust forming, and Frozen Solid is comparatively quick, likewise with melting. slow at first then very rapid at the last.

 

[UncleBuck]

put some water in the freezer and youll see, the cooling happens gradually until it hits the freeze point then the time between the first ice crust forming, and Frozen Solid is comparatively quick, likewise with melting. slow at first then very rapid at the last.

have you informed the world's top climatologists about this phenomenon?

maybe if they took more advice from creationists who swear allegiance to biblical pledges and unskilled lame fucks like you, they would totally reverse their overwhelming consensus about human activities being responsible for the accelerated changes we are seeing.

but probably not.

feel free to continue citing creationists as an appeal to authority and then condemning others for citing actual science from actual scientists rather than bible thumpers who pledge allegiance to non-science.

 

[heckler73]

1 ) i suspect that the variations in the ice core samples is not necessarily a result of a deepening or shortening of the cycle itself, but older records are less "fresh" and thus are not as accurate.

2 ) the vartiuations are due to unequal distribution of land masses on the earth's surface, and as a result greater area of sea surface which can be warmed, and thus retains that heat as the precession swings the other way, resulting in gradual cooling, until the tipping point hits and then shit freezes over quick, with a similar result in the thawing, this can be seen in rivers and lakes every winter.

waters remain liquid until winter is well entrenched and then they freeze over rapidly, when spring comes, theice and snowpack dont melt evenly, but gradually warm until they melt suddenly.

put some water in the freezer and youll see, the cooling happens gradually until it hits the freeze point then the time between the first ice crust forming, and Frozen Solid is comparatively quick, likewise with melting. slow at first then very rapid at the last.

Your first point is logical, so I can work with that.
But your second point causes me discomfort.

There is a barrier that water has to cross during phase transition to ice. It requires 333 J/g @STP... the process is not instantaneous assuming no flux in heat transfer.
The slurry of ice and water will stay in that transient state for a period of time at 273K before going solid.

So I find it difficult to agree with your hypothesis on how fast a snowball Earth scenario would occur based on that principle.
But that's just my first impression of the idea.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/phase.html

 

[Dr Kynes]

Your first point is logical, so I can work with that.
But your second point causes me discomfort.

There is a barrier that water has to cross during phase transition to ice. It requires 333 J/g @STP... the process is not instantaneous assuming no flux in heat transfer.
The slurry of ice and water will stay in that transient state for a period of time at 273K before going solid.

So I find it difficult to agree with your hypothesis on how fast a snowball Earth scenario would occur based on that principle.
But that's just my first impression of the idea.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/phase.html
View attachment 2841595

i am not arguing "snowball earth" theories.

those were crackpot psuedoscience claims that were were gonna freeze the earth solid from airconditioners and hairspray.

the glacial cycles are Real Repeatable and Testable.

right now we are approaching norther hemisphere summer at aphelion, which results in less energy being delivered to the largest landmasses, and conversely, More being delivered to the southern oceans. the oceans will continue to warm for a while longer, then the worm turns and the southern summer becomes cooler and cooler resulting in gradually cooling temps in the ocean, and thus worldwide, until a new glacial maximum is reached and the cycle starts all over again.

ic continents were evenly distributed north to south, we would have no glacial cycle, at least not like we have now.

 

[Doer]

Your first point is logical, so I can work with that.
But your second point causes me discomfort.

There is a barrier that water has to cross during phase transition to ice. It requires 333 J/g @STP... the process is not instantaneous assuming no flux in heat transfer.
The slurry of ice and water will stay in that transient state for a period of time at 273K before going solid.

So I find it difficult to agree with your hypothesis on how fast a snowball Earth scenario would occur based on that principle.
But that's just my first impression of the idea.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/phase.html
View attachment 2841595

Warm water freezes faster. The warmer the water the faster the freeze. It has to do with not skimming over to insulate until the heat from the bottom has risen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mpemba_effect
The Mpemba effect, named after Tanganyikan student Erasto Mpemba, is the assertion that warmer water can freeze faster than colder water.

According to an article by Monwhea Jeng: "Analysis of the situation is now quite complex, since we are no longer considering a single parameter, but a scalar function, and computational fluid dynamics (CFD) is notoriously difficult."[SUP][7][/SUP]

 

[Doer]

i am not arguing "snowball earth" theories.

those were crackpot psuedoscience claims that were were gonna freeze the earth solid from airconditioners and hairspray.

the glacial cycles are Real Repeatable and Testable.

right now we are approaching norther hemisphere summer at aphelion, which results in less energy being delivered to the largest landmasses, and conversely, More being delivered to the southern oceans. the oceans will continue to warm for a while longer, then the worm turns and the southern summer becomes cooler and cooler resulting in gradually cooling temps in the ocean, and thus worldwide, until a new glacial maximum is reached and the cycle starts all over again.

ic continents were evenly distributed north to south, we would have no glacial cycle, at least not like we have now.

You guys swerved to this snowball theory.

I said there is evidence the earth has had very severe Ice Ages. These are not clockworks.

Cycle and cycles. There may not ever be another one so severe, or perhaps we get a sting of Ice Balls, with damp heat between...chaos theory.

 

[heckler73]

Warm water freezes faster. The warmer the water the faster the freeze. It has to do with not skimming over to insulate until the heat from the bottom has risen.

The Mpemba effect, named after Tanganyikan student Erasto Mpemba, is the assertion that warmer water can freeze faster than colder water.

According to an article by Monwhea Jeng: "Analysis of the situation is now quite complex, since we are no longer considering a single parameter, but a scalar function, and computational fluid dynamics (CFD) is notoriously difficult."[SUP][7][/SUP]

Hmmm...
http://www.rsc.org/images/nikola-bregovic-entry_tcm18-225169.pdf

That is a difficult experiment to control... Trying to estimate the heat gradient (i.e. the scalar function) would be ball-busting.
However, it is an interesting idea worth exploring. One could get published doing a study on that

 

[Doer]

It is one of those challenges of nature that has no clear explanation that can be described in Math. Fluid Dynamics. Pockets and Streams, random quantum non-causal energy balancing.

In fact, now that we think we have the Higgs Field to describe gravity, it can be shown that Space is a compressiable fluid. Matter compresses or makes more dense, Space itself. Matter, somehow biases the Higgs Field so that more matter "falls" there. It is the easier path? Space becomes more "dense" i.e. "downhill," and more matter falls there, etc.

Back to Earth fluids and a very special one, indeed.

Without the math it is not possible to describe how the M-Effect in a most unique fluid, is present in some configurations and not present in others. More experiments. But, it is just another basic thing we do not know about the main actuator of Climate.

That would be water.

 

[heckler73]

It is one of those challenges of nature that has no clear explanation that can be described in Math. Fluid Dynamics. Pockets and Streams, random quantum non-causal energy balancing.
...
Without the math it is not possible to describe how the M-Effect in a most unique fluid, is present in some configurations and not present in others. More experiments. But, it is just another basic thing we do not know about the main actuator of Climate.

That would be water.

I agree, the math here would be useful. That's why I think it would be a worthy experiment...

But speaking of math... here's how Stocker gets to the sensitivity calculations for the main forcings (from Intro to Climate Modeling):

That's the sort of stuff I like to see...

But here's what the IPCC gives me...





Isn't that great?
Let's just shuffle off with that pesky lambda and use a new metric of averages that creates more error in later calculations.

At least I have more info to dig into via Ming & Ban-Weiss who--along with Hansen--seem to be the progenitors of this concept, but the way the IPCC explains ERF is horrid...

 

[Dr Kynes]

I agree, the math here would be useful. That's why I think it would be a worthy experiment...

But speaking of math... here's how Stocker gets to the sensitivity calculations for the main forcings (from Intro to Climate Modeling):
View attachment 2842341
That's the sort of stuff I like to see...

But here's what the IPCC gives me...


View attachment 2842343
View attachment 2842344

Isn't that great?
Let's just shuffle off with that pesky lambda and use a new metric of averages that creates more error in later calculations.

At least I have more info to dig into via Ming & Ban-Weiss who--along with Hansen--seem to be the progenitors of this concept, but the way the IPCC explains ERF is horrid...

if i just agree with Anthropogenic global warming do i still have to do all that math?

 

[Doer]

I agree, the math here would be useful. That's why I think it would be a worthy experiment...

But speaking of math... here's how Stocker gets to the sensitivity calculations for the main forcings (from Intro to Climate Modeling):
View attachment 2842341
That's the sort of stuff I like to see...

But here's what the IPCC gives me...


View attachment 2842343
View attachment 2842344

Isn't that great?
Let's just shuffle off with that pesky lambda and use a new metric of averages that creates more error in later calculations.

At least I have more info to dig into via Ming & Ban-Weiss who--along with Hansen--seem to be the progenitors of this concept, but the way the IPCC explains ERF is horrid...

This is way statistics work, and why it is meaningless. Assign Lamda to what doesn't agree with the foregone conclusions and math around it.

It is hardly Method. Method boils it down to tiny steps of binary hypothesis and attempts rule out something. It is either RULED OUT, or it is not. Nothing in science will say we have a 95% High Certainty on the Force of Gravity.

No. All other accelerations have been patiently Ruled Out. The very best experiments, like the Higgs discovery, proceeded for decades in math experiments, just like that.

And even now, all they will say, is they have ruled out everything they possibly can and there may well be this undiscovered Bosun at the math predicted energy band.

 

[heckler73]

This is way statistics work, and why it is meaningless. Assign Lamda to what doesn't agree with the foregone conclusions and math around it.

When I first looked at the forcing equations, my first thought was, "are they just using a Lagrange Multiplier here?"
But it's not that simple...

No. All other accelerations have been patiently Ruled Out. The very best experiments, like the Higgs discovery, proceeded for decades in math experiments, just like that.

And even now all they will say, is they have ruled out everything they possibly can and there may well be this undiscovered Bosun at the math predicted energy band.

I believe this chart adds emphasis to that point: