Brexit. Why do Brits want Out of the EU?

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

And none of this positive feedback via release of frozen methane deposits is taken into account in the IPPC models and predictions. Meaning that the IPPC predictions are optimistic: they paint a reassuring picture of the likely outcomes, and probably underestimate the extent of the disruption we and our children will face during the 21st century.

Then explain why the IPCC estimates for warming have been so consistently higher than the uncooperative earth has delivered. That is the essence of real science.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

Then explain why the IPCC estimates for warming have been so consistently higher than the uncooperative earth has delivered. That is the essence of real science.

The essence of science is to respect facts, George... Give it a try for a change.

2 Replies

@Olivier5,

Quote:

A comparison of past IPCC predictions against 22 years of weather data and the latest climate science find that the IPCC has consistently underplayed the intensity of global warming in each of its four major reports released since 1990.

The drastic decline of summer Arctic sea ice is one recent example: In the 2007 report, the IPCC concluded the Arctic would not lose its summer ice before 2070 at the earliest. But the ice pack has shrunk far faster than any scenario scientists felt policymakers should consider; now researchers say the region could see ice-free summers within 20 years.

Sea-level rise is another. In its 2001 report, the IPCC predicted an annual sea-level rise of less than 2 millimeters per year. But from 1993 through 2006, the oceans actually rose 3.3 millimeters per year, more than 50 percent above that projection.

Some climate researchers also worry that recent institutional changes could accentuate the organization's conservative bias in the fifth IPCC assessment, to be released in parts starting in September 2013.

The tendency to underplay climate impacts needs to be recognized, conclude the authors of a recent paper exploring this bias. Failure to do so, they wrote in their study published last month in the journal Global Environmental Change, "could prevent the full recognition, articulation and acknowledgement of dramatic natural phenomena that may in fact be occurring."

http://www.dailyclimate.org/tdc-newsroom/2012/12/ipcc-climate-predictions

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

georgeob1 wrote:

Then explain why the IPCC estimates for warming have been so consistently higher than the uncooperative earth has delivered. That is the essence of real science.

The essence of science is to respect facts, George... Give it a try for a change.

That is exactly what I suggested you do.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

I always stick to facts as I know them.

In this particular case, the fact is that the IPPC has systematically underestimated global warming outcomes.

The main reason, as I gathered, is that they don't want to scare people too much... GW doubters, as I explained above, are basically cowards. Fear is their main motivation, their main reason to deny science. Mindful of this tendency, the IPPC has tried to err on the side of optimism. Theirs are conservative estimates. The reality will be far harsher.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

The IPCC has been making forecasts for the expected average temperature rise expected over the coming decade since 1990, with about three major revisions since then. Their first forecast in 1990 was high by a factor of about 4. They have gotten better since then, lowering the forecast rises but are still higher than what is actually measured.

I have no idea about what you are referring to by "systematically underestimating global warming outcomes" unless you are referring to some future predicted outcome. My point about the relation of their predictions to actual observed fact and measurement remains accurate.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

The IPCC has been making forecasts for the expected average temperature rise expected over the coming decade since 1990, with about three major revisions since then. Their first forecast in 1990 was high by a factor of about 4. They have gotten better since then, lowering the forecast rises but are still higher than what is actually measured.

And you can prove that, or should we take your word for it?

1 Reply

Global Environmental Change

February 2013, Vol.23(1):327–337, doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.10.008

Climate change prediction: Erring on the side of least drama?
by Keynyn Brysse, Naomi Oreskes & Michael Oppenheimer

Abstract

Over the past two decades, skeptics of the reality and significance of anthropogenic climate change have frequently accused climate scientists of “alarmism”: of over-interpreting or overreacting to evidence of human impacts on the climate system. However, the available evidence suggests that scientists have in fact been conservative in their projections of the impacts of climate change. In particular, we discuss recent studies showing that at least some of the key attributes of global warming from increased atmospheric greenhouse gases have been under-predicted, particularly in IPCC assessments of the physical science, by Working Group I. We also note the less frequent manifestation of over-prediction of key characteristics of climate in such assessments. We suggest, therefore, that scientists are biased not toward alarmism but rather the reverse: toward cautious estimates, where we define caution as erring on the side of less rather than more alarming predictions. We call this tendency “erring on the side of least drama (ESLD).”

We explore some cases of ESLD at work, including predictions of Arctic ozone depletion and the possible disintegration of the West Antarctic ice sheet, and suggest some possible causes of this directional bias, including adherence to the scientific norms of restraint, objectivity, skepticism, rationality, dispassion, and moderation. We conclude with suggestions for further work to identify and explore ESLD.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378012001215

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

Foofie wrote:

Olivier5 wrote:

Are you a representative of the U.S.A. hinterland culture, Foofie? I'm trying to figure out what it looks like.

I represent no one, except my Ashkenazi genome. Have a happy Passover.

You too.

Why the reference to the US hinterland culture then? Are these people dear to your heart or important to you in other ways?

Since, many respresent those families that came here prior to 1850, and I just respect there "old line" heritage. You might not connect the dots, but many of those that are dissatisfied with society reflect ethnics that came here after 1850, and naturally are often not the bigger landowners, nor representative of those pretty towns with pretty church spires and the mid 20th century social mores. So, they are still quite numerous, but just don't get noticed in the media that seems to pander to the teeming masses in urban America.

It's there sons and daughters that tend to join the current volunteer military. If you ask them what nationality they are, they would most likely answer, "American." Notice no hyphenated identity, with an accompanying "narrative" to explain their patriotism, even though they like the "hyphen." I personally believe the hhinterland identity looks at the U.S.A. , more often from the standpoint of what will look good for posterity (aka, the history books). Perhaps, (as I heard a pundit explain on radio right after the 2016 election) many did not vote in the 2008 and 2012 elections for President, since that did allow Obama to have won, and that looks good for posterity. Then when the threat of a liberal Supreme Court was in the offing, they voted in 2016. Voila: Trump.

2 Replies

@Foofie,

their?

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

[And you can prove that, or should we take your word for it?

It's all readily available. Do your own research.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

Olivier5 wrote:

[And you can prove that, or should we take your word for it?

It's all readily available. Do your own research.

So you can't prove it, huh?

And for a very good reason: because it's not true... You read it on a fake news site and naively believed it. Anxious as you are to feel reassured.

For one thing, the IPPC is not in the business of predicting the next decade's temperatures. That's not what they do.

For another, their predictions have frequently underestimated GW outcomes, such as the speed at which the Artic is melting.

And tbe IPPC long term predictions re. temperatures haven't changed much since the 1990's. The data since then have only confirmed the predictions.

You should read their reports. Educate yourself.

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

Plants like CO2, but we're dumping far too much of it for them to make a noticeable difference. And a big volcano eruption would slow the thing for a few years at most....

I had assumed you were going to explain the great catastrophe to me. Was I mistaken?

1 Reply

@McGentrix,

Scaring you is way too easy.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

their?

Your are correct. It should be "their."

0 Replies

@Foofie,

Ah okay. You like them hinterlanders because they elected Trump.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

Scaring you is way too easy.

I'm not scared at all. In a past life I did extensive research on the effects of elevated CO2 levels on flora and fauna. I know that greenhouse gas emissions will not have "catastrophic" effects on Earth.

May suck to live on an island in the Ocean though.

1 Reply

@McGentrix,

Quote:

I know that greenhouse gas emissions will not have "catastrophic" effects on Earth.

Assuming you mean "on mankind", that's wishful thinking. You don't "know" any such thing. At best you hope, at worse you are lying to yourself.

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

Ah okay. You like them hinterlanders because they elected Trump.

I liked them for decades. They just have an unencumbered American identity, and more likely to have social mores that reflect an era I just got to see the tail end of. But, you likely might not know the nuances within the term "hinterland." I am talking about "white Protestant America." Their sons and daughters join the volunteer military for reasons you might not relate to. Put it this way, while most of us here are American citizens, and value that identity, they seem to value it from a more long range perspective. Sort of like a corporate CEO that manages for the short term profits, or the corporate CEO that manages for the long term profit. There's a difference. But, why are you so interested? Just being curious, or you are trying to understand the U.S. beyond what you get from the media?

1 Reply

@Foofie,

I always loved John Wayne, and Clint Eastwood, and the Little House in the Prairie...

1 Reply

Brexit. Why do Brits want Out of the EU?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know