|
|
Post by lazarus on Sept 10, 2010 0:24:21 GMT 1
That is the question that a team of scientists ask. It calculates 'committed emissions' the emissions that our current fossil-fuel infrastructure will emit. "Scientists analyzed the existing fossil-fuel infrastructure to determine how much greenhouse gas emissions we have committed to if all of that kit is utilized for its entire expected lifetime. The answer: an average of 496 billion metric tons more of carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere between now and 2060 in "committed emissions"".
"Plugging that roughly 500 gigatonne number into a computer-generated climate model predicted CO2 levels would then peak at less than 430 ppm with an attendant warming of 1.3 degrees C above preindustrial average temperature. "
www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=guaranteed-global-warming-with-existing-fossil-fuel-infrastructure
"This would keep the total amount of warming, since pre-industrial times, to less than 3.6ºF (2ºC), according to the study.
This amount of warming happens to be the threshold identified by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as important for avoiding the worst impacts of climate change."
"The worst impacts are going to be from infrastructure that has yet to be built,"
news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/09/100909-energy-warming-stop-building/ |
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Sept 10, 2010 0:39:58 GMT 1
The models do not contain any realistic negative feedback effects, only "amplification" of the so-called greenhouse warming.
That is just ONE of their many omissions. Climate sensitivity to an increase in temperature (from ANY cause not just CO2) is probably, therefore, grossly overstated. The effect of ghg warming is probably mitigated by atmospheric behaviour that is not even understood never mind incorporated into the models. The climate system has "thermostats" that prevent runaway heating.
|
|
|
|
Post by lazarus on Sept 10, 2010 2:57:14 GMT 1
The models do not contain any realistic negative feedback effects, only "amplification" of the so-called greenhouse warming. I didn't realise you were such an expert on climate modelling, have you any evidence that they don't contain 'any realistic negative feedback effects'? You either made this up or fell for the nonsense that some one else made up because all current climate models use both types of feedback. Though I'm happy for you to name a model that doesn't. |
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Sept 10, 2010 6:49:33 GMT 1
How much did WWF pay you to post that lazarus? Would you make such a public arse of yourself if you weren't anonymous?  |
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Sept 10, 2010 15:54:53 GMT 1
"all current climate models use both types of feedback."
And do they perfectly mimic the real world, Havelock? My, my! How clever these "modellers" are. Do you think they ever get outdoors? And do these models make perfect predictions?
What happened to Hansen's "model" used in 1988 to predict a rise of several degrees fahrenheit by the end of the century? I won't even mention the flooding of the Westside Highway - I know that is a sore point with you re your map-reading ability.
His model was WRONG. They are all WRONG. It is hubris to believe we can come close to even a simple model of the chaotic multi-dimensional climate system. Averaging all the WRONG models will not make them right, either! That's been tried, too. Idiots. GIGO.
|
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Sept 10, 2010 16:03:32 GMT 1
 Here is a graph of Hansen's three scanarios. Blue "business as usual" as he called it on the video.. Red - some CO2 reduction Yellow - all out blitz on CO2 Well, we continued with the business as usual and CO2 is considerably higher today than in 1988. BUT what has happened to temperatures? They are below the yellow line that Hansen thought was the very best achievable with big cuts in CO2 and sea-level rise is almost imperciptible. HIS model and everyone else's are rubbish! |
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Sept 10, 2010 16:07:15 GMT 1
|
|
|
|
Post by lazarus on Sept 12, 2010 18:51:08 GMT 1
And do they perfectly mimic the real world, No Mary, that is why they are called models. All branches of science use them ans the climate ones are a lot better than your cronies at Watts Wrong With That or where ever are letting on. |
|
|
|
Post by lazarus on Sept 12, 2010 19:05:19 GMT 1
Here is a graph of Hansen's three scanarios. Blue "business as usual" as he called it on the video.. Red - some CO2 reduction Yellow - all out blitz on CO2 What video? What you have said is compley untrue. Three different scenarios were used A, B, and C. They consisted of hypothesised future concentrations of the main greenhouse gases – CO2, CH4, CFCs etc. together with a few scattered volcanic eruptions. The details varied for each scenario, but the net effect of all the changes was that Scenario A assumed exponential growth in forcings, Scenario B was roughly a linear increase in forcings, and Scenario C was similar to B, but had close to constant forcings from 2000 onwards. NONE were business as usual and definatedly NONE were all out blitz on CO2. Hansen specifically stated that he thought the middle scenario (B) the “most plausible”. I don't know where you got your graph - let me guess Watts Wrong With That? Here is the proper one; www.realclimate.org/images/Hansen06_fig2.jpgPretty close to B or C and consider this was done over two decades ago when computers were less powerful than your phone. Current models are much better. Mary, answer me this, this graph was done twenty odd years ago, if AGW is a crock how did they know temperature would continue rising for over a generation? Seems a rather lucky guess unless climatologists do know what they are on with. Do you think it was just a lucky guess? |
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Sept 12, 2010 20:20:34 GMT 1
I don't think it was particularly a lucky guess to assume that temperatures would continue to rise in an oscillating manner since that is what has happened since since the end of the Little Ice Age - three periods of warming all at a similar rate according to Phil Jones here news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8511670.stm1976 was the year of the "Great Pacific Climate Shift" when PDO went from cool into warming mode and, for the only time ever recorded (1975-1998) the CO2 emissions followed a similar slope as supposed global mean temperature. Apart from that brief 25 year period the two variables have parted company. Since circa 2000 the rise in temperature has plateaued off. Well, it does in the non-Hansen global databases, anyway. GISS is still pretending they are on a catastrophic rise to climate apocalypse  |
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Sept 12, 2010 20:26:58 GMT 1
So nice to see you and your alter ego, Havelock, back from your weekend away. Do you give yourself a rest from blogging every so often? Jolly good idea. Exhausting is it? Must be with two such prolific sockpuppets yapping away nineteen to the dozen from morning till night.
|
|
|
|
Post by lazarus on Sept 13, 2010 15:58:16 GMT 1
You didn't answer the question. What video shows Hansen say his blue tract is business as usual?
|
|
