Climate change...accurate assessment or guesswork...?
Here is part of the IPCC report of 2007... The panel predicted global average temperature rises of 2 to 11.5 degrees Fahrenheit by the year 2100. That was a wider range than in the 2001 report.
However, the panel also said its best estimate was for temperature rises of 3.2 to 7.1 degrees Fahrenheit. In 2001, all the panel gave was a range of 2.5 to 10.4 degrees Fahrenheit.
On sea levels, the report projects rises of 7 to 23 inches by the end of the century. An additional 3.9 to 7.8 inches are possible if recent, surprising melting of polar ice sheets continues......
So what is it going to be...temperature rises of 3.2 or 7 degrees... Sea rises of 7 or 23 inches?
We all agree the IPCC predictions are based on computer modeling, but surely if we are going to be asked to invest untold billions to correct the problem, shouldn't we expect a bit more certainty.
If my doctor said I had cancer and said I had 7 to 23 weeks to live, I think I would seek a second opinion
JimZ2010-07-09T15:35:51Z
Favorite Answer
It is guess work. It is ignorance parading as genius. It is fools leading fools. It is socialists fantasizing that they have finally put the nail in the fossil fuel coffin. You will find all sorts of evidence for this. Look at some of Trevor's previous answers. It is dripping with hatred of Exxon Mobil. The same can be said of other alarmists as well.
Dana suggested earlier today that CO2 was 100 per cent responsible for the rise in temperature in the last 40 years. You could hardly find a more asinine statement. It has been warming for about 300 years. Certainly the first 260 years of that 300 were not due to man. Man has probably added to some of that rise in the last 40 years but we don't know how much. Suggestions that we do are unscientific political grandstanding and they come from the particularly harmful and ruinous politics.
When Gorbachev and socialism were thrown on the ash heaps of history, they resurrected themselves in the green movement. Suggestions that these anti-capitalists represent science is reprehensible to me and I tend to get a little emotional and irritated at the suggestion (not that you made it).
You’ve basically answered your own question. If your doctor diagnoses you with a terminal condition then he knows you will die but can’t say when, you could seek 2nd, 3rd, 4th opinions and all the doctors will confirm what’s wrong and what will ultimately happen but you’ll still end up with a range of dates.
What you seem to be implying is that because scientists can’t be precise then they shouldn’t be trusted. Presumably therefore you’d also dismiss the diagnoses of the all various doctors.
There are too many variables within the climatic systems to be precise, as we learn more the range is narrowing. In respect of temperatures for example, about 90% of predictions put the most likely temp increase by the year 2100 at between 2.5°C and 3.5°C but in order to accommodate uncertainties a range of between 1°C and 5°C would most likely be given.
We have no idea either what adaptation strategies humans will adopt, this is perhaps the single biggest factor that will affect the climate in the next 100 years. If we do nothing then temps are going to rise significantly more than if we implement effective greenhouse gas reduction schemes.
Without a time machine we can’t assign values to the human influence and therefore there are significant inhernet uncertainties.
- - - - - - -
EDIT: TO JIM.
24th occasion now. Where have I ever said that I have a hatred of Exxon – never. Show me the evidence!
Of course, that doesn’t stop you inventing your own version of events and attributing totally fallacious attributes to people. It’s appears quite obvious that you can’t handle the truth so invent your own as you go along.
It’s s documented fact that Exxon and other companies paid scientists to produce reports that discredited the theory of global warming. It’s a legal requirement that these companies produce annual accounts and reports. I know it’s highly inconvenient for the deniers but these are the facts of the matter.
Clearly you have a problem with anyone and everyone that doesn’t share your beliefs and this manifests itself through your constant, unsubstantiated, irrelevant and erroneous ad-hominem attacks on people. This does nothing to further your cause and only serves to demonstrate your alarming inability to construct a rational argument. It’s precisely the same psychological technique that kids use in a schoolyard.
- - - - - - - - -
COMMENT TO OLD MAN MTN:
Your argument may sound convincing to those with little scientific comprehension but your entire argument is based on specific heat capacities. I’d suggest you recalculate your figures and take into account the infrared spectral absorption bands of the greenhouse gases.
the actually standards must be that anybody who buys 32ml petrol isn't damaging. The making plans fee means that spending Rs 5.5 on cereals in step with day is powerful sufficient to maintain human beings healthful. in addition, a daily spend of Rs a million.02 on pulses, Rs 2.33 on milk and Rs a million.55 on fit for human intake oil must be sufficient to grant sufficient foodstuff and keep human beings above the poverty line without the will of backed rations from the government. It extra means that basically Rs a million.ninety 5 on vegetables an afternoon may be sufficient. somewhat extra, and one might finally end up outdoors the social protection internet. human beings must be spending under 40 4 paise on culmination, 70 paise on sugar, seventy 8 paise on salt and spices and yet another Rs a million.fifty one on different ingredients in step with day to qualify for the BPL checklist and for subsidy under diverse government schemes. someone using extra advantageous than Rs 3.seventy 5 in step with day on gasoline to run the kitchen is doing properly as in step with those figures. forget with regard to the gasoline value hike and sky-rocketing rents, if all and sundry living in the city is spending over Rs 40 9.10 a month on lease and conveyance, she or he ought to omit out on the BPL tag.
There are genetic medical conditions where, if their parent has the disease, there is a certain chance that they will get this disease as well. The thing is, they are saying there is going to be warming. How much warming is dependent on various feedbacks and such. They do realize that man has an impact on the environment.
Edit: And Old Man seems to have debunked the entire greenhouse effect. Who knew that the greenhouse effect actually cooled the Earth rather than warmed it. And with highschool science no less!
The range of possible temperature changes are based on different emissions scenarios. The lower end is based on a scenario where we dramatically decrease anthropogenic CO2 emissions. The higher end is if we continue in a business as usual, high emissions scenario.
A more accurate analogy is if your doctor tells you that if you keep smoking you'll only live 10 years, if you quit smoking you'll live 50 years. You're criticizing your doctor for giving you a large range (10-50 years) of possible lifespans. Your criticism is completely unwarranted because the range is based on different scenarios, not one scenario.
In other words, your assumption that the large range of IPCC temperature projections is based on model uncertainties is wrong. It's mainly based on input (CO2 emissions scenarios) uncertainties. As we all know, CO2 is driving global warming, but we can't look into the future and see how our CO2 emissions will change. So the IPCC creates these scenarios - if CO2 emissions change by 'x', the global temperature will change by 'y' (and sea level will rise by 'z'). See the link below for more details.
*edit* you have to love jim, whose entire answer is basically "all climate scientists and everyone who I disagree with are socialists." He can't go 2 sentences without calling someone a 'leftist' or 'socialist'. He rants about political biases and yet provides zero scientific evidence to back up any of his completely bogus claims. What a joke.