• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Interim update of IPCC AR5 published

Threegoofs

Threegoofs

Sophisticated man-about-town
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 31, 2013
Messages
63,494
Reaction score
28,834
Location
The city Fox News viewers are afraid to travel to
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The Royal Society has published a nice, easily readable document updating the state of the science since the publication of AR5.

Climate updates: progress since the fifth Assessment Report (AR5) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) | Royal Society

It addresses the fake pause, how climate sensitivity seems to be more likely on the mid to high end of the range, and the extent of sea level rise.

Very well done.

Of course, it’s from the Royal Society, and not some amateur denier blog, so I assume most of the people in this forum won’t find it as credible as the climate work they do from their own armchair, but here ya go anyway.
 
Threegoofs said:
The Royal Society has published a nice, easily readable document updating the state of the science since the publication of AR5.

Climate updates: progress since the fifth Assessment Report (AR5) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) | Royal Society

It addresses the fake pause, how climate sensitivity seems to be more likely on the mid to high end of the range, and the extent of sea level rise.

Very well done.

Of course, it’s from the Royal Society, and not some amateur denier blog, so I assume most of the people in this forum won’t find it as credible as the climate work they do from their own armchair, but here ya go anyway.
Click to expand...

And these same citizens don't believe in the Controlled Narrative from the MSM. Friggin' unbelievable. News in the USA is a commodity, bought and sold.
/
 
Book Review
Mirrors and Mazes: A guide through the climate debate

From the “smoke and mirrors” department.

Two leading USA scientists have acclaimed a little known book for its ability to show everyday people, not just scientists, the wonder of the climate system and how carbon dioxide is not driving modern climate change. The accolades are from world famous physicist, Emeritus Professor William Happer (who has advised President Trump on climate change), Princeton University, and Dr Willie Soon, Senior Researcher, Harvard-Smithsonian Centre for Astrophysics.
The short 175 page book, titled Mirrors and Mazes: A guide through the climate debate, was written by Dr. Howard Thomas Brady, an Australian scientist who studied in the USA and went on 4 expeditions to Antarctica with the US Office of Polar Programs.
The reader is invited to enter the climate debate, likened to a twisting maze or hall of mirrors, with dead-ends, illusions, traps – that are the lies, misinformation, over-simplifications and false prophecies.
The paperback version (2nd Edition) was released earlier in March 2017, but is now being released with Happer and Soon’s recommendations on the back cover. The book is also being released for the first time as a Kindle ebook.

 
Last edited:
I will say one thing, they know how to dance!
https://royalsociety.org/~/media/po.../27-11-2017-Climate-change-updates-report.pdf
They start with statement,
What do we know now?
Publications since AR5 continue to show equilibrium sensitivity estimates across the IPCC range. Those
based on past observations and energy-balance models generally produce lower values than those derived
from the more complex global climate models, including some suggesting ranges extending to values lower than
those of AR5.
Click to expand...
But then add (there is always a but),
There have, however, been advances in understanding of the reasons for this disparity.
Click to expand...
They then try to describe these advances without any qualifications.
One important advance is that it is now known that as the climate warms it becomes less effective at emitting
heat to space, mainly as a result of regional variations in surface warming.
Click to expand...
The above statement is a bit contrary to the second law of thermodynamics, which would have the
flow of energy increase as the difference between the energy source and the energy sink increased.
The also seem to be counting an El Nino temperature spike as part of the warming.
Summary
In the 2000s the rate of surface warming was slower than in some previous decades, but the
ocean continued to accumulate heat. Globally, 2015 and 2016 were the warmest years on record
and seen in this context the multi-decadal warming trend overwhelms shorter term variability.
Click to expand...

I am not sure this publication is helping their case!
 
Jack Hays said:
[URL="https://wattsupwiththat.com/category/book-review/"]Book Review[/FONT][/COLOR]
Mirrors and Mazes: A guide through the climate debate

From the “smoke and mirrors” department.

Two leading USA scientists have acclaimed a little known book for its ability to show everyday people, not just scientists, the wonder of the climate system and how carbon dioxide is not driving modern climate change. The accolades are from world famous physicist, Emeritus Professor William Happer (who has advised President Trump on climate change), Princeton University, and Dr Willie Soon, Senior Researcher, Harvard-Smithsonian Centre for Astrophysics.
The short 175 page book, titled Mirrors and Mazes: A guide through the climate debate, was written by Dr. Howard Thomas Brady, an Australian scientist who studied in the USA and went on 4 expeditions to Antarctica with the US Office of Polar Programs.
The reader is invited to enter the climate debate, likened to a twisting maze or hall of mirrors, with dead-ends, illusions, traps – that are the lies, misinformation, over-simplifications and false prophecies.
The paperback version (2nd Edition) was released earlier in March 2017, but is now being released with Happer and Soon’s recommendations on the back cover. The book is also being released for the first time as a Kindle ebook.
Click to expand...
heh heh.
Remember how the mantra by particular members has been that there was no pause?
Tom Karl did his damnedest with a paper to blame it on bad data and they jumped on it as something to repeat.

By this thread it looks like certain people still speak in links they themselves haven't read.
Well even the Royal Society has acknowledged that, yes, there was a pause.
But they haven't given up trying to explain it or why their models hadn't forecast it.
IT'S THOSE DAMNED AEROSOLS PEOPLE !!!!

Doesn't it sound like there should be an AGW theory movie plot in here somewhere ... Die Hard Without Pause
 
longview said:
I will say one thing, they know how to dance!
https://royalsociety.org/~/media/po.../27-11-2017-Climate-change-updates-report.pdf
They start with statement,
What do we know now?

But then add (there is always a but),

They then try to describe these advances without any qualifications.

The above statement is a bit contrary to the second law of thermodynamics, which would have the
flow of energy increase as the difference between the energy source and the energy sink increased.
The also seem to be counting an El Nino temperature spike as part of the warming.


I am not sure this publication is helping their case!
Click to expand...

The pause stuff jumped off the page to me.
 
longview said:
I will say one thing, they know how to dance!
https://royalsociety.org/~/media/po.../27-11-2017-Climate-change-updates-report.pdf
They start with statement,
What do we know now?

But then add (there is always a but),

They then try to describe these advances without any qualifications.

The above statement is a bit contrary to the second law of thermodynamics, which would have the
flow of energy increase as the difference between the energy source and the energy sink increased.
The also seem to be counting an El Nino temperature spike as part of the warming.


I am not sure this publication is helping their case!
Click to expand...

Yes, I’m sure the Royal Society doesn’t understand the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

That’s a comfy armchair you got there.
 
Threegoofs said:
Yes, I’m sure the Royal Society doesn’t understand the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Click to expand...
Well let's look again at their statement,
"One important advance is that it is now known that as the climate warms it becomes less effective at emitting
heat to space, mainly as a result of regional variations in surface warming."
They are stating that a warmer atmosphere is less effective at emitting energy to space.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics is very clear, the greater the difference in energy, the more the energy flows.
Had the authors added a supporting paragraph as to mechanism, it may have been plausible.
Since they choose to leave the statement as an unsupported stand alone statement,
it is in contradiction to the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
 
longview said:
Well let's look again at their statement,
"One important advance is that it is now known that as the climate warms it becomes less effective at emitting
heat to space, mainly as a result of regional variations in surface warming."
They are stating that a warmer atmosphere is less effective at emitting energy to space.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics is very clear, the greater the difference in energy, the more the energy flows.
Had the authors added a supporting paragraph as to mechanism, it may have been plausible.
Since they choose to leave the statement as an unsupported stand alone statement,
it is in contradiction to the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Click to expand...

Yes, the Royal Society doesn’t understand junior high physics as well as you.

You got em! And right from your armchair!
 
Threegoofs said:
Yes, the Royal Society doesn’t understand junior high physics as well as you.

You got em! And right from your armchair!
Click to expand...
So do you think the entire Royal Society participated in the editing of the paper?
 
longview said:
So do you think the entire Royal Society participated in the editing of the paper?
Click to expand...

Yes. Your insinuation is spot on.

It wasn’t the Royal Society that issued this report, it was just ‘pundits’.

The Royal Society hasn’t bothered to protest, because they don’t really care about science and stuff that much.

Another armchair dismantling! Bravo!
 
Very interesting report. I copied just the summaries, which are quite telling (2 are omitted, because the context is required).

In 2013, the IPCC report stated that a doubling of pre-industrial carbon dioxide concentrations
would*likely produce a long-term warming effect of 1.5 to 4.5°C; the lowest end of that range
now*seems less likely.

After an apparent slow-down between 1999 and 2006, atmospheric methane concentrations
have entered a period of sustained growth, increasing their contribution to surface warming.

In the 2000s the rate of surface warming was slower than in some previous decades, but the
ocean continued to accumulate heat. Globally, 2015 and 2016 were the warmest years on record
and seen in this context the multi-decadal warming trend overwhelms shorter term variability.

Global mean sea level will likely rise by no more than a metre by 2100, but if warming is not
limited, then its effects on the ocean and ice sheets could make a rise of several metres
inevitable over centuries to millennia.

The long-term decrease in Arctic sea ice extent continues and the effect of ice loss on weather
at mid-latitudes has become a subject of active scientific research and debate.

Climate change has increased the frequency of heatwaves. The effect on rainfall and tropical
storms is more complex and harder to detect, but there is strengthening evidence that
warming*may increase the intensity of the strongest tropical storms.

Carbon dioxide emissions are resulting in warming, deoxygenation and acidification of the
ocean and this poses significant risk to ocean ecosystems including those relied on for food
and*livelihoods.

Increasing carbon dioxide can increase crop yields while high temperature and drought in
some*regions can decrease them. The aggregate impact at global level is for climate change
above 2°C to reduce yields.

Climate change will lead to reductions in water resources in many water-stressed regions,
particularly in the dry subtropics, but the changes will vary between regions and there remains
considerable uncertainty in the magnitude of change.

Extinction rates are expected to rise, particularly at higher rates of climate change,
and most seriously for those species unable to adapt in response.

Human health will be affected by climate change in multiple ways, with impacts including
those*from extreme heat, food availability, and changes in the geographical occurrence
of*infectious diseases.
 
OK, if CO2 is more likely to have more warming, how do they make such a claim when also saying methane has increase more than normal?

Are you guys claiming methane has something like 86 times the potency of CO2?
 
Lord of Planar said:
OK, if CO2 is more likely to have more warming, how do they make such a claim when also saying methane has increase more than normal?

Are you guys claiming methane has something like 86 times the potency of CO2?
Click to expand...

Maybe if you read the text instead of the chapter headings, you’ll actually grasp the material.

Most of us learned that freshman year of college, but it sounds like you missed that education step, so it’s understandable.
 
Threegoofs said:
Yes. Your insinuation is spot on.

It wasn’t the Royal Society that issued this report, it was just ‘pundits’.

The Royal Society hasn’t bothered to protest, because they don’t really care about science and stuff that much.

Another armchair dismantling! Bravo!
Click to expand...
As I said, your assumption is that the entire Royal Society is responsible for the report,
when in reality it is the output of a team whose editors may not have known they were excluding relevant data.
 
longview said:
As I said, your assumption is that the entire Royal Society is responsible for the report,
when in reality it is the output of a team whose editors may not have known they were excluding relevant data.
Click to expand...

Yes. Yet another brilliant deduction!

I'm sure the Royal Society didn't bother to consult with experts when writing this report. They are a notoriously amateur organization, probably because of their short historical experience with science.

Another armchair scientist success!
 
Threegoofs said:
Yes. Yet another brilliant deduction!

I'm sure the Royal Society didn't bother to consult with experts when writing this report. They are a notoriously amateur organization, probably because of their short historical experience with science.

Another armchair scientist success!
Click to expand...
And yet an obvious error managed to get into their report!
 
Threegoofs said:
Yes. If only they knew junior high physics as well as you do.

You should probably write a strongly worded letter. Anonymously, of course.
Click to expand...

Choosing to ignore the Second Law of Thermodynamics is not a minor mistake.
If Earth atmosphere gets warmer, it will radiate more energy to the sink of space.
 
longview said:
Choosing to ignore the Second Law of Thermodynamics is not a minor mistake.
If Earth atmosphere gets warmer, it will radiate more energy to the sink of space.
Click to expand...

You nailed it.

I really don’t know why you aren’t a fellow of the AAAS or the Royal Society. You know so much more than those who have dedicated their lives to studying this.

So impressed.

[emoji934]
 
Threegoofs said:
You nailed it.

I really don’t know why you aren’t a fellow of the AAAS or the Royal Society. You know so much more than those who have dedicated their lives to studying this.

So impressed.

[emoji934]
Click to expand...
You are well versed in Physics, are you?
 
longview said:
You are well versed in Physics, are you?
Click to expand...

This isn’t about me.

It’s about your perceptive observation that the Royal Society doesn’t understand Elementary school physics.

Keep going with your brilliant insights. You’re doing great, Dr Armchair!
 
The Royal Society seems to have swung and missed.

Climate Updates from The Royal Society (AKA The Alarmists’ Inventive Inventory of More Bad News)

Posted on 29 Nov 17 by SCEPTICUS • Leave a comment

The Royal Society has produced a new report to try to maintain the climate scare, providing an update on the last IPCC report (AR5) that came out in 2013. It’s in two parts, a document that summarises their main points in a non-technical way, starting off with “Climate change is one of the defining issues of our time” and a supporting document that includes references to new papers published since AR5. Unsurprisingly, the main message is “it’s worse then we thought”. The authors include several of the familiar “usual suspects” with a solid track record in alarmism and exaggeration, such as Joanna Haigh, Ed Hawkins, Gabriele Hegerl and Brian Hoskins.
The report addresses 13 questions, some of which we have looked into, see below. . . .

 
longview said:
And yet an obvious error managed to get into their report!
Click to expand...

They aren't in error. The 2nd applies to a closed system - one where energy cannot enter or leave. They atmosphere is not a closed system.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom