What, me worry?

[bluesmoke]

The consensus is not what you think it is, and the opinions of people, yes even scientists, does not mitigate the evidence.
Please link to some of this evidence you seem to think they followed?
looking at the literature, what we see, are assumptions, not evidence.
I want to say Hansen, et al 1997, assumed that 2XCO2 forcing would be equal to a 2% increase in solar output,
and went from that assumption.

There are answers to what you ask. But, after the many questions you've asked to which I've answered, you've yet to answer one particular question of mine (among others): How many scientists and recognized organizations disagree with the IPPCC position on AGW?

All you can do is dredge up another technical point to debate when all of such is in constant review by the scientists that determine the significance and how that fits into the whole of the subject. You’ve not given a comprehensive position, just segmented points. I can’t even guess how many technical points that could be endlessly debated as if individually that point changes the whole of the argument.

I’m agreeing with the IPCC position and none of what you bring up has been decided by the scientific community as significantly changing that position. Your just finding stuff to argue about.

 

[Jack Hays]

There are answers to what you ask. But, after the many questions you've asked to which I've answered, you've yet to answer one particular question of mine (among others): How many scientists and recognized organizations disagree with the IPPCC position on AGW?

All you can do is dredge up another technical point to debate when all of such is in constant review by the scientists that determine the significance and how that fits into the whole of the subject. You’ve not given a comprehensive position, just segmented points. I can’t even guess how many technical points that could be endlessly debated as if individually that point changes the whole of the argument.

I’m agreeing with the IPCC position and none of what you bring up has been decided by the scientific community as significantly changing that position. Your just finding stuff to argue about.

So what?

 

[Bergslagstroll]

UN's Secretary-General Antonio Guterre plan to make an important stand by stopping countries that ignore the urgent need for action on climate change, from talking at the upcoming U.N. Climate Action Summit.

"United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres drew praise Wednesday for taking what supporters called a "powerful stand" to address the climate crisis. Guterres will reportedly exclude major economies, including the United States, from talking at the upcoming U.N. Climate Action Summit because of their failure to produce appropriately ambitious climate plans and their ongoing support for coal.

"This really is something. Thanks to Antonio Guterres," tweeted 350.org co-founder Bill McKibben.

Leslie Hook reported at the Financial Times Tuesday on the exclusions, citing a draft schedule of the summit, set take place Monday. Australia, Japan, South Korea, and South Africa will be snubbed over their continued support for coal. Brazil and Saudi Arabia, both of whom have criticized the Paris climate accord, will also be blocked. The Trump White House, which announced its plans to ditch the deal, will also not be afforded a speaking slot, Hook reported."

'This Really Is Something': UN Chief Praised for Move to Block Coal-Backing Nations From Speaking at Climate Summit | Common Dreams News

 

[Jack Hays]

UN's Secretary-General Antonio Guterre plan to make an important stand by stopping countries that ignore the urgent need for action on climate change, from talking at the upcoming U.N. Climate Action Summit.

"United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres drew praise Wednesday for taking what supporters called a "powerful stand" to address the climate crisis. Guterres will reportedly exclude major economies, including the United States, from talking at the upcoming U.N. Climate Action Summit because of their failure to produce appropriately ambitious climate plans and their ongoing support for coal.

"This really is something. Thanks to Antonio Guterres," tweeted 350.org co-founder Bill McKibben.

Leslie Hook reported at the Financial Times Tuesday on the exclusions, citing a draft schedule of the summit, set take place Monday. Australia, Japan, South Korea, and South Africa will be snubbed over their continued support for coal. Brazil and Saudi Arabia, both of whom have criticized the Paris climate accord, will also be blocked. The Trump White House, which announced its plans to ditch the deal, will also not be afforded a speaking slot, Hook reported."

'This Really Is Something': UN Chief Praised for Move to Block Coal-Backing Nations From Speaking at Climate Summit | Common Dreams News

Trump already announced he would skip the feckless "summit."

 

[longview]

There are answers to what you ask. But, after the many questions you've asked to which I've answered, you've yet to answer one particular question of mine (among others): How many scientists and recognized organizations disagree with the IPPCC position on AGW?

All you can do is dredge up another technical point to debate when all of such is in constant review by the scientists that determine the significance and how that fits into the whole of the subject. You’ve not given a comprehensive position, just segmented points. I can’t even guess how many technical points that could be endlessly debated as if individually that point changes the whole of the argument.

I’m agreeing with the IPCC position and none of what you bring up has been decided by the scientific community as significantly changing that position. Your just finding stuff to argue about.

Do you know the IPCC's position? IPCC AR5 still says the range of ECS is 1.5 to 4.5 C, and they could not agree on a best estimate of ECS.
Please consider that most of the IPCC reports are "What If" reports, What If, this warming prediction is accurate,
what if this sea level prediction is accurate, ect. The physical basis report is the part where the accuracy would be determined,
but when you read it, no accuracy has been established, they cannot even agree on a best estimate of ECS.
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf

16 No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies.QUOTE]
This is nice language for the modeled results did not match up with the results based on observation.
Many of the Scientist who worked on AR5, published an article of their findings that did not make it into the final report.
https://pure.mpg.de/rest/items/item_1752487_5/component/file_1963877/content

The most likely value of equilibrium climate sensitivity based on the energy budget of the most recent decade is 2.0 °C

I guess they found a best estimate!

 

[bluesmoke]

Do you know the IPCC's position? IPCC AR5 still says the range of ECS is 1.5 to 4.5 C, and they could not agree on a best estimate of ECS.
Please consider that most of the IPCC reports are "What If" reports, What If, this warming prediction is accurate,
what if this sea level prediction is accurate, ect. The physical basis report is the part where the accuracy would be determined,
but when you read it, no accuracy has been established, they cannot even agree on a best estimate of ECS.
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf

16 No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies.QUOTE]
This is nice language for the modeled results did not match up with the results based on observation.
Many of the Scientist who worked on AR5, published an article of their findings that did not make it into the final report.
https://pure.mpg.de/rest/items/item_1752487_5/component/file_1963877/content

I guess they found a best estimate!

You referred to an IPCC range of increase by year 2100 as 1.5 – 4.5 C. You also referred to that “most likely value of equilibrium climate sensitivity based on the energy budget of the most recent decade is 2.0 °C” (although the IPCC figure is 2.5) . So, that would be, what, +3.5 F? Now, let me refer you to an IPCC excerpt from a UN climate report:

“…any temperature rise above 1.5 degrees will lead to major and irreversible damage to the ecosystems that support us,”
https://www.un.org/en/climatechange/assets/pdf/CAS_main_release.pdf

What you call an “estimate” is, in scientific term, a hypothesis, aka “scientific guess” which is a step in the scientific process before drawing a conclusion, as the IPCC has done, that you have an otherwise, unsupported, opinion.

Just for grins and giggles, the CIA makes estimates in analyzing nuclear missiles and warheads systems, including astronautics:

Scientific Estimating — Central Intelligence Agency

All you do is bring up technical points that do not change the majority position, or you might call it “plurality” if that makes you feel better.

You still can’t give/specify a substantive response to what I asked. I think we’re done here.

 

[longview]

Do you know the IPCC's position? IPCC AR5 still says the range of ECS is 1.5 to 4.5 C, and they could not agree on a best estimate of ECS.
Please consider that most of the IPCC reports are "What If" reports, What If, this warming prediction is accurate,
what if this sea level prediction is accurate, ect. The physical basis report is the part where the accuracy would be determined,
but when you read it, no accuracy has been established, they cannot even agree on a best estimate of ECS.
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf




You referred to an IPCC range of increase by year 2100 as 1.5 – 4.5 C. You also referred to that “most likely value of equilibrium climate sensitivity based on the energy budget of the most recent decade is 2.0 °C” (although the IPCC figure is 2.5) . So, that would be, what, +3.5 F? Now, let me refer you to an IPCC excerpt from a UN climate report:

“…any temperature rise above 1.5 degrees will lead to major and irreversible damage to the ecosystems that support us,”
https://www.un.org/en/climatechange/assets/pdf/CAS_main_release.pdf

What you call an “estimate” is, in scientific term, a hypothesis, aka “scientific guess” which is a step in the scientific process before drawing a conclusion, as the IPCC has done, that you have an otherwise, unsupported, opinion.

Just for grins and giggles, the CIA makes estimates in analyzing nuclear missiles and warheads systems, including astronautics:

Scientific Estimating — Central Intelligence Agency

All you do is bring up technical points that do not change the majority position, or you might call it “plurality” if that makes you feel better.

You still can’t give/specify a substantive response to what I asked. I think we’re done here.

Please get your stuff straight,
The IPCC says the range estimate for ECS for doubling the CO2 level is 1.5 to 4.5 C, it is not attached to a time frame.
The Otto article was again referring to ECS based on doubling the CO2 level, and said that based on recent observation
the best estimate for (2XCO2) ECS was 2C.
As to estimates of irreversible damage to the ecosystems that support us, that is pure speculation,
There is no runaway warming in our future, and 1.5 C is only .6 C above the current level.
To get to 1.5 C in the next 40 years would look much like the warming of the last century.

 

[Surface Detail]

Please get your stuff straight,
The IPCC says the range estimate for ECS for doubling the CO2 level is 1.5 to 4.5 C, it is not attached to a time frame.
The Otto article was again referring to ECS based on doubling the CO2 level, and said that based on recent observation
the best estimate for (2XCO2) ECS was 2C.
As to estimates of irreversible damage to the ecosystems that support us, that is pure speculation,
There is no runaway warming in our future, and 1.5 C is only .6 C above the current level.
To get to 1.5 C in the next 40 years would look much like the warming of the last century.

You're forgetting thermal inertia again, which means that we haven't yet seen the full consequences of greenhouse gas emissions to date. For example, median estimates for eventual sea level rise are 2.3 m per °C (though there is a great deal of uncertainty in this figure as well as uncertainty on how long it would take to reach the new equilibrium level). A rise of 2°C above the pre-industrial temperature would therefore give an eventual sea level rise of around 4.6 m.

Sea Level Rise | Smithsonian Ocean

 

[longview]

You're forgetting thermal inertia again, which means that we haven't yet seen the full consequences of greenhouse gas emissions to date. For example, median estimates for eventual sea level rise are 2.3 m per °C (though there is a great deal of uncertainty in this figure as well as uncertainty on how long it would take to reach the new equilibrium level). A rise of 2°C above the pre-industrial temperature would therefore give an eventual sea level rise of around 4.6 m.

Sea Level Rise | Smithsonian Ocean

What you describe as thermal inertia, is the predicted feedback, so far there only appears to be minimal positive net feedback.

Your linked article would lead us to believe that the rate of sea level rise has doubled since 1990,
yet when we look at the global table of tide gauges, there does not appear to be any strong inflection points
or changes in trends.
Sea Level Trends - NOAA Tides & Currents
What is clear is that whatever the rate of rise at a location, it seems consistent, if the record is close to complete.

 

[Bergslagstroll]

New very worrying report about the devastating effects of climate change.

'Extreme sea level events that used to happen once a century will occur every year in many parts of the world by the middle of the century because of global warming, the UN climate science panel has warned.

In a wide-ranging report on how oceans, glaciers and ice sheets will react to a warming world, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change hiked upwards its future projections for how much the seas could rise. Ko Barrett of US government agency NOAA says: “Sea level rise and associated impacts threatens the lives and livelihoods of large segments of our population.”*

IPCC report: Sea levels could be a metre higher by 2100 | New Scientist

 

[Lord of Planar]

New very worrying report about the devastating effects of climate change.

'Extreme sea level events that used to happen once a century will occur every year in many parts of the world by the middle of the century because of global warming, the UN climate science panel has warned.

In a wide-ranging report on how oceans, glaciers and ice sheets will react to a warming world, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change hiked upwards its future projections for how much the seas could rise. Ko Barrett of US government agency NOAA says: “Sea level rise and associated impacts threatens the lives and livelihoods of large segments of our population.”*

IPCC report: Sea levels could be a metre higher by 2100 | New Scientist

Did you read it al all?

Worse case scenario 1.1 meters. Worse case assessments will never happen, because the RCP 8.5 is a total joke.

I'm surprised anyone is still ignorant enough to trust the IPCC.