Shouldn't the title of this topic be listed in the comedy section?

Or perhaps the deception section

Rising sea level:
Peer review paper - http://www.the-cryosphere-discuss.net/7/1987/2013/tcd-7-1987-2013.pdf

"Most glaciers and ice caps (GIC) are out of balance with the current climate. To return
to equilibrium, GIC must thin and retreat, losing additional mass and raising sea level."

"We compiled all available AAR observations for 144 GIC from 1971–2010 and found that most glaciers and ice caps are farther from balance than previously believed. Accounting for regional and  global10 undersampling errors, our model suggests that GIC are committed to additional  losses of 30 ± 11 % of their area and 38 ± 17 % of their volume if the future climate resembles the climate of the past decade. These losses imply global mean sea-level rise of 163±73 mm, assuming total glacier volume of 430 mm sea-level equivalent. To reduce the large uncertainties in these projections, more long-term glacier measurements are needed in poorly sampled regions."

Ocean Acidification:
Peer review paper - http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-012-0591-5

The above article sites 53 experts for their consensus in the following:
""We find a relatively strong consensus on most issues related to past, present and
future chemical aspects of ocean acidification: non-anthropogenic ocean acidification
events have occurred in the geological past, anthropogenic CO2 emissions are the
main (but not the only) mechanism generating the current ocean acidification event,
and anthropogenic ocean acidification that has occurred due to historical fossil
fuel emissions will be felt for centuries. "



"Experts generally agreed that there will be impacts on biological and ecological
processes and biogeochemical feedbacks but levels of agreement were lower,"



"The levels of agreement for statements pertaining to socio-economic impacts, such
as impacts on food security, and to more normative policy issues, were relatively low."



Aerosol heat increase:
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/3/034008

"Recent studies have suggested that the resultant decrease in aerosols could drive
rapid near-term warming, which could dominate the effects of greenhouse gas (GHG)
increases in the coming decades."

You read it right, a decrease in aerosols creating a temporary? short-term warming.

"the contribution of aerosol reductions to warming between 2000 and 2040 is around
30%."

"Thus, while aerosol emission reductions contribute to gradual warming through the
21st century, we find no evidence that aerosol emission reductions drive
particularly rapid near-term warming in this scenario. In the near-term, as in the
long-term, GHG increases are the dominant driver of warming."



Increase in violent storms:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1462901112000494

"Projections indicate an increase in intense tropical cyclone activity, but overall
a decrease or little change in the total number of cyclones."

That's a pretty big post and it will take some time to go through the points. Perhaps it would be better on its own thread.

The point about aerosols is valid, but I don't think anybody was trying to hide anything. It has long been known that if it wasn't for the enormous emissions of aerosols, global warming would be much more serious.

I've pointed this out before that if all the Chinese steel plants and other industries that are allowed to emit particulates were to close down today, the net effect would be warming.

Ajax wrote on Sep 16^th, 2013 at 9:57am:



Where are you getting this term "computer circulation models" from?

Ajax wrote on Sep 16^th, 2013 at 9:57am:

Ajax has just described the perils of forecasting for complex systems! WOWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW!!! 

Vuk11 wrote on Sep 15^th, 2013 at 11:45pm:


I realise that it's Burt Rutan's analysis, but the aerosols are from manmade pollution. Currently they are negating some of the radiative forcing from CO2. If and when the aerosol emissions are reduced, the warming will be from that CO2.

It's an unusual way of looking at it. It's a bit like saying that hot weather is not caused by the sun, but by the clouds clearing.

Vuk11 wrote on Sep 15^th, 2013 at 11:56pm:


How critical is that anyway? The Madden Julian Oscillation is a very short term phenomenon. Typically it comes around every 3 weeks or so. I remember following it around during the wet seasons of 2010 and 2011.  I don't think its necessary for long term climate predictions. It can be factored in empirically.

Quote:


That doesn't really mean much without contextual information.

Quote:


That's a basic shortcoming of scientists generally. Risk communication. There is a serious risk, but communicating that risk by just using cold factual evidence is not really effective. What is really needed is to put things into a useful  context for non scientists.

Risk communication is an interesting area. Have a look at Peter Sandman's site. He is probably the foremost expert on risk communication. There is nothing sinister about it. It's just putting things in a way that means something to people.  He used to have some great case studies on Risk Communication. I presented a paper on the subject about 15 years ago. It was controversial because it related to scientists communicating to corporate management as opposed to the public.  Another speaker from the CSIRO had a few issues but he finally realised that it's a very similar problem.   

http://www.psandman.com/

Quote:

[/quote]

Quite frankly I think it would be counter productive.  The atmospheric CO2 is not coming down any time soon and those organisms that will be killed off by it won't recover if we reverse the trend. It's not a big ticket issue as I see it. There are much bigger issues.

I once suggested bioengineered forams that would absorb carbonate quicker and die quicker, thus increasing the rate of the oceanic carbon sink. Even if this was considered at some future date, it would take thousands of years to work.

Chimp_Logic wrote on Sep 20^th, 2013 at 10:55pm:


Hey chimp

What are you saying..........??????

Are you saying that most of that doomsday prophecy coming from the IPCC is actual real world data.

I cant believe you're that naïve....are you......?????

Most of their doomsday data comes from computer models.

And we all know about computers right chimp....!!!

Sh!t in........Sh!t out...........!!!!!