Support the Arctic Sea Ice Forum and Blog

Author Topic: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences  (Read 668153 times)

KiwiGriff

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 225
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 110
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #2400 on: August 24, 2019, 09:20:11 PM »
Quote
May his brother rapidly die of heartbreak,
Way to nice.
May he have an epiphany, grok the full consequence of his and his Brothers actions, and linger on to 101 dwelling on it constantly.


jai mitchell

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2041
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 80
  • Likes Given: 20
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #2401 on: November 10, 2019, 06:45:45 PM »
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/empowering-the-planet/how-scientists-got-climate-change-so-wrong/

How Scientists Got Climate Change So Wrong
Had a scientist in the early 1990s suggested that within 25 years a single heat wave would measurably raise sea levels, at an estimated two one-hundredths of an inch, bake the Arctic and produce Sahara-like temperatures in Paris and Berlin, the prediction would have been dismissed as alarmist.

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-linden-nobel-economics-mistake-20181025-story.html
Op-Ed: The economics Nobel went to a guy who enabled climate change denial and delay
Given such a tepid assessment of the threat, it is little wonder that Nordhaus’ biggest cheerleaders have come from the “do nothing about it” crowd. In 1997, for instance, William Niskanen, then chairman of the ultra-conservative Cato Institute, seized on Nordhaus’ estimates to argue before Congress that it was premature to take action on climate change because “the costs of doing nothing appear to be quite small.”

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/scientists-have-been-underestimating-the-pace-of-climate-change/
Scientists Have Been Underestimating the Pace of Climate Change
Consistent underestimation is a form of bias—in the literal meaning of a systematic tendency to lean in one direction or another—which raises the question: what is causing this bias in scientific analyses of the climate system?

https://www.themonthly.com.au/issue/2019/august/1566136800/jo-lle-gergis/terrible-truth-climate-change
The terrible truth of climate change
When the IPCC’s fifth assessment report was published in 2013, it estimated that such a doubling of CO2 was likely to produce warming within the range of 1.5 to 4.5°C as the Earth reaches a new equilibrium. However, preliminary estimates calculated from the latest global climate models (being used in the current IPCC assessment, due out in 2021) are far higher than with the previous generation of models. Early reports are predicting that a doubling of CO2 may in fact produce between 2.8 and 5.8°C of warming. Incredibly, at least eight of the latest models produced by leading research centres in the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada and France are showing climate sensitivity of 5°C or warmer.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2019MS001739?af=R
UKESM1: Description and evaluation of the UK Earth System Model
Abstract
We document the development of the first version of the United Kingdom Earth System Model UKESM1. The model represents a major advance on its predecessor HadGEM2‐ES, with enhancements to all component models and new feedback mechanisms. These include: a new core physical model with a well‐resolved stratosphere; terrestrial biogeochemistry with coupled carbon and nitrogen cycles and enhanced land management; tropospheric‐stratospheric chemistry allowing the holistic simulation of radiative forcing from ozone, methane and nitrous oxide; two‐moment, five‐species, modal aerosol; and ocean biogeochemistry with two‐way coupling to the carbon cycle and atmospheric aerosols. The complexity of coupling between the ocean, land and atmosphere physical climate and biogeochemical cycles in UKESM1 is unprecedented for an Earth system model. We describe in detail the process by which the coupled model was developed and tuned to achieve acceptable performance in key physical and Earth system quantities, and discuss the challenges involved in mitigating biases in a model with complex connections between its components. Overall the model performs well, with a stable pre‐industrial state, and good agreement with observations in the latter period of its historical simulations. However, global mean surface temperature exhibits stronger‐than‐observed cooling from 1950 to 1970, followed by rapid warming from 1980 to 2014. Metrics from idealised simulations show a high climate sensitivity relative to previous generations of models: equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) is 5.4 K, transient climate response (TCR) ranges from 2.68 K to 2.85 K, and transient climate response to cumulative emissions (TCRE) is 2.49 K/TtC to 2.66 K/TtC.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1554-z
Climate and air-quality benefits of a realistic phase-out of fossil fuels
Abstract
The combustion of fossil fuels produces emissions of the long-lived greenhouse gas carbon dioxide and of short-lived pollutants, including sulfur dioxide, that contribute to the formation of atmospheric aerosols1. Atmospheric aerosols can cool the climate, masking some of the warming effect that results from the emission of greenhouse gases1. However, aerosol particulates are highly toxic when inhaled, leading to millions of premature deaths per year2,3. The phasing out of unabated fossil-fuel combustion will therefore provide health benefits, but will also reduce the extent to which the warming induced by greenhouse gases is masked by aerosols. Because aerosol levels respond much more rapidly to changes in emissions relative to carbon dioxide, large near-term increases in the magnitude and rate of climate warming are predicted in many idealized studies that typically assume an instantaneous removal of all anthropogenic or fossil-fuel-related emissions1,4,5,6,7,8,9. Here we show that more realistic modelling scenarios do not produce a substantial near-term increase in either the magnitude or the rate of warming, and in fact can lead to a decrease in warming rates within two decades of the start of the fossil-fuel phase-out. Accounting for the time required to transform power generation, industry and transportation leads to gradually increasing and largely offsetting climate impacts of carbon dioxide and sulfur dioxide, with the rate of warming further slowed by reductions in fossil-methane emissions. Our results indicate that even the most aggressive plausible transition to a clean-energy society provides benefits for climate change mitigation and air quality at essentially all decadal to centennial timescales.

Quote
Note: the last looks at the potential locked in warming under reasonable mitigation if ECS is 6C and the total aerosol forcing is -1.9Watts per meter squared.  The image below shows this committed warming -- these ECS and Aerosol forcing parameters are now becoming the middle estimate.
Haiku of Past Futures
My "burning embers"
are not tri-color bar graphs
+3C today

TerryM

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 5213
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 395
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #2402 on: November 10, 2019, 07:30:17 PM »
^^
Jai
Remember that the "Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences" is awarded by "The Svergies Risbank Prize in Economics in Memory of Alfred Nobel", a very conservative group that has no connection to the Nobel Committees that chooses actual Nobel Prize winners. There is no "Nobel Prize in Economics".

The name of the prize was obviously intended to deceive.
Terry

jai mitchell

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2041
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 80
  • Likes Given: 20
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #2403 on: November 10, 2019, 11:13:12 PM »
^^
Jai
Remember that the "Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences" is awarded by "The Svergies Risbank Prize in Economics in Memory of Alfred Nobel", a very conservative group that has no connection to the Nobel Committees that chooses actual Nobel Prize winners. There is no "Nobel Prize in Economics".

The name of the prize was obviously intended to deceive.
Terry

As was the entire body of work by Nordhaus and his parasitic water carrier Tol.
Haiku of Past Futures
My "burning embers"
are not tri-color bar graphs
+3C today