Weather forecasting (short term) is different from climate (long term) forecasting.
The former is done with more consistency than the latter.

Did you skim the report?
I find it interesting that orbital projections have not been (to my knowledge) factored in climate modeling projections in IPCC reports. At least I dont think they have with any consistency.
The sun has essentially been dismissed as not having any significant bearing on climate change.

Does this mean ice ages are largely determined by orbital deviations?
Was the last little ice age caused by one?

Dexter wrote:https://quadrant.org.au/magazine/2015/0 ... e-science/

Quadrant is an extreme right wing Australian magazine which for many years was funded by the CIA through the Congress for Cultural Freedom as a prime front of the propaganda war against communism. Matt Ridley is one of those duplicitous Tories who are able to sound reasonable and intelligent, but in fact are entirely driven by political interests and have no credibility, and contribute to the ongoing propaganda war in defence of fossil industry as an ossified continuation of the Cold War.

There should be debate about how to address climate change since there is no scientific consensus on that. But if Ridley implies that there is uncertainty that human CO2 emissions are the principal cause of dangerous warming he is a denialist as bad as Holocaust Denialists.

Now I have read Ridley's article, which is an even more appalling and imbecilic piece of fossil propaganda than I had imagined. I take back my previous comment that he is able to sound reasonable. This article by Ridley is nothing but hysterical malicious nonsense.

For example, Ridley suggests we "rely on a tireless but self-funded investigative journalist: the Canadian Donna Laframboise". How desperate and threadbare can you get? This is the lady who is cheered by fox news for her maliciously stupid implication that people who pursue a higher degree in climate science are incompetent and unqualified.

The Ridleys of this world have an agenda of mendacious distortion, sowing doubt from the tobacco industry playbook in order to support corporate stock prices. The real debate is how we manage climate change, not whether it is happening.

The idea from Ridley that climate change might not be dangerous is as plausible as the argument that tobacco is good for your health. Completely contradicted by all real science and supported only for commercial motives.

The current state of climate science is pretty nebulous, I think. We can draw a big inference that our carbon emissions can and do contribute to the greenhouse effect. But, as they say, the devil is in the details.

I was wondering lately about the extreme drought experienced in the U.S. and other areas of the world in 1930s, one of the worst in 300 years, that led to the Dust Bowl and exodus out of the plains states. If this happened today, I'm pretty sure some would try to connect it to anthropogenic emissions. It's easy to draw such correlations, but as we know, correlation doesn't equal causation. The 1930s drought seems to be cyclical event and such droughts happen on a fairly regular basis. I haven't heard of anyone trying to retrofit the facts of the 1930s drought to climate change, but I wouldn't be surprised if someone did.

I'm currently reading Ursula le Guin's 1971 dystopian novel, The Lathe of Heaven, which is set in what was then the future—probably the 1990s in Portland. The world has warmed considerably due to the greenhouse effect. There's no snow anywhere in the world, even Kiliminjaro and the arctic region are completely devoid of snow and ice. And, in Portland, it is literally constantly raining and no one really remembers what a blue sky looks like. I thought this was interesting because it shows a fairly early conception of global warming, which has since changed quite a lot. We know now, for example, that different parts of the world are going to have different levels of warming.

Speaking of droughts and similar natural calamities, the IPCC in 2005 predicted that warming would displace 50 million "climate refugees" by 2010.

What year is it?

ant wrote:Speaking of droughts and similar natural calamities, the IPCC in 2005 predicted that warming would displace 50 million "climate refugees" by 2010.

What year is it?

What exactly does the IPCC state? It probably uses language—like "could" or "might"—to underscore the uncertainties involved.

Those are great probabilistic scientific words, huh?

Are you concerned about your future?
Let me know: i am a fotune teller. I can create a personal horoscope that's exceptionally accurate.
You'll be coming back for more.

By the way, the IPCC has moved that prediction to 2020.
So, it may come true after all.
If not, there's always 2025 and 2030

ant wrote:Those are great probabilistic scientific words, huh?

Are you concerned about your future?
Let me know: i am a fotune teller. I can create a personal horoscope that's exceptionally accurate.
You'll be coming back for more.

By the way, the IPCC has moved that prediction to 2020.
So, it may come true after all.
If not, there's always 2025 and 2030

I thought we already established that the IPCC is more of a political body? But regardless, it would be interesting to see the precise language being used. How disingenuous is the IPCC?

I can appreciate the concern over climate change and trend indications that point to a warming planet.
But the IPCCs broadcasting "predictions" of massive refugee doomsday scenarios?

That seems very close to a mixture of science and propaganda.

But of course if you question that you can be branded a denielist of the same kind as those that deny the Holocaust.
Only an old fool, a very old and myopic old fool, would ever try that rhetorical tactic.

ant wrote:I can appreciate the concern over climate change and trend indications that point to a warming planet.
But the IPCCs broadcasting "predictions" of massive refugee doomsday scenarios?

That seems very close to a mixture of science and propaganda.

Certainly the IPCC, being a quasi-political body, does delve into propaganda. However, this article suggests the annual report is actually becoming more cautious and backing off making alarmist predictions. For example, the 2014 report debunks its own previous predictions of climate refugees.

Here's an excerpt:

“The current alarmist predictions of massive flows of so-called ‘environmental refugees’ are not supported by past experiences of responses to droughts and extreme weather. Predictions for future migration flows are tentative at best.”

As the IPCC delves deeper into the science and responds to criticisms, it shows an ability for self-correction. This inspires more confidence and makes it a more credible organization.

Also, whether or not warming trends turn out to be manmade, the IPCC seems to be doing pretty important work here, preparing us for possible future droughts and food problems arising from a warmer planet. According to the article, the IPCC report is becoming more nuanced and less alarmist as time goes on.

"The world is more complicated, the scientists who prepared the draft conclude. The lesson of their report is that climate change will be implicated in a vast array of global ills, but it will rarely be the sole cause. . . . The message is clear. We may not be able to make hard and fast predictions, but prudency requires that we prepare for the worst."

http://e360.yale.edu/feature/un_climate ... ions/2750/