You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
-Signs, Portents, and the Weather-
Study: Radical Climate Change Just around the Corner
2013-10-11
[An Nahar] Earth may experience a radically different climate already within 34 years, forever changing life as we know it, said a study Wednesday that aims to bring the dangers of global warming into sharper focus.
"We calculate a probability at the 99% confidence interval of between 0 and 1," concluded the study authors.
On current trends of greenhouse-gas emissions, 2047 will mark the year at which the climate at most places on Earth will shift beyond documented extremes, it said.
Or not, as the case may be. It depends if one believes the 73 IPCC models or the actual data, donchaknow.
This date is pushed back to 2069 under a scenario in which fossil-fuel burning emissions are stabilized, said an analysis of climate projections published in the journal Nature.
Anyone remember GIGO (garbage in, garbage out)?
"The results shocked us," lead author Camilo Mora of the University of Hawaii's geography department said of the findings.

"Within my generation, whatever climate we are used to will be a thing of the past."
In fact, everything we are or are not currently used to will then be things of the past, because we humans are capable of moving only one direction in time.
Most climate studies predict average, global shifts by a randomly-chosen cutoff date like 2100.
Yes. Yes, they do. Odd, that, given the data and all..
The new study took a different tack by distinguishing between different areas of the world, and seeking to identify the year in which climate change will cross the threshold where weather events once viewed as extreme become the norm.
Remember the fate of Cassandra and beware. Nobody loves a true prophet, but everyone hates a false one.
It looked at effects such as air and sea-surface temperature, rainfall and ocean acidity.
What about thunderstorm formation ringing warm surface temperatures high into the atmosphere to be radiated out into space? Sunspot activity? Deep ocean currents? Increased plant growth in response to higher carbon dioxide levels?
"Regardless of the scenario, changes will be coming soon," said Mora -- forcing species to adapt, move or die out.
Yep. Even in these modern times evolution continues to occur.
Posted by:Fred

#15  * FYI see NBC NEWS, FREEREPUBLIC, + TOPIX > ASTRONOMERS SAY THEY'VE SPOTTED A LONESOME [purple/purplish-colored] PLANET WIDOUT A SUN.

D *** NG IT, REMINDS ME OF THE PURPLE PLANET-A-THINGY [apparition?] I SPOTTED OVER GUAM'S HAGATNA BAY/WESTPAC ONE LATE NIGHT SEVERAL MONTHS AGO.

Roughly in the same strategic place in the sky, but moving in the opposite/reverse driection, as the later CHELYABINSK twin bolides that exploded over Mama Russia earlier this yeear. Russia thinks the Chelybinsk bolides may had come from a family of siblings out in space.

[SUN GOD PHOEBUS APOLLO + TWIN SISTER-GODDESS PHOEBUS CYNTHEIA here].
Posted by: JosephMendiola   2013-10-11 20:00  

#14  The problem could also be that there are several factors that are not included in the model that are actually very critical to the real climate.

Like that big bright orb in the sky every day. Of course, you can't really extort money from the rubes if there's nothing you can do about it.
Posted by: Procopius2k   2013-10-11 18:40  

#13  The problem with the model could be GIGO. The problem could also be that there are several factors that are not included in the model that are actually very critical to the real climate. This could because scientists aren't aware of their importance, or they don't have the data for those variables. The worst case would be that they know about the variables, and their values, but when they add the information to the models, it doesn't give the results they want.
Posted by: Rambler in Virginia   2013-10-11 18:29  

#12  "Whatever happened to the 'hole in the ozone layer'?"

Good question, OCCD.

I've got another question along those lines:

Since we didn't know about the "hole in the ozone layer" until we put up satellites, how to we know it's hasn't been around for centuries (or millinnia)?

Anyway, I'm sure you're right - duct tape can fix anything. ;-p
Posted by: Barbara   2013-10-11 17:37  

#11  Do your really think anyone in their right mind is paying attention to this blather on "Radical Climate Change"?

Frankly, I'm not because I know I will be dead within these 34 years. Thus I don't give a flying f*ck and I do tell people they are >ssholes if they bother to repeat such sh-t, to there face.

Posted by: Snineger Ghibelline1693   2013-10-11 15:40  

#10  We need these people to be held accountable when they recommend such massive/expensive/life changing things and they turn out to be so wrong.

It would at least get them to calm down on overblowing the rhettoric every time.
Posted by: rjschwarz   2013-10-11 14:41  

#9  BP, you are so right, BUT, we can't make the assumption that the original garbage was an error.

I presume that they knew what would happen to the result (or close enough) depending on the selected input and selected accordingly.

You should have seen my retirement funding when I entered a 25% yearly rate of return...after all it was just an estimate. ;^)
Posted by: AlanC   2013-10-11 11:47  

#8  GIGO is a best case.

Recursively using outputs as inputs (for t+1) EXPONENTIALLY RAISES the ERROR.

if the error in the model or reading is 5%
after 10 (days) there's 41% error.
Posted by: Bright Pebbles   2013-10-11 11:10  

#7  Where are the error bars? They show two different emission scenarios, but no estimate of the systematic error in the model.

The numbers are probably OK, provided they are given appropriate error estimates. Given the near-term climate history (Ice Ages), I'd go with +-100KY.
Posted by: James   2013-10-11 11:04  

#6  Whatever happened to the "hole in the ozone layer"? Does it not fit the current agenda, or did we fix it with duct tape?
Posted by: OCCD   2013-10-11 09:26  

#5  1. Global warming is occurring. (So is Climate Change.)
2. It has been going on with only small interruptions for the past 10,000 years.
3. Some component is due to CO2 production. Also methane release. Amount uncertain.
4. Many other factors are also in play - both man-influenced and not.
5. Some of those other man-influenced factors counteract the warming effect. Amount uncertain.
6. The science is not even close to 'settled.'
7. If burnable carbon can be burned it will be, by someone, fairly soon. No Treaty will change that.
8. The 'powerful ones' are fully aware of point 7, so the intentions are not to modify climate but to redistribute wealth, from US/EU to everyone else, and from suckers to connected individuals.
Posted by: Glenmore   2013-10-11 08:30  

#4  Hmmmmmm...looks like this merits more study. Johnson, where's that grant paperwork?
Posted by: tu3031   2013-10-11 08:25  

#3  RIV, you put it so nicely.

I've had 30+ years in the software business and have created many models and analysed many more.

GIGO is the flaw in most all of them. People don't realize how simple the concept of a model is. Anyone who has ever created a spreadsheet has created a model.

Enter wanky data and you can get pretty much any result you want. (you should have seen my retirement fund when I got optimistic)

Crap, crap and more crap.
Posted by: AlanC   2013-10-11 08:01  

#2  Since all the models that the IPCC and other doomsayers used failed to predict the current non-warming, they are all BS.
Posted by: Rambler in Virginia   2013-10-11 01:54  

#1  How many of these doomsday scenarios from previous years have actually panned out? G. F. Yourselves...
Posted by: Raj   2013-10-11 00:17  

00:00