Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

University of Victoria researchers model worst-case climate change scenario
MetroNews Canada ^ | May 23, 2016 | by Matt Kieltyka

Posted on 05/24/2016 4:52:18 AM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer

Study forecasts global temperature increases of up to 9.5 degrees C.

The unmitigated burning of Earth's remaining fossil fuels would cause global warming on a scale bigger than previously anticipated, according to a new study out of the University of Victoria.

Katarzyna Tokarska, a PhD student at the university, is the lead author of a new paper titled "The climate response to five trillion tonnes of carbon".

Previous modelling, including those used by the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, use projections that assume just two trillion tonnes of carbon would be released.

(Excerpt) Read more at metronews.ca ...


TOPICS: Canada; Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; News/Current Events; US: New York
KEYWORDS: 2016election; canada; climategate; election2016; epa; globalwarminghoax; hoax; marxism; newyork; popefrancis; romancatholicism; socialism; trump
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-23 next last

Katarzyna Tokarska

1 posted on 05/24/2016 4:52:18 AM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

The article is totally lacking a time frame?

Makes no real difference.

The weather forecasters show little accuracy beyond a few days.

Ten year(?) forecasts not valid.


2 posted on 05/24/2016 5:01:41 AM PDT by DUMBGRUNT (Looks like it's pretty hairy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer
A paper by a graduate assistant (that's what we called a PhD candidate in my day). And it would be nice to know what her major is beyond inserting that aardvark snout up the rump of her leftist luddite professors.
3 posted on 05/24/2016 5:05:38 AM PDT by katana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

So now it’s just carbon? Not carbon dioxide? That stuff that plants breathe?

Some days it’s really difficult for me not to commit genocide.


4 posted on 05/24/2016 5:05:45 AM PDT by Snowybear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

So if I don’t believe this, should I be jailed?


5 posted on 05/24/2016 5:06:11 AM PDT by duckworth (Perhaps instant karma's going to get you. Perhaps not.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: duckworth

>>> So if I don’t believe this, should I be jailed? <<<

Yes, until you agree to surrender all your liberty to government master minds — move to Venezuela.


6 posted on 05/24/2016 5:10:34 AM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer (The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Snowybear
So now it’s just carbon? Not carbon dioxide? That stuff that plants breathe?

Yes, it's all that billowing black soot that, on a good day, blocks out the sun...

Oh wait!

That's China....never mind.

7 posted on 05/24/2016 5:31:30 AM PDT by ROCKLOBSTER (Trump: A Bull in a RINO closet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer
Back in my ignorant high school days I'm ashamed to say I was a leader in the environmental movement and helped organize the first earth day events at the 4,000 student high school. We even got classes cancelled so students could attend boring earth days speeches.

Back then a big deal was fear of global cooling. IIRC there was even a Fortune magazine cover story about it.

It was also known that there were centuries of oil in shake, but there was no known way to extract it. So now that that problem's been solved, the anti-progress folk have changed global cooling to global warming.

It's like the demonic pervert agenda. They aren't satisfied with any small change made, but will keep pushing until everyone is walking around naked having public sexual experiences with whoever and whatever and whenever they want. In other words, they want to bring hell to earth.

Environmentalists are likewise out to undermine our way of life, want to reduce the number of humans alive, and send everyone back to a sustenance economy. They are are evil, not knowing by whom they serve, but it's the same fear-based master of the demonic perverts.

8 posted on 05/24/2016 5:36:45 AM PDT by The Truth Will Make You Free
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: katana

LOL!


9 posted on 05/24/2016 5:54:17 AM PDT by Psalm 144 (This year we break the Uniparty or it breaks us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

Small lie didn’t work, so use the big one.


10 posted on 05/24/2016 5:59:19 AM PDT by palmer (Net "neutrality" = Obama turning the internet over to foreign enemies)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer
She and her team ... set out to see what would happen to the planet if all of its estimated untapped fossil-fuel resources were burned.

In what timeframe? If we burned it all next week, next year, or over the next 100 years? Short timeframes are utterly unrealistic and worthless as scientific research. (though scary if you want to evoke an emotional response...) Longer timeframes are un-knowable because I guarantee you, 100% sure she and her "team" have no idea how the rest of the Earth's eco systems will evolve and respond. Nor do they have any idea what geological events may happen in the next 100 years, nor what solar cycles may occur. In other words, she is pedaling fantasy, a sci-fi thriller/horror flick. Her "research" has about as much to do with reality as some other grad student's film noir project.

“It’s relevant to know what would happen if we don’t take action to mitigate climate change.

Yes, it would be, however you do not. You've fallen into a classic trap - you actually believe your models reflect reality and that their predictions are right.

What is becoming more obvious, and thankfully somewhat more widely known, is that there are problems with the climate models. Actually there are numerous problems here that fall into several categories.

First, there are fundamental problems with the models. These include data accuracy and precision issues for anything collected more than a couple of decades ago. Then there are the issues with the "correction factors" and scaling factors applied to older data - which amount to little more than SWAGs. There are fundamental problems with how they are used. Climate models were created for the same reason so many other computer models are created: to help us better understand how a complex system works/reacts. That's right, they are created as a self-help learning tool, not because we already know. Not too many years ago many would have claimed they knew what they were doing. Remember "the science is settled?" Well, now it turns out they admit they didn't account for deep ocean currents. Then there was the little problem with how and how much moisture accumulates in the atmosphere. Most recently they're discovering solar cycles have much more of an impact than previously known. This is good, this is exactly why you model things - to learn how they work and test/confirm/deny your assumptions and understanding. But it also points out that we don't yet know. The problem is, this is not a case of if some is good, more is better. The models are intended to help us figure out how climate works. But they are known to be sensitive to input conditions. Tweak this parameter here, or that one there a little bit (eg. a percent or two) and the models tend to spin off into wildly unrealistic corner cases. Artificial limits within the models clamp them back into reasonable ranges. The gotcha is, the output of the models for say, a year from now are used as the input conditions to the 2nd year. The output from there as input into the 3rd year, and so on and so on. Very quickly all those little errors and uncertainties and variations in the output stack up to the point where the output from year X and into year Y is pure fantasy. It would be like bank the cue ball around the table 100 or even a million times and just tap that 8 ball in the corner pocket. These models were intended to help our understanding of the climate, and they are working - at that. They were never intended, and cannot realistically be used, to iterate off into the next century with any kind of hope of being right. You're more likely to predict the winner and score of the superbowl in 2075 - whose players and coaches haven't even been born yet. (seriously, you've at least got a 1/32 random chance of getting the winner right)

Finally, there are fundamental problems with the mathematics. Little things like precision and accuracy of the internal representation of the numbers in the models. (for you geek minded types out there google "IEEE 754 double") Note that this, and even extended or enhanced precision numerical representations all suffer from precision problems in extended calculations. But the problem is even more fundamental than that. The math is implacable. We just don't know how everything on Earth interacts. We're learning, from modeling, what is important and what isn't. But the further out you go, the more the little things that don't seem important in the model become important. Something that makes less than a 1% difference in the output of a model iterated to say 5 years, suddenly becomes very important if you're iterating out several decades. We're still learning (see above) what is important to consider/model even in the short term. I suspect the list of things that are important to model for long-term prediction expands at least geometrically the further out you model. The gotcha is, even if we figure out what should be on that list (a monumental task), even if we figure out how they interact (a Herculean task). Then there's the problem of actually computing it - the interactions of 8 million or so species over a mesh of about 15 million x 15 million x 15 million - if you want only 1 m resolution - which isn't great, think interaction of flocks of birds, insects, etc. that are much smaller. Add in all the other dimensions of variability, temperature, moisture, chemical content... The computing problem becomes intractable. Not even if we turned all the sand in the world into memory and processor chips, and burned all that fossil fuel to power it, could we run that computation. The data for one iteration alone would be about 8 million factorial X 15 million cubed X any other factors X size of the state data for that mesh...

But wait, our intrepid modelers and prognosticators are even more fundamentally shafted by mother nature and the real world. Even with perfect knowledge of the past (which we don't have), even with perfect knowledge of what factors are actually important (which we don't know), even with perfect knowledge of how it all interacts (which we are virtually clueless about), and even with the means to compute it all (which we'll never have)... Random chance will still come up and bite them. Statistically we know that there will be earthquakes, volcano eruptions, fires, meteors, etc. All these things will impact climate systems, yet we have no idea and no way of knowing if, when, or how much.

So saying, or even implying that you "...know what would happen..." is utterly idiotic and self-aggrandizing. She doesn't "know" {excrement}.

11 posted on 05/24/2016 6:07:21 AM PDT by ThunderSleeps (Stop obarma now! Stop the hussein - insane agenda!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer
I can come up with a much worse worst-case scenario than that, just send me a couple of 100k in research grants.

12 posted on 05/24/2016 6:10:35 AM PDT by BitWielder1 (I'd rather have Unequal Wealth than Equal Poverty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

That woman’s nose occupies at least two different climate zones.


13 posted on 05/24/2016 6:15:36 AM PDT by Right Brother
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

14 posted on 05/24/2016 6:15:43 AM PDT by xp38
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

15 posted on 05/24/2016 6:22:40 AM PDT by Travis McGee (www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

Not gonna happen, at least caused by CO2.

For the those who took real courses in college, e,g. STEM, check out how far the few spectral lines of heat that are absorbed by CO2 of 1900 proportions (roughly 40 feet) compare with today’s CO2 (roughly 30 feet).

In other words, CO2 is doing pretty much it can do already. The D grade “scientists” tried to use some modeling to show how this change would correlate with measured warming and not one result or prediction has proved true.

None.

Nada.

Climate changes...always has...always will.

Just not caused by us.


16 posted on 05/24/2016 6:39:45 AM PDT by Da Coyote
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

The model is counting on the stupidity of the common person not knowing that the CO2 put into the atmosphere year after year is constantly being converted into oxygen by photosynthesis. They want the stupid people to believe once CO2 goes into the atmosphere it stays there forever, evermore amassing like radiation.

That 5 trillion ton number is man-generated over many, many decades. It doesn’t stay there like the lump in my stomach when I hear such lying stupidity, insulting me thinking I’m so stupid I don’t know how things work.


17 posted on 05/24/2016 6:46:10 AM PDT by USCG SimTech
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: The Truth Will Make You Free

18 posted on 05/24/2016 6:55:29 AM PDT by KosmicKitty (Liberals claim to want to hear other views, but then are shocked to discover there are other views)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

Global Warming, if left unchecked!


19 posted on 05/24/2016 7:06:25 AM PDT by Rinnwald
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Truth Will Make You Free
"Back then a big deal was fear of global cooling."

That didn't have anything to do with CO2.

In the 70s it was recognized that sulfur emissions caused acid rain and that sulfate aerosols reflected sunlight which could cause cooling.

It takes time to reach political consensus, but eventually(1990) congress would amend the Clean Air Act to regulate/reduce sulfur emissions.

There are some people who erroneously say we have global warming only because we removed all the sulfate aerosols from the atmosphere.

Back then the sulfur emitters complained that the regulations would drive them all into bankruptcy and destroy the nation. Today, they say the carbon regulations will drive them all into bankruptcy and destroy the nation.

20 posted on 05/24/2016 7:21:33 AM PDT by Ben Ficklin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-23 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson