Quote:
Originally Posted by freebeard
I don't get it. Something about dropping out the uncertainty in each model and ascribing an overall uncertainty, and conflating absolute and deviation measures.
Then she says it could be worse. Couldn't it also be better? |
No, the IPCC has already been 'sugar-coating' every prediction they've ever published, shielding the unaware 'reader' from the 'margins' of extrapolations.
'ALL' general circulation models predict 'non-linear' warming.
They all use something akin to 'Monte Carlo' simulations just to tease out 'trends' from the scatterplots of data you see for the 14-different models.
'Imperfect' as they all are, they 'HAVE' successfully predicted global warming since 1988.
The 'baseline' 'absolute' temperature is the 'pre-industrial' age temperature of 58-something degrees-F, from around 1850.
We've already blown past the IPCC's 2-C target, we just won't 'experience' it until after we shut down all coal-fired power plants, globally, and give a few months for the sulfate aerosols to precipitate out of the sky, 'ending' the 'parasol-effect.'
You'll see the 80-foot sea level rise then. It's 'baked-in' to how things will unfold.
That's what she should be 'afraid' of.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Presently, there's a pause in the Atlantic's main development zone for tropical storms, exactly due to the Saharan dust plume's 'parasol-effect,' limiting solar heating of the sea surface, which will resume as soon as the easterly winds abate. Come September, the water will be the hottest, and convective-available-potential -energy ( CAPE ) will be the most powerful, fueling the hurricanes back to CAT-5 capabilities.