Comment on ‘Most’ versus ‘more than half’ versus ‘> 50%’ by Kristian

January 20, 2015, 3:58 am

≫ Next: Comment on ‘Most’ versus ‘more than half’ versus ‘> 50%’ by KenW

≪ Previous: Comment on ‘Most’ versus ‘more than half’ versus ‘> 50%’ by Jaime Jessop

$

0

0

“Well, here is how the AR5 states it:

It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together. The best estimate of the human induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period.”

I feel the most interesting part of this statement is not the first, but the second. They seem rather eager to suggest that in fact ALL OF the warming since 1951 was entirely our ‘fault’. After all, they go on:

“The observed warming since 1951 can be attributed to the different natural and anthropogenic drivers and their contributions can now be quantified. Greenhouse gases contributed a global mean surface warming likely to be in the range of 0.5°C to 1.3 °C over the period 1951−2010, with the contributions from other anthropogenic forcings, including the cooling effect of aerosols, likely to be in the range of −0.6°C to 0.1°C.”

That should be – according to the IPCC – a net range of anthropogenic ‘contributions’ to the general global temperature rise between 1951 and 2010 of 0.6 to 0.7°C.

So what about ‘natural factors’?

“The contribution from natural forcings is likely to be in the range of −0.1°C to 0.1°C, and from internal variability is likely to be in the range of −0.1°C to 0.1°C.”

That should make up – according to the IPCC – a total natural contribution to the general global temperature rise between 1951 and 2010 of exactly 0°C.

Well then, how much warmer on average – again according to the IPCC (HadCRUt4) – are we today than we were 60+ years ago?

A tad more than 0.6 degrees.

Gee. Doesn’t that fit rather neatly with the attribution assessment above?

So there’s been NO ocean cycle influence whatsoever over this period, the Great Pacific Climate Shift of 1976/77 had no impact at all on global temperatures. According to the IPCC.

Well, they seem pretty confident this is the case. So I’m sure they’ve done all they can to find it. And of course, there’s nothing in the actual, real-world data suggesting that the oceans had a say:

https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2014/07/30/modern-global-warming-in-three-steps-the-fairly-short-version/

Hence, it must be true.

---

Comment on ‘Most’ versus ‘more than half’ versus ‘> 50%’ by KenW

January 20, 2015, 4:15 am

≫ Next: Comment on ‘Most’ versus ‘more than half’ versus ‘> 50%’ by Ragnaar

≪ Previous: Comment on ‘Most’ versus ‘more than half’ versus ‘> 50%’ by Kristian

$

0

0

VeryTallGuy,

On one point agree with you,

You say:

“If there is a strong negative feedback in the climate system, be it clouds, lapse rate, etc it would preclude large temperature variations in global temperature caused by a perturbation in climate, regardless of the cause of the perturbation”

This is absolutely correct, and taken together with the fact that there have been many perturbations in the past, it indicates that the climate does not tend to spin out of control every time it gets perturbed. If it did have this tendency, then it would have spun out of control long ago. But it hasn’t, and we’re still here.

Comment on ‘Most’ versus ‘more than half’ versus ‘> 50%’ by Ragnaar

January 20, 2015, 9:14 pm

≫ Next: Comment on ‘Most’ versus ‘more than half’ versus ‘> 50%’ by aaron

≪ Previous: Comment on ‘Most’ versus ‘more than half’ versus ‘> 50%’ by KenW

$

0

0

“NOAA said there was a 48% chance that 2014 was the warmest year…” I don’t think he’s listening to the NOAA as he said what he said without qualifying it. One commentator mentioned that while Clinton triangulated with an opposed Congress, President Obama is doubling down. Clinton more moved to the middle.

Comment on ‘Most’ versus ‘more than half’ versus ‘> 50%’ by aaron

January 20, 2015, 9:28 pm

≫ Next: Comment on ‘Most’ versus ‘more than half’ versus ‘> 50%’ by Curious George

≪ Previous: Comment on ‘Most’ versus ‘more than half’ versus ‘> 50%’ by Ragnaar

$

0

0

JD,you misunderstand. As TCR was calculated, it would be reduced by other forcings.

Comment on ‘Most’ versus ‘more than half’ versus ‘> 50%’ by Curious George

January 20, 2015, 9:29 pm

≫ Next: Comment on ‘Most’ versus ‘more than half’ versus ‘> 50%’ by aaron

≪ Previous: Comment on ‘Most’ versus ‘more than half’ versus ‘> 50%’ by aaron

$

0

0

Rob – you give me a funny reference and then you ask me what I mean. Not really fair, but I don’t complain. My point is that an “abrupt climate shift” can easily go unnoticed. It took you 15 years to notice it. I never did. Tipping points – how scary.

Comment on ‘Most’ versus ‘more than half’ versus ‘> 50%’ by aaron

January 20, 2015, 9:33 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review by Don Monfort

≪ Previous: Comment on ‘Most’ versus ‘more than half’ versus ‘> 50%’ by Curious George

$

0

0

did them on another computer and didn’t save. I’ll redo if I can, but I have a job and severe chronic pain.

Comment on Week in review by Don Monfort

January 20, 2015, 9:34 pm

≫ Next: Comment on ‘Most’ versus ‘more than half’ versus ‘> 50%’ by dalyplanet

≪ Previous: Comment on ‘Most’ versus ‘more than half’ versus ‘> 50%’ by aaron

$

0

0

You are deja vuing me, willy. My son gave me the same crap almost verbatim, Saturday. He’s still running.

I know you’ll never see the light, willy. But I am going to keep on trying to help you.

Pretend that at some point in your life you started a business. I know it’s a stretch, but stay with me. You bought a lawn mower and some other gardening implements and you went about selling gardening services. You charged $10/hr, which was above market, but you were really good. You got very busy and had more business than you could handle. You hired a helper. Did you pay him $10/hr? I am guessing you paid him $5/hr, because you own the business, you made the investment, you have the sales ability, you got overhead, etc. If you pay him much more than that, you would be better off without him (review MR=MC). It’s not nearly a Living Wage, but the kid never had a job before, he needs money real bad to help his single mom, and he really appreciates the opportunity. He looks up to you as a father figure.

Uh,oh! The do-gooders raise the min wage to $8.50, making it illegal for you to keep the kid on, unless you pay the $8.50. You keep him on because that’s the kind of guy you are. You figure you will just raise your prices.

Uh, oh! The folks say we got 5 sons, inflation is killing us, we’ll make the layabouts do the lawn. You have to let the kid go. Wait a minute. You can pay him the mandated $8.50 and lose money. You are a nice guy. You feel so good about yourself that you hire some more kids. Do you know what’s going to happen, willy?

Comment on ‘Most’ versus ‘more than half’ versus ‘> 50%’ by dalyplanet

January 20, 2015, 9:39 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review by Peter Lang

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review by Don Monfort

$

0

0

It seems Gates is arguing natural variability is 50% at the start of this thread.

---

Comment on Week in review by Peter Lang

January 20, 2015, 9:48 pm

≫ Next: Comment on ‘Most’ versus ‘more than half’ versus ‘> 50%’ by Rob Ellison

≪ Previous: Comment on ‘Most’ versus ‘more than half’ versus ‘> 50%’ by dalyplanet

$

0

0

Willy will wiggle and squirm and avoid acknowledging he hasn’t a clue about the real world

Comment on ‘Most’ versus ‘more than half’ versus ‘> 50%’ by Rob Ellison

January 20, 2015, 9:48 pm

≫ Next: Comment on ‘Most’ versus ‘more than half’ versus ‘> 50%’ by Peter Lang

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review by Peter Lang

$

0

0

Recent scientific evidence shows that major and widespread climate changes have occurred with startling speed. For example, roughly half the north Atlantic warming since the last ice age was achieved in only a decade, and it was accompanied by significant climatic changes across most of the globe. Similar events, including local warmings as large as 16°C, occurred repeatedly during the slide into and climb out of the last ice age. Human civilizations arose after those extreme, global ice-age climate jumps. Severe droughts and other regional climate events during the current warm period have shown similar tendencies of abrupt onset and great persistence, often with adverse effects on societies…

Modern climate records include abrupt changes that are smaller and briefer than in paleoclimate records but show that abrupt climate change is not restricted to the distant past.’ NAS 2002

What you have noticed seems about as interesting as what you believe.

Comment on ‘Most’ versus ‘more than half’ versus ‘> 50%’ by Peter Lang

January 20, 2015, 9:49 pm

≫ Next: Comment on ‘Most’ versus ‘more than half’ versus ‘> 50%’ by Rob Ellison

≪ Previous: Comment on ‘Most’ versus ‘more than half’ versus ‘> 50%’ by Rob Ellison

$

0

0

+1

Comment on ‘Most’ versus ‘more than half’ versus ‘> 50%’ by Rob Ellison

January 20, 2015, 9:56 pm

≫ Next: Comment on ‘Most’ versus ‘more than half’ versus ‘> 50%’ by Jim D

≪ Previous: Comment on ‘Most’ versus ‘more than half’ versus ‘> 50%’ by Peter Lang

$

0

0

I was just pointing out that the ‘Great Pacific Climate Shift’ of 1976/1977 was something that had been discussed for decades – and was not just a throw away line in an otherwise seminal paper – all of which including the paper of course goes right over your head.

I subtly suggested you Google it instead of wasting everyone’s time with snarky nonsense.

Comment on ‘Most’ versus ‘more than half’ versus ‘> 50%’ by Jim D

January 20, 2015, 10:11 pm

≫ Next: Comment on ‘Most’ versus ‘more than half’ versus ‘> 50%’ by beththeserf

≪ Previous: Comment on ‘Most’ versus ‘more than half’ versus ‘> 50%’ by Rob Ellison

$

0

0

aaron, but then with a TCR of 1.33 and their forcing change of 1.38 W/m2 you get 100% of their 0.49 degrees since the 1930-1950 base period. I would count this as a 100% attribution to the anthropogenic forcing change, which was then actually their assumption in coming up with 1.33, so it is circular. Their low end also ends up being well above 50% because it is more than half of 1.33. If they chose a 1950 base like the IPCC, the temperature change for less forcing would be nearer 0.7 C, which is how the IPCC gets a much larger sensitivity. 1950 is arguably a better base temperature because 1940 was clearly near a local peak.

Comment on ‘Most’ versus ‘more than half’ versus ‘> 50%’ by beththeserf

January 20, 2015, 10:14 pm

≫ Next: Comment on ‘Most’ versus ‘more than half’ versus ‘> 50%’ by PA

≪ Previous: Comment on ‘Most’ versus ‘more than half’ versus ‘> 50%’ by Jim D

$

0

0

Hmm … Joining them spans must have taken some precise calculations, no place fer obfuscations. Jest sayin’ …

Comment on ‘Most’ versus ‘more than half’ versus ‘> 50%’ by PA

January 20, 2015, 10:15 pm

≫ Next: Comment on ‘Most’ versus ‘more than half’ versus ‘> 50%’ by Jim D

≪ Previous: Comment on ‘Most’ versus ‘more than half’ versus ‘> 50%’ by beththeserf

$

0

0

Let’s look at that TCR. 1.33° for a doubling I believe is the correct term. I also believe the TCR is the immediate response.

According to the NCDC from 1985 to 2003 things warmed about 0.45°C.

Jan 1983 342.87 PPM December 2003 375.93 PPM.

We’ll assume that forcing is a log function, the CO2 portion is assumed to be.

1.33 = x ln (2), X = 1.92

1.92 ln (375.93/342.87) = 0.177°C. 0.177/0.45 = roughly 40%.

Roughly 40% of the 1983-2003 warming is due to CO2 if TCS is 1.33.

---

Comment on ‘Most’ versus ‘more than half’ versus ‘> 50%’ by Jim D

January 20, 2015, 10:36 pm

≫ Next: Comment on ‘Most’ versus ‘more than half’ versus ‘> 50%’ by PA

≪ Previous: Comment on ‘Most’ versus ‘more than half’ versus ‘> 50%’ by PA

$

0

0

Then they have chosen 100% attribution for the period since 1940 with no natural variability to get their number of 1.33. Seems the attribution percentage is very dependent on what start and end dates you choose for your no-natural-variability period. If I choose the period you used, and get the sensitivity from there, it becomes over 3 C per doubling, but this was a fast-warming period that is probably too short for a meaningful ratio.

Comment on ‘Most’ versus ‘more than half’ versus ‘> 50%’ by PA

January 20, 2015, 10:44 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review by Don Monfort

≪ Previous: Comment on ‘Most’ versus ‘more than half’ versus ‘> 50%’ by Jim D

$

0

0

You lost me at the start of your last comment.

“it is certain that essentially all the CO2 rise post industrialisation is anthropogenic.

I’m not at all interested in debating that point, it’s simply proven.”

PL is right here.

We destroyed 40 Gt/year of carbon sinks and added 170 Gt of carbon from burning forest and are currently adding 2 Gt per year by the same process.

So depending on how you look at it none, some, or most of the CO2 is due to fossil fuels. This doesn’t include the effect of warming the ocean.

The warming of the ocean contributed some to the CO2 increase.

CO2 followed temperature and went from 270 to 300 by 1900. Any number above 30 PPM for CO2 increase driven by warming alone can be justified. A good case can be made for 50 PPM.

Comment on Week in review by Don Monfort

January 20, 2015, 10:45 pm

≫ Next: Comment on ‘Most’ versus ‘more than half’ versus ‘> 50%’ by PA

≪ Previous: Comment on ‘Most’ versus ‘more than half’ versus ‘> 50%’ by PA

$

0

0

I have hopes for willy, Peter. He is about 19 times smarter than the others, and sometimes I detect a streak of honesty in the old dude. If he ever gets what I am telling him, he will have an epiphany. Like Jake and Elwood in the church.

Comment on ‘Most’ versus ‘more than half’ versus ‘> 50%’ by PA

January 20, 2015, 11:02 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review by Peter Lang

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review by Don Monfort

$

0

0

Well JD, I just grabbed dates that captured the start and end of the 20th century late warming. It was an attempt to see how the numbers play out.

You might be right about the 100%. But if CO2 only caused 40% of the late warming we could actually see some cooling later this decade.

Well, we’ll see what happens by 2020. A couple of cooling fans predict cooling by 2020.

Comment on Week in review by Peter Lang

January 20, 2015, 11:10 pm

≫ Next: Comment on ‘Warmest year’, ‘pause’, and all that by gbaikie

≪ Previous: Comment on ‘Most’ versus ‘more than half’ versus ‘> 50%’ by PA

$

0

0

I hope you’re right. I know he is intelligent, I’ve just never seen any evidence that he understands what makes the real world work and what is best for improving human well-being world wide. As you know, but I don’t this willie does, it aint socialism. It’s:
capitalism
lightly regulated markets
free trade
globalisation
multi-national corporations
cheap energy (as cheap as possible)
small government
minimal regulation of business and industry
low tax rates.