If you can’t say when the earth reached equilibrium with solar forcing, then you can’t rule out that it is still warming the world. If you can then please do. I want to experiment with the TS/ES ratio you derive.
Comment on Week in review by steven
↧
↧
Comment on 2 new papers on the ‘pause’ by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2
r. gates, ” It is the conflation of this flatten in the rise into the suggesting that CO2 increases are not “warming the planet” that the trouble begins.”
If that is you opinion perhaps you should visit sky dragon sites to straighten them out. Here most are of the opinion the “pause”/”slowdown” just indicates that CO2 impact is not as bad as estimated and that natural variability/uncertainty is much greater than “projected”.
The original “pause” was coined to show that MET office “projections” were total garbage. When hype gets toned down you can start having a rational discussion, Mr. Human Carbon Volcano.
↧
Comment on 2 new papers on the ‘pause’ by ...and Then There's Physics
Joshua,
What I would suggest is searching James Annan’s blog (or doing a Google search with “multi-model ensemble James Annan” or something like that). He covers this quite a bit and I think has been a critic of the whole multi-model ensemble strategy (I believe he gave a talk on this recently at the Met Office). I found a relevant post by him, but don’t think I could do it justice if I tried to summarise it myself.
↧
Comment on 2 new papers on the ‘pause’ by steven
What’s that old saying? Oh yeah, hindsight is always 20/20.
↧
Comment on 2 new papers on the ‘pause’ by R. Gates
This point, taken in totality, I can accept just fine: (with caveat noted below)
“If we believe that the Earth is heating (I do) and if we think that the rate of warming for the last 15 years is not consistent with the prior 20-years (I’m on the fence on this one), then we can conclude that 15-years is not long enough of a period to use the relatively weak metric of surface air temperature as a proxy for rate of global heating.”
______
That the term “rate of warming not consistent” seems to imply that the climate system itself has not been gaining energy consistently – which it has Despite pseudoscientific claims otherwise, GH gas changes are ultimately a climate system energy imbalance issue and not strictly about surface temperatures. The reduction in the rate of flow of energy out of the system can be stored in a variety of ways in the system, and of course ocean heat is the largest single climate system energy storage location.
↧
↧
Comment on 2 new papers on the ‘pause’ by harkin
Muon said:
“How about a ‘slowdown’ where the supposed surviving increase is an order of magnitude smaller than the error bar?”
Nice, Mann just can’t help himself. Wonder if this qualifies himself for his own list of “serial climate misinformers”. No wait, just like the swap from pause to slowdown, Mann has swapped “people who disagree with me” with SCMs.
But at least he has adoring fans like harrytwinotter willing to blow smoke and brag about his awards (both real AND fake).
↧
Comment on 2 new papers on the ‘pause’ by davideisenstadt
Joshua:
I dont want to get into a pissing contest with you, considering that your blog bladder is bigger, and that you appear to have more invested in this than do I…
But, if you dont understand my point, you really shouldn’t be posting as much as you do. That you would ned a “dumbed down” response to a point I made in language that a child could understand is troubling, to say the least.
The ensemble of models is NOT independent…they (the models) use the same basic physical abstractions, the same input data, and are designed by the same group of people, and are trained on the same set of data. Where they differ is the values they ascribe to various forcings on the climate, and the various feedbacks that the modelers postulate exist. Independent? No.
Really, you should learn more too…then you wouldn’t need “dumbed down” explanations.
BTW, I have my own suppositions about your psychological profile,However, I try to limit my critiques of others’ arguments to that, their arguments.
This is something you may wish to emulate.
↧
Comment on Week in review by Jim D
You can use the longer term trends with and without CO2, as in AR5, and contemplate this kind of picture.
↧
Comment on 2 new papers on the ‘pause’ by kim
Try again, R Gates. You miss the point. Review the meaning of the highlighted part.
============
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by Mark Silbert
Thanks for the link Jonathan.
I enjoyed browsing your site.
↧
Comment on Week in review by Canman
The late great Christopher Hitchens:
Might be, might contain, a grain of historical truth. Might in any case give people to think about why do they know what they already think that they know? How do I know that I know this, except that I’ve always been taught this and never heard anything else? It’s always worth establishing, first a principle, saying “What would you do if you met a flat Earth society member?” “Come to think of it, how can I prove the Earth is round?” “Am I sure about the theory of evolution? I know it’s supposed to be true. Here’s someone who says no such thing, it’s all intelligent design”. “How sure am I in my own views?”
Don’t take refuge in the false security of consensus and the feeling that whatever you think you’re bound to be okay because you’re in the safely moral majority.[emphasis mine]
http://genius.com/Christopher-hitchens-on-free-speech-annotated
↧
Comment on Week in review by Jim D
steven, the anthropogenic forcing has been about 2 W/m2. What is your guess about how much the solar forcing has changed over the same period. Which one dominates the last century?
↧
Comment on ‘Big players’ and the climate science boom by JeffN
Barnes, they’re using the EPA to push the switch to natural gas along. Anything more will result in lawsuits they can’t win.
The great hope of using AGW to justify the great middle class tax hike is dying on the vine. Luckily, the domestic oil and gas boom is producing revenue instead. Obama is patted himself on the back for gas and oil production growth in the State of the Union while playing lip service to AGW. Kind of like announcing you brought new, softer mattresses to the brothel while promising to crack down one day on the world’s oldest profession.
↧
↧
Comment on ‘Big players’ and the climate science boom by Lucifer
I love the name ‘Merchants of Doubt’ because the IPCC is the biggest merchant – warming could be slight, or it could be huge.
And create monsters that will lurk under your bed at night!!!
↧
Comment on ‘Big players’ and the climate science boom by Rob Starkey
Michael
Care to cite what has changed in the last decade to make you believe you should be more concerned or do you just like to be a contrary blogger? Perhaps I missed something in the last decade, but there does not seem to be a basis for your position
↧
Comment on ‘Big players’ and the climate science boom by Joseph
Lucifer, like a monster whose intent is to fool us all into energy poverty and starve children in Africa. Something like that? Are you scared? I guess if I did believe that I would be a bit concerned.
↧
Comment on ‘Big players’ and the climate science boom by Michael
“elaborate”
I was far too optimistic in our ability to co-ordinate a global response to AGW.
Political ideology and economic dogma were always a barrier to risk mitigation, but our difficulty with long-term risk perception is a very serious impediment to action.
Seeing a truck hurtling towards you as you cross the road is very highly motivating, sea-level rise in 50 years, less so.
This is fertile ground for merchants of doubt; maybe it won’t be so bad, we’ll think of something, let’s wait and see.
↧
↧
Comment on ‘Big players’ and the climate science boom by JustinWonder
I watched that documentary through the fog of war (my household) and was going to post the link because Tamsin Edwards was a consultant for the project. I’m ok with claims of AGW, it’s the “C” that is troubling. Other questions include, but are not limited to, “how much W?”, and, “how much A?”. I am not convinced of the 95% either.
↧
Comment on ‘Big players’ and the climate science boom by JustinWonder
I remember the cartoon Judith posted, where the IPCC is voting to fold itself. Not gonna happen.
↧
Comment on ‘Big players’ and the climate science boom by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2
Lucifer, “That’s for a perfectly still, one dimensional atmosphere, of course.
The real atmosphere moves unpredictably in three dimensions, transferring energy and altering the resultant energy emitted to space.”
That is if you use a atmospheric reference. Physics doesn’t require you to pick the most difficult frame in fact it tend to force you to look for the simplest frames, then a simple one dimensional model rocks.
Example, the heat capacity of the oceans is ~1000 times the heat capacity of the atmosphere. The average temperature of the oceans ~4 C degrees with a corresponding energy of ~334 Wm-2. Increasing forcing by 3.7Wm-2 would cause an increase in average ocean temperature of 0.65 C degrees requiring an overal increase in forcing of <= 2×3.7 Wm-2 or a temperature increase of <= 1.3 C degrees.
That would be an all things remaining equal equilibrium climate sensitivity. Now you just need to figure out the time frames and potential feedback. Time frame is ~300 years, feedback is a bitch. As long as +/- 0.5 C of surface temperature noise does bother you, most of the chaos is eliminated, feedback becomes less of a bitch. 0.8C +/- 0.2
↧
