Along with the occasional period of ±5-10°C here and there.
So there is some point about which the earth can <i><b>tip.</i></b>
Comment on The albedo of Earth by mikerestin
↧
↧
Comment on On the social contract between science and society by matthewrmarler
Willis Eschenbach: <i> It’s bozo-simple. People don’t trust mainstream climate scientists because according to their own words their leaders lied to us, suborned perjury, subverted the IPCC, distorted the results, packed the pal-review panels, pressured the scientific journals, and then lied about it when they were caught.</i>
I think it is hard to tell how many people had their opinions and judgments affected by the purloined emails. In looking at changes in opinion polls before and after the incident and discussions, it seems any effect is smaller than the margins of error in estimates of the opinions.
↧
Comment on On the social contract between science and society by curryja
yes i posted on wrong thread, don’t want it on the nic lewis thread, thx
↧
Comment on Implications of lower aerosol forcing for climate sensitivity by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2
Springer, I think Mosher hasn’t figured out the two greenhouse effects yet. Because of that ALL forcings are not created equally.
↧
Comment on On the social contract between science and society by willard (@nevaudit)
Thank you for your technical comment, AndrewR.
↧
↧
Comment on Implications of lower aerosol forcing for climate sensitivity by Steven Mosher
WRONG Springer
Climate sensitivity is the response to ALL forcing
Climate sensitivity to C02 doubling is different.
“Climate sensitivity is the equilibrium temperature change in response to changes of the radiative forcing.[2] Therefore climate sensitivity depends on the initial climate state, but potentially can be accurately inferred from precise palaeoclimate data. Slow climate feedbacks, especially changes of ice sheet size and atmospheric CO2, amplify the total Earth system sensitivity by an amount that depends on the time scale considered.[3]
Although climate sensitivity is usually used in the context of radiative forcing by carbon dioxide (CO2), it is thought of as a general property of the climate system: the change in surface air temperature (ΔTs) following a unit change in radiative forcing (RF), and thus is expressed in units of °C/(W/m2). For this to be useful, the measure must be independent of the nature of the forcing (e.g. from greenhouse gases or solar variation); to first order this is indeed found to be so[citation needed].
The climate sensitivity specifically due to CO2 is often expressed as the temperature change in °C associated with a doubling of the concentration of carbon dioxide in Earth’s atmosphere.”
Elsewhere Nic has used the standard definition. sensitivity is the response to ALL forcing
from his paper
” Climate sensitivity is a metric that is used to
summarize the global surface temperature response to an externally imposed radiative forcing. ”
BUT.
“The
term „equilibrium climate sensitivity‟ (ECS) refers to the equilibrium change in surface temperature to a
doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration. ”
Most importantly IN HIS OWN CODE he shows that you consider ALL FORCING
see the table of forcings
AR5_TabAII1.2ForcFin.tab
in short.
Climate Sensitivity is the response to ALL forcing
ECS is the response to doubling c02 OR the response to 3.71 Watts
↧
Comment on On the social contract between science and society by matthewrmarler
… and Then There’s Physics: I was simply pointing out that, in general, scientists are not trying to sell you something. Some may well have moved into roles where that does become something they may essentially be doing. Some may do it anyway. However, in general scientists do research, publish papers, go to conferences (where they may try to convince their peers that their work hss value) but their job isn’t fundamentally to sell some kind of product (be it a political manifesto or as car).
I think that you underestimate the amount of self-promotion and salesmanship that goes into the writing of grant proposals. I think you also underestimate the amount of effort that goes into selling the idea that what they are doing is of great importance.
↧
Comment on Implications of lower aerosol forcing for climate sensitivity by Steven Mosher
So, read Nic’s paper springer.
Look at equation 1.
ECS is Watts per doubling for c02 * climate sensitivity
his code shows he considers all forcings.
his text DISTINGUISHES between
A) climate sensitivity.
B) ECS
ECS = watts for doubling c02 * climate sensitivity
different but related things.
↧
Comment on On the social contract between science and society by climatereason
Joshua
In what respect do you consider nic to be an activist?
I would consider Hansen and Mann to be activists with a clear cut determination to prove humanity causes warming. Judith is perhaps an activist but is in an odd position as she is trying to prove there is uncertainty rather than taking an unequivocal position as a warmist or sceptic.
But Nic? Where does he fit into this category?
Tonyb
↧
↧
Comment on Implications of lower aerosol forcing for climate sensitivity by Aerosol forcing |…and Then There's Physics
[…] because it has implication for climate sensitivity. Nic Lewis has a post on Climate Audit and on Climate Etc.. It’s also mentioned on Bishop-Hill and, I presume (although I haven’t looked) on WUWT. […]
↧
Comment on Implications of lower aerosol forcing for climate sensitivity by Steven Mosher
when you get up speed let me know
ECS = f2x*dT/dF-dQ
where
f2x = 3.71 watts ( the watts from doubling c02)
dT = change in temperature
dF = change in ALL FORCING
dQ= change in OHC
see section 3.1 of Nic’s paper.
or see this paper
https://niclewis.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/lewis2013_objective-bayesian_jcli-d-12-00473-1.pdf
hmm. read the acknowledgments. I’m pretty familar with Nic’s work
↧
Comment on Temperature adjustments in Australia by willard (@nevaudit)
> I have the support of some very senior scientists from the top of the UK establishment to pursue this line of enquiry.
Sure, and I have an army of ninjas to spot appeals to anonymous authorities, Euan.
↧
Comment on Week in review by aneipris
“So here a “skeptic” says that data are useless unless causation is proven.”
Joshua,
You’re smarter than this sloppy response would indicate. President Obama, John Kerry, what’s her name head of the EPA, important people from the standpoint of policy making are all insisting the debate is over. And yet in fact it’s only just begun.
There’s no real question that Co2 does all things being equal have a warming effect. The question as you well know, is how much and to what effect. I’m open. So far the data is increasingly showing a lower, safer atmospheric sensitivity. That’s a good thing, is it not?
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by Willard
> This may come as a shock, but there is nothing wrong with double-standards per se. It really depends on what tribe you are on.
Exactly:
The label “victor’s justice” (in German, Siegerjustiz) is a situation in which an entity participates in carrying out “justice” on its own basis of applying different rules to judge what is right or wrong for their own forces and for those of the (former) enemy. Advocates generally charge that the difference in rules amounts to hypocrisy and leads to injustice. Targets of the label may consider it derogatory.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor%27s_justice
American exceptionalism is not that exceptional.
↧
Comment on Week in review by matthewrmarler
<i> New paper in Nature: An atmospheric origin of the multi-decadal bipolar seesaw </i>
More good work from China.
↧
Comment on Week in review by jim2
Life is unfair.
↧
Comment on Week in review by jim2
The petroleum industry pumps CO2 underground already.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by matthewrmarler
New paper finds California drought is “mainly the result of (natural) variability in precipitation”
Another Chinese senior author. An instance of “cultural differencs”?
↧
Comment on Week in review by jim2
Given the fact that CO2 comprises only 1% of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere of this, the best of all possible worlds, doubling it will have no consequence whatever.
↧
Comment on Week in review by Willard
> Life is unfair.
Not yet. Deaths and taxes are the great equalizers.
But then:
So, you think you have it bad this tax season. Have you heard that Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg will pay between $1 billion and $2 billion in taxes? That sounds like a tough pill for anyone to swallow.
But it is premature to start a pity party for Zuckerberg. The twenty-something billionaire reaped large financial gains from exercising the stock options that triggered his tax bill, and he has benefited from favorable tax rules along the way. Even better, Zuckerberg will survive his encounter with the tax man in a position to never have to pay taxes again for the rest of his life.
http://edition.cnn.com/2013/04/09/opinion/mccaffery-zuckerberg-taxes/
All we need is the advent of the Singularity and life will definitely be unfair.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
