Everybody seems to have their own theory.. You skeptics need to unite around something and I don’t think the uncertainty monster will do..
Comment on Climate sensitivity: lopping off the fat tail by joseph1002000
Comment on Climate sensitivity: lopping off the fat tail by curryja
Confidence relates to how likely, after all that statistical analysis, that the conclusions are likely to prove to be wrong or right.
Comment on Climate sensitivity: lopping off the fat tail by michael hart
Knutti 2002 seems like one that takes variance (slightly) more sensibly in that it goes up and down like the Assyrian Empire.
It has a fat tail shaped like the Loch Ness Monster.
Comment on Climate sensitivity: lopping off the fat tail by Dan Pangburn
Sal – It’s simple after you grasp the concept. Forcing (or forcing ‘anomaly’) times duration equals energy change. This is analogous to speed times duration equals distance traveled.
Comment on Climate sensitivity: lopping off the fat tail by aneipris
“..underneath the bridge”
David,
That gave me a good old fashioned belly laugh. Many thanks.
Comment on Climate sensitivity: lopping off the fat tail by stevefitzpatrick
Ken Rice,
“No, we don’t and that is the bit that I was suggesting you’re somewhat confused about.”
I am quite capable of doing energy balances, and I am not at all confused.
“Since you seem incapable of understanding what I write and since I have no interest in explaining it to someone who can’t even be bothered to think about things before responding, I shall not bother.”
No problem, the explanation would probably lie between inscrutable and incomprehensible anyway.
We agree the ~0.6 Watt/M^2 is accumulating at present. We agree that the IPCC say human forcing (net of aerosol effects) is at present about 2.29 watts/M^2. We agree (I think) there is a Planck response proportional to the second number less the first. That is good enough for me.
Comment on Climate sensitivity: lopping off the fat tail by Salvatore Del Prete
Agree.
Comment on Climate sensitivity: lopping off the fat tail by Wagathon
Comment on Climate sensitivity: lopping off the fat tail by Bad Andrew
Headquarters: “Send in Mosher to tell Curious George that a measurement is an estimate,”
Andrew
Comment on Climate sensitivity: lopping off the fat tail by Salvatore Del Prete
Joshua, all I am doing is presenting the data, and reaching conclusions based on the data.
Comment on Climate sensitivity: lopping off the fat tail by ...and Then There's Physics
We agree (I think) there is a Planck response proportional to the second number less the first. That is good enough for me.
No, that’s not quite right. The Planck response alone is of larger magnitude than the change in anthropogenic forcing. That there is still an energy imbalance is due to other feedbacks (water vapour, lapse rate, clouds, albedo) also contributing, such that
0.6 = anthro + Planck + feedbacks
You can estimate the Planck response using
Planck = 0.61 x 4 x sigma x T^3 x dT
where T = 288K and dT = 0.85K (or use whichever numbers you think is appropriate).
The reason your 26% is wrong/confused/irrelevant to the point I was making, is that at any instant at time during which we have en energy imbalance, more than 90% of the excess energy (the difference between the energy coming in and the energy going out) goes into the oceans. This is largely due to the different heat capacities of the different components of the climate system. So, if you were to determine the total amount of energy we’ve accrued in the last 100+ years, you should find that more than 90% has gone into the oceans. If you consider now, then our energy imbalance is 0.6W/m^2 which means we’re adding 10^22J per year. Again, more than 90% of this is going into the oceans.
Comment on Climate sensitivity: lopping off the fat tail by joseph1002000
Curry and Lewis slayed the uncertainty monster and lopped off the fat tail in one fail swoop. I am sure everybody is excited to know they are both dead…
Comment on Climate sensitivity: lopping off the fat tail by Berényi Péter
Ah, carbon based life forms, yes. They utilize the same design principles. Instances of the same enzyme (a molecular machine itself) are identical atom-by-atom, bond-by-bond, they conform to the ultimate standardization principle.
But living things only use a tiny subset of all possible carbon based structures, while anything with a metastable molecular structure is available for technology. Also, carbon based life forms are not readily programmable. Bacteria are only designed for producing more bacteria of the same kind, nothing else, least of all for programmability. If they can do something useful, it is only accidental.
The way ahead is imponderable.
Comment on The stupid party by David Springer
Since 1950, a full AMDO cycle, it nets out to 0.1C/decade and that’s using two thirds of a century history. The AMDO is 60 years in length so any history incorporating less than 60 years is fundamentally not long enough to incorporate known cyclical changes.
Comment on Whats up with the Atlantic? by HAS
Better still Joshua try http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/Mann/articles/articles/RahmstorfEtAl_NatureCC15.pdf
Never pays to rely on derivative sources whether they claim to be Real or even an Audit.
Comment on Whats up with the Atlantic? by vukcevic
Every time geomagnetic storm (visually manifested as an aurora) hits the polar areas magnetic needle swings left to right or vice versa, temporarily slightly changing declination angle; the changes are measured by magnetometers at dozens of geomagnetic monitoring stations located around the globe. From these measurements a global greed map of annual changes in the s.c. ‘east geomagnetic component’ is consternated. The far North Atlantic area around 60 degrees north shows a unique response as illustrated here:
It is obvious that the AMO may not be a direct response to the solar impact, but summarily dismissing existence of an indirect link may not be advisable.
Comment on Whats up with the Atlantic? by nickels
One of the most impressive talks I ever saw at the CCSM conferences was some dudes from Los Alamos. They solved some variant of an ocean model for a steady state AMOC and then did a bifuraction analysis.
Found it. NOt sure how meaningful without the accompanying talk, but:
http://www.cesm.ucar.edu/events/CCSMAnnualWorkshop2007/PresentationsPDF/weijer_slides3.pdf
Comment on Whats up with the Atlantic? by vukcevic
Comment on Whats up with the Atlantic? by vukcevic
grid map
Comment on Climate sensitivity: lopping off the fat tail by micro6500
Berényi Péter commented
The way ahead is imponderable.
I read Engines of Creation 87-88?, and I’ve been watching it coming, 2012 came and went, Drexler’s prediction was some time maybe in the next decade for the first assembler.
By 2050, if we get over our fear of nuclear the world could be far more like the Jetson’s than anything we can imagine and it doesn’t have to emit Co2 to do it (not that I think it matters).