Danny
You might find this Q and A with Dr Hansen interesting.
http://blogs.plos.org/retort/2013/12/03/qa-with-james-hansen/
It is also worth googling the Royal Society papers where Dr Hansen gave a number of lectures over the last few years
Whether any of it supports the amount of sea level rise by 2020 or 2040 I don’t know but he was certainly pessimistic and expected a very high level of sea level rise with sudden jumps as opposed to a linear rise
tonyb
Go away you boring, pathetic little creep.
Jim D
>”richardc, is your confusion that you don’t know the difference between the imbalance and radiative forcing?”
No, no confusion whatsoever. I quoted the IPCC definitions in the first instance but here they are again:
FAQ 2.1, Box 1: What is Radiative Forcing?
[A] – “The word radiative arises because these factors change the balance between incoming solar radiation and outgoing infrared radiation within the Earth’s atmosphere. This radiative balance [‘measured at the top of the atmosphere’] controls the Earth’s surface temperature”
And,
[B] – “When radiative forcing [‘measured at the top of the atmosphere’] from a factor or group of factors is evaluated as positive, the energy of the Earth-atmosphere system will ultimately increase, leading to a warming of the system. In contrast, for a negative radiative forcing, the energy will ultimately decrease, leading to a cooling of the system”
https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-2-1.html
Here’s the important part you disagree with Jim:
“Radiative forcing is a measure of how the energy balance of the Earth-atmosphere system is influenced when factors that affect climate are altered. The word radiative arises because these factors change the balance between incoming solar radiation and outgoing infrared radiation within the Earth’s atmosphere. This radiative balance controls the Earth’s surface temperature.
Get that? The “radiative balance controls the Earth’s surface temperature”, the surface temperature does NOT control the radiative balance.
Real effective solar change (and forcing) on a millennial time scale is the primary altered “factor that affect[s ] climate”. This millennial solar signal is evident in GMST proxies over the last 2500 years (Ludecke, Weiss, and Hempelmann 2015). CO2 isn’t.
Theoretical CO2 forcing, supposedly, only kicks in after 1955. Except the CO2-forced models overshoot GMST. They are wildly off the mark in 2015, let alone 2050 or 2100. Worse, these models are MDV-neutral so when the MDV signal is added in the resulting profile is laughable.
In respect to the renewable power record set by SDG&E. The article stated that the peak generation occurred at 12:51PM PDT but neglected to note that peak load in California is typically around 7PM PDT. By 7PM, solar generation is practically nil.
The article went on to state that the peak renewable generation in the state was a bit over 6,000MW and went on to incorrectly state that was about fives times the capacity of San Onofre. Units 2 and 3 at San Onofre were rated at 1100MWe each, not 1200mWe total. In addition the article glossed over the difference in capacity factor between nuclear and renewables.
You are just making crap up, spamclown:
“How’s your photons-are-steel-balls ludicrous theory coming along Donny boy?”
That is typical of the irrational BS that comes out of your little pointy head. I am going to be charitable and assume it’s due to loose wires, rather than shameless dishonesty. You appear to be afflicted with some bad form of dyslexia that affects your reading comprehension and your ability to think logically. You need to get checked out. You do not lack intelligence. Get the wiring fixed and you could make yourself useful.
That’s all I have for you. Carry on with your foolishness.
Jim D
>”richardc, that 1 W/m2 solar change is twice anything anyone else has suggested,”
No, the 1 W.m-2 it is NOT the “change” Jim. The “change” is 6 W.m-2. READ what Shapiro et al say:
“The difference between the current and reconstructed TSI during the Maunder minimum is about 6 ± 3 W/m2
“Difference” = change.
>”but still only 25% the forcing effect of doubling CO2.”
Ok, now you are referring to the 6 W.m-2 change converted to forcing of 1 W.m-2 as Shapiro et al state:
“6 ± 3 W/m2 (equivalent to a solar forcing of FP−M∼ 1.0±0.5W/m2) which is substantially larger than recent estimates”
This forcing, if valid, is effective RIGHT NOW. The TOA imbalance is 0.6 W.m-2 compared to Shapiro et al’s 1 W.m-2 which indicates that Shapiro et al are out by 0.4 W.m-2 – not a bad estimate then.
A comparison to theoretical CO2 forcing is as of RIGHT NOW, not the 2xCO2 scenario. So we have:
0.6 W.m-2 – TOA imbalance 2000 – 2010, trendless
1.0 W.m-2 – Shapiro et al solar forcing TOA, trendless
1.9 W,m-2 – Theoretical CO2 forcing TOA, increasing.
I say solar forcing is “trendless” in respect to the 50 year Grand Maximum 1958ish – 2008ish.
CO2 is now increasingly out of contention as the TOA energy balance forcing agent.
“I thought I clarified that such a result wouldn’t be robust”
Not only isn’t it robust, it’s meaningless. A consensus is (from Merriam-Webster):
a general agreement about something : an idea or opinion that is shared by all the people in a group
If you throw out 90% of the group, you can’t use the word “consensus”. That’s gone. You’re simply talking about an interesting fraction – eight tenths – of a subsample, which has nothing provable to do with the opinion shared by all the people in the group. You can’t generalize from a droplet to an ocean.
In fact, even putting any numerical value on a consensus is meaningless. There either is a consensus or there isn’t. Consensus isn’t a math term. It’s a psychological term. You want to talk about fractions, go ahead. But if you want to talk about consensus, it has to include all or virtually all of the group involved. You can fudge a little because, again, it’s not math. It’s a group dynamic. So saying a 97% consensus is stronger than a 96% consensus is meaningless. Either it’s a consensus of the group as a whole or it’s not. If you have to argue over what level of consensus it is, it’s not a consensus – it’s disputed. Consensus doesn’t have levels. It is or it isn’t. There is no try.
Richardcfromnz, the FAQ definition is simplified for the layman reader. Section 2.2. in WG4, WG1 is more precise: “The definition of RF [Radiative Forcing] from the TAR and earlier IPCC assessment reports is retained. Ramaswamy et al. (2001) define it as ‘the change in net (down minus up) irradiance (solar plus longwave; in W m–2) at the tropopause after allowing for stratospheric temperatures to readjust to radiative equilibrium, but with surface and tropospheric temperatures and state held fixed at the unperturbed values’. ”
It is defined thus because an instantaneous variation in radiative forcing causes an imbalance that eventually yields a compensating variation in surface and tropospheric temperature that tends to cancel this imbalance (the so called Plank response). But this subsequent reduction of the imbalance isn’t itself a variation in the forcing. The forcing change governs the ultimate adjustment in surface and tropospheric temperature that will cancel the initial imbalance that it causes. If the imbalance itself were to govern the surface temperature, as you seem to understand the concept of forcing to imply, then you would get the absurd result that the climate system could accumulate or lose energy forever (as a result of some fixed imbalance) without this producing any change in surface temperature.
Pierre-Normand Houle
>”In order to convert a change in TSI into a forcing change,”
Which is EXACTLY what Shapiro et al do. Quoting from their paper:
“The difference between the current and reconstructed TSI during the Maunder minimum is about 6 ± 3 W/m2 (equivalent to a solar forcing of FP−M∼ 1.0±0.5W/m2)
They convert 6 W.m-2 change to 1 W.m-2 forcing.
…*Planck* response…
Richardcfromnz, The point is that the “worst case scenario” of a Maunder like minimum, that you quoted from Shapiro et al, is a *TSI* change of 6W/m2, which is equivalent to a *forcing* change of 1W/m2. This is about half the CO2 forcing change that we have had so far, only part of which has been offset by surface warming (the Planck response), leaving a residual TOA imbalance of about 0.6W/m2. Comparing this residual imbalance with the TSI change associated with a Maunder like minimum is very much an apple to orange comparison.
Pierre-Normand Houle | August 30, 2015 at 12:53 am |
>Richardcfromnz, the FAQ definition is simplified for the layman reader. Section 2.2. in WG4, WG1 is more precise: “The definition of RF [Radiative Forcing] from the TAR and earlier IPCC assessment reports is retained. Ramaswamy et al. (2001) define it as ‘the change in net (down minus up) irradiance (solar plus longwave; in W m–2) at the tropopause after allowing for stratospheric temperatures to readjust to radiative equilibrium, but with surface and tropospheric temperatures and state held fixed at the unperturbed values’. ”
No argument with that Pierre-Normand. I agree, a top of troposphere phenomenon. But according to the IPCC, forcing and energy balance/imbalance is, quote:
‘measured at the top of the atmosphere’
Note that both Stephens et al and Loeb et al, as cited by AR5 Chapter 2, state the energy balance/imbalance/budget in terms of TOA.
>”If the imbalance itself were to govern the surface temperature, as you seem to understand the concept of forcing to imply,”
Well, that is EXACTLY what the IPCC state:
“Radiative forcing is a measure of how the energy balance of the Earth-atmosphere system is influenced when factors that affect climate are altered. The word radiative arises because these factors change the balance between incoming solar radiation and outgoing infrared radiation within the Earth’s atmosphere. This radiative balance controls the Earth’s surface temperature.”
Get that? The “radiative balance controls the Earth’s surface temperature”, the surface temperature does NOT control the radiative balance.
Clearly, I understand the concept of forcing EXACTLY as per IPCC definition. As for Jim D, if you disagree with the IPCC Pierre-Normand, take your disagreement to the IPCC – not to me.
I have never been to Chicago, but I did visit Casabanca via the silver screen.
Bart, according to my records, I sent this e-mail to you on June 4 regarding the lie in your abstract, and the empirical claims you made in the paper without any apparent data. According to my records I’ve not received any reply from either of you. Do you have answers to my questions? Will you run a correction, or do I have to go to the journal myself?
“Hi Bart and Bart,
I didn’t notice this before, but in your abstract in the ES&T paper, you state:
“90% of respondents with more than 10 climate-related peer-reviewed publications (about half of all respondents), explicitly agreed with anthropogenic greenhouse gases (GHGs) being the dominant driver of recent global warming.”
However, Table S3 in your supplemental materials indicates that the correct figure is somewhere between 71-77%
It’s 71% for 11-30 publications, and 77% for 32-300 publications (I assume the quartiles excluded 31 because no one had exactly 31 pubs.)
I’m looking at Question 1 only since it’s the question that asks about human attribution. Q3 just asks about GHG without specifying human attribution, and includes a list of several gases. And you included ties on that question as agreement, so we’re not going to be able to use those figures to say who thinks anthropogenic GHGs are “the dominant driver of recent global warming.”
Did you mean the statement in your abstract to apply only to those respondents who chose a human attribution percentage on Q1? We wouldn’t be able to exclude scientists who say we don’t know – that’s a central position in the debate, gets at the core issue for some people. A consensus figure could never exclude people who say we don’t yet know something.
In any case, your statement in the abstract doesn’t restrict the figure to opinionated or confident respondents. It just says “90% of respondents with more than 10 climate-related pubs…”, which is incorrect.
A correction would be in order here, yes?
Now, I did see this passage that seemed to touch on this issue: “A ratio expressed this way gives the appearance of a lower level of agreement. However, this is a consequence of the question being difficult to answer, due to the level of precision in the answer options, rather than it being a sign of less agreement.”
Where did this data come from? Participants said the question was difficult due to the level of precision in the options? I don’t see any items in your questionnaire asking about the questions, or why participants chose an answer. It’s not in the paper either. Where did this come from? (We sometimes ask participants questions about questions, or to expand on their answers, I just don’t see any such questions here. See Simine Vazire’s work for an interesting example of what happens when you repeat personality scale questions – when you make participants reconsider how happy or extroverted they really are, etc.)
Last thing: Where can I get the data? Was it linked on the ES&T page?
Hoogachtend,
Joe”
“Get that? The “radiative balance controls the Earth’s surface temperature”, the surface temperature does NOT control the radiative balance.
Clearly, I understand the concept of forcing EXACTLY as per IPCC definition. As for Jim D, if you disagree with the IPCC Pierre-Normand, take your disagreement to the IPCC – not to me.”
I am questioning your interpretation of the IPCC FAQ statement, which is inconsistent with the more precise technical definition from section 2.2.
In the technical definition, RF is defined as an instantaneous *change* in TOA balance (more precisely, at the tropopause), that the stratosphere has adjusted to, but the surface and troposphere haven’t yet. This imbalance eventually yields a change in surface temperature (which may be very slow, due to the ocean’s thermal inertia) that offsets the initial TOA imbalance that has been caused by the forcing. This adjustment doesn’t change the forcing, but it does reduce the imbalance. Hence, you can’t equate the evolving imbalance with the (unchanging) initial forcing change that caused the surface and troposphere temperature to slowly change as a result. When a forcing is applied (and initial change in TOA balance) it doesn’t change as a result of the surface and troposphere adjustment. The forcing change is definitionally pegged to the initial TOA imbalance that it causes, and not to the the subsequent adjustment as the surface temperature adjusts.
Jesus:
This is the average of the two subgroups with the highest number of self-reported publications for both Q1 and Q3.
Pierre-Normand Houle
>”Richardcfromnz, The point is that the “worst case scenario” of a Maunder like minimum, that you quoted from Shapiro et al, is a *TSI* change of 6W/m2, which is equivalent to a *forcing* change of 1W/m2. This is about half the CO2 forcing change that we have had so far, only part of which has been offset by surface warming (the Planck response), leaving a residual TOA imbalance of about 0.6W/m2. Comparing this residual imbalance with the TSI change associated with a Maunder like minimum is very much an apple to orange comparison.”
Rubbish. 0.6 W.m-2 is the primary criteria, everything else is in respect to this as per IPCC definition (“This radiative balance controls the Earth’s surface temperature”). And the comparison is all on exactly the same terms – IPCC TOA forcing criteria this century:
0.6 W.m-2 – TOA imbalance 2000 – 2010, trendless
1.0 W.m-2 – Shapiro et al solar forcing TOA, trendless
1.9 W,m-2 – Theoretical CO2 forcing TOA, increasing.
I say solar forcing is “trendless” in respect to the 50 year Grand Maximum 1958ish – 2008ish. OK, Shapiro et al are 0.4 W.m-2 out but that is a very close estimate.
CO2 is now increasingly out of contention as the TOA energy balance forcing agent. Theoretical CO2 “forcing” is instantaneous speed-of-light i.e. there is no “warming in the pipeline”. If the theoretical 1.9 W.m-2 were to have any effect on the TOA energy balance it would be instantaneous right now – it isn’t.
As already stated up in the thread header, the TOA imbalance has already occurred at the surface as a result of solar change and oceanic thermal lag (“a few decades” – Hansen et al 1981):
“# 0.6 imbalance TOA = 0.6 imbalance Sfc
Sfc imbalance is global average ocean heat accumulation (around 24 W.m-2 tropics, -11 W.m-2 southern ocean). Therefore, TOA imbalance is simply solar SW going straight into the oceanic heat sink and lagged in energy out at Sfc and LW out at TOA.
No need to invoke CO2 “forcing” and it is impossible to invoke anyway – it doesn’t fit between Sfc and TOA. IPCC AR5 Chapter 10 Detection and Attribution fails to address this.”
Game over.
Verheggen’s reply to my Comment consisted of a mysterious lie pertaining to a 4% figure of unknown provenance. I debunked it a long time ago on Bishop Hill, but did not include it in my blog post. Anyone should have seen the lie for what it was, but that requires carefully reading their paper, my comment, and their reply. People like the physics guy never do that kind of work. They will always try to obscure scams having to do with the consensus – even the Cook fraud goes unchallenged with these people. The next year will be very interesting.
You can’t trust any of the Cook or Verheggen crowd with consensus research. They will not be honest. They will not do real science. They will deceive. They have no place in scientific journals. This is political-religious campaign for them, nothing more.
In any case, here’s the rebuttal. There was no response from the Mr Rabett to whom I responded, most likely because he was mistaken and this was made clear. (you can also find it at the bottom of this page: http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2015/1/15/duarte-on-verheggen-et-al.html):
——————————–
On Mr. Rabett’s comment, I’m guessing he refers to this part of Verheggen et al.’s reply:
“The size of this group of “non-climate scientists” in our survey is 81 (∼4% of the respondents). If they were excluded from our survey, the level of concensus based on Q1 of our total group of respondents who expressed an opinion–that is, excluding the undetermined responses–would remain the same: 84%.”
As far as I can tell, this claim is wildy false. The “Other Expertise” category comprised about 17% of their respondents, or about 317 (they don’t give the figure — we can only eyeball the graph.) You can see this in Figure S1 (fourth column set) of their first Supplemental doc here: http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es501998e
Notably, they have another “Other” category on the same graph (last column). It might be 4%. It’s unclear why there are two Other categories, or why they cited the small one instead of the large one, or instead of summing them (there will be some overlap in categories, as some researchers might have been tagged as more than one area of expertise.)
And, it’s important to know that we could never assume direct climate science expertise even in their WG1 category, since it includes “Land Use Change” which I suspect captures some planning people, perhaps the traffic experts. And “Emissions” which might include automotive engineers or the platinum-pushing experts I quoted in my Comment (platinum-group metals are used in catalytic converters.)
As you may infer from the above, we don’t actually know who is in what group or what their expertise is. That is the fundamental problem here — we don’t know the results of this study with respect to relevant climate scientists. The authors are using labels like WG1, WG2, etc. somewhat dangerously, as in some cases it refers to people who actually served on those working groups at IPCC, but most of the time it refers to labels the authors themselves applied to over a thousand researchers who did not serve on those working groups. We don’t know much beyond that. If John Cook had anything to do with such classifications, that would be a huge red flag, and reckless of them to allow. But we don’t know much about it.
The authors’ bizarre reply where they argue that people who were included in the survey precisely because of their climate-related work would deny having done such work (their questions 7a and b) — and would thus be excluded from the results — gives me the feeling we’re dealing with people who have little respect for truth or the intelligence of the reader. As one of many, many examples, I think the sociologists who wrote the following paper would think it was climate-related: “Cool dudes: The denial of climate change among conservative white males in the United States” (McCright & Dunlap, 2011)
Richardcfromnz wrote: “Theoretical CO2 “forcing” is instantaneous speed-of-light i.e. there is no “warming in the pipeline”. If the theoretical 1.9 W.m-2 were to have any effect on the TOA energy balance it would be instantaneous right now – it isn’t.”
Richard, the radiative forcing, RF, is *defined* as the amount of TOA imbalance that results from the the initial change (e.g. increase in solar TSI, CO2, volcanic aerosols, etc.) before there has been any surface and troposphere warming or cooling. When the forcing causes such an imbalance, then the surface temperature will later change as a result of the progressive accumulation, or loss, of energy in the climate systems. This surface and troposphere temperature change will itself causes a change in the amount of upwelling longwave radiation to space. This change is called the Planck response and it doesn’t count as a change in forcing, since the forcing is *defined* as the initial TOA imbalance caused by the primary change in TSI, or CO2, etc. The Planck response, though, causes the TOA imbalance to diminish. This is a response to the forcing change and doesn’t itself constitute a forcing change. The normal response to a step change in forcing is for the TOA imbalance to rapidly increase to an amount that matches the forcing change (by definition of RF) and then slowly tend to diminish towards zero as a result of the compensating Planck response.
So, to conclude, the 1.9W/m2 forcing attributed to the increase in atmospheric CO2 that occurred over the last couple centuries is *defined* as the TOA imbalance that would have resulted if this CO2 concentration increase had occurred all at once and before there had been any change in surface and tropospheric temperature as a result of this initial imbalance. (And likewise for the 1W/m2 forcing change that would result from a 6W/m2 TSI variation.) It certainly doesn’t follow from the definition of the radiative forcing that the TOA imbalance will not diminish when the temperature progressively increases as a result of the initial forcing change (and feedbacks). It most certainly will, because of the law of conservation of energy and the fact that the ocean’s thermal capacity isn’t infinite.
