</i>Tell Christy that. Who presented graphs to the President’s Council on Environmental Quality with no subsampling when comparing radiosondes and MSU.</i>
Are you thinking about his comparison of <b>co-located</b> sonde and MSU data? Yes, co-located sonde data would be better for comparing MSU nearest neighbors.
<i>So sampling is a problem in comparing the MSU with radiosonde?</i>
I didn't say it was a problem so much as a reason that the sonde data will be more variable because it represents a much smaller portion of the globe than MSU, which is what your chart demonstrates.
The models/raobs/msu all indicate cooling stratosphere and warming Arctic.
Good.
Neither raob nor MSU exhibit the very large modelled hot spot.
Bad.
Comment on A buoy-only sea surface temperature record by Turbulent Eddie
↧
↧
Comment on Deep de-carbonisation of electricity grids by knutesea
Information Request (Please)
Where do I find the best example of a fully functioning molten salt nuclear reactor ?
↧
Comment on How sensitive is global temperature to cumulative CO2 emissions? by stevefitzpatrick
Nic Lewis,
“the CMIP5 ESM results in my figure and Figure SPM.10 use RCP concentration pathways and diagnose, in each CMIP5 model, what emission pathways would produce those concentration pathways.”
If that is true, then it is about the nuttiest thing I have heard in a while. The emissions pathways ought to be driving the concentration pathways in the GCM’s, not the other way around. The emissions pathways are based on specified policy and economic choices which have nothing to do with the GCM’s. I don’t see how it makes any sense at all for the concentration pathways, generated from a single model and the specified emissions pathways, to be turned around and used to generate a completely different and unique emissions pathways using the individual GCMs. The circularity here is exceeded only by the irrationality; the emissions pathways are fixed.
↧
Comment on How sensitive is global temperature to cumulative CO2 emissions? by matthewrmarler
and Then There's Physics: <i>Noone ever said it was simple. </i>
You wrote a simple proposition. <i>However, our understanding of the ocean uptake (Henry’s law, the Revelle factor) suggests that the ocean uptake should decrease with increasing T and increasing CO2. </i>
Are you backing off from what you wrote?
↧
Comment on How sensitive is global temperature to cumulative CO2 emissions? by opluso
TE:
Thanks for the responses.
↧
↧
Comment on How sensitive is global temperature to cumulative CO2 emissions? by Don Monfort
I call BS on kenny. You hate skeptics. Get yourself checked out. Where is your little sidekick, willy? We hope he’s OK and his spotty haunting of this blog of late is not due to poor health.
↧
Comment on How sensitive is global temperature to cumulative CO2 emissions? by ...and Then There's Physics
Don Don,
Willard’s around and I think he has even commented on this post. I’m pretty sure he thinks I’m his sidekick, though :-)
↧
Comment on How sensitive is global temperature to cumulative CO2 emissions? by Ken Gregory
In response to Nic Lewis’ comment to me of December 1, 2015 at 5:39 am:
Thank you for changing GtC to TtC in several places in your lead post.
You wrote “the transient climate response to cumulative carbon emissions (TCRE) – is 2.4°C/TtC at a 2°C rise from 1870. That is for RCP8.5, …”
You apparently go that by taking the slope of a 2°C rise from 1879 divided by the RCP8.5 cumulative CO2 emissions of 830 GtC. But that is not a TCRE because the numerator, 2°C rise, is from cumulative CO2 + other GHE, while the denominator is only of cumulative CO2 emissions. You need to compare the 2°C rise to the cumulative CO2 + other GHE expressed in GtC, which is not the horiz axis.
You wrote, “If one adjusts the CMIP5 RCP6.0 projection for the decade in which it just passes a 2°C increase in GMST, by removing warming corresponding to the non-CO2 element of RCP6.0 total forcing, the TCRE reduces to just over 2.0°C/GtC.” where you meant 2.0°C/TtC.
The TCR is defined by a 1%/yr increase in only CO2, keeping other GHG constant. But the TCRE is defined by increasing CO2 AND other GHG. The temperature increase due to a TtC of methane is different from a TtC of CO2.
Late last night the top scale of SPM.10 looked the same as the bottom scale, but now after a good night sleep, the scales are different, so you are correct that the units of the top scale are correct.
↧
Comment on How sensitive is global temperature to cumulative CO2 emissions? by albertozaragozacomendadorgmailcom
Thanks for the essay Nic.
‘Past warming in CMIP5 models has been reduced by unrealistically large negative aerosol forcing – on average even stronger than per RCP estimates, which in turn exceed the AR5 best estimate’
Have you considered running a simulation of a model with the ‘generally accepted’ water vapor and cloud feedbacks (ECS >3) but with the new aerosol forcing estimates? I understand it’s impossible to actually run the 90 or so models (or even one) on your home computer, but perhaps you can make some simplified ‘CMIP5-like’ model and see what comes out.
This would show that the ‘match’ between models and temps is largely spurious. It wouldn’t invalidate them altogether, but it would show how unrealistic their feedbacks are. (Though my guess is that when the modelers finally adopt a lower aerosol forcing, rather than reducing feedbacks to match temps they’ll find something else to ’cause’ this negative forcing).
↧
↧
Comment on How sensitive is global temperature to cumulative CO2 emissions? by paulski0
TE,
If you’re focusing just on the most recent decade, as JCH indicated, that pattern looks rather pausey. Will it be surgey? Time will tell.
↧
Comment on How sensitive is global temperature to cumulative CO2 emissions? by niclewis
Ken,
You say “But the TCRE is defined by increasing CO2 AND other GHG.”
That’s not correct. IPCC AR5 defines TCRE, admittedly not very precisely, as: “The transient global average surface temperature change per unit cumulated CO2 emissions, usually 1000 PgC.”
Other GHG gases do not come into TCRE. So removing the effect of all non-CO2 forcings on the GMST change, which my adjustment is intended to achieve, seems correct to me.
↧
Comment on How sensitive is global temperature to cumulative CO2 emissions? by Roscoe Shaw
My topic is relevant, civil and on topic. Yours is just trolling at this point. You don’t run this blog.
You have plenty of time to repeat the same statement over and over but haven’t taken the time to respond to my request on previous threads….
Please identify a new version after adjustment of GISS or Hadcrut that shows a lower overall warming trend than the previous version.
Skeptics have claimed that every new version shows a stronger warming trend. I found this unlikely but so far haven’t been able to prove them wrong. I have asked you repeatedly to help provide a contrary case for me but you never respond to the actual question.
I’m still waiting in a civil manner.
↧
Comment on How sensitive is global temperature to cumulative CO2 emissions? by niclewis
albertozaragozacomendadorgmailcom,
Your suggestion would show that, when using reduced aerosol forcing, the majority of CMIP5 models over-predicted past GMST rise. One could approximate the results by taking some mixture of the historical simulations, which have all forcings, the historicalGHG simulations and the historicalNat forcings, which only have the GHG or natural forcings respectively.
However, some CMIP models do have low aerosol forcing. Several have lower than per AR5, as they deliberately do not include any indirect aerosol forcing, the largest and most questionable component of aerosol forcing in the majority of CMIP5 models. Some of the low aerosol forcing CMIP5 models overpredict past warming. However, others do not. That is mainly because they have low TCRs, either due to high ocean heat uptake, or to strongly time dependent effective climate sensitivity, or some combination of (possibly unknown) reasons.
↧
↧
Comment on How sensitive is global temperature to cumulative CO2 emissions? by Roscoe Shaw
Forecast: Hansen 1988 scenario A
Observed: WTI to Oct 2015
Pretty easy to verify and accurate to a couple of hundredths of a degree. http://postimg.org/image/5fkbyaa8x/
↧
Comment on How sensitive is global temperature to cumulative CO2 emissions? by ...and Then There's Physics
Since Nick was too humble to do so, I'll post a link to <a href="http://moyhu.blogspot.co.uk/2015/10/hansens-1988-predictions-revisited.html" rel="nofollow">his revisit of Hansen 1988</a>.
↧
Comment on How sensitive is global temperature to cumulative CO2 emissions? by JCH
The whole thing with the anomalously strong winds in the equatorial and Northern Pacific after 2005 is a wildcard. In the past here on a CE I nicknamed them the KImikamikaze Winds, for the poetic kooler. Will they come back? If so, when? But as soon as they calm, the warming will fill right back in. They’re not going to change anything other than the potentially completely fooled themselves level, which is pretty high… relevant and at least as civil as Feynman.
↧
Comment on How sensitive is global temperature to cumulative CO2 emissions? by Alberto Zaragoza Comendador
Thanks. By indirect do you mean effects of aerosols on clouds?
↧
↧
Comment on Deep de-carbonisation of electricity grids by mosomoso
Something which might be a headline, but won’t be.
Spanish renewable giant Abengoa has started insolvency proceedings. Yes, it involves a US subsidiary and lots of US subsidy and investment: Solana mega-project, ethanol and advanced biofuels plants…that sort of white elephant.
Don’t know where Australia stands. (Already, $450,000 in funds from the Australian Renewable Energy Agency to conduct a feasibility study into building a 20MW solar thermal tower plant with storage.) But they’re all over the Asia-Pac region so a 30 billion dollar insolvency in Spain could just be the start.
Looks like Obama has blown about 3 billion on this lot, and the bankruptcy will be Spain’s biggest unless the Rajoy government steps in and saves the “icon” etc etc. Rajoy is one of Europe’s surviving adults, so that may not happen. And nobody is partying now like it was 2007.
Modernise coal. Build nukes.
Oh, and obliterate the climatariat, of course. I always like to add that.
↧
Comment on How sensitive is global temperature to cumulative CO2 emissions? by Ken Gregory
Sorry Nic, I should have double checked the definition of TCRE.
↧
Comment on How sensitive is global temperature to cumulative CO2 emissions? by Turbulent Eddie
I’m guessing mostly a model of ice cores and other proxies.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
