Willard
The NASA site you cite presents the standard “pablum”.
- Solar impact limited to changes in solar irradiance.
- No mention of the galactic cosmic ray / cloud nucleation hypothesis being tested experimentally at CERN or of clouds as a separate forcing mechanism (rather than simply a feedback).
- No mention of the large uncertainty on natural forcing mechanisms / natural variability
It’s simply “IPCC for dummies”.
Max
Willard, that is an incomplete list. One of the largest uncertainties is the THC.
http://www.whoi.edu/science/po/people/rhuang/publication/2008JPOGuanHuang.pdf
That is a step in the right direction, but since Hansen and the “gang” assume that natural “unforced” variability range is virtually inconsequential, that ASS U MEs certainty that does not exist. With the growing TIDE of circumstantial evidence that the certainties are over estimated and uncertainties not even known unknowns, this looks like a train wreck in progress. It really looks like it is going to be incredibly entertaining :)
willard –
Indeed, even a pissant such as myself can see the value of conservation agriculture (assuming that the Chief will allow any convergence into his closed mind – Willis has to shower and re-evaluate his fundamental assumptions after doing so).
Steven Mosher | January 29, 2013 at 11:04 am | Reply
For the 100th time climate sensitivity cannot be indistinguishable from zero.
Climate sensitivity is the response in C for a change in forcing in watts.
Such that if the sun increases by 3 watts and the earth responds by warming by 3C the sensitivity is 1. If the watts increase by 3 and the temperature increases to 6C the sensitivity is 2. If the watts increase by 3
and the temperature goes up by .5C the sensitivity is .5. Sensitivity cannot be zero or indistinguishable from zero.
Thanks, Steven. I fear that you have failed to distinguish between
1) the behavior of a system far from equilibrium and a system at equilibrium, and
2) the behavior of a system without emergent phenomena, and a system wherein phenomena spontaneously emerge to reduce the temperature.
For example, the temperature of the ocean never gets much above 30°C. You can pump more energy into it when it is cold, and it will warm. It is sensitive to the climate as you point out … but that sensitivity decreases with temperature, to the point where when it has reached ~ 30°C, the sensitivity has dropped to zero.
So I can understand why you have had to repeat your claim 100 times … people don’t believe it no matter how many times you make it, because it isn’t true.
The related question is what is the sensitivity to a doubling of C02.
1. Doubling C02 gives you 3.71 watts
If climate sensitivity is 1, then the sensitivity to doubling is 3.7 * 1
if the climate sensitivity is .8 then the sensitivity to doubling is 3.7* .8
if the climate sensitivity is ZERO then the sun doesnt warm the planet.
Again you fail to distinguish between the situation at equilibrium, and the situation approaching equilibrium. I think that you would agree that as any part of the planet gets warmer, it takes more and more energy to push its temperature up another degree.
This is for several reasons. One is that radiation increases as the fourth power of temperature. Another is that parasitic losses (sensible and latent heat) increase as some power of the temperature. Another is that albedo increases cut down the incoming energy. Finally, the natural emergent heat regulating mechanisms (thunderstorms, dust devils, El Nino, clouds) all show a huge increase with temperature.
Of course, an obvious corollary of it requiring the addition of more and more energy for each additional degree of warming is that climate sensitivity decreases with increasing temperature. Hard to argue with that, it’s just math.
You have this strange idea that climate sensitivity is a constant. But simple logic shows us it cannot be a constant. It has to decrease with increasing temperature, this is the real world, Murphy lives. Each additional degree costs more than the last one.
And since the climate sensitivity decreases with increasing temperature … well, Steve, that would imply that there is a temperature at which the sensitivity is zero … just as we see happening in the ocean …
This is because all of the feedbacks and all of the parasitic losses and all of the temperature governing mechanisms increase as some function of temperature, with the result that (as we see in the ocean) they provide an upper limit to the temperature. Regardless how hot the sun gets, the ocean doesn’t get any warmer 30°C … where is your climate sensitivity then?
Finally, you might want to take a look at my post “The Details Are In The Devil“. You still don’t seem to have absorbed the difference between a situation with and without emergent phenomena.
You, and the climate modelers, have this bizarre idea that you can model emergent systems the same way that you model a system without emergent phenomena. I can’t begin to tell you how foolish I think this is, but read “The Details Are In The Devil” to see why your claims about climate sensitivity are not only wrong, but are part of a conceptual framework which is totally inappropriate for analyzing the kind of emergent system that is the climate.
If you think that complex emergent systems can be dealt with by simplistic concepts like “climate sensitivity”, then perhaps you can tell me the climate sensitivity of the human body … and since the climate sensitivity of the human body is approximately zero, perhaps you might consider why concepts like “climate sensitivity” are totally inappropriate for analyzing complex emergent systems like the climate.
All the best,
w.
… and since the climate sensitivity of the human body is approximately zero,
Not sure what that means (seems like a nonsensical concept, really, as the human body is obviously completely different than the Earth’s atmosphere in myriad ways), but lets run with it anyway, long enough for me to ask you: What is the measure of the “climate sensitivity of the human body” if you spend much time time exposed to the elements in an extremely hot or extremely cold environment? Seems to me that there are limits to the human body’s ability to remain homeostatic. It can do so given certain conditions and stimuli, but with others, the internal temperature increases or decreases to the point where it can no longer sustain life. At a certain point, it is no longer able to maintain equilibrium by adjusting internal processes: Kind of like what might happen when too much CO2 builds up in the Earth’s atmosphere, eh?
Oh, I forgot.
All the best…
Progress…
what was once old, becomes new.
I agree with you, Faustino.
Fred Hoyle, Kazuo Kuroda and George Orwell apparently realized this new threat to the integrity of science and the foundations of formerly democratic “Allied” governments approaching as WWII ended.
Steven Mosher
“So, you need to argue that doubling C02 gives you less watts than 3.7″
No.
I can simply state that I have concluded, based on the data that are out there, that (2xCO2) ECS is likely to be somewhere between 1°C and 2°C, rather than 3.2°C±0.7°C as previously predicted by the GCMs cited by IPCC in AR4.
If someone else wants to convert that to the concept of radiative forcing and put a W/m^2 estimate on it, that’s fine.
Max
JimD,
The state of the Earth atmosphere is not a thermodynamic equilibrium and it’s not a maximum entropy state. It’s (approximately) a stationary state maintained by the constant flow of energy through it. GHE raises the temperature level of both the surface and the troposphere but no significant GHE is needed for the presence of the adiabatic lapse rate.
Without any emission from the top of the atmosphere the atmosphere would be very different, but I haven’t seen any convincing description of the nature of an atmosphere that’s totally transparent to radiation.
Looks like it’s time for Plan B (Plan A didn’t work).
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/01/28/un-climate-report-models-overestimated-global-warming/
Joshua
You may have missed this bit of US history but (unlike in many places where slavery is still practiced today) it was abolished by law in the USA in 1865.
So the “rule of law” there no longer condones slavery.
Nor do the “libertarian ideals”, to which the Chief referred.
And, yes, Thomas Jefferson was a slaveholder 60 some odd years earlier. But that does not detract from his thoughts on individual freedom, free markets and the rule of law and democracy.
Max
Willis I think you may have missed my point.
Climate sensitivity is defined as the change in C for a change in forcing Watts.
I have a simple question.
Do you think it is the case that if one decreases the Watts into the system
( say turn the sun off or have it set ) that the response will be no change in temperature.
Forget C02 because we are talking about the system response to any change of forcing. Would a change in Watts input, say triple the output of the sun lead to ZERO change in C or a non zero change in C
tony b
Welcome back from your holiday in the mountains.
Did you learn more about that medieval silver and gold mine that was covered up by advancing snow and ice during the LIA?
(Or did you spend all your time “schussing” down the mountainside?)
Max
PG -
I don’t think I’m particularly clever at all, so I see no reason to try to show people my level of cleverness. I do, however, feel free to express my opinions.
Thank you for voicing your opinion about me, personally.
Now my question to you is why you feel compelled to do so as often as you do – particularly since you do it so frequently, and particularly since I have made it quite clear that your doing so has no effect, zero, nada, zilch, niente, bupkis, on my commenting behavior.
Perhaps the explanation might be that you have such a low opinion of me, that you think that I am incapable of having understood your comments expressing your opinions about me, personally, and the value (lack thereof) of my comments in the past. In case that is the explanation, let me assure you that I fully understand that you don’t value my comments in the least, and further, that you have gone on to draw (negative) conclusions about me, personally, on the basis of my comments.
I can assure you that further exploration of your obsession about me through posting comments will have no more beneficial effect (from your perspective) than your past exploration of your obsession about me. You can stop now. But if you do choose to continue, know two things: (1) I will appreciate the continuing amusement I get from your comments and (2) you will quite possibly see at least one more of my comments if you focus your comments on me (either directly or indirectly) – as I am likely to respond in one fashion or another. I’d like to suggest that you reflect on the lack of logic inherently imbedded in your behavior. Since (I’m guessing) you admire skepticism – you might find that dampening down your obsession with me might result in more skeptical behavior on your part.
all the best,
j.
from IPCC
the �equilibrium climate sensitivity�, T2x, is the temperature change after the system has reached a new equilibrium for doubled CO2
Less arctic sea ice means a far hotter Arctic.
As I predicted the Arctic has warmed substantially in recent decades in the face of a huge loss in sea ice.
This relationship will accelerate once sea ice is completely lost in summer.
Only the upcoming doubling of CO2 will trigger 14C warming, because it is this doubling that takes the climate to an Arctic state free of sea ice.
The presence of Arctic Sea Ice in Summer and Winter greatly suppresses climate sensitivity, but once that is lost temperatures will rocket upwards leading to mass catastrophic extinctions around the world.
Another catastrophic side effect of human greenhouse gas emissions, primarily CO2, will be that the Amazon rainforest, the lungs of the world, will rapidly die back in the coming century. This will be one of the larger teleconnection impacts of Arctic Sea Ice annihilation. Unfortunately scientists modelling the Amazon have failed to take into account such teleconnections and so have underestimated the sensitivity of the rainforest to human emissions and global temperatures.
Willard
“Lukewarm” is a good expression.
Doesn’t change the fact that several new papers and articles are suggesting that that model derived (2xCO2) ECS in AR4 was exaggerated by a factor of two.
Maybe it is telling us that future warming from CO2 will be “lukewarming”.
Ever thought about that while you contemplate your navel and ponder “uncertainty”?
Max
