Are you the publisher? Claim or contact us about this channel


Embed this content in your HTML

Search

Report adult content:

click to rate:

Account: (login)

More Channels


Showcase


Channel Catalog


older | 1 | .... | 4080 | 4081 | (Page 4082) | 4083 | 4084 | .... | 4134 | newer

    0 0

    There is the Planck response based on the temperature (Planck) feedback. Then there are other feedbacks defined by the IPCC, Isaac Held and anyone else who knows what they are talking about and don't just repeat the same nonsense endlessly.

    0 0

    More data is always better of course so this is very good news. I am more skeptical that more data will really help us model and predict these ice sheet dynamics which is a very hard problem. I continue to be amazed at the ice age cycles. They are a classical case of subtle feedback responses to ZERO change in total forcing but a big change in the distribution of forcing. That's why climate models that miss the "pattern of warming" from historical data may not be very useful at some of these things.

    0 0

    Yes, feedbacks are by definition proportional to the response.

    0 0

    And so it is Christmas! My Christmas day opened with rainfall, about an inch since midnight, and now presents warm dry weather for planting Columbines. Here is my favorite Christmas song, which I think you may be able to enjoy even if you are not a devout Christian: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2ZEpfbWUrk I hope that you are enjoying Merry Christmases at your homes (or vacations), and that you have a Happy New Year in 2019.

    0 0

    The faulty policy argument is thus: "if we do nothing we will end up with RCP8.5 thermageddon!" We won't: RCP 8.5 is stagnation science fiction, it will never happen.

    0 0

    You mean like everybody acts as if human emissions will make it inevitable to reach 1.5°C and even 2.0°C, and the warming will persist for centuries to millennia causing further sea level rise? Predictions cannot be accurate until they happen. They only provide a basis to judge hypotheses. The IPCC predicted +1°C by 2025 in 1990. After 80% of the time, only 30% of the warming has taken place. So I agree with you that we should use predictions to judge the goodness of hypotheses and not act upon them as if facts.

    0 0

    The response is the temperature change such that: d(R)/dt = energy in - energy our = 0 i.e energy equilibrium In the simple zero dimensional model described: ECS = F/λ where λ is the net negative sum of feedbacks - as defined in this instance by the IPCC and Isaac Held. So you can take your whatever this most recent refusal to admit error and confusion is with you on that theoretical - like the rest of this - flying leap.

    0 0

    Sanakan, Your response is totally off point and shows ignorance of the modeling point I was making about skill. I've actually had some experience with weather models in my days at NCAR and in CFD since then. Bottom Line: Matt is right about model skill and you wasted a lot of time on a secondary point.

    0 0

    You can read all what I said again. There is a no-feedback response and that is the Planck response. This means that with the Planck response by itself, there is no feedback. The concept of a Planck feedback, that you keep using, is an oxymoron by the conventional definition of a feedback. If you insist on having a Planck feedback, you are using a different definition from normal and just confusing yourself with two definitions of feedback.

    0 0

    The skeptics are free to talk about no-mitigation scenarios of 600-900 ppm in glowing terms, but they don't and thus miss any kind of rebuttal to the "alarmist " case. With only one case seen in the scientific publications for those CO2 levels, no wonder the skeptics have been sidelined. I think they don't want to talk about 600-900 ppm in a positive way because they know it isn't. So they resort to attacking "alarmists" as though there is something wrong with being alarmed about those levels without making an opposite case.

    0 0

    reply in moderation - could take a while

    0 0

    If the next IPCC report includes all of the recent findings on the level of geothermal activity, not just on land but that affecting adjacent waters off West Antarctica, then it will demonstrate they are interested in legitimate science. They can ignore it but they can’t hide it. It’s there to be dealt with.

    0 0

    Correction... ECS = -F/λ

    0 0

    Re: <b>"You don’t"</b> That's nice, matthew. Let me know when you can finally honestly answer the questions you were asked, instead of continuing to evasively dodge them. Your Gish gallops are of no interest to me, nor are your persistent goal-post moves. Re: <b>"Sanakan, Your response is totally off point"</b> Really not interested in the whining. Stratospheric cooling is well-established, confirmed model-based prediction, and important for causal attribution. The excuses you and matthew make up for not addressing it are your problem. I await when the day when either of you are honestly interested enough in the science to address the topic. Until then, you'll continue to be way behind the mainstream climate science community in understanding what's being discussed.

    0 0

    You quote the last paragraph of the reference. Here is the first paragraph: "Some 125,000 years ago, during the last brief warm period between ice ages, Earth was awash. Temperatures during this time, called the Eemian, were barely higher than in today’s greenhouse-warmed world. Yet proxy records show sea levels were 6 to 9 meters higher than they are today, drowning huge swaths of what is now dry land." It sounds more religious than scientific.

    0 0

    OMG - we are all doomed. Even science that hasn't been done yet is predicting catastrophe.

    0 0

    There has been earlier work to suggest the WAIS is not stable in current conditions. https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2018/06/west-antarctic-ice-sheet-collapse-climate-change/

    0 0

    Sanakan, Reading comprehension is another of your problems. I addressed the stratosphere issue. The stratosphere cooled. The point is that one output functional can fortuitously have the same sign as the data and its scientifically not meaningful. That's known to every fluids modeler. And you are in this way mischaracterizing what matt said. On the broader point he is right.

    0 0

    <blockquote>Stratospheric cooling is well-established, confirmed model-based prediction, and important for causal attribution.</blockquote> That is not correct. It is very easy to see that stratospheric temperature change is inversely correlated to tropospheric temperature change, and therefore it confirms nothing. Whatever causes the warming of the troposphere, causes the cooling of the stratosphere. If it was CO2, Stratospheric temperature could only go down, as CO2 has only gone up, but that has not been the case. Stratospheric cooling only confirms planetary warming, not the cause. You need a prediction that is CO2 tied, not temperature tied. And it should be easy because CO2 has only increased. The fact that it is not easy to find indicates the effect of CO2 on temperature is small at best and negligible at worst.

    0 0

    So what was the point? Models and stratospheric cooling? https://judithcurry.com/2018/12/15/week-in-review-science-edition-91/#comment-886653 Clouds? https://judithcurry.com/2018/12/15/week-in-review-science-edition-91/#comment-886616 How wrong satellite tropospheric temps are but how right satellite stratospheric temps are? https://judithcurry.com/2018/12/15/week-in-review-science-edition-91/#comment-886518 How good models are at forecasting? https://judithcurry.com/2018/12/15/week-in-review-science-edition-91/#comment-886450 Does that prove the greenhouse gases, ozone depleting substances, changes in atmospheric circulation, solar variability or clouds have an influence on the temperature structure of the atmosphere? Do we need to? It does show the need to continue to refine observations and to improve model structures (Slingo and Palmer 2011). But all the empty posturing by people with an Idée fixe and presenting as massive tools is as far from science as it get's.

older | 1 | .... | 4080 | 4081 | (Page 4082) | 4083 | 4084 | .... | 4134 | newer