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 | .... | 4082 | 4083 | (Page 4084) | 4085 | 4086 | .... | 4134 | newer

    0 0

    <blockquote>From folks who are much more forthright in their representation of the scientific evidence than you are:</blockquote> Haha, that is a good one. IPCC FAR: <i>under the IPCC Business-as-Usual (Scenario A) emissions of greenhouse gases, a rate of increase of global mean temperature during the next century of about 0.3°C per decade (with an uncertainty range of 0.2°C to 0.5°C per decade), this is greater than that seen over the past 10,000 years. <b>This will result in a likely increase in global mean temperature of about 1°C above the present value by 2025</b> and 3°C before the end of the next century."</i> 1°C in 35 years is 0.285°C/per decade. And you defend that it is close to the warming observed. You just showed that your arguments are simple dialectic argumentation without regard for facts. That graph is a gross manipulation as it does not show what FAR predicted. Carbonbrief cannot be trusted. IPCC FAR prediction had a higher rate of warming than CMIP5 as everybody knows, including you. Here is how FAR prediction looks now: https://i.imgur.com/PDHDfzG.png 1°C from 1990 value (linear regression) to 2025. It is already off by more than 0.4°C, so it predicted more than double the warming observed. IPCC hypothesis has failed the test of being able to predict the future. It is therefore a failed hypothesis. Reducing its predicted warming at every report and moving its predictions to 2100 when every adult now will be dead will not change that it is a failed hypothesis.

    0 0

    <blockquote>Temperatures during this time, called the Eemian, were barely higher than in today’s greenhouse-warmed world.</blockquote> That shows the problem of accepting bad science as truthful. Marcott et al., 2013 falsely proclaimed that temperatures now are much higher than during the Holocene Climatic Optimum. If you swallow that lie uncritically, then nothing makes sense in paleoclimatology, including sea levels during the much warmer Eemian. So they set up their scientific quest not to see what the evidence supports, but to look for ways to explain away an anomaly between evidence and hypothesis, violating the scientific method. They know if they can concoct an excuse to support the failed hypothesis, it will be very well received, published and included in IPCC report. They shouldn't call themselves scientists.

    0 0

    Yes Robert, Sanakan is impossible to have an honest discussion with. He uses personal insults, he quotes very selectively from the literature, and simply will not discuss the important issues. When Matt introduced the issue of model skill, Sanakan brings up stratospheric cooling. It's largely irrelevant to model skill since he has no quantification of how much cooling there was and whether models got that quantification right. In any case a complex issue becomes a little tantrum for him to repeat talking points. In virtually every important way, Matt is right and Sanakan wrong.

    0 0

    Despite all your words, I think you know what people mean by a positive feedback being defined as amplifying the Planck Response, and a negative feedback reducing it.

    0 0

    The 1990 FAR included forcing growth for the gasses that would greatly be reduced by the Montreal Protocol. Annual growth in GHG forcing: https://i.imgur.com/Y79wDSW.png From a link graciously provided above: https://i.imgur.com/qIDYW0w.png

    0 0

    Re: <i>"1°C in 35 years is 0.285°C/per decade. And you defend that it is close to the warming observed. You just showed that your arguments are simple dialectic argumentation without regard for facts. That graph is a gross manipulation as it does not show what FAR predicted. Carbonbrief cannot be trusted. IPCC FAR prediction had a higher rate of warming than CMIP5 as everybody knows, including you."</i> Ahaha. CarbonBrief is much more credible than you, especially since you willfully leave out the uncertainty range for FAR's estimates, unlike CarbonBrief. And they actually looked at multiple observational analyses, instead of cherry-picking just one,unliike you. And they properly baselined their analyses for comparison. CarbonBrief's analysis actually matches publications on this subject, such as: <i>"Assessment of the first consensus prediction on climate change"</i> Let me know when you actually read the published literature, Javier. Re: <b>"1°C from 1990 value (linear regression) to 2025. It is already off by more than 0.4°C, so it predicted more than double the warming observed"</b> My goodness, you don't even know how to do a proper baseline for a comparison. Ask CarbonBrief to help you with making a temperature baseline for comparing projections and observational analyses, Or read the paper I cited for you above. Re: <b>"Yes Robert, Sanakan is impossible to have an honest discussion with. He uses personal insults, he quotes very selectively from the literature, and simply will not discuss the important issues. When Matt introduced the issue of model skill, Sanakan brings up stratospheric cooling. It’s largely irrelevant to model skill since he has no quantification of how much cooling there was and whether models got that quantification right. In any case a complex issue becomes a little tantrum for him to repeat talking points. In virtually every important way, Matt is right and Sanakan wrong."</b> And now you're whining about insults that don't exist, while throwing around terms like "tantrum". How telling. You were already cited publications quantifying stratospheric cooling both in observational analyses and model-based projections. You won't address them, because you don't bother to read the peer-reviewed literature, and start complaining when it's cited to you. Let me know when you're actually capable of reading peer-reviewed sources, and understanding stratospheric cooling.

    0 0

    By people I take it you mean the blog you got the meme from. 😎

    0 0

    OK, we have established that you don't know the normal definition of a positive feedback or believe in such a thing as a no-feedback response. This comes from one of your own references. "We will call amplifying feedbacks positive and damping feedbacks negative."

    0 0

    <blockquote>The 1990 FAR included forcing growth for the gasses that would greatly be reduced by the Montreal Protocol.</blockquote> Which just means they got wrong multiple things. And there is zero guaranties that they aren't still wrong, as judging by the overheating of more recent models (CMIP5).

    0 0

    <blockquote>instead of cherry-picking just one,unliike you</blockquote> More false argumentation. Those are the exact words from IPCC FAR Summary for Policymakers, so they did the cherrypicking. Just read it again, as you appear not to have to. One degree is one degree whichever way you slice it, and present temperature in a 1990 publication is 1990 temperature. Quite simple, except for Carbonbrief. Why should I trust them? They are activists devoid of the necessary neutrality. They are manipulating that graph because it does not show a one degree increase between 1990 and 2025 as IPCC FAR clearly predicted.

    0 0

    Temperature, lapse and water vapor feedbacks using the RH decomposition method - compared to the earlier method using specific humidity as the state variable. https://journals.ametsoc.org/na101/home/literatum/publisher/ams/journals/content/clim/2012/15200442-25.8/jcli-d-11-00721.1/production/images/medium/jcli-d-11-00721.1-f1.gif “Fig. 1. Temperature, lapse-rate, and water vapor feedback strengths in CMIP3 models from the traditional perspective with specific humidity as the state variable and from the alternative perspective with relative humidity as the state variable. (right three columns) The temperature and lapse-rate feedbacks at fixed specific humidity and the specific humidity feedback (red); (left three columns) the temperature and lapse-rate feedbacks at fixed relative humidity and the relative humidity feedback (blue). (central column) The sum of the three feedbacks, which is independent of the choice of decomposition (black). Each model result is indicated by a dot.” https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00721.1 Here positive feedbacks amplify the planetary response to forcing and negative feedbacks reduce equilibrium warming at a restored energy equilibrium at TOA. Although the real world energy balance at any time is dynamic and is determined largely by chaotic patterns of ocean and atmospheric circulation. And there are other feedbacks to forcing changes in cloud, ice, CO2 sequestration and vegetation greening that are less amenable to precise or even approximate quantification. As explained a dozen times at least the Planck response is the temperature change needed to cancel a forcing imbalance at TOA considering only the temperature (Planck) feedback. It can't be put more simply or with more authoritative sources.

    0 0

    Atomsk's Sanakan: <i>You’ve been repeatedly cited evidence on confirmed climate model predictions (ex: cooling of the stratosphere, mesosphere, and thermosphere; positive water vapor feedback).</i> Those have been ordinal, not quantitative. I was referring to the lack of demonstrably accurate predictions of global (and regional) mean surface temperature changes and rainfall changes. This brings us back to goals. When did the goal become prediction of qualitative changes of the stratosphere instead of quantitative predictions of surface temperature (and rainfall) changes? Who said in Congressional testimony that we had to act to prevent a decrease in stratospheric temperature? The urgency has always been directed toward surface changes such as crop failures and killing heat waves. Already more than a century ago Arrhenius predicted that accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere would cause atmospheric warming (and consequences. So what? 97% of scientists agree that warming has occurred and that human activities are major contributors. what are the other contributors, and how influential are they? I agree as well as does the noted skeptic Monckton of Brenchley. Of the skeptics here at Climate Etc who dispute that CO2 has any warming effect, most have been in turn disputed by me and others. But the goals now are to the provided accurate quantitative answers to these questions: of the human activities such as deforestation, urbanization and other land use changes, and CO2 emissions, what is the quantitative effect of each of those; what are the other contributors, and how influential are they? What climate change could be prevented by reducing anthropogenic CO2? And referring again to my goal #7 which was the raison detre’ of the IPCC, what are the costs and benefits of all the changes? If you think that the goals are something else, let us know what they are. I have not changed the goals. As to the "pause", it has been both disputed and accepted in the peer-reviewed literature. Here is a portion of the debate just in Science Magazine: the hiatus was predictable; the hiatus didn't matter; the hiatus didn't occur. it was only a surface warming hiatus, etc. https://search.sciencemag.org/?searchTerm=global%20warming%20hiatus&order=tfidf&limit=textFields&pageSize=10&& Now that the 2015-2016 El Nino seems to be marking the end of the hiatus, it will be interesting (as I wrote elsewhere) to see how much of a rebound like the rebound from the 2018-2019 El Nino will occur. Predictions from diverse models are all over the place.

    0 0

    Atomski imagines that there is a denial that greenhouse gases - inter alia - affect the temperature profile of the atmosphere. He imagines a science that is far less nuanced than it is in reality - and a reality that is far less dynamically complex than it is. His comments are largely reiterations of rehearsed complaints about contrarions sprinkled with lists of papers he has a superficial grasp of at best. And I do discuss some more recent 'citations' elsewhere here - in comments that he doesn't respond to. A citation btw supports an argument and is not merely a list of study titles. He is a quixotic type battling windmills of the mind.

    0 0

    Re: <b>"One degree is one degree whichever way you slice it"</b> Still ignoring uncertainty estimates and confidence intervals, along with the usual mistakes from you. Re: <b>"Those have been ordinal, not quantitative"</b> Nope, they've been quantitative as well, as shown in the very papers cited to you. Please come up with a better rationalization for evading the questions, moving the goalposts, etc. The rest of your Gish gallop is a red herring.

    0 0

    Atomski, Matt's last comment states very well the issue here. Model skill is quantitative and NOT ordinal. Your entire long string of comments here is just distracting from this central point. There are many recent papers documenting lack of skill regarding patterns of warming, i.e., the current climate. Andrews, T, Gregory, J M and Webb, M J, 2015. The dependence of radiative forcing and feedback on evolving patterns of surface temperature change in climate models. J. Climate 28, 1630–1648

    0 0

    "Why are there discrepancies between observations and simulations and between different simulations? • Intrinsic variability of simulations and nature [dynamical sensitive dependence ⇒ predictability limits & sampling errors] • Model bias and/or phenomenological deficiency [model design ⇒ e.g., multi-scale computations] • Irreducible imprecision of simulations [dynamical structural instability ⇒ model families and solution ensembles]" http://research.atmos.ucla.edu/tcd/PREPRINTS/Jerusalem_slides.pdf LMFTFY - http://lmgtfy.com/?q=irreducible+imprecision+in+climate+models

    0 0

    Re: <b>"Model skill is quantitative and NOT ordinal."</b> Which is not an actual principle in model evaluation; it's just another goal-post move the two of you have invented in order to dodge the evidence. And even if it were a principle, the two of you would have still messed up, since you're evading evidence on quantitative estimates of stratospheric cooling. Re: <b>"Your entire long string of comments here is just distracting from this central point."</b> Not a distraction; you just lack the ability to address them. Re: <b>"There are many recent papers documenting lack of skill regarding patterns of warming, i.e., the current climate."</b> The irony here is amazing. When I cite papers, you complain about the very ideas, and do everything you can to dodge the research. When you cite papers (which you clearly haven't read), then that's fine with you. How telling. And no, the paper you cited doesn't support what you claimed. Please actually read the papers you cite, before distorting them. The pattern of warming is what one would expect with increased CO2: warming of the troposphere and near-surface, with cooling of the stratosphere (that increases with increasing height), and cooling of the mesosphere and thermosphere. The regional pattern of CO2-induced warming is also present. Go do some reading: <i>"For example, the aerosol fingerprint shows a spatial and temporal pattern of near-surface temperature changes that varies between hemispheres and over time (see Hegerl et al. 2007, Section 9.4.1.5). [...] These patterns make the response to solar and aerosol forcing distinguishable (with uncertainties) from that due to greenhouse gas forcing."</i> https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/BAMS-D-11-00191.1

    0 0

    1. Aerosols from a 2007 argumentative response to a meta-analysis? https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/113/16/4243/F2.medium.gif “Time-course evolution of BC aerosol composition, light absorption (where EMAC-BC is the enhancement because of coatings), and associated climate effects (as DRF).” https://www.pnas.org/content/113/16/4243 https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/jgrd.50171 Black carbon warming is underestimated by a factor of 3 in AR5 forcings - and sulfate cooling overestimated in mixed species emissions from fossil fuels. 2. 'Expert assessment' of attribution in the AR4 was clearly wrong at the time. "In summary, although there is independent evidence for decadal changes in TOA radiative fl uxes over the last two decades, the evidence is equivocal. Changes in the planetary and tropical TOA radiative fl uxes are consistent with independent global ocean heat-storage data, and are expected to be dominated by changes in cloud radiative forcing. To the extent that they are real, they may simply reflect natural low-frequency variability of the climate system." Confirmed as real many times since. "We emphasize that the NE Pacific cloud changes described above are tied to cloud changes that span the Pacific basin. Despite much less surface sampling in the Southeast (SE) Pacific, cloud and meteorological changes in that region generally occur in parallel with those in the NE Pacific (Figs. 2 and 3). Also, we find that the leading mode in an empirical orthogonal function analysis (15% of the variance) of global cloud cover (fig. S3) has a spatial pattern similar to that in Fig. 3 and the time series shows the same decadal shifts as in Fig. 1, indicating that the changes in the NE Pacific are part of a dominant mode of global cloud variability." Clement et al 2009 3, <i>“The high likelihood of the imprecise “most” seems rather meaningless”: We disagree. The likelihood describes the assessed probability that “most” (i.e., more than 50%), of the warming is due to the increase in greenhouse gases. This statement has a clear meaning and an associated uncertainty, although explicitly listing “>50%” in the text to ensure that no misunderstandings are possible could be helpful in future work.</i> Really? Who cares? 4. And we know without a doubt that internal variability is missing in climate models.

    0 0

    Atomsk's Sanakan: <i>moving the goalposts </i> So tell us all about the goal posts. That isn't a red herring. Did somebody decide that the real goal was to predict the stratospheric response to CO2, and that predicting the Earth surface responses was irrelevant?

    0 0

    Jim under a business as usual scenario we won't even cross 600 ppm. https://klimaathype.files.wordpress.com/2018/11/co2_sres.png

older | 1 | .... | 4082 | 4083 | (Page 4084) | 4085 | 4086 | .... | 4134 | newer