Max.
Very clear.
There are multiple different ways of estimating climate sensitivity with different outcomes and uncertainties associated.
You choose one particular method, and disregard evidence from others.
You make no effort to acknowledge the uncertainties with the method you prefer.
Crystal. Clear.
Girma
I’m not going to get into a big argument with you on the “hidden in the pipeline” premise.
To me, the concept of our “climate” ever reaching “equilibrium” seems foreign to the way it actually works.
The idea that heat is “hidden in the pipeline” for decades or even a century seems a bit like voodoo science.
The logic used by Hansen et al. to arrive at this estimate is circular:
- My models tell me it should have warmed by X degrees since 1880
- The thermometers tell me it only warmed by X/2 degrees
- Therefore the difference = X/2 is still “hidden in the pipeline”
And, in addition, his arithmetic was sloppy.
And the whole concept is not supported by any empirical evidence.
But, having said all that, you will never get a true “believer’s” attention if you pooh-pooh the “hidden in the pipeline” concept – it has become something like the “holy grail”.
The good news is that IPCC has, in effect told us its impact: if all GHG emissions had stopped in 2000, IPCC estimates that 0.6C warming would still occur over the next century as the “hidden heat” comes out of the “pipeline”. IOW this is the amount of warming that must be added to any observed transient climate response to arrive at an estimate for ECS, which could be accepted by a true “believer”.
Max
Max_Ch, for a person who pleads ignorance of what’s behind the warming trend and the recent pause (“Because that is the way the climate wanted it.”), I am surprised at your willingness, even eagerness, to experiment with running atmospheric CO2 up to levels never experienced by modern man.
But I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised at your enthusiasm for taking a risk that’s no risk to you at all. You won’t live long enough to suffer any of the consequences of the gamble you want to take. You are in effect gambling with someone else’s money, and it’s money you know you won’t have to repay.
I’ll leave you with this thought before turning in for the night. Your legacy may turn out to be “climate deadbeat.”
He gambled away something that was ours, and now he’s gone and can’t pay us back, future generations may say about people like you.
Max_CH, wouldn’t you sleep better a night knowing you won’t be remembered as a climate deadbeat?
VTG
You are mistaken when you write:
There are multiple different ways of estimating climate sensitivity with different outcomes and uncertainties associated.
You choose one particular method, and disregard evidence from others.
You make no effort to acknowledge the uncertainties with the method you prefer.
I have cited the seven recent studies on 2xCO2 ECS, which arrive, on average at a value of around 1.8C with ranges of +/- 0.6C, or around one-half the value predicted by the models cited by IPCC in AR4 WG1 Ch.8 (3.2C+/-0.7C).
If you look at these studies, you will see that, while several of them use actual observations as opposed to simply model simulations, they use different ways of estimating ECS. [So I do not "choose one particular method", as you write].
The uncertainties are cited by the authors. I simply averaged their ranges. And there is no “method that I prefer”.
So you are wrong on all points.
Max
Max,
you do indeed, as usual, continue to ignore studies whose results you don’t like. Indeed entire methodologies.
Knutti & Hegerl
Enjoy the echo chamber
Alexej Buergin
Looks like not only the 2xCO2 ECS is overestimated by a factor of 2x by IPCC, but also the exponential CO2 growth rate.
This has leveled off at around 0.5% per year (NOT 1% per year).
So, instead of doubling in 70 years it would increase by 40% in 70 years, and would double in 140 years.
Big difference.
And when you compound the two exaggerations, you get a super-exaggeration.
Max
So, Chief, you don’t deny you are 100 years old. I hope I live that long.
You may not have much time left to let go off that silly decade notion. It is not an explanation for climate change, it’s simply observation. It’s like observing an old wind-up clock and attributing the movement of the hands to the passing of time rather than to what’s inside the clock, and then when the clock runs down, thinking time has stopped.
Wise up while you still have some times (hopefully years) left.
Unlike El Niño and La Niña, which may occur every 3 to 7 years and last from 6 to 18 months, the PDO can remain in the same phase for 20 to 30 years. The shift in the PDO can have significant implications for global climate, affecting Pacific and Atlantic hurricane activity, droughts and flooding around the Pacific basin, the productivity of marine ecosystems, and global land temperature patterns. This multi-year Pacific Decadal Oscillation ‘cool’ trend can intensify La Niña or diminish El Niño impacts around the Pacific basin,” said Bill Patzert, an oceanographer and climatologist at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif. “The persistence of this large-scale pattern [in 2008] tells us there is much more than an isolated La Niña occurring in the Pacific Ocean.”
Natural, large-scale climate patterns like the PDO and El Niño-La Niña are superimposed on global warming caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases and landscape changes like deforestation. According to Josh Willis, JPL oceanographer and climate scientist, “These natural climate phenomena can sometimes hide global warming caused by human activities. Or they can have the opposite effect of accentuating it.”
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=8703
There is a big picture of quite a lot of the planet on the site. Are you really quite insane Max?
Hansen first discussed unrealized warming in a paper written in 1985:
Hansen, J., G. Russell, A. Lacis, I. Fung, D Rind, and P. Stone, 1985: Climate response times: Dependence on climate sensitivity and ocean mixing. Science, 229, 857-859, doi:10.1126/science.229.4716.857.
…The response times are particularly sensitive to (i) the amount that the climate response is amplified by feedbacks and (ii) the representation of ocean mixing. If equilibrium sensitivity is 3C or greater for a doubling of carbon dioxide concentration, then most of the expected warming attributable to trace gases added to the atmosphere by man probably has not yet occurred. This yet to be realized warming… – James Hansen, 1985
The existence of unrealized warming complicates the CO2 and trace gas issue… – James Hansen, 1985
Scratch that, now he’s discussing it in 1983.
Well !
If you realize that Dessler and Trenerth totally has missunderstood and put the wrong sign in front of water wapour and cloids you have solved the mysteriuos “hiatus”. and an answer to why all the modells calculate this wrong. Why not start with the most obvious reason to why the modells dont wokr?
VTG
Seems to me like you are the one who is ignoring SEVEN new independent studies, all published since 2011 and all showing a 2xCO2 ECS of around half the previously estimated value, using different methods of analysis.
But you gleefully cherry pick one from 2008 that suits your taste.
This study concludes
- that “current models” arrive at a range of “2.1–4.4 °C”,
- “that uncertainties in forcing and response made it impossible to use observed global temperature changes during that period to constrain S more tightly than the range explored by climate models (1.5–4.5 °C at the time)” [this is exactly the point now contradicted by the more recent studies, which constrain ECS to the 1.2–2.4 °C range based on "observed global temperature changes"],
- that paleo-climate reconstructions show “the relationship between temperature over the past 420 million years supports sensitivities that are larger than 1.5 °C, but the upper tail is poorly constrained”, “most studies find a lower 5% limit between 1 and 2 °C” and “studies that use information
in a relatively complete manner generally find a most likely value between 2 and 3.5 °C and that there is no credible line of evidence that yields very high or very low climate sensitivity as a best estimate.”
From this the authors suggest that the range of 1.5–4.5 °C seems to be realistic, with the remainder of the paper discussing effects and impacts.
With the exception of the estimates based on “observed global temperature changes” (which has been superseded by the more recent studies I cited), I see nothing very exciting here: models suggest one range for ECS, paleo data another and now actual physical observations a third.
Max
Max
JCH
According to the quotation you cited, Hansen wrote (in 1985 or 1983):
If equilibrium sensitivity is 3C or greater for a doubling of carbon dioxide …
That’s the circular logic, JCH (starting with the little BIG word, “IF”)..
Max
+1
Your claim has been he dreamed up the pipeline recently, and your claim is wrong.
Link?
HOW IPCC’S CLIMATE SENSITIVITY OF ABOUT 3 DEG C IS DERIVED.
From Knight et al. 2008:
Observations indicate that global temperature rise has slowed in
the last decade (Fig. 2.8a). The least squares trend for January 1999 to December 2008 calculated from the HadCRUT3 dataset (Brohan et al. 2006) is +0.07±0.07°C/ decade—much less than the 0.18°C decade–1 recorded between 1979 and 2005 and the 0.2°C/ decade expected in the next decade (IPCC; Solomon et al. 2007).
http://rankexploits.com/musings/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/global_temperatures_09_Knight.pdf
So in the climate models, for the period from 1979 to 2005, the global warming rate was 0.18 deg C/decade, which gives a global warming of
dT = (2005-1979+1)* 0.18/10 = 27*0.18/10 = 0.49 deg C.
For 1979, CO2 concentration in the atmosphere was C1 = 337 ppm.
For 2005, CO2 concentration in the atmosphere was C2 = 380 ppm.
The climate sensitivity (CS) is defined by the formula:
CS = ln(2) * dT/ln(C2/C1) = ln(2) * 0.49/ln(380/337) = 0.693*0.49/0.12 = 2.8 deg C.
This estimate is identical to GISS’s modelE:
The model’s climate sensitivity of 2.7–2.9°C for doubled CO2 is well within the empirical range of 3±1°C for doubled CO2 that has been inferred from paleoclimate evidence (Hansen et al. 1984, 1993; Hoffert and Covey 1992).
Max_OK,
Do you think 10 May 2013 is 2 months out of date, do you? It’s today’s you nincompoop.
Only if you don’t believe in conservation of energy.
Max_OK
In your great nation, you have a two-party system.
As a result, it’s a “winner take all” (or “black and white”) political landscape.
And it is true that (at the last election) more Democratic voters came out than Republican voters (51.3% to 48.7%, I believe).
But the voter participation was only 58.7%.
So we really have
30.1% – Leaning Democratic
28.6% – Leaning Republican
41.3% – Unknown
It is generally believed that a higher percentage of Democrats would support a carbon tax in your country than Republicans, although there are no hard poll data on this.
A poll of Democrats and Republicans regarding the overall topic of AGW, however, showed that 70% of Democrats and only 29% of Republicans felt AGW was a potential problem.
http://phys.org/news/2011-04-democrats-republicans-increasingly-global.html
If we make the “leap of faith” that the last voting electorate also followed this split, and that all those who believed in AGW would also support a carbon tax, we have:.
We then have:
0.70*30.1 + 0.29*28.6 = 29.4% in favor
0.30*30.1 + 0.71*28.6 = 29.3% against
and 41.3% undecided (or unknown)
So, with less than 30% of the population in favor of a carbon tax, it is unlikely that this is going very far in the USA today, as seen by someone on the outside.
Max_CH
