Comment on The 50-50 argument by John

August 26, 2014, 12:58 pm

≫ Next: Comment on The 50-50 argument by Brandon Shollenberger

≪ Previous: Comment on The 50-50 argument by Wagathon

$

0

0

Steve, I wonder if your correct technical explantions for “how to disentangle natural variations from recent greenhouse gas contributions” might nevertheless be missing the policy point a bit. Bishop Hill observed the following, after Prof. Richard Betts (a leading GCM modeller) said that GCMs simply couldn’t predict future temperature responses to CO2 increasess very well:

“Estimates of climate sensitivity – and therefore in practice GCM estimates of climate sensitivity – directly inform estimates of the social cost of carbon. So when people like Chris Hope are arguing for a carbon tax of $100/tCO2, this is a function of GCMs. I recall, I hope correctly, that Chris suggested a figure of $18/tCO2 if one used an ECS of 1.6, in line with observational estimates. This matters of course, because the policy response, if any, to an $18 problem is significantly different to that for a $100 problem.”

Link: http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2014/8/24/gcms-and-public-policy.html

---

Comment on The 50-50 argument by Brandon Shollenberger

August 26, 2014, 1:00 pm

≫ Next: Comment on The 50-50 argument by Rob Ellison

≪ Previous: Comment on The 50-50 argument by John

$

0

0

Matthew R Marler, no prob. I’m not opposed to learning more about the topic. I just haven’t seen anything about it thus far that has caught my attention. That puts it in the category of “things I’ll check out if it’s convenient.” If I ever happen to see that book, I’ll be happy to read what it has to say. The same is true if I ever see a post giving a good overview of the subject. I just don’t intend to look too hard for such.

In the meantime, I figure if people on either side of dispute want me to understand their position, they can write an overview which actually explains matters. If they choose not to, instead going with posts and comments like what I saw at Ander’s blog, I’m going to stay uninterested.

Comment on The 50-50 argument by Rob Ellison

August 26, 2014, 1:02 pm

≫ Next: Comment on The 50-50 argument by Tom Scharf

≪ Previous: Comment on The 50-50 argument by Brandon Shollenberger

$

0

0

I have not paid much attention to Salby’s presentations at all. However – there are many other sources and ‘ecosystem warming experiments, modelling analyses and fundamental biokinetics’ all suggest that natural CO2 flux should change significantly with climate. Some 5Pg C/year increase in recent times from a couple of references I give below.

From this we would presume that Pekka’s understanding in this area is superficial at best.

Comment on The 50-50 argument by Tom Scharf

August 26, 2014, 1:02 pm

≫ Next: Comment on The 50-50 argument by John

≪ Previous: Comment on The 50-50 argument by Rob Ellison

$

0

0

I would submit one “force X” is the second order effects of (fill in the blank) forcing. Just as the gain factor of CO2 is essentially tripled via feedback mechanisms, one can postulate that there are not well understood similar feedback mechanisms to other forcings.

What? I haven’t proven this feedback X exists? Well we don’t have handle on CO2 feedback either.

Add in to this the uncertainty of the historical forcings, especially aerosols, and the poor historical monitoring in places such as the southern hemisphere and deep oceans, and there is a lot of guessing going on in these models. There has to be.

If all the modelers use the same historical forcing estimates, they will likely create similar models. This can create a circular argument of “proof of significant AGW attribution” that can be tracked directly back to questionable estimates of historical forcings, not physics.

Now suppose those historical estimates are materially wrong…

It just seems like a big pile of pliable play-doh. The best effort does not equal adequate for the purpose. Are they adequate? How on earth would anyone really know?

One way to know is by skilled forecasts. Are there others?

Comment on The 50-50 argument by John

August 26, 2014, 1:03 pm

≫ Next: Comment on The 50-50 argument by Tonyb

≪ Previous: Comment on The 50-50 argument by Tom Scharf

$

0

0

The reason to keep doing the science, as with the new article suggesting recent increasing transfer of surface heat to the deep Atlantic, is to get a closer estimate of climate sensitivity, which will then help narrow the choice of policy options.

The reason is NOT to satisfy every skeptic, won’t happen. You might satisfy an increasing number of skeptics, but that still isn’t the reason for trying to better “disentangle natural variations from recent greenhouse gas contributions.” The reason is to get better answers and thus to narrow policy choices, or at least better inform them.

Comment on The 50-50 argument by Tonyb

August 26, 2014, 1:06 pm

≫ Next: Comment on The 50-50 argument by Dave Peters

≪ Previous: Comment on The 50-50 argument by John

$

0

0

Whathon

I attempted to graph the advances and retreats of glaciers over the past three thousand years. See figure 5

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/16/historic-variations-in-temperature-number-four-the-hockey-stick/

It’s odd how the hockey stick sails serenely on with little deviation in temperature as the glaciers advance and retreat around it

Tonyb

Comment on The 50-50 argument by Dave Peters

August 26, 2014, 1:08 pm

≫ Next: Comment on The 50-50 argument by Wagathon

≪ Previous: Comment on The 50-50 argument by Tonyb

$

0

0

Wow. Two thumbs up.

Comment on The 50-50 argument by Wagathon

August 26, 2014, 1:16 pm

≫ Next: Comment on The 50-50 argument by David L. Hagen

≪ Previous: Comment on The 50-50 argument by Dave Peters

$

0

0

…muscle memory?

---

Comment on The 50-50 argument by David L. Hagen

August 26, 2014, 1:20 pm

≫ Next: Comment on The 50-50 argument by vukcevic

≪ Previous: Comment on The 50-50 argument by Wagathon

$

0

0

Glassman For greater modeling accuracy, see <a href="https://www.itia.ntua.gr/getfile/1184/1/documents/2012EJP_ClausiusClapeyron_corrected.pdf" rel="nofollow">Clausius-Clapeyron equation and saturation vapour pressure: simple theory reconciled with practice</a>

Comment on The 50-50 argument by vukcevic

August 26, 2014, 1:32 pm

≫ Next: Comment on The 50-50 argument by Dave Peters

≪ Previous: Comment on The 50-50 argument by David L. Hagen

$

0

0

Some of you may have seen the CET link I posted 2 days ago

http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-x-2.htm

and may have wonder what would be natural drive for such odd coincidence.
Now, I have added to the link a further graphic, which may or may not be relevant.

Comment on The 50-50 argument by Dave Peters

August 26, 2014, 1:33 pm

≫ Next: Comment on The 50-50 argument by JD Ohio

≪ Previous: Comment on The 50-50 argument by vukcevic

$

0

0

Tom — I am not trying to start one with this, but I can not understand my error. If a thirty-five yr. crawl of Hadley attains equipoise in 1907, and if thereafter the secular trend is 0.016 F,/yr., & if the 9/97 thru 8/98 increase is 0.55 f., then why would anyone “expect” there not to follow a “pause”?

I admit to being incurably warmist. So, I look at the above Had-facts, and shrug, well, check with me in 2032. Your tribe (should you be a minimalist) seems to alight upon that 1998 date as if any simple assertion entwined with it makes sense. I don’t know enough math to do so. It’s rather like pondering what happened to the Broncos last January.

Comment on The 50-50 argument by JD Ohio

August 26, 2014, 1:50 pm

≫ Next: Comment on The 50-50 argument by mosomoso

≪ Previous: Comment on The 50-50 argument by Dave Peters

$

0

0

Curryja “I have a forthcoming post on salby. If anyone has debunking links, i would appreciate seeing these.”

On 8/19 at Lucia’s I asked whether Salby’s work was decent science. http://rankexploits.com/musings/2014/back-from-vacation-open-thread/ A debunking link that was unanswered from Dewitt Payne was this http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/co2_origin.html

I don’t feel competent to judge Salby’s work and will look forward to your post.

Comment on The 50-50 argument by mosomoso

August 26, 2014, 1:59 pm

≫ Next: Comment on The 50-50 argument by Wagathon

≪ Previous: Comment on The 50-50 argument by JD Ohio

$

0

0

The climate is old, and running out of surprises.

The Hockeystick, being purely anthropogenic, is novel.

Comment on The 50-50 argument by Wagathon

August 26, 2014, 2:00 pm

≫ Next: Comment on The 50-50 argument by Wagathon

≪ Previous: Comment on The 50-50 argument by mosomoso

$

0

0

Looking at the linked article, Revkin says, “Climate science homes in on the oceans’ role in driving wiggles in global warming.”

Ocean jiggling and jangling causing wiggling. What else do the AGW-alarmists have to hang their hat on? All they can say is –e.g., despite the hiatus / lull / plateau / stutter / lolling / dangling — the average global temperature will never actually crater because… humans produce CO2, tra-la… and, we’ll be saying the same thing ten years from now no matter what natures brings our way because, we’re professionals.

Comment on The 50-50 argument by Wagathon

August 26, 2014, 2:02 pm

≫ Next: Comment on The 50-50 argument by Wagathon

≪ Previous: Comment on The 50-50 argument by Wagathon

$

0

0

‘The climate’ is nothing more than looking backward at past weather and looking forward, there will always be surprises.

---

Comment on The 50-50 argument by Wagathon

August 26, 2014, 2:13 pm

≫ Next: Comment on The 50-50 argument by vukcevic

≪ Previous: Comment on The 50-50 argument by Wagathon

$

0

0

Christian Schlüchter: <em>The solar activity is the lever of change. In addition, tectonic movements and the shifting of the seasons in the northern hemisphere play a role. Even volcanoes can be a trigger.</em>

Comment on The 50-50 argument by vukcevic

August 26, 2014, 2:20 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review by GaryM

≪ Previous: Comment on The 50-50 argument by Wagathon

$

0

0

To a certain extent

http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSN-NAPa.htm

Comment on Week in review by GaryM

August 26, 2014, 3:15 pm

≫ Next: Comment on The 50-50 argument by Matthew R Marler

≪ Previous: Comment on The 50-50 argument by vukcevic

$

0

0

I wonder what Zeke Hausfather and Mosher think about these examples of “homogenization” of temperatures?

http://joannenova.com.au/2014/08/bom-finally-explains-cooling-changed-to-warming-trends-because-stations-might-have-moved/

(By way of WUWT)

Didn’t the New Zealand government not long ago just trash their own “national temperature record” because it was so clearly manipulated?

Can the Aussies be far behind?

Comment on The 50-50 argument by Matthew R Marler

August 26, 2014, 3:25 pm

≫ Next: Comment on The 50-50 argument by Matthew R Marler

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review by GaryM

$

0

0

WebHubTelescope: All of the net warming since 1880 is attributable to man-made causes.

Are you totally uninterested in quantifying how much is due to CO2 and how much to other causes? You have been repeatedly asked. Clearly you are not obliged to answer, but you don’t seem to have understood the question.

Comment on The 50-50 argument by Matthew R Marler

August 26, 2014, 3:31 pm

≫ Next: Comment on The 50-50 argument by Matthew R Marler

≪ Previous: Comment on The 50-50 argument by Matthew R Marler

$

0

0

Rob Ellison: Or are you relying on popular strawmen?

I cited his textbook and his oral presentation that circulated on the internet. He has argued that the correlation of CO2 change with temperature shows that the increase can not be man-made; but the correlation can have multiple causes and can exist even if the CO2 increase is mostly man-made.

Are you still confident that Salby is 100% correct?