The TLT (lower trophosphere) includes altitudes of zero to about 12,500 meters and is most heavily weighted to altitudes of less than 3000 meters.
BD, unless you live next to a weather station RSS measures temperatures closer to you that NCDC or GISS.
UAH covers 97-98% of the globe (missing a small circle at each pole), and RSS covers slightly less.
Calumny — there’s that word again. You guys sound like you come from some Victorian age. Little wonder that no one understands where you are coming from.
Welcome to the world of the internet, where it takes effort to beat back the pseudo-science.
lil steven said:
”
The problem is the context was eddy diffusion which is not diffusive mixing.
“
Of course eddy diffusion is diffusive mixing, otherwise they wouldn’t call it diffusion.
Where do they find these people?
tonyb
your comments (and your article I read here on CE)
are among the most persuasive to me
anecdotal?
please see my comment to FOMD below
thank you
Jim D: The forcing change under BAU in the 21st century will be 2.5 times that in the 20th century, so even if it was (dubiously) only 50% then, it will be that much larger going forwards, and should be easily the dominant effect on climate.
Since you are in your forecasting mood, maybe you could address some other aspects of the future:
1. Over what time span will the concentration of CO2 double from its present value of about 400 ppm?
2. Over what time span will the global mean temperature rise 1C?
3. What will be the net change in rainfall in consequence of CO2 and temp increases by 2100?
4. What will be the next effects of increased CO2 on agricultural and forest productivity, and other vegetation?
Just curious. I sort of “keep score” on the evidence in a “sequential analysis” mode. For 1 I expect at least 150 years, and it may never happen as fossil fuel use declines (BAU) in the second half of the century.
For 2 I have about 100 years.
For 3, I have a net increase, but with much regional variability. In the US since 1950 the region between the Rockies and Appalachians experienced a net increase in max rainfall of about 7% (but the baseline varies throughout the region.)
For 4, I think the evidence supports a net increase in vegetative net primary productivity.
Webby, look at yourself. You are nothing more than a third rate scientist at a third rate university lashing out over nothing more than your inadequacies. Have you no shame?
I should modify this:
==> “So, then, you are saying it is “foolish” to think that more than 50% of the warming over the last century is attributable to anthropogenic CO2.”
Obviously, It isn’t really warming over the last century, but warming over the past 5 or 6 decades or so, projected to a centennial scale.
I would appreciate it if someone could tell me what sensitivity figure would equate to 50% of warming over the past 5 or 6 decades if projected to a centennial scale.
Would the resulting number be included in Nic Lewis’ 90% CI that goes up to 3.0°C per doubling?
They describe their meaning of consensus in their abstract “the consensus position that humans are causing global warming”. They don’t say most and they don’t mean most either. AGW says that human activity can cause global warming not that it has to cause most global warming in whatever timeframe you care to choose. Most scientists actually agree with that. Oddly CO2 and fossil fuels are hardly mentioned and not invoked in human activity here either, just AGW which perhaps conventionally implies that, but some may interpret it as land-use change only. Depends what you mean by AGW.
I understand perfectly Jimmy Dee – amongst your many errors in this – and I did link a very nice little youtube presentation to enable some progress – I that you mistake integer spin for quantized rotation.
‘One essential parameter for classification of particles is their “spin” or intrinsic angular momentum. Half-integer spin fermions are constrained by the Pauli exclusion principle whereas integer spin bosons are not. The electron is a fermion with electron spin 1/2.
The spin classification of particles determines the nature of the energy distribution in a collection of the particles. Particles of integer spin obey Bose-Einstein statistics, whereas those of half-integer spin behave according to Fermi-Dirac statistics.’ http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/particles/spinc.html
That fermions form a Fermi Gas and bosons form a Bose-Einstein condensate at low temperatures is still not relevant to anything of any interest. Like webbly you are merely parading your ignorance and prejudice.
David Wojick: Of course we will get conflicting reports about the numbers. Still, this is not trivial, although most denizens here seem to be oblivious to what is actually happening in the world outside. Funny that.
I do not infer a lack of awareness from a lack of comment. Will the “Great” climate march attract as many people as an average NFL football game?
Also, will the marchers embarrass their cause with their usual display of conspicuous fossil fuel consumption?
> There is no data supporting a 97% consensus that humans have caused >50% of the warming.
C13 claims that there is, Don Don: the ABSTRACTS that endorse the IPCC’s position, and the authors’ ratings of the PAPERS.
You’re just equivocating with a stronger meaning of “supporting” that C13 requires.
You seem to have forgotten that we’ve been through all this more than a year ago, e.g.:
Check is in the mail.
http://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2013/05/17/consensus-behind-the-numbers/#comment-18899
Brandon –
==> “After being told this, he posted links to videos without even trying to explain what the links showed.”
I explained why I linked the videos. You didn’t understand my explanation. I suggest that when you don’t understand someone’s explanation, you ask for clarification.
==> “Moreover, Joshua acts as though being placed in moderation prevents him from making a point. ”
Not at all, Brandon. I was able to make my point quite clearly. That is why you responded here – because I made my point quite clear. You putting me in moderation has little impact on whether I am able or not able to make my point. You putting me in moderation has more to do with your habit of confusing your opinion with fact – in this case, your opinion that I didn’t provide an explanation being conflated with a statement of fact that I failed to provide an explanation.
And besides, Brandon, the bottom line is that the more substantial point in my comment – that you seem to think that your misinterpretation of what someone says = what they said.
Brandon –
==> “How many people would like the option not to have to see Joshua’s comments?”
This is quite beautiful. So, after saying that you put me into moderation because I linked to a clip w/o providing an explanation (actually, I did provide an explanation – you just didn’t understand my explanation) – you then make it quite apparent that there was more afoot.
==> ” That’s what I’ve done.””
==> “I’m pretty sure a lot of people would be happy if the same was done here.”
So they would be happy to see me placed into moderation here for failing to provide an explanation for a link I made? Or, to be put into moderation so people “do not have” to see my comments?
Don’t ever change, Brandon. That was just beautiful!
Oh, and don’t forget – each time you read my comments it’s because I’m forcing you to waste your time!!!!1!!!!!
==> “I normally try to ignore the things willard posts, ”
Made obvious by the fact that he often responds to willard’s posts.
> the consensus position that humans are causing global warming
Yes, Jim D, but then they clarify what they meant by this in the paper:
We classified each abstract according to the type of research (category) and degree of endorsement. Written criteria were provided to raters for category (table 1) and level of endorsement of AGW (table 2). Explicit endorsements were divided into non-quantified (e.g., humans are contributing to global warming without quantifying the contribution) and quantified (e.g., humans are contributing more than 50% of global warming, consistent with the 2007 IPCC statement that most of the global warming since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations).
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article
That’s the second paragraph in section 2, entitled Methodology. Numbering paragraphs would have helped online exegeses.
So we need to distinguish AGW theory and the current statement by the IPCC.
***
As an aside, let’s consider the (Don Don’s?) assumption that to have an opinion on AGW, you need to have a crisp attribution statement. That is, to hold AGW, you need to establish how much A there is. Now, consider Spencer’s position: he claims believing in AGW, but ignoring how much A there is. Could be 1%; could be 100%.
This assumption and Spencer’s stance might not be compatible.
My 2.5 factor in forcing change came from just under 700 ppm by 2100, which is possible under moderate BAU. Your questions.
1. I don’t know when it will reach 800 ppm. I predict that by the time we get to 500 ppm people will have realized the stupidity of CO2 emissions enough to prevent us ever reaching 800 ppm, and possibly we won’t reach 600 ppm either.
2. If you mean 1 C over the 2000 temperature, that could happen around 2040 which only requires a very plausible 0.25 C per decade.
3. Rainfall, I have no idea. Some areas will be severely dry, and others will have increased flooding.
4. Agriculture, equally hard to predict. Lots of crop adaptation and moving around likely needed. Forests generally would be supported further into the Arctic areas where the tundra permafrost melts. This darkens albedo in another positive feedback, of course.
