Web,
By sheer serendipity, I just read a comment that illustrates what I have in mind:
http://judithcurry.com/2014/09/24/lewis-and-curry-climate-sensitivity-uncertainty/#comment-632505
I don’t see any other way to play on the line of scrimmage.
Comment on Lewis and Curry: Climate sensitivity uncertainty by willard (@nevaudit)
↧
↧
Comment on Lewis and Curry: Climate sensitivity uncertainty by Matthew R Marler
Rud Istvan: Nic and Judith’s paper is a direct frontal attack on the core IPCCS output, using their own best inputs. That is the kind of thing that can help stop the momentum OBama and Moon are trying to build.
I would avoid saying that Prof Curry has engaged in an “attack”, but except for the connotation, I agree with your point. I think that a good case can be made that they have computed a reasonable upper bound, using the best information provided by IPCC..
↧
Comment on Lewis and Curry: Climate sensitivity uncertainty by Carrick
Hans, no I’m not assuming that the sinks (or not-atmospheric reservoirs) are saturated. My comment was based on looking at the long term correlation between temperature and co2 level, based on ice core measurements.
This observation is however motivated by the fact that the maximum diffusion time for CO2 in the oceans is governed by the time constant associated with deep overturning, which is a number between 500-1000 years.
Nic and Pekka, I would also caution about the difficulties in estimating the persistence of CO2 in the atmosphere from direct measurements, as long as you have processes with latencies that are much longer than the observation period.
[ I think there is a similar issue with estimating ECS from the available temperature data.]
There is a lot more I can add here, but I don’t want this to turn into a tl;dr.
↧
Comment on Lewis and Curry: Climate sensitivity uncertainty by kim
Give it time.
========
↧
Comment on Lewis and Curry: Climate sensitivity uncertainty by Matthew R Marler
webhubtelescope: The Lewis is a POS analysis.
You can be assured that your detailed objections will be well read here.
The actual TCR is 2C and ECS is 3C.
I already have a web app demonstrating this.
Is that, like the Lewis and Curry paper, based on the most recent IPCC report? Everybody has a demonstration of some sort, but Lewis and Curry took what is presented as the most authoritative recent comprehensive review.
↧
↧
Comment on An unsettled climate by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2
Willard, I don’t decide what fruit gets picked. I am looking at arguments. It (vtg) uses an extremely unlikely case to influence those that do control the pickers. It(vtg) avoids committing to a limit himself, goads others into committing, then condemns them for having committed. It’s a nasty little troll, it is. So your real question should be who is more qualified to control the pickers?
Do you think you should be king of the picker pickers?
↧
Comment on Lewis and Curry: Climate sensitivity uncertainty by stevefitzpatrick
Matthew Marler,
The uncertainty I was talking about is the uncertainty in forcing, so ‘natural variation’ is not included. There is of course uncertainty associated with forcing from land use changes, but in the IPCC summary for policy makers, there is a bar graph which compares the estimated values for all kinds of forcing, along with their associated uncertainties. On that graph, uncertainty in the influence of land use is pretty small. Which is not to say that is for sure correct. The point is that using the IPCC’s own estimates of forcings and associated uncertainties, the estimated sensitivity PDF falls far below the ‘distribution’ of sensitivities diagnosed by GCM’s.
↧
Comment on Lewis and Curry: Climate sensitivity uncertainty by Matthew R Marler
WebHubTelescope: <i> You don’t seem to realize it is not me that you are challenging, </i>
Oh, that is not true. They are challenging you: your choices and the uses that you made of them.
↧
Comment on Lewis and Curry: Climate sensitivity uncertainty by Rud Istvan
Hard to keep up. Don, it was John Von Neumann, one of the greatest mathematicians of the 20th century, who said that.
Scott, the paper may have escaped my attention in the crunch to get the new Ebook to the publisher. I had a footnote, but not sure to this paper, and have not bothered yet to go check, since could not fix anyway as the book is ‘in press’. But changing inputs post hoc, and post seledting least biased models, both go counter to the scientific method as I understand it.
For that understanding and how it has been multiply perverted, see my last book, The Arts of Truth. Even the title is a deliberate cynical example of the general perversion that ‘climate science’ so aptly illustrates.
You might like the deconstruction of the EPA’s official Chevy Volt mileage certification on the sticker on every Volt window. Shows how truly awful things have become. The correct apples to apples number is about 37, far worse than the Toyota Prius.
One plausible explanation for this perversion is that at the time, the U.S. government owned GM control in order to bail out the UAW. Another is that EPA staffers are cognitively challenged. Either would suffice for ordinary malfeasance were it not the EPA.
↧
↧
Comment on An unsettled climate by brian
It’s not about me. It’s about Cato and Prof Curry. Try and stay on topic. Maybe you think Cato and Koch funded “Science” is hunky dory. Some of us don’t feel that way.
↧
Comment on Lewis and Curry: Climate sensitivity uncertainty by Matthew R Marler
Steven Mosher: To be invited to this debate you have to accept, EVEN IF ONLY PROVISIONALLY, the notion that sensitivity is a meaningful metric.
Maybe so, but the sensitivity can’t reasonably be considered constant. that is because the water vapor pressure is supralinearly related to temperature: that is, a temp rise from 289K to 290K has a larger effect on vapor pressure (so, most likely, on the evaporation rate) than does a temp rise from 288K to 289K. Only if you assume that there is not a corresponding increase in cloud condensation and precipitation can you ignore that: it implies that a 3.7W/m^2 increase produces a lower temp increase at 289K than at 288K. Equilibrium calculations ignore the rate changes, but it seems to me more likely that the rate of the hydrological cycle increases at the higher temperature, producing the non-constant sensitivity that I just described.
This is one of the uncertainties deserving of more research, in my opinion. Notice also that, as I wrote, the sensitivity is not constant even ignoring the possible increase in cloud cover corresponding to the increased rates of evaporation, condensation and freezing, and rainfall. If in addition cloud cover increases, that further decreases the sensitivity, and the effect of increased cloud cover is greatest at the highest temperatures of the surface water.
There is value, as you say, in agreeing to play the game by IPCC rules. But the rest of science should not always be ignored.
↧
Comment on Lewis and Curry: Climate sensitivity uncertainty by Rob Ellison
Depends on the material. Brittle materials will give catastrophic failure – which it is sensible to avoid. Flexible materials will bend and shed load to other members giving a progressive failure. If the load is sufficiently distributed – we can have a member failure without structural failure. This saves on some angst in structural designers.
Engineering is very like being an officer and a gentleman – in failure there is the option of taking the honorable course.
In climate we are talking about abrupt change in complex and dynamic systems. Deterministic chaos in other words.
‘What defines a climate change as abrupt? Technically, an abrupt climate change occurs when the climate system is forced to cross some threshold, triggering a transition to a new state at a rate determined by the climate system itself and faster than the cause. Chaotic processes in the climate system may allow the cause of such an abrupt climate change to be undetectably small.’ http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10136&page=14
And my favorite example in ENSO. Blue dominant to 1976, red to 1998 and blue again since.
Cheers
↧
Comment on An unsettled climate by Rob Ellison
Stop whining about yourself and framing the discussion around the usual silly and irrelevant talking points. Read harder Brian – shame on you.
↧
↧
Comment on Lewis and Curry: Climate sensitivity uncertainty by Rud Istvan
Robert, you are, in the colloquial, mispicking fly sh!t from pepper.
You missed the point. Using AR5 best T, Q, F estimates, the AR5 estimate and range are reduced substantially, and the CMIP5 models thereby falsified.
BTW, three fundamental statistical criticisms of your paper are leveled in my forthcoming book in essay Unsettling Science. I look forward to any substantive technical critique you might have of that. Here or direct via Judith, but not at SkS. I am engaged in helping Prof. Tol with regards to Cook’s PR site. Just so that you know.
↧
Comment on Lewis and Curry: Climate sensitivity uncertainty by DocMartyn
Rud, as simple as needed is always the easiest to write up,
↧
Comment on Lewis and Curry: Climate sensitivity uncertainty by catweazle666
WebHubTelescope | September 24, 2014 at 2:02 pm
I already have a web app demonstrating this.
You’re ‘avin a larf, innit?
↧
Comment on Lewis and Curry: Climate sensitivity uncertainty by DocMartyn
Carrick, if you believe that paleo-CO2 changes are driven chemical equilibria, then you will just believe that CO2 is sucked out of the air when the sea cools.
However, this is a biotic planet, not a chemical one. the CO2 didn’t disappear from the atmosphere because of rock weathering, but due to mineralization of biotic matter.
↧
↧
Comment on Lewis and Curry: Climate sensitivity uncertainty by Rob Ellison
Lets start with the whole equation. There are skeptics who object to the entire IDEA of this equation. The best example is Willis. There are other types of objections, but at the bottom they all object to the notion of capturing , describing, characterizing, the complex system of the climate with a simple equation. They will never get much of a hearing. In the end the equation will either do a good job or not. in other words, I don’t think “systematic” skeptics have much of a role to play in the debate. They are outside the conversation. To be invited to this debate you have to accept, EVEN IF ONLY PROVISIONALLY, the notion that sensitivity is a meaningful metric. Moshpit
It’s my party and I’ll decide you get dressed up to the nines? One has to figure that an increase in 40ppm of CO2 and no surface temperature increase over more than a decade is prima facie evidence that the ‘formula’ is far too stupid to be meaningful. There is a role – he invites it or not – to insist that Emperor Moshpit has no clothes.
↧
Comment on Lewis and Curry: Climate sensitivity uncertainty by maksimovich
<i> A more mathematical discussion can be found here.</i>
Um no the mathematical argument (almost surely) is conceptually different eg Ruzmaiken.
<i> Linear and non-linear systems respond differently to external forcing. A classical example of a linear system response is the Hooke’s law of elasticity that states that the amount by which a material body is deformed is linearly proportional to the force causing the deformation. Earlier climate change studies used this linear approximation to evaluate the sensitivity of the global temperature change caused by external forcing. However the response of non-linear systems to external forcing is conceptually different; the issue is not a magnitude (sensitivity) of the response. Non-linear systems have internally defined preferred states (called attractors in mathematics) and variabilities driven by residence in the states and transitions between them. The question is what is the effect of an external forcing: change of the states, residence times or something else?
Answer to this question is critical to our understanding of climate change. Based on the model studies mentioned above we can formulate the following, updated conjecture of the climate system response to external forcing: external effects, such as solar, the QBO and anthropogenic influences, weakly affect the climate patterns and their mean residence times but increase a probability of occurrence of long residences. In other words, under solar or anthropogenic influence the changes in mean climate values, such as the global temperature, are less important than increased duration of certain climate patterns associated say with cold conditions in some regions and warm conditions in the other regions </i>
↧
Comment on An unsettled climate by John Smith (it's my real name)
brian
do you approve of opera and classical music?
much Koch funded
if you decide to support some area of research or the arts I shall not dismiss those products simply because they were funded by you
I hope to judge the quality of the message on it’s own merits, the messenger may be as prejudiced, frail, and human as me
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
