Note – you are still hopelessly muddled. Addressing a more fundamental reality – the naked Moshpit – the inadequacy of the framework – is of far more significance than transient political utility in the longer term. Science trumps politics one would hope – although the prospects look dim at this time.
And frankly – the chances of this – or the Moshpit – making any difference at all in the politics is remote.
Coffee on a hotplate – not boiling – of course will reach an equilibrium temperature dependent on the energy input and the temperature of the surrounding CO2.
Joseph
Agw is like the hydra, you can cut off one head and another will grow.
It will continue as a scientific concept in scientific circles although the finer details of it will be modified over time, as in the paper we are discussing.
However, politics, economics and public indifference will eventually see it sidelined as other arguments are advanced more compelling than the scientific one has turned out to be.
This is not intended to be a slight on nic and Judith’s excellent paper but we are in danger of dancing on the heads of pins.
I increasingly get the feeling we all need to get out more…
Tonyb
Tonyb
vtg, “Cap, RCP8.5 says nothing about sensitivity, just the emissions.”
It is an unrealistic “projection” of BAU. RCP4.5 or RCP6 are a more realistic “projection” of BAU. Regardless of what sensitivity might actually be, by using the unrealistic RCP8.5 you are implying more damage than is likely possible.
Now for your catch 22, if it was obvious that whatever sensitivity might be that is was now having an indisputable impact on climate and extreme weather, there would be no reason to that a no/low regrets pathway. As it stands, a no/low regret pathway is quite reasonable since it “COULD” be the end of the century before indisputable evidence of damaging climate change is available. There is no catch 22 one logically follows the other.
So show us some informed evidence that there is catastrophe in the offing by taking a less extreme approach to avoid an impossible scenario.
We can all use a good laugh.
No need for shale resources. CA has a lot of decently accessible offshore oil that has been kept unavailable by environmental concerns.
Steven Mosher: When I look at Anthony’s work I see something different.
I see ECS = Fco2 * dT/(dF-dQ)
I see that Anthony’s work addresses dT. What was the temperature in 1859-1882 and what is the temperature now ( 1995-2011) and what is the difference in temp between these periods.
That is a good comment.
Personally, I don’t think that equation is useful for the future, but it is certainly taken seriously by the established scientists, and working with it consistently and rigorously, as Lewis and Curry did, ought to be (and I think it will be) to those established scientists.
Nobody pays attention to Rob Ellison or me, but this paper can not easily be ignored by the community that takes the IPCC AR5 seriously. Has anybody proffered a criticism that is concordant with the IPCC AR5?
Here are excellent comments on Obama’s UN speech:
That’s where Lindzen and Curry get into deep water with no ability to swim. Public Policy and politics. Makes them come across as know it alls when in fact their domain is a niche. A topical niche, but a niche nonethelless.
What he said.
‘Prediction of weather and climate are necessarily uncertain: our observations of weather and climate are uncertain, the models into which we assimilate this data and predict the future are uncertain, and external effects such as volcanoes and anthropogenic greenhouse emissions are also uncertain. Fundamentally, therefore, therefore we should think of weather and climate predictions in terms of equations whose basic prognostic variables are probability densities ρ(X,t) where X denotes some climatic variable and t denoted time. In this way, ρ(X,t)dV represents the probability that, at time t, the true value of X lies in some small volume dV of state space. (Predicting Weather and Climate – Palmer and Hagedorn eds – 2006)
‘Lorenz was able to show that even for a simple set of nonlinear equations (1.1), the evolution of the solution could be changed by minute perturbations to the initial conditions, in other words, beyond a certain forecast lead time, there is no longer a single, deterministic solution and hence all forecasts must be treated as probabilistic. The fractionally dimensioned space occupied by the trajectories of the solutions of these nonlinear equations became known as the Lorenz attractor (figure 1), which suggests that nonlinear systems, such as the atmosphere, may exhibit regime-like structures that are, although fully deterministic, subject to abrupt and seemingly random change.’ http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/369/1956/4751.full
You may dance around the issue all you like Matthew. The fact remains that both climate and models are chaotic and the prediction of future states is impossible.
This is the new climate truth – and you may accept it or not. In the end there will be those on the right side and those in the disgruntled rump – do try to be ahead of the curve and not just a grumpy old man.
Rob Ellison, Mike Flynn and silent readers.
What makes you think warm air always rises? Try suspending one of those oil filled convection heaters near your ceiling and tell me whether or not some warm air falls. The direction of convection (which includes diffusion and advection) when there has been previously a state of thermodynamic equilibrium (with its associated temperature gradient formed by gravity) is always in all accessible directions away from any source of new thermal energy which has disturbed the previous state of thermodynamic equilibrium. For proof read “Why It’s Not Carbon Dioxide After All.”
Some readers here don’t seem to know the difference between isothermal conditions, thermal equilibrium and thermodynamic equilibrium. Even Wikipedia could help you on that, but it’s not surprising you don’t understand thermodynamics – as I well know from helping students with physics and mathematics for about 50 years.
Well, you still have numerous other points to respond to that I’ve made in comments above and throughout Facebook and some other climate blogs. No one has replied with any valid counter arguments that I can’t refute. No one can explain the temperatures in the Venus and Uranus tropospheres in any other way than using calculations based on the gravito-thermal effect. No one in the world has correctly disproved the gravito-thermal effect in well over 100 years since the brilliant 19th century physicist Josef Loschmidt explained it..
Water vapour cools by about 10 to 12 degrees. Carbon dioxide cools for the same reason by about 0.1 degree. I have produced empirical evidence regarding water vapour cooling, and that supports the gravito-thermal explanation of planetary tropospheric and surface temperatures. Where is any contrary study?
No, that is not what he is saying. The defendants are appealing the non-dismissal of the case. If they win, the lawsuit against most of them is over (all except Steyn). If Mann wins this appeal, the case goes to discovery and then on to the actual trial.
The part about jurisdiction is Mann saying the Appeals court does not have the ability to even hear this appeal from the defendants, which if true would mean he wins the appeal and the trial goes on. To remove the jurisdictional challenge means they are going to allow the Appeals court to decide the matter (which you basically would only do if you think you are going to win, or want to quickly drop the case because you figured out it is going nowhere fast and want an easy out).
Nice graphs, except the oscillations in 3 should be aperiodic. Chaos is aperiodic.
Then too if CO2 sensitivity is sensitive to initial conditions then chart 3 will look very different for minutely different step ups in CO2, differences too small to measure or show. T may even go down for some values. So there is no such thing as the sensitivity. Chart 3 should have a bunch of variations that look very different from one another, all starting from the same point at the top of the CO2 step up.
Warm air rises because it is less dense – it is all to do with kinetic energy. Turbulent mixing is another physical process entirely.
Doug – it is time to go away again. People have just stopped listening. It is the same eccentric unscience over and over. Wild claims justified by meta waffle invented to reach a pre-determined conclusion.
The emission and absorption explanation for tropospheric temperatures. We don’t need another explanation – especially one where the statistical mechanics of air parcels are governed by gravity and are therefore invariant.
It is one of the questions I suppose. I’ve not read the paper on principle.
However – latent heat is a significant component of energy transport at the surface and varies with water availability on land. Hence the land/ocean contrast.
It makes the surface records obsolete for climate monitoring purposes – but don’t tell anyone – they might think I am outside the tent pissing in.
“A longer pause means dT doesnt change.
But dF ( change in forcing) goes up.
dO can also go up if heat is stored”
Steve, note also that during this hiatus we have had lower than average volcanic emissions of aerosols and SO2 (as Nick and Judy noticed).
During that last decade both CO2 ‘forcing’ is up and volcanic ‘forcing’ is down.
The high aerosol/high CO2 ‘forcing’ reciprocal explanation for steady state temperature fails when CO2 increases and volcanoes are silent.
This I think is the most important thing in Nick’s and Judy’s paper.
Additionally Steve, I don’t think OHC is going to ride to the rescue given this
Now it could be argued that warm water from the surface layer is getting injected into deeper layers, being replaced by colder water.
Were this postulate true, we would have noted a change in the atmospheric composition of CO2, due to warm (CO2 denuded) water being replaced by cool (CO2 rich) waters.
