Official Global Warming thread (merged)

#5,253
#5,253
OrangeWayOfLife said:
Bart, trout, you guys just going to keep convienently ignoring this article?

New Study Is A
Click to expand...
Did you miss this post by trout? Your article is from the Cato Institute heavily citing Patrick Michaels, another openly oil-funded guy. And as suggested by trout, the paper’s author doesn’t agree with your commentary. I don’t have access to the paper either but that same blog has some lively discussion about it, in case you’re interested.

If climate sensitivity indeed is on the lower end of the spectrum that would be good news. It would make the 2C target a difficult but achievable goal, instead of an impossible one.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#5,254
#5,254
Before you dive in it may behoove you to get a little background.

How sensitive is our climate?

This is an interesting detail I think a lot of people miss:
Climate sensitivity is not specific to CO2

It's important to note that the surface temperature change is proportional to the sensitivity and radiative forcing (in W m-2), regardless of the source of the energy imbalance. The climate sensitivity to different radiative forcings differs depending on the efficacy of the forcing, but the climate is not significantly more sensitive to other radiative forcings besides greenhouse gases.

In other words, if you argue that the Earth has a low climate sensitivity to CO2, you are also arguing for a low climate sensitivity to other influences such as solar irradiance, orbital changes, and volcanic emissions. In fact, as shown in Figure 1, the climate is less sensitive to changes in solar activity than greenhouse gases. Thus when arguing for low climate sensitivity, it becomes difficult to explain past climate changes. For example, between glacial and interglacial periods, the planet's average temperature changes on the order of 6°C (more like 8-10°C in the Antarctic). If the climate sensitivity is low, for example due to increasing low-lying cloud cover reflecting more sunlight as a response to global warming, then how can these large past climate changes be explained?
Click to expand...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#5,255
#5,255
BartW said:
Did you miss this post by trout? Your article is from the Cato Institute heavily citing Patrick Michaels, another openly oil-funded guy. And as suggested by trout, the paper’s author doesn’t agree with your commentary. I don’t have access to the paper either but that same blog has some lively discussion about it, in case you’re interested.

If climate sensitivity indeed is on the lower end of the spectrum that would be good news. It would make the 2C target a difficult but achievable goal, instead of an impossible one.
Click to expand...

The paper is from max plank institute of meterology in Germany. I don't see how "climate sensitivity" or the lack there of, thrwarts the natural causes side of the debate. Explain
 
#5,257
#5,257
I love the keywords they used.

"Sensitivity" and "sensitive." Words used to invoke an emotion out of the reader as well as the public by making them feel as if the climate was a child being hurt. The psychology of specific terminology is not unnoticed. And I would guess better than what big tobacco would use.

"If you believe in climate change, won't smoke Marlboros and don't chew Big Red, then **** you."

"Climate change. A belief for those that sit down when they pee."
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#5,258
#5,258
Here is the abstract from the article:

Based on research showing that in the case of a strong aerosol forcing, this forcing establishes itself early in the historical record, a simple model is constructed to explore the implications of a strongly negative aerosol forcing on the early (pre 1950) part of the instrumental record. This model, which contains terms representing both aerosol-radiation and aerosol-cloud interactions well represents the known time history of aerosol radiative forcing, as well as the effect of the natural state on the strength of aerosol forcing. Model parameters, randomly drawn to represent uncertainty in understanding, demonstrates that a forcing more negative than −1.0 W m−2 is implausible, as it implies that none of the approximately 0.3 K temperature rise between 1850 and 1950 can be attributed to northern-hemispheric forcing. The individual terms of the model are interpreted in light of comprehensive modeling, constraints from observations, and physical understanding, to provide further support for the less negative ( −1.0 W m−2 ) lower bound. These findings suggest that aerosol radiative forcing is less negative and more certain than is commonly believed.
 
#5,260
#5,260
OrangeWayOfLife said:
Second paragraph, so are they implying that the climate can only change by way of green house gases?
Click to expand...
Sandvol said:
That's inside the box thinking from someone who only considers the Greenhouse Gas model of climate change.
Click to expand...
No, that isn’t what they were implying at all. The point is that temperature responds the same to a change in radiative forcing regardless of what that radiative forcing is from. That means we can figure out what climate sensitivity is by examining past climate change from 'natural causes'.
Grand Vol said:
I love the keywords they used.

"Sensitivity" and "sensitive." Words used to invoke an emotion out of the reader as well as the public by making them feel as if the climate was a child being hurt. The psychology of specific terminology is not unnoticed. And I would guess better than what big tobacco would use.

"If you believe in climate change, won't smoke Marlboros and don't chew Big Red, then **** you."

"Climate change. A belief for those that sit down when they pee."
Click to expand...
:blink:

not sure if serious
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#5,261
#5,261
Recent article on the topic

Climate sensitivity is unlikely to be less than 2C, say scientists

Does the fact that surface temperatures are rising slower than in previous decades mean scientists have overestimated how sensitive the Earth's climate is to greenhouse gases?

It's a question that's popped up in the media from time to time. And the short answer is probably no, according to a new paper in Nature Climate Change.

Using temperature data up to 2011, the authors work out a value of climate sensitivity of 2.5C, comfortably within the range where scientists have suggested the 'real' value lies.

Questions about climate sensitivity are complicated, and won't be solved by any single bit of research. But the new paper seems to contribute to a growing confidence among scientists that climate sensitivity is unlikely to be less than 2C.


A 2014 paper co-authored by Knutti found that if equilibrium climate sensitivity is at the low end of the likely range, this would postpone crossing the internationally-accepted 2C temperature threshold by about a decade, assuming emissions stay close to current levels.

Other scientists argue "transient climate sensitivity" is a more policy-relevant measure. This is a simpler version of climate sensitivity that tells us what we can expect in the next few decades by ignoring parts of the climate system that change very slowly, like the oceans.

Both are measures of the climate's sensitivity to greenhouse gases, just on different timescales. And the same rule applies to both definitions: even if the value is low, strong emissions cuts are unavoidable this century if we're to stay below the two degree limit.
Click to expand...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#5,262
#5,262
BartW said:
No, that isn’t what they were implying at all. The point is that temperature responds the same to a change in radiative forcing regardless of what that radiative forcing is from. That means we can figure out what climate sensitivity is by examining past climate change from 'natural causes'.

:blink:

not sure if serious
Click to expand...

Do you sit when you pee :think:
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#5,263
#5,263
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#5,264
#5,264
BartW said:
I'm still waiting to hear your thoughts on this SandVol. Aren't water restrictions an affront to free markets? We can't deplete God's resources so we should go balls to the wall right? And do you think the drought data is fabricated by liberal scientists in an attempt grow government?
Click to expand...

Is Southern California considered desert? Had it recieved abnormally high amounts of rain fall for the last century?
 
#5,265
#5,265
BartW said:
I'm still waiting to hear your thoughts on this SandVol. Aren't water restrictions an affront to free markets? We can't deplete God's resources so we should go balls to the wall right? And do you think the drought data is fabricated by liberal scientists in an attempt grow government?
Click to expand...

stawman.png
 
#5,267
#5,267
MG1968 said:
stawman.png
Click to expand...

Dinosaur Comics is great.

We may think that argument is ridiculous but I'll have to wait to see what SandVol says. He's made it pretty clear in the past that he thinks the government shouldn't interfere with the free market under any circumstance... because an unchecked free market can solve any problem, right?
 
#5,271
#5,271
BartW said:
I'm still waiting to hear your thoughts on this SandVol. Aren't water restrictions an affront to free markets? We can't deplete God's resources so we should go balls to the wall right? And do you think the drought data is fabricated by liberal scientists in an attempt grow government?
Click to expand...

I'm just glad I don't live in California.
 
#5,272
#5,272
Grand Vol said:
Sure I am.

Climate sensitivity? C'mon...

And do you sit when you pee? And furthermore, are you ever going to answer the questions I posed a while back?
Click to expand...

I also have queries which remain unaddressed.
 
#5,275
#5,275
BartW said:
No, that isn’t what they were implying at all. The point is that temperature responds the same to a change in radiative forcing regardless of what that radiative forcing is from. That means we can figure out what climate sensitivity is by examining past climate change from 'natural causes'.

:blink:

not sure if serious
Click to expand...

You really ought to go into politics. Great obfuscation.
 
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top