Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
...variations in earth's orbital and axial cycles (Milankovitch cycles ) and under studied variations in solar energy spectrum output. Both of these changing processes have a much more pronounced effect for global climate change than the "rather feeble" effects of the trace gas CO2.
you keep saying this in the face of evidence that shows neither has a pronounced affect on the past century of climate change...
but since you do not accept any evidence contrary to your belief, my guess is that you'll keep on stating this.
"under-studied variations in the solar energy spectrum" aren't so understudied, and there are well known limits to the variations.
But I'll humor you if you can produce a time series index for them since 1900 and include them in my fitting. It is simple to do...
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
Ed, you really don't want to let us know, do you?
According to your model, what happens to the temperature when the CO2-concentration is doubled?
(ΔTx2) = ?
Why don't you do the calculations yourself? It really isn't that difficult to look t Ed's graphs and calculate the value.
|
|
Splater
climber
Grey Matter
|
|
too lazy to figure out any science himself,
makes silly demands on others,
attempts to build strawmen,
cut and pastes from cato and wuwt,
fictional science is his name.
If he were to read AR5 WG drafts,
he could figure out ECS from the different scenarios.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
scifi, I think that the "climate sensitivity" is a too simple minded way to look at the climate, and the equilibrium climate sensitivity is a condition that is unlikely to be met, especially with the rapid changes in the CO2 concentration.
Rapid here means that the concentration is increasing at a rate much faster than the processes that decrease the concentration. That is a non-equilibrium condition, also referred to as a transient condition... you seem not to understand this.
The climate sensitivity is discussed in detail in the IPCC Third Assessment Review (TAR) WG1 chapter 6, which you can download from the web. Notably, equation 6.1
ΔT/ΔF = λ
where λ is the climate sensitivity.... it is beyond me to understand why you think this one parameter is so important, and contrary to your argument that things are so complicated that they could never been understood by a computer model, no matter how complex.
The utility of such numbers is to compare a simple model to a more complex model, but there is no surprise when the two do not agree.
In this linear combination of observations that I have provide, a single coefficient multiplies the GHG time series (which is the radiative forcing) and has units of ºC/(W/m^2), the radiative forcing of the GHGs is then converted to concentration.
The index I provided is for all GHGs, table 6.2 in the TAR gives simplified relationships between the change of forcing depending on concentrations of gases, and they differ from gas to gas...
For CO2 we'd take the simplest:
ΔF = 5.35 ln(C/C₀)
if C = 2*C₀ then
ΔF = 5.35 ln(2) = 3.7 W/m^2
The various fits would then have the estimated climate sensitivities for doubling concentrations
M1 = 1.0 ºC
M2 = 1.4 ºC
M3 = 1.3 ºC
M4 = 1.0 ºC
but this presumes that the only gas is CO2 (not what is in the time series). A more complex weighting would be required to do this correctly. Not something I'm about to engage in, but you could re-do the calculations and yourself. Not only that, but they are not "equilibrium climate sensitivity" because the equilibrium condition has not been met.
You can see the very large dependence on the aerosols. These models do not give physical results when the GHG and the AER are separated and the AMO included, to some extent, there is a correlation between GHG concentrations and AER concentrations. Further, the composition of the AERs change with time...
...so the situation is very complex. The models capture these changes, to the extent that the information is available to do the modeling.
The point of the paper from which these calculations were taken is that tuning the AER in absence of that fundamental data requires taking the AMO into account.
The bottom line conclusion is that the explanatory factors: GHG, AER, VOLC, SOL, ENSO and AMO account for 95% of the variation in the global mean surface temperature.
This is a model independent result based on observed time series.
This helps us understand what part of the models require development. But the models themselves, as subject to the same analysis, account for 85% of the variation. Which is to say they include most of the climate variability, as measured by global mean surface temperature.
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
Humor me if I can produce a time series?
What's really humorous is the sight of the 800 lb scientific gorilla of this site (looks just like a hairy gorilla) and his constant bias in deflecting from examination of known, or understudied processes , in perpetual support of CO2 as an avenue for massive increases in taxation and controls.
Where are all the papers examining the effects of our current orbital/axial wobble tilt ?
Today I'm a a tile setter at my cabin in the sky. You, however, are a scientist , seemingly with lots of time to devote to climate change. Let's see an impartial examination of this effect; if you still can.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
apropos the discussion of "instantaneous", "transient", "equilibrium" and all that:
|
|
sci-fi
climber
|
|
I agree that "climate sensitivity is a too simple minded way to look at the climate", but that also goes for the reasoning that CO2 should be the main driver.
You keep evading the simple question I keep asking.
What is the ΔTx2 derived from your model?
Pretending that the models do a good job is laughable.
http://www.stat.washington.edu/peter/statclim/fyfeetal.pdf
The introduction goes like this:
"Global mean surface temperature over the past 20 years (1993–2012) rose at a rate of 0.14 ± 0.06 °C per decade (95% confidence interval).
This rate of warming is significantly slower than that simulated by the climate models participating in Phase 5 of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5)."
This is what we are talking about and you keep pretending that everything is fine:
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
You keep evading the simple question I keep asking.
What is the ΔTx2 derived from your model?
I am curious. Do you read other people post or do you just don't understand them?
Ed answered your question in his post.
|
|
sci-fi
climber
|
|
Here is what a well-balanced climate scientist has to say about the new claims by the IPCC:
"Here is why it is increasingly unlikely that that we will reach the 2C danger limit by 2040:
the ongoing surface temperature hiatus, which may continue until the 2030’s or even 2040 if the increasing number of hypotheses about AMO, PDO and natural internal variability are correct.
the growing number of observation-based climate sensitivity studies that find lower values of transient and equilibrium climate sensitivity (e.g Lewis & Curry, WSJ op-ed).
unrealistic scenarios of future coal burning by the IPCC (see Dave Rutledge’s previous posts)
underestimate by 16% of plant CO2 absorption [link]"
Read more here:
http://judithcurry.com/2014/11/02/how-urgent-is-urgent/
|
|
sci-fi
climber
|
|
Here is another reaction to the new IPCC claims from a geologist professor:
[ICSC chief science advisor, Professor Bob Carter, former Head of the Department of Earth Sciences at James Cook University in Australia and author of Taxing Air explained, “Science has yet to provide unambiguous evidence that problematic, or even measurable, human-caused global warming is occurring. The hypothesis of dangerous man-made climate change is based solely on computerized models that have repeatedly failed in practice in the real world.”]
|
|
BASE104
Social climber
An Oil Field
|
|
TRANS CANADA PIPELINE that will transport billions of gallons of Shale Fracked Oil
A clarification. The keystone pipeline is mainly transporting conventional reserves. I'm not aware of a shale oil play in Canada. This is mainly conventional oil.
Poor Canadians are swimming in gas with no easy market. With the current glut in methane, and geographic difficulties getting that gas to the Pacific, gas prices in Canada are lower than they are here.
Gas is different from oil. Oil is easy to transport and prices more or less follow the same influences. Gas on the other hand, is difficult to ship, so local supply and demand influences prices far more than oil.
We are swimming in natural gas.
Oil prices have fallen so much that it is influencing drilling in marginally economic plays.
We desperately need a way to sell North American gas to Europe and Asia. An MCF of gas is worth about twice as much in Europe. I can see a big political problem if we do export NG, but people have short memories. For a long period in the history of oil, the U.S. was the biggest producer in the world. That meant cheap energy at home, and help for our overseas allies, such as Britain, who we kept out of the Nazi's hands by shipping a ton of oil to them.
The drop in oil prices has really impacted some upstream drilling projects. As I have tried to say many times, the domestic big oil companies don't have the muscle to control prices.
The U.S. was blessed with a lot of oil. We have used most of it, but it helped create our massive economy. Neither Japan or Germany has any oil to speak of. Stopping Hitler from getting the Caspian oil fields was a huge victory.
Go read The Prize, and you will see how oil influenced many world events. Without our oil, we might all be governed by Nazi's right now.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 2, 2014 - 03:58pm PT
|
Sci-fi quickly falls to quoting a geologist professor and a blog. Very convincing...
As for Hansen, hasn't that already begun to be proven out?
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 2, 2014 - 05:17pm PT
|
Hansen said, "flooded cities, species extinction and climate catastrophe."
Flooded cities: Sandy (2012)
Species extinction:
Climate catastrophe: California drought (it better rain this winter!)
So, we're heading in that direction, you see.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
what would a crisis look like if you were in the middle of it?
interesting question... to which no one posting here could possibly have an answer.
The problem is one of risk, and estimating what might happen. Seeing what did happen, after the fact may not be such a great thing in this instance.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
of course you think have an answer Sketch, an answer that re-enforces your general world view... but certainly nothing you could backup, you don't have any idea of what such a crisis would be.
I also do not, but that's the point, we have to judge based on our opinions, and our approach to risk management. That's not science...
...the science is quite clear on what is happening and why.
It doesn't depend on you opinion about what is happening.
good for you The Chief, you can take a look at what happened after the fact, you're ability to take that perspective during the crisis was nil.
|
|
sci-fi
climber
|
|
I actually experienced Sandy, and it was pretty tame.
You should try being trapped on a climb in a real Patagonian storm.
As for the IPCC doom and gloom, it is not backed up by any evidence.
Extreme weather events are not getting more common.
Sea-level rise has not accelerated.
Temperature has not increased in two decades, despite record CO2-emmision.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
I actually experienced Sandy, and it was pretty tame.
oh, I guess all that reported destruction was some insurance company scam...
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!