Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Global Warming / Climate Changes Pt. 19

Re: Global Warming / Climate Changes Pt. 19

Unread postby dohboi » Thu 29 Jun 2017, 22:22:50

?

Your math was fourth grade at best.

You seem to have utter faith in the 3 C increase per CO2 doubling, but many recent estimates put it higher than that, like closer to 6...so put that in your equations and smoke it!

And yes, this release of carbon into the atmosphere is faster than anything in the paleo-record, so most major negative feedbacks (besides the basic Stafan-Boltzman Law) are rather slow motion compared to what we've been doing.

But really, I haven't dug into these guy's particular arguments about their conclusions, but to assume that you absolutely know better than a team of professors publishing in their own field smacks of...well...Dunning-Kruger at best, and that is not generally your style, as far as I've seen around here.
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 16785
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 03:00:00

Re: Global Warming / Climate Changes Pt. 19

Unread postby rockdoc123 » Thu 29 Jun 2017, 22:37:28

Please reference those "many recent estimates" . From what I can tell there is one outlier at the high end anywhere close to 6 C ECS. Most of the researchers have been working toward estimates of ECS that are less than AR5 not greater.

Image
User avatar
rockdoc123
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 5512
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 02:00:00

Re: Global Warming / Climate Changes Pt. 19

Unread postby dohboi » Thu 29 Jun 2017, 23:02:16

"climate sensitivity may be higher than we currently believe, but it likely isn't lower."

https://www.skepticalscience.com/climat ... vanced.htm
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v2/n ... eo578.html

Further from the first link: "Shindell's [2014] results give a low probability for the low end of the range and higher probability for the high end. Given the strong correlation between TCR and equilibrium climate sensitivity, Shindell’s results also suggest that the lower climate sensitivity estimates are unlikely to be accurate."

But the larger point is that these figures are for Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (basically mid-term) where as the more relevant figure for this discussion is the longer term Earth System Sensitivity, which has a range of 4 - 9 degrees C from a doubling of CO2, with the most likely value assumed to be 6 degrees, though the article discussed at the link suggest it may more toward the higher end.

https://robertscribbler.com/tag/earth-s ... nsitivity/

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... 22887/full
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 16785
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 03:00:00

Re: Global Warming / Climate Changes Pt. 19

Unread postby chilyb » Fri 30 Jun 2017, 11:44:19

Hi rockdoc123,

Please reference those "many recent estimates" . From what I can tell there is one outlier at the high end anywhere close to 6 C ECS. Most of the researchers have been working toward estimates of ECS that are less than AR5 not greater.


Here's another one that I am aware of, in addition to dohboi's links:

http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/2/11/e1501923

Nonlinear climate sensitivity and its implications for future greenhouse warming

Abstract

Global mean surface temperatures are rising in response to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. The magnitude of this warming at equilibrium for a given radiative forcing—referred to as specific equilibrium climate sensitivity (S)—is still subject to uncertainties. We estimate global mean temperature variations and S using a 784,000-year-long field reconstruction of sea surface temperatures and a transient paleoclimate model simulation. Our results reveal that S is strongly dependent on the climate background state, with significantly larger values attained during warm phases. Using the Representative Concentration Pathway 8.5 for future greenhouse radiative forcing, we find that the range of paleo-based estimates of Earth’s future warming by 2100 CE overlaps with the upper range of climate simulations conducted as part of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5). Furthermore, we find that within the 21st century, global mean temperatures will very likely exceed maximum levels reconstructed for the last 784,000 years. On the basis of temperature data from eight glacial cycles, our results provide an independent validation of the magnitude of current CMIP5 warming projections.


I am sure this has been discussed here already (perhaps recently in this thread), but I would be very interested to hear your thoughts!
chilyb
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 100
Joined: Tue 02 Sep 2014, 21:35:20

Re: Global Warming / Climate Changes Pt. 19

Unread postby chilyb » Fri 30 Jun 2017, 11:49:47

and, what the hell, I'll throw in a little "gray journalism" to go along with the link above:

https://www.sciencealert.com/scientists ... ate-change

"Our results imply that Earth's sensitivity to variations in atmospheric CO2 increases as the climate warms," explains lead researcher Tobias Friedrich from the University of Hawaii at Manoa.

"Currently, our planet is in a warm phase – an interglacial period – and the associated increased climate sensitivity needs to be taken into account for future projections of warming induced by human activities."
chilyb
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 100
Joined: Tue 02 Sep 2014, 21:35:20

Re: Global Warming / Climate Changes Pt. 19

Unread postby chilyb » Fri 30 Jun 2017, 11:59:25

Hi again rockdoc123,

rockdoc123 wrote:Please reference those "many recent estimates" . From what I can tell there is one outlier at the high end anywhere close to 6 C ECS. Most of the researchers have been working toward estimates of ECS that are less than AR5 not greater.

Image


If I am not mistaken, it is the most recent study (Yale - Tan 2016) that is the high end outlier.

Am I interpreting this correctly?
chilyb
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 100
Joined: Tue 02 Sep 2014, 21:35:20

Re: Global Warming / Climate Changes Pt. 19

Unread postby rockdoc123 » Fri 30 Jun 2017, 12:54:34

I'm not aware of any other recent studies with ECS as high as 6 degrees.

There are a few recent papers (2016, 2017) suggesting averages between 1.7 and 2.8
User avatar
rockdoc123
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 5512
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 02:00:00

Re: Global Warming / Climate Changes Pt. 19

Unread postby Plantagenet » Fri 30 Jun 2017, 14:01:39

Image[/url]


We know right away that the lower parts of the ranges of T sensitivity covered by these published estimates are wrong because the earth has already warmed by 1.2°C as CO2 has climbed from 280 ppm to 403 ppm. If warming continues at roughly the same rate a doubling of CO2 up to ca. 560 ppm is clearly going to put us somewhat above 3°C of warming.

AND this is confirmed by an important recent study. This figure omits what may be the most important study of climate sensitivity, i.e. that of Hansen et al (2013)

Climate sensitivity, sea level and atmospheric carbon dioxide

James Hansen pretty much invented the use of climate sensitivity as way to estimate the effect of rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere, so its always good to pay attention to him on this subject.

Obviously the best way to estimate climate sensitivity would be to do an experiment where you take the actual planet Earth, double CO2, and then see how the T increases. Hansen's paper essentially does this by looking at the geologic past at times when CO2 was higher, and then uses paleoclimate data on temperature to estimate climate sensitivity.

Using this approach, Hansen et al state that the planet earth's climate sensitivity is at the higher end of the range of estimates, definitely greater then 3.1°C and likely somewhere between 3.1-4°C for a doubling of CO2.

Cheers!

"Its a brave new world"
---President Obama, 4/25/16
"Il bel far niente"
---traditional Italian saying
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 20536
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 02:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).

Re: Global Warming / Climate Changes Pt. 19

Unread postby rockdoc123 » Fri 30 Jun 2017, 14:13:23

Armour, K.C. 2017. Energy budget constraints on climate sensitivity in light of inconstant climate feedbacks. Nature Climate Change, doi:10.1038/nclimate3278

Using model-based estimates of how climate feedbacks will change in the future, in conjunction with recent energy budget constraints, produces a current best estimate of equilibrium climate sensitivity of 2.9 C (1.7–7.1 C, 90% confidence).


Gregory, J.M and Andrews, T., 2016. Variation in climate sensitivity and feedback parameters during the historical period. Geophys. Res. Lett., 43, 3911-3920,doi:10.1002/2016GL068406.

We investigate the climate feedback parameter alpha (W m−2 K−1) during the historical period (since 1871) in experiments using the HadGEM2 and HadCM3 atmosphere general circulation models (AGCMs) with constant preindustrial atmospheric composition and time-dependent observational sea surface temperature (SST) and sea ice boundary conditions. In both AGCMs, for the historical period as a whole, the effective climate sensitivity is ∼2 K (alpha≃ 1.7 W m−2 K−1 ), and alpha shows substantial decadal variation caused by the patterns of SST change. Both models agree with the AGCMs of the latest Coupled Model Intercomparison Project in showing a considerably smaller effective climate sensitivity of ∼1.5 K (alpha=2.3 ± 0.7 W m−2 K−1), given the time-dependent changes in sea surface conditions observed during 1979–2008, than the corresponding coupled atmosphere-ocean general circulation models (AOGCMs) give under constant quadrupled CO2 concentration. These findings help to relieve the apparent contradiction between the larger values of effective climate sensitivity diagnosed from AOGCMs and the smaller values inferred from historical climate change.


Storelvmo, T. et al, 2016. Disentangling greenhouse warming and aerosol cooling to reveal Earth's climate sensitivity. Nature Geoscience. DOI: 10.1038/NGEO2670

We find that surface radiation trends, which have been largely explained by changes in atmospheric aerosol loading, caused a cooling that masked approximately one-third of the continental warming due to increasing greenhouse gas concentrations over the past half-century. In consequence, the method yields a higher transient climate sensitivity (2.0 ± 0.8 K) than other observational studies.
User avatar
rockdoc123
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 5512
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 02:00:00

Re: Global Warming / Climate Changes Pt. 19

Unread postby dohboi » Sat 01 Jul 2017, 12:34:32

Good points, chil and Plant.

Note that the studies chosen for that graph include as the lowest outliers (or should we say '-liars'! :) ) the utterly discredited works of Lindzen and of Spencer, which should really be thrown out in any kind of 'averaging' of a range of legitimate studies.
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 16785
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 03:00:00

Re: Global Warming / Climate Changes Pt. 19

Unread postby rockdoc123 » Sat 01 Jul 2017, 14:38:41

Good points, chil and Plant.


well chili is wrong as there are several other papers published later which are on the low end (as I just posted). There are others as well which I can post if anyone cares

And Plant doesn't help your case ....appealing to authority is a poor argument at best (Hansens paper is no more or less admirable than any of the others) but the fact is he doesn't suggest a ECS north of 6 C.


So where are all those studies you mentioned that show ECS north of 6 C? You haven't shown us one.
User avatar
rockdoc123
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 5512
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 02:00:00

Re: Global Warming / Climate Changes Pt. 19

Unread postby Plantagenet » Sun 02 Jul 2017, 00:36:50


And Plant doesn't help your case ....appealing to authority is a poor argument at best


I clearly didn't "appeal to authority." Is your reading comprehension really that bad or are you trying to discredit my post by lying about it?

Hansens paper is no more or less admirable than any of the others


You really don't get this science stuff, do you? Science has nothing to do with being "admirable"---what strange ideas you have.

The problem here is that you don't understand what Hansen's new paper means and how it is radically different from the other papers on this topic. Allow me to explain it to you.

All the other papers are showing climate sensitivity based on experimental runs of various Global Climate Models on computers. The authors changed the input for CO2 and observed how global temperature output changed in their computer models.

OK...thats a reasonable approach. And Hansen himself has used that approach in the past---in fact he was one of the first scientists to use models in this way. But computer models are inevitably gross oversimplifications. They can't capture all the complexity and feedbacks of the real world.

So in this new paper Hansen et alia took a completely different approach.

Rather then looking at a global climate model on a computer, he looked at the Earth itself and asked the question: How sensitive has the Earth itself been to climate forcing in the past from elevated CO2 levels through recent geologic time?

This innovative new approach indicates the climate sensitivity of the actual Earth (not a climate model on a computer but the real Earth) is ca. 3.1-4°C

Image
Cheers!
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 20536
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 02:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).

Re: Global Warming / Climate Changes Pt. 19

Unread postby rockdoc123 » Sun 02 Jul 2017, 10:00:04

clearly didn't "appeal to authority." Is your reading comprehension really that bad or are you trying to discredit my post by lying about it?


OK then lets look at what you said:

AND this is confirmed by an important recent study. This figure omits what may be the most important study of climate sensitivity, i.e. that of Hansen et al (2013)


James Hansen pretty much invented the use of climate sensitivity as way to estimate the effect of rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere, so its always good to pay attention to him on this subject.


This is precisely what "appeal to authority" is or as described elsewhere:

An appeal to authority is an argument from the fact that a person judged to be an authority affirms a proposition to the claim that the proposition is true.
Appeals to authority are always deductively fallacious; even a legitimate authority speaking on his area of expertise may affirm a falsehood, so no testimony of any authority is guaranteed to be true.


The problem here is that you don't understand what Hansen's new paper means and how it is radically different from the other papers on this topic. Allow me to explain it to you.


This innovative new approach indicates the climate sensitivity of the actual Earth (not a climate model on a computer but the real Earth) is ca. 3.1-4°C


Allow me to explain to you how Hansens paper is neither innovative or new. Paleo-climate used to arrive at climate sensitivity is something that has been in the literature for at least 20 years.

here are two from many, many examples :

Borzenkova, II, 2003. Determination of global climate sensitivity to the gas composition of the atmosphere from paleoclimatic data. Izvestiya Atmospheric and Oceanic Physics, 39, pp 197-202.

A method for estimating the global climate sensitivity to the doubling of the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere from paleoclimatic data is proposed. The author's maps-reconstructions for seven geological time intervals of the past, from the Late Cretaceous (about 100 Myr ago) to the Late Pleistocene, corresponding to the change of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere from 0.20-0.25% to 0.02%, were used for this purpose. The use of paleoclimatic data for estimating the global temperature sensitivity to the doubling of the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere makes it possible to narrow the range of its variation to 3.0 +/- 0.5degreesC, whereas, according to estimations provided by various models of the atmospheric general circulation, this value varies from 1.5 to 5.2degreesC. Empirical data on the climate change over the last 100 Myr indicate that the CO2 concentration level in the atmosphere determined the distinctions between two types of the climatic regime on the Earth: "greenhouse" (nonglacial) and glacial of the present-day type.


Royer, D.L., et al, 2007. Climate sensitivity constrained by CO2 concentrations over the past 420 million years. Nature, 446, pp 530 – 532.

A firm understanding of the relationship between atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration and temperature is critical for interpreting past climate change and for predicting future climate change(1). A recent synthesis(2) suggests that the increase in global-mean surface temperature in response to a doubling of the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration, termed 'climate sensitivity', is between 1.5 and 6.2 degrees C ( 5-95 per cent likelihood range), but some evidence is inconsistent with this range(1-5). Moreover, most estimates of climate sensitivity are based on records of climate change over the past few decades to thousands of years, when carbon dioxide concentrations and global temperatures were similar to or lower than today(1,6), so such calculations tend to underestimate the magnitude of large climate-change events(7) and may not be applicable to climate change under warmer conditions in the future. Here we estimate long-term equilibrium climate sensitivity by modelling carbon dioxide concentrations over the past 420 million years and comparing our calculations with a proxy record. Our estimates are broadly consistent with estimates based on short-term climate records, and indicate that a weak radiative forcing by carbon dioxide is highly unlikely on multi-million-year timescales. We conclude that a climate sensitivity greater than 1.5 degrees C has probably been a robust feature of the Earth's climate system over the past 420 million years, regardless of temporal scaling.


The reason why there has been so much focus on calculating TCS and hence ECS over the instrumental period is because the required variables have been measured fairly accurately and relatively precisely. To the contrary paleo-data is much less replicable (proxies which disagree with one another etc) and fraught with large time gaps and time measurement periods that are too large for any meaningful use in decadal projections. This is why the Hansen measurements are not included on that graph...apples and oranges. Another reason the instrumental period is used is it doesn't confuse long term changes with decadal changes which is important when all you are interested in projecting is what will happen in the next few decades or next few hundred years. Remember that climate throughout the Phanerozoic had longer term changes that resulted from plate tectonics and I don't think anyone is expecting the plates to move appreciably over the next few decades.

Notwithstanding the issue you are trying to jam a square peg in a round hole the Hansen et al, 2013 paper is not the be all and end all in the discussion as indicated by at least a few of his peers. When the paper came out Mann suggested that one of the projections made by Hansen et al and their method to do so "seemed far-fetched to me". Keven Trenberth called the paper "provocative and intriguing but rife with speculation and what-if scenarios", Richard Alley noted "this new paper is not "the answer"". But of course that is just their opinion...perhaps you can call them deniers. :roll:
User avatar
rockdoc123
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 5512
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 02:00:00

Re: Global Warming / Climate Changes Pt. 19

Unread postby Plantagenet » Sun 02 Jul 2017, 13:46:32

James Hansen pretty much invented the use of climate sensitivity as way to estimate the effect of rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere, so its always good to pay attention to him on this subject.


This is precisely what "appeal to authority" is or as described elsewhere


No it isn't. You really don't know anything about science or about logic do you?

First lets define what an appeal to authority is: argumentum ad verecundiam. (also known as: argument from authority, appeal to false authority, appeal to unqualified authority, argument from false authority, ipse dixit) ... allowing an irrelevant authority to add credibility to the claim being made. Logical Form: According to person 1, Y is true.

Did you understand that definition? I'll put it in a simpler form for for you: An appeal to authority usually takes the form "Well Bob says its true so it must be true."

Thats not the way science works, you ninny.

The point isn't what Bob or even James Hansen says...its what their DATA says. I told you who James Hansen was and then I linked to his scientific paper and discussed his research and data. That is not an appeal to authority, you ninny, anymore then when you link papers its an appeal to authority.

Its the DATA, stupid. All of science is based on data---not just on what people say. Don't you even know that?

Image
Its the DATA, stupid.

Cheers!
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 20536
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 02:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).

Re: Global Warming / Climate Changes Pt. 19

Unread postby dohboi » Sun 02 Jul 2017, 14:17:48

And again:

Gavin L. Foster, Dana L. Royer & Daniel J. Lunt (2017), "Future climate forcing potentially without precedent in the last 420 million years", Nature Communications 8, Article number: 14845, doi:10.1038/ncomms14845

http://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms14845

Abstract: "The evolution of Earth’s climate on geological timescales is largely driven by variations in the magnitude of total solar irradiance (TSI) and changes in the greenhouse gas content of the atmosphere. Here we show that the slow ∼50 Wm−2 increase in TSI over the last ∼420 million years (an increase of ∼9 Wm−2 of radiative forcing) was almost completely negated by a long-term decline in atmospheric CO2. This was likely due to the silicate weathering-negative feedback and the expansion of land plants that together ensured Earth’s long-term habitability.

Humanity’s fossil-fuel use, if unabated, risks taking us, by the middle of the twenty-first century, to values of CO2 not seen since the early Eocene (50 million years ago). If CO2 continues to rise further into the twenty-third century, then the associated large increase in radiative forcing, and how the Earth system would respond, would likely be without geological precedent in the last half a billion years."
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 16785
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 03:00:00

Re: Global Warming / Climate Changes Pt. 19

Unread postby rockdoc123 » Sun 02 Jul 2017, 14:48:25

No it isn't. You really don't know anything about science or about logic do you? 

First lets define what an appeal to authority is: argumentum ad verecundiam. (also known as: argument from authority, appeal to false authority, appeal to unqualified authority, argument from false authority, ipse dixit) ... allowing an irrelevant authority to add credibility to the claim being made. Logical Form: According to person 1, Y is true. 


You are wrong on this as usual. Appeal to authority is simply appealing to someone who is supposedly an authority….because they say it it must be right. Here is the definition

An argument from authority, also called an appeal to authority, popularized by John Locke as the argumentum ad verecundiam, is a form of argument in which expert opinion supports the argument's conclusion. It is well known as a fallacy, though it is most often used in a cogent form.


It doesn’t matter if it is a false authority or someone who is actually an expert in the field ….it is still appeal to authority plain and simple.


Did you understand that definition? I'll put it in a simpler form for for you: An appeal to authority usually takes the form "Well Bob says its true so it must be true."

Which is pretty much what you said….again you seem to forget what you wrote

James Hansen pretty much invented the use of climate sensitivity as way to estimate the effect of rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere, so its always good to pay attention to him on this subject.


I told you who James Hansen was and then I linked to his scientific paper and discussed his research and data. That is not an appeal to authority, you ninny, anymore then when you link papers its an appeal to authority. 

Its the DATA, stupid. All of science is based on data---not just on what people say. Don't you even know that?

What a complete load….you did not say anything detailed about the work he did or how it could be justified. It was a general statement. Not being shown the reasoning he went through, the information he used or how he arrived at his conclusions and why that is a more valid approach than others is nothing more than saying….hey Hansen wrote this paper, I haven't a clue how he arrived at his conclusions or whether or not his method is more valid than any of the others but hey he is Hansen and he must be right. If you had simply said well here is another opinion no better nor worse than any of the others then fine....but when you are claiming it is the best answer then you need some justification.

But it is interesting how you love to dodge and switch.

You started this off by saying Hansens paper was more valid than any of the others and that somehow it was a completely new approach. And as usual you were completely wrong on that. This is an area of research that has been around for decades and has been largely abandoned by those who are trying to look at what might happen in the next few decades not the next millenium . And a recent paper illustrates why there are limits to mixing climate states over long time periods when trying to understanding climate sensitivity

Kohler.P, et al, 2015. On the state dependency of the equilibrium climate sensitivity during the last 5 million years. Clim. Past, 11, pp 1801 – 1823

The latitudinal dependency of icesheet area changes is important for the non-linearity between land ice albedo and sea level. In our set-up, in which the radiative forcing of CO2 and of the land ice albedo (LI) is combined, we find a state dependence in the calculated specific equilibrium climate sensitivity, S[CO2,LI] , for most of the Pleistocene (last 2.1 Myr). During Pleistocene intermediate glaciated climates and interglacial periods, S[CO2,LI] is on average ∼ 45 % larger than during Pleistocene full glacial conditions. In the Pliocene part of our analysis (2.6–5 Myr BP) the CO2 data uncertainties prevent a well-supported calculation for S[CO2,LI] , but our analysis suggests that during times without a large land ice area in the Northern Hemisphere (e.g. before 2.82 Myr BP), the specific equilibrium climate sensitivity, S[CO2,LI] , was smaller than during interglacials of the Pleistocene. We thus find support for a previously proposed state change in the climate system with the widespread appearance of northern hemispheric ice sheets. This study points for the first time to a so far overlooked non-linearity in the land ice albedo radiative forcing, which is important for similar palaeodata-based approaches to calculate climate sensitivity. However, the implications of this study for a suggested warming under CO2 doubling are not yet entirely clear since the details of necessary corrections for other slow feedbacks are not fully known and the uncertainties that exist in the ice-sheet simulations and global temperature reconstructions are large.
User avatar
rockdoc123
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 5512
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 02:00:00

Re: Global Warming / Climate Changes Pt. 19

Unread postby dohboi » Sun 02 Jul 2017, 18:20:51

There goes rd, committing the fallacy that he blamed others for, appeal to authority, by citing Kohler!

:lol: :lol: :lol:
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 16785
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 03:00:00

Re: Global Warming / Climate Changes Pt. 19

Unread postby rockdoc123 » Sun 02 Jul 2017, 18:54:22

There goes rd, committing the fallacy that he blamed others for, appeal to authority, by citing Kohler!


nope, I didn't say Koehler's study was more important or better than any others, simply that it was a paper that illustrates why there are limits to mixing climate states over long time periods when trying to understand climate sensitivity. If there are other recent papers suggesting there are no problems using paleoclimate analyses for calculating ECS then feel free to post them. Koehler is simply making a point as to why paleoclimate studies have issues when calculating ECS.
User avatar
rockdoc123
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 5512
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 02:00:00

Re: Global Warming / Climate Changes Pt. 19

Unread postby chilyb » Mon 03 Jul 2017, 09:35:38

Hi rockdoc123,

you said:

Please reference those "many recent estimates" . From what I can tell there is one outlier at the high end anywhere close to 6 C ECS. Most of the researchers have been working toward estimates of ECS that are less than AR5 not greater.


As I said, previously, here is one:

http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/2/11/e1501923

"Our results imply that Earth's sensitivity to variations in atmospheric CO2 increases as the climate warms," explains lead researcher Tobias Friedrich from the University of Hawaii at Manoa.


to which you responded:

well chili is wrong as there are several other papers published later which are on the low end (as I just posted). There are others as well which I can post if anyone cares


LOL! Please explain exactly how I can be "wrong" about this! I didn't even offer a personal opinion! Do you think Friedrich is wrong?? Or just that there are other studies that suggest lower ECS? Do you realize that you seem to go into a broken record mode every time someone puts up a link for discussion!!

“People should not look at this as a futuristic scenario of things that may or may not happen. They should look at it as the tragic story we are following right now,” said Eric Rignot, an expert on Antarctica’s ice sheet and an earth sciences professor at the University of California, Irvine...


LOL
chilyb
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 100
Joined: Tue 02 Sep 2014, 21:35:20

Re: Global Warming / Climate Changes Pt. 19

Unread postby rockdoc123 » Mon 03 Jul 2017, 10:10:57

LOL! Please explain exactly how I can be "wrong" about this!


I was referencing this statement

If I am not mistaken, it is the most recent study (Yale - Tan 2016) that is the high end outlier.

Am I interpreting this correctly?


which was obviously intended to suggest the most recent work was pointing to high ECS, to which I posted more recent examples that were lower.
User avatar
rockdoc123
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 5512
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 02:00:00

PreviousNext

Return to Environment, Weather & Climate

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 19 guests