Another Day, another article about the climate collapsing!

[longview]

Science is not opinion. It doesn't have "sides" that people take. It is evidence based, peer-reviewed, testable theories. When two scientists disagree about what the evidence is showing them, one or both of them are wrong. When most scientists agree and a few disagree, those who disagree are the most likely to be wrong. The notion that human caused climate change is in question is not an opinion. It is a theory that is all but a proven fact. A small minority of self-professed scientists who disagree are examples of statistical outliers. For a layman to assume that the vast majority of professional scientists are idiots who are all in on a giant conspiracy to defraud humanity, and that the tiny minority who come to the same conclusion that they do are the only smart scientists out there, that layman is inadvertently showing who the real idiot is.

So describe these "testable theories" that cover the amplified feedbacks predicted by catastrophic AGW?

 

[lwf]

So describe these "testable theories" that cover the amplified feedbacks predicted by catastrophic AGW?

Define "catastrophic." Most scientists don't believe that the Earth is going to become an uninhabitable hothouse like Venus, or a waterless desert like Mars. Most scientists also don't believe that the rapid rise in global temperature isn't going to cause an increase in violent weather, extinctions, and ecosystem disruptions leading to food shortages and human misery. If you define "catastrophic" only as the former world-ending apocalypse, then I agree with you: "Catastrophic" AGW is not something to worry about. If you, like most sensible human beings, include the latter extinctions and ecosystem disruptions in the definition of "catastrophic," then it most certainly is something to worry about.

If you want to know what a positive amplified feedback loop is - A large proportion of the sunlight that hits ice is reflected and bounced back to space due to its high albedo (color and reflectivity,) which limits the amount of warming it causes. But as the world gets warmer, ice melts, revealing the darker-colored land or water below. The result is that more of the sun's energy is absorbed, leading to more warming, which in turn leads to more ice melting. This is a positive feedback loop.

Here is a middle-school level experiment you're welcome to test yourself to see how it works:
https://www.polartrec.com/files/res...giceandclimatechange-studentactivityguide.pdf

 

[longview]

Define "catastrophic." Most scientists don't believe that the Earth is going to become an uninhabitable hothouse like Venus, or a waterless desert like Mars. Most scientists also don't believe that the rapid rise in global temperature isn't going to cause an increase in violent weather, extinctions, and ecosystem disruptions leading to food shortages and human misery. If you define "catastrophic" only as the former world-ending apocalypse, then I agree with you: "Catastrophic" AGW is not something to worry about. If you, like most sensible human beings, include the latter extinctions and ecosystem disruptions in the definition of "catastrophic," then it most certainly is something to worry about.

If you want to know what a positive amplified feedback loop is - A large proportion of the sunlight that hits ice is reflected and bounced back to space due to its high albedo (color and reflectivity,) which limits the amount of warming it causes. But as the world gets warmer, ice melts, revealing the darker-colored land or water below. The result is that more of the sun's energy is absorbed, leading to more warming, which in turn leads to more ice melting. This is a positive feedback loop.

Here is a middle-school level experiment you're welcome to test yourself to see how it works:
https://www.polartrec.com/files/res...giceandclimatechange-studentactivityguide.pdf

Let's define catastrophic as a 2XCO2 climate sensitivity of 3C or greater.
Demonstrate the testable theory that shows that doubling the CO2 level will cause 3C or greater warming?

 

[lwf]

Let's define catastrophic as a 2XCO2 climate sensitivity of 3C or greater.
Demonstrate the testable theory that shows that doubling the CO2 level will cause 3C or greater warming?

I don't recall making this argument.

Here is a link that explains it in laymen's terms though. The estimate is between 1.5C and 4.5C:
https://www.climate.gov/news-featur...-carbon-dioxide-doubles-pre-industrial-levels

 

[longview]

I don't recall making this argument.

Here is a link that explains it in laymen's terms though. The estimate is between 1.5C and 4.5C:
https://www.climate.gov/news-featur...-carbon-dioxide-doubles-pre-industrial-levels

You were the one who said,

Science is not opinion. It doesn't have "sides" that people take. It is evidence based, peer-reviewed, testable theories.

I am interested in you describing these testable theories related to AGW,
and specifically catastrophic AGW which we can define as a 2XCO2 climate sensitivity of 3C or higher?

 

[Buzz]

There has to be some distinction between what is published in scientific peer reviewed literature,
and what is published in unregulated blogs.
The facts are that in the last 122 years the average temperature has increased.
The IPCC says 1.07C, but of that ~.25 C is considered from natural causes, and perhaps another .18 is from
the reduction is aerosols in the Northern Hemisphere. leaving roughly 0.64C from the increase in greenhouse gasses(mostly CO2).
What this means is that the contribution from added CO2 is right in line with the expected forcing, and the feedbacks
that exists mostly cancel each other out.
Additional research into the lag between emission and maximum warming, show that maximum
warming from any emission happens in about a decade.
If all we can expect from a doubling of the CO2 level is 1.1C of warming,
then the 1.5C threshold is much further away than is thought.
Consider the raw equations, If 2XCO2 would produce 3C of final warming, then the multiplier would be
3C/ln(2) = 4.33, but if the actual 2XCO2 warming is 1.1 C, then the multiplier becomes 1.1/ln(2)=1.59.
so what CO2 level would we have to reach to increase 0.43C above the current level.
If the 2XCO2 sensitivity is 3C then CO2 levels would need to be at about 458 ppm for us to cross the 1.5C threshold.
But if the 2XCO2 sensitivity is only 1.1C then the CO2 level would need to be about 820 ppm.
Herein lies the problem, the only thing that says the sensitivities are high (3C) are computer simulations,
the actual instrument data that shows how much we have warmed, also shows a much lower sensitivity.

Warning!!
This post contains numerous false and misleading statements. Especially the last sentence where long incorrectly claims that the only thing that says that sensitivity is high are computer simulations.

Here is a fairly recent peer-reviewed and published study partially based on the historical climate record that basically says that 3C is entirely possible. And longview has been shown this study numerous times. Why he insists on repeatedly lying about the current state of climate science... I will never know.

 

[longview]

Warning!!
This post contains numerous false and misleading statements. Especially the last sentence where long incorrectly claims that the only thing that says that sensitivity is high are computer simulations.

Here is a fairly recent peer-reviewed and published study partially based on the historical climate record that basically says that 3C is entirely possible. And longview has been shown this study numerous times. Why he insists on repeatedly lying about the current state of climate science... I will never know.

Except that the Sherwood paper did not look at the instrument record as a black box amplifier!
Let's look at some of Sherwood as they make some interesting points.

The transient climate response (TCR, or warming at the time of CO2 doubling in an idealized 1% per year increase scenario), has been proposed as a better measure of warming over the near to medium term; it may be more generally related to peak warming and better constrained (in absolute terms) by historical warming, than S (Frame et al., 2005; Frolicher et al., 2013). It may also be better at predicting high-latitude warming (Grose et al., 2017).

In choosing the reference scenario to define sensitivity for this assessment, for practical reasons we depart from the traditional Charney ECS definition (equilibrium response with ice sheets and vegetation assumed fixed) in favor of a comparable and widely used, so-called “effective climate sensitivity” S derived from system behavior during the first 150 years following a (hypothetical) sudden quadrupling of CO2.

So they evaluated ECSs from a sudden (abrupt) quadrupling of the CO2 level?
Other studies have already shown that the size of the pulse impacts the time between emission and maximum warming.
A 4XCO2 pulse would likely take nearly 1000 years to reach maximum warming, whereas Human style emissions reach maximum warming
in about a decade. The time lag between a carbon dioxide emission and maximum warming increases with the size of the emission

 

[code1211]

Science is not opinion. It doesn't have "sides" that people take. It is evidence based, peer-reviewed, testable theories. When two scientists disagree about what the evidence is showing them, one or both of them are wrong. When most scientists agree and a few disagree, those who disagree are the most likely to be wrong. The notion that human caused climate change is in question is not an opinion. It is a theory that is all but a proven fact. A small minority of self-professed scientists who disagree are examples of statistical outliers. For a layman to assume that the vast majority of professional scientists are idiots who are all in on a giant conspiracy to defraud humanity, and that the tiny minority who come to the same conclusion that they do are the only smart scientists out there, that layman is inadvertently showing who the real idiot is.

Let's examine your thoughts here.

First, scientists don't say what you think they are saying. About 95% agree and that group is wrong.

What they are saying is that IF there is a particular amount of CO2 emmited by the actions of man, THEN these emissions will cause a temperature increase of a predictable, defined amount that they can quantify.

They have been shown to be wrong in almost every example starting with Dr. James Hansen in 1988 and continuing through the litany of examples across the years.

The question to a THINKING person is not whether or not they are wrong. The question is why do they continue to believe this unproven tripe with no evidence or success.

They continue to say that mankind can control and direct the climate of the planet. They are wrong. Period.

Compare this to a hospital delivering babies. If 95%, actually, 96.7% of all babies delivered in any hospital died, this would be cited as a failure.

A 96.7% failure rate in Climate Science is promoted as being good. Seems odd. Why is a 3.3 success rate touted as being good?

Maybe That IPCC 95% Certainty Was Correct After All « Roy Spencer, PhD

<snip>
As seen in the following graphic, over the period of the satellite record (1979-2012), both the surface and satellite observations produce linear temperature trends which are below 87 of the 90 climate models used in the comparison.

So, about 95% (actually, 96.7%) of the climate models warm faster than the observations. While they said they were 95% certain that most of the warming since the 1950s was due to human greenhouse gas emissions, what they meant to say was that they are 95% sure their climate models are warming too much.
<snip>

UAH Global Temperature Update for March, 2022: +0.15 deg. C « Roy Spencer, PhD

<snip>
The Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for March, 2022 was +0.15 deg. C, up from the February, 2022 value of -0.01 deg. C.


<snip>

The linear warming trend since January, 1979 still stands at +0.13 C/decade (+0.12 C/decade over the global-averaged oceans, and +0.18 C/decade over global-averaged land).

 

[lwf]

First, scientists don't say what you think they are saying. About 95% agree and that group is wrong.

No offense, but as a layman, I side with the scientific consensus, rather than a random person on the internet who claims to be smarter than 95% of scientists:

 

[Buzz]

Except that the Sherwood paper did not look at the instrument record as a black box amplifier!

Black box amplifier? WTF are you talking about?? This is just more of the typical made-up BS that you pull when you have no real argument.

Let's look at some of Sherwood as they make some interesting points.


So they evaluated ECSs from a sudden (abrupt) quadrupling of the CO2 level?
Other studies have already shown that the size of the pulse impacts the time between emission and maximum warming.
A 4XCO2 pulse would likely take nearly 1000 years to reach maximum warming, whereas Human style emissions reach maximum warming
in about a decade. The time lag between a carbon dioxide emission and maximum warming increases with the size of the emission

Sherwood used a quadrupling of CO2 for a reference scenario. This fact doesn't refute anything.

Just admit it. There are more than just computer models that show higher sensitivities.

Oh... and I really wish you would quit misrepresenting those two studies of maximum warming. The thing that is most important is total warming and not when maximum warming happens. The way you talk about those two studies one would think that after max warming happens then all warming from those emissions ends. And we both know that is not the case.

 

[longview]

No offense, but as a layman, I side with the scientific consensus, rather than a random person on the internet who claims to be smarter than 95% of scientists:

The scientific consensus does not say what you think it does!
NASA Scientific Consensus: Earth's Climate Is Warming

Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*:
Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities.

What there is agreement about is,
A: That the average temperature has increased over the last century, and,
B: That the warming is likely due to Human activities.
What is missing, is how sensitive the climate is to added CO2, because science does not agree on how sensitive
the climate is to added CO2, they do not even agree on the best way to predict future warming from added CO2.
Do they use ECS, ECSs, TCR, ect?

 

[longview]

Black box amplifier? WTF are you talking about?? This is just more of the typical made-up BS that you pull when you have no real argument.

Sherwood used a quadrupling of CO2 for a reference scenario. This fact doesn't refute anything.

Just admit it. There are more than just computer models that show higher sensitivities.

Oh... and I really wish you would quit misrepresenting those two studies of maximum warming. The thing that is most important is total warming and not when maximum warming happens. The way you talk about those two studies one would think that after max warming happens then all warming from those emissions ends. And we both know that is not the case.

Any system with amplification can be evaluated as a black box, i.e. we do not know what is in the box,
but the inputs vs the outputs can be evaluated.
The only way for the 2XCO2 forcing input of 1.1C to become the total ECS warming of 3C is through
the application of a 2.72 feedback factor, 1.1 X 2.72 = 2.992.
Whatever feedback that exists, must produce this feedback factor if the predicted amplified feedback are correct!
The problem is that within the instrument record, that level of feedback cannot be demonstrated, beyond a few rouge years.
The long term average is much lower, closer to a feedback factor that would produce final warming of between 1.5 and 1.8 C.

Sherwood's use of ECSs and a sudden quadrupling of CO2, invalidate any findings, because
let's face it, in the real world the CO2 level does not suddenly quadruple.
The CO2 level has been increasing by about 2.74 ppm per year for the last 20 years,
why not simulate what is actually happening?
As for the maximum warming studies, you say the warming does not end, but let's look at the graphic out to 1000 years
for emissions 10X greater than normal Human emissions?
The time lag between a carbon dioxide emission and maximum warming increases with the size of the emission
For 100 and 1000 GtC pulses the maximum warming slowly declines after reaching a peak.

For reference, Human emissions are about 9.6 GtC annually.

 

[Buzz]

Any system with amplification can be evaluated as a black box, i.e. we do not know what is in the box,
but the inputs vs the outputs can be evaluated.
The only way for the 2XCO2 forcing input of 1.1C to become the total ECS warming of 3C is through
the application of a 2.72 feedback factor, 1.1 X 2.72 = 2.992.
Whatever feedback that exists, must produce this feedback factor if the predicted amplified feedback are correct!
The problem is that within the instrument record, that level of feedback cannot be demonstrated, beyond a few rouge years.
The long term average is much lower, closer to a feedback factor that would produce final warming of between 1.5 and 1.8 C.

Sherwood's use of ECSs and a sudden quadrupling of CO2, invalidate any findings, because
let's face it, in the real world the CO2 level does not suddenly quadruple.
The CO2 level has been increasing by about 2.74 ppm per year for the last 20 years,
why not simulate what is actually happening?
As for the maximum warming studies, you say the warming does not end, but let's look at the graphic out to 1000 years
for emissions 10X greater than normal Human emissions?
The time lag between a carbon dioxide emission and maximum warming increases with the size of the emission
For 100 and 1000 GtC pulses the maximum warming slowly declines after reaching a peak.
View attachment 67384530
For reference, Human emissions are about 9.6 GtC annually.

Whatever.

A black box amplifier has nothing to do with anything here. And the rest of that BS has been debated between you and me several times. I am not going down another of your rabbit holes of denialism again just to rehash the same garbage I have refuted many times before.

The fact of the matter is that all of that is BS that no serious climate scientists believe. And you can't cite any legitimate scientists or any peer-reviewed studies that back up any of this. You can't even cite anyone who interprets those 2 studies of emissions as you do.

 

[lwf]

The scientific consensus does not say what you think it does!
NASA Scientific Consensus: Earth's Climate Is Warming

What there is agreement about is,
A: That the average temperature has increased over the last century, and,
B: That the warming is likely due to Human activities.
What is missing, is how sensitive the climate is to added CO2, because science does not agree on how sensitive
the climate is to added CO2, they do not even agree on the best way to predict future warming from added CO2.
Do they use ECS, ECSs, TCR, ect?

I don't take issue with this.

"A consensus on climate change and its human cause exists. Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that human activities are the primary cause of the observed climate-warming trend over the past century."

We also know that this warming is causing environmental effects such as ecosystem disruptions, extinctions, and an increase in violent and dangerous weather. These are bad things. We may not be able to accurately predict what the Earth will look like in 300 years, but stopping, and if possible reversing humanity's impact on global warming would slow the effects of climate change and allow for better human adaptation to a future of a warmer Earth.

 

[longview]

Whatever.

A black box amplifier has nothing to do with anything here. And the rest of that BS has been debated between you and me several times. I am not going down another of your rabbit holes of denialism again just to rehash the same garbage I have refuted many times before.

The fact of the matter is that all of that is BS that no serious climate scientists believe. And you can't cite any legitimate scientists or any peer-reviewed studies that back up any of this. You can't even cite anyone who interprets those 2 studies of emissions as you do.

The concept of a black box amplifier has everything to do with evaluating the instrument temperature record.
How would you know what a serious climate would believe?
The two studies of maximum warming both interpret the results the same as I do, the graphics show this and the lower sensitivity!

 

[longview]

I don't take issue with this.

"A consensus on climate change and its human cause exists. Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that human activities are the primary cause of the observed climate-warming trend over the past century."

We also know that this warming is causing environmental effects such as ecosystem disruptions, extinctions, and an increase in violent and dangerous weather. These are bad things. We may not be able to accurately predict what the Earth will look like in 300 years, but stopping, and if possible reversing humanity's impact on global warming would slow the effects of climate change and allow for better human adaptation to a future of a warmer Earth.

We actually do not know if recent weather can be attributed to the observed warming, or if it is abnormal at all! None of the predictions are saying that the warming will be greater than our capability to adapt. Depending on sensitivity the effects may not even be noticeable.

 

[lwf]

We actually do not know if recent weather can be attributed to the observed warming, or if it is abnormal at all! None of the predictions are saying that the warming will be greater than our capability to adapt. Depending on sensitivity the effects may not even be noticeable.

The effects have already been noticeable.

 

[Buzz]

The concept of a black box amplifier has everything to do with evaluating the instrument temperature record.

Really?? Then why have I never heard about this? Why doesn't the latest IPCC report even mention a black box amplifier even once in its almost 4000 pages?

It is because you are making shit up again.

How would you know what a serious climate would believe?

Because I have actually read hundreds of climate studies and a fair amount of the IPCC reports. Probably a lot more than most around here including you.

The two studies of maximum warming both interpret the results the same as I do, the graphics show this and the lower sensitivity!

No, they don't. And we have been over this several times now. It is your interpretation that these studies show that all warming from a pulse of CO2 emissions will be done in ten years. I have shown you that no one believes this except you. The only way that that would be true is if and when all emissions have stopped. And you have yet to cite anyone or anything that interprets them as you do. The two studies are even discussed in AR6 in a way that backs up my interpretation and not yours.

 

[longview]

The effects have already been noticeable.

Weather is noticeable, attributing weather events to some particular cause is difficult.

 

[longview]

Really?? Then why have I never heard about this? Why doesn't the latest IPCC report even mention a black box amplifier even once in its almost 4000 pages?

It is because you are making shit up again.

Because I have actually read hundreds of climate studies and a fair amount of the IPCC reports. Probably a lot more than most around here including you.

No, they don't. And we have been over this several times now. It is your interpretation that these studies show that all warming from a pulse of CO2 emissions will be done in ten years. I have shown you that no one believes this except you. The only way that that would be true is if and when all emissions have stopped. And you have yet to cite anyone or anything that interprets them as you do. The two studies are even discussed in AR6 in a way that backs up my interpretation and not yours.

The IPCC’s job is not to put themselves out of business!
Simply because you lack the experience to analyze the data as a black box amplifier, does not mean it is not a valid approach.

Look at the graph on the 100 GtC pulse, and extrapolate the warming for a pulse equal to 2XCO2. Yes it requires a bit of math.

 

[Threegoofs]

Weather is noticeable, attributing weather events to some particular cause is difficult.

Especially when your entire goal is to be a denier.

 

[longview]

Especially when your entire goal is to be a denier.

Thanks for your poorly formed opinion!
My goal is a sustainable energy future, where everyone alive can enjoy a first world lifestyle if they choose to!

 

[Threegoofs]

Thanks for your poorly formed opinion!
My goal is a sustainable energy future, where everyone alive can enjoy a first world lifestyle if they choose to!

Uh huh.

 

[code1211]

No offense, but as a layman, I side with the scientific consensus, rather than a random person on the internet who claims to be smarter than 95% of scientists:

Why did you amputate a shred of a thought and respond to it as if it was a whole thought?

 

[Buzz]

The IPCC’s job is not to put themselves out of business!

The IPCC is not a business.

I don't know if you are aware of this but the scientists who contribute to the reports do not get paid. They are volunteers who do it for the good of the planet and mankind. And I am sure that the vast majority of these scientists would love to see the IPCC become unnecessary and not have to devote hundreds of hours of work to produce the reports. But that would require that the fossil fuel industry and other mostly conservative organizations stop spending huge amounts of money misinforming and lying to the public. And people like you would need to quit helping them with all the false and misleading BS you push. Then, maybe, if most everyone on the planet started taking AGW seriously and we actually did what is necessary to stop the warming then the IPCC wouldn't be needed and it could "go out of business".

Simply because you lack the experience to analyze the data as a black box amplifier, does not mean it is not a valid approach.

That is just more BS!! I have been reading the scientific literature on climate change now for over a decade. I have done a large amount of reading specifically on the temperature records in order to debunk the lies and misinformation that has consistently come from people like you, LoP, Steve Case, and others. Not to mention reading significant amounts of all the IPCC reports. And in all that time I have never once seen any reference to a black box amplifier being used in evaluating the temperature record. Even Google comes up with nothing relevant at all.

I think you are making this up. And unless you can cite something to show otherwise, I am going to insist you are just lying.

Look at the graph on the 100 GtC pulse, and extrapolate the warming for a pulse equal to 2XCO2. Yes it requires a bit of math.

No thanks. I am not afraid to admit I don't have the math skills. Not that I think using that graph to make such a calculation would even be appropriate in the first place.