BBC climate editor whose sister is an Insulate Britain fanatic made false claims on global warming

[Buzz]

Once again I have to ask, what do you think is my opinion?
Let's look at what I stated.
"Warming since 1979, based on Hadcrut4 is 0.588C"
This is clearly not my opinion!
"Greenhouse gasses in CO2-eq, have increased from 382 ppm to 508 ppm, NOAA AGGI"
Again, this also is not my opinion, as it came from a cited source.
Perhaps the formula for forcing and warming from the American Chemical Society, but if it came from the ACS site,
it cannot be my opinion!
The 2.72 feedback factor, is simple math, 3C output divided by the 1.1C of 2XCO2 forcing input is a 2.72 feedback factor,
again not my opinion!
Do you think it is my opinion that the predicted feedback factor should be applied to any warming input?
If you do, you would have to cite some peer reviewed publication that states the climate can tell the difference
between sources of warming!

I would say that it is your opinion that the cooling effects of aerosols can be ignored when you make calculations like this. And your ACS link even explains how aerosols cool the planet. But you ignore that part... don't you?

 

[longview]

I would say that it is your opinion that the cooling effects of aerosols can be ignored when you make calculations like this. And your ACS link even explains how aerosols cool the planet. But you ignore that part... don't you?

You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts!
The prediction of a future 2XCO2 ECS temperature of 3C, include the positive and negative feedbacks.
As to the theorized cooling effects of aerosols, the IPCC AR6 SPM says this.

The likely range of total human-caused global surface temperature increase from 1850–1900 to 2010–201911 is 0.8°C to
1.3°C, with a best estimate of 1.07°C. It is likely that well-mixed GHGs contributed a warming of 1.0°C to 2.0°C, other
human drivers (principally aerosols) contributed a cooling of 0.0°C to 0.8°C,

So the actual measured warming is between 0.8°C and 1.3°C, with a best estimate of 1.07°C
They think total warming is between 1.0°C to 2.0°C, with aerosol cooling between zero and 0.8°C.
The first thing that sticks out to me is the 0.5°C error bar for the global surface temperature increase,
that is what a range of 0.8°C to 1.3°C describes.
The second thing is where they came up with the upper range of what the warming should be at 2.0°C?
It starts with the ratio of forcing to warming, While the ACS uses 0.3°C per W m-2, the only way for
a 2XCO2 imbalance of 3.71 W m-2 to become 3.0°C of warming is to have a ratio of 3/3.71 = 0.808.
The NOAA AGGI says that CO2-eq, increased from ~310 ppm to 500 ppm between 1900 and 2019.
5.35 X ln(500/310) =2.56 W m-2, and 2.56 W m-2 X 0.808 = 2.06°C.
I wonder what the ratio of imbalance to warming is for their low end range of 1.0°C?
We would have the same imbalance of 2.56 W m-2, but only 1.0°C of warming, 1.0°C/2.56 W m-2 =0.39.
This low range would place 2XCO2 warming at 5.35 X ln(2) X .39 =1.44°C.
Buzz, the closer one looks at the IPCC's numbers, the more obscure the image becomes.

 

[bluesmoke]

I would say that it is your opinion that the cooling effects of aerosols can be ignored when you make calculations like this. And your ACS link even explains how aerosols cool the planet. But you ignore that part... don't you?

The poster response to your reply being another typical reply of info spam, having no effect on the whole of the debate. It's like going into the weeds of uber detail of the ugliest island of the Hawaiian chain of island to prove the Hawaiian Islands are ugly.

 

[longview]

The poster response to your reply being another typical reply of info spam, having no effect on the whole of the debate. It's like going into the weeds of uber detail of the ugliest island of the Hawaiian chain of island to prove the Hawaiian Islands are ugly.

I am sorry that science is a bit complicated!
If one is to appeal to authority, then one has to live with the data published by that authority.

 

[Buzz]

You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts!
The prediction of a future 2XCO2 ECS temperature of 3C, include the positive and negative feedbacks.
As to the theorized cooling effects of aerosols, the IPCC AR6 SPM says this.

So the actual measured warming is between 0.8°C and 1.3°C, with a best estimate of 1.07°C
They think total warming is between 1.0°C to 2.0°C, with aerosol cooling between zero and 0.8°C.
The first thing that sticks out to me is the 0.5°C error bar for the global surface temperature increase,
that is what a range of 0.8°C to 1.3°C describes.
The second thing is where they came up with the upper range of what the warming should be at 2.0°C?
It starts with the ratio of forcing to warming, While the ACS uses 0.3°C per W m-2, the only way for
a 2XCO2 imbalance of 3.71 W m-2 to become 3.0°C of warming is to have a ratio of 3/3.71 = 0.808.
The NOAA AGGI says that CO2-eq, increased from ~310 ppm to 500 ppm between 1900 and 2019.
5.35 X ln(500/310) =2.56 W m-2, and 2.56 W m-2 X 0.808 = 2.06°C.
I wonder what the ratio of imbalance to warming is for their low end range of 1.0°C?
We would have the same imbalance of 2.56 W m-2, but only 1.0°C of warming, 1.0°C/2.56 W m-2 =0.39.
This low range would place 2XCO2 warming at 5.35 X ln(2) X .39 =1.44°C.
Buzz, the closer one looks at the IPCC's numbers, the more obscure the image becomes.

It is not just my opinion. It is what the majority of climate scientists think. Unlike you who push your opinions based on cherry-picked science and data.

And aerosols are a forcing and not a feedback. Plus you are mixing up 2xCO2 with NOAA's AGGI like they are the same thing when they are not. And your calculations are still ignoring the cooling caused by aerosols.

You just don't know what you are doing and your numbers are a joke.

 

[longview]

It is not just my opinion. It is what the majority of climate scientists think. Unlike you who push your opinions based on cherry-picked science and data.

And aerosols are a forcing and not a feedback. Plus you are mixing up 2xCO2 with NOAA's AGGI like they are the same thing when they are not. And your calculations are still ignoring the cooling caused by aerosols.

You just don't know what you are doing and your numbers are a joke.

What is it you think most of the scientist think? I was quoting the IPCC AR6 SPM,
and it clearly says that the science thinks aerosols caused between zero and 0.8°C of cooling.
Do you not think the simulations include predicted forcing's as well as feedbacks,
they are after all also predicting the forcing from a future CO2 level?
The AGGI is in CO2-eq numbers, they adjust all the well mixed greenhouse gasses to their CO2 equivalent levels.
Because the IPCC used the term "well-mixed GHGs" the AGGI is a good reference.

Just for fun let's run the numbers out with the IPCC's described aerosol cooling range.
Forcing warming from well mixed GHGs since 1900, would be 5.35 X ln(500/310) X .3 =0.767°C
Natural warming (Before 1950) is about 0.25°C, for a total of 1.02°C.
The hypothesized aerosol cooling would then offset almost all of the hypothesized amplified feedbacks.
The only reason they think that GHGs contributed up to 2 °C, is that they are using unverified amplified feedbacks.
The simpler explanation is that there are minimal amplified feedbacks, and minimal net aerosol cooling.
The current temperature is because of natural warming AND greenhouse gas forcing.

 

[bluesmoke]

I am sorry that science is a bit complicated!
If one is to appeal to authority, then one has to live with the data published by that authority.

Your narrow line of science being a molehill of data in the face of the mountain of evidence supporting the broader theory of ACC that your BB of longview theory does not penetrate. Part of your MO is to purposely complicate matters beyond reason by spamming and extenuating complication of little or no significance as if to negate ACC. Your argument is a diversion of a sideshow peanut gallery barking out inconsequential data to get attention away from the main event, ACC. Science denial.

 

[Buzz]

What is it you think most of the scientist think? I was quoting the IPCC AR6 SPM,

Pretty much what's in the executive summary. I may disagree with a few minor points here or there but I don't take my opinions seriously enough to try and push them onto anyone else.

and it clearly says that the science thinks aerosols caused between zero and 0.8°C of cooling.

Which you never take into consideration and include in your calculations.

Do you not think the simulations include predicted forcing's as well as feedbacks,

Forcings from CO2 and other GHGs maybe but most do not include things like aerosols or volcanoes. You would know this if you really read the literature.

they are after all also predicting the forcing from a future CO2 level?

The forcings from CO2 are much more predictable than what humans are likely to do or not do in the near future.

The AGGI is in CO2-eq numbers, they adjust all the well mixed greenhouse gasses to their CO2 equivalent levels.

Fine... but don't pretend that all the GHGs are going to have the exact same warming effect as just CO2 by itself(3.71 W m-2).

Because the IPCC used the term "well-mixed GHGs" the AGGI is a good reference.

O.K. then... If you are going to consistently ignore the cooling effects of aerosols then why don't you use the IPCC's 1.0C to 2.0C range for warming due to GHGs for your calculations?

Just for fun let's run the numbers out with the IPCC's described aerosol cooling range.
Forcing warming from well mixed GHGs since 1900, would be 5.35 X ln(500/310) X .3 =0.767°C
Natural warming (Before 1950) is about 0.25°C, for a total of 1.02°C.
The hypothesized aerosol cooling would then offset almost all of the hypothesized amplified feedbacks.

If you were really including aerosols then you should be adding to the warming due to GHG to offset the cooling from aerosols. You don't know how to do this... do you?

The only reason they think that GHGs contributed up to 2 °C, is that they are using unverified amplified feedbacks.

Do you really think things like the increased melting of snow and ice in the Arctic are unverified?

The simpler explanation is that there are minimal amplified feedbacks, and minimal net aerosol cooling.

Simple is not always the correct explanation.

The current temperature is because of natural warming AND greenhouse gas forcing.

You keep saying there is natural warming. Where does it say this in AR6?

 

[longview]

Your narrow line of science being a molehill of data in the face of the mountain of evidence supporting the broader theory of ACC that your BB of longview theory does not penetrate. Part of your MO is to purposely complicate matters beyond reason by spamming and extenuating complication of little or no significance as if to negate ACC. Your argument is a diversion of a sideshow peanut gallery barking out inconsequential data to get attention away from the main event, ACC. Science denial.

Not at all, the mountain of evidence you speak of, is simply that Human activity is likely responsible
for some of the observed warming, (which is not in contention).
Any theory, concept, or hypothesis, needs to meet a first approximation,
if it cannot, higher resolution approximation's, will not fix what is broken!
Human caused climate change, ACC, is real, but the climate's sensitivity to added CO2, is by no means
an established certainty.
Look at the uncertainty in the IPCC AR6 SPM statement.

The likely range of total human-caused global surface temperature increase from 1850–1900 to 2010–201911 is 0.8°C to
1.3°C, with a best estimate of 1.07°C. It is likely that well-mixed GHGs contributed a warming of 1.0°C to 2.0°C, other
human drivers (principally aerosols) contributed a cooling of 0.0°C to 0.8°C,

On the question of How much warming has happened between <1900 to the 2010-2019 average?
Somewhere between 0.8°C to 1.3°C, wow, that is an uncertainty of 0.5°C, on a really basic question.
How much warming have added GHGs caused, 1.0°C to 2.0°C, that is an uncertainty of 1.0°C.
It sure sound like the IPCC report, which accumulates the worlds scientific knowledge about ACC, has
also accumulated quite a bit of uncertainty, about the most basic data!

 

[longview]

Pretty much what's in the executive summary. I may disagree with a few minor points here or there but I don't take my opinions seriously enough to try and push them onto anyone else.

Which you never take into consideration and include in your calculations.

Forcings from CO2 and other GHGs maybe but most do not include things like aerosols or volcanoes. You would know this if you really read the literature.

The forcings from CO2 are much more predictable than what humans are likely to do or not do in the near future.

Fine... but don't pretend that all the GHGs are going to have the exact same warming effect as just CO2 by itself(3.71 W m-2).

O.K. then... If you are going to consistently ignore the cooling effects of aerosols then why don't you use the IPCC's 1.0C to 2.0C range for warming due to GHGs for your calculations?

If you were really including aerosols then you should be adding to the warming due to GHG to offset the cooling from aerosols. You don't know how to do this... do you?

Do you really think things like the increased melting of snow and ice in the Arctic are unverified?

Simple is not always the correct explanation.

You keep saying there is natural warming. Where does it say this in AR6?

If you basically agree with the IPCC AR6 SPM, do you follow their estimate for CO2 sensitivity based on TCRE?

Each 1000 GtCO2 of cumulative CO2 emissions is assessed to likely cause a 0.27°C to 0.63°C increase in global
surface temperature with a best estimate of 0.45°C.

There is a reason that the IPCC says the range of aerosol cooling is between zero and 0.8°C,
it is because it is likely closer to zero, having been as much as 0.8°C of cooling about 1985.

The IPCC's range of GHG warming 1.0°C to 2.0°C, I established in post #77 and represents a
range of 2XCO2 sensitivity between 1.44°C and 3.0°C, if we go with TCRE, we would be near the low end.

The AGGI is already adjusted to show all the listed GHGs as CO2 level forcing, that is it's purpose.

Has the rate of arctic melt increased, or is our record only covering a brief time period where it slowed?
Soot seems to have a greater effect than GHG warming, which is happening everywhere.

The simple explanation is usually better, remember that Copernicus started out trying to prove the geocentric model,
but it was too complicated.

AR6 does not speak much about natural warming, but does cite 1950 as a starting date for many patterns,
They do speak of natural drivers, and there is broad agreement that solar activity peaked in 1958.

 

[bluesmoke]

You keep saying there is natural warming. Where does it say this in AR6?

There is no increase in global warming due to natural causes. That is how science first determined the only thing left causing GW was human contribution. The scientific findings are that it is extremely likely, being the greatest level of probability next to 100% likely, that human release of CO2 is the cause of GW. Such is the point longview keeps spamming insignificant data against that goes only to distraction as such does not change that fact nor is supported by any sizeable portion of the scientific world. Giving attention to longview is going into the weeds and down the rabbit hole. One is debating a science denier. ACC has been proven and need not be re-proven in every debate, thus negating the need for further unnecessary debate.

 

[Buzz]

If you basically agree with the IPCC AR6 SPM, do you follow their estimate for CO2 sensitivity based on TCRE?

Yes. Do you have a point?

There is a reason that the IPCC says the range of aerosol cooling is between zero and 0.8°C,

it is because it is likely closer to zero, having been as much as 0.8°C of cooling about 1985.

And you might be right. But if you understand that there were more aerosols back around 1985 then why do you insist on leaving aerosols out of your overly simplistic calculations of the Earth's climate sensitivity? Do you not understand that the higher aerosol levels in the past were preventing a portion of the warming that the Earth would have seen from the increase in GHGs? And combined with your belief based on some old study that all the warming that happened before 1950 was natural you have biased your calculations of the Earth's sensitivity to be far too small.

The IPCC's range of GHG warming 1.0°C to 2.0°C,

Which are the numbers for warming you should really be using if you don't want to try and include the cool forcings from aerosols in your calculations.

I established in post #77 and represents a

range of 2XCO2 sensitivity between 1.44°C and 3.0°C, if we go with TCRE, we would be near the low end.

And there you go again... conflating ECS to be the same thing as TCRE when they are very different. They are fundamentally different measurements. You should know this by now.

The AGGI is already adjusted to show all the listed GHGs as CO2 level forcing, that is it's purpose.

This is fine to use in some cases but don't conflate numbers you derive from using it as if they are an accurate representation of ECS based on a doubling of CO2.

Has the rate of arctic melt increased, or is our record only covering a brief time period where it slowed?

But it hasn't slowed. It is increasing. And this is just one of many signs that lead the scientific community to believe that the majority of feedbacks will continue to increase in the future.

Soot seems to have a greater effect than GHG warming, which is happening everywhere.

Who says this besides Lord of Planar? He has been pushing this lie for a few years now and I have been asking him to back it up for almost as long. And he has, so far, been able to cite anything that really backs it up. I have found a study that says otherwise. I don't suppose you can back him up... can you?

AR6 does not speak much about natural warming, but does cite 1950 as a starting date for many patterns,
They do speak of natural drivers, and there is broad agreement that solar activity peaked in 1958.

Yes... it doesn't say much about natural warming because most of the scientific community doesn't believe that all the warming that happened before 1950 was natural.

 

[longview]

Yes. Do you have a point?

And you might be right. But if you understand that there were more aerosols back around 1985 then why do you insist on leaving aerosols out of your overly simplistic calculations of the Earth's climate sensitivity? Do you not understand that the higher aerosol levels in the past were preventing a portion of the warming that the Earth would have seen from the increase in GHGs? And combined with your belief based on some old study that all the warming that happened before 1950 was natural you have biased your calculations of the Earth's sensitivity to be far too small.

Which are the numbers for warming you should really be using if you don't want to try and include the cool forcings from aerosols in your calculations.

And there you go again... conflating ECS to be the same thing as TCRE when they are very different. They are fundamentally different measurements. You should know this by now.

This is fine to use in some cases but don't conflate numbers you derive from using it as if they are an accurate representation of ECS based on a doubling of CO2.

But it hasn't slowed. It is increasing. And this is just one of many signs that lead the scientific community to believe that the majority of feedbacks will continue to increase in the future.

Who says this besides Lord of Planar? He has been pushing this lie for a few years now and I have been asking him to back it up for almost as long. And he has, so far, been able to cite anything that really backs it up. I have found a study that says otherwise. I don't suppose you can back him up... can you?

Yes... it doesn't say much about natural warming because most of the scientific community doesn't believe that all the warming that happened before 1950 was natural.

For someone to believe that 0.8 C of aerosol cooling exists, one first has to believe that 0.8C of amplified feedback warming exists.
Because the peak of solar output happened in 1958, it is reasonable to assume that peak warming was suppressed by aerosol cooling, but the aerosols have cleared to the point that there is likely zero cooling effect, relative to 1950.
As to feedbacks at human emission levels the feedbacks are complete for atmospheric warming in a decade or less.
ECS and TCRE are very different, TCRE more closely matches human style emissions, whereas ECS could never actually happen.

 

[Buzz]

For someone to believe that 0.8 C of aerosol cooling exists, one first has to believe that 0.8C of amplified feedback warming exists.

How do you figure? There could be either or. And I see no reason that both have to be true. Hell... they both could be higher. You are just making shit up again.

Because the peak of solar output happened in 1958, it is reasonable to assume that peak warming was suppressed by aerosol cooling,

Maybe. You sure do love to make unsupported assumptions.

but the aerosols have cleared to the point that there is likely zero cooling effect, relative to 1950.

In your opinion. Or do you have a shred of real evidence that man is no longer producing aerosols? You know we haven't. And then there are the cooling effects of aerosols from volcanoes. Are you really going to pretend that those don't happen anymore?

As to feedbacks at human emission levels the feedbacks are complete for atmospheric warming in a decade or less.

Another lie you keep repeating based on two studies that don't actually say this.

ECS and TCRE are very different, TCRE more closely matches human style emissions, whereas ECS could never actually happen.

Damn, long... don't you realize how pathetic your arguments are when you have to rely on a continuous stream of lies.

 

[bluesmoke]

How do you figure? There could be either or. And I see no reason that both have to be true. Hell... they both could be higher. You are just making shit up again.

Maybe. You sure do love to make unsupported assumptions.

In your opinion. Or do you have a shred of real evidence that man is no longer producing aerosols? You know we haven't. And then there are the cooling effects of aerosols from volcanoes. Are you really going to pretend that those don't happen anymore?

Another lie you keep repeating based on two studies that don't actually say this.

Damn, long... don't you realize how pathetic your arguments are when you have to rely on a continuous stream of lies.

long makes up his own supporting info of his own long theory which theory has no backing in the science community. He is simply not credible and only extenuates debate on what he can't support in complicating the argument as much as he can by spamming data of no significant impact on the science of ACC/AGW, of which subject he is a science denier. It's longview theory vs science.

 

[vegas giants]

When debating climate change, it is Anthropogenic Climate Change that we're debating. No one disbelieves that natural climate change occurs. With that in mind, you do not have all the facts, nor is the intensity settled science. What the Left is doing is lots of hyperbole and hand-waving, not to mention their questionable intentions. Using disreputable organizations like the IPCC is the usual route taken. Nothing the UN does is worth the paper it's printed on, like much of anything else the UN does. They are the definition of bloated, pompous bureaucracies. Universities merely answer to their money-masters.

Name a single scientific agency on earth that says AGW does not exist

 

[longview]

How do you figure? There could be either or. And I see no reason that both have to be true. Hell... they both could be higher. You are just making shit up again.

Maybe. You sure do love to make unsupported assumptions.

In your opinion. Or do you have a shred of real evidence that man is no longer producing aerosols? You know we haven't. And then there are the cooling effects of aerosols from volcanoes. Are you really going to pretend that those don't happen anymore?

Another lie you keep repeating based on two studies that don't actually say this.

Damn, long... don't you realize how pathetic your arguments are when you have to rely on a continuous stream of lies.

I do not figure, it is stated in the IPCC AR6 SPM

A.1.3 The likely range of total human-caused global surface temperature increase from 1850–1900 to 2010–201911 is 0.8°C to 1.3°C, with a best estimate of 1.07°C. It is likely that well-mixed GHGs contributed a warming of 1.0°C to 2.0°C, other human drivers (principally aerosols) contributed a cooling of 0.0°C to 0.8°C, natural drivers changed global surface temperature by –0.1°C to +0.1°C, and internal variability changed it by –0.2°C to +0.2°C.

If the recorded warming is 1.07°C, the GHGs are thought to have contributed 1.0°C to 2.0°C of warming and the aerosols contributed
between 0.0°C to 0.8°C of cooling.
We know that the forcing warming from the well-mixed GHG to 2019 was 0.93°C , based on the AGGI increase since 1750,
and roughly 0.77°C since 1900, so the only way to get to the 1.0°C to 2.0°C range stated in the SPM, is to add some amplified feedbacks.
Hypothetical amplified feedbacks, with hypothetical net 2019 aerosol cooling!

It is not that man is no longer producing aerosols, but the sunlight blocked by the aerosols emitted has reduced since about 1985.
our efforts to limit those aerosols that caused cooling, have been largely successful, only seeing a trend to more dimming since ~year 2000.
ENLIGHTENING GLOBAL DIMMING AND BRIGHTENING

Buzz you know both studies have not been refuted, and clearly show that maximum warming including all feedbacks and equalizations
happen in about a decade for smaller emissions, the 100 GtC test which is about 10 times greater than average annual human emissions,
was the one that showed maximum warming at 10.3 years.
The time lag between a carbon dioxide emission and maximum warming increases with the size of the emission

For a 100 GtC pulse of CO2 released into the atmosphere with a background CO2 concentration of 389 ppm, R&C found the median time between an emission and maximum warming to be 10.1 years, with a 90% probability range of 6.6–30.7 years.

The Kirsten Zickfeld and Tyler Herrington study, simulated the warming out to 1000 years!

If I were lying, then you could then why is my response filled with citations, supporting my position,
while yours is only supported by your words?

 

[longview]

long makes up his own supporting info of his own long theory which theory has no backing in the science community. He is simply not credible and only extenuates debate on what he can't support in complicating the argument as much as he can by spamming data of no significant impact on the science of ACC/AGW, of which subject he is a science denier. It's longview theory vs science.

You are free to say the words, but can you support your words by showing that I am incorrect?

 

[CaughtInThe]

i don't argue about climate change.

but wouldn't it be smart to practice the ole "better safe than sorry" thing?

 

[Buzz]

I do not figure,

Yes, you do. Constantly.

it is stated in the IPCC AR6 SPM

If the recorded warming is 1.07°C, the GHGs are thought to have contributed 1.0°C to 2.0°C of warming and the aerosols contributed
between 0.0°C to 0.8°C of cooling.

Yes. I think I have made it clear that I basically agree with this.

We know that the forcing warming from the well-mixed GHG to 2019 was 0.93°C , based on the AGGI increase since 1750, and roughly 0.77°C since 1900,

Based on your interpretation and calculations from data in NOAA's AGGI. NOAA doesn't actually cite these numbers on that page. Or did you get those numbers from somewhere else? Not to mention that both of your numbers are outside the IPCC's likely range of warming caused by GHGs.

so the only way to get to the 1.0°C to 2.0°C range stated in the SPM, is to add some amplified feedbacks.

Yeah... positive feedbacks that are likely to get worse as warming continues.

Hypothetical amplified feedbacks, with hypothetical net 2019 aerosol cooling!

There is nothing hypothetical about amplified feedbacks or aerosol cooling. They are both known to exist. It is just that we don't know exactly how big they are in the past, now, or are going to be in the future.

It is not that man is no longer producing aerosols, but the sunlight blocked by the aerosols emitted has reduced since about 1985.

our efforts to limit those aerosols that caused cooling, have been largely successful, only seeing a trend to more dimming since ~year 2000.
ENLIGHTENING GLOBAL DIMMING AND BRIGHTENING

Yes. We have discussed this several times in the past. We both agree that there were a lot more aerosols in the atmosphere over North America and Europe before 1985 for many decades. Enough to significantly cool the planet. And then they both started reducing their emissions while India and China started increasing theirs. The fact of the matter is that aerosols may be significantly reduced but they are not anywhere close to being 0 now. Especially when you consider the occasional aerosol emissions from volcanoes.

Buzz you know both studies have not been refuted,

I do not say and have never said that those two studies have been refuted. What has been refuted is your interpretation of these two studies. They just don't say what you think they say.

and clearly show that maximum warming including all feedbacks and equalizations happen in about a decade for smaller emissions,

Yes. Maximum warming including all feedbacks and equalizations for a simulated and hypothetical Earth that is at equalization and isn't warming or cooling and sees an instantaneous 10 years' worth of emissions and then no further emissions at all. And that Earth does not currently exist until we humans quit dumping GHGs into the atmosphere on a continual basis. That is why the IPCC report never once talks about these two studies like you do. Nope. The only part of the IPCC reports that even discusses these two studies is the section that discusses when humans start mitigating CO2 levels. And you know this is true. You have admitted this.

 

[Buzz]

the 100 GtC test which is about 10 times greater than average annual human emissions, was the one that showed maximum warming at 10.3 years.
The time lag between a carbon dioxide emission and maximum warming increases with the size of the emission

Yes. It also showed another higher peak at 200 years or so. Remember?

It is funny how you keep forgetting about this peak about 200 years after the first. Or the other later peaks on the other two simulations.

The Kirsten Zickfeld and Tyler Herrington study, simulated the warming out to 1000 years!

Yup. and it looks like the warming created will stick around for many thousands of years.

If I were lying, then you could then why is my response filled with citations, supporting my position,

while yours is only supported by your words?

Yeah right.



Very little of this discussion is new. We have discussed almost everything I am saying here in the past. The IPCC report as well as your own sources back up what I say. I have quoted them plenty of times.

 

[longview]

Yes, you do. Constantly.

Yes. I think I have made it clear that I basically agree with this.

Based on your interpretation and calculations from data in NOAA's AGGI. NOAA doesn't actually cite these numbers on that page. Or did you get those numbers from somewhere else? Not to mention that both of your numbers are outside the IPCC's likely range of warming caused by GHGs.

Yeah... positive feedbacks that are likely to get worse as warming continues.

There is nothing hypothetical about amplified feedbacks or aerosol cooling. They are both known to exist. It is just that we don't know exactly how big they are in the past, now, or are going to be in the future.

Yes. We have discussed this several times in the past. We both agree that there were a lot more aerosols in the atmosphere over North America and Europe before 1985 for many decades. Enough to significantly cool the planet. And then they both started reducing their emissions while India and China started increasing theirs. The fact of the matter is that aerosols may be significantly reduced but they are not anywhere close to being 0 now. Especially when you consider the occasional aerosol emissions from volcanoes.

I do not say and have never said that those two studies have been refuted. What has been refuted is your interpretation of these two studies. They just don't say what you think they say.

Yes. Maximum warming including all feedbacks and equalizations for a simulated and hypothetical Earth that is at equalization and isn't warming or cooling and sees an instantaneous 10 years' worth of emissions and then no further emissions at all. And that Earth does not currently exist until we humans quit dumping GHGs into the atmosphere on a continual basis. That is why the IPCC report never once talks about these two studies like you do. Nope. The only part of the IPCC reports that even discusses these two studies is the section that discusses when humans start mitigating CO2 levels. And you know this is true. You have admitted this.

Yes, the AGGI Graph shows a CO2-eq level of ~310 ppm in 1900, If you think my estimate from the graph is incorrect,
then give me your own estimate?NOAA AGGI
Do you really think GHGs forcing warming of 0.77°C since 1900 is outside the IPCC's range, quote the citation?

You say, "There is nothing hypothetical about amplified feedbacks or aerosol cooling."
but in this case, both are purely hypothetical, they can only say the aerosol cooling exists, if there is amplified feedback warming
for it to cancel out!

I have not said that aerosols have reduced to zero, only that the effects have been reduced to the pre 1950 levels.
There is still some aerosol cooling happening, but relative to 1950, the effects are minimal.

The two studies related to maximum warming from smaller emissions,
Maximum warming occurs about one decade after a carbon dioxide emission
The time lag between a carbon dioxide emission and maximum warming increases with the size of the emission
reach the same conclusion.

Our results support their assertion that warming that might occur decades from now would be a consequence of future emissions.
However, our findings show that past emissions very much influence rates of warming on the time scale of a year or decade
following the emission.

The warming from what we emit today, will happen within the next decade!
Maximum warming is fully equalized warming!
We have to consider that because as the title of the second study suggests,
"The time lag between a carbon dioxide emission and maximum warming increases with the size of the emission"
so the annual human size emission of ~9.6GtC would have an even shorter time to maximum warming than the 100 GtC pulse!
Each annual step increase, can be evaluated as it's own pulse, yes they will accumulate, but each annual increase will reach it's own
maximum warming in 10 years of less.

 

[longview]

Yes. It also showed another higher peak at 200 years or so. Remember?

It is funny how you keep forgetting about this peak about 200 years after the first. Or the other later peaks on the other two simulations.

Yup. and it looks like the warming created will stick around for many thousands of years.

Yeah right.



Very little of this discussion is new. We have discussed almost everything I am saying here in the past. The IPCC report as well as your own sources back up what I say. I have quoted them plenty of times.

I am so glad you posted the graph, Tell us what the 2XCO2 warming would be if as the graph shows
they recorded a 0.22C of warming for each 100 GtC emitted?
You do the calculations, and show your work?

 

[bluesmoke]

You say, "There is nothing hypothetical about amplified feedbacks or aerosol cooling."
but in this case, both are purely hypothetical, they can only say the aerosol cooling exists, if there is amplified feedback warming
for it to cancel out!

What is hypothetical does not exist. It's a hypothetical. Science accepts the likelihood that amplified feedbacks and aerosol cooling exist. Therefore, they are not hypothetical.

 

[longview]

What is hypothetical does not exist. It's a hypothetical. Science accepts the likelihood that amplified feedbacks and aerosol cooling exist. Therefore, they are not hypothetical.

It is hypothetical because there is no repeatable laboratory test to validate that they exists, and are doing what is claimed.
If the warming and cooling add to a net of near zero, any number could be placed in the slots and have the same outcome.