Carbon dioxide causes 80% of global warming

[Buzz]

I am not sure what to say, as you do not understand that different types of evidence need to be weighed differently.

Now, wait a minute! You never said anything about weighing evidence differently. You were saying that there is NO evidence. And that is clearly not true. This is just you moving the goal-posts again.

I finally found a public access version of the study you think refutes my idea of directly measuring the input and output of our climate system.
An assessment of Earth’s climate 1sensitivity using multiple lines of 2evidence

Finally? You linked to this over a week ago.

"Last Glacial to interglacial global mean temperature change estimates have been much studied and remain debated. Across studies, the inferred range is between ~3 and ~7 K below preindustrial with little probability of lying outside this range . "
This 3 to 7 K is the 4C error range in the reference, I was talking about!
They are estimating sensitivity, based on an error bar larger than the prediction!.

This study's estimated sensitivity is not based on just this one temperature range. This is just another one of your gross mischaracterizations of a study.

So are you saying that the IPCC is lying when they found a linear trend between 1951 and 2011 of .3 W m-2 per decade,
for total radiative forcing?

No, I don't think they are lying and I have no problem with their calculated trend. What I have a problem with is how you are using it to calculate what the planet should have warmed over the time period in question.

Also the numbers in SPM Figure 5, are very close to the linear trend, shown in FIg 8.19
Linear Trend was 1.8 W m-2 from chapter 8,
while SPM Figure 5, comes out to 1.77 W m-2 of natural and anthropogenic forcing.

Yes, The number you calculated from fig 8.19 that includes the negative volcanic forcings is higher than the number from SPM figure 5 that doesn't include volcanic forcings. One would think that if you were thinking logically you would realize that maybe your method isn't very good for determining how much the Earth should have warmed. And this goes back to a point I made earlier that using the numbers from SPM 5 in the manner you are is flawed and doesn't account for the periods where volcanic eruptions actually cooled the Earth for a few years. It is the same for Fig 8.19. The fact of the matter is that using either of these numbers as you are is problematic at best and downright unscientific at worst. And this is backed up in that Carbon Brief article you cited. Here is the quote again:

...a good estimate of ECS from historical evidence is hampered by the difficulties in quantifying the cooling effect of aerosols – from air pollution and volcanoes...

Sorry, long... but your methodology, no matter which numbers you use, is unable to take into account the periods of planetary cooling from volcanic eruptions. And that is not the only flaw either.

So within your subjective interpretation, and knowing that the IPCC says that between 1951 and 2011, total forcing
had a .3 W m-2 per decade trend, what do you think the actual forcing number is between 1951 and 2011?

I don't know what it is. And I could come up with a number that using your method would give a result more in line with what the peer-reviewed science says but then I would be doing what you do. And that is deciding on a result and then going and looking for the data and logic that gives you the results you want. But I don't do this.

As far as I am concerned you haven't proven anything and I doubt highly if this methodology and data you are using here could stand up to a real scientific peer-review. So... I am going to believe the peer-reviewed science before I believe yours. And some of the latest of that science gives a range of ECS of between 2.6C and 4.1C. But you go-ahead and deny what this study found and that it backs up many things I have been telling you for a while now. Just don't get all bent out of shape like Tim does when I just link to this study every time you push a ridiculously low ECS of 1.1C or 1.2C.

 

[flogger]

I’m not your google bitch. I can’t educate those whose mind is already made up.

So thats another 'no' then....... fair enough, I'll be happy to let others draw their own conclusions by that evasive response

 

[flogger]

Whatever.

What is it you guys want to achieve and why would it be better than we have today were we ever able to try to achieve it ....... at enormous economic cost especially for the poorest ?

 

[watsup]

What is it you guys want to achieve and why would it be better than we have today were we ever able to try to achieve it ....... at enormous economic cost especially for the poorest ?

More conspiracy theory.

 

[flogger]

More conspiracy theory.

What conspiracy theory would that be then ? I was simply asking you a very pertinent question so as always I'll leave it to others to draw their own conclusions from your failure/inabilty to respond to that question

 

[longview]

Now, wait a minute! You never said anything about weighing evidence differently. You were saying that there is NO evidence. And that is clearly not true. This is just you moving the goal-posts again.

I am not the one using lessor line of evidence, but your cited study is!
The ACS goes into a little better detail about the assumptions used in finding climate sensitivity based on
changes since the last ice age.
ACS Climate sensitivity
"Our calculated temperature change, that includes only the radiative forcing from increases in greenhouse gas concentrations, accounts for 20-25% of this observed temperature increase. This result implies climate sensitivity factor perhaps four to five times greater, ∼1.3 K·(W·m–2)–1, than obtained by simply balancing the radiative forcing of the greenhouse gases. The analysis based only on greenhouse gas forcing has not accounted for feedbacks in the planetary system triggered by increasing temperature, including changes in the structure of the atmosphere. "
So they are assuming a percentage of attribution from a change in greenhouse gas levels, and combining that with an assumed
temperature increase over the same time period.

This study's estimated sensitivity is not based on just this one temperature range. This is just another one of your gross mischaracterizations of a study.

"It is not the only piece but a primary one, as all the estimates are related to the past temperature change, to estimate Climate sensitivity.
It is not possible however to simplify the entire process likelihood in a similar way to the historical 790and paleo likelihoods as above. This is because the primary part of this evidence consists of 791multiple pieces Eipertaining to individual feedbacks i,and these cannot be written as a function of 792λ;hence we cannot directly write p(Eproc|λ,∆F2xCO2). "
It is also worth considering that each variable has it's own error range, and error ranges of dependent variables accumulate!

No, I don't think they are lying and I have no problem with their calculated trend. What I have a problem with is how you are using it to calculate what the planet should have warmed over the time period in question.

But the linear trend between 1951 and 2011 of .3 W m-2 per decade, is ~ 1.8 W m-2, over that time period,
and for forcing almost everyone uses .3C per Watt per meter squared of imbalance, Here is the ACS formula.
ACS Climate sensitivity

The predicted change in the average planetary surface temperature is

ΔT ≈ [0.3 K·(W·m–2)–1] (2.2 W·m–2) ≈ 0.7 K

If I use the ACS formula (Which I did), then 1.8 W m-2 of forcing is .6C of planetary surface temperature warming.
If you have a problem with the calculation, take it up with all those scientists who came up with the formula!

Yes, The number you calculated from fig 8.19 that includes the negative volcanic forcings is higher than the number from SPM figure 5 that doesn't include volcanic forcings.

First off the difference between 1.77 and 1.80 W m-2, is likely within the margin of error for the measurements.
While there is a margin of error, it is unlikely to be off by say .5 W m-2.
Consider how far off the estimate of forcing would need to be to have an ECS of 3C?

Sorry, long... but your methodology, no matter which numbers you use, is unable to take into account the periods of planetary cooling from volcanic eruptions. And that is not the only flaw either.

As I said above
Consider how far off the estimate of forcing would need to be to have an ECS of 3C?
I am following the data, and do not know where it leads, but the observed temperature increase,
compared to recorded changes in greenhouse gasses,
will always be better than than estimated temperature increases compared to estimated changes in greenhouse gasses!

As far as I am concerned you haven't proven anything and I doubt highly if this methodology and data you are using here could stand up to a real scientific peer-review.

Sorry, the linked study, is using lessor types of evidence. And we have to wonder since the study came out in 2020,
why they choose to ignore the superior empirical evidence, over questionable proxy evidence?
I will look at how far off the forcing estimates of the IPCC would have to be for an ECS of 3 or higher, it should be fun!

 

[istodolez]

What is it you guys want to achieve and why would it be better than we have today were we ever able to try to achieve it ....... at enormous economic cost especially for the poorest ?

Oh this is easy:

We want to ensure our climate doesn't dramatically change thus throwing economies and agricultural infrastructure into total chaos.

History is replete with stories of what happens when natural forcings result in localized climate changes (multidecadal droughts, for example, likely took down the Mayan empire etc.) so the goal here is to keep HUMAN ACTIVITIES from driving climate change thus threatening our FUTURE.

Now the way you phrased the question was relative to TODAY. It's like saying we hear the volcano rumbling but I've got a great town here so whaddaya want me to do? We COULD evacuate the town BEFORE the inevitable eruption or we could just ignore the signals and enjoy TODAY.

I don't have kids so I don't have the excuse that I love my kids and want them to have a good future, blah blah blah. I hear people say that but then turn around and think climate change isn't an issue because it isn't hitting us TODAY. It will hit your kids or your grandkids.

But TODAY is A-OK. Who cares about tomorrow or the future?

 

[Buzz]

I am not the one using lessor line of evidence, but your cited study is!

Damn, long... you said NO evidence other than from models. And now that I have pointed out evidence you want to make it about how the evidence should be weighed. You just can't admit you were wrong and are now moving the goal-posts. Please... stop with the intellectual dishonesty and just admit you were wrong.

The ACS goes into a little better detail about the assumptions used in finding climate sensitivity based on
changes since the last ice age.
ACS Climate sensitivity
So they are assuming a percentage of attribution from a change in greenhouse gas levels, and combining that with an assumed temperature increase over the same time period.

What does this have to do with whether or not there is evidence of higher climate sensitivities? It doesn't.

But the linear trend between 1951 and 2011 of .3 W m-2 per decade, is ~ 1.8 W m-2, over that time period,
and for forcing almost everyone uses .3C per Watt per meter squared of imbalance, Here is the ACS formula.
ACS Climate sensitivity

Yes. A linear trend. But global warming is not linear. There were times of higher and lower amounts of warming as well as periods of cooling. And since your linear calculations pretty much ignore all the periods of cooling then how can you pretend your calculations would accurately represent the Earths warming. There is a reason no legitimate climate scientists use such a simple model for calculating climate sensitivity and that is because it can't properly account for those periods of cooling. Are you really unable to understand this?

If I use the ACS formula (Which I did), then 1.8 W m-2 of forcing is .6C of planetary surface temperature warming.
If you have a problem with the calculation, take it up with all those scientists who came up with the formula!

How about you taking it up with all the real climate scientists who don't use your overly simplistic calculations when they do studies of climate sensitivity.

First off the difference between 1.77 and 1.80 W m-2, is likely within the margin of error for the measurements.
While there is a margin of error, it is unlikely to be off by say .5 W m-2.
Consider how far off the estimate of forcing would need to be to have an ECS of 3C?

If both numbers come from the same measurements then the margin of error wouldn't have anything to do with this. And shouldn't the number that includes the negative forcings from volcanoes be lower than the number that doesn't include the negative forcings from volcanoes? I would think so. But they don't. Why is that? It is because you are using a calculated trend instead of the actual numbers.

Sorry, the linked study, is using lessor types of evidence. And we have to wonder since the study came out in 2020,
why they choose to ignore the superior empirical evidence, over questionable proxy evidence?

That study doesn't ignore empirical evidence. That is just a flat-out lie.

I will look at how far off the forcing estimates of the IPCC would have to be for an ECS of 3 or higher, it should be fun!

That will be a waste of time.

 

[longview]

Damn, long... you said NO evidence other than from models. And now that I have pointed out evidence you want to make it about how the evidence should be weighed. You just can't admit you were wrong and are now moving the goal-posts. Please... stop with the intellectual dishonesty and just admit you were wrong.
What does this have to do with whether or not there is evidence of higher climate sensitivities? It doesn't.
Yes. A linear trend. But global warming is not linear. There were times of higher and lower amounts of warming as well as periods of cooling. And since your linear calculations pretty much ignore all the periods of cooling then how can you pretend your calculations would accurately represent the Earths warming. There is a reason no legitimate climate scientists use such a simple model for calculating climate sensitivity and that is because it can't properly account for those periods of cooling. Are you really unable to understand this?
How about you taking it up with all the real climate scientists who don't use your overly simplistic calculations when they do studies of climate sensitivity.
If both numbers come from the same measurements then the margin of error wouldn't have anything to do with this. And shouldn't the number that includes the negative forcings from volcanoes be lower than the number that doesn't include the negative forcings from volcanoes? I would think so. But they don't. Why is that? It is because you are using a calculated trend instead of the actual numbers.
That study doesn't ignore empirical evidence. That is just a flat-out lie.
That will be a waste of time.

So it is your contention that the IPCC, and the Scientist who do research for AGW, improperly accounted for all the forcing,
and therefore all the forcing numbers between 1951 and 2011 are off by a major factor.
Here is the issue with that!
If there were no net positive forcing between 1951 and 2011(ZERO), it would just barely validate an ECS of 3C.
The formula for feedback factor is the input plus the increase in the input, divided by the input.
For an ECS of 3 C it looks like this, (1.1C + 1.9 C)/1.1C = 2.727.
Now if we assume ZERO net forcing between 1951 and 2011, we have an input of .291C, and an output of .593C.
(.291 + .593)/.291 = 3.037.
Because the idea that added greenhouse gasses force some warming permeates every aspect of AGW, it is highly unlikely, that increases
in greenhouse gasses between 1951 and 2011 produced ZERO positive forcing!
In fact if we looked at the limit as forcing moves from zero percent to 100 %, only zero and 1% are above 3C ECS.
that means that 98% of the forcing numbers are below an ECS of 3C.
In the world of AGW, the idea of greenhouse gas forcing is a much more established concept.

 

[Buzz]

So it is your contention that the IPCC, and the Scientist who do research for AGW, improperly accounted for all the forcing,
and therefore all the forcing numbers between 1951 and 2011 are off by a major factor. If there were no net positive forcing between 1951 and 2011(ZERO), it would just barely validate an ECS of 3C.

Now where did I say anything like that? I didn't.

You are literally just making $#!% up because you can't admit you were wrong.

I'm disappointed in you, longview.

 

[longview]

Now where did I say anything like that? I didn't.

You are literally just making $#!% up because you can't admit you were wrong.

I'm disappointed in you, longview.

Well than eliminate any subjective statements and tell us what you think the actual net forcing was between 1951 and 2011?

 

[flogger]

Oh this is easy:

We want to ensure our climate doesn't dramatically change thus throwing economies and agricultural infrastructure into total chaos.

History is replete with stories of what happens when natural forcings result in localized climate changes (multidecadal droughts, for example, likely took down the Mayan empire etc.) so the goal here is to keep HUMAN ACTIVITIES from driving climate change thus threatening our FUTURE.

Now the way you phrased the question was relative to TODAY. It's like saying we hear the volcano rumbling but I've got a great town here so whaddaya want me to do? We COULD evacuate the town BEFORE the inevitable eruption or we could just ignore the signals and enjoy TODAY.

I don't have kids so I don't have the excuse that I love my kids and want them to have a good future, blah blah blah. I hear people say that but then turn around and think climate change isn't an issue because it isn't hitting us TODAY. It will hit your kids or your grandkids.

But TODAY is A-OK. Who cares about tomorrow or the future?

And what emprical proof do you have that any of that will happen ?

 

[istodolez]

And what emprical proof do you have that any of that will happen ?

Ahh, so you are one of those folks who wants perfect knowledge of future events.

Do you OFTEN got to Las Vegas with the last of your life's savings and play the slot machines? Sure you MIGHT end up a bazillionaire. But more likely you'll end up impoverished.

Go ahead and feel free to gamble with YOUR planet. Leave mine alone.

 

[longview]

Ahh, so you are one of those folks who wants perfect knowledge of future events.

Do you OFTEN got to Las Vegas with the last of your life's savings and play the slot machines? Sure you MIGHT end up a bazillionaire. But more likely you'll end up impoverished.

Go ahead and feel free to gamble with YOUR planet. Leave mine alone.

The house plays the other side of that bet every single day, but they are not gambling,
the odds are always in their favor, (An they spend a lot of money with statisticians, who can prove it).
As for our planet, we have to consider the actual risks.
"IF" 2XCO2 ECS is on the high end of the range, AND, IF emissions track something like RCP8.5,
then possibly some bad things might result.
The reality is, there is quite a but of distance from both of the "IF" in the above statement.
RCP8.5, requires an average increase in the CO2 level of 12 ppm per year for the next 79 years,
while the average for the last 20 years has been between 2 and 3 ppm per year.
For the question of how the climate responds to added CO2, it is really a question to how the climate
responds to a warming temperature perturbation.
We have some examples from within the instrument record, that show the past response to a warming perturbation,
is ,much lower than the even the mid range of the 1.5 to 4.5C range.
Three instrument data sets, show pre 1950 warming for the input warming perturbation. (All numbers on a 120 month mean)
GISS .176C
HadCrut4 .292C
BEST .314C
The same three data sets show observed warming between 1950 and 2011.
GISS .741C
HadCrut4 .593C
BEST .681C
The IPCC says that total forcing between 1951 and 2011 had a trend of .3 W m-2 per decade, or 1.8 W m-2, about .54C of forcing.
IPCC Chapter 8
(Figure 8.19 on page 699, lists the total forcing trend between 1951 and 2011.)
Output (observed warming) less forcing warming, leaves us with warming from unknown sources,
that some portion could be considered amplified feedback.
The input plus the unknown source warming, divided by the input, describes the feedback factor,
and the 2XCO2 ECS based on actual observed climate response.
GISS 2XCO2 ECS 2.36C
HadCrut4 1.30C
BEST 1.60C
The average of the three, 1.75C.
Even this presumes we will actually achieve a first doubling of CO2, which would mean that we do not see some
major technology improvement in the next 40 years, which is also not good odds!

 

[istodolez]

The house plays the other side of that bet every single day, but they are not gambling,
the odds are always in their favor, (An they spend a lot of money with statisticians, who can prove it).

Which is PRECISELY why I used that example.

Can I also request that you save yourself some typing. You keep repeating your back-of-the-envelope calculations. If you HONESTLY think they are legitimate (which obviously you do) please spend MORE TIME working on getting them published in peer review. That will help because it will get PROFESSIONALS to look at your assumptions and let you know whether they are valid or not.

Otherwise it looks to me like you are just vamping to run out the clock.

Commit. Publish. (Or at least try).

 

[longview]

Which is PRECISELY why I used that example.

Can I also request that you save yourself some typing. You keep repeating your back-of-the-envelope calculations. If you HONESTLY think they are legitimate (which obviously you do) please spend MORE TIME working on getting them published in peer review. That will help because it will get PROFESSIONALS to look at your assumptions and let you know whether they are valid or not.

Otherwise it looks to me like you are just vamping to run out the clock.

Commit. Publish. (Or at least try).

Except in the example the house is the normal climate, the odds are against something being abnormal.
As to the writing, I can only reiterate what the data shows.

 

[istodolez]

Except in the example the house is the normal climate, the odds are against something being abnormal.

Incorrect.

As to the writing, I can only reiterate what the data shows.

Here's what I see. You keep posting the same back-of-the-envelope calculations and claiming that it somehow overturns the majority of the science. But yet you won't attempt to publish. Since I'm not a climate scientist I can't help you figure out if you have truly overturned a century + of research by professionals or if you are somehow seriously off with your back-of-the-envelope calcs. If you don't attempt to publish it makes me wonder if you actually believe you would prevail or if you just want affirmation from a bunch of folks who AREN'T professionals in this area.

Because the latter is the cheap and easy route.

If you would like to publish most journals have rules for their submissions and they aren't very onerous. It will likely cost you a bit but that's nothing compared to the fame you are surely in line to receive for overturning the collected work of thousands upon thousands of professionals armed with the most advanced software and computing power accumulated over nearly a century!

Go for it. You do believe in your numbers, right? Go for it.

OR, here's something else to consider: try submitting your brief calcs to a professional climate researcher and see what you get back. Many of them are quite approachable and helpful.

(Make sure to go with mainline folks, don't just go shopping for denialist/skeptic references).

 

[longview]

Incorrect.



Here's what I see. You keep posting the same back-of-the-envelope calculations and claiming that it somehow overturns the majority of the science. But yet you won't attempt to publish. Since I'm not a climate scientist I can't help you figure out if you have truly overturned a century + of research by professionals or if you are somehow seriously off with your back-of-the-envelope calcs. If you don't attempt to publish it makes me wonder if you actually believe you would prevail or if you just want affirmation from a bunch of folks who AREN'T professionals in this area.

Because the latter is the cheap and easy route.

If you would like to publish most journals have rules for their submissions and they aren't very onerous. It will likely cost you a bit but that's nothing compared to the fame you are surely in line to receive for overturning the collected work of thousands upon thousands of professionals armed with the most advanced software and computing power accumulated over nearly a century!

Go for it. You do believe in your numbers, right? Go for it.

OR, here's something else to consider: try submitting your brief calcs to a professional climate researcher and see what you get back. Many of them are quite approachable and helpful.

(Make sure to go with mainline folks, don't just go shopping for denialist/skeptic references).

Incorrect, in your subjective opinion!
Also my back-of-the-envelope calculations are within the range of the 2XCO2 ECS prediction, and so overturn nothing.
As for publishing, I have to wait for several things, but mostly I am still polishing the idea.
I do not know if the IPCC's estimate of total forcing is correct for example.

 

[istodolez]

Incorrect, in your subjective opinion!

Unlike you I've actually put my money where my mouth is and pursued peer reviewed publication in my science.

As for publishing, I have to wait for several things, but mostly I am still polishing the idea.
I do not know if the IPCC's estimate of total forcing is correct for example.

Sounds like excuses.

 

[longview]

Unlike you I've actually put my money where my mouth is and pursued peer reviewed publication in my science.



Sounds like excuses.

Have you ever been rushed to attempt to publish something before it is fully vetted?
You likely would say it is not ready yet! The Climate and it's responses are very complex,
but it is not unreasonable to say the climate will respond to future warming perturbations,
in the same way that it responded to past warming perturbations.

 

[istodolez]

Have you ever been rushed to attempt to publish something before it is fully vetted?

How long do you need?

You likely would say it is not ready yet!

So, if it's not ready, why are you posting it here repeatedly and claiming it has meaning to the topic?

 

[longview]

How long do you need?



So, if it's not ready, why are you posting it here repeatedly and claiming it has meaning to the topic?

For one thing, I need to retire, but that is a different story.
I have four decades of experience in research and development, and I can tell when
the data is converging on the truth.
While some uncertainty still exists, that uncertainty will not change the outcome.
It is looking like the 2XCO2 ECS is between 1.3 and 2.35C, with a most likely estimate at about 1.7C.
Taking this in the context of the growth in CO2, we should see a doubling of the CO2 level by 2060, (assuming no technology improvements),
which would mean that Human emissions caused warming of about .034C per decade, after subtracting the roughly
.3C of natural warming since 1880.

 

[istodolez]

For one thing, I need to retire, but that is a different story.

LOL.

I have four decades of experience in research and development, and I can tell when
the data is converging on the truth.

And that leads you to posting it on anonymous boards over and over and over and making large claims about it's value before you put it in for peer review?

4 decades of R&D experience? How many peer reviewed pubs did you amass?

 

[longview]

LOL.



And that leads you to posting it on anonymous boards over and over and over and making large claims about it's value before you put it in for peer review?

4 decades of R&D experience? How many peer reviewed pubs did you amass?

If all the data is pointing one way, that is likely where the truth is!
As for peer review, that was not a primary consideration, intellectual property protection
was given a little higher priority. In my other roles, the idea of publication was not a focus.

 

[Integrityrespec]

Show how they’re wrong.

And according to John Kerry, 90% of that is caused by countries other than the USA. So stop trying to screw up the US because of what other countries are doing. Those countries, like China and India who are the biggest contributors to the carbon footprint are doing nothing, not one thing and are not asked to until 2030 according to the Paris Accord. It's a farce, a joke, a money making enterprise for the wind and solar industries and the green prophets who are making green prophets. There are plenty of those who disagree with the numbers of fossil fuel carbon footprints.