Climate Feedbacks and possible warming

[Buzz]

Some types of errors are not as obvious as you think, the annual temperature data set is quite noisy.

That one is.

And please... don't try and change the subject to noise in the temperature record.

 

[longview]

That one is.

And please... don't try and change the subject to noise in the temperature record.

I am not, but do you have a better way to evaluate the climate feedback within the observed temperature record.
It accounts for both the aerosol and GHG forcing, as well at the ~10 year latency between emission and maximum warming.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Yeah... just being wrong is one thing. But when the numbers you come up with are just completely impossible then anyone who really understands what they are doing would immediately recognize their error and correct it. But long can't even do that because he doesn't really know what he is doing.

Funny how you keep focusing on that, but never proving such things. In another thread, you claimed lonviews numbers were wrong on the energy density of gas to watt-hour conversions. I checked his numbers and he is correct.

You keep striking out, and don't even realize it. Do you ever do the math?

 

[Lord of Planar]

That one is.

And please... don't try and change the subject to noise in the temperature record.

One error reading I have dealt with was measuring the load of a motor, while doing a chemical polish. The load was used to determine when the friction component changed. Now we are speaking of using a current loop for the sensing of a 1/2 HP inverter duty motor, driven with a VFD, and going through gear reduction. Then the bearings also generate noise. This may sound simple, but it gets pretty hard with all the mechanical noises at different frequencies.

 

[longview]

Funny how you keep focusing on that, but never proving such things. In another thread, you claimed lonviews numbers were wrong on the energy density of gas to watt-hour conversions. I checked his numbers and he is correct.

You keep striking out, and don't even realize it. Do you ever do the math?

My formula still need adjusting,
starting date (DATE),
The DATE minus 10 years(T1),
and the DATE minus 20 years (T2)
Output is Date -T1 Less forcing
Input is T1 -T2
Climate Feedback is Output/Input.
The problem is mostly the 20 year window can have periods of cooling and any negative number creates a negative output.

 

[code1211]

Let me try to put it into laymen's terms.
Say a car maker claims that his new car can accelerate from zero to 60 mph in 2.5 seconds.
100 drivers on 100 different tracks attempt to duplicate the claim, yet the average of the best times they can make is 5 seconds.
The only conclusion, is that the car maker is exaggerating his numbers!
The idea that the climate feedbacks can take a 1.1C input and make it a 3C output, can be tested by looking at what outputs, earlier inputs created.

Thank you. I'm watching a lecture series on Quantum Physics and the lecturer is trying to present ideas on physics without using mathematics to do so.

Every now and then, he slips in some formulas and tries to explain why they are basic to the understanding, but then gets back onto the observed outcomes to explain the awesome brilliance of those that made the observations.

I appreciate his efforts AND yours!

 

[Buzz]

Funny how you keep focusing on that, but never proving such things. In another thread, you claimed lonviews numbers were wrong on the energy density of gas to watt-hour conversions. I checked his numbers and he is correct.

You keep striking out, and don't even realize it. Do you ever do the math?

You checked his numbers? Prove it. Oh... that's right. you can never prove anything. You are all talk and no proof.

One error reading I have dealt with was measuring the load of a motor, while doing a chemical polish. The load was used to determine when the friction component changed. Now we are speaking of using a current loop for the sensing of a 1/2 HP inverter duty motor, driven with a VFD, and going through gear reduction. Then the bearings also generate noise. This may sound simple, but it gets pretty hard with all the mechanical noises at different frequencies.

I wasn't talking about that kind of noise.

 

[longview]

You checked his numbers? Prove it. Oh... that's right. you can never prove anything. You are all talk and no proof.




I wasn't talking about that kind of noise.

You have already been proven wrong, Diesel fuel has more energy per unit volume, than gasoline.
As a energy storage device, it takes more energy to create a gallon of diesel than a gallon of gasoline.

 

[Lord of Planar]

You checked his numbers? Prove it. Oh... that's right. you can never prove anything. You are all talk and no proof.




I wasn't talking about that kind of noise.

Noise is noise. It can be very difficult to determine what the actual signal is.

How about proving his numbers wrong for us?

I seriously doubt you know how.

 

[Buzz]

Noise is noise. It can be very difficult to determine what the actual signal is.

How about proving his numbers wrong for us?

I seriously doubt you know how.

I never said that those numbers were wrong. You are imagining things.

Now I read somewhere that the man-made replacement for gasoline is harder to make than the replacement for diesel. And I thought it was in a study that was just recently discussed but it wasn't. I will look for it later. Maybe I am wrong but at least I will admit it if I am. Unlike a few people around here who can never admit they are wrong about anything.

 

[longview]

I never said that those numbers were wrong. You are imagining things.

Now I read somewhere that the man-made replacement for gasoline is harder to make than the replacement for diesel. And I thought it was in a study that was just recently discussed but it wasn't. I will look for it later. Maybe I am wrong but at least I will admit it if I am. Unlike a few people around here who can never admit they are wrong about anything.

Who would that be, I admit when I am wrong, or make a mistake, I just said in another thread that I did a calculation using .0107 instead of .107!

 

[Buzz]

Who would that be, I admit when I am wrong, or make a mistake, I just said in another thread that I did a calculation using .0107 instead of .107!

That comment was mostly directed at a few others around here because you do sometimes admit mistakes. But there are other times when you don't and are perfectly willing to lie about certain topics over and over again no matter how many times you are proven wrong.

 

[Lord of Planar]

That comment was mostly directed at a few others around here because you do sometimes admit mistakes. But there are other times when you don't and are perfectly willing to lie about certain topics over and over again no matter how many times you are proven wrong.

Oh calm down Buzz. May I suggest you consider the implications of what is said on topics before jumping to conclusions? You might get farther in the understanding of these sciences.

 

[Buzz]

Oh calm down Buzz. May I suggest you consider the implications of what is said on topics before jumping to conclusions? You might get farther in the understanding of these sciences.

WTF are you talking about? It is obvious that I understand climate science far better than you ever will. That is why you have never once, as far as I can remember, proven me wrong. But I have proven you wrong numerous times. And I can cite lots of examples while you can't cite even one example of you proving me wrong.

 

[Lord of Planar]

WTF are you talking about? It is obvious that I understand climate science far better than you ever will.

That's total BS.

That is why you have never once, as far as I can remember, proven me wrong.

But I have. You are in denial about that.

But I have proven you wrong numerous times. And I can cite lots of examples while you can't cite even one example of you proving me wrong.

Nope. I believe I have agreed to a misstatement on a couple occasions, but you have never proved me wrong. I know you think you have, because you use lying blogger material to do so, but you have never proven me wrong.

 

[Buzz]

That's total BS.

Only in your delusional mind.

But I have. You are in denial about that.

Prove it!

I know for a fact that you can't because I have asked you repeatedly to back up this claim. But you never have. Not even once.

Nope. I believe I have agreed to a misstatement on a couple occasions, but you have never proved me wrong. I know you think you have, because you use lying blogger material to do so, but you have never proven me wrong.

Not only have I proven you wrong on numerous occasions but I almost never use "blogger material" to do it. This is just another lie I know you can't back up.

Here is an example of where I proved your and longview's idiotic belief that the IPCC was pretty much ignoring aerosols to be completely wrong.

And I can understand why you block this embarrassment from your memory considering how you love to claim that you so well read up on the subject of climate change. Hell... you even claim to keep copies of the IPCC reports on your hard drive. But the reality is that you couldn't be bothered to actually read and understand them or the studies that they are based on.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Only in your delusional mind.

Prove it!

I know for a fact that you can't because I have asked you repeatedly to back up this claim. But you never have. Not even once.

Not only have I proven you wrong on numerous occasions but I almost never use "blogger material" to do it. This is just another lie I know you can't back up.

Here is an example of where I proved your and longview's idiotic belief that the IPCC was pretty much ignoring aerosols to be completely wrong.

And I can understand why you block this embarrassment from your memory considering how you love to claim that you so well read up on the subject of climate change. Hell... you even claim to keep copies of the IPCC reports on your hard drive. But the reality is that you couldn't be bothered to actually read and understand them or the studies that they are based on.

I understand what they say. I also understand what they don't say.

 

[iguanaman]

Except that is past interglacial periods when higher temperatures were actually reached, nothing different happened!
In addition the Permafrost methane and all have been melting following the glaciers receding for nearly 12,000 years,
If anything, the remaining permafrost is much smaller that what has already melted.

The speed of arctic warming is unprecedented in history. We are in uncharted territory already. You hope for the impossible.

 

[longview]

The speed of arctic warming is unprecedented in history. We are in uncharted territory already. You hope for the impossible.

You are joking yourself if you think the arctic warming in the last century is unprecedented, it is at best unusual within the ~ 140 years of the instrument record.

 

[Buzz]

I understand what they say. I also understand what they don't say.

That's just it! YOU DON"T UNDERSTAND!! And I just provided proof that you don't.

Now it's your turn. Show us all an example of you proving me wrong.

 

[iguanaman]

You are joking yourself if you think the arctic warming in the last century is unprecedented, it is at best unusual within the ~ 140 years of the instrument record.

LOL Try 44,000 years. For someone with the screen name "longview: you seem to have been born yesterday.

Arctic Warming Unprecedented in Last 44,000 Years​

Moss and other indicators suggest the current Arctic meltdown is unique in recent geologic history

Scientists have long known that the Arctic is warming faster than the rest of the globe, even as they had less of a grasp of how recent trends compare to thousands of years ago.
Now, a new study aims to fill the knowledge gap by concluding that recent summer warming in the eastern Canadian Arctic is unprecedented in more than 44,000 years. Prior research documented melt and temperature dynamics going back about 2,000 to 4,000 years in comparison, said study lead author Gifford Miller, associate director of the Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research at the University of Colorado, Boulder.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/arctic-warming-unprecedented-in-last-44000-years/

 

[longview]

LOL Try 44,000 years. For someone with the screen name "longview: you seem to have been born yesterday.

Arctic Warming Unprecedented in Last 44,000 Years​

Moss and other indicators suggest the current Arctic meltdown is unique in recent geologic history

Scientists have long known that the Arctic is warming faster than the rest of the globe, even as they had less of a grasp of how recent trends compare to thousands of years ago.
Now, a new study aims to fill the knowledge gap by concluding that recent summer warming in the eastern Canadian Arctic is unprecedented in more than 44,000 years. Prior research documented melt and temperature dynamics going back about 2,000 to 4,000 years in comparison, said study lead author Gifford Miller, associate director of the Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research at the University of Colorado, Boulder.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/arctic-warming-unprecedented-in-last-44000-years/

Sometimes you have to take what SA says with a grain of salt.
Here is what the actual Study says,

However, the extent to which recent Arctic warming has been anomalous with respect to long-term natural climate variability remains uncertain.
Here we use 145 radiocarbon dates on rooted tundra plants revealed by receding cold-based ice caps in the eastern Canadian Arctic to show that
5000 years of regional summertime cooling has been reversed,
with average summer temperatures of the last ~100 years now higher than during any century in more than 44,000 years,

The difference is the study itself is speaking of absolute temperatures, where as the inference rate of warming as being unprecedented.
The title of the paper itself "Unprecedented recent summer warmth in Arctic Canada" is clearly speaking of a level of warmth as opposed to warming.

 

[iguanaman]

Sometimes you have to take what SA says with a grain of salt.
Here is what the actual Study says,

The difference is the study itself is speaking of absolute temperatures, where as the inference rate of warming as being unprecedented.
The title of the paper itself "Unprecedented recent summer warmth in Arctic Canada" is clearly speaking of a level of warmth as opposed to warming.

LOL How did the arctic reach those unprecedented temperatures in 50 years without unprecedented warming? You are a prime example of deniers that do not have to be right...just create doubt. And if you need evidence of +3 warming being possible the arctic has already risen 5 degrees.

• Average temperatures in the Arctic have risen 5 degrees since 1971.
• Warmer temperatures affect nearly every part of the Arctic's ecosystem.
• The changes are a key indicator of climate change, scientists say.

https://weather.com/news/news/2019-04-08-global-warming-changes-arctic

 

[mrjurrs]

The IPCC defines climate feedback in their glossary as,

Because for Human type CO2 emissions, maximum warming is reached in about 10 years,(Maximum warming occurs about one decade after a carbon dioxide emission),
I thought it might be possible to evaluate the instrument temperature record to see if the levels of climate feedback exists to meet the requirement for 3°C of warming in response to a doubling of the CO2 level.
For an ECS of 3°C the forcing perturbation of doubling the CO2 level (1.1°C), would require a climate feedback (feedback factor) of 2.72 Times the input perturbation, (1.1 X 2.72 =2.992).
To evaluate this for the entire record, I have the starting date (DATE), The DATE minus 10 years(T1), and the DATE minus 20 years (T2).
I also included the forcing between T1 and the DATE, as 74% of the NOAA AGGI forcing, using the IPCC's ratio of forcing warming less aerosol cooling.
Output is the DATE -(T1 less forcing)
Input is T1 - T2
Climate feedback is the Output/Input
The average Climate feedback for the years 1880 to 2020 was -.2222,
The average Climate feedback since 1978 was -1.98
The average Climate feedback since 2000 was -5.78
For the forcing I used 5.35 X ln( CO2-eq DATE/CO2-eq T1) X .3 X .74,

The bottom line is that the climate feedback to warming perturbations is mostly negative, and so cannot produce the require long term +2.72 Climate feedback needed for a doubling of the CO2 level
to become a 3°C output. If anything the feedbacks are negative, meaning the warming from the initial warming perturbation is weakened!

Thoughts on improving the evaluation?

Here is the feedback loop I most recently became aware of (and that scares me)...
"As the planet gets warmer, sea level rises for two reasons. First, warmer temperatures cause ice on land like glaciers and ice sheets to melt, and the meltwater flows into the ocean to increase sea level. Second, warm water expands and takes up more space than colder water, increasing the volume of water in the sea." (my bolding)

Sea Level Rise

ocean.si.edu

 

[longview]

LOL How did the arctic reach those unprecedented temperatures in 50 years without unprecedented warming? You are a prime example of deniers that do not have to be right...just create doubt.

• Average temperatures in the Arctic have risen 5 degrees since 1971.
• Warmer temperatures affect nearly every part of the Arctic's ecosystem.
• The changes are a key indicator of climate change, scientists say.

https://weather.com/news/news/2019-04-08-global-warming-changes-arctic

Perhaps gradual warming over the last 44,000 years!
Nope the Study does not say warming but warmth, you and SA are implying warming where it was not mentioned!