Crisis 1922 style - Arctic Ocean getting warm; seals vanish and icebergs melt

[longview]

Yes, many model simulations are abrupt. But your cited article explains why:

And the same article defines ECS:

Nothing about the doubling and/or equilibrium being abrupt.



Obviously.

Buzz if no timeframe of the simulated release is stated, then the simulated release is abrupt. That is at least how
science is supposed to work, you provide enough information for someone unknown to you to duplicate your work.

As for the equilibrium time, and why ECS is not valid, studies using the same models but simulating smaller releases
reached maximum warming in about a decade.
The time lag between a carbon dioxide emission and maximum warming increases with the size of the emission
For the record, in this study 100 GtC is 47 ppm.
BTW in their definition, since they did not state a time period of the doubling, so it is abrupt!

This is false. Longview's article lists some model simulations of ECS that are not abrupt.

Then you need to show which model of simulation of ECS was not an abrupt release, you cannot "just say so"!

There was no release. No energy was built up to be later released. Any energy prevented from warming the planet was reflected out to space.

Buzz if the Sun's intensity was slowly increasing, but smog prevented that increase from reaching the surface,
then the removal of the smog would look like a rapid increase in energy.

Here we have a perfect example of longview cherry-picking studies and data.

That study was the IPCC's 23-year-old third assessment report published in 2001. And, of course, long cites the max warming of 0.5 Wm-2 even though the sentence right after the part he quoted says this:

Just yesterday long posted a graph from the much more recent IPCC report AR5 that gave a solar irradiance of 0.05 Wm-2. And last Saturday I posted a graph from the last IPCC report(AR6) that combined the slight warming of solar irradiance with the slight cooling of volcanic activity(both natural) that gave a total warming of 0.0 Wm-2
So... from longview's cherry-picked number of 0.5 Wm-2 to 0.0 Wm-2 just by using the latest report.

The higher natural increase came up in a search, so I went to find it, but consider the TSI reconstruction.
Total Solar Irradiance Data
In the 1600's the average was below 1360.5 W m-2 but the average today is about 1361.0 W m-2.
What is more likely that the people who study Solar Irradiance for a living got it right, or were off by a factor of 10?

Obviously, longview can't be trusted to cite the most current science and will cherry-pick to get the narrative that he wants.

Buzz you are the one using creative interpretation.
The increase in Solar intensity since the 1600's is about 0.5W m-2 not 0.05 W m-2.

 

[OrphanSlug]

What do you think is the nature and scale of the problem, and what do you think the solutions might be?

I know what it is not.

Massive lithium mines all over the place but largely in nations with little to no laws governing labor and child labor ripping up the earth to get to every scrap of the material, trucking and shipping (fuel based) them all over the world for high heat and high energy refinement using up plenty of energy (some fuel based,) then trucking and shipping it again all over the world for battery production and eventual installation in EV cars all over the place that all require energy (some yet again fuel based) in an effort to pretend to care about CO2.

And it sure is not flying elites all over the world to enter into agreements that end up being about 2 things. Wealth transfer from a handful of nations to everyone else, and a passive agreement to quit producing so much CO2 (just so long as it is offshored to areas those same elites do not care about.)

 

[Lord of Planar]

You didn't word something poorly. You completely contradicted numerous of your past statements on the subject.

As far as I am concerned... you lied!!

Well, you have such poor judgement, I don't give a shit what you think. I am sorry you are not competent enough to understand.

Your post #108 in the other thread proves how little you comprehend these things.

I noticed you are embarrassed to link that graph source. I really wonder who the, lying blogger is you have a religeous like faith in. How dare you call me a liar when you have no clue?

Just because the things I say are contrary to the lies you believe, that does not make me the lairs. It makes you the liar every time you post such tripe.

 

[Lord of Planar]

And Buzz. ECS is based on a change. A single variable equalization will follow an exponential rise. In my viewpoint, if it is not a sudden change, then the math for it becomes irrelevant. It then needs a more complicated means of calculating it. In reality, ECS never is fully realized. This is why such equalization when properly stated will claim a change in output value to a given percentage of its full potential in a given time.

 

[JBG]

What... nothing to say for yourself, @Lord of Planar?

Like myself, he may have more productive things to do than respond immediately to every warmist post.

 

[Buzz]

Buzz if no timeframe of the simulated release is stated, then the simulated release is abrupt.

Every single model simulation I have ever seen states a timeframe. However, there are other methods of estimating ECS that are not based on models, such as in Sherwood et al,2020.

As for the equilibrium time, and why ECS is not valid, studies using the same models but simulating smaller releases
reached maximum warming in about a decade.
The time lag between a carbon dioxide emission and maximum warming increases with the size of the emission
For the record, in this study 100 GtC is 47 ppm.
BTW in their definition, since they did not state a time period of the doubling, so it is abrupt!

That study isn't about ECS. ECS and equilibrium climate sensitivity are not even mentioned. Maximum warming is very different than equilibrium. And nothing about that study is abrupt.

Damn, long... you just can't stop lying about that study, can you?

Then you need to show which model of simulation of ECS was not an abrupt release, you cannot "just say so"!

I'm not going to waste my time listing the models that don't use an abrupt timeframe. If anyone doubts me they can look at Table 1 in that study and look at the "simulation" column and scroll down to see which ones are not abrupt. They will be the ones with a "1pct2x" or "1pct4x".

Buzz if the Sun's intensity was slowly increasing, but smog prevented that increase from reaching the surface,
then the removal of the smog would look like a rapid increase in energy.

It took more than a decade to reduce the smog.

The higher natural increase came up in a search, so I went to find it, but consider the TSI reconstruction.
Total Solar Irradiance Data
In the 1600's the average was below 1360.5 W m-2 but the average today is about 1361.0 W m-2.
What is more likely that the people who study Solar Irradiance for a living got it right, or were off by a factor of 10?

Buzz you are the one using creative interpretation.
The increase in Solar intensity since the 1600's is about 0.5W m-2 not 0.05 W m-2.

TSI and radiative forcing are not the same thing. And you should have known that the high estimate was suspect when the study stated that the scientific understanding was very low.

The fact of the matter is that according to the data and the most recent studies, there would have been very little warming due to natural warm forcings, if any.

Your intellectual dishonesty never ends.

 

[Buzz]

Well, you have such poor judgement, I don't give a shit what you think. I am sorry you are not competent enough to understand.

Damn, Lord... Take a chill pill. You're just mad I used your own words against you to show how your opinion changes depending on what argument you want to make.

Your post #108 in the other thread proves how little you comprehend these things.

I noticed you are embarrassed to link that graph source. I really wonder who the, lying blogger is you have a religeous like faith in. How dare you call me a liar when you have no clue?

Just because the things I say are contrary to the lies you believe, that does not make me the lairs. It makes you the liar every time you post such tripe.

You didn't even read all of that post, did you? Now you know that graph did come from AR6. And you are the one who keeps being shown to lie all the time.

And Buzz. ECS is based on a change. A single variable equalization will follow an exponential rise. In my viewpoint, if it is not a sudden change, then the math for it becomes irrelevant. It then needs a more complicated means of calculating it. In reality, ECS never is fully realized. This is why such equalization when properly stated will claim a change in output value to a given percentage of its full potential in a given time.

This just makes no sense whatsoever.

 

[Buzz]

Like myself, he may have more productive things to do than respond immediately to every warmist post.

Oh... I know all about having more productive things to do. I have to ignore the vast majority of the denialist BS I see on this forum.

 

[longview]

Every single model simulation I have ever seen states a timeframe. However, there are other methods of estimating ECS that are not based on models, such as in Sherwood et al,2020.

That study isn't about ECS. ECS and equilibrium climate sensitivity are not even mentioned. Maximum warming is very different than equilibrium. And nothing about that study is abrupt.

Damn, long... you just can't stop lying about that study, can you?

I'm not going to waste my time listing the models that don't use an abrupt timeframe. If anyone doubts me they can look at Table 1 in that study and look at the "simulation" column and scroll down to see which ones are not abrupt. They will be the ones with a "1pct2x" or "1pct4x".

It took more than a decade to reduce the smog.

TSI and radiative forcing are not the same thing. And you should have known that the high estimate was suspect when the study stated that the scientific understanding was very low.

The fact of the matter is that according to the data and the most recent studies, there would have been very little warming due to natural warm forcings, if any.

Your intellectual dishonesty never ends.

Most simulations of ECS I have seen do use an abrupt release, again if no time frame for the increase is stated, it is abrupt.
Sherwood backs into implied ECS, but is not a study of an ECS simulation.
The studies that are slow increases are not ECS simulations, and say so!

We are still in the process of reducing smog, that is why we are still warming! We also do not know at which point the brightening warming will stop, only that it is not related to the CO2 levels.

The warming from natural sources look only at TSI, not the solar insolation, but the energy reaching the surface is what is increasing!

 

[Buzz]

Most simulations of ECS I have seen do use an abrupt release, again if no time frame for the increase is stated, it is abrupt.
Sherwood backs into implied ECS, but is not a study of an ECS simulation.
The studies that are slow increases are not ECS simulations, and say so!

Look, long... the fact of the matter is that not all estimates of ECS are based on an abrupt doubling(or more) of CO2. So it would be nice if you quit lying about ECS not being an informative metric.

We are still in the process of reducing smog, that is why we are still warming!

The warming isn't due to the reduction of smog. It is mostly due to the increase in GHGs. All that smog used to offset the warming from increases in GHGs. And now, with less smog, this offsetting has been reduced.

We also do not know at which point the brightening warming will stop,

It will only stop if we increase smog again.

only that it is not related to the CO2 levels.

BS!

The warming from natural sources look only at TSI, not the solar insolation, but the energy reaching the surface is what is increasing!

Yeah... because most of the increase in solar radiation reaching the ground is due to feedbacks from the warming of GHGs.

 

[longview]

Look, long... the fact of the matter is that not all estimates of ECS are based on an abrupt doubling(or more) of CO2. So it would be nice if you quit lying about ECS not being an informative metric.

The warming isn't due to the reduction of smog. It is mostly due to the increase in GHGs. All that smog used to offset the warming from increases in GHGs. And now, with less smog, this offsetting has been reduced.
Buzz you have not shown a single ECS simulation that an abrupt increase. That is how ECS is defined!
It will only stop if we increase smog again.

BS!

Yeah... because most of the increase in solar radiation reaching the ground is due to feedbacks from the warming of GHGs.