- Joined
- Dec 22, 2012
- Messages
- 66,541
- Reaction score
- 22,183
- Location
- Portlandia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
Well, first you might need to prove yourself correct.
Lets see some references that state your argument.
Oh, wait.,... you say its an argument you made up in your own head?
Yeah... Ive got actual sciency stuff to do today - I cant be bothered debunking your fantasies.
But in addition to model not being complex enough to include all the variables, there is also the relative contribution
of each of the variables, and weather they amplify or attenuate the signal from the sun.
Clouds are clearly the largest factor, adding up to 3 C of uncertainty to an input of 1.2 C.
Quantum theory and general/special relativity are simple but mindblowing. And produce the correct results.
When a model produces wrong results the assumptions it is using are wrong. The underlying hypothesis is thus wrong. Back to the drawing board.
And the models have been pretty good at accurately predicting current warming from 30 years ago. They're probably much better now.
Apparently not.
Why do you say that? More data on climate sensitivity has been pouring in for decades. The models back in the late 80s accurately predicted that we would be in an unprecedented warming period, and were generally on target as to how much (as best can be estimated in a chaotic system over short decadal periods of time).
Checking climate model predictions
Nature Climate Change
May 31, 2016
Nature Climate Change
Statistical methods can be used to detect the accuracy of climate model projections, by assessing how well the models capture the feedback and interaction between all of the components of the climate system: the system dynamics. A study published online this week in Nature Climate Change may help to improve climate model predictions and help increase confidence in making decisions informed by those predictions.
Michael Runge and colleagues develop a method to detect when predictions from a single model - or set of models - are failing to match actual observational data, and apply the method in two examples: the change in range of the northern pintail duck, and Arctic sea-ice projections. For the northern pintail, they compared the observed latitude of the North American breeding population and the predicted latitude from two models. Their analysis shows that these methods would have detected a shift in the breeding range in 1985, 20 years earlier than it was observed.
The second example examines the ability of models to accurately predict the level of Arctic sea-ice in September. Their analysis of 11 climate models under a high emissions scenario suggests that the current set of models is accurately representing the observed system dynamics and, therefore, capable of accurate predictions. However, the authors note that some individual models are showing rapid changes in their fit to observations, suggesting the model ensemble may be at risk of failure in the future. The authors conclude that more weight should be given to those climate models that forecast an ice-free Arctic by September 2055.
DOI:10.1038/nclimate3041
The atmosphere can control the duration the suns energy resides on earth, they call this the energy balance.Amplify the signal from the sun ?? Amplify is the wrong word here, unless you're suggesting that someone is drawing power from some other source (nuclear? coal?) to increase the luminosity (?) of the sun's rays.
The atmosphere can control the duration the suns energy resides on earth, they call this the energy balance.
The ugly part of the concept known as AGW, is that the direct warming from the added CO2, causes open looped amplified feedbacks,
which may cause much higher warming. There is a 3 degree uncertainty, the IPCC assigns to this uncertainty, mostly from clouds.
Technically the uncertainty is greater than the prediction.
There are also other problems with the range contribution and even the sign of the other variables.
The atmosphere can control the duration the suns energy resides on earth, they call this the energy balance.
The ugly part of the concept known as AGW, is that the direct warming from the added CO2, causes open looped amplified feedbacks,
which may cause much higher warming. There is a 3 degree uncertainty, the IPCC assigns to this uncertainty, mostly from clouds.
Technically the uncertainty is greater than the prediction.
There are also other problems with the range contribution and even the sign of the other variables.
The amplified feedback is straight from the IPCC key concepts document, as is the 3 C of uncertainty."open looped amplified feedbacks" is nonsense. 'Open loop' is when the feedback path does NOT exist.
The uncertainty is very large. That doesn't mean that CO2 doesn't result in warming (it does) or that we should gamble on it falling on the most optimistic side of the confidence interval for the sake of saving a few dollars.
The amplified feedback is straight from the IPCC key concepts document, as is the 3 C of uncertainty.
The direct response warming from doubling the CO2 level is roughly 1.2 C, that is where the real Science ends.
The predicted range of 1.5 to 4.5 C, is the from the predicted amplified feedback between .3 and 3.3 C, (I.E. the 3C of uncertainty)
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/pdf/tar-01.pdf
Read the section called "The enhanced greenhouse effect".
That is not what that means. A calculation can be made using physics showing that a doubling of CO2 will result in a temperature increase of 1.2 degrees. That 1.2 degrees is just for the CO2. Amplified feedback due to increased water vapor and other factors will increase that 1.2 degrees up to a minimum of 1.5 degrees and a maximum of 4.5 degrees. And what you linked to is not the most recent report. I believe the most recent report has the increase at 2 to 4.5 degrees.
Baede, was cited in IPCC AR5 as the more comprehensive reference in the key concepts of climate science.That is not what that means. A calculation can be made using physics showing that a doubling of CO2 will result in a temperature increase of 1.2 degrees. That 1.2 degrees is just for the CO2. Amplified feedback due to increased water vapor and other factors will increase that 1.2 degrees up to a minimum of 1.5 degrees and a maximum of 4.5 degrees. And what you linked to is not the most recent report. I believe the most recent report has the increase at 2 to 4.5 degrees.
Also the most recent papers show the sensitivity lower, not higher.1.2.2 Key Concepts in Climate Science
Here, some of the key concepts in climate science are briefly described; many of these were summarized
more comprehensively in earlier IPCC assessments (Baede et al., 2001). We only focus on several of them to
facilitate discussions in this assessment.
Baede, was cited in IPCC AR5 as the more comprehensive reference in the key concepts of climate science.
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-...d/WGIAR5_WGI-12Doc2b_FinalDraft_Chapter01.pdf
Also the most recent papers show the sensitivity lower, not higher.
https://www.ethz.ch/content/dam/eth...documents/group/climphys/knutti/otto13nat.pdf
This is a article from many of the lead authors of IPCC AR5.
IPCC AR5 choose not to include the best estimate for ECS in the most recent report,
but it is near 2 C, on the graph.
Baede, was cited in IPCC AR5 as the more comprehensive reference in the key concepts of climate science.
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-...d/WGIAR5_WGI-12Doc2b_FinalDraft_Chapter01.pdf
Also the most recent papers show the sensitivity lower, not higher.
https://www.ethz.ch/content/dam/eth...documents/group/climphys/knutti/otto13nat.pdf
This is a article from many of the lead authors of IPCC AR5.
IPCC AR5 choose not to include the best estimate for ECS in the most recent report,
but it is near 2 C, on the graph.
No. Best estimate for ECS was still centred around 3 C on the graphic in the AR5 WG1 report.IPCC AR5 choose not to include the best estimate for ECS in the most recent report,
but it is near 2 C, on the graph.
I was simply referring to your interpretation of the IPCC uncertainty in your previous post.
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/pdf/tar-01.pdfI was simply referring to your interpretation of the IPCC uncertainty in your previous post.
If the input is 1.2 C and the output is between 1.5 and 4.5 C.If the amount of carbon dioxide were doubled instantaneously,
with everything else remaining the same, the outgoing infrared
radiation would be reduced by about 4 Wm−2.
In other words, theradiative forcing corresponding to a
doubling of the CO2 concentration would be 4 Wm−2.
To counteract this imbalance, the temperature of
the surface-troposphere system would have to increase
by 1.2°C (with an accuracy of ±10%), in the absence of
other changes. In reality, due to feedbacks,
the response of the climate system is much more complex.
It is believed that the overall effect of the feedbacks amplifies
he temperature increase to 1.5 to 4.5°C.
A significant part of this uncertainty range arises from our
limited knowledge of clouds and their interactions with radiation.
Climate truther 'skeptic' blogs often have interesting interpretations of what's stated in the IPCC reports.
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/pdf/tar-01.pdf
If the input is 1.2 C and the output is between 1.5 and 4.5 C.
The uncertainty is a range of 3 C,
The uncertainty is very large. That doesn't mean that CO2 doesn't result in warming (it does) or that we should gamble on it falling on the most optimistic side of the confidence interval for the sake of saving a few dollars.
Currently the figure is between 200,000 people per year and 20 million. How many would you think is acceptable?
The figure that exists in your head, or the figure you read in a British tabloid?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?