They are the reason for this thread.
Are you starting a religion?
Usually science frowns on opinions and beliefs.
Well gee at least you are open about the extreme bias that you are selling. Those “Red Teams” do not sound like science to me; they sound more like politicizing and manipulating science.From the link in #738:
. . . One variation of CCDS we might call the Global Temperature Plateau Syndrome (GTPS). It afflicts those who are in constant denial of the approximately 19-year trend of reduced, possibly even completely absent, warming.
This trend is fascinating because it coincides with an unrelenting increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration that should, according to alarmist theory, have driven warming much faster than actually observed. This slowdown in warming, acknowledged by the staunchest climate alarmists, like Michael Mann, puts to rest the most popular hypothesis in the media—that temperatures increase in correlation with atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration. The climate system is more complex than sufferers of GTPS, who continue to deny the trend, recognize. . . .
The real intensity of GTPS, however, will be revealed if global temperature prolongs the downward spiral of February 2016–February 2018, during which global average surface temperature dropped 0.56˚C—the biggest two-year drop on record. (The runner-up was 1982–1984, with a drop of 0.47˚C.) Global temperature in the ensuing six months has fluctuated without a clear trend. . . .
Are you starting a religion?
Usually science frowns on opinions and beliefs.
So in 2001, we were at 1.2°C from CO2 forcing, and if ECS was 3°C, then the amplified feedbacks would be at 1.8°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, the
radiative 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 the 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.
You do realize that the majority of the IPCC predicted warming (the amplified feedback) is based on opinion and belief.
In Baede et al, 2001, cited in AR5 as the more comprehensive science basis, here is what they said.
So in 2001, we were at 1.2°C from CO2 forcing, and if ECS was 3°C, then the amplified feedbacks would be at 1.8°C.
Add to that, that no one has ever been able to measure this predicted amplified feedback outside of the noise range.
The difference is that there is no evidence that the predicted amplified feedbacks exists at the levels needed to may AGW a concern.Don't be silly. It is quite obvious to any rational person that the word "believed" is being used here in its colloquial sense of "accepted". If, for example, I say that I believe that the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old, this in no way implies that I think there is no evidence that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old! Quite the contrary.
The difference is that there is no evidence that the predicted amplified feedbacks exists at the levels needed to may AGW a concern.
If you think there is evidence the amplified feedbacks exists, then cite the evidence.
Um! I just cited Baede et al 2001 which stated that they believedAs far as I know, nobody has predicted "amplified feedbacks", whatever they might be.
What do exist are positive feedback mechanisms, such as water vapour and ice albedo, which amplify temperature changes, and negative feedback mechanisms, such as Planck feedback, which reduce temperature changes.
Um! I just cited Baede et al 2001 which stated that they believed
"that the overall effect of the feedbacks amplifies the temperature increase to 1.5 to 4.5°C"
that sure sounds like amplified feedback to me.
What is being amplified? The warming from the CO2 forcing, (or any other warming).
The point is, that while we know feedbacks exists, both positive and negative, we do not have any measurements
of what the net effect is.
The empirical data we do have shows that the average temperature has warmed about 1.1 C since 1880,
Of that, somewhere between .2 and .3 C are considered natural, with the balance being attributed to increases in CO2, CH4,
TSI, and the reduction in aerosols.
Removing the known forcings from the balance, leaves almost nothing that could be attributed to amplified feedbacks.
In this case they are the same thing. If a signal input is amplified through feedbacks, it is still an amplified feedback.Sorry, but word order is important in English. A feedback that amplifies is not the same thing as an "amplified feedback". A scientific paper is not a word-search exercise. The actual meaning of the sentences is important!
In this case they are the same thing. If a signal input is amplified through feedbacks, it is still an amplified feedback.
The bottom line is not in the semantics, but the predictions.
Hansen called it ghost forcing,
https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1997/1997_Hansen_ha01900k.pdf
and said it would be equal to 2XCO2 forcing, (the level of CO2 forcing dropped, but somehow the feedback response did not).
Baede said the feedbacks amplify the temperature increase of 1.2 C to 1.5 to 4.5 C.
That sure sounds like an amplified process, with a gain between 1.25 and 3.75.
Well gee at least you are open about the extreme bias that you are selling. Those “Red Teams” do not sound like science to me; they sound more like politicizing and manipulating science.
I like when you confirm my argument for me, its like I get to just sit back, drink my beer and let you hang yourself.
You really are talking utter gibberish. Hansen's ghost forcings are absolutely not synonymous with feedback effects. They were simply imaginary forcings fed into his model to determine its sensitivity to variations in the location of the forcing.
It is quite clear that you have very little understanding of this topic and are simply picking out buzzwords from texts and interpreting them as you please. Your arguments make no sense whatsoever, and you seem completely lacking in any capacity or desire to actually learn from your sources.
Edit: Oh, and if a signal input is amplified through feedbacks, it is not an amplified feedback. It is an amplified signal. Please learn to read and understand English.
Sorry, but word order is important in English. A feedback that amplifies is not the same thing as an "amplified feedback". A scientific paper is not a word-search exercise. The actual meaning of the sentences is important!
Not sure to what you are referring as "Red Teams." Do you dispute the data?
You do realize that the majority of the IPCC predicted warming (the amplified feedback) is based on opinion and belief.
In Baede et al, 2001, cited in AR5 as the more comprehensive science basis, here is what they said.
So in 2001, we were at 1.2°C from CO2 forcing, and if ECS was 3°C, then the amplified feedbacks would be at 1.8°C.
Add to that, that no one has ever been able to measure this predicted amplified feedback outside of the noise range.
LOL...
Funny how you ignore it when I say words have meaning.
LOL...
How would you have worded his statement?
I still go with 200 scientific societiesSince 2016 there has been a sharp drop in global temperatures, and with the sun approaching minimum there's every prospect the cooling will continue for some time. Despite the denialism of AGW zealots this will inevitably affect the ongoing climate debate and further undermine the already-tottering AGW paradigm. Henrik Svensmark, whose prediction of cooling now seems to have been merely early rather than wrong, is waiting in the wings.
Climate News
Don’t Tell Anyone, But We Just Had Two Years Of Record-Breaking Global Cooling
Inconvenient Science: NASA data show that global temperatures dropped sharply over the past two years. Not that you’d know it, since that wasn’t deemed news. Does that make NASA a global warming denier?
Writing in Real Clear Markets, Aaron Brown looked at the official NASA global temperature data and noticed something surprising. From February 2016 to February 2018, “global average temperatures dropped by 0.56 degrees Celsius.” That, he notes, is the biggest two-year drop in the past century.“The 2016-2018 Big Chill,” he writes,“was composed of two Little Chills, the biggest five month drop ever (February to June 2016) and the fourth biggest (February to June 2017). A similar event from February to June 2018 would bring global average temperatures below the 1980s average.”Isn’t this just the sort of man-bites-dog story that the mainstream media always says is newsworthy?
In this case, it didn’t warrant any news coverage. . . .
Full story here
Source for data: https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
Guess we post what fits our made up mind.Since 2016 there has been a sharp drop in global temperatures, and with the sun approaching minimum there's every prospect the cooling will continue for some time. Despite the denialism of AGW zealots this will inevitably affect the ongoing climate debate and further undermine the already-tottering AGW paradigm. Henrik Svensmark, whose prediction of cooling now seems to have been merely early rather than wrong, is waiting in the wings.
Climate News
Don’t Tell Anyone, But We Just Had Two Years Of Record-Breaking Global Cooling
Inconvenient Science: NASA data show that global temperatures dropped sharply over the past two years. Not that you’d know it, since that wasn’t deemed news. Does that make NASA a global warming denier?
Writing in Real Clear Markets, Aaron Brown looked at the official NASA global temperature data and noticed something surprising. From February 2016 to February 2018, “global average temperatures dropped by 0.56 degrees Celsius.” That, he notes, is the biggest two-year drop in the past century.“The 2016-2018 Big Chill,” he writes,“was composed of two Little Chills, the biggest five month drop ever (February to June 2016) and the fourth biggest (February to June 2017). A similar event from February to June 2018 would bring global average temperatures below the 1980s average.”Isn’t this just the sort of man-bites-dog story that the mainstream media always says is newsworthy?
In this case, it didn’t warrant any news coverage. . . .
Full story here
Source for data: https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
I am not going to support the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change positions on anything. In other words I view them as facilitators of tainted science. That does not disprove that human activity isn't affecting global climate conditions. But I would rather rely on science that doesn't have governmental influences.
IMO the left and the right are exploiting science to further their influence on international policy. The truth does not seem to matter anymore to either side in these debates. No one seems to want to let the science speak for itself. One of those truths is that global climates are changing and the world is warming. Disputing that truth seems a bit stupid and delusional. Another truth is that releasing bad stuff into the atmosphere is going to have bad effects. Our atmosphere is for the most part a closed system, and being such, what goes in it does not magically disappear. All this denying and padding the facts is just handicapping science. People like Al gore or Donald Trump care nothing about truths or science, they have agendas that they pursue and manipulate science to achieve them. Who is right the lef tor the right? Well FFS science has the answer not political leaning groups or factionous chest pounding liars.
The left has shown that climate change is wonderful fodder to get environmental legislation through. And the right not to be out down has found that denying climate change altogether can fight that environmental legislation. Meanwhile the truth and science are left wayside while politics rules the day.
How should I know? I have no idea what he is trying to say - it's all incoherent gibberish. How can you have a rational discussion with someone who thinks that "amplified feedback" is an acceptable alternative term for feedback that amplifies. Would you say, for example, that "cooked man" is a synonym for a man who cooks?
The term is not as uncommon as you would portray, and they mean the same thing.Henson mentions how there is an amplified feedback loop where CO2 molecules are being released which melt ice sheets.
No, Hansen did not use the term. He wouldn't, because it's nonsensical. Some student (J Pollock?), while attempting to summarise Hansen's talk, used the term. He or she also spells Hansen's name wrongly ("Hensen"), so it's reasonable to assume that this student was not the most meticulous of people! Please try to get your basic facts right.And yet People like James Hansen have used the term amplified feedbacks.
Reaction Paper 1
It is still the same thing, the predictions require an gain of amplification factor of the forcing warming toNo, Hansen did not use the term. He wouldn't, because it's nonsensical. Some student (J Pollock?), while attempting to summarise Hansen's talk, used the term. He or she also spells Hansen's name wrongly ("Hensen"), so it's reasonable to assume that this student was not the most meticulous of people! Please try to get your basic facts right.
It is still the same thing, the predictions require an gain of amplification factor of the forcing warming to
arrive at an ECS.
I will use the IPCC's words,That sentence is, again, complete gibberish. There is, for example, no such thing as "forcing warming". Warming is the result of forcings and feedbacks. And what the hell is a "gain of amplification factor". It's just word soup.
The is the portion of the warming from forcing.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, the
radiative 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
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?