• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

NYT: Researchers Narrow the Range of ECS

Visbek

Visbek

Stuck In The Circle
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 28, 2011
Messages
23,282
Reaction score
18,292
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
NYT: How Much Will the Planet Warm if Carbon Dioxide Levels Double?

For more than 40 years, scientists have expressed the answer as a range of possible temperature increases, between 1.5 and 4.5 degrees Celsius, that will result from carbon dioxide levels doubling from preindustrial times. Now, a team of researchers has sharply narrowed the range of temperatures, tightening it to between 2.6 and 4.1 degrees Celsius.

This paper cuts the uncertainty in half. The previous likely increase was 1.5C to 4.5C, or a range of 3C total; the paper narrows that to a 1.5C range.

The paper combines the instrumental temperature record, satellite observations, and proxies to design better analysis and projections of the likely temperature increases.

Direct link to the study in question:
Reviews of Geophysics: An assessment of Earth's climate sensitivity using multiple lines of evidence
 
Merely documentation of the continuing failure to solve the ECS puzzle within the AGW paradigm.

A review article?:lamo In other words, the authors' opinions.

[h=3]Review article - Wikipedia[/h]en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Review_article
wzhDIC9UYsU1MAAAAASUVORK5CYII=






A review article is an article that summarizes the current state of understanding on a topic. A review article surveys and summarizes previously published studies ..
 
Last edited:
Visbek said:
NYT: How Much Will the Planet Warm if Carbon Dioxide Levels Double?

For more than 40 years, scientists have expressed the answer as a range of possible temperature increases, between 1.5 and 4.5 degrees Celsius, that will result from carbon dioxide levels doubling from preindustrial times. Now, a team of researchers has sharply narrowed the range of temperatures, tightening it to between 2.6 and 4.1 degrees Celsius.

This paper cuts the uncertainty in half. The previous likely increase was 1.5C to 4.5C, or a range of 3C total; the paper narrows that to a 1.5C range.

The paper combines the instrumental temperature record, satellite observations, and proxies to design better analysis and projections of the likely temperature increases.

Direct link to the study in question:
Reviews of Geophysics: An assessment of Earth's climate sensitivity using multiple lines of evidence
Click to expand...

When people talk about ECS and what the predicted ECS temperature will be with an instant doubling of CO2,
some few centuries later, they need to understand that such a condition cannot happen in nature.
We are discussing a possible result for an imaginary event that will never be.
We may eventually double the CO2 level above the 280 ppm pre industrial level,
but it will happen over 180 years. This more closely parallels the TCR prediction.
The IPCC is charged with keeping up with the AGW research, and in 2018, they said
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_TS_FINAL.pdf
This assess-ment concludes with high confidence that the TCR is likely in the range 1°C to 2.5°C,
close to the estimated 5 to 95% range of CMIP5 (1.2°C to 2.4°C), is positive and extremely unlikely greater than 3°C
Click to expand...
Another fact that reduces the ECS number is the fact that the observed temperature data cannot support high feedback factors.
We know that a doubling of CO2 will force warming of about 1.1C, so for the ECS to be 3C,
the feedback factor would have to be 2.72 times the input.
If we apply this to past warming events, like the pre 1950 warming, we only find more forcing warming,
and almost no unknown warming that could be attributable to amplified feedbacks.
 
longview said:
When people talk about ECS and what the predicted ECS temperature will be with an instant doubling of CO2,
some few centuries later, they need to understand that such a condition cannot happen in nature.
We are discussing a possible result for an imaginary event that will never be.
We may eventually double the CO2 level above the 280 ppm pre industrial level,
but it will happen over 180 years. This more closely parallels the TCR prediction.
The IPCC is charged with keeping up with the AGW research, and in 2018, they said
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_TS_FINAL.pdf

Another fact that reduces the ECS number is the fact that the observed temperature data cannot support high feedback factors.
We know that a doubling of CO2 will force warming of about 1.1C, so for the ECS to be 3C,
the feedback factor would have to be 2.72 times the input.
If we apply this to past warming events, like the pre 1950 warming, we only find more forcing warming,
and almost no unknown warming that could be attributable to amplified feedbacks.
Click to expand...

Nine of these models assume an instant doubling, what the hell are you talking about?
 
Visbek said:
NYT: How Much Will the Planet Warm if Carbon Dioxide Levels Double?

For more than 40 years, scientists have expressed the answer as a range of possible temperature increases, between 1.5 and 4.5 degrees Celsius, that will result from carbon dioxide levels doubling from preindustrial times. Now, a team of researchers has sharply narrowed the range of temperatures, tightening it to between 2.6 and 4.1 degrees Celsius.

This paper cuts the uncertainty in half. The previous likely increase was 1.5C to 4.5C, or a range of 3C total; the paper narrows that to a 1.5C range.

The paper combines the instrumental temperature record, satellite observations, and proxies to design better analysis and projections of the likely temperature increases.

Direct link to the study in question:
Reviews of Geophysics: An assessment of Earth's climate sensitivity using multiple lines of evidence
Click to expand...

So weird that they published this, with a dozen PhD authors with decades of experience and probably hundreds if not thousands of man hours....

When they could have just read longviews posts here in the climate forum that use simple math to say that they are all wrong and ECS is much lower than even the old number.
 
longview said:
When people talk about ECS and what the predicted ECS temperature will be with an instant doubling of CO2,
some few centuries later, they need to understand that such a condition cannot happen in nature.
We are discussing a possible result for an imaginary event that will never be.
We may eventually double the CO2 level above the 280 ppm pre industrial level,
but it will happen over 180 years. This more closely parallels the TCR prediction.
The IPCC is charged with keeping up with the AGW research, and in 2018, they said
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_TS_FINAL.pdf

Another fact that reduces the ECS number is the fact that the observed temperature data cannot support high feedback factors.
We know that a doubling of CO2 will force warming of about 1.1C, so for the ECS to be 3C,
the feedback factor would have to be 2.72 times the input.
If we apply this to past warming events, like the pre 1950 warming, we only find more forcing warming,
and almost no unknown warming that could be attributable to amplified feedbacks.
Click to expand...

You forgot to use ‘perturbation’. Sounds much more sciencey when you do that.
 
Jack Hays said:
Then it's mislabeled.

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Review Article[/FONT]
[h=1]An assessment of Earth's climate sensitivity using multiple lines of evidence[/h]
Click to expand...

Congrats on reading the title.

But their analysis isnt an ‘opinion’. It’s new information.
 
Threegoofs said:
Congrats on reading the title.

But their analysis isnt an ‘opinion’. It’s new information.
Click to expand...

Nope. A review article by definition summarizes previously published information. Nothing to see here folks.
 
Jack Hays said:
Nope. A review article by definition summarizes previously published information. Nothing to see here folks.
Click to expand...

Guess reading past the title isnt your thing.

Not shocked.


Can’t wait til you spam denier blogs that tell us its a ‘study’.

But cognitive dissonance is nothing new for you.
 
Jack Hays said:
Nope. A review article by definition summarizes previously published information. Nothing to see here folks.
Click to expand...

Fun that you're so frightened of actual data that you can't read past the title while you're peeking out from under the covers.
 
Threegoofs said:
Guess reading past the title isnt your thing.

Not shocked.


Can’t wait til you spam denier blogs that tell us its a ‘study’.

But cognitive dissonance is nothing new for you.
Click to expand...

You are digging your hole deeper.

[FONT=&quot]"In this report we thoroughly assess all lines of evidence including some new developments."[/FONT]
 
Tanngrisnir said:
Fun that you're so frightened of actual data that you can't read past the title while you're peeking out from under the covers.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but your error does not redeem 3G's error.

[FONT=&quot]"In this report we thoroughly assess all lines of evidence including some new developments."[/FONT]

It's a review of previously published research.
 
Jack Hays said:
Sorry, but your error does not redeem 3G's error.

[FONT="]"In this report we thoroughly assess all lines of evidence including some new developments."[/FONT]
Click to expand...

I haven't made any error. Why does science and data frighten you so?
 
Jack Hays said:
It doesn't. Indeed, I post more science and data than anyone else in this subforum.
Click to expand...

Oh, dear. You're so frightened you've been compelled to lie about your own history.

Well, jack, I'll leave you to your fantasies and scientific illiteracy.
 
Jack Hays said:
You are digging your hole deeper.

[FONT=&quot]"In this report we thoroughly assess all lines of evidence including some new developments."[/FONT]
Click to expand...

It also says this, but you probably dont understand it.


“We use a Bayesian approach to produce a probability density (PDF) for S given all the evidence, including tests of robustness to difficult‐to‐quantify uncertainties and different priors. “
 
Threegoofs said:
It also says this, but you probably dont understand it.


“We use a Bayesian approach to produce a probability density (PDF) for S given all the evidence, including tests of robustness to difficult‐to‐quantify uncertainties and different priors. “
Click to expand...

Yes, dressing up their opinions with statistics. There's no new research here. You didn't even know it's a review article.
 
Jack Hays said:
[h=2]Gregory et al 2019: Unsound claims about bias in climate feedback and climate sensitivity estimation[/h][FONT=&quot]Posted on October 18, 2019 by niclewis | 64 comments[/FONT]
By Nic Lewis The recently published open-access paper “How accurately can the climate sensitivity to CO2 be estimated from historical climate change?” by Gregory et al. makes a number of assertions, many uncontentious but others in my view unjustified, misleading … Continue reading →
Click to expand...


Oh, look.

A blog whining about their statistical analysis.

Which... is not what review papers are.

Oh boy.

Jack has to go into cognitive dissonance mode. And the black knighting will ensue.
 
Threegoofs said:
Oh, look.

A blog whining about their statistical analysis.

Which... is not what review papers are.

Oh boy.

Jack has to go into cognitive dissonance mode. And the black knighting will ensue.
Click to expand...

Post #20 concerns a different paper -- not a review article. Read first, then post.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom