NYT: Researchers Narrow the Range of ECS

Visbek · Jul 22, 2020

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

Jack Hays · Jul 22, 2020

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

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 ..

longview · Jul 22, 2020

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

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

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.

Deuce · Jul 22, 2020

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.

Nine of these models assume an instant doubling, what the hell are you talking about?

Threegoofs · Jul 22, 2020

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

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.

Threegoofs · Jul 22, 2020

Jack Hays said:
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

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 ..

its... not a review article.

Threegoofs · Jul 22, 2020

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.

You forgot to use ‘perturbation’. Sounds much more sciencey when you do that.

Jack Hays · Jul 22, 2020

Threegoofs said:
its... not a review article.

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]

Threegoofs · Jul 22, 2020

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]

Congrats on reading the title.

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

Jack Hays · Jul 22, 2020

Threegoofs said:
Congrats on reading the title.

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

Nope. A review article by definition summarizes previously published information. Nothing to see here folks.

Threegoofs · Jul 22, 2020

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

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.

Tanngrisnir · Jul 22, 2020

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

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.

Jack Hays · Jul 22, 2020

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.

You are digging your hole deeper.

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

Jack Hays · Jul 22, 2020

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.

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.

Tanngrisnir · Jul 22, 2020

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]

I haven't made any error. Why does science and data frighten you so?

Jack Hays · Jul 22, 2020

Tanngrisnir said:
I haven't made any error. Why does science and data frighten you so?

It doesn't. Indeed, I post more science and data than anyone else in this subforum.

Tanngrisnir · Jul 22, 2020

Jack Hays said:
It doesn't. Indeed, I post more science and data than anyone else in this subforum.

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.

Threegoofs · Jul 22, 2020

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]

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. “

Jack Hays · Jul 22, 2020

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. “

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 · Jul 22, 2020

[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 →

Threegoofs · Jul 22, 2020

Jack Hays said:
Yes, dressing up their opinions with statistics. There's no new research here. You didn't even know it's a review article.

Statistics that they did.. themselves.

So.. not a review.

Threegoofs · Jul 22, 2020

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 →

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.

Jack Hays · Jul 22, 2020

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.

Post #20 concerns a different paper -- not a review article. Read first, then post.

Jack Hays · Jul 22, 2020

Threegoofs said:
Statistics that they did.. themselves.

So.. not a review.

Statistics about other peoples' research. Labeled a review article because it's a review article.

Threegoofs · Jul 22, 2020

Jack Hays said:
Post #20 concerns a different paper -- not a review article. Read first, then post.

Oh, right.

When in doubt, just start cutting and pasting crap.

NYT: Researchers Narrow the Range of ECS

Stuck In The Circle

Traveler

Outer space potato man

Sophisticated man-about-town

Sophisticated man-about-town

Sophisticated man-about-town

Traveler

Sophisticated man-about-town

Traveler

Sophisticated man-about-town

Traveler

Traveler

Traveler

Sophisticated man-about-town

Traveler

Traveler

Sophisticated man-about-town

Sophisticated man-about-town

Traveler

Traveler

Sophisticated man-about-town

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency