Tail Wagging the Dog>>> IPCC 6th Assessment Report

[PoS]

Denier rant.

LOL cultist excuses.

 

[longview]

If you are sticking to that argument... then you are just wrong. No one is saying or suggesting anything that would create or destroy energy. Hell, even your most favorite NASA page(the one with that "thought experiment" you keep suggesting is actual data) says this about the greenhouse effect:

But if you insist that the first law of thermodynamics refutes this then, not only are you claiming that James Hansen was wrong but that your favorite NASA link written by Gavin Schmidt is wrong as well. So... do you really think you are smarter than probably two of the most prominent climate scientists in the world? And if Schmidt is wrong about this then why should we take that "thought experiment" you love to cite seriously?

Wrong again, long. Logic does not dictate what you claim. That is just more of your denialist BS that I know you can't back up with anything. And your example only talks about global climate models and doesn't include any of the newer studies that I have shown you or that are included in AR6 that are not based on just models and abrupt doubling.

Nope, you are wrong yet again, long. If you take a straight edge and hold it up to your screen and then line it up with the two hash marks that line up with the first peak, it is clear that the second peak at about 200 years is higher and lasts for several decades.

And this is wrong as well. From the Skeptical Science link in the very next line after your quote:

Did you miss this part or did you just ignore it because it doesn't give you your desired results?

So... if we assume your formula is correct and put in the correct number...

1000 GtCO2/17.3 = 57.8ppm
And
(0.45°C/57.8) X 280 = 2.18°C
That means that according to the IPCC's high confidence numbers that the warming for a doubling of CO2 would be more than twice your calculated number at 2.18°C

Damn, long... you just got done denying that I have ever proven you wrong on any major points and then in the very next post, you get EVERYTHING WRONG!!

I never said that the greenhouse effect violated the first law of thermodynamics!

The discussion was about the differences between surface energy imbalance vs the top of atmosphere energy imbalance, any differences must be accounted for!



The definition of ECS is a modeled results, that is the only way to abruptly double the CO2 level!

Any simulation that does not define the time frame for the increase, is using an abrupt increase, otherwise the experiment is incomplete!



The study says it is a double peak, but does not say that the second peak is any higher than the first!



As to how we convert 1000 GtC into ppm, do we count actual molecules emitted, or do we guessing at the net emission after environmental uptake?

Actual molecule counts means that 1000 GtC is equal to 128 ppm of CO2!

1 ppm = 7.8 GtC!

You could count it the other way (net growth), but I will have to see which way the IPCC did their calculations!

 

[Lord of Planar]

LOL cultist excuses.

It's one of his favorite memes.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Idiotic. Classic conspiracy theory, a ridiculous interpretation of something you read.

Go on the record, buddy. Tell us that you think some substantive change to "the science" will occur before finalization. What change do you expect? Want to put money on it?

The entire environmental section of the forums has unfortunately become a haven for conspiracy theorists. It is December 28th, and I still have roses blooming in my Midwestern front yard, but it's a hoax...

If there were orange groves in Minnesota, they would still be in denial.

 

[watsup]

LOL cultist excuses.

Denier talking point.

 

[watsup]

It's one of his favorite memes.

"I read the papers."
"Lying pundits."

*L*

 

[Buzz]

I never said that the greenhouse effect violated the first law of thermodynamics!

And I never claimed that you did. But when you defend your unscientific direct comparison of top of atmosphere calculations to surface measurements with it you are, in effect, suggesting it. And even you have to admit that that is just wrong.

The discussion was about the differences between surface energy imbalance vs the top of atmosphere energy imbalance, any differences must be accounted for!

And they are accounted for by the ability of the atmosphere and its greenhouse effect to store, release and redirect energy.

The definition of ECS is a modeled results, that is the only way to abruptly double the CO2 level!

Wrong again. You quoted the IPCC's 2 definitions of ECS. Remember? And they didn't say anything about it having to be a modeled result. Why do you insist on repeatedly lying about this?

Any simulation that does not define the time frame for the increase, is using an abrupt increase, otherwise the experiment is incomplete!

Otto et al 2013, which you have cited probably hundreds of times, isn't based on a model or simulation of abrupt doubling of CO2. It is based on the temperature record. And this isn't the only study of ECS that doesn't use a model simulation of doubling(or more) of CO2.

Please, long... you need to quit lying about this.

The study says it is a double peak, but does not say that the second peak is any higher than the first!

Who cares what the study doesn't say? Just look at the graph and the line I added so you can see how the second peak is higher. And that peak is about 200 years after the emission. So much for your false assertion that all warming is done in about a decade.




Why don't you just man up and admit you were WRONG?

As to how we convert 1000 GtC into ppm, do we count actual molecules emitted, or do we guessing at the net emission after environmental uptake?

Actual molecule counts means that 1000 GtC is equal to 128 ppm of CO2!

1 ppm = 7.8 GtC!

You could count it the other way (net growth), but I will have to see which way the IPCC did their calculations!

And this is just more denialist crap!! The IPCC number you are using is based on emissions. And if you are going to use Sceptical Science's rules to calculate the warming from emissions then you need to use the rule for emissions. To do otherwise is just more of your typical scientific malpractice.

So... your calculation of 0.98°C of warming for a doubling of CO2 is WRONG and the proper number for this methodology is 2.18°C

 

[PoS]

Denier talking point.

Anti-science cult excuses.

It's one of his favorite memes.

Because he has no facts on his side, just propaganda, thats why.

 

[watsup]

Anti-science cult excuses.


Because he has no facts on his side, just propaganda, thats why.

Psychological projection.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Psychological projection.

Nothing but silly canned memes. Must be 1,000+ times each now.

Nothing intellectual...

 

[watsup]

Nothing but silly canned memes. Must be 1,000+ times each now.

Nothing intellectual...

“I read the papers”.
“Lying pundits”

*L*

 

[PoS]

Psychological projection.

That's correct, you are projecting.

 

[longview]

And I never claimed that you did. But when you defend your unscientific direct comparison of top of atmosphere calculations to surface measurements with it you are, in effect, suggesting it. And even you have to admit that that is just wrong.

And they are accounted for by the ability of the atmosphere and its greenhouse effect to store, release and redirect energy.

Wrong again. You quoted the IPCC's 2 definitions of ECS. Remember? And they didn't say anything about it having to be a modeled result. Why do you insist on repeatedly lying about this?

Otto et al 2013, which you have cited probably hundreds of times, isn't based on a model or simulation of abrupt doubling of CO2. It is based on the temperature record. And this isn't the only study of ECS that doesn't use a model simulation of doubling(or more) of CO2.

Please, long... you need to quit lying about this.

Who cares what the study doesn't say? Just look at the graph and the line I added so you can see how the second peak is higher. And that peak is about 200 years after the emission. So much for your false assertion that all warming is done in about a decade.


View attachment 67366309

Why don't you just man up and admit you were WRONG?

And this is just more denialist crap!! The IPCC number you are using is based on emissions. And if you are going to use Sceptical Science's rules to calculate the warming from emissions then you need to use the rule for emissions. To do otherwise is just more of your typical scientific malpractice.

So... your calculation of 0.98°C of warming for a doubling of CO2 is WRONG and the proper number for this methodology is 2.18°C

No matter what the greenhouse effect does in the atmosphere, the energy out will eventually equal the energy in!

ECS is defined as how the climate responds to an abrupt increase in CO2 level, this can ONLY happen in a model!

Otto came up with a version of climate sensitivity based observations and extrapolated that into ECS.

On the graphic, if the second peak is higher, how much higher do you think it is, perhaps 5% at the peak?
In any case it almost entirely excludes the idea of warming waiting in the pipeline.

As to if the IPCC is using gross or net emissions for their calculations, both would place a doubling of the CO2 level well below the predicted 3C estimate!

 

[Buzz]

No matter what the greenhouse effect does in the atmosphere, the energy out will eventually equal the energy in!

Yeah... that is correct as long as you are measuring the two at the top of the atmosphere. But that isn't what you were doing. You were comparing the energy at the top of the atmosphere with the energy at the bottom as if the atmosphere and its greenhouse effect didn't even exist. And that is just more denialist BS.

ECS is defined as how the climate responds to an abrupt increase in CO2 level, this can ONLY happen in a model!

Not according to the IPCC. Here are their two definitions again since you can't seem to stop lying about this:

In this report, equilibrium climate sensitivity is defined as the equilibrium (steady state) change in the surface temperature following a doubling of
the atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration from pre-industrial conditions.

The equilibrium climate sensitivity, ECS (units: °C), is defined as the equilibrium value of ΔT in response to
a sustained doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration from a pre-industrial reference state.

And the link to your post where I just copied and pasted these from.
Nothing at all about the increases being abrupt. Why do you insist on lying about this?

Otto came up with a version of climate sensitivity based observations and extrapolated that into ECS.

That is just not true. But feel free to cite the part of the study that states this. You won't because it doesn't say it.

On the graphic, if the second peak is higher, how much higher do you think it is, perhaps 5% at the peak?

In any case it almost entirely excludes the idea of warming waiting in the pipeline.

So what if it is only 5%? It is still higher than after a decade. And it happens according to this study in about 200 years. How can you claim that there isn't more warming in the pipeline when there obviously is? Especially when we humans are still adding more and more CO2 to the atmosphere.

As to if the IPCC is using gross or net emissions for their calculations, both would place a doubling of the CO2 level well below the predicted 3C estimate.

Not necessarily. These calculations don't account for all the possible feedbacks. And the feedbacks could very well get it up to the predicted 3C.

 

[longview]

Yeah... that is correct as long as you are measuring the two at the top of the atmosphere. But that isn't what you were doing. You were comparing the energy at the top of the atmosphere with the energy at the bottom as if the atmosphere and its greenhouse effect didn't even exist. And that is just more denialist BS.

Not according to the IPCC. Here are their two definitions again since you can't seem to stop lying about this:


And the link to your post where I just copied and pasted these from.
Nothing at all about the increases being abrupt. Why do you insist on lying about this?

That is just not true. But feel free to cite the part of the study that states this. You won't because it doesn't say it.

So what if it is only 5%? It is still higher than after a decade. And it happens according to this study in about 200 years. How can you claim that there isn't more warming in the pipeline when there obviously is? Especially when we humans are still adding more and more CO2 to the atmosphere.

Not necessarily. These calculations don't account for all the possible feedbacks. And the feedbacks could very well get it up to the predicted 3C.

It does not matter if you are measuring from the surface or the top of the atmosphere, the energy out will equal the energy in!

You are misinterpreting the definitions, they both describe how the climate responds to an abrupt doubling of the CO2 level,
something that can only happen in a simulation!
The use of the word "sustained" means that the level did not decrease after the abrupt doubling!


As for Otto,

The most likely value of equilibrium climate sensitivity based on the energy
budget of the most recent decade is 2.0 °C, with a 5–95% confidence interval of
1.2–3.9 °C (dark red, Fig. 1a), compared with the 1970–2009 estimate of 1.9 °C
(0.9–5.0 °C; grey, Fig. 1a).

They looked at what ECS would look like based on past climate response.


On the graph of maximum warming from a CO2 pulse of 100 GtC, if the 10 year peak is 0.2 C, and the 200 year peak is at 0.21C,
and 1 ppm is equal to 2.13 GtC, then each pulse would be 100 GtC/2.13 = 46.9 ppm.
0.2C/ln(461.9/415) = 1.8679, so 1.8679 X ln(2)= 1.2 C.

Did the IPCC say their calculations did not account for feedbacks?

 

[watsup]

The use of the word "sustained" means that the level did not decrease after the abrupt doubling!

No, it doesn’t. Sustained means happening over time,and that is how it is used in the definition of ECS no matter how you try to falsely explain it away.

 

[Buzz]

It does not matter if you are measuring from the surface or the top of the atmosphere, the energy out will equal the energy in!

It does when you are comparing measurements from both at the same time. And the fact that you don't understand this is just more proof that you don't really understand how the atmosphere and its greenhouse effect actually works. Either that or you are just being intellectually dishonest again.

You are misinterpreting the definitions, they both describe how the climate responds to an abrupt doubling of the CO2 level,
something that can only happen in a simulation!
The use of the word "sustained" means that the level did not decrease after the abrupt doubling!

Neither definition says anything about the doubling being abrupt. Whatever... everyone here can see that you are lying.

As for Otto,

They looked at what ECS would look like based on past climate response.

They calculated ECS. And it wasn't based on an abrupt doubling of CO2. Deal with it.

View attachment 67366538
On the graph of maximum warming from a CO2 pulse of 100 GtC, if the 10 year peak is 0.2 C, and the 200 year peak is at 0.21C,
and 1 ppm is equal to 2.13 GtC, then each pulse would be 100 GtC/2.13 = 46.9 ppm.
0.2C/ln(461.9/415) = 1.8679, so 1.8679 X ln(2)= 1.2 C.

Do you have an actual point you are trying to make or is this just another of your rabbit holes that prove nothing?

Did the IPCC say their calculations did not account for feedbacks?

I don't think it accounted for all feedbacks. But I could be wrong. Maybe I'll look later. Or you could show me where they say that it does.

 

[Lord of Planar]

No, it doesn’t. Sustained means happening over time,and that is how it is used in the definition of ECS no matter how you try to falsely explain it away.

Ho, sustained means held at a constant level.

 

[watsup]

Ho, sustained means held at a constant level.

I said that it meant “happening over time”. Let’s take a look at the Google definition:

sus·tained
/səˈstānd/

adjective
1. continuing for an extended period or without interruption

“Happening over time” = “continuing for an extended period”, just like I said.

The definition says noting about a “constant level” (you) or that “the level did not decrease” (Longview). As usual, both of you just pulled it out of yer respective asses based on your need for bias confirmation. And, as usual, I was correct and you were both wrong.

 

[Lord of Planar]

I said that it meant “happening over time”. Let’s take a look at the Google definition:

sus·tained
/səˈstānd/

adjective
1. continuing for an extended period or without interruption

“Happening over time” = “continuing for an extended period”, just like I said.

The definition says noting about a “constant level” (you) or that “the level did not decrease” (Longview). As usual, both of you just pulled it out of yer respective asses based on your need for bias confirmation. And, as usual, I was correct and you were both wrong.

Happening over tine says nothing about the value. Sustained is more accurate.

 

[bomberfox]

I am guessing you do not grasp the irony of the summary being finalized before the scientific report is completed!
What is the summary summarizing?

Tis is so weak even for you.

 

[bomberfox]

It does when you are comparing measurements from both at the same time. And the fact that you don't understand this is just more proof that you don't really understand how the atmosphere and its greenhouse effect actually works. Either that or you are just being intellectually dishonest again.

Neither definition says anything about the doubling being abrupt. Whatever... everyone here can see that you are lying.

They calculated ECS. And it wasn't based on an abrupt doubling of CO2. Deal with it.

Do you have an actual point you are trying to make or is this just another of your rabbit holes that prove nothing?

I don't think it accounted for all feedbacks. But I could be wrong. Maybe I'll look later. Or you could show me where they say that it does.

He really doesnt understand how blankets nor how greenhouse gasses work nor how feedback loops work.

 

[bomberfox]

The repeated claim from the alarmist is that the science is settled, it clearly is not!

A general principle can be settled while the specifics of an engineering design are not.

 

[bomberfox]

It is not something overlooked, but rather a misapplication of the conditions of climate response! ECS is based on an abrupt doubling or quadrupling of the CO2 level, this is not how human emissions happen, so why are we simulating something that will not happen?
More importantly why are we attempting to change public policy because of predictions based on something that cannot happen ?

You dont understand feedback loops. Quit lying.

 

[bomberfox]

I think I will stick with the first law of thermodynamics, energy cannot be created or destroyed, it has to go somewhere!

As for the studies of ECS, if you look at them, they all abruptly increase the level, or do not state a time frame for the doubling,
which logic dictates is also an abrupt increase. Here is one example!
What Climate Sensitivity Index Is Most Useful for Projections?

In addition, the maximum warming studies, the Second Study took the simulation out to 1000 years, The smallest pulse 100 GtC, Red line,
peaks in under a decade, and does not exceeds the peak again!
View attachment 67366070
I thought it would be interesting to run some the numbers from IPCC AR6 SPM.

Now 1000 GtCO2 is equal to ~128 ppm of emissions.
Skeptical Science

1000 GtCO2/7.8 = 128 ppm, which according to the IPCC would cause a high confidence best estimate of global surface temperature increase of 0.45°C.
This means that a doubling (280 ppm) would be, (0.45°C/128) X 280 = 0.98°C. (With the IPCC's own high confidence numbers!)

Lol you have a creationist level understanding of thermodynamics.