The IPCC's hot model problem

[longview]

But no one gives grants based on a pre-approved finding before the research is done.



Oil companies fund a great deal of research in the earth sciences. Exxon was, prior to the middle 1980's, a leader in actual peer reviewed climate change studies (they thought climate change was real). They were angling to become an energy provider outside of just petroleum. Only after they got a new CEO and oil prices started to drop causing a contraction of the business, did they drop that approach and focus solely on petroleum.



People do retire, especially when they are old.



That does not explain the global nature of the control you are suggesting exists. It would have to be global in extent and affect a bunch of independent researchers across time and space.

If the only critique of AGW science is some imaginary global conspiracy theory it would seem that AGW must be pretty strong science.

They teach a gradate level class is how to apply for grants, and the first step is to read the publications of the reviewers,
to get a feel what they are looking for in the proposal.
There are no RFP's out there to validate if what the models are modeling is valid.

I agree that much of Earth science funding came from oil companies, but that is now being used
to claim researchers with low findings of climate sensitivity are somehow corrupted by oil company money.
Human cause climate change is real, but the data shows the climate is not very sensitive to added CO2,
and may have even gone from a log curve to a super-logarithm function.
Full Professors have little need to retire, but people do, Curry went into a different business,
and gives companies actual risks assessments of the future climate based on empirical data and her findings.

Actually people in academia looking to continue to receive funding, exactly describes people acting
in their own interest, i.e. no global conspiracy.

The real critique of the AGW science, is that the prediction do not match the observed data.
Consider that it really comes back to ratios, the ratio between energy imbalance, and surface warming.
NASA Taking the Measure of the Greenhouse Effect
Earth is 33°C warmer because of a 150 W m-2 energy imbalance, this is a ratio of 0.22 °C/W m-2.
The IPCC and the American Chemical use a forcing calculation of 0.3°C/W m-2.
Yet for CO2, with a 2XCO2 forcing level of 3.71 W m-2, we are expected to believe that it will result in 3°C
of warming a ratio 0.808 °C/W m-2.
Why would the new energy imbalance suddenly increase the ratio, that has been well established for over a century.

 

[novojanus]

They teach a gradate level class is how to apply for grants, and the first step is to read the publications of the reviewers,
to get a feel what they are looking for in the proposal.
There are no RFP's out there to validate if what the models are modeling is valid.

But the fact of the matter is that grants are not awarded on whether one "toes the line" or not.

I agree that much of Earth science funding came from oil companies, but that is now being used
to claim researchers with low findings of climate sensitivity are somehow corrupted by oil company money.

And it's reasonable to assume that. I don't think that kind of corrupted funding has significantly shifted the scientific consensus but it has certainly provided plenty of non-scientists with lots of talking points to "teach the controversy".

Human cause climate change is real, but the data shows the climate is not very sensitive to added CO2,
and may have even gone from a log curve to a super-logarithm function.

Never heard of a "superlogarithmic function".

Actually people in academia looking to continue to receive funding, exactly describes people acting
in their own interest, i.e. no global conspiracy.

I also do not tend to believe that most people are inherently dishonest in their jobs. As such I do not believe that climate science is dominated by people who make up false data to continue getting funding.

The real critique of the AGW science, is that the prediction do not match the observed data.

The models seems to be doing a pretty good job.

https://www.nationalacademies.org/based-on-science/climate-models-reliably-project-future-conditions

I will, unfortunately, have to go with what the real scientists say on this topic, though.

 

[longview]

But the fact of the matter is that grants are not awarded on whether one "toes the line" or not.



And it's reasonable to assume that. I don't think that kind of corrupted funding has significantly shifted the scientific consensus but it has certainly provided plenty of non-scientists with lots of talking points to "teach the controversy".



Never heard of a "superlogarithmic function".



I also do not tend to believe that most people are inherently dishonest in their jobs. As such I do not believe that climate science is dominated by people who make up false data to continue getting funding.



The models seems to be doing a pretty good job.

https://www.nationalacademies.org/based-on-science/climate-models-reliably-project-future-conditions

I will, unfortunately, have to go with what the real scientists say on this topic, though.

Grants are awarded based on writing what the reviewer wants to see. They ask for very certain areas of research,
and right now the RFP's are not questioning the climate's sensitivity to added CO2.

It is not a question of dishonesty, but implying something within very large range of uncertainty.
Also, no one is making up data, but the phrase publish or perish is very real.
People who win grants, get research space, equipment, course release, research assistants, ect.
The requirements to keep winning grants, is to not rock the boat, and imply that your findings
are within range of the IPCC's predictions.

Super-logarithm
CO2 is nearing saturation, but something called pressure broadening was said to pick up extra energy
outside of CO2's normal absorption band, which is true, but the efficiency at those broadened bands is much lower,
and so falls off of the existing natural log curve. This would explain why for the last 20 years, the outgoing
IR radiation has been increasing while CO2 levels have also been increasing.

The models likely do a fair job when presented with a realistic input, but ECS is an abrupt doubling of the CO2 level,
so modeling that will not produce accurate results of future warming, as the CO2 level is not going to double abruptly.
TCR while still too high at 1% annual increase, is much closer to reality.
IPCC AR6 technical summary

Based on process understanding, warming over the instrumental
record, and emergent constraints, the best estimate of TCR is 1.8°C,
the likely range is 1.4°C to 2.2°C and the very likely range is 1.2°C to
2.4°C. There is a high level of agreement among the different lines of
evidence (Figure TS.16c) (high confidence). {7.5.5}

Now a 1% annual growth would be 4.1 ppm per year, and the last 20 years have averaged
growth of 2.74 ppm per year, so 1% annual is still too high, but much closer to actual observations than
an abrupt doubling.

As for going with what the "real scientist" do you really mean going with the scientist that you agree with?
There is a scientific consensus about AGW, but it does not specify a sensitivity level for added CO2.

 

[novojanus]

Grants are awarded based on writing what the reviewer wants to see. They ask for very certain areas of research,
and right now the RFP's are not questioning the climate's sensitivity to added CO2.

I'm sorry but grants are not provided based on foregone conclusions. It just doesn't happen that way.

It is not a question of dishonesty, but implying something within very large range of uncertainty.

By definition if someone publishes something that doesn't comport with the findings of the experiment as it came through that would be dishonesty.

Also, no one is making up data, but the phrase publish or perish is very real.
People who win grants, get research space, equipment, course release, research assistants, ect.
The requirements to keep winning grants, is to not rock the boat, and imply that your findings
are within range of the IPCC's predictions.

If you mean someone would have a tough time getting research funding to ascertain if the earth is flat that is reasonable. But that isn't what we are talking about here. There is no purity test or other pre-ordained result that is provided in RFP.

As for going with what the "real scientist" do you really mean going with the scientist that you agree with?

No I mean the vast majority of the experts in the field. WHile I realize there are a few outliers (less than 5% of the world's climate scientists) who disagree with the premise.

There is a scientific consensus about AGW, but it does not specify a sensitivity level for added CO2.

It has established a range of sensitivities and a most likely region which is found by a number of different independent methods. While it isn't a single value, there is a most likely value and the lower estimates are less likely.

 

[longview]

I'm sorry but grants are not provided based on foregone conclusions. It just doesn't happen that way.



By definition if someone publishes something that doesn't comport with the findings of the experiment as it came through that would be dishonesty.



If you mean someone would have a tough time getting research funding to ascertain if the earth is flat that is reasonable. But that isn't what we are talking about here. There is no purity test or other pre-ordained result that is provided in RFP.



No I mean the vast majority of the experts in the field. WHile I realize there are a few outliers (less than 5% of the world's climate scientists) who disagree with the premise.



It has established a range of sensitivities and a most likely region which is found by a number of different independent methods. While it isn't a single value, there is a most likely value and the lower estimates are less likely.

I did not say grants were awarded based on a foregone conclusion!

I also did not say people are publishing things that were not in the finding, they are however
stating that their findings are within the ranges expected, but since the range is enormous, it is not a fabrication.

Here is an example of someone's ongoing funding request for NSF
Understanding Measurements of Climate Sensitivity

We used this alternative framework to produce our own estimate of climate sensitivity [Dessler and Forster, JGR, 2018],
which agrees well with the newly emerging consensus estimates.

Why was it necessary for them to say their estimates agree with the newly emerging estimates?

You also do not understand what is agreed in the scientific consensus of AGW.
Scientific Consensus: Earth's Climate Is Warming

Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*:
Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities.

The consensus agrees to two basic concepts,
A: Global temperatures have increased over the last century. and
B: Human activity is likely involved.
Note: it does not specify a climate sensitivity as part of the consensus, nor even a range of of climate sensitivity as you suggest.

 

[mrjurrs]

Climate simulations: recognize the ‘hot model’ problem

The sixth and latest IPCC assessment weights climate models according to how well they reproduce other evidence. Now the rest of the community should do the same.

www.nature.com

Too many climate researchers are making unrealistically dire projections about the future consequences of man-made climate change based on computer models that run way too hot, argues a new commentary in Nature.

The commentary's authors point out that the too-hot models reported in the sixth phase of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP6) failed to reproduce historical climate trends, thus casting considerable doubt on their more catastrophic temperature increase projections. Consequently, the researchers note that the former practice of "simply taking an average" of all of the models together leads to higher projections of warming than is warranted.

Stop Using 'Too Hot' Climate Models, Says Nature Commentary

And avoid implausible, worst-case scenarios for greenhouse gas emissions too.

reason.com

When Gavin Schmidt is warning you about chicken little predictions, it's a problem.

Imo, using a 'hot' model makes more sense because the impact of positive feedback loops are so often underestimated.

15 Climate Feedback Loops and Examples - Earth How

Climate feedback loops amplify or reduce climate change. Positive feedback loops like permafrost melt amplifies climate change because it releases methane.

earthhow.com

 

[novojanus]

I did not say grants were awarded based on a foregone conclusion!

Everything you described was effectively that exact thing.

I also did not say people are publishing things that were not in the finding, they are however
stating that their findings are within the ranges expected, but since the range is enormous, it is not a fabrication.

If someone shades the truth in a publication, no matter how it is shaded, they are conducting fraud.

You also do not understand what is agreed in the scientific consensus of AGW.
Scientific Consensus: Earth's Climate Is Warming

I understand what the consensus is.

The consensus agrees to two basic concepts,
A: Global temperatures have increased over the last century. and
B: Human activity is likely involved.
Note: it does not specify a climate sensitivity as part of the consensus, nor even a range of of climate sensitivity as you suggest.

Human activity is likely involved. That would be VERY hard to conclude if the CO2 sensitivity was as low as many skeptics and denialists claim.

 

[longview]

Everything you described was effectively that exact thing.



If someone shades the truth in a publication, no matter how it is shaded, they are conducting fraud.



I understand what the consensus is.




Human activity is likely involved. That would be VERY hard to conclude if the CO2 sensitivity was as low as many skeptics and denialists claim.

You are free to cite a RFP that is asking to reevaluate CO2's climate sensitivity.

And no, stating your findings agree with other estimates of climate sensitivity is not shading anything,
because there is a large range estimates of climate sensitivity.

You clearly do not understand what the scientific consensus of on AGW is if you think it includes a
CO2 climate sensitivity.

Human activity can be involved without any CO2, as the consensus statement did not include CO2,
but even counting CO2 the raw CO2 forcing of 1.1C per 2XCO2 is enough to satisfy a statement
that CO2 is responsible for the majority of the observed warming over the last century.
The problem is that CO2 forcing alone would not create the predicted catastrophic warming, of 3C or greater for 2XCO2.

 

[novojanus]

You are free to cite a RFP that is asking to reevaluate CO2's climate sensitivity.

But I'm not the one making a positive claim that dissenting results are not approved. That is your claim.

You clearly do not understand what the scientific consensus of on AGW is if you think it includes a
CO2 climate sensitivity.

Climate sensitivity is, indeed, a matter of no small contention. But there is general agreement and the findings are usually that it is not as low as some skeptics and denialists wish it to be.

Human activity can be involved without any CO2, as the consensus statement did not include CO2,

But the science points to CO2 as being a large forcing. Obviously other factors like land use and other GHG's play a role. I have never heard a mainstream climate scientists say "AGW is a real thing but it's only due to releases of CH4" or some such thing.

but even counting CO2 the raw CO2 forcing of 1.1C per 2XCO2 is enough to satisfy a statement

And, again, virtually no science confirms that lower estimate. Repeated analyses using different methods arrives at a more likely value closer to 3degC.

The problem is that CO2 forcing alone would not create the predicted catastrophic warming, of 3C or greater for 2XCO2.

I believe that most real climate scientists do not consider CO2 in a vacuum. There are a number of positive feedbacks associated with it.

 

[longview]

But I'm not the one making a positive claim that dissenting results are not approved. That is your claim.






Climate sensitivity is, indeed, a matter of no small contention. But there is general agreement and the findings are usually that it is not as low as some skeptics and denialists wish it to be.





But the science points to CO2 as being a large forcing. Obviously other factors like land use and other GHG's play a role. I have never heard a mainstream climate scientists say "AGW is a real thing but it's only due to releases of CH4" or some such thing.



And, again, virtually no science confirms that lower estimate. Repeated analyses using different methods arrives at a more likely value closer to 3degC.




I believe that most real climate scientists do not consider CO2 in a vacuum. There are a number of positive feedbacks associated with it.

Believe as you will about the grant RFP's, I clearly will not be able to change your mind.

On the matter of climate sensitivity the long term range is 1.5 to 4.5C for 2XCO2, but that is based on simulations
that double or quadruple the CO2 level abruptly, Studies that use the same models come in much lower
with smaller emissions more like recent increases.
As I have stated TCR is much closer to the observed than ECS, and the IPCC says this about TCR,

the best estimate of TCR is 1.8°C, the likely range is 1.4°C to 2.2°C and the very likely range is 1.2°C to 2.4°C.

The time lag between a carbon dioxide emission and maximum warming increases with the size of the emission
This paper has an interesting finding.
Besides the base topic,

If the time-horizon of the analysis is limited to 100 years (as in R&C), the maximum warming occurs at year 11,
in agreement with the median of R&C.

They have this nice graphic, where they ran the model out for 1000 years.

Notice the Y axes label, "Temperature Anomaly (K/1000 GtC)"
For the 100 GtC pulse the 2 on the Y axes scales to 0.2K.
A 100GtC pulse is 10 times Humans annual emissions of ~9.6 GtC, and equal to an increase of 46.9 ppm.
If an increase of 46.9 ppm caused 0.2C of warming simulated over 1000 years, then the CO2 is fully equalized.
If we start from the current CO2 level of 416 ppm, the addition of 46.9 ppm would bring us to 462.9 ppm.
so the formula to find the natural log multiplier is 0.2/ ln(462.9/416) = 1.872, so the doubling
sensitivity for CO2 as run on that model but with only 10X our annual emission, would be 1.872 X ln(2) =1.29C.
Which means there is still some positive feedback, but very little.
This is roughly what is observed in the instrument record, the large feedback factors required
to turn 1.1C of forcing warming into 3C of equalized warming, simply do not exists in the instrument data!

 

[novojanus]

Believe as you will about the grant RFP's, I clearly will not be able to change your mind.

If you think that your position has merit then surely you must have actual examples. And those examples must amount to a large enough number to significantly sway the entire field.

The fact that you do not have such information makes me dubious about your claims. I will assume it has no merit.

On the matter of climate sensitivity the long term range is 1.5 to 4.5C for 2XCO2, but that is based on simulations

There are real-time measurement based systems, I believe Wigley et al (2005) used the Pinatubo eruption to test sensitivity. They found:

"Comparisons of observed and modeled coolings after the eruptions of Agung, El Chichón, and Pinatubo give implied climate sensitivities that are consistent with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) range of 1.5–4.5°C. The cooling associated with Pinatubo appears to require a sensitivity above the IPCC lower bound of 1.5°C, and none of the observed eruption responses rules out a sensitivity above 4.5°C."


(Emphasis mine)

 

[HikerGuy83]

Good God.

It is important to emphasize that, whereas unduly hot outcomes might be unlikely, this does not mean that global warming is not a serious threat. Multiple lines of evidence establish that the planet is more than 1 °C warmer than it was before the Industrial Revolution, and that further warming poses severe risks to society and the natural world. There are many aspects of climate change we do not yet understand, hence the continued necessity of climate science. But there is no serious disagreement that continued emissions will lead to dangerous levels of warming.

Plenty of serious disagreement.

The deniers (i.e. those who deny the models are crap) can't around it.

 

[longview]

If you think that your position has merit then surely you must have actual examples. And those examples must amount to a large enough number to significantly sway the entire field.

The fact that you do not have such information makes me dubious about your claims. I will assume it has no merit.



There are real-time measurement based systems, I believe Wigley et al (2005) used the Pinatubo eruption to test sensitivity. They found:

"Comparisons of observed and modeled coolings after the eruptions of Agung, El Chichón, and Pinatubo give implied climate sensitivities that are consistent with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) range of 1.5–4.5°C. The cooling associated with Pinatubo appears to require a sensitivity above the IPCC lower bound of 1.5°C, and none of the observed eruption responses rules out a sensitivity above 4.5°C."


(Emphasis mine)

Your citation is an example of someone toeing the line, they was not a technical reason to add the verbiage,
that their findings were consistent with the IPCC's range.
Also the last sentence of their conclusion, says it all.

Our conclusion therefore is twofold: While useful information on the climate sensitivity can be obtained from the short-timescale responses to individual volcanic eruptions, it is unlikely that meaningful quantitative results can be obtained from the long-timescale responses to such forcing.

i.e. Evaluating long timescale climate change from volcanic forcing may not produce any meaningful results.
Now let talk about their range,1.5–4.5°C, I think that range is likely correct, but the instrument data (Since 1850, HadCrut4),
shows that the maximum feedback factor supported would produce 2XCO2 warming about 1.74C, still within the published range,
but at a level that is not of much concern.
Why not of much concern, well we actually have a limited capacity to produce CO2 from fossil fuels,
and the warming within those limits is not in the catastrophic catagory.
We still have a very real energy sustainability problem, just not much of a CO2 problem.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Climate sensitivity is, indeed, a matter of no small contention. But there is general agreement and the findings are usually that it is not as low as some skeptics and denialists wish it to be.

The problem I have with the higher estimates is that so many things are wrong to make such conclusions. The models are still too infintile to make any accurate assessments. Sure, you can base a model on hindsights, and be accurate as long as you have a long cycle variable accounted for correctly, but what about when a long cycle variable is wrong, and swings the other way?

There has been too many false claims to trust any of this is right. Too many chicken littles who are wrong.

But the science points to CO2 as being a large forcing. Obviously other factors like land use and other GHG's play a role. I have never heard a mainstream climate scientists say "AGW is a real thing but it's only due to releases of CH4" or some such thing.

CH4 is another scare tactic used. Any time someone tries to scare using the term GWP, I have to discount that writing as nothing more than fearmongering for the agenda. In my viewpoint, GWP was a created metric to do just that. Play with the numbers right for something scary.

Do you understand what GWP is? Can you explain it?

And, again, virtually no science confirms that lower estimate. Repeated analyses using different methods arrives at a more likely value closer to 3degC.

No scienmce confirms any estimate.

I believe that most real climate scientists do not consider CO2 in a vacuum. There are a number of positive feedbacks associated with it.

CO2 doesn't exist in a vacuum.....

I assume you meant that figuratively. There are also negative feedbacks associated with CO2, and from my perspective, it appears they cancel each other out.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Your citation is an example of someone toeing the line, they was not a technical reason to add the verbiage,

I don't think I have seen anyone here who can use technical verbiage on the topic who supports the agenda.

 

[novojanus]

The problem I have with the higher estimates is that so many things are wrong to make such conclusions. The models are still too infintile to make any accurate assessments.

That's why I liked the Wigley (2005) reference. Using a real-time example.

CH4 is another scare tactic used. Any time someone tries to scare using the term GWP, I have to discount that writing as nothing more than fearmongering for the agenda. In my viewpoint, GWP was a created metric to do just that. Play with the numbers right for something scary.

Do you understand what GWP is? Can you explain it?

Afraid I cannot. What is it? Is it the thing that says that a molecule of methane is a stronger greenhouse gas than a molecule of CO2?

No scienmce confirms any estimate.

Actually a lot of science confirms the estimate.

THIS ARTICLE from 2008 (Figure 3) shows the estimates based on a bunch of different studies. And they show the most likely estimates from those studies. The range is broad but there's a sub-range in there that shows the most likely values.

CO2 doesn't exist in a vacuum.....

I assume you meant that figuratively.

Of course. In a vacuum in terms of explanation. That there's feedbacks due to the other features of the climate (water vapor, etc.)

There are also negative feedbacks associated with CO2, and from my perspective, it appears they cancel each other out.

They don't appear to cancel each other out which is why the CO2 sensitivity is higher than the lowest estimates as I understand it.

 

[longview]

That's why I liked the Wigley (2005) reference. Using a real-time example.





Afraid I cannot. What is it? Is it the thing that says that a molecule of methane is a stronger greenhouse gas than a molecule of CO2?



Actually a lot of science confirms the estimate.

THIS ARTICLE from 2008 (Figure 3) shows the estimates based on a bunch of different studies. And they show the most likely estimates from those studies. The range is broad but there's a sub-range in there that shows the most likely values.



Of course. In a vacuum in terms of explanation. That there's feedbacks due to the other features of the climate (water vapor, etc.)



They don't appear to cancel each other out which is why the CO2 sensitivity is higher than the lowest estimates as I understand it.

Wigley (2005) stated that,

Our conclusion therefore is twofold: While useful information on the climate sensitivity can be obtained from the short-timescale responses to individual volcanic eruptions, it is unlikely that meaningful quantitative results can be obtained from the long-timescale responses to such forcing.

and so should not be a basis for sensitivity.
In your second cited paper "The equilibrium sensitivity of the Earth’s temperature to radiation changes"
they described why the higher sensitivities could not be excluded by saying.

The main reason is that it cannot be excluded that a strong aerosol forcing
or a large ocean heat uptake might have hidden a strong greenhouse warming.

So they believe the warming is there, but is hidden from measurement.
The reality is that for Human size annual emissions, maximum warming is reached in less than 10 years, so nothing is hidden.
Aerosols indeed cause dimming in the northern hemisphere, but the dimming that may have taken several
hundred year to happen, has mostly cleared up since 1985.
From Dimming to Brightening: Decadal Changes in Solar Radiation at Earth’s Surface

CH4 methane is always fun, for the same level increase from the same starting level CH4
does NOT have a higher sensitivity than CO2, but that is not relevant, because CH4 only last about 12 years
in the atmosphere, after which it becomes CO2. The statements about CH4 being a more potent greenhouse
gas is because of the relative levels and the log curve of such responses.
There is a lot less CH4 so it is in a more sensitive portion of the curve!
Consider that if CH4 levels doubled from 1.8 ppm to 3.6 ppm.
it may cause a short increase in energy imbalance, but in 12 years all that CH4 would be broken down into CO2,
and the imbalance from a 1.8 ppm increase in CO2 is just noise, But let's do the math for fun.
5.35 X ln(420/416) = 0.05119 W m-2. Keep in mind that the supposed imbalance from all the CO2 since the 1700's is,
5.35 X ln(416/280) =2.11 W m-2, so you can see how doubling the CH4 level would not change much of anything.

There is quit a bit of uncertainty if the water vapor feedback is positive or negative,
the interaction between clouds and radiation is the reason the range of sensitivity is so high.

The negative feedbacks from CO2 appear to be winning as the outgoing infrared energy has been increasing since year 2000.

 

[PoS]

That's why I liked the Wigley (2005) reference. Using a real-time example.

LOL you never learn do you? This fake account of yours will get banned again, so stop wasting everyone's time and just leave for good.

 

[Lord of Planar]

That's why I liked the Wigley (2005) reference. Using a real-time example.

Please refresh us. I have that study in front of me and don't see what you refer to.,

Quote please.

https://www.scirp.org/pdf/JEP20110900003_63628599.pdf

Afraid I cannot. What is it? Is it the thing that says that a molecule of methane is a stronger greenhouse gas than a molecule of CO2?

The molecule to molecule comparison if the RE (radiative efficiency,) but it actually calculates the difference if 1 ppb. GWP loosely takes that and calculates it by molecular weigh and time. The wight change used is one metric ton. There are two reasons why GWP is a flawed comparison in that it projects an incorrect idea to anyone who doesn't really understand what it actually measures.

Actually a lot of science confirms the estimate.

By confirms, I mean that they are factually known as correct. A consensus for example does not make fact.

THIS ARTICLE from 2008 (Figure 3) shows the estimates based on a bunch of different studies. And they show the most likely estimates from those studies. The range is broad but there's a sub-range in there that shows the most likely values.

Norton says that file is a security risk. What is the DOI number of the study and I'll look it up.

Of course. In a vacuum in terms of explanation. That there's feedbacks due to the other features of the climate (water vapor, etc.)

Yes, and like I said, there are negative feedbacks also.

They don't appear to cancel each other out which is why the CO2 sensitivity is higher than the lowest estimates as I understand it.

Appear? How would you know. They don't even factor them in properly. They also don't factor in the indirect effects of the sun, only the direct effects.

Why should I trust anyone who uses positive feedback while minimizing the negative feedback and ignoring the solar feedback?

Can you show me a sinly paper than factors in the indirect positive feedback of the sun?

 

[Lord of Planar]

THIS ARTICLE from 2008 (Figure 3) shows the estimates based on a bunch of different studies. And they show the most likely estimates from those studies. The range is broad but there's a sub-range in there that shows the most likely values.

Just looking at the text in the titel, I believe the study you are refering to is this:

The equilibrium sensitivity of the Earth's temperature to radiation changes - Nature Geoscience

The quest to determine climate sensitivity has been going on for decades, with disturbingly little progress in narrowing the large uncertainty range. But fascinating new insights have been gained that will provide useful information for policy makers, even though the upper limit of climate...

www.nature.com

It does not confirm those estimates as anything conclusive.

Quote please. I do find this:

Climate sensitivity is not a directly tunable quantity in GCMs and depends on many parameters related mainly to atmospheric processes. Different sensitivities in GCMs can be obtained by perturbing parameters affecting clouds, precipitation, convection, radiation, land surface and other processes. Two decades ago, the largest uncertainty in these feedbacks was attributed to clouds32. Process-based studies now find a stronger constraint on the combined feedbacks from increases in water vapour and changes in the lapse rate. These studies still identify low-level clouds as the dominant uncertainty in feedback.​

 

[Buzz]

CO2-eq is the AGGI currently at about 504 ppm, would still require a MASSIVE increase in emissions to reach 1370 ppm
by year 2100.

This is just not true. There are numerous ways that the Earth might start losing its ability to absorb as much of our emissions as it does now. Like if the oceans hit a tipping point and started absorbing less and less CO2. Or if the number of forest fires across the world increased so dramatically that the forests started emitting more CO2 than they absorb. Many scientists are already predicting this about the Amazon.

Sorry, long... but increasing emissions are not the only reason yearly CO2 levels might dramatically increase in the future.

I quoted the section from the IPCC report,

"For 2100, RCP scenarios falling within each pCO2 category are as follows: RCP4.5 for 500 to 650 μatm,
RCP6.0 for 651 to 850 Climate change risks for fisheries. and RCP8.5 for 851 to 1370 μatm."
surly you know how to use search, but that quote came from figure 2.6 in the full Synthesis Report.

Yes, I know how to search. When I quote something from a large section of the IPCC report I provide section numbers. Why can't you?

Oh... and figure 2.6 is about "Climate change risks for fisheries."



And "μatm" is another term for equivalent CO2. So... you still haven't shown where any real scientists are saying that CO2 would need to be 1370 ppm by 2100.

If you think I am lying about ECS being from an abrupt increase in the CO2 level, then show

an example of one that is not. keep in mind that unless a time period for the increase is stated, then the emission is abrupt.

Seriously Long?? That is a neat trick. Demand that I show examples of studies on ECS that don't state an abrupt increase(I have several times) and then you declare that if a study doesn't state a time period then that means it is abrupt. That is just intellectually dishonest. The fact of the matter is that no one knows when CO2 levels will actually double.

Is it my opinion that Ricke and Caldeira experimented with a 100GtC pulse, NO!

Is it my opinion that their study showed that 100 GtC pluse reached Maximum warming in 10.1 years, No!
Perhaps the quote from the paper was also my opinion,
"Nonetheless, our study indicates that people alive today are very likely to benefit from emissions avoided today.",
no, that was in the paper!

It is my opinion that the IPCC had to mention the Ricke and Caldeira paper, but they also had to downplay it,
because it shows that there is almost no long term warming "in the pipeline",
that we will see all the warming from emissions up to today, in about a decade.

That quote doesn't back up your opinion that all our past and current emissions are going to be done doing their warming in about 10 years.

So, yes... your opinion, and your's alone. The fact of the matter is that you can't cite anyone that believes as you do. And there are tons of peer-reviewed and published literature that says your opinion is wrong.

And claiming that the IPCC is downplaying those two studies is nothing but another unsubstantiated accusation that I know you can't back up.

 

[Buzz]

Just looking at the text in the titel, I believe the study you are refering to is this:

The equilibrium sensitivity of the Earth's temperature to radiation changes - Nature Geoscience

The quest to determine climate sensitivity has been going on for decades, with disturbingly little progress in narrowing the large uncertainty range. But fascinating new insights have been gained that will provide useful information for policy makers, even though the upper limit of climate...

www.nature.com

It does not confirm those estimates as anything conclusive.

Quote please. I do find this:

Climate sensitivity is not a directly tunable quantity in GCMs and depends on many parameters related mainly to atmospheric processes. Different sensitivities in GCMs can be obtained by perturbing parameters affecting clouds, precipitation, convection, radiation, land surface and other processes. Two decades ago, the largest uncertainty in these feedbacks was attributed to clouds32. Process-based studies now find a stronger constraint on the combined feedbacks from increases in water vapour and changes in the lapse rate. These studies still identify low-level clouds as the dominant uncertainty in feedback.​

You are citing a study whose data is 15 years old. And it has been pointed out to you more than once that newer data suggests that this feedback is really positive because low-level clouds look to be decreasing with the warming of the planet.

It is funny how you consistently block this kind of information from your memory.

 

[Buzz]

Almost forgot about this...

Can you show me a sinly paper than factors in the indirect positive feedback of the sun?

You have yet to provide even a shred of evidence, much less any papers, that there is any indirect positive feedback from the sun.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Almost forgot about this...




You have yet to provide even a shred of evidence, much less any papers, that there is any indirect positive feedback from the sun.

I have explained the mechanism, and that's my point. Papers do not address the indirect effects of the sun.

The sun heats the surface, right?

Changes in solar output and atmospheric opacity change the surface heating from the sun, right?

The upward IR from the surface changes with the surface heating, right?

The greenhouse effect increases or decreases ad the upward IR changes, right?

This effect cannot be disputed. Why is it ignored?

 

[longview]

This is just not true. There are numerous ways that the Earth might start losing its ability to absorb as much of our emissions as it does now. Like if the oceans hit a tipping point and started absorbing less and less CO2. Or if the number of forest fires across the world increased so dramatically that the forests started emitting more CO2 than they absorb. Many scientists are already predicting this about the Amazon.

Sorry, long... but increasing emissions are not the only reason yearly CO2 levels might dramatically increase in the future.

Yes, I know how to search. When I quote something from a large section of the IPCC report I provide section numbers. Why can't you?

Oh... and figure 2.6 is about "Climate change risks for fisheries."



And "μatm" is another term for equivalent CO2. So... you still haven't shown where any real scientists are saying that CO2 would need to be 1370 ppm by 2100.



Seriously Long?? That is a neat trick. Demand that I show examples of studies on ECS that don't state an abrupt increase(I have several times) and then you declare that if a study doesn't state a time period then that means it is abrupt. That is just intellectually dishonest. The fact of the matter is that no one knows when CO2 levels will actually double.

That quote doesn't back up your opinion that all our past and current emissions are going to be done doing their warming in about 10 years.

So, yes... your opinion, and your's alone. The fact of the matter is that you can't cite anyone that believes as you do. And there are tons of peer-reviewed and published literature that says your opinion is wrong.

And claiming that the IPCC is downplaying those two studies is nothing but another unsubstantiated accusation that I know you can't back up.

You are reaching, AGW is about humans controlling CO2 and CO2-eq emissions.
Are you denying that the quote came from the IPCC Synthesis Report ?
uatm, is parts per million of the atmosphere, u is the unit micro for 1X 10^-6, or 1/1000000.
When the IPCC says ,
"For 2100, RCP scenarios falling within each pCO2 category are as follows: RCP4.5 for 500 to 650 μatm, RCP6.0 for 651 to 850 μatm and RCP8.5 for 851 to 1370 μatm. By 2150, RCP8.5 falls within the 1371 to 2900 μatm category"
They are saying the same as ppm of the atmosphere.

When you consider that the quote,
"Nonetheless, our study indicates that people alive today are very likely to benefit from emissions avoided today."
come from a paper entitled Maximum warming occurs about one decade after a carbon dioxide emission
It does say that our past and current emissions will reach maximum warming in about a decade.