What, me worry?

[Jack Hays]

Now you are just lying. I know this because the whole debate about climate sensitivity is a topic I follow closely. And I am fairly certain that nobody has shown any recent studies that say the numbers are as low as you suggest.

And all you have to do to prove I am wrong is show us all one of these recent studies. But we all you can't because you are all talk and no proof.

[h=2]Recent CO2 Climate Sensitivity Estimates Continue Trending Towards Zero[/h]By Kenneth Richard on 16. October 2017
Updated: The Shrinking CO2 Climate Sensitivity A recently highlighted paper published by atmospheric scientists Scafetta et al., (2017) featured a graph (above) documenting post-2000 trends in the published estimates of the Earth’s climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 concentrations (from 280 parts per million to 560 ppm). The trajectory for the published estimates of transient climate response […]

 

[Lord of Planar]

Now you are just lying. I know this because the whole debate about climate sensitivity is a topic I follow closely. And I am fairly certain that nobody has shown any recent studies that say the numbers are as low as you suggest.

And all you have to do to prove I am wrong is show us all one of these recent studies. But we all you can't because you are all talk and no proof.

Here are two of several, which you guys have dismissed before, and you will again,

You guys are deniers of science. If it doesn't fit your dogma, you find reason to deny it.

Abstract:

We present an advanced two-layer climate model, especially appropriate to calculate the
influence of an increasing CO2-concentration and a varying solar activity on global warming.
The model describes the atmosphere and the ground as two layers acting simultaneously as
absorbers and Planck radiators, and it includes additional heat transfer between these layers due
to convection and evaporation. The model considers all relevant feedback processes caused by
changes of water vapour, lapse-rate, surface albedo or convection and evaporation. In particular,
the influence of clouds with a thermally or solar induced feedback is investigated in some detail.
The short- and long-wave absorptivities of the most important greenhouse gases water vapour,
carbon dioxide, methane and ozone are derived from line-by-line calculations based on the
HITRAN08-databasis and are integrated in the model. Simulations including an increased solar
activity over the last century give a CO2 initiated warming of 0.2 °C and a solar influence of
0.54 °C over this period, corresponding to a CO2 climate sensitivity of 0.6 °C (doubling of CO2)
and a solar sensitivity of 0.5 °C (0.1 % increase of the solar constant).
​

(PDF) Advanced Two-Layer Climate Model for the Assessment of Global Warming by CO2

Abstract:

We present detailed line-by-line radiation transfer calculations, which were performed under different atmospheric conditions for the most important greenhouse gases water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, and ozone. Particularly cloud effects, surface temperature variations, and humidity changes as well as molecular lineshape effects are investigated to examine their specific influence on some basic climatologic parameters like the radiative forcing, the long wave absorptivity, and back-radiation as a function of an increasing CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. These calculations are used to assess the CO2 global warming by means of an advanced two-layer climate model and to disclose some larger discrepancies in calculating the climate sensitivity. Including solar and cloud effects as well as all relevant feedback processes our simulations give an equilibrium climate sensitivity of = 0.7°C (temperature increase at doubled CO2) and a solar sensitivity of = 0.17°C (at 0.1% increase of the total solar irradiance). Then CO2 contributes 40% and the Sun 60% to global warming over the last century.
​

https://www.hindawi.com/journals/ijas/2017/9251034/

 

[Media_Truth]

Here are two of several, which you guys have dismissed before, and you will again,

You guys are deniers of science. If it doesn't fit your dogma, you find reason to deny it.

Abstract:

We present an advanced two-layer climate model, especially appropriate to calculate the
influence of an increasing CO2-concentration and a varying solar activity on global warming.
The model describes the atmosphere and the ground as two layers acting simultaneously as
absorbers and Planck radiators, and it includes additional heat transfer between these layers due
to convection and evaporation. The model considers all relevant feedback processes caused by
changes of water vapour, lapse-rate, surface albedo or convection and evaporation. In particular,
the influence of clouds with a thermally or solar induced feedback is investigated in some detail.
The short- and long-wave absorptivities of the most important greenhouse gases water vapour,
carbon dioxide, methane and ozone are derived from line-by-line calculations based on the
HITRAN08-databasis and are integrated in the model. Simulations including an increased solar
activity over the last century give a CO2 initiated warming of 0.2 °C and a solar influence of
0.54 °C over this period, corresponding to a CO2 climate sensitivity of 0.6 °C (doubling of CO2)
and a solar sensitivity of 0.5 °C (0.1 % increase of the solar constant).
​

(PDF) Advanced Two-Layer Climate Model for the Assessment of Global Warming by CO2

Abstract:

We present detailed line-by-line radiation transfer calculations, which were performed under different atmospheric conditions for the most important greenhouse gases water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, and ozone. Particularly cloud effects, surface temperature variations, and humidity changes as well as molecular lineshape effects are investigated to examine their specific influence on some basic climatologic parameters like the radiative forcing, the long wave absorptivity, and back-radiation as a function of an increasing CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. These calculations are used to assess the CO2 global warming by means of an advanced two-layer climate model and to disclose some larger discrepancies in calculating the climate sensitivity. Including solar and cloud effects as well as all relevant feedback processes our simulations give an equilibrium climate sensitivity of = 0.7°C (temperature increase at doubled CO2) and a solar sensitivity of = 0.17°C (at 0.1% increase of the total solar irradiance). Then CO2 contributes 40% and the Sun 60% to global warming over the last century.
​

https://www.hindawi.com/journals/ijas/2017/9251034/

Looking at your second link, it's obvious that they have an agenda, and are using every "trick in the book" to try to minimize their Climate Sensitivity analysis. It certainly doesn't bode well for them that we aren't even close to a Doubling of CO2 yet, and the sensitivity is already above their 0.7 deg C conclusion. :lol:

Here is one example from that link --->

Altogether this results in an amplification due to WV feedback of only 14%, whereas the IPCC assumes a gain of 100%, which is more than 7 times larger.

This is a very lower number for Water Vapor feedback. Most studies show a much higher feedback.

The water vapor feedback >> Yale Climate Connections

Climate scientists can quantify the effect of the water vapor feedback on the climate system, as shown by frequently modeled effects of doubling CO2. In the absence of a water vapor feedback, doubled CO2 would increase global temperatures by around 1 to 1.2 degrees C (1.8 to 2.2 degrees F). However, the additional water vapor in the atmosphere triggered by this initial warming will result in roughly 1.6 degrees C (2.9 degrees F) more warming, and positive feedbacks caused by changes in cloud formation add around 0.7 degrees C more (1.3 degrees F). This cloud feedback varies significantly between models, ranging from 0.3 to 1.1 degrees C (0.5 to 2 degrees F). See the IPCC AR4 WG1 chapter 8.6.3 (pdf) for a more detailed discussion on uncertainties regarding cloud forcings.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Looking at your second link, it's obvious that they have an agenda, and are using every "trick in the book" to try to minimize their Climate Sensitivity analysis. It certainly doesn't bode well for them that we aren't even close to a Doubling of CO2 yet, and the sensitivity is already above their 0.7 deg C conclusion. :lol:

Here is one example from that link --->

Altogether this results in an amplification due to WV feedback of only 14%, whereas the IPCC assumes a gain of 100%, which is more than 7 times larger.

See.

You deny the possibility the science is sound. You deny there is also negative feedback reducing the positive feedback.

You are a denier of science, and Media Propaganda, like I have been saying all along.

It doesn't fit your confirmation bias, so you rationalize a way to deny the science.

You repeated the same thing as before.

Dismissal... Denial...

 

[Lord of Planar]

This is a very lower number for Water Vapor feedback. Most studies show a much higher feedback.

The water vapor feedback >> Yale Climate Connections

Climate scientists can quantify the effect of the water vapor feedback on the climate system, as shown by frequently modeled effects of doubling CO2. In the absence of a water vapor feedback, doubled CO2 would increase global temperatures by around 1 to 1.2 degrees C (1.8 to 2.2 degrees F). However, the additional water vapor in the atmosphere triggered by this initial warming will result in roughly 1.6 degrees C (2.9 degrees F) more warming, and positive feedbacks caused by changes in cloud formation add around 0.7 degrees C more (1.3 degrees F). This cloud feedback varies significantly between models, ranging from 0.3 to 1.1 degrees C (0.5 to 2 degrees F). See the IPCC AR4 WG1 chapter 8.6.3 (pdf) for a more detailed discussion on uncertainties regarding cloud forcings.

Only thinking of positive feedback, and denying negative feedback....

 

[bluesmoke]

I Cook et al,2013 there is one complete sentence in the abstract that supports my statement.
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024/pdf

Also it was only among those papers who Cook determined the abstract expressed an opinion, 64% of the abstracts were not even counted.
Actually a poorly done study.

“I Cook et al,2013 there is one complete sentence in the abstract that supports my statement.”

If there is a statement from an authority that supports why you say, why don’t you quote it? You give me a link that I guess I have to read through and find and guess is what you say. My software filters the link as a possible virus. When I paste-copy on the web it shows as “error not found”.

“Also it was only among those papers who Cook determined the abstract expressed an opinion, 64% of the abstracts were not even counted.”

All the numbers were provided to know how many had an opinion of one or another and how many gave no opinion. To say that “64% of the abstracts were not even counted” is entirely misleading. They certainly can't be counted as "Agree" or "Disagree". What are they supposed to be other than having given no opinion?

“Actually a poorly done study.”

If you base such opinion on your misleading statement, then you’ve drawn a poor conclusion. Other than that, you don't say why.

 

[Buzz]

[h=2]Recent CO2 Climate Sensitivity Estimates Continue Trending Towards Zero[/h]By Kenneth Richard on 16. October 2017
Updated: The Shrinking CO2 Climate Sensitivity A recently highlighted paper published by atmospheric scientists Scafetta et al., (2017) featured a graph (above) documenting post-2000 trends in the published estimates of the Earth’s climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 concentrations (from 280 parts per million to 560 ppm). The trajectory for the published estimates of transient climate response […]

There isn't any study cited in that article that comes anywhere close to backing up Lord's assertion that several studies show CO2 sensitivity is about .55 or less. As a matter of fact, they all show above 1.5 and up.

As usual, you are in way over your head.

 

[Lord of Planar]

There isn't any study cited in that article that comes anywhere close to backing up Lord's assertion that several studies show CO2 sensitivity is about .55 or less. As a matter of fact, they all show above 1.5 and up.

As usual, you are in way over your head.

But you do agree, as we learn more, that the studies show less sensitivity. Right? Or are you going to deny that also?

 

[Buzz]

Here are two of several, which you guys have dismissed before, and you will again,

You guys are deniers of science. If it doesn't fit your dogma, you find reason to deny it.

Abstract:

We present an advanced two-layer climate model, especially appropriate to calculate the
influence of an increasing CO2-concentration and a varying solar activity on global warming.
The model describes the atmosphere and the ground as two layers acting simultaneously as
absorbers and Planck radiators, and it includes additional heat transfer between these layers due
to convection and evaporation. The model considers all relevant feedback processes caused by
changes of water vapour, lapse-rate, surface albedo or convection and evaporation. In particular,
the influence of clouds with a thermally or solar induced feedback is investigated in some detail.
The short- and long-wave absorptivities of the most important greenhouse gases water vapour,
carbon dioxide, methane and ozone are derived from line-by-line calculations based on the
HITRAN08-databasis and are integrated in the model. Simulations including an increased solar
activity over the last century give a CO2 initiated warming of 0.2 °C and a solar influence of
0.54 °C over this period, corresponding to a CO2 climate sensitivity of 0.6 °C (doubling of CO2)
and a solar sensitivity of 0.5 °C (0.1 % increase of the solar constant).
​

(PDF) Advanced Two-Layer Climate Model for the Assessment of Global Warming by CO2

Abstract:

We present detailed line-by-line radiation transfer calculations, which were performed under different atmospheric conditions for the most important greenhouse gases water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, and ozone. Particularly cloud effects, surface temperature variations, and humidity changes as well as molecular lineshape effects are investigated to examine their specific influence on some basic climatologic parameters like the radiative forcing, the long wave absorptivity, and back-radiation as a function of an increasing CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. These calculations are used to assess the CO2 global warming by means of an advanced two-layer climate model and to disclose some larger discrepancies in calculating the climate sensitivity. Including solar and cloud effects as well as all relevant feedback processes our simulations give an equilibrium climate sensitivity of = 0.7°C (temperature increase at doubled CO2) and a solar sensitivity of = 0.17°C (at 0.1% increase of the total solar irradiance). Then CO2 contributes 40% and the Sun 60% to global warming over the last century.
​

https://www.hindawi.com/journals/ijas/2017/9251034/

:lamo

Both of those are basically the same "study". The first is published in an obscure and rarely used open-source journal with no peer review. And the second is essentially the same study that has been slightly revised and then published in a now defunct and no longer published journal.

https://www.hindawi.com/journals/ijas/

So... you have shown us one duboius and not so recent study that comes up with a sensitivity of 0.7 for CO2. Where are some of these "several" that show about 0.55 or less?

I will at least give you some credit for linking to something even though it doesn't really back you up. :applaud

 

[Buzz]

But you do agree, as we learn more, that the studies show less sensitivity. Right? Or are you going to deny that also?

:lamo

Do you seriously think NoTricksZone's cherry-picking of studies and careful positioning of these studies on a graph proves anything?

:lamo

 

[Threegoofs]

:lamo

Both of those are basically the same "study". The first is published in an obscure and rarely used open-source journal with no peer review. And the second is essentially the same study that has been slightly revised and then published in a now defunct and no longer published journal.

https://www.hindawi.com/journals/ijas/

So... you have shown us one duboius and not so recent study that comes up with a sensitivity of 0.7 for CO2. Where are some of these "several" that show about 0.55 or less?

I will at least give you some credit for linking to something even though it doesn't really back you up. :applaud

And where do you think he stumbled upon this amazingly obscure reference?

You know damn well it was a denier blog.

 

[Jack Hays]

There isn't any study cited in that article that comes anywhere close to backing up Lord's assertion that several studies show CO2 sensitivity is about .55 or less. As a matter of fact, they all show above 1.5 and up.

As usual, you are in way over your head.

I'm not the one who made the claim, so I'm not too concerned about it. The important point is that the trend in research results is decidedly downward, as LoP pointed out in #183.

 

[Jack Hays]

There isn't any study cited in that article that comes anywhere close to backing up Lord's assertion that several studies show CO2 sensitivity is about .55 or less. As a matter of fact, they all show above 1.5 and up.

As usual, you are in way over your head.

Really?

Reinhart, 2017 (<0.24°C)

Our results permit to conclude that CO2 is a very weak greenhouse gas and cannot be accepted as the main driver of climate change. … The assumption of a constant temperature and black body radiation definitely violates reality and even the principles of thermodynamics. … [W]e conclude that the temperature increases predicted by the IPCC AR5 lack robust scientific justification. … A doubling [to 800 ppm] of the present level of CO2 [400 ppm] results in [temperature change] < 0.24 K. … [T]he scientific community must look for causes of climate change that can be solidly based on physics and chemistry. … The observed temperature increase since pre-industrial times is close to an order of magnitude higher than that attributable to CO2.

---

Abbot and Marohasy, 2017 (0.6°C equilibrium)

The largest deviation between the ANN [artificial neural network] projections and measured temperatures for six geographically distinct regions was approximately 0.2 °C, and from this an Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) of approximately 0.6 °C [for a doubling of CO2 from 280 ppm to 560 ppm plus feedbacks] was estimated. This is considerably less than estimates from the General Circulation Models (GCMs) used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and similar to estimates from spectroscopic methods.

The proxy measurements suggest New Zealand’s climate has fluctuated within a band of approximately 2°C since at least 900 AD, as shown in Figure 2. The warming of nearly 1°C since 1940 falls within this band. The discrepancy between the orange and blue lines in recent decades as shown in Figure 3, suggests that the anthropogenic contribution to this warming could be in the order of approximately 0.2°C. [80% of the warming since 1940 may be due natural factors].

---

Evans, 2016 (<0.5°C equilibrium)

The conventional basic climate model applies “basic physics” to climate, estimating sensitivity to CO2. However, it has two serious architectural errors. It only allows feedbacks in response to surface warming, so it omits the driver-specific feedbacks. It treats extra-absorbed sunlight, which heats the surface and increases outgoing long-wave radiation (OLR), the same as extra CO2, which reduces OLR from carbon dioxide in the upper atmosphere but does not increase the total OLR. The rerouting feedback is proposed. An increasing CO2 concentration warms the upper troposphere, heating the water vapor emissions layer and some cloud tops, which emit more OLR and descend to lower and warmer altitudes. This feedback resolves the nonobservation of the “hotspot.” An alternative model is developed, whose architecture fixes the errors. By summing the (surface) warmings due to climate drivers, rather than their forcings, it allows driver-specific forcings and allows a separate CO2 response (the conventional model applies the same response, the solar response, to all forcings). It also applies a radiation balance, estimating OLR from properties of the emission layers. Fitting the climate data to the alternative model, we find that the equilibrium climate sensitivity is most likely less than 0.5°C, increasing CO2 most likely caused less than 20% of the global warming from the 1970s, and the CO2 response is less than one-third as strong as the solar response. The conventional model overestimates the potency of CO2 because it applies the strong solar response instead of the weak CO2response to the CO2 forcing.

---

 

[Buzz]

I'm not the one who made the claim, so I'm not too concerned about it.

If you are not concerned then why are you here trying to back him up?

The important point is that the trend in research results is decidedly downward, as LoP pointed out in #183.

So... you are using a cherry-picked trend of study results to make a claim about CO2 sensitivity even though none of the studies actually say CO2 sensitivity is actually that low.

:lamo

 

[Jack Hays]

If you are not concerned then why are you here trying to back him up?



So... you are using a cherry-picked trend of study results to make a claim about CO2 sensitivity even though none of the studies actually say CO2 sensitivity is actually that low.

:lamo

Please see #188.

 

[Buzz]

Really?

Reinhart, 2017 (<0.24°C)

Essentially a blog post that isn't even published in an open-source non-peer reviewed journal.

Abbot and Marohasy, 2017 (0.6°C equilibrium)

Published in an open-source non-peer reviewed journal that is no longer published.

Evans,2016 (<0.5°C equilibrium)

Published in an open-source non-peer reviewed journal that is edited by the climate denier Don J. Easterbrook.

Sorry, Jack but if you or LoP want to show me some legitimate science that suggests that CO2 sensitivity is about 0.55 or less you are going to have to come up with something that can stand up to peer-review and has been published in a reputable scientific journal.

 

[Jack Hays]

Essentially a blog post that isn't even published in an open-source non-peer reviewed journal.




Published in an open-source non-peer reviewed journal that is no longer published.




Published in an open-source non-peer reviewed journal that is edited by the climate denier Don J. Easterbrook.

Sorry, Jack but if you or LoP want to show me some legitimate science that suggests that CO2 sensitivity is about 0.55 or less you are going to have to come up with something that can stand up to peer-review and has been published in a reputable scientific journal.

I'm not advocating for <0.55. You said there was nothing in the link making that claim. I showed you were wrong.

 

[Media_Truth]

Essentially a blog post that isn't even published in an open-source non-peer reviewed journal.




Published in an open-source non-peer reviewed journal that is no longer published.




Published in an open-source non-peer reviewed journal that is edited by the climate denier Don J. Easterbrook.

Sorry, Jack but if you or LoP want to show me some legitimate science that suggests that CO2 sensitivity is about 0.55 or less you are going to have to come up with something that can stand up to peer-review and has been published in a reputable scientific journal.

Non-peer-reviewed papers seems to be the name of the game for the desperate fossil fuel industry denier machine. Year after year, the models show more and more accuracy. These models show a broad range of ECS from 1.5 deg C to 4.5 deg C. The fossil fuel industry can't live with these numbers, so they are make up their own.

 

[Jack Hays]

Non-peer-reviewed papers seems to be the name of the game for the desperate fossil fuel industry denier machine. Year after year, the models show more and more accuracy. These models show a broad range of ECS from 1.5 deg C to 4.5 deg C. The fossil fuel industry can't live with these numbers, so they are make up their own.

The only reason the question remains open is because low ECS and TCR spell death for AGW, and research results are trending lower.

 

[Threegoofs]

The only reason the question remains open is because low ECS and TCR spell death for AGW, and research results are trending lower.

But no one can actually produce research published in a reputable journal.. wonder why?

I’ll also note the IPCC has stated that the probability of an ECS below 2 degrees is vanishingly small.

 

[Jack Hays]

But no one can actually produce research published in a reputable journal.. wonder why?

I’ll also note the IPCC has stated that the probability of an ECS below 2 degrees is vanishingly small.

Simply not true. If you review the cited papers you'll find all the prominent journals represented.

 

[Threegoofs]

Simply not true. If you review the cited papers you'll find all the prominent journals represented.

You just posted a bunch of unpublished/predatory journal crap.

The only reason one would do that is because they have no other option...or they actually think they are ‘prominent’

 

[Jack Hays]

You just posted a bunch of unpublished/predatory journal crap.

The only reason one would do that is because they have no other option...or they actually think they are ‘prominent’

I posted those only because there was a false claim no papers showed sensitivity under 0.50. In fact, there are ten times as many papers in the original link. Read first. Then post.

 

[Lord of Planar]

:lamo

Both of those are basically the same "study". The first is published in an obscure and rarely used open-source journal with no peer review. And the second is essentially the same study that has been slightly revised and then published in a now defunct and no longer published journal.

https://www.hindawi.com/journals/ijas/

So... you have shown us one duboius and not so recent study that comes up with a sensitivity of 0.7 for CO2. Where are some of these "several" that show about 0.55 or less?

I will at least give you some credit for linking to something even though it doesn't really back you up. :applaud

See, you guys rationalize ways to deny science.

 

[Lord of Planar]

I'm not advocating for <0.55. You said there was nothing in the link making that claim. I showed you were wrong.

They did exactly what I said they would.

Deny other evidence. Deny science. And they call us the deniers...