Why Our Brains Weren't Made To Deal With Climate Change

[longview]

It’s less relevant than TCR. That is moving the goal posts from our topic, in which you asked me to provide a definition of ECS, which I did, at which point you basically immediately change the subject. I’ll ask again. Do you have a different definition of ECS?

You still have not produced a definition of ECS that shows anything other than an abrupt doubling of the CO2 level!

 

[watsup]

You still have not produced a definition of ECS that shows anything other than an abrupt doubling of the CO2 level!

That’s because there is NO abrupt doubling of CO2. You don’t really believe that happens, do you? Show a definition of ECS that says that it does.

 

[watsup]

Another definition: “Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS): the global mean surface warming necessary to balance the planetary energy budget after a doubling of atmospheric CO2.”

Lecture03 -- Climate sensitivity and feedback

www.atmos.albany.edu

Gee, nothing about “abrupt”. Imagine that! How many definitions do you want?

 

[longview]

It is a definition of ECS. Do you have a different one?

There are several, pick anyone you like, but they all include an abrupt level change of CO2!
Here are a few.
IPCC AR5

ECS is defined as the equilibrium change in annual mean global mean surface temperature (GMST) following a doubling of the atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration

Note, no time frame of the level change is specified!
Emergent constraint on equilibrium climate sensitivity from global temperature variability

ECS is defined as the global mean warming that would occur if the atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration were instantly doubled and the climate were then brought to equilibrium with that new level of CO2.

This one does mention a time frame for the doubling...instantly!

 

[Lord of Planar]

"Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS): The climate system will continue to warm for some time after the TCR point, largely as the oceans are very slow to respond. Therefore we can also consider the temperature increase that would eventually occur (after hundreds or even thousands of years) when the climate system fully adjusts to a sustained doubling of CO2 – this is called the Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity."

What is ‘climate sensitivity’?

How sensitive our climate is to increases in CO2? Hence the term – ‘climate sensitivity’.

www.metoffice.gov.uk

What do you not understand about "hundreds or even thousands of years"?

Do you?

You are arguing about the time of the pulse doubling, yet you link the effects of the pulse.

You appear not to understand.

Cause and effect are not the same thing. Related, but different.

 

[Lord of Planar]

It is a definition of ECS. Do you have a different one?

Nobody was disagreeing with that definition, unless your side was. You were arguing about the pulse length.

 

[longview]

Another definition: “Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS): the global mean surface warming necessary to balance the planetary energy budget after a doubling of atmospheric CO2.”

Lecture03 -- Climate sensitivity and feedback

www.atmos.albany.edu

Gee, nothing about “abrupt”. Imagine that! How many definitions do you want?

What you are refusing to understand is that the phrase, "after a doubling of atmospheric CO2" does not specify the time the doubling took.
Without a time specified, we are only left with the definitions that do include a time it took to double the level of CO2!
All of those definitions place the time frame as abrupt or instant!

 

[Lord of Planar]

That’s because there is NO abrupt doubling of CO2. You don’t really believe that happens, do you? Show a definition of ECS that says that it does.

But the doubling time is what you were disagreeing with.

 

[Lord of Planar]

There are several, pick anyone you like, but they all include an abrupt level change of CO2!
Here are a few.
IPCC AR5

Note, no time frame of the level change is specified!
Emergent constraint on equilibrium climate sensitivity from global temperature variability

This one does mention a time frame for the doubling...instantly!

Yep. Some definitions include suddenly, abruptly, immediately, etc. as these are for computer modelling. Some definitions just leave out what is considered extra words.

 

[longview]

That’s because there is NO abrupt doubling of CO2. You don’t really believe that happens, do you? Show a definition of ECS that says that it does.

The is no actual abrupt doubling of the CO2 level, which is why ECS is not a good measure of how our climate will respond to increases in CO2 level.
All the definitions of ECS ether specify a time frame of instant/abrupt, or do not specify a time frame.
The definitions that do not specify a time frame of the doubling time, can only be abrupt, because any other time (not specified) would be too subjective.
What do I mean by this? A definition of ECS without a timeframe for the doubling, would leave the question open,
did the doubling occur in one year, ten years, ten thousand years, the different answers would matter, unless the time frame was always abrupt,
and so well understood, that it did not need to be mentioned.

 

[watsup]

There are several, pick anyone you like, but they all include an abrupt level change of CO2!
Here are a few.
IPCC AR5

Note, no time frame of the level change is specified!
Emergent constraint on equilibrium climate sensitivity from global temperature variability

This one does mention a time frame for the doubling...instantly!

Do you?

You are arguing about the time of the pulse doubling, yet you link the effects of the pulse.

You appear not to understand.

Cause and effect are not the same thing. Related, but different.

Longview asked for a definition of ECS. I gave him a definition of ECS.

 

[watsup]

But the doubling time is what you were disagreeing with.

Is it instantaneous, as Longview claims?

 

[longview]

Longview asked for a definition of ECS. I gave him a definition of ECS.

One that did not include a time frame for the doubling of the CO2 level!

 

[watsup]

There are several, pick anyone you like, but they all include an abrupt level change of CO2!
Here are a few.
IPCC AR5

Note, no time frame of the level change is specified!
Emergent constraint on equilibrium climate sensitivity from global temperature variability

This one does mention a time frame for the doubling...instantly!

No time frame mentioned in definition one.
Definition two: “if”.
What do you not understand about this?

 

[watsup]

One that did not include a time frame for the doubling of the CO2 level!

Neither do your definition one include a time frame.
And the key word in definition two is “if”.
What do you not understand about that?

 

[longview]

Neither do your definition one include a time frame.
And the key word in definition two is “if”.
What do you not understand about that?

So you still cannot state with certainty the time frame of the definitions that do not state a time frame for the doubling of the CO2 level?

 

[Lord of Planar]

Longview asked for a definition of ECS. I gave him a definition of ECS.

I remember him only asking for a definition that supported your contention, which does not. It supports his. If I'm wrong, please point out which post you are referring to.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Is it instantaneous, as Longview claims?

For the purposes of any usable calculation, absolutely.

If you disagree, please tell us why.

 

[watsup]

So you still cannot state with certainty the time frame of the definitions that do not state a time frame for the doubling of the CO2 level?

It makes no difference. Nobody thinks that CO2 is going to be doubled “instantaneously”.

 

[watsup]

Do you?

You are arguing about the time of the pulse doubling, yet you link the effects of the pulse.

You appear not to understand.

Cause and effect are not the same thing. Related, but different.

It is the definition of ECS that links the results, not me.

 

[watsup]

Nobody was disagreeing with that definition, unless your side was. You were arguing about the pulse length.

Is the pulse length instantaneous as Longview states?

 

[watsup]

The is no actual abrupt doubling of the CO2 level, which is why ECS is not a good measure of how our climate will respond to increases in CO2 level.
All the definitions of ECS ether specify a time frame of instant/abrupt, or do not specify a time frame.
The definitions that do not specify a time frame of the doubling time, can only be abrupt, because any other time (not specified) would be too subjective.
What do I mean by this? A definition of ECS without a timeframe for the doubling, would leave the question open,
did the doubling occur in one year, ten years, ten thousand years, the different answers would matter, unless the time frame was always abrupt,
and so well understood, that it did not need to be mentioned.

It did not need to e mentioned because those who made the definition understood that it is not instantaneous. No one in the world thinks that there will be an instantaneous doubling of CO2.

 

[watsup]

I remember him only asking for a definition that supported your contention, which does not. It supports his. If I'm wrong, please point out which post you are referring to.

Post #293. The definition considers a “sustained doubling of CO2”. There is no way that “sustained” can be the same as “instantaneous”. Case closed.

 

[watsup]

For the purposes of any usable calculation, absolutely.

If you disagree, please tell us why.

I do not disagree at all. It is Longview who can’t seem to discuss ECS without inserting “instantaneous doubling of CO2” into the conversation. It is he that you should be talking to. I have always stated that it is simply a common standard that climate scientists can use in their research into AGW, and it has worked quite well in that regard.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Is the pulse length instantaneous as Longview states?

The pulse must be short enough not to affect the equalization time calculations, else it is pointless. That means it is instantaneous by default.

Simple logic.

There are definitions that state it is immediate.

There are no definitions that say it isn't.