Prev  1  2  3  4  5  

Comments 101 to 119 out of 119:

101. muoncounter at 22:39 PM on 20 September, 2011
     jpat#91: "resampled the data to a 5 year interval using standard interpolation" There's a problem: Standard interpolation or not, you can't claim higher temporal resolution in processed data than you have in the raw data (you can claim higher SNR; that's the point of processing). But to say you've squeezed out 5 year resolution from irregularly sampled ice cores is akin to creating something (supposed information) from nothing (gaps in the original data). At the very least, you should filter the sampled data back below the aliasing frequency of the original and then realize you might not be fully imaging these hundred year lags.
102. jpat at 00:43 AM on 21 September, 2011
     I'm done here but one final note. The toy model presented above is not an electrical circuit, its a graphical representation of a differential equation. Last time I checked Poincare and LaPlace had not been overturned.
103. Bob Lacatena at 01:02 AM on 21 September, 2011
     102, jpat, But you cannot accurately depict this system with such a simple differential equation, hence a graphical representation of such an equation is no more accurate or applicable than the equation itself. The last time I checked, using a hammer to propel a car forward was ineffective, even though the effort does not overturn belief in hammers as effective nail-driving instruments.
104. Bob Lacatena at 00:41 AM on 22 October, 2011
     Briago1, A response to the first part of your question here.

     1) ...as the atmosphere warms that will release more carbon dioxide from the oceans making the atmosphere even warmer. This can not be the case otherwise if the atmosphere ever got a little warm, it would be doomed to continue to heat up.

     You are confusing a runaway scenario with a simple positive feedback. If the CO2 released by the ocean warms the atmosphere less than the amount that caused the CO2 release, then as things warm, the ocean will release less CO2 in response. In math it is a simple convergent series, like 1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 ... → 2.
105. ta7king at 02:17 AM on 2 January, 2012
     Nealjking, Thanks for your explanation, and especially thanks for the maths! I know you have stated that your mathematical analyses is overly simplified, but considering an increase in temperature can allow a rapid rise in absolute humidity, inducing an increase in radiative forcing which is not restricted to a logarithmic limiter, shouldn’t your advanced explanation at least take this into account. I still can’t see that earth could be subject to a Venus type runaway, but the argument doesn’t seem to be as obvious as you make out. To me the main danger is that the upper troposphere warms enough to allow a parcel of air to rise through it without dew point being reached. Is that so improbable at low temperatures and pressures?
106. William Haas at 17:39 PM on 11 January, 2012
     I think that modeling this situation as a linear feedback system is both improper and incomplete. I can understand the idea of the amplification. But as a linear feedback system it is unstable yet we do not actuall experience runnaway global warming.
107. Tom Curtis at 19:22 PM on 11 January, 2012
     William Haas @106: Suppose that increasing the temperature by 1 degree C brings about effects that result in a further 0.6 C increase in temperature. That 0.6 C increase will as a result bring about a further 0.36 C increase, which in turn will bring about a further 0.216 C increase, and so on. As can be easily checked, this series converges on a total increase (ie, the sum of all individual increases) of 2.5 times the initial input. The formula is that the total response, f, equals 1 divided by (1 minus the gain at each step, g), ie: f= 1/(1-g) which for a gain of 0.6 times the initial stimulus gives a feedback of 1/0.4 = 2.5 times the initial stimulus. I note that Sphaerica has already covered this ground in his response to you at 104. I have chose a slightly different example simply because with a gain of 0.6 times initial stimulus, and an initial stimulus from doubling CO2 concentrations of 1.2 degrees C, the expected climate response from doubling CO2 would be 1.2*2.5 = 3 degrees C. There is nothing unstable about that. There is no possibility of a runaway effect. The only thing there is a possibility of here is your continuing to ignore simple mathematics in pursuit of an agenda. Ergo, if you do continue to ignore this simple mathematics, that will be proof that you are in fact simply trolling. Either learn, or leave.
108. Riccardo at 07:22 AM on 12 January, 2012
     William Haas in climatology by runaway warming (or cooling) one does not mean an endless warming (cooling) like what you get mathematically from the feedback factor f=1/(1-g) for g~1. Usually it indicates that above a certain threshold the process will not end untill the system finds a new equilibrium in a radically different state. The feedback factor quoted above is just a first order aproximation which has, by definition, limited validity. When the response becomes large, higher order terms need to be taken into account. More details here.
109. David Lewis at 04:59 AM on 26 February, 2012
     Re: the statement in the post that it is "virtually impossible to trigger a true runaway greenhouse in the modern day by any practical means" Hansen discusses the Venus syndrome in this AGU Bjerknes lecture. I don't know why people say he thinks this is a "very remote" possibility. The words he actually uses are he thinks it is a "dead certainty" if humans are actually stupid enough to try to burn all fossil fuels they can get their hands on. He noted that "our model blows up before the oceans boil", in other words he is unable to simulate the scenario, but he says the model "suggests that perhaps runaway conditions could occur with added forcing as small as 10-20 W/m2. When discussing feedbacks he points out that what caused the last ice age, the Milankovich forcing, was very small, somewhere around 0.25 W/m2, but the eventual forcing that resulted as the ice sheet and vegetation feedback and the greenhouse gas feedback kicked in was 6.5 W/m2.
110. Tom Curtis at 11:01 AM on 26 February, 2012
     David Lewis @109, in that lecture, Hansen says,

     "Our model blows up before the oceans boil, but it suggests that perhaps runaway conditions could occur with added forcing as small as 10-20 W/m2."

     A 10 W/m^2 forcing, the lower limit of the range where a runaway greenhouse effect could be caused represents a 2.7 times doubling of CO2 concentration, or 1800 ppmv. To put that into perspective, the complete combustion of all currently known and speculated oil, gas and coal reserves would raise the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere to 1366 ppmv, or approx 8.5 W/m^2 forcing. Even where we foolish enough to do that, we could not realistically do it in a century, so there would be plenty of time to turn back from our folly. What concerns Hansen is the possible massive release of Methane from clathrates and from thawed tundra adding over 1000 ppmv of CO2 to the atmosphere; or if done quickly enough, acting as a direct forcing of much greater magnitude. Fortunately the probability of a methane release of that magnitude, or a rapid enough methane release to lift the forcing over the 10 W/m^2 level for the possibility of a runaway greenhouse effect is remote. I note that Hansen indicates that the run away effect is a "dead certainty" not only if we consume all coal, but also all tars (shale oil & tar sands). That indeed would lift CO2 concentrations above his lower limit for possibility, which together with a clathrate gun is would lift CO2 concentrations beyond the level where his model blows up. Again, however, this is not a prospect for this coming century because we cannot consume the coals fast enough on any likely economic scenario. More to the point, Hansen is simply wrong about this prospect, as is elegantly discussed by Chris Colose in his recent blog post on SkS. The upshot is, if we go for a suicide pact (burn all tars and coal), we can in fact make large portions of the planet literally uninhabitable by warm blooded creatures; but we cannot turn Earth into another Venus, or extinguish all life on Earth. (If nothing else, hypothermophiles will continue to hold on in geysers and ocean ridges. I'm sure that is a comforting thought.
111. Menschmaschine at 09:27 AM on 14 December, 2018

     How exactly is this article "debunking" anything? Of course no one wants to indicate with "runaway feedback" that the warming/cooling will go on forever; Venus also stabilized at about 450°C. Remember, the claim by anthropogenic climate change enthusiasts is that the water vapor feedback only amplifies an initial temperature change by a specific factor of 1 or 2 and then mysteriously stops instead of going all the way to the maximum/minimum. I honestly fail to see how playing around with solar irradiance levels is going to show us how this feat is achieved.

     Response:

     [DB]  "no one wants to indicate with "runaway feedback" that the warming/cooling will go on forever"

     No scientist says that it will.  Even Hansen has walked back from that:

     "With the more realistic physics in the Russell model the runaway water vapor feedback that exists with idealized concepts does not occur. However, the high climate sensitivity has implications for the habitability of the planet, should all fossil fuels actually be burned.

     Furthermore, we show that the calculated climate sensitivity is consistent with global temperature and CO2 amounts that are estimated to have existed at earlier times in Earth's history when the planet was ice-free.

     One implication is that if we should "succeed" in digging up and burning all fossil fuels, some parts of the planet would become literally uninhabitable, with some time in the year having wet bulb temperature exceeding 35°C.

     At such temperatures, for reasons of physiology and physics, humans cannot survive, because even under ideal conditions of rest and ventilation, it is physically impossible for the environment to carry away the 100 W of metabolic heat that a human body generates when it is at rest. Thus even a person lying quietly naked in hurricane force winds would be unable to survive.

     Temperatures even several degrees below this extreme limit would be sufficient to make a region practically uninhabitable for living and working.

     The picture that emerges for Earth sometime in the distant future, if we should dig up and burn every fossil fuel, is thus consistent with that depicted in "Storms" — an ice-free Antarctica and a desolate planet without human inhabitants"

     Beyond that, it is quite well-established that water vapor is a feedback to temperature changes, and not a driver of them.

112. scaddenp at 11:26 AM on 14 December, 2018

     Hardly "mysteriously" stops. In a simply analogy water (and other climate) feedback has gain factor of less than one, so asymtophically reaches it limit.

     See comment 107 above.

113. Menschmaschine at 14:53 PM on 15 December, 2018

     @scaddenp

     Actually, as a natural climate change proponent I wholeheartedly agree that the "gain factor" of the water feedback loop is smaller than 1 - so much so in fact, that the amplification in practice is indistinguishabble from 1. So I am a bit at a loss how to discuss a purely hypothetical situation that I don't believe to be true. The concrete assumptions ("model") going into it would need to be spelled out, the article(s) here quite tellingly avoid to discuss the actual water vapor feedback case.

     But there are clear indications that any attempt to model a water vapor feedback loop that results in any significant amplification at all, would find it very hard to avoid it being of the runaway type. Note, for instance, the highly nonlinear water carrying capacity of air at different temperatures. The (at least implicit) position of the greenhouse modeling industry is certainly that a runaway feedback loop will happen - they have proposed a hypothetical mechanism to counteract it (See answer to DB)

     @DB

     I am sincerely puzzled how you managed to so completely misunderstand the issue. Of course Hansen has backed off his claim, because it is actually highly damaging to his case. The point is this: The anthropogenic climate change adherents claim that there are powerful positive feedback loops prevalent in the global climate system, in particularly water vapor feedback (In contrast to natural climate change proponents that maintain that negative feedbacks dominate).

     But if the claims of the anthropogenic climate change adherents are true, then we should have a bipolar climate: Any small initial temperature change would lead to a runaway feedback loop until some maximum (or minimum) ist reached. If the maximum is high enough to completely destroy the current atmospheric system in a venus like scenario it will stay there. If it is not so high, another induced small initial temperature fall would lead to a drop to the minimum. Depending on the exact assumptions, the climate would either be permanently stuck in either the minimum or the maximum or it would bounce between the two extremes. In any case, only the minimum or the maximum temperature would be stable (or both semistable).

     This is very obviously not how the climate on earth works. Therefore, climate change adherents need to find some explanation why the feedback loop should stop before reaching its conclusion. The explanations on this site are, in the famous words of Pauli, "not even wrong", they simply don't address the issue.

     I actually found it surprisingly difficult to find the "official" explanation of the greenhouse modeling industry for such an important issue. It is supposed to work somehow like this: the models can be made to move warm air in the tropics to higher tropospheric altitudes, where energy is more efficiently radiated into space. This can be made to be dependent on the rate of warming by the water vapor feedback loop, therefore providing a means to counteract and stop it. By turning the knobs of the models appropriately, about any cutoff point desired can be selected, leading to the wide range of assumed amplification factors from 1.5 to 4. As obviously arbitrary, self serving and lacking in evidence as this hypothesis is, it is still better than the attempts here which, as I wrote, don't address the issue really at all. I suggest therefore to delete the current answers here and replace them with the "official" narrative.

     Response:

     [DB] Please keep in mind that the burden of proof is on the claimant, you, to provide source citations for claims.  Simply making unsupported assertions is not how dialogue is kept in this venue.
     
     Moderation complaints snipped.

114. MA Rodger at 20:36 PM on 15 December, 2018

     Menschmaschine @113,

     It was suggested that you read coment #107 above but you plainly have not.

     A feedback system with a gain of g=1 or g>1 will cause a runaway situation. The feedback from a climate forcing is expected to triple an initial pertubation (ECS=3 with feedback, =1 wiithout) and this would therefore correspond to a feedback gain of g=0.6667. This is what @113 you call "the (at least implicit) position of the greenhouse modeling industry." There is no "proposed ... hypothetical mechanism to counteract" runaway climate change as for today's climate g<1 and a runaway situation thus cannot happen.

115. AFT at 13:35 PM on 28 December, 2018

     I apologize if this was addressed in the articles and/or comments and I missed it — given the limitations on feedbacks and the current rates of increasing CO2, what is the scientific consensus of where we "max out" on temperature increase from today's levels? As in, how much hotter will it get, by when? Thanks in advance for replies.

116. scaddenp at 14:17 PM on 28 December, 2018

     AFT - if we keep adding CO2, then it keeps getting hotter.  Do you mean how much hotter would it get if we stopped adding CO2? There have been papers on this - see the articles at Realclimate that discuss them.  The CMIP5 model projections are the best guide to what temperatures will be under various emission scenarios. See below for summary but looking at the IPCC AR5 WG1 report would give you a lot more detail. The "RCPxxx" are the different emission scenarios considered. 2.6 is what happens with stringent mitigation of emissions, and 8.5 at the other extreme is a continue to burn all we can scenario.

     

     Source.

117. AFT at 03:55 AM on 29 December, 2018

     I (think I) get the concept of the feedback curve's shape. So my follow-up question is — how do we now what part of that curve we are on? I assume that the experts are concerned that we are still on an "earlier" part of that curve, where feedback effects are "significant" vs. a "later" part of that curve, where feedback effects are "not significant"?

     My layman's question comes from this — if we have already made large jumps in CO2 output, have we already experienced the "steeper" part of the curve, and any go-forward increases are out "in the flat tail" with much smaller effects?

     Any commentary would be appreciated.

118. AFT at 03:56 AM on 29 December, 2018

     My latest comment posted simultaneously with scaddenp's reply, so I will look to see if you just answered my latest question too. Thanks.

119. scaddenp at 13:53 PM on 29 December, 2018

     Climate feedback is not a simple curve. There are different feedbacks that work on different timescales. The water vapour feedback is more or less immediate while albedo feedback from melting ice and landcover changes is very slow. Again, the models are the best guide we have for forecasting the future. On the scale of centuries to millenia carbon feedbacks, (from reduced solubility of CO2 in the oceans, CH4 release from tundra) are also important (major components of the milankovitch-driven ice-age cycle) and not well-captured by models. However these are not likely to be much of a factor in next 100 years.

120. marksf at 04:03 AM on 29 May, 2019

     This was useful.  Glad I read it.  I'm curios about where the curve for the "blue line" comes from.

Prev  1  2  3  4  5  

Post a Comment

Political, off-topic or ad hominem comments will be deleted. Comments Policy...

You need to be logged in to post a comment. Login via the left margin or if you're new, register here.