Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1235 1236 1237 1238 1239 1240 1241 1242 1243 1244 1245 1246 1247 1248 1249 1250 Next
Comments 62101 to 62150:
-
Anteros at 18:32 PM on 3 March 2012Wall Street Journal 'Skeptics' Misrepresent the IPCC
Albatross - You misrepresent me by saying I claimed Keith never used the word 'prediction'. I referred to the original post, as you did, and which was discussed at RC - which you have referred to yourself. Keith's post wasn't even written then. As I said, I found no references to the FAR predictions - the word appeared not to exist. If you're giving people free passes this is what you're letting through. I'm sorry you feel the need to descend to a list of accusations. And it's a pity you insist on making false assumptions about what I am or what I believe. -
johngray at 18:31 PM on 3 March 2012Nordhaus Sets the Record Straight - Climate Mitigation Saves Money
Hi Fairoakien - go to top of page see "MOST USED Climate Myths" point 3 "It's not bad" -
Alex C at 18:28 PM on 3 March 2012Wall Street Journal 'Skeptics' Misrepresent the IPCC
Pardon the all caps NOT at my previous post mods, if you could either cross it out or fix it that would be appreciated. I had started to write several of those in, but caught myself - obviously not fully though. -
Alex C at 18:27 PM on 3 March 2012Wall Street Journal 'Skeptics' Misrepresent the IPCC
Anteros @31: >>>The reason this is obviously incorrect is that the slope most closely matches the BAU prediction of 0.3C per decade. No it doesn't. You have not sufficiently addressed what I stated at 12, and Tom at 13, that the 0.3/decade trend is the average over the whole period, and is not the rate at the beginning of the time period - your point about 1˚C by 2025 brings the rate down to 0.286˚C/decade, NOT your 0.32˚C/decade, and what more you're still committing the same fallacy by averaging over a time period longer than the one you're trying to observe (i.e., the trend is less than 0.28 for the first two decades). Even more importantly, you have yet to respond to the points that AR1 BAU did not happen, and that their forcing relationship was overstated in AR1. -
Anteros at 18:21 PM on 3 March 2012Wall Street Journal 'Skeptics' Misrepresent the IPCC
Keith Pickering - Can I enquire how you got your figure of 0.35C per decade for the 'high' sensitivity and the BAU scenario? I ask because the FAR states that it is 0.5C per decade. This is obviously behind the disagreement about which sensitivity the WSJ authors used to derive their graph. -
Albatross at 18:18 PM on 3 March 2012Wall Street Journal 'Skeptics' Misrepresent the IPCC
Anteros 29, For the record I do not happen to agree with Dr. Bickmore's characterization of the FAR prediction. You clàim "You also make the false assumption that my purpose is to defend Lindzen et al - you are very much mistaken" That is not an assumption at all, it is based on your obsession with semantics while completely ignoring the multitude of errors, distortions and half truths made in the WSJ by Lindzen et al. I have yet to you on this thread take issue with the egregious errors made by Lindzen. How about you demonstrate for us that you are a true skeptic. Please list for us all here a list of the errors, distortions and problems in the two WSJ articles written by Lindzen et al. There are many to choose from so it should be fairly easy for you to spot them. Go for it. This thread is about Keith's OP and Lindzen et al's failed attmept to claim that the models exaggerate climate sensitivity-- again the entire premise of their argument is false. Also, you originally claimed that Keith never used the word "prediction" in the above OP, when you were shown that was wrong instead of conceding error you go ahead to make another false claim, "I found one example of the word prediction in the OP, and it didn't refer to the FAR predictions!!". Actually, it appears five times above, three times in relation to FAR. So far you have misrepresented Gavin Schmidt's position on this issue, accused Keith of erasing/removing text from FAR, and have demonstrated that you are not amendable to reason. You are kidding yourself at this point if you still believe that you have any credibility or that you are behaving as a true skeptic would. -
Chris Colose at 17:47 PM on 3 March 2012Greenhouse Effect Basics: Warm Earth, Cold Atmosphere
Anthony, In general, the greenhouse effect depends intimately on the vertical temperature profile. Models of snowball Earth have a rather isothermal atmosphere (especially in winter) much like modern Antarctica, and this makes it difficult to generate a strong greenhouse effect. Tom is right about Titan, which has an organic haze upper layer (though the greenhouse effect wins out on Titan, this anti-greenhouse only partially cancels) and the problem is similar to the nuclear winter issue as well. As far as the CO2 "blip" in the center: as Tom notes, the stratopshere cools which somewhat offsets this effect (not seen in MODTRAN) and the decrease in emission toward the wings more than offsets the increase in the center. This is all accounted for in line by line radiative transfer studies. -
Albatross at 17:36 PM on 3 March 2012Wall Street Journal 'Skeptics' Misrepresent the IPCC
Anteros, "You make the same mistake as Keith Pickering by saying the authors of the WSJ article use the "very high end of the climate sensitivity range" They don't - as I pointed out." Are you one of the signatories? Where in the WSJ article did they spell it out how they arrived at that slope? If it makes you feel any better, I find your condescending tone and recalcitrant attitude both here and at RC equally insulting. Regardless, the entire premise of Lindzen et al's graphic is false as I showed at 27 above. Any reasonable person will be able to recognize that. You continue to undermine your credibility and claim of being a true skeptic when you continue to give the disinformers who signed the WSJ article a free pass, and also when you attempt to distract everyone from their multitude of errors and distortions and misrepresentations. Do whatever your belief system compels you to do, but it will not and cannot change the facts or the physics. The climate system will continue to accumulate energy (at varying rates) in response to the positive planetary imbalance initiated by humans increasing GHGs and triggering positive feedbacks.
Good night.
-
Anteros at 17:33 PM on 3 March 2012Wall Street Journal 'Skeptics' Misrepresent the IPCC
Albatross I'm sorry to see that you're not interested in discussing this issue - apart from ad hom sneers, you have steadfastly refused to engage with my criticism. Why would that be? You also make the false assumption that my purpose is to defend Lindzen et al - you are very much mistaken. If you read my comments, you will see that I was agreeing with Professor Bickmore that the FAR predictions were "way off" and in doing so, made a comparison the the rather different (and unjustified) claims by SkS. I found one example of the word prediction in the OP, and it didn't refer to the FAR predictions!! Perhaps you're counting the title and the SkS logo? Still, you haven't made an attempt to justify changing the language of the FAR and its central prediction - which has been expunged from the above post. -
Albatross at 17:15 PM on 3 March 2012Wall Street Journal 'Skeptics' Misrepresent the IPCC
Adelady @25, No you are not missing anything. -
Albatross at 17:12 PM on 3 March 2012Wall Street Journal 'Skeptics' Misrepresent the IPCC
The indignant claim is made @10 that: "The upper and lower uncertainty limits were, of course, model results from runs with 1.5 and 4.5 degC/2xCo2. Now, my point was that you never mentioned ANY of this in your article. You never mentioned the word "prediction" once." Someone clearly failed to read the OP. The emission scenarios and sensitivities (and various cominations) are listed in Table 1. The word "prediction" or "predictions" appears five times in the post. The fake skeptic also claims @10 that: "On the Realclimate thread Professor Barry Bickmore called the predictions "way off" and Gavin said they were "wrong"." This is what Gavin Schmidt actually said: "[Response: Note that projections are a function of two things - the scenario and the model. What was wrong in FAR was the scenario (too fast growth rate of GHGs, no aerosols, no ozone, no BC etc.), not the model (though the projections were with simple emulators not GCMs). Indeed, models today have similar sensitivities and with the same scenario will give the same temperature rise. - gavin]" So the claim in the WSJ made by Lindzen et al. that their graph demonstrates "that the projections exaggerate, substantially, the response of the earth's temperature to CO2" is pure and utter nonsense, and Gavin Schmidt does not buy it either. Someone here is being disingenuous and it is not SkS. Also, Lindzen et al. claim that "when one examines the historical temperature record throughout the 20th century and into the 21st, the data strongly suggest a much lower CO2 effect than almost all models calculate" is demonstrably false. See, for example, Hegerl et al. (2006). More recently Huber and Knutti (2011) who found looking by the conservation of energy over the instrumental record that: "The resulting distribution of climate sensitivity (1.7-6.5 C, 5-95%, mean 3.6 C) is also consistent with independent evidence derived from palaeoclimate archives." Lindzen et al. are wrong, so it is perhaps understandable why the fake skeptics continue to try and distract everyone from that inconvenient fact. -
Anteros at 16:55 PM on 3 March 2012Wall Street Journal 'Skeptics' Misrepresent the IPCC
Albatross @ 23 You make the same mistake as Keith Pickering by saying the authors of the WSJ article use the "very high end of the climate sensitivity range" They don't - as I pointed out. I'm sorry that I couldn't see anything else through your rather insulting rhetoric. Keith Pickering - I'm surprised you used a 'corrected' graph to try to work out the predicted temperature rises from the FAR. They are spelled out in words (and the graphs constructed subsequently). The FAR is very clear in its predictions. As I noted, it means the WSJ line is closest to the 'best' estimate, not the highest. It's worth pointing out the caveat noted by the IPCC [because for some reason or other, nobody here has seen fit to mention it..] which is that WG3 estimates of what the BAU emissions would be were 20% higher than the estimates used for the model predictions. The message being, of course, that the IPCC FAR predictions could actually be quite conservative. -
adelady at 16:41 PM on 3 March 2012Wall Street Journal 'Skeptics' Misrepresent the IPCC
Thanks keith, tom, dana, wingding, Uncle Tom Cobbley and all. I am constantly amazed at people unable to take advantage of a menu. The FAR offers a range of 12 choices without knowing which of them will turn out to be applicable. . 20 years later, it's perfectly obvious which of the original 12 are and are not still on the table. To make comparisons, we look for the best match with the inputs, then compare with the data for outcomes. What's so hard about that? Or am I missing something. -
Albatross at 16:27 PM on 3 March 2012Wall Street Journal 'Skeptics' Misrepresent the IPCC
Err @22, " We used the 0.3 degrees per decade from the prediction of the FAR BAU" Is that the royal "we" or is the fake skeptic on this thread claiming to be a co-author of the diatribe written by Lindzen et al.? Otherwise, the onus is on Lindzen at al. to demonstrate and justify exactly how they arrived at that trend-- not their self-designated apologists. And said fake skeptic also has a rather inflated sense of entitlement as to which grievances of theirs must be addressed. -
Albatross at 16:12 PM on 3 March 2012Wall Street Journal 'Skeptics' Misrepresent the IPCC
Well done Keith! This is yet another shameless example of Dick Lindzen and his fellow fake skeptics willfully (they do know better, or they can claim ignorance if they choose)distorting and cherry picking in order to confuse and mislead the public. They could only create their illusion by choosing the very high end of the climate sensitivity range and the most pessimistic emssion scenario. Worse yet, now in 2012 they try and claim that the prediction was wrong when they obvioulsy used the most pessimistic scenario possible. It is bemusing and uncompelling when certain vocal fake skeptics demosntrate their one-sided skepticism by nit picking and arguing strawmen, whilst giving Lindzen et al. free pass on their egregious errors. Lastly, it never ceases to amaze me how fake skeptics somehow manage to get stuck in the past (McIntyre is still obsessing about a seminal paper published in 1998), Lindzen and his fellow fake skeptics are infatuated with the first IPCC assessment report from 1990 (that was 22 years ago folks!), and Michaels is obsessed with a Hansen et al. paper written back in 1988. So much for their claims about advancing the science ;) -
Anteros at 15:54 PM on 3 March 2012Wall Street Journal 'Skeptics' Misrepresent the IPCC
I don't know quite what to make of the fact that no-one has addressed my criticisms. It seems you would all rather take the word of a sketchy, hand-drawn impressionistic graph than the specific written predictions of the FAR. And if anyone is playing at semantics, it is those people [like the original article] that substitute the word 'projection' for 'prediction'. Tom Curtis @ 13 You say there is no justification for using the high sensitivity of graph A. Indeed - neither the WSJ article, or myself, did that. We used the 0.3 degrees per decade from the prediction of the FAR BAU. As I pointed out in my first comment, the error was in the SkS post above, suggesting that the [estimated from a graph] 0.32C was closest to the high climate sensitivity. It isn't - it is the 2.5C/2xCo2 best estimate. The idea that 0.3C per decade was implied to only average out later in the century is firmly rebutted by the prediction that temperatures would rise one degree by 2025 (if steps were not taken etc etc) To cut to the chase, this whole defence of a very poor prediction is that climate sensitivity is believed to be roughly what it was believed to be 20 years ago - and that this is the only way to judge whether the IPCC FAR prediction was accurate. Professor Bickmore, Gavin Schmidt and many others (including myself, obviously) disagree. The FAR predicted, specifically that the BAU scenario would eventuate if few or no steps were taken to limit emissions of GHG's. And for those people clutching at straws with the Montreal protocol, that was signed and sealed 3 years before the IPCC FAR. 194 countries signed the 1992 UNFCCC, on the basis of the predictions of the FAR. To even begin to learn lessons from the failed predictions, it is essential to accept and admit that the predictions were wrong. It isn't complicated, and the first step is to use the words used in the FAR, particularly the word 'prediction'. -
keithpickering at 15:36 PM on 3 March 2012Wall Street Journal 'Skeptics' Misrepresent the IPCC
Well, I was going to say something intelligent, but it looks like everyone else said it already. Thanks Alex C, Tom Curtis, and Wingding. -
KR at 15:18 PM on 3 March 2012The Independence of Global Warming on Residence Time of CO2
owl905 - The Earth climate is under a overall state of negative (damping) feedback, based upon the S-B relationship. The oscillations seen in paleo records are reflections of the climate stabilizing under various forcing conditions. Even the PETM resulted, eventually, in a stabilized climate, as the excess CH4 and CO2 were (over tens/hundreds of thousands of year) absorbed by weathering and the carbon pump to the ocean depths. The geologic balances are certainly not speedy, but they are there, and cannot be ignored. "...the record shows much longer interglacials before that time..." - Yes, driven by the Milankovitch cycles. Those provide the time frame for the glacial intervals. I don't believe Dikran (or anyone else, for that matter) is stating that CO2 levels, ocean acidification, or other climate change effects will "...return to natural levels in a useful period of time..." - but rather that they are stating that over the long term view the climate will find another equilibrium. Although perhaps one we don't find particularly pleasant... --- Whether we enjoy the process or not, the carbon cycle will stabilize over the long term - certainly after we've burned all the fossil fuels. But in the meantime, we're looking at a very long and unpleasant interval with global warming, mass extinctions, agricultural losses, and other issues that can be (hopefully) mitigated to some extent by acting while we're not over-committed to warming. -
KR at 15:08 PM on 3 March 2012Wall Street Journal 'Skeptics' Misrepresent the IPCC
Anteros - I find it curious that you fail to recognize the conditional in the FAR. Namely, the statement: If this emission pattern, then this result You then criticize the rather old projections based upon emissions patterns that simply did not occur. In other words, you criticize the consequent while ignoring the influence of the antecedent. That's a failure of logic on your part. Until you acknowledge that, you are simply playing semantic games. You are certainly not invalidating the rather primitive FAR projections, which are still holding up well. At best, you are mistaken, at worst, you are misrepresenting the IPCC to insult it. I leave it up to your response to see which is the case here. -
Alex C at 15:00 PM on 3 March 2012Wall Street Journal 'Skeptics' Misrepresent the IPCC
The point about the forcing/concentration equation being different might have some implications for how correct Figure 4 is, though not much. Comparing forcing figures is fine, since the relationship between forcing and temperature change has always been handled the same way, but if you want to compare true apples to apples, then concentration data between real world and the FAR models should be compared, not forcing. Comparing concentrations, and using the same forcing/concentration equation, the observed forcing should be slightly lower in Figure 4 above (or the model result slightly higher). By how much for either, I don't know. -
DaneelOlivaw at 14:53 PM on 3 March 2012Wall Street Journal 'Skeptics' Misrepresent the IPCC
I would like to add that, using the data in that graph, you can easily show that the 1995 IPCC "predictions" were right on the money (.15 ºC / decade) http://i.imgur.com/OF2dr.gif (in spanish, sorry) -
Tom Curtis at 14:47 PM on 3 March 2012Greenhouse Effect Basics: Warm Earth, Cold Atmosphere
Anthony C @57: 1) If you add sufficient absorbers of high energy radiation to the upper atmosphere, the result will be a reverse greenhouse effect in which a warm upper atmosphere results in a surface cooler than 255 degrees K. It would be very difficult, however, to bring about that situation on Earth. Titan actually experiences this effect, but is the only body in the solar system known to do so SFAIK.
2) Yes, as the blip in the center does show increased emissions with increased CO2 concentrations because its effective altitude of radiation rises higher into the stratosphere. The effect in real life is not as strong as shown on Modtran because:
a) Increased CO2 levels cool the stratosphere, counteracting the effect; and
b) Increased CO2 levels cause the tropopause (the boundary between the troposphere and stratosphere) to rise, thereby increasing the altitude to which the lapse rate continues as in the troposphere.
Because Modtran uses standard temperature profiles which do not adjust with changes of forcing, it cannot show these effects. However, they will show up in Global Circulation Models (GCM) and are therefore accounted for. Whether this aspect in GCMs is robust, or an area of uncertainty I could not say.
-
Alex C at 14:38 PM on 3 March 2012Wall Street Journal 'Skeptics' Misrepresent the IPCC
If I could reword a previous statement: "It's not legitimate to compare scenarios to the real world result just because they share the same name or are labeled "best."" to: "It's not legitimate to compare scenarios to the real world result just because they are called "BAU" or "best."" -
Rob Painting at 14:37 PM on 3 March 2012Trenberth can't account for the lack of warming
Desertphile - see the advanced version of this rebuttal. The global energy imbalance observed in Loeb (2012) is 0.5 (±0.43) W/m2. Don't know where you get your information from, but it is not correct. -
Alex C at 14:36 PM on 3 March 2012Wall Street Journal 'Skeptics' Misrepresent the IPCC
Update to my previous: yes, 6.3 was the scaling factor, from Hansen et al 1988. This can be found in Table 2.2 below: http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_chapter_02.pdf -
wingding at 14:33 PM on 3 March 2012Wall Street Journal 'Skeptics' Misrepresent the IPCC
Anteros: Business As Usual did not happen. The Montreal Protocol significantly reduced CFC greenhouse gas emissions and methane rise slowed down to a stop. -
Alex C at 14:33 PM on 3 March 2012Wall Street Journal 'Skeptics' Misrepresent the IPCC
If I recall correctly too, the forcing/concentration relationship for CO2 was higher during AR1 than for subsequent reports (later reports adopted the ∆F = 5.35ln(C/C0) equation developed in Myhre et al 1998, and that is still used today). The old scaling factor was closer to 6.3(?) I think, so any predicted increase in CO2, and likely other GHGs for that matter, would have resulted in an estimate of radiative forcing that was higher than the actual forcing, thus a higher prediction of temperature. The point made in #2 in the post above is a very important one. It's not legitimate to compare scenarios to the real world result just because they share the same name or are labeled "best." -
Tom Curtis at 14:24 PM on 3 March 2012Wall Street Journal 'Skeptics' Misrepresent the IPCC
Anteros @ 10: 1) You have egregiously misquoted the IPCC FAR. The actual text from the quoted section reads as follows:"Based on current model results, we predict: • under the IPCC Business-as-Usual (Scenario A) emissions of greenhouse gases, a rate of increase of global mean temperature during the next century of about 0.3°C per decade (with an uncertainty range of 0.2°C to 0.5°C per decade), this is greater than that seen over the past 10,000 years. This will result in a likely increase in global mean temperature of about 1°C above the present value by 2025 and 3oC before the end of the next century The rise will not be steady because of the influence of other factors. • under the other IPCC emission scenarios which assume progressively increasing levels of controls rates of increase in global mean temperature of about 0.2°C per decade (Scenario B), just above 0.1°C per decade (Scenario C) and about 0.1 °C per decade (Scenario D)"
(Periods where left out of the PDF, and have been reinserted by me in what I believe to be the appropriate positions.) Clearly, the IPCC FAR prediction is relative to different possible forcing scenarios. It does not, as you misrepresent it as doing, make an absolute prediction independent of future concentrations of GHG in the atmosphere. That also means there is no justification for comparing their "prediction" to observations without first determining how GHG forcings actually changes over time, and which of scenarios A, B, C and D best describe that change. 2) The central prediction for BAU of 3 degrees C is less than that in graph B. In other words, the IPCC FAR prediction assumes a climate sensitivity of less than 2.5 degrees C per doubling of CO2. There is therefore no possible justification for using the high climate sensitivity from Graph A, and even using the Graph B (Best Estimate) predictions will overstate the predictions made in the summary for policy makers. 3) The prediction quoted by you is for the trend per decade averaged over the full century. It is common knowledge, and can be verified by laying a straight line against the graph that temperature changes are expected to be more rapid at the end of the century than at the beginning. Therefore using the prediction of average full century trends necessarily overstates the predicted trend for the first two decades of the 21st century. Given that, there can be no justification for using the full century trend predictions for determining the IPCC FAR predictions under different scenarios for the first 20 years after the prediction. Rather, you must determine the prediction over those decades seperately as was done above. To summarize, there is no merit to your accusations which are based on misrepresentation, misquotation and flawed analysis at best. -
Alex C at 14:22 PM on 3 March 2012Wall Street Journal 'Skeptics' Misrepresent the IPCC
Anteros @10: The average rate of temperature change would have been 0.32˚C/decade, but that does not mean that each decade would see a 0.32˚C increase. The change over 1990-2010 was not 0.64˚C in the BAU scenario, it was closer to 0.5˚C. -
Muzz at 14:15 PM on 3 March 2012Nordhaus Sets the Record Straight - Climate Mitigation Saves Money
As all the evidence points to an ever increasing amount of industrial CO2 emissions it would be handy if someone would quantify the damaging consequences of these emissions -
Anthony C at 14:10 PM on 3 March 2012Greenhouse Effect Basics: Warm Earth, Cold Atmosphere
Questions on this post 1) What would happen if you put more absorbers of high energy radiation (sunlight) and warmed the upper atmosphere, since it is no longer as cold? More generally how can you change the vertical temperature rate of decline to change the greenhouse effect? 2) In the MODTRAN model, adding more and more CO2 increases the emission to space right at 667 cm^-1 (the blip that continues to go upwards, all the more at very high concentrations. Is this accounted for since it seems to reduce the CO2 effect? -
Anteros at 14:08 PM on 3 March 2012Wall Street Journal 'Skeptics' Misrepresent the IPCC
Apologies for using capitals. I'll re-write in lower case letters the fundamental prediction of the FAR. "Based on current model results, We predict: An average rate of increase of global mean temperature during the next century of 0.3C per decade (with an uncertainty range of 0.2-0.5C per decade)" Dana1981 @ 7 You say that climate predictions are wrong usually either because the climate sensitivity is too high or because the emissions scenarios were not perfect. There isn't very much else to get wrong is there? But I think you do most sceptics a disservice by saying they are not interested in why predictions are wrong. I don't think that's true. But I think what is crucial, before beginning to understand why the predictions were wrong, is to actually admit the fact that they are wrong in the first place. -
Fairoakien at 14:07 PM on 3 March 2012Nordhaus Sets the Record Straight - Climate Mitigation Saves Money
The cost of global warming are stated as being very specific , but it is agreed that the costs are ambiguous. What are the costs to canada if the climate becomes warmer and farming opens up in larger areas. Those studies estimating costs of GW assume all changes are negative. What about vineyards opening in Northern germany. Or, contrary to this years winter, if the northern tier Euro countries can have longer growing periods. So its the studies that estimate costs of GW that are skewed, always assuming the effects are negative. -
owl905 at 13:45 PM on 3 March 2012The Independence of Global Warming on Residence Time of CO2
Dikran wrote:- "owl905 The fact that CO2 levels had been pretty stable between 180ppm and 300ppm for the last 400,000,000 years, even during glaciations, is a pretty good indication that a balancing process exists." Simply untrue. That oscillation is a reflection of the CO2 load, and the biosphere context during some of the recent cycles. The claim of an intervening set of forces to return it to a previous state (after the GHG proportions are changed, the oceans warmed, and the biosphere disrupted) is nothing more than wishful fantasy. It ignores the geological record of different patterns in different ages. While not trying to be abrasive, you're trying to work both sides of the street arguing in favour a return to natural levels in a useful period of time while confusing this by discussing multiple millenniums. Frankly, stating that "the carbon cycle does re-establish the equilibrium" is refuted by the track record - episodes of massive GHG injections into the biosphere have upset things for very long periods - the Permian, the KT, and the PET juncture. The 400k record isn't even the major story - the record shows much longer interglacials before that time - so your 'natural balance' claim consists of 3 out of the last 8 or more inter-glacials. The geology record shows no period where GHG levels fell 40% in less than a century. Additionally, your remark to MHauber that the missing CO2 accounting is virtual proof of a mystery sink is far beyond what the accounting, the chaotic nature of the pollution, or the science, supports. And that ocean 'carbon sink' is so poor, ocean acidification has become one of the great pollution problems. That's exactly why suggestion of oceanic sequestering of a decade ago went to the trash heap. -
Anteros at 13:15 PM on 3 March 2012Wall Street Journal 'Skeptics' Misrepresent the IPCC
I'm a little disappointed that you didn't actually address any of my criticisms from the Realclimate thread. This is somewhat ironic, because one of my criticisms is that SkS didn't address the predictions of the FAR. I use "predictions" because that is what the FAR used, although it is nowhere in your original article. You do not even mention what the fundamental FAR predictions given to policymakers of the world was, which was this: "BASED ON CURRENT MODEL RESULTS, WE PREDICT: AN AVERAGE RATE OF INCREASE OF GLOBAL MEAN TEMPERATURE DURING THE NEXT CENTURY OF 0.3C PER DECADE (WITH AN UNCERTAINTY RANGE OF 0.2-0.5C). That 0.3C [Which they specified would lead to 2C above pre-industrial by 2025] was with a BAU emissions scenario which they told the leaders of the world (and on which the UNFCCC 1992 was signed) would occur "if few or no steps are taken to limit GHG emissions." The upper and lower uncertainty limits were, of course, model results from runs with 1.5 and 4.5 degC/2xCo2. Now, my point was that you never mentionedANYof this in your article. You never mentioned the word "prediction" once. On the Realclimate thread Professor Barry Bickmore called the predictions "way off" and Gavin said they were "wrong". My comment on the thread was to agree with them and contrast this to your praise for their accuracy. Finally, in your post above, you say of the graph in the WSJ article - "This line shows a temperature increase of 0.32°C per decade, far outside of most climate projections. Far outside most of most climate projections? This is simply not true - the 0.3 degrees which the graph represents isEXACTLYthe central prediction of the whole 1990 IPCC FAR. It is the headline number and one that was impressed upon every leader of every country in the world. Perhaps many of your readers were too young to remember. Please do not mistake me for someone who has any gripe against the IPCC. The prediction that was "way off" was made in good faith and of course we are learning all the time. However, it is impossible to learn from a prediction that is "way off" unless it is admitted that the prediction was badly wrong in the first place.Response:[DB] Please take the time to acquaint yourself with this site's Comments Policy. Note especially the section barring the use of All-Caps, such as you have done here. Future comments constructed thusly will be deleted or snipped at the moderator's discretion.
All-Caps portion struck out.
-
Todd F at 09:39 AM on 3 March 2012Wall Street Journal 'Skeptics' Misrepresent the IPCC
Thanks Dana for pointing me in the right direction. I found the article about the growth of sulphur emissions in East Asia to be interesting. I hadn't realized that sulphur emissions in that region would have more than the normal effect. In my toy climate model, I haven't been projecting much [negative] increase in the rf for aerosols (past 2000), due to stabilizing global sulphur emissions. It appears that GISS thinks that the net radiative impact for aerosols is still growing in influence, even though it seems that global sulphur emissions are declining somewhat. If sulphur emissions continue to grow in East Asia, it may continue to mask much of the radiative impact of GHGs for some time ahead. But, due to higher climate sensitivity than previously assumed, this is going to end up spelling much higher growth of global temperatures later in the century. This is also problematic in that it may delay the perceived urgency of addressing the problem. -
Tom Curtis at 09:22 AM on 3 March 2012Greenhouse Effect Basics: Warm Earth, Cold Atmosphere
ribwoods @54 and 55, thankyou for picking up on my error. Of course, I know this backwards, so I am at a loss to explain how I got it backwards when writing that comment, other than that it underlines the need for me to proof read my comments. I have corrected the original with due acknowledgement. -
Composer99 at 08:24 AM on 3 March 2012Wall Street Journal 'Skeptics' Misrepresent the IPCC
Climate pseudoskeptics also have no problem appealing to models if they think the model results will agree with them (e.g. Spencer's simple model which Barry Brickmore has critiqued on several occasions). -
dana1981 at 08:01 AM on 3 March 2012Wall Street Journal 'Skeptics' Misrepresent the IPCC
Mammal_E - indeed, all the denialists get out of any model prediction or projection is "the model is wrong." This includes "skeptics" like John Christy, coincidentally. They never seem interested in examining why the model projections were "wrong", which is usually either because the model sensitivity was high (as in Hansen 1988) and/or because the emissions scenarios were not perfect. -
dana1981 at 07:57 AM on 3 March 2012Wall Street Journal 'Skeptics' Misrepresent the IPCC
Todd F - no, the FAR did not account for aerosols. See the link provided by mdenison in comment #1 for details. As that post discusses, accounting for aerosols would reduce the net forcing, which would thus suggest the actual climate sensitivity is somewhat larger than 2.5°C for 2xCO2 (as sensitivity = dT/dF). -
Mammal_E at 07:50 AM on 3 March 2012Wall Street Journal 'Skeptics' Misrepresent the IPCC
"Skeptics" sometimes jump on this sort of thing as equivalent to cherry picking, in that you've fed the observed (known in hindsight) values of model inputs into the original model to yield new predictions or select which predictions to consider. However, this exercise actually confirms the validity of the conceptual understanding that the model embodies, because the structure of a model and the particular values of its inputs are completely separate things. Consider: I my conceptual understanding of accounting is embodied by this model of the growth rate of my bank account: rate of balance increase = salary - expenses + interest - fees Based on this model, I predict that if my salary increases by $100 per month and everything else stays the same, my bank account balance will increase by $100 per month. (Note: this prediction is not the same as saying that my bank account is ONLY affected by salary and not at all by interest, fees, or expenses). Now, suppose that my salary actually increased by $80 per month and the bank added a new fee of $10 per month, so that my bank account only grows by $70 per month. Does this discrepancy between predicted and realized rates of increase invalidate the model, or my conceptual understanding of the system? NO! The only thing it indicates is that predictions about future changes in model input values were not quite right right. The conceptual understanding is intact, because when I use the observed input values, the model accurately predicts the observed change in the state variable. -
ribwoods at 07:10 AM on 3 March 2012Greenhouse Effect Basics: Warm Earth, Cold Atmosphere
(continuing my preceding comment) The most logical correction is probably to interchange "escaping to space" and "entering the system" wherever they appear. This reversal doesn't seem to have affected any subsequent argument. skept.fr @38 seems not to have noticed, and writes as though your statement in #36 were corrected to the proper sense. -
Todd F at 07:07 AM on 3 March 2012Wall Street Journal 'Skeptics' Misrepresent the IPCC
Good post. Is there any indication that FAR took account of aerosols? I see from your source where the actual forcing was +0.63W/m^2, but the source doesn't include the impact of aerosols. NASA has its estimates in below link. The 1990-2010 impact of aerosols (tropospheric+stratospheric+Black Carbon+Aerosol indirect effect), is -0.38 W/m^2 for 1990-2010, which offsets their estimate of GHGs, which they calculated at +0.71 W/m^2. That nets out to +0.33 W/m^2. Could also add in snow albedo at +0.05 W/m^2 and solar at -0.12 W/m^2. Given that, one might expect even less warming than you calculated assuming +0.63W/m^2. http://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/RadF.txt -
ribwoods at 06:50 AM on 3 March 2012Greenhouse Effect Basics: Warm Earth, Cold Atmosphere
Tom Curtis @36: "The most fundamental fact about the greenhouse effect is that if the energy escaping to space exceeds the energy entering the system, then the temperature will rise until they balance again. If the energy escaping is less than the energy entering system, temperatures will fall until they balance again." Don't you have the two cases backwards there? If energy escaping exceeds energy entering, the temperature will fall, not rise. -
Chris G at 05:40 AM on 3 March 2012Wall Street Journal 'Skeptics' Misrepresent the IPCC
The take-away that I took from that RC thread was that Anteros is trying to assert that the IPCC did not know what they were talking in 1990 about because they were not able predict the future GHG emissions with high accuracy. -
Michele at 05:39 AM on 3 March 2012Radiative Balance, Feedback, and Runaway Warming
@ Jose_X #68 I try to give some answers. 1) Atmosphere 100%N2 The atmosphere is perfectly transparent and so isothermal: that’s, Ts = Tt = Tef where ‘s’ is surface, ‘t’ is TOA and ‘ef’ is effective. 2)Let’s add CO2 as 300 ppm as for Earth The balance of radiative power is (missing the constants) xTt^4 + (1-x)Ts^4 = Tef^4 Tt/Ts = (Pt/Ps)^(R/Cp) Ht = (Ts-Tt)Cp/g where ‘x’ is the % of radiation in the CO2 bandwidth, ‘(1-x)’ the remaining radiation in all the spectrum, ‘P’, ‘R’, ‘Cp’ are well known by thermodynamics, ‘Ht’ is the eighth above the ground where P = 0.2 bar, ‘g’ is the gravity. The troposphere, cooled at the top and warmed at the bottom, becomes adiatically convective. Given x, the system is closed. If x << 1, then is Ts = (1+x/4)Tef, Tt/Ts = (0.2/90)^(299/1043) = 0.287, Ht = (1+x/4)(1-0.287)(1043/8.87)Tef/1000 = 0.0838(1-x/4)Tef kilometers. Assuming x=0.04, you have Ts = 1.01Tef, Tt = 0.29Tef, Ht = 0.082Tef. Notice that the mean temp passes from Tef to (Ts+Tt)/2 = 0.65Tef. If Tef = 240 K, then Ts = 242.4 K, Tt = 69.6 K, Ht = 15.6 Km, all more smaller than the real ones. So, adding CO2 you get a small GH effect at the ground and a strong cooling for the whole troposphere. The sole CO2 isn’t enough. 3) Clouds If there is a cloud layer at height Hc = aHt, with 0 ≤ a ≤ 1, then, the system above becomes xTt^4 + (1-x)Tc^4 = Tef^4 Tt/Ts = (Pt/Ps)^(R/Cp) Tc = Ts-a(Ts-Tt) Ht = (Ts-Tt)Cp/g Also, given x and a, the system is closed. Assuming the same values than above, you get Tc = 242.4 Ts = 242.4/(1-0.713a) Tt = 0.287Ts If a = 0.94, then, Ts = 735 K, Tt = 211 K, Ht = 61.6 Km. Very close to real values. Thus, the surface temperature is affected by the lapse rate caused by the CO2 and especially by the height of balance of the clouds liquid droplets, where their weight equals the viscosity of upwelling flow. It's all a team effort between fluid dynamics and radiative transfer. -
Chris G at 05:32 AM on 3 March 2012Wall Street Journal 'Skeptics' Misrepresent the IPCC
I've been testing the water over at Dr. Curry's site. Some commentators are more rational than others. Anteros is currently in my bucket of those who fail the are-we-having-a-rationale-discussion test, for refuting the evidence I could reference with his, apparently, personal conviction. -
mdenison at 04:17 AM on 3 March 2012Wall Street Journal 'Skeptics' Misrepresent the IPCC
It may help those following Anteros' link from real climate to "Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: IPCC FAR" if the older post had an update linking it to this post. -
Philippe Chantreau at 04:09 AM on 3 March 2012Scafetta's Widget Problems
Density of the volumes? Boy, that ought to be some seriously interesting concept. Perhaps it's closely related to the density of the masses... -
Tom Curtis at 04:05 AM on 3 March 2012Greenhouse Effect Basics: Warm Earth, Cold Atmosphere
Eric (skeptic) @52, this post is solely about the greenhouse effect itself, not about how the greenhouse effect will change with increasing CO2 (or other Green House Gas) concentrations. So, although it is true for CO2 that most of the change will be in the wings, as you put it, the absolute effect of current concentrations is strongest in the center of the band. Looking at the last diagram in the OP (from Conrath), you can see the lowest portions of the CO2 trough are about 70 degrees C cooler than the surface. Given the standard lapse rate, that means the effective altitude of radiation to space in those frequencies are is about 10 km. The small spike in the center is from even higher in the atmosphere, and in fact from the stratosphere which is why it is warmer than the surrounding trough. Working our way up the right hand side of the trough, we find small ledges at about 240 and 260 K, indicating the effective altitude of radiation for these frequencies are about 7 and 5 km respectively. Further to the right, at about a wave number of 800, there are two very small troughs that are also caused by CO2. (At least, I am certain the larger is, and I think the smaller is as well.) Clearly for these troughs, the effective altitude of radiation is 1 or 2 km at most. Working to the left, the very uneven series of troughs from wavenumber 350 to 550 are caused by water. The average altitude of effective radiation for these frequencies is 3 - 4 km, but highly variable depending on the exact frequency. These values are fairly representative. The effective altitude of radiation averaged across all frequencies in the IR spectrum is about 5 km. It should be noted that the "effective altitude of radiation" should be understood as (approximately) the average altitude from which radiation reaches space. It has a more technical definition, but for lay purposes treating it as an average is probably accurate enough. (Chris Colose can correct me if he thinks the technical definition is important.) As such, radiation at a given frequency may come from several kilometers above or below the effective altitude of radiation. Measurement of the effective altitude of radiation from space can be done much as I have just done, but using more accurate temperature measurements from radiosondes to calibrate the altitudes. It can also be done by determining the altitude of cloud features visible at particular frequencies. And, as scientists are usually very clever people, it may well have been done by other means I am not familiar with as well. I will leave discussion of how the green house effect changes with increasing CO2 to a later post on the subject, although for CO2, you are correct that the change in intensity (but not the effective altitude of radiation) is primarily on the wings.
Prev 1235 1236 1237 1238 1239 1240 1241 1242 1243 1244 1245 1246 1247 1248 1249 1250 Next
