Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Next
Comments 100851 to 100900:
-
archiesteel at 14:50 PM on 20 December 2010Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
@RW1: "My main point is the aggregate confluence of factors that actually determine global average temperatures don't appear to be even phased much by 14 W/m^2 increase in radiative forcing - an amount much larger than what would come from a doubling of CO2." Temperatures are very much affected by the seasonal effect - that's why we have seasons! The warming due to CO2 is in addition to the normal variations. That's why it matters. Also, RW1, by not responding to muoncounter at #85 you are ignoring a strong rebuttal to your argument. Are you conceding defeat? -
RW1 at 14:22 PM on 20 December 2010Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
Eric (RE: Post 93), Well yes, but the polar regions are also largely snow and ice covered, which means a lot of the incoming power is getting reflected back out (back through the CO2), so incrementally more CO2 in those areas won't do much at all. Also, if there is a global increase in temperature from CO2, there will likely be a global increase in water vapor. That should offset any increase in CO2 for areas in the polar regions not snow and ice covered - as far as water vapor/CO2 absorption overlap is concerned. -
Eric (skeptic) at 14:09 PM on 20 December 2010Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
Because there is less water vapor in the polar regions so CO2 has a proportionally greater effect and so a change is CO2 would also have a greater effect than outside of polar regions. As for using average numbers, I'm not a big fan of those for many reasons, one of which is demonstrated in your #14 which didn't mention the large differences in seasonal responses between the hemispheres. -
RW1 at 14:01 PM on 20 December 2010Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
Eric (RE: Post 91), Why would CO2 have more effect in the polar regions? The numbers I've used throughout are global average numbers. -
Eric (skeptic) at 13:55 PM on 20 December 2010Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
The "radical" difference comes from the difference in the way the two hemispheres respond to the seasonal solar changes. There's no way to get away from that fact and it means that the global average temperature response to CO2 which is evenly distributed worldwide, has more effects in polar regions, etc, is going to be radically different. It's sort of like saying that a giant fire in one hemisphere is going to have the same effect as a lot of smaller fires adding up to the same amount of heat and smoke, but distributed worldwide. Clearly the effects on weather and thus temperature will be quite different in those two cases. -
RW1 at 13:48 PM on 20 December 2010Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
Eric (RE: Post 88), That last paragraph in my post 89 should have read: The perihelion point aside, what is so special about each 1 W/m^2 of increased power from CO2, that the system is all the sudden going to respond to it radically differently than it does each 1 W/m^2 of power from the original 238 W/m^2 sourced from the Sun? -
RW1 at 13:45 PM on 20 December 2010Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
Eric (RE: Post 88), I agree that the difference between the hemispheres is one of the main reasons, but the whole climate is affected (i.e. about 3 C colder globally at perihelion - not just in the NH). Without the +14 W/m^2 at perihelion, the global average temperatures would probably be even colder in January than they are now. It should also be pointed out that global temperatures are actually 3 C warmer at aphelion in July when net incident solar power is about 14 W/m^2 less. My main point is the aggregate confluence of factors that actually determine global average temperatures don't appear to be even phased much by 14 W/m^2 increase in radiative forcing - an amount much larger than what would come from a doubling of CO2. The perihelion point aside, what then is so special about each 1 W/m^2 of increased power from CO2, that the system is all the sudden going to respond to it radically differently than it does each 1 W/m^2 of power from the original 238 W/m^2? -
Eric (skeptic) at 13:45 PM on 20 December 2010A detailed look at climate sensitivity
Hopefully this will answer chris on the Lindzen thread. Disregarding my critique of paleo studies of sensitivities above, I still do not believe that we can take a sensitivity calculated in paleo records and use it in a linear fashion. For one thing the paleo sensitivities reflect long term correlation which may be somewhat linear. For example as oceans warm over hundreds or thousands of years, CO2 is released in a more or less linear fashion. But the short term is nonlinear. Short term sensitivity is based on water vapor feedback. But water vapor feedback is highly nonlinear as evidenced by daily tropical weather cycles and seasonal changes in weather (larger NAO fluctuations in winter than in summer is just one of many examples). The sensitivity that was based on long term factors shown in the ice cores has nothing to do with a sensitivity based on the short term factors. Furthermore, neither sensitivity is applicable to our current interglacial regime. The longer term sensitivity only applies to glacial to interglacial transitions. So an attempt to use that sensitivity for a current increase (50%, doubling, or other) in CO2 requires waiting for the long term responses (centuries at least) and won't show up in a few decades of data. -
Eric (skeptic) at 13:23 PM on 20 December 2010Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
RW1, the 0.3 value may be an average over all seasons, but the effective albedo must be greater in January since the solar forcing is greater but the global average temperature is lower. My parenthetical statement about the SH oceans in #78 is probably incorrect. But my main point again is that your statement in #14 "That the global climate doesn't even appear to be phased by a 14 W/m^2 increase in radiative forcing, suggests the net feedback operating on the system as a whole is strongly negative - not positive,..." is not a logical conclusion. The reason why the global climate is not affected by the 14 W/m^2 is due to the differences between the hemispheres, not net global feedback. -
RW1 at 13:13 PM on 20 December 2010Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
Eric (RE: Post 84), Why not? OK, so it's not about 14 W/m^2 net - but something less because the total albedo in January is greater than 0.3 you're saying? -
chris at 13:09 PM on 20 December 2010Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
Eric (skeptic) at 12:29 PM on 20 December, 2010 I don't think that's right Eric. The climate sensitivity is defined by convention as the amount of warming at equilibrium resulting from a radiative forcing equivalent to a doubling of atmospheric [CO2]. But it can be (and is) used to determine the equilibrium temperature response expected from any change in forcing including that resulting from small increments of [CO2]. Clearly if the wealth of empirical data supports a climate sensitivity near 3 oC (say), then the warming contribution expected from a rise of [CO2] from 280 to 380 ppm (say), should be predictable within that climate sensitivity (according to the ln of the ratio of [CO2]s). It would be perverse to consider otherwise. Of course the climate sensitivity is obviously a shorthand estimate of a response in a complex world! So the climate sensitivity in a world with a certain amount of sea ice (say) will differ from that of a world with no sea ice (say), since the albedo feedbacks will differ. In the real world the "climate sensitivity" will likely "dance around" somewhat temporally and according to precise conditions. ----- O.K. I've just seen your correction so maybe my post doesn't quite address your point. But (re your correction), the climate sensitivity isn't being subdivided. We're considering the Earth's equilibrium temperature response to a forcing as parameterized within a single value of the climate sensitivity. What's being subdivided is the forcing and its response, not the CS! I suspect that we might be talking at cross purposes, btw! If you think I haven't addressed your point properly have another go and I'll try again in the morning. -
muoncounter at 13:02 PM on 20 December 2010Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
#77: "You cannot start with a conclusion, assume it is correct, and then derive the specific numbers ..." Indeed. We have to test the calculations that derive from a set of assumption to see if they match observation. On that fundamental point, I have no doubt we all agree. No such assumptions went into the preparation of the graphic for #57. The plotted curves are straight from the literature of radiative forcing which is not under discussion here. However, in #63, "incrementally more CO2 is not linear - but logarithmic, which means each additional amount added only has about half of the effect of the previous amount," a major flaw in your thinking is revealed. The function deltaT = 5.35 lambda log (C/C0) flattens as C (ie, CO2) increases; this gives the impression that adding more CO2 will gradually not be as bad. What you've ignored is the fact that C is a function of time that is strongly concave up. As a result, both the first and second time derivatives of the deltaT function are positive: deltaT is an increasing function of C and C is an increasing function of time. So while each additional ppm of CO2 causes a smaller temperature increase, we are adding CO2 at a rate that forces deltaT as function of time to increase at an increasing rate. Referring back to the figure in #57, your 0.6 deg C sensitivity produces neither the correct temperature anomaly nor the correct rate of change. One must therefore conclude that the assumptions made to calculate 0.6C sensitivity are incorrect, taking those calculations with them. -
Bern at 12:58 PM on 20 December 2010A Merchant of Doubt attacks Merchants of Doubt
@Kooiti - it may be that Oreskes & Conway misunderstood what Seitz was saying. But Singer has deliberately mischaracterised what O&C were saying, and framed it in such as way as to heap ridicule upon and undermine the message of the O&C book. As John said, it's the same techniques debunked by the book. Classic FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt) techniques. -
Eric (skeptic) at 12:49 PM on 20 December 2010Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
#83, RW1, I agree, but the bigger point is that the hemispherical asymmetry makes it impossible to use the 14 W/m^2 change and the global average temperature change as a case for much of anything and especially your last two paragraphs in #14. -
archiesteel at 12:45 PM on 20 December 2010Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
@RW1: "Those numbers are useless because they're all based on the assumption of a 3 C sensitivity to a doubling of CO2. You cannot start with a conclusion, assume it is correct, and then derive the specific numbers in support of it by simply back fitting calculations to your original assumption." That's not what has happened, here. Rather, multiple scenarios were proposed, and the one closest to reality (following observations) is the one that puts it in the 2-4.5C range. It is false to claim people decided that climate sensitivity was 3C, then tried to fiddle their calculations to make it fit. In fact, I'd say you're venturing dangerously close to accusations of conspiracy theories, there... Further reading: James Annan explains why sensitivity is at 3C. "Are you saying the response of CO2 is not logarithmic - but linear?" No, that's not what he's saying. Rather, he's (correctly) noting that your description of the logarithmic curve was too vague to be useful. Or perhaps you think all logarithmic scales are the same? -
RW1 at 12:44 PM on 20 December 2010Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
Eric (RE: Post 78), Global average temperatures are about 3 C colder at perihelion because - yes, I think a lot of the increased power is reflected from off the ice and snow accumulations that occur in the NH winter in January. But most of the additional 14 W/m^2 at perihelion then still affects SH summer in January because at that time the SH is tilted toward the Sun. -
Eric (skeptic) at 12:39 PM on 20 December 2010Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
In #80, I meant to say CS is a constant that can not be subdivided. -
Eric (skeptic) at 12:29 PM on 20 December 2010Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
#76, chris, I think that assumes that "climate sensitivity" is a constant that can be subdivided like you are doing. My understanding is that sensitivity as it is defined here is the temperature response to a CO2 change of 280 to 560. It cannot be used for any other purpose in a linear fashion. -
chris at 12:27 PM on 20 December 2010Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
Alec Cowan at 12:04 PM on 20 December, 2010 yes, I see your point Alec! -
Eric (skeptic) at 12:25 PM on 20 December 2010Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
RW1 (#73), yes, thanks, you were not referring to the last century and I thought you were. As for the difference at perihelion, my understanding is that the extra energy (14 W/m^2) falls on land masses in the NH winter which reflects away much of the extra energy (versus SH ocean which is a better absorber of solar energy). Hence the NH winter has a bit colder global average temperature than NH summer even though the energy from the sun is greater. If I am mistaken, someone will correct me. -
RW1 at 12:25 PM on 20 December 2010Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
Chris (RE: Posts 60 & 70), Those numbers are useless because they're all based on the assumption of a 3 C sensitivity to a doubling of CO2. You cannot start with a conclusion, assume it is correct, and then derive the specific numbers in support of it by simply back fitting calculations to your original assumption. How about you address the series of individual questions I laid out in post 61? -
chris at 12:23 PM on 20 December 2010Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
Eric (skeptic) at 11:50 AM on 20 December, 2010 "What is the forcing effect of incrementally more CO2?" Eric, I believe the temperature increment is proportional to the forcing increment i.e. deltaT = sigma.deltaF [where sigma is the climate sensitivity in units of oC/(W.m^2)] so I guess the forcing scales as the ln of the [CO2] increment much the same as the temperature in my post #70 above. Does that seem right? -
RW1 at 12:09 PM on 20 December 2010Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
Alec (RE: Post 74), Are you saying the response of CO2 is not logarithmic - but linear? -
Alec Cowan at 12:04 PM on 20 December 2010Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
@chris #70 Why you bother? Evidently an assertion that states "logarithmic, which means each additional amount added [undetermined amount] only has about half of the effect [mensurable effect] of the previous amount." makes no sense. Don't offer your figures to people who doesn't offer them. Ask them to provide those figures. If they're commenting in good faith they'll do. -
RW1 at 11:59 AM on 20 December 2010Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
Eric (RE: Post 68), Either. We know the actual total is about 238 W/m^2, and each 1 W/m^2 of that 238 W/m^2 is amplified to about 1.6 W/m^2 at the surface for a total of about 390 W/m^2. We also know that the net incident solar power is not constant - it varies by about 20 W/m^2 from perihelion to aphelion (a net of about 14 W/m^2 albedo adjusted). What I'm saying is that there is no difference between 1 W/m^2 of power from the Sun, existing or hypothetically added, and 1 W/m^2 of additional power from CO2. The AGW theory is saying that the system is all of the sudden going to respond to an additional 2 W/m^2 of power at the surface from a doubling of CO radically differently than it does the original 238 W/m^2, including the + 14 W/m^2 at perihelion, from the Sun. Understand? -
Eric (skeptic) at 11:56 AM on 20 December 2010Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
#69 RW1, the link in #68 shows it to be 1.5 W/m^2. Also the Lean/Rind paper. -
Eric (skeptic) at 11:50 AM on 20 December 2010Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
chris, when I asked about effect in #63, I should have said "forcing effect" not temperature effect. What is the forcing effect of incrementally more CO2? -
chris at 11:44 AM on 20 December 2010Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
RW1 at 08:07 AM on 20 December, 2010"The response of incrementally more CO2 is not linear - but logarithmic, which means each additional amount added only has about half of the effect of the previous amount."
That's obviously incorrect too. We can easily calculate the equilibrium temperature response expected from incremental enhancement of atmospheric [CO2]. If we use a climate sensitivity of 3 oC and normalize the Earth's temperature to near 15 oC at a [CO2] = 280 ppm, then the equilibrium temperature rise expected after each 20 ppm increment (all else being equal!) is:[CO2] equil. temp increment 280 14.9567 300 15.2554 0.2977 320 15.5347 0.2793 340 15.7971 0.2624 360 16.0445 0.2474
etc Clearly the assertion that "...each additional amount added only has about half of the effect of the previous amount." is quite wrong. In this case "each additional amount" adds around 94% "of the effect of the previous amount". Obviously the specific amount depends on the particular increment. So for 100 ppm increments:280 14.9567 380 16.2786 1.3219 480 17.2898 1.0112
etc. -
Kooiti Masuda at 11:42 AM on 20 December 2010A Merchant of Doubt attacks Merchants of Doubt
I think it is generally apt to describe Singer as a merchant of doubt. But I think it wise to avoid using this particular issue on oxygen as an example. It seems to me that originally Seitz did not mean that oxygen causes cancer by its own radioactivity, but that oxygen enhances the effects initially caused by radioactivity. If this is true, Oreskes and Conway mistook Seitz's intention, and Singer took it right. We should not blame Oreskes and Conway, however, since the wording of Seitz was obscure. We cannot blame Seitz with this particular fault, however, since his document was an internal one and also oxygen was not its main issue. So, while this may be another instance of failure of scientific communication, it can hardly play a role of a piece of evidence of malpractice of anyone. -
RW1 at 11:41 AM on 20 December 2010Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
Eric (RE: Post 63), Something must be wrong with those calculations if the total isn't about 4 W/m^2 for a doubling (3.7 W/m^2 precisely). The initial 1.5 W/m^2 from 280 ppm to 380 ppm is probably wrong. It should be about 2.7 W/m^2 from 280 to 380 ppm. -
Eric (skeptic) at 11:37 AM on 20 December 2010Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
RW1, sorry to be a pain, are you talking about a hypothetical 1W/m^2 increase in solar forcing or actual? The actual increase over the last century was about 0.25 according to http://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/ (link was in latest thread at WUWT) -
archiesteel at 11:33 AM on 20 December 2010Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
@RW1: plenty of people have adressed your arguments. The current increase in temperature is in line with a climate sensitivity of 3C. It is not in line with your suggested 0.6C value. As I said earlier, the burden of proof is on you, and so far you have failed to make a convincing case challenging the established science. -
muoncounter at 11:28 AM on 20 December 2010Arctic icemelt is a natural cycle
Natural cycle? Really? Not this year: Observations from the ground in the Eastern Arctic, ... and views taken by satellites at 500 kilometres above the earth’s surface showed ArcticNet participants that ice formation in 2010 is abnormally slow. ... “We have dramatic changes taking place,” with the Arctic becoming a place of rain instead of snow ... -
RW1 at 11:17 AM on 20 December 2010Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
Eric (RE: Post 65), The reference to 1 W/m^2 of power from the Sun is already divided by 4. 1360 W/m^2 TSI divided by 4 is 340 W/m^2. Subtract out the albedo of about 0.3 and you get 238 W/m^2 of average net incident solar power at the surface. -
Eric (skeptic) at 11:10 AM on 20 December 2010Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
Also you (RW1) kept mentioning a 1W/m2 gain in TSI (which is mentioned in the same Lean/Rind paper). But that increase in TSI has to be divided by 4 since it is hitting a sphere not a perpendicular surface. So 0.25 W/m^2 is the increase in forcing from TSI AFAIK. -
scaddenp at 11:08 AM on 20 December 2010It's freaking cold!
Tom, well average for the whole winter and it was short, mild. There was a late spring snowfall in southern parts - unfortunate timing but a 30-40 year event. To my mind, a warmer world is one with more energy in the system and overall wetter. How that plays out regionally is tough call. I still dont see why the flood of cold weather reporting. Did you report the hot weather events too in summer? You say that think world is warming so what is your point in posting these. Do they challenge the consensus view? No, so why?... -
Alec Cowan at 11:08 AM on 20 December 2010Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
#32 Are you conscious that you are comparing temperatures variating in a specific place on the Earth with the average variation for the WHOLE PLANET? Do you see how wrong can be that? -
DSL at 10:54 AM on 20 December 2010It's freaking cold!
Tom, there was a time when the mainstream, status quo view was that climate change was not occurring. That view has been successfully challenged. I should say "is being," since there is still a large number of people who fail to understand the current state. You have done a pretty poor job of bringing the evidence to back up your claims. Try presenting a comprehensive counter-theory that takes into account the bulk of the instrumental data we have on atmospheric temperature (surface, TS, SS, incoming, and outgoing -- global). People might respond differently to you. You must have such a counter-theory, or you wouldn't pour so much confidence and passion into the tone of your posts. -
Eric (skeptic) at 10:54 AM on 20 December 2010Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
RW1 said "The response of incrementally more CO2 is not linear - but logarithmic, which means each additional amount added only has about half of the effect of the previous amount." From the 2nd link in #50 (2008_Lean_Rind.pdf) the amount of added forcing for 280 to 380 is 1.5 W/m^2 So for 380 to 480 is another 0.75 (according to your formula) and for 480 to 560 is another 0.3 (80% of 0.375) for a total of 2.55 W/m^2 (not 4) for the doubling of CO2. That hinges on your statement of "half the effect of the previous amount". -
Alec Cowan at 10:53 AM on 20 December 2010It's freaking cold!
@ Tom Löber #33 Cherry wholesaler, perhaps? You are misinforming about the supposed cold snaps and cold records in South America. That is old twisted news. I make some of my students in High School to take posts like yours and all the links they offered and dig the truth about the cold developments in 'exotic' South American territories, what was easy because we are Argentine. Suffice to say that it was a cold Winter here and there, nothing "special". State of emergency? Yes, massive anti flu vaccination (remember H1N1?). People with pneumonia -almost an average year- yes. Dead fish, yes. Other animals too. Most of them from species that moved to newly warmed territories and couldn't stand temperatures normal in 1975 or 1960. Let South America alone when in a cherry picking spree. @42 What calendar did they use in England that this is the coldest December in record? From here, it looks like 40% of December is yet to come. Maybe it's the exotic Gregorian calendar we use in South America, the continent of the cold snaps on demand. -
RW1 at 10:52 AM on 20 December 2010Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
archiesteel (RE: Post 56), I'm considering 280 ppm to be the baseline - not zero. -
RW1 at 10:48 AM on 20 December 2010Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
No one is answering my initial question, so I'll try to break it down into a series of separate questions: Do you agree that the albedo adjust power from the Sun is "forcing" the surface? Do you agree that increased power from additional CO2 is also "forcing" the surface? Do you agree that 1 W/m^2 of albedo adjusted infrared power from the Sun is equal to 1 W/m^2 of infrared power from CO2? Do you agree that about every 1 W/m^2 of net incident solar power is amplified to 1.6 W/m^2 at the surface for gain of about 1.6 (390 W/m^2 divided by 238 W/m^2 = about 1.6)? Do you agree that the increase in radiative forcing from a doubling of CO2 is about 2 W/m^2 (or at least 4 W/m^2)? Do you agree that in order to get a 3 C rise in temperature (288K to 291K), the 2 W/m^2 needs to be amplified to 16 W/m^2? Do you agree that 16 W/m^2 divided by 2 W/m^2 equals a gain of 8? If not, do you agree that 16 W/m^2 divided by 4 W/m^2 equals a gain of 4? Do you agree that a gain of 8 is greater than a gain of 1.6 (or at least a gain of 4 is greater than 1.6)? Do you agree that the AGW theory is saying that the system is going to amplify each 1 W/m^2 of increased power from CO2 by a much greater amount than it amplifies each 1 W/m^2 of power from the Sun? -
Stephen Leahy at 10:36 AM on 20 December 2010A Merchant of Doubt attacks Merchants of Doubt
Oreskes is a historian who studies science and science policy not a scientist. My short interview with Oreskes looks at her documentation of how fossil fuel Interests, Christian Evangelicals and the Media have 'collaborated' on climate.Response: Actually, Naomi Oreskes is a scientist - she began her career as an exploration geologist with a degree from Imperial College (that's right, working for the mining industry). She is currently Professor of History and Science Studies at the University of California and an Adjunct Professor of Geosciences at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography. So she has a diverse background, both in practical science working out in the field and currently as a science historian. -
archiesteel at 10:36 AM on 20 December 2010It's freaking cold!
"Whether or not thinking life embraces free exchange of information..." There's nothing wrong with the free exchange of ideas, but that doesn't mean every idea is equally worthwhile. In this case, the fact that it's cold somewhere does not disprove AGW. What matters are global averages, and these aren't going down - they're going up. -
chris at 10:34 AM on 20 December 2010Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
RW1 at 10:10 AM on 20 December, 2010"...There was only about a 0.6 C rise from 1900-2000, which is still less than a third of the 2+ C predicted"
Nope. It's easy to do the maths RW1. Let's be very explicit. [CO2]1900 was 298 ppm. [CO2]2000 was 371 ppm.[*] The equilibrium temperature rise expected from that increase in [CO2] is 0.95 oC at equilibrium. The observed temperature rise was (1900-2000) 0.75-0.85 oC. So we're not that far off the warming expected for a 3 oC climate sensitivity already even discounting the known contributions from the inertia in the climate system and the fact that a significant amount of the warming has been offset by anthropogenic aerosols. [*]Data are from: D. M. Etheridge et al (1996) "Natural and anthropogenic changes in atmospheric CO2 over the last 1000 years from air in Antarctic ice and firn J. Geophys Res. 101, 4115 -4128 and direct measurement from the Mauna Loa station from 1959 -
archiesteel at 10:34 AM on 20 December 2010It's freaking cold!
@Tom: "I think your interpretation of spam is extreme" No, it's not. You just posted a bunch of links with no arugment at all. That's a pretty good definition of spamming. Please continue complaining about moderation, I'm sure it'll get you somewhere. "have fun with YOUR tunnel vision" You're the one wearing blinders here, friend. -
archiesteel at 10:31 AM on 20 December 2010Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
I just realized why RW1 picked 1900 as his starting point: there was a spike in temperatures that year. He could have picked 1910-2010, but that would have provided a temp increase of nearly 0.9. RW1, may I suggest you stop cherry-picking dates in order to prove your point? A linear progression from 1880 to 1920 show the trend was remarkably flat, with an average that was about 0.8C colder than the present:As I said: nice try, but no cigar.
-
scaddenp at 10:31 AM on 20 December 2010Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
Um, which natural cause are you postulating that can account for the change in ocean heat content? Thats a lot of energy to come from somewhere. -
Tom Loeber at 10:29 AM on 20 December 2010It's freaking cold!
Scaddenp, what was your last winter like? I understand there was some pretty unusual cold and snow. I see oscillations, winter to summer. I see extremes in both. I see it as a ship rocking on an ocean whose currents are being subjected to new factors, unprecedented factors the consequences of growing powerful thinking life within a finite space. Whether or not thinking life embraces free exchange of information to express intelligence may be a question as to whether or not that listing ship collapses out of what we can endure, Intelligence, fat chance, what with these linear presentations in control of folks with no or little testing of their responsibility and tolerance, seeing the little pieces that challenge status quo are given little space and much denigration, IMHO -
muoncounter at 10:17 AM on 20 December 2010Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
#51: "it's also just a possible it's from natural causes." That's not even a decent denial. Its possible that ... fill in the blank. You'd have some credibility if you avoided these appeals to the great unknown. #54: "Start with an assumption of a 0.6 C rise" That assumption is plainly out in left field. Here's a graphic comparing the effect of varying sensitivities to the actual temperature anomaly record:
The red dots and curve are the global LOTI temperature anomaly, shifted to 0 in 1880. The curves are dt = lambda dF, for 3 values of lambda, with dF calculated from log(each year's CO2 /CO2 at start). I used CO2 values from a composite of Law Dome cores and MLO records to drive each dt function. The small number below each curve is the equivalent sensitivity = deg C/double CO2.
I'm no expert at this sort of thing, but your derived sensitivity of 0.6C would fall on the lowest of the three curves. That doesn't come anywhere near close to the data.
Prev 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Next
