Seymour Flops
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- #41
As I thought, from even my brief search, the phrase is “equilibrium climate sensitivity” not “equilibrium temperature” which is an anbsurd idea.Yes, Equilibrium.
Hmmm, let's see. Here is the result of a text search for "equilibrium" in "The Physical Science Basis" of AR6
View attachment 897115
Here is the likely reason the term appears as often as it does here, from pg 49 of the Technical Summary of the above volume:
Two important quantities used to estimate how the climate system responds to changes in greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations are the equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) and transient climate response (TCR16). The CMIP6 ensemble has broader ranges of ECS and TCR values than CMIP5 (see Section TS.3.2 for the assessed range). These higher sensitivity values can, in some models, be traced to changes in extratropical cloud feedbacks (medium confidence). To combine evidence from CMIP6 models and independent assessments of ECS and TCR, various emulators are used throughout the report. Emulators are a broad class of simple climate models or statistical methods that reproduce the behaviour of complex ESMs to represent key characteristics of the climate system, such as global surface temperature and sea level projections. The main application of emulators in AR6 is to extrapolate insights from ESMs and observational constraints to produce projections from a larger set of emissions scenarios, which is achieved due to their computational efficiency. These emulated projections are also used for scenario classification in WGIII. {Box 4.1, 4.3.4, 7.4.2, 7.5.6, Cross-Chapter Box 7.1, FAQ 7.2}
So what is that temperature that you claim the Earth is somehow “targeted “at?Given your ignorance in this field, I'm pretty certain that damned near everything "that bunch" does or says would surprise you.
It is the global average temperature at which the outgoing LW radiation (the Stefan Boltzmann radiation) carries away to space energy equalling that of the incoming solar radiance, so that the planet is neither growing warmer nor cooler.
HAHAHAaaaa. Now, according to your Trumpian AGW Denier manual, is when you claim you were joking.
The metaphors used by those seeking to politicize science, always try to anthropomorphize natural processes. The Earth does not desire to have a certain temperature, nor are genes “selfish” in a ddesire” to evolve, nor do means of production desire to be owned collectively. Yet when talking about climate change, evolution, and many other natural processes, that some people seek to politicize, they always speak as if natural processes, indeed have those desires. That’s because if it is just natural processes, acting on their own, the politicized pseudo/science fails.I guess that's what I get for thinking you'd recognize a metaphor when you saw one. Thermodynamic systems always move towards equilibrium. Thus the equilibrium temperature is a 'target' of all thermodynamic processes.
I don’t have your psychic talents to know what other posters know about your metaphorical gibberish. I do see from their posts that the majority on the Environment Forum know how full of shit you are.I was not. I'm quite certain that almost EVERY other poster in this forum knew precisely what I was talking about. You have a great deal of catching up to do.
Here is what I was responding to:We don't care about natural emissions and never did. There is no reason to be concerned with them.
that will neverbe achieved until and unless all GHG emissions are effectively stopped.
You said “all.” You underlined “all.”
Backpedaling?
When are we going to cease using fossil fuels? Does that include the huge amount of fossil fuels used to produce EV batteries, and to charge them?By ceasing our use of fossil fuels, stop leaking methane and do our best to reforest wherever we can.
That depends on how soon we get it done. If we get it done rapidly enough, the world will look very similar to what we have now.
How soon is that, best case scenario? How much will it cost to get it done?
I’m laughing because you’re serious.If we take our time about it, the oceans will have flooded coastlines around the planet, the Poles and Greenland will have lost large amounts of ice mass, glaciers and snowpack will have shrunk or disappeared all over the planet, The AMOC and PMOC will have ceased, there will be crop failures, drinking water shortages, mass fish kills, enormous methane blooms from melting tundra and methane clathrates, likely new diseases raging among hundreds of millions of climate refugees, likely new wars over shrinking critical resources and in a lot of the world, summer heatwaves will have reached biologically intolerable temperatures.
Oh, that’s what this is about?I hope you've learned that being an OP is not the joyride you seemed to think it was.
So, shove it all up your ass and jump high, Seymour, jump really high. ; - )
Yes, many posters came on your thread to point out the flaws in your logic. They didn’t try to de-rail your thread by changing the subject.
But you do you. You make it fun.